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 - 2018.01.16
City Council City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMTuesday, January 16, 2018 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 Stanford Graduate Students' Presentation on Sea Level Risea. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M . Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion . Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council’s consideration of the consent calendar. Adoption of City Council Meeting Minutes January 2, 2018a. Meeting MinutesAttachments: Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2018 January 16, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Confirmation of the Mayor ’s Council Assignments for 2018 and Process for Economic Development Subcommittee Assignment b. Staff Report Mayor Brownrigg's Memorandum 2018 Council Assignments Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Procure Field Turf Products and Execute an Agreement with Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. for the Site Work for the Installation of Synthetic Turf at Murray Field c. Staff Report Resolution Field Lining Bid Summary Agreement with Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. Purchasing Agreement for Field Turf Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Wilsey Ham for the South El Camino Real Water Main Improvements, City Project No. 84890, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement d. Staff Report Resolution Professional Agreement Project Location Map Attachments: Adoption of Resolutions Supporting the Submission of Grant Applications for the California Drive Complete Streets - Phase II Project and the School Area Pedestrian Safety and Enhancements Project under the Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program e. Staff Report Resolution - School Area Pedestrian Safety & Enhancements Project Resolution - CA Drive Complete Streets Phase II Project Project Location Map - School Area Ped Enhancement Project Project Location Map - CA Drive Complete Streets Phase II Project Grant Application Packets Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Civil Service Rules and Regulations and Employer Employee Relations Resolution f. Staff Report Resolution Exhibit A Exhibit B Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2018 January 16, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Service Agreement with ECS Imaging Inc. for the Purchase of an Electronic Content Management System and Scanning Services g. Staff Report Resolution Agreement Scope of Work ECS Priority Support Agreement Laserfiche End User License Agreement Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Amend the Service Agreement with Granicus, Inc. to Purchase Laserfiche Integration and eComment Application h. Staff Report Resolution Amendment May 23, 2016 Agreement Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing the Composition and Scope of the City of Burlingame’s Measure I Citizens’ Oversight Committee and Open Nomination Period for Committee Applicants i. Staff Report Resolution Application and Questionnaire Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Illuminated Libraries Grant in the Amount of $6,881 for the Upgrade of Burlingame Library WiFi Access Points j. Staff Report Resolution Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. to Perform Environmental Review Services Related to the Proposed Village at Burlingame and Public Parking Structure Development of Parking Lots F and N k. Staff Report Resolution Agreement for Professional Services Proposed Scope of Work Attachments: Approval of Public Library Association Conference Out of State Travell. Staff ReportAttachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2018 January 16, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Informational Report on the Installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations at City Hall and the Police Station m. Staff ReportAttachments: 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) Consider Appointment to the Mosquito & Vector Control Boarda. Staff ReportAttachments: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment of the City Manager ’s Employment Agreement to Provide a Salary Increase, and Approving the City of Burlingame Pay Rates and Ranges (Salary Schedule) b. Staff Report Resolution Goldman Contract Amendment Salary Schedules Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Side Letter Agreement to the Compensation and Benefit Plan for the City of Burlingame Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications c. Staff Report Resolution Exhibit A Attachments: City of Burlingame Comments in Response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the US 101 Managed Lanes Project d. Staff Report Draft Comment Letter Project Map and Plans Project Fact Sheet Sound Wall Rendering Illustration Summary of Impacts & Mitigation Measures Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Amended and Restated Franchise Agreement between the City of Burlingame and Recology San Mateo County for services beginning January 1, 2021 e. Staff Report Resolution SBWMA FAX Committee Report Attachments: Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2018 January 16, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers 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.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at (650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Goal Setting Session - Saturday, January 27, 2018 9am in the Lane Room Next regular City Council Meeting - Monday, February 5, 2018 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO "CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS" Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2018 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on January 2, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Linda Fields. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. STUDY SESSION a. SOLID WASTE RATES Mayor Brownrigg explained that the study session on solid waste rates was scheduled for two reasons. The first reason is because the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) renegotiated the contract with Recology, and a rate increase is coming. The second reason is because Council should think through the City’s rate structure, as the rates haven’t been increased since 2012. Finance Director Augustine gave a presentation on the background and policy options Council has for the City’s solid waste rates, noting that there were three major cost inputs when determining the City’s revenue requirements to cover the costs. Mayor Brownrigg explained the three major cost inputs. The Recology Contract and the Transfer Station are the first two cost inputs, and they are overseen by SBWMA. The third cost input is the City’s expenses. He explained that the total cost of the three for Burlingame in 2018 is estimated to be $11.17 million. Finance Director Augustine further reviewed the three costs. She stated that the Recology contract is approximately 53% of the total cost and is based on: route labor hours, other route hour costs, containers in Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 2 service, and number of customer accounts. The recycling and disposal costs account for approximately 31% of the total cost. This cost is based on: recycling, compostable materials, and trash. She explained that the advantage of SBWMA’s ownership of the transfer station is that the revenues from recyclables help to offset the cost. Lastly, the City’s expenses, which accounts for 16% of the total cost, include: landfill post-closure expenses, street sweeping, steam cleaning of public containers, a rate stabilization reserve, and the franchise fee to reimburse for wear/tear on city streets. Finance Director Augustine explained that the projected City expenses in 2018 are the following: 1. Street Cleaning - $300,000 2. Landfill Fund (5%) - $340,000 3. Steam Clean Trashcans - $163,000 4. Franchise Fee (GF) - $712,000 Next, Finance Director Augustine reviewed the role of SBWMA. She explained that SBWMA has 12 member agencies. She stated that SBWMA’s role is to provide consolidated management of service providers for the entirety of solid waste operations. This provides the City with a more cost-effective set of services then could probably be provided if the City acted on its own. Mayor Brownrigg explained how the total budget is offset through recycling revenues. However, he stated that the recycling market is volatile, and prices are not stable. Vice Mayor Colson discussed an article that she read about the changes in the global economy for recycling. The article stated that China had shut down the intake of recycling from the United States, which was creating a buildup in the Los Angeles ports. She asked how this impacted Burlingame. SBWMA Executive Director Joe La Mariana stated that there is a significant change in the market that SBWMA sells material to. He explained that there has been a political shift in China that has tightened up the quality of materials that they will accept. He stated that what has arisen is two issues: (1) the price of materials (as more and more recycling materials are available), and (2) the movement of the materials. He explained in the future, SBWMA hopes to still sell the materials but because more are available, the pricing will decrease. Vice Mayor Colson asked if this would impact the future cost of solid waste in Burlingame. Mayor Brownrigg replied in the affirmative, stating that as recycling revenue decreases, landfill costs may increase. Finance Director Augustine reviewed the timeline concerning the extension of the contract for solid waste collection services. She stated that the agreement would be brought to Council in a few weeks. However, she added that the City should expect an increase in Recology compensation of 13% by 2021. Finance Director Augustine stated that the City’s last rate increase was in 2012. She explained that currently the City’s most popular residential rate is the 30 gallon can per week, which costs $23.85 a month. She compared this rate to those in other cities: Los Altos ($31.50), Los Gatos ($24.41), Alameda ($38.68), Palo Alto ($43.75), and Menlo Park ($23.40). She stated that Menlo Park increased their rates for 2018, and their 32 gallon can is now $32 a week. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 3 Councilmember Keighran asked when the above mentioned cities had last increased their rates. Finance Director Augustine stated that she would have to get back to Council with that information. Finance Director Augustine stated that the revised agreements with Recology will lead to a one-time reset of expenses. She stated that this reset is anticipated to require a 10% increase in expenses to each city in 2021. Additionally, she stated that the City’s Rate Stabilization Reserve has been reduced to $855,000 to cover the last three years of increased expenses (2016-$177,000; 2017 - $215,000; and 2018 - $273,000). Therefore, she stated that issues to be considered are: 1. Current rates do not cover costs – when should they be reset and how much? 2. Should the City set guidelines for rate increases, keeping in mind the one-time increase in 2021? 3. Should the City keep the current fee structure? Next, Finance Director Augustine reviewed the City’s Agency fees in 2018: 1. Landfill Post-closure – currently set at 5% ($340,000), used for maintenance and monitoring of old (closed) landfill site 2. Street Sweeping - $300,000 3. Public Containers Steam Cleaning - $162,800 4. Rate Stabilization – 1-2%, will be set at 0% for calendar year 2018 – has been used in recent years to hold off rate increases 5. Franchise Fees - $732,000 Therefore, the City’s total fees for 2018 are $1.65 million, or 16% of the total costs. She then outlined the City’s options including: setting a policy to increase rates; set rates so that the 10% increase in 2021 does not hit in a single year; or leave City fee structure as is. Mayor Brownrigg stated that rate increases tend to be done at the beginning of the year. So the next rate increase would not be done until January 1, 2019. Finance Director Augustine agreed and stated that staff would be coming back with more specific options in the summer. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the 1-2% target for the Rate Stabilization Reserve referred to taking 1-2% of the revenue each year and putting it in the reserve. Finance Director Augustine stated that the 1-2% is the amount that is included in agency fees. The Rate Stabilization Reserve is just the surplus or deficit of that year added to the previous year’s surplus or deficit. Councilmember Beach asked if staff had any recommendations for increasing or decreasing agency fees. Finance Director Augustine replied in the negative. City Attorney Kane stated that the City needs to figure out where to address the cost of illegal dumping, i.e. mattresses and sofas on the street. She explained that illegal dumping is increasing both in frequency and the number of complaints that the City receives. Mayor Brownrigg asked if illegal dumping was a City problem or a landowner problem. City Attorney Kane stated that the responsibility lies first with the people that are doing the illegal dumping, but they are rarely Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 4 caught. She stated that there are a few hotspots in the City where people come from elsewhere and dump furniture, etc. She added that Recology has been very responsive to this issue. Councilmember Keighran agreed that illegal dumping was a growing concern in the community. Councilmember Ortiz asked if staff had an estimate of the total cost of illegal dumping. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative. Councilmember Ortiz asked if there was a Proposition 218 limitation on what can or can’t be included in the agency fees. City Attorney Kane stated that there is a split of authority on the applicability of Proposition 218. She explained that the City has always been conservative, and the City needs to ensure that the fees relate to the functions that ratepayers are being charged for. Mayor Brownrigg asked Council for their recommendation on the frequency of rate increases. He explained that the necessary rate increase between now and 2022 is 15-16%. Therefore, he asked if this should be spread out over each year or every other year. He referenced sample rate models that showed an increase of 4% per year would result in an increase in residential monthly rates in the first year from $23.85 per month for a 30-gallon can to $24.80 per month. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City should work backwards on the math and start with the premise that by 2021, the City is at a net neutral. She stated that her personal take is that the waste services are outstanding. She stated that it is important for the City to communicate to the public why the rates are going up, as to prevent the City from running through its reserves. She explained that if this is properly communicated, she believed the community would back the increases. Councilmember Ortiz agreed with Vice Mayor Colson. He stated that the dollar amount of the increase is very reasonable. Mayor Brownrigg asked if there was a preference of increasing rates every year versus every other. Councilmember Keighran stated it should be done every year so as not to see a double digit increase. Councilmember Beach stated that even a 10% increase is only $2.30 a month. She stated that it is important to increase rates in order to ensure a healthy reserve for future emergencies. Mayor Brownrigg summarized the Council’s guidance stating that a system should be set up that incorporates the increase coming in 2021; there was a preference for smaller annual increases every year; and the Council wants to ensure that the City maintains a healthy reserve. Mayor Brownrigg opened up the item for public comment. No one spoke. Mayor Brownrigg asked staff to review the issue of illegal dumping. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 5 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Colson removed 8b. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt 8a, 8c, 8d and 8e; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 18, 2017 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of December 18, 2017. b. CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR’S COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the Mayor’s Council Assignments for 2018. Vice Mayor Colson described the process of coordinating which Councilmember will be on which committee. She voiced her concern that Councilmember Keighran had significantly fewer committee assignments than the other Councilmembers. She explained that Councilmember Keighran is only on two committees, while she is on nine and thought it should be more balanced. Vice Mayor Colson added that some of the committees, like the Dog Park Advisory Group, should be consolidated into the Parks Master Plan Committee. Mayor Brownrigg explained the challenge of working with everyone’s schedules. He stated that he was open to suggestions. Vice Mayor Colson discussed the benefit of having Councilmember Keighran on the Economic Development Subcommittee as she has institutional knowledge of the businesses and development in the Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 6 City. She stated that she would step off this committee so that it could benefit from Councilmember Keighran’s knowledge. Mayor Brownrigg expressed his belief that the Economic Development Subcommittee is an important and vital committee. He explained that he believed that assignment to this committee should have a more mechanical rotation with the Vice Mayor and the third-in-line being assigned to the committee. He stated that this committee touches all issues in Burlingame. Accordingly, he felt that it was important that assignment to this committee rotate. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was available for early morning and evening meetings. She asked that she be assigned to the Emergency Services Council because the meetings are held in the building where she works, and she has a health care background. Councilmember Beach stated that she would give Councilmember Keighran that assignment. Mayor Brownrigg agreed to the change. Councilmember Keighran stated that the Council of Cities had a vote in December for the Domestic Violence Commission, and she was chosen as the alternate. Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to add this to the list of assignments. Vice Mayor Colson added that she is on the County’s Housing and Community Development Committee and Councilmember Beach is on the Transportation Authority. Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to add these to the list of assignments. Councilmember Keighran asked about the removal of the Parks & Recreation Liaison Committee. Mayor Brownrigg stated that in consultation with staff, those responsibilities were covered by the Parks Master Plan Committee. He suggested reviewing the committees assigned to Parks and Recreation matters. Councilmember Keighran agreed with the Mayor and stated that the Liaison Committee and the Dog Park Advisory Committee discussed options that fit under the Parks Master Plan Committee. She added that Vice Mayor Colson’s former Commission position and knowledge of user groups should be utilized on this committee. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the Parks Master Plan Committee is a short-term position. City Manager Goldman suggested a Parks & Recreation Committee with two councilmembers and then creating sub-groups with Park & Recreation Commissioners to cover specific matters or projects. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 7 Mayor Brownrigg suggested pulling this item and putting it on the next Council agenda. He asked his colleagues to let the City Clerk know of any additional committees they are on outside of what is listed. Councilmember Beach stated that she is on Parks Master Plan Committee. She stated that if this committee interested Councilmember Keighran, she would relinquish that assignment to her. Mayor Brownrigg invited Councilmember Keighran to join him on the Post Office/Town Square Advisory Group. Councilmember Keighran agreed. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. c. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO EPS INC., DBA EXPRESS PLUMBING, FOR THE EASTON ADDITION, RAY PARK, AND NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 3, CITY PROJECT NO. 84192, AND APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROJECT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 01-2018 and Resolution Number 02-2018. d. ADOPTION A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION (CDTFA) FOR IMPLEMENTATION AN DADMINISTRATION OF BURLINAGME’S LOCAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX; AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUALS AUTHORIZED TO EXAMINE CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS OF THE CDTFA PERTAINING TO THE TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAXES COLLECTED PURSUANT TO THOSE AGREEMENTS Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 03-2018 and Resolution Number 04-2018. e. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH HINDERLITER DE LAMAS AND ASSOCIATES FOR TRANSACTION TAX AUDIT AND INFORMATION SERVICES; AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXAMINIATION OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION’S SALES, USE AND TRANSACTIONS TAX RECORDS Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 05-2018. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 8 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH FUNG COLLABORATIVES AND APPROVE AN ADDITIONAL GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,833 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 06-2018. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad gave an update on the public art project to honor Anson Burlingame. She explained that since the creation of the committee in February 2017, the group has met three times. She listed the members of the committee: Mayor Brownrigg, Councilmember Beach, Ruth Waters (Peninsula Art Museum), Russ Cohen (Burlingame Historical Society), David Chai (expert on Anson Burlingame), Janet Martin (community member), and Leslie Holzman (community member). She added that Lance Fung and John Tally from Fung Collaboratives had been hired as consultants on the project. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad discussed the committee’s public outreach on the project. She stated that they hosted two public workshops to educate the community on public art and the history of Anson Burlingame. Additionally, surveys were distributed to the public to gather their input. She discussed the findings of the surveys and public workshops and how the committee used this information to create an RFQ and an RFP. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that an RFQ is a request for qualifications. The committee would choose two artists from the RFQ process and send them the RFP. The RFP would include a request for the artists to complete renderings of what they envision the art piece to be. She explained that the project’s total budget is estimated at $140,000: $10,000 for the first two phases, $100,000 for the art piece, $25,000 for Fung Collaboratives, $1,000 for advertising costs, and $4,500 for the artists’ renderings. She stated that one of the challenges for the committee is asking for funding when they don’t know what the project looks like. Therefore, staff is requesting $13,833 to publish the RFQ and RFP to develop preliminary renderings to aid in the fundraising efforts. Mayor Brownrigg introduced Lance Fung from Fung Collaboratives to discuss the project’s next steps. Mr. Fung discussed the importance of public art and what it can do for the City. He stated that he was impressed by the community’s passion for this project. Mayor Brownrigg stated that 2018 is the 150th anniversary of the Burlingame Treaty. He stated that the City is also obtaining a more standard commemoration of Anson Burlingame in the form of a bust and a Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 9 collection of his writings that will be displayed at the Library. He thanked Congresswoman Speier and Senator Hill for their assistance. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up to public comment. Burlingame resident Linda Field asked for clarification on how the RFP differs from the RFQ. Mr. Fung stated that many cities combine the RFQ and the RFP. But the industry standard has shifted in recognizing that it is exploitative for the artist to combine the two. He explained that when the two are combined, it requires the artist to give their qualifications and ideas for the project. Many cities will then combine ideas from the different proposals. Mr. Fung explained that by splitting the RFQ and RFP, the City will first receive qualifications from a number of artists in order to determine whose style and experience is the best fit for the City. After the committee determines which two they are interested in, the artists will be asked to participate in the RFP. In the RFP, the artists will submit renderings, for which they will be paid. Councilmember Keighran asked if the RFQ only involves reviewing the artists’ qualifications. Mr. Fung stated it goes beyond that as the artists will be asked to discuss their approach, give examples of previous works, and submit recommendations. Councilmember Keighran stated she thought it would be important to have specific questions about the project included in the RFQ. Mr. Fung agreed and stated that the RFQ has questions about the artist’s approach. Councilmember Keighran stated that she would feel more comfortable if there were questions included in the RFQ concerning the artist’s proposal for the project. Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment. Councilmember Beach discussed her experience on the Public Art Committee. She stated that she was excited about not just commemorating a historical event but also adding significant cultural value to the City. She explained that she believed that staff and the committee were approaching this project correctly by going through a process of organizing the community’s ideas, challenging artists, and raising funds. Vice Mayor Colson thanked Mayor Brownrigg and Councilmember Beach for their work. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the process of raising funds for the project and the importance of having artist renderings to aid in this cause. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 06-2018; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 10 b. UPDATE REGARDING HOME FOR ALL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PILOT PROGRAM Planning Manager Gardiner began by introducing Pat Brown from Home for All. Ms. Brown stated that Home for All grew out of a task force looking at the gap between the number of jobs created in San Mateo County and the number of housing units. She explained that they found a significant gap; approximately 77,000 new jobs and only 4,000 housing units created in the past ten years. This large gap contributed to the significant challenge the county faces with housing at all levels. She stated that after a year of working together, the task force created an action plan called Home for All. She stated the task force found three issues that contributed to the problem: 1) policy, 2) funding, and 3) community will. Ms. Brown explained that Home for All created the Community Engagement Pilot Program to address the issue of community will. Under this pilot program, cities were asked to develop proposals on how they might use consulting assistance and a small amount of funds to develop broader community knowledge and engagement related to housing. She stated that they received six applications, four of which were funded: Burlingame, Half Moon Bay, Portola Valley, and Redwood City. She thanked the City for their interest and enthusiasm. Planning Manager Gardiner stated that the City’s community engagement project is two-tracked: 1. Village at Burlingame – the affordable housing development on Parking Lot F and 2. Affordable housing policies and programs. Planning Manager Gardiner stated staff’s goal is to reach members of the community who aren’t traditionally part of the civic process. Staff began outreach to these community members through a series of “pop-up” interviews at the Library and then on Burlingame Avenue. Individuals were asked their opinions about Burlingame, housing, and other matters. Additionally, he explained that staff is creating an extensive list of community groups to reach out to about affordable housing. Planning Manager Gardiner stated that staff will be holding a community meeting on February 10, 2018, tentatively at the Burlingame Recreation Center. He stated that from 9 am to 11 am, there will be facilitated discussions. Then from 11 am to 12 pm, staff will discuss ongoing development projects in the city. Planning Manager Gardiner stated that the goals of the community meeting are: 1. Create a better understanding of how varied residents see the future of housing in Burlingame 2. Increase community understanding of housing issues, including how unmet housing needs affect the entire community 3. Create awareness of current and potential housing solutions, and what the City and community may be able to do 4. Develop capacity (and appetite) for constructive dialog: the “community’s conversation” Mayor Brownrigg thanked Home for All, Planning Manager Gardiner, Vice Mayor Colson, and Councilmember Keighran for their work on this effort. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 11 Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Cynthia Cornell asked if the “pop-ups” were advertised and asked to see the list of community groups that staff would be outreaching to. Planning Manager Gardiner stated that Housing for All Burlingame is included. He stated that the “pop-ups” will be advertised in the future. Vice Mayor Colson discussed the “pop-ups” and how they can be informative to the community. She discussed locating the “pop-ups” in different areas to inform residents about projects in their neighborhoods. Councilmember Keighran explained that the “pop-ups” are another opportunity to educate the community on what the City is doing. She added that the consultants should attend the Goal Setting session, as it is another opportunity for them to hear from the community. Council discussed various locations, not on City property, for the community meeting on February 10, 2018. c. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION Mayor Brownrigg stated that the following seven applicants were interviewed by then-Mayor Ortiz, Vice Mayor Brownrigg, Councilmember Colson, and Councilmember Keighran on December 5, 2017: Jeff Londer, Daniel Devoy, Irving Agard, Andrew Ahlers, Greg Mand, Lynn Israelit, and Sean Pitonak. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Beach stated that she was unable to attend the December 5th interviews, but the interviews were recorded, and she listened to them in order to make her decision. City Clerk 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. Jeff Londer was unanimously chosen by the Council and Lynn Israelit was chosen by a vote of 4 (Councilmember Ortiz voted for Greg Mand). Mayor Brownrigg thanked all the candidates for their time. Congratulations to Jeff Londer and Lynn Israelit on their appointments to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission. d. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPOINTMENT TO THE STORM DRAIN MEASURE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Mayor Brownrigg stated that the two applicants, Susanna Chan and Matt Feemster, were interviewed on December 5, 2017, by then-Mayor Ortiz, Vice Mayor Brownrigg, Councilmember Colson, and Councilmember Keighran. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 12 Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Beach stated that she was unable to attend the December 5th interviews, but the interviews were recorded, and she listened to them in order to make her decision. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer gave each Councilmember a ballot to vote for one candidate to serve a four year term. She then read the ballot of each Councilmember. Susanna Chan was unanimously chosen by the Council. Mayor Brownrigg thanked both candidates for their time. Congratulations to Susanna Chan on her appointment to the Storm Drain Measure Oversight Committee. e. DISCUSSION OF THE COMPOSITION AND SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE MEASURE I OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND DETERMINATION OF A PREFERRED SELECTION PROCESS City Manager Goldman presented the staff report concerning the composition and scope of responsibilities for the Measure I Oversight Committee and determination of a preferred selection process. City Manager Goldman gave the background of Measure I. She stated that in November 2017, Burlingame voters approved Measure I, a retail transactions and use tax of a quarter percent, which effectively increases the sales tax rate in Burlingame from 8.75 percent to 9 percent. City Manager Goldman explained that Ordinance 1944, which was a part of the Measure, requires a separate external audit of the collections and expenditures of the new transactions tax. She stated that Ordinance 1944 also requires the establishment of a Citizens’ Oversight Committee. In reference to the Citizens’ Oversight Committee she explained: 1. The Committee must have no fewer than three persons, and the members shall be residents of the city or representatives of businesses located in the city. 2. Beginning with the fiscal year that ends June 30, 2018, the City’s independent auditors shall, as part of their annual audit of the City’s financial statements, review the collection and expenditure of revenue from the tax. The committee shall annually review the auditor’s findings regarding the revenues and expenditures. 3. By January 31, 2018, the City Council shall adopt a resolution establishing the composition of the committee and defining the scope of its responsibilities. She stated that Finance Director Augustine reviewed how other cities handled sales tax oversight committees. She explained that Ms. Augustine focused on Belmont and South San Francisco and that the staff report contains information about how the two cities structured their committees. City Manager Goldman stated that generally committees consist of five to seven members and meet one or two times a year to review annual audited reports. She explained that the details of committee operations Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 13 range from detailed bylaws to simple mission statements. She stated that when specifying duties of the committee, most cities relied on the language of the approved ballot measure. Additionally, most committees had no budgetary decision or contractual authority. City Manager Goldman stated that staff is asking the City Council to determine how many members to appoint to the Oversight Committee. She explained that there is widespread interest for this committee and suggested at least five members. She stated that the City Council could designate one or more seats to business representatives. She added that Council should determine length of term, whether or not to have term limits, and whether terms should be staggered. City Manager Goldman discussed the scope of the Oversight Committee. She explained that at a minimum, the committee shall annually review the auditor’s findings regarding the revenues and expenditures and transmit a statement regarding that review to the Council. In addition, the committee shall provide oversight of any bonds that are backed in whole or in part by the Measure I revenues. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Ortiz stated he thought the committee should have five members – four residents and one business owner. He liked the idea of staggering terms and suggested two residents appointed for two-year terms, two residents appointed for four-year terms, and the business owner appointed for a four-year term. Vice Mayor Colson agreed that it should be five members with three residents and two local business leaders. She suggested for the two local business leaders, Council give preference to those that live in Burlingame. She stated she would stagger terms and have three-year terms. Additionally, she explained that she noticed in other cities the councilmembers on the audit committee are non-voting members of the oversight committee. She suggested doing the same. The City Attorney suggested keeping the language flexible, and having the Council state preferences, so that if the applicant pool is different than desired, adjustments can be made. Councilmember Keighran agreed with Vice Mayor Colson that the committee should be five members with three residents and two business owners. She stated that she would like to see a few members have strong financial backgrounds. She suggested no term limits and using the same process as the other City commissions. Mayor Brownrigg asked Councilmember Keighran what she thought of Vice Mayor Colson’s suggestion of having audit committee members attend the oversight committee meeting as non-voting delegates. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was fine with it as long as they didn’t have voting rights. Councilmember Beach concurred with Vice Mayor Colson’s recommendations. She stated that she believed that staff should design a mission statement for the oversight committee. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 14 Councilmember Beach asked if there was any downside to having councilmembers (audit committee) at the oversight committee meetings. Councilmember Ortiz discussed his experience with the school bond oversight committee and how school board members were on the committee. He stated that it gave the board members a chance to address any concerns that arose. Councilmember Keighran asked if the school board members were voting members or non-voting members. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed they were voting members. Councilmember Keighran stated that she believed the bias would be taken away if they were non-voting members. Mayor Brownrigg discussed Council’s consensus that the committee be composed of five members with three residents and two local business owners. He stated that the Council also had a preference that members have financial backgrounds, serve three-year terms, staggered, no term limits, use a process similar to the other City commissions, and that the two audit members sit in the meetings as non-voting members. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt the above mentioned preferences; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Colson asked about developing questions for the Oversight Committee interviews. Councilmember Ortiz suggested that the questions be limited to two or three to allow the Council to ask additional questions that come up. Mayor Brownrigg stated he would count on City Manager Goldman to create open questions that would cover the Council’s preferences. Vice Mayor Colson said they should develop a mission statement and include it in the application. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH MIG FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARKS MASTER PLAN Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement for professional services with MIG for the development of a Parks Master Plan. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that in FY 2017-18, CIP funds were approved for the City to undertake its first citywide Parks Master Plan. She explained that the Parks Master Plan will set the framework for decision makers in the planning, maintenance, development, and/or rehabilitation of Burlingame’s parks and recreational facilities by providing a systematic and prioritized approach to Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 15 implementation of parks and recreation projects. She explained that the creation of the plan will most likely take 16-18 months. To guide this process, an advisory committee was created composed of: Councilmember Ortiz, Councilmember Beach, Parks and Recreation Commissioners Lewis and Matthews, Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, Recreation Supervisor Acquisti, Parks Supervisor Holtz, and Senior Planner Keylon. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the City received seven proposals, and three proposers were selected for interviews. She stated that the three consultants had similar fees and comparable community outreach. However, MIG stood out for a number of reasons including: 1. The firm’s involvement in numerous parks master plans in comparable jurisdictions in the Bay Area 2. The firm’s experience with and approach to preparing a parks master plan, including the sub- consultants on the team who specialize in Fee Nexus Studies and community surveys 3. The firm’s recognized leadership in community engagement, with the proposal including a comprehensive community participation and outreach plan 4. The firm’s current experience working with the Burlingame community through the Envision Burlingame General Plan update process 5. The overall expertise and energy of the team assembled for the project Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that MIG’s fee is $199,555. She explained that the fee includes an existing parks and facilities analysis, community engagement and surveying, a funding and implementation plan, and a final Parks Master Plan to be approved by the City Council. She stated that based on her experience in other projects; there is never enough community engagement. Therefore, because MIG’s proposal came in under budget, staff is asking for the optional usage of $50,000 for additional community engagement as needed. Councilmember Keighran asked why Council wasn’t brought into this process earlier. She suggested that Council input should have been requested when the proposals were narrowed from seven to three. She compared it to the Bayfront golf course RFP. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that staff followed the same process that they used for the Community Center Master Plan. Councilmember Keighran asked about the Nexus Fee Study included in the agreement. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that a lot of cities have fees that support improvements within the city parks. However, she explained that the City does not have these fees, and therefore a nexus study needs to be done to determine what the appropriate fees would be. Councilmember Keighran asked how much the Nexus Fee Study cost. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that it was included in the total cost, but she would get back to her with an exact amount. Councilmember Keighran stated that she believed the proposed Nexus Fee Study was premature as Measure I was just passed, and some of those funds might be used towards the parks. She added that the City was also negotiating a lease with Topgolf that could generate funds for the parks. Therefore, she felt that the City should first review how they will be using these funds before conducting a Nexus Fee Study. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 16 City Manager Goldman stated that conducting the study doesn’t commit the City to levying any fees; it just provides the City with information that the Council can then determine how to use. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the Council doesn’t always review proposals when vendors are chosen for City projects. He added that by having Councilmembers on the subcommittee for the Parks Master Plan, the process was more open than usual. City Manager Goldman agreed and added that Councilmembers were not on the subcommittee that selected MIG to assist in updating the General Plan. Councilmember Ortiz asked why the Parks Master Plan RFP process included a subcommittee. City Manager Goldman stated that staff wanted additional feedback. Councilmember Ortiz stated that his understanding of the Parks Master Plan is that it is a guideline for how best to allocate the City’s very limited recreation resources. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the plan will also assist the City in obtaining grants to fund projects like re-doing the tennis courts. Vice Mayor Colson explained that the other two finalists’ proposals should have been included in the staff report so that she could explain to residents that ask why MIG was chosen. Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers who were on the subcommittee to explain why MIG was chosen. Councilmember Ortiz stated that MIG was chosen based on their experience with the City, presentation, and approach to the project. Councilmember Beach stated that the decision to award the contract to MIG was unanimous among the committee members. Vice Mayor Colson stated that more data was needed in the staff report to justify awarding the $250,000 contract to MIG. City Manager Goldman suggested pulling the item and having staff bring it back with more information on how the decision was made. Mayor Brownrigg explained that he believed that the process by which MIG was chosen was thorough and open. He stated that then-Mayor Ortiz had created the subcommittee to review the proposals in order to ensure Council and public input. Mayor Brownrigg explained that he understood why there was a subcommittee on this matter to winnow down the choices and make a recommendation, but he wasn’t sure it should continue. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 17 City Manager Goldman stated that she believed this was one of the committees that Council had earlier discussed wrapping into a Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. Vice Mayor Colson suggested that for the benefit of the public, the three finalists’ proposals should be posted on the website. Councilmember Keighran stated that because Councilmembers were on the subcommittee, she would have liked to hear updates as this process was progressing. Mayor Brownrigg asked Councilmember Keighran about Council’s involvement in the hiring of consultants for previous area specific plans like the North End. Councilmember Keighran stated that Council wasn’t involved, and that is why this is different. City Manager Goldman stated that Council was involved in the Lot F and N proposal selection. She added that the City might need to take a step back and determine when Council subcommittees should be involved in selection processes. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the item would be pulled so that more detail could be added. Mayor Brownrigg explained that he was in favor of including the Nexus Fee Study because if under the General Plan update new neighborhoods are created, a fee study would be necessary to create open space. Councilmember Beach thanked staff for having the vision to budget for this project. She stated that the Parks Master Plan would allow the Council to prioritize what the community wants. g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH BURLINGAME YOUTH BASEBALL ASSOCIATION FOR USE OF CITY-OWNED FIELDS FOR RECREATIONAL BASEBALL USE, CONCESSION SALES, AND STORAGE Mayor Brownrigg moved this item up to after item 10e. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Burlingame Youth Baseball Association (“BYBA”) for use of City-owned fields for recreational baseball use, concession sales, and storage. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that the City is currently undertaking a review of all of its agreements with youth sports organizations. She explained that staff began with BYBA and that the proposed agreement is a consolidation of a few agreements the City currently has with BYBA for various amenities. She discussed two items in the agreement that BYBA requested. The first item was a request for the City to waive permit fees for future improvements. The second item was a request for the City to decrease the administrative fee from 10% to 5% for emergency repairs. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 18 Councilmember Keighran asked why BYBA would have exclusive rights to storage units and the scoreboard. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that BYBA purchased and installed the storage units, and therefore if BYBA leaves, they can take the storage units. She stated that this was the same for AYSO and Burlingame Girls Softball (“BGS”). Councilmember Keighran asked why the City didn’t have the exclusive rights to the storage units since they are on City property. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that BYBA installed and paid for the storage units. Councilmember Keighran stated that she is also concerned about the exclusive rights BYBA has to the batting cages. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that per the original agreement, which has been incorporated into the amended agreement, other groups can use the batting cages, but they have to get BYBA’s permission. Councilmember Keighran asked what “BYBA and its subtenant” referred to concerning the concession stand. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that BYBA had trouble staffing the concession stand, so one of BYBA’s sponsors was providing this service. Councilmember Keighran asked who would be liable if an accident occurred at the concession stand. City Attorney Kane stated that BYBA would be liable. But as a practical matter, the City would likely be a codefendant. She explained that the City tried to clarify where the responsibility runs in the amended agreement and that if an accident happened, the City would utilize BYBA’s insurance. Councilmember Keighran asked if BYBA had exclusive rights on signage. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the negative. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the agreement gives signage approval to the Director of Parks and Recreation. Councilmember Keighran asked if improvements are needed, is it BYBA’s responsibility or the City’s? Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that it depends on the improvements. For example if the BYBA purchased scoreboard needs maintenance, because the City uses it, the City would fix it. But if it was the batting cages or their storage units, BYBA would fix it. Councilmember Keighran asked where liability falls if BYBA’s maintenance is done incorrectly and there is a lawsuit. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that this would be covered by BYBA’s insurance. Councilmember Beach asked where the agreement discusses signage. Vice Mayor Colson stated that it was on page 2 under subsection a.vii of the agreement. City Attorney Kane stated that the importance of that section is that it is subordinate to other City rules and ordinances. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 19 Councilmember Beach discussed whether the City would offer the same fee waivers and reduction in emergency repair fees to other youth sports organizations. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ortiz asked if BYBA had exclusive use of the batting cages because they built and maintain them. Additionally, he asked if other groups get to use the batting cages. Recreation Manager Tim Barry stated he wasn’t sure when the batting cages were built, but the original agreement included the language that BYBA had exclusive use of the batting cages. He stated that he believed only BYBA and BHS use the batting cages. Vice Mayor Colson discussed the improvements that BGS has done to the fields and asked if they had a similar agreement. City Attorney Kane stated that staff is currently reviewing all agreements. Vice Mayor Colson stated that when her children began playing softball, BGS requested City land to put in their own batting cages. She explained that it was never resolved. She stated she found it problematic that baseball has access to two batting cages but that girls’ softball has access to no batting cages in Burlingame. She explained that she had an issue with the City entering an agreement that gives one organization 45 years of exclusive rights to batting cages. She requested language be incorporated in the agreement that BGS be allowed usage of the batting cages for ten hours a week. She explained that if this is not done, then space needs to be designated to BGS to build a batting cage. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. BYBA co-president JP LaChance stated that BYBA built and maintains the batting cages. He stated that during the season, they have over 500 kids using the batting cages, and accordingly they fill all the slots. He explained that this is the reason slots haven’t been available to other organizations. Mr. LaChance stated that although BYBA has three agreements with the City that are all still in effect, the City came to them and asked to consolidate and amend the agreements. Mayor Brownrigg asked if BYBA considered charging BHS for their use of the Washington Park batting cage. Mr. LaChance replied in the negative. Recreation Manager Barry stated that the same kids played in both leagues, and therefore the fee was waived. Vice Mayor Colson asked if BYBA would be willing to work with BGS to schedule time for the girls to use the batting cages. Mr. LaChance replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked when the batting cages were built. Mr. LaChance said he didn’t know the exact year, but Vice Mayor Colson’s estimate of 20 years ago seemed accurate. Burlingame resident Will Evans discussed his concern about BYBA’s exclusive rights to the batting cages, Bayside Fields, Washington Park, and Cuernavaca Field. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 20 Burlingame resident Dan Lyons discussed his concern about giving BYBA exclusive rights to the fields. Councilmember Ortiz asked if BYBA had exclusive rights to the fields, or if field usage was subject to the City’s user group policy. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that BYBA didn’t have exclusive rights to the fields. City Attorney Kane added that BYBA’s exclusivity applies only to the batting cages, concession stand, and storage facilities. Councilmember Beach stated that she was concerned that the City might not have enough facilities for all the user groups, and accordingly it becomes the City’s responsibility to budget for additional facilities. Mayor Brownrigg stated that it was his understanding that the purpose of the proposed agreement was to clean up and memorialize agreements that already exist. He explained that therefore he treated this as a simple question of whether or not the City should waive fees (as this would be the new language added to the agreement). However, he stated that the conversation has gone in a much broader direction about equity. He explained that this is a conversation that the City should have, but might not be germane to the report in front of them. Mayor Brownrigg compared BYBA to BAC in how BYBA runs baseball for the City. He discussed how BYBA has spent money to improve facilities and create a good program for the youth. He added that he would like to see BGS gain access to the batting cages. Also, he stated that he felt that BHS should be charged for their usage of the batting cages. Vice Mayor Colson asked why the City rents to BHS when BGS doesn’t get time at the batting cages. She explained that BHS should build their own batting cages. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was in agreement to waive the fees for BYBA. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she didn’t want the agreement with BYBA to be signed without a firm commitment that BGS will get ten hours a week at the batting cages. Councilmember Beach stated that she agreed with Vice Mayor Colson in getting BGS time at the batting cages. She stated that she would be interested to hear BYBA’s perspective on replacing BHS’ time at the batting cages with time for BGS. Councilmember Keighran stated that she had an issue with the philosophy of the agreement and therefore wouldn’t be approving the agreement. She explained that just because the City had agreements with BYBA in the past that granted them an exclusive right to facilities (batting cages, concession stand, and storage) doesn’t mean this should continue. She stated that the facilities are on public property and should be open to the public. She added that it gives a message of pay to play and that shouldn’t be the way the City functions. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the City’s relationship with BYBA is longstanding. He stated there is no exclusivity when it comes to the fields. He explained that he didn’t share the concern about the exclusivity to the storage units but that he agrees with his colleagues’ concerns about the batting cages. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 1/16/18 Burlingame City Council January 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 21 Councilmember Keighran voiced her concern that user groups change, and that the proposed agreement with BYBA was for 25 years. Therefore, if a new baseball group or softball group came in, they would also be excluded. She stated that it creates a general message that if you build a facility, it gives you exclusivity. Vice Mayor Colson discussed the conversations that the City had with the Burlingame Dragons, who had offered to pay for stadium seats at Murray Field. If the City had allowed this, would the Dragons have had exclusive rights to the stadium seats and not allowed other user groups to use them? She stated that the City would never have allowed the Dragons to do this. Mayor Brownrigg summarized the Council’s discussion stating that there was a strong request for an agreement to be made that allotted BGS time at the batting cages. He stated that Council agreed with the waiver of the fees. City Manager Goldman stated that there is also BYBA’s request to reduce the emergency repairs fee from 10% to 5%. Mayor Brownrigg stated that Council agreed to reduce this fee. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City needs to discuss and determine their philosophy when it comes to maintaining these facilities and the ability of all user groups to enjoy the facilities. Additionally, she stated that in the Parks Master Plan, it should be determined where they can build batting cages for girls’ softball. 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 Vice Mayor Colson asked for an update on Topgolf. Mayor Brownrigg asked City Attorney Kane to find an appropriate forum to provide an update. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8b MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk – (650) 558-7203 Subject: Confirmation of the Mayor’s Council Assignments for 2018 and Process for Economic Development Subcommittee Assignment RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council review the attached memorandum from Mayor Brownrigg concerning Council Assignments for 2018 and establishing a mechanical rotation process for the Economic Development Subcommittee. Exhibits: • Mayor Brownrigg’s Memorandum • 2018 Council Assignments 1 Memorandum To: City Council Date: January 10, 2018 From: Mayor Brownrigg Subject: Committee Assignments and Process for Economic Development Subcommittee Assignment SUMMARY This memo outlines the new assignments for the various committees and subcommittees, including those that are not subject to Mayoral assignment. It also proposes that the City Council routinize the assignment to the Economic Development Subcommittee. BACKGROUND In the City of Burlingame, the Mayor is given wide discretion to appoint Councilmembers to various working groups and subcommittees within the City of Burlingame. Likewise, the Mayor is given authority to vote for representatives to various elected regional bodies. Each Mayor must try to balance his or her views of what is both equitable but also effective for the management of city policies and issue areas. There is inevitably a trade-off between Councilmembers acquiring specific working group expertise versus the potential interest in having widespread familiarity with various issues, that is, sharing the assignments and moving people around. I appreciated the conversation at our last Council meeting. Herewith are my revised Council assignments. I have tried to be mindful of requests and constraints, albeit without being able to satisfy all of them. Please note that we each also have assignments “below the line” that are not subject to Mayoral assignment but which nonetheless consume in some case significant time for the relevant members. The Council Assignments are attached. As you can see, every Councilmember has either nine or 10 assignments going forward. I also want to note that I anticipate our Council may create additional working groups over the year ahead, given the volume of work I perceive on the horizon. It was with that in mind that I deleted several older working groups that I felt had outlived their usefulness. PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE I propose to my colleagues the following change to our assignment procedures. If the City Council agrees with me, we would remove the Economic Development Subcommittee from Mayoral assignment and instead make its membership automatic on the following basis: the Vice Mayor and the 3rd in seniority would be assigned to the subcommittee (as is the case in my Memorandum 2 assignments). At the end of each calendar year, the Vice Mayor would rotate off the subcommittee (as she/he becomes Mayor); the 3rd in seniority would now be Vice Mayor and would remain on the Economic Development Subcommittee; and the new 3rd in line would be appointed to the subcommittee. This would be automatic. Should a member be unable or unwilling to serve, then the Mayor would have discretion to fill the seat as she/he deems appropriate, but it would be the intention of Council to revert to the system as soon as practical. Of course, this system can be changed in future by vote of the City Council. My rationale is straightforward, but let me briefly address it. I believe the Economic Development Subcommittee is a very important liaison to the business/development community in Burlingame. The Subcommittee has opined on a number of critical contracts and potential business partnerships for Burlingame over the years. It is often the first stop for developers with unusual or bold proposals, and it maintains close and important contact with key economic constituencies such as hotels, auto sales, and commercial property owners. As such, I think Burlingame is better governed if each of the Councilmembers cycles through the Economic Development Subcommittee over time. My suggestion would ensure that members spend 2 years in a row on the subcommittee – providing continuity -- and then graduate to Mayor where they may be able to see some of the projects they first considered on the subcommittee come to conclusion. Yet it would also ensure that new Councilmembers are brought into the Economic Development Subcommittee and become acquainted with various matters that come before it. Not only is this a benefit to the City Council’s collective education, but it would ensure that critical constituencies, such as hotels, get to interact with all members of Council over time, which is to everyone’s benefit in my opinion. Needless to say, one consequence of my proposal is that I would NOT be on the subcommittee for several years, which is a personal disappointment to me. But that is how strongly I believe in the merits of this suggested revision to our appointment procedures. I hope you will agree. Thank you for your service. CITY OF BURLINGAME 2018 COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS – Revised 1/16/18 Committee Schedule Bold names are members, alternates in parentheses. 1 ABAG – City Delegate Annually Ortiz (Colson) 2 Airport Land Use Commission (NB: C/CAG subcomm.) Quarterly meetings held at Burlingame City Hall Ortiz (Brownrigg) 3 Airport Round Table Meets quarterly on 1st Wednesday each month, 7 p.m. Ortiz (Brownrigg) 4 Audit Committee Meets 2-3 times per year, including once in December Ortiz & Colson 5 Anson Burlingame Art Committee Meets as needed Brownrigg & Beach 6 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Meets 3rd Thursday of every other month, starting January O'Mahony 7 Caltrain Modernization Policymaker Group Monthly Beach (Keighran) 8 Central County Fire Board 4 times a year, generally the second Wednesday of February, April, September, and December, at 4 p.m. (NOTE: Minimum 2-year terms. Brownrigg joined Dec. 2011, Ortiz appointed January 2018) Brownrigg & Ortiz 9 Chamber of Commerce Liaison 2nd Tuesday of each month, noon-1:30 p.m. Brownrigg & Colson 10 City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) 2nd Thursday of each month, 6:30 p.m. Ortiz (Beach) 11 City/Schools Liaison Committee 3 times a year, usually midweek at 9 a.m. Colson & Ortiz 12 Commute.org (formerly called Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance) Every other month on Tuesday or Thursday at 8 a.m. Beach (Keighran) 13 Dog Park Advisory Group As needed Keighran & Colson 14 Post Office / Town Square Advisory Group As needed Brownrigg & Keighran 15 Economic Development Subcommittee 3rd Thursday of the month, 8:30 a.m. Beach & Colson 16 El Camino Real Task Force As needed Brownrigg & Beach 17 Emergency Services Council (quarterly) 3rd Thursday in January, April, June and September, 5:30 p.m. at Hall of Justice in Redwood City Keighran (Beach) 18 Advanced Life Services (Ambulance) JPA 3rd Wednesday of January, May and September, at 6 p.m. Keighran (Ortiz) 19 Grand Boulevard Task Force Quarterly, 10 a.m.-noon, location varies Beach (Brownrigg) 20 Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) Quarterly on Wednesdays at 3 p.m. Colson (Ortiz) 21 Parks and Recreation Advisory Group As needed Ortiz & Colson 22 Peninsula Cities Consortium Quarterly, 8:15 a.m. (location rotates among 6 cities) Keighran (Beach) 23 Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) 4th Thursday of every month , 7 p.m. at 400 Harbor Boulevard, Belmont Colson (Brownrigg) 24 Home For All Monthly Colson & Keighran 25 South Bay Waste Management Authority Quarterly, 2 p.m., Thursdays Brownrigg (Keighran) MEMBERS ELECTED/APPOINTED NOT BY THE MAYOR 26 C/CAG Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Meets 6-7 times a year, Thursdays, 7-9 p.m. at San Mateo City Hall Beach 27 C/CAG Congestion Management and Environmental Quality Committee (CMEQ) Meets 4th Monday of every month, 3-5 p.m. at San Mateo City Hall Beach 28 Council of Cities Domestic Violence Council Quarterly Keighran (alternate) 29 League of California Cities Peninsula Division Environmental Quality Policy Committee January 18 and June 7 in Sacramento and April 12 in Pomona Beach 30 League of California Cities Peninsula Division Executive Board Meets monthly on Fridays Beach (cities at large) 31 Peninsula Health Care District Long Term Planning Committee 6 times a year, generally Tuesday evenings Brownrigg & Ortiz 32 San Mateo County Housing and Development Committee Meets as need, 4-6 times a year, 3 year term 2016-2019 Colson 33 San Mateo County Transportation Authority Board of Directors 1st Thursday of every month, 5 p.m. at SAMTRANS office in San Carlos Beach (cities at large) ALL COUNCILMEMBERS MAY ATTEND THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS 34 Peninsula Division League of California Cities 4 dinner meetings per year, plus January reception for newly elected council members All 35 Council of Cities Usually 4th Friday of month, rotating city All 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8c MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Procure Field Turf Products and Execute an Agreement with Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. for the Site Work for the Installation of Synthetic Turf at Murray Field RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to procure Field Turf products at a cost of $781,399 through California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS) and execute an agreement with Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. for the site work for the installation of synthetic turf at Murray Field, City Project No. 84130 in the amount of $1,061,000. BACKGROUND For many years the City has been challenged in providing adequate field space for organizations. Even with the use of the Burlingame High School and Burlingame School District fields, there is a chronic shortage of available field space. The Parks and Recreation Commission studied the problem, gathered significant community input, and determined that installing synthetic turf at Murray Field would help alleviate the problem. At the October 20, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the Parks and Recreation Director requested that the Commission Chair appoint an ad hoc subcommittee to provide guidance to staff for the Murray Field Synthetic Turf Project. Commissioners Palacio, Milne, and Dito, as well as Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks Superintendent Disco, Parks Supervisor Holtz, Recreation Supervisor Barry, and Recreation Coordinator Sanchez, served on the subcommittee. The group worked with Derek McKee and Gary Hoover from Verde Design and the field user groups to assist in the design and development of artificial turf at Murray Field. As part of its work, the subcommittee visited several fields in the Bay Area including Foothill College (Los Altos), Bellarmine High School (San Jose), Santa Clara University (Santa Clara), Shoreline Lakes Athletic Fields (Mountain View), Beach Chalet Fields (San Francisco), and Minnie and Lovie Ward Fields (San Francisco). In addition, David Teter, PhD, a specialist who tests infill materials, presented the pros and cons of various infill materials to the subcommittee. Contract with Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. for Murray Field January 16, 2018 2 The findings were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission on January 19, 2017. The Commission approved a synthetic turf field with the following features: 1. Field Turf Fiber because it is comprised of specially designed slit-film fibers and high performance ridged monofilament fibers, which offer a superior aesthetic appearance and facilitate a grass-like ball roll. 2. Field Turf’s Purefill infill cork, which is a natural infill that is 100% environmentally friendly, non-toxic, and does not require watering. It is an organic, recyclable and sustainable product that is harvested from the cork oak tree. 3. A Brock shock absorbing system pad to minimize the impact force when a player falls onto the turf. This system will last two replacement cycles of the artificial turf and is completely recyclable. 4. Field lining for one primary soccer field (75 x 120 yards in white); two secondary soccer fields (50 X 75 yards in yellow); one universal lacrosse field (60 x 120 yards in grey); and softball/baseball base distance markers in two opposite corners of the field at 50, 55, and 60 feet (Exhibit B). DISCUSSION The base bid for site work, including demolition of existing turf, irrigation, and hardscape was advertised for bid on Wednesday, November 29, Wednesday, December 20, and Tuesday, December 26, and closed on January 4, 2018. The bid included three add alternatives: Bid Alternative #1: hardscape at the southeastern side, including the installation of additional hardscape and drainage north of the existing bleacher areas. Omit all irrigation and planting in additional hardscape area. Bid Alternative #2: hardscape at northeastern side, including the installation of additional hardscape and drainage south of existing bleacher area. Omit all irrigation and planting in additional hardscape area. Bid Alternative #3: hardscape at the southwest corner, including the installation of additional hardscape. Omit all irrigation and planting in additional hardscape area. The purpose of the bid alternatives was to provide the opportunity for additional bleachers at a future date and/or paved goal storage. Bidders were instructed to bid a lump sum proposal for the base bid for all the labor and materials required to complete the site work for the installation of the synthetic turf and the Brock pad. The City received five bids (Exhibit C), with the base bid ranging in price from $1,061,000 to $1,465,000. Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid in the amount of $1,061,000. The bid results were as follows: 1. Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. $1,061,000 2. O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc. $1,210,000 3. Goodland Landscape Construction, Inc. $1,300,000 4. Granite Rock Company $1,300,792 Contract with Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. for Murray Field January 16, 2018 3 5. Galeb Paving, Inc. $1,465,000 The bid alternatives are not necessary for the installation and use of the synthetic turf field, and they exceed the amount budgeted for this project. The City will purchase the Field Turf Fiber, Purefill, and Brock pad directly from Field Turf, along with a groomer and sweeper and an eight-year maintenance plan through CMAS, a purchasing cooperative under the California Department of General Services Procurement Division, at a cost of $781,399. CMAS, a procurement option for California local governmental agencies, is a receptacle for Federal General Services Administration previously bid and awarded contracts. CMAS then establishes an independent California contract for the same products and services at equal or lower prices. The product is then purchased directly from the manufacturer. In addition, staff recommends employing a professional engineering consulting firm (at an estimated cost of $100,000) to provide construction management and inspection services since the work will be done over an existing landfill. The construction manager will be expected to: • Attend a pre-construction meeting with the contractor, subcontractors, other consultants, and affected City departments • Perform construction inspection, observation, and documentation • Provide staff with daily and weekly reports regarding the work completed to date; any dispute, claims, or problems encountered along with their resolution; and any regulatory or permitting agency interaction • Provide photos of pre-construction conditions of work limits, photos of work in progress and underground work prior to covering • Assist with the coordination of construction with City staff and regulatory or permitting agencies to resolve any conflicts or issues • Attend final walk through, and assist with punch list and final pay estimates to verify completion of all work • Review and perform an analysis of Change Order requests from the contractor and, if needed, help with Change Order negotiations • Certify work conforms to construction documents FISCAL IMPACT The following are the estimated project expenditures: Architectural Fees $160,325 Bid Amount $1,061,000 Turf and Equipment $732,099 15% Contingency $268,965 8-year Maintenance Plan $49,300 Legal Ads $2,079 Construction Manager $100,000 Total $2,373,768 Contract with Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. for Murray Field January 16, 2018 4 The available budget in the Parks and Tree Capital Improvement Program for the Murray Fields Renovations project is $2,373,000. Since the anticipated expenditures do not significantly exceed the budget, an adjustment is not needed at this time. Exhibits: • Resolution • Field Lining • Bid Summary • Agreement with Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. • Purchasing Agreement for Field Turf RESOLUTION NO.________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCURE FIELD TURF FIBER, PUREFULL, BROCK PAD, GROOMER/SWEEPER AND AN EIGHT-YEAR MAINTENACE PLAN; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING, INC. FOR THE MURRAY FIELD SYNTHETIC TURF PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has identified Murray Field as a candidate for the installation of synthetic turf in order to increase field space in the city; and WHEREAS, the City 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 Wednesday, November 29, 2017, Wednesday, December 20, and Tuesday, December 26 for bids for the Murray Field Synthetic Turf Project; and WHEREAS, on January 4, 2018, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Parks & Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive and responsible based bid for the project in the amount of $1,061,000; and WHEREAS, the Field Turf fiber, Purefill, Brock pad, groomer/sweeper and an eight- year maintenance plan can be purchased through a California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS) contract for $781,399. 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 Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted. 3. The bid from Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. in the amount of $1,061,000 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, Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. for the Murray Field Synthetic Turf Project, Project No. 84130, and 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. 5. The City shall purchase Field Turf fiber, Purefill, Brock pad, groomer/sweeper and an eight-year maintenance plan from Field Turf through a CMAS contract for $781,399. ___________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16th day of January, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk NORTH 0 10'20'40'60' Conceptual Design Murray Park and Sports Center Burlingame, CA EXISTING BLEACHER TO REMAIN $3352;,0$7(6($7&$3$&,7< 8' WIDE PATHWAY SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD 60 X 120 YARD UNIFIED LACROSSE FIELD 50 X 75 YARD SECONDARY SOCCER FIELD 75 X 120 YARD PRIMARY SOCCER FIELD 50 X 75 YARD SECONDARY SOCCER FIELD December 19, 2017 Project No: 1507700 Exhibit C City Project: 84130 Date: 1/4/18 Company Base Bid Add Alt 1 Add Alt 2 Add Alt 3 Total Signatures Page #1Sub-Contractors #2Experience Qual. #3Non-Collusion #4Public Code Statement #5Public Contract Code Questionnaire #6Public Contract Code 10232 Statement #7Bid Sheet #8Required Documents Page #9Proposal Security #101 Granite Rock Company $1,300,792 $18,500 $99,500 $105,945 $1,524,737 x x x x x x x x x x 2 Galeb Paving, Inc.$1,465,000 $110,000 $93,000 $20,000 $1,688,000 x x x x x x x x x x 3 O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc.$1,210,000 $86,000 $96,000 $14,000 $1,406,000 x x x x x x x x x x 4 GoodLand Landscape Construction, Inc.$1,300,000 $20,000 $90,000 $106,000 $1,516,000 x x x x x x x x x x 5 Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc.$1,061,000 $8,600 $50,000 $65,000 $1,184,600 x x x x x x x x x x Bid Summary Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department Murray Field Synthetic Turf Project Time: 2:00pm AGREEMENT - 1 AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT MURRAY FIELD SYNTHETIC TURF PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 84130 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on _____________ , 2018 by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc., a Corporation or other form of business, 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 January 4, 2018; 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 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: MURRAY FIELD SYNTHETIC TURF PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 84130. 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; AGREEMENT - 2 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 “Murray Field Synthetic Turf Project, City Project No. 84130” 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 One Million and Sixty-one Thousand dollars ($1,061,000), 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, AGREEMENT - 3 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: Margaret Glomstad Parks and Recreation Director City of Burlingame 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 AGREEMENT - 4 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: Name Company Name Address 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. 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 - 5 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 ATTEST: __ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk "CONTRACTOR" By: Print Name: Company Name: 7445 Côte-de-Liesse Road Suite 200, Montreal, QC, Canada H4T 1G2 • Toll Free: 1-800-724-2969 • Website: http://www.fieldturf.com CMAS QUOTATION CA LICENSE # 849044 This QUOTATION is dated this 18th day of December 2017. Between: Murray Soccer Park (The “Customer”) 250 Anza Blvd Burlingame, CA 94010 And: FieldTurf USA, Inc. (The “Supplier”) 7445 Côte-de-Liesse Road, Suite 200 Montreal, Quebec H4T 1G2 Tel: (514) 340-9311 Fax: (514) 340-9374 WHEREAS Supplier wishes to sell, supply and install an artificial in-filled playing surface identified as FieldTurf Vertex Prime 2” Purefill for use as an outdoor field measuring approximately 100,631 sq ft. to the Customer located at Murray Soccer Park located at 250 Anza Blvd. Burlingame, CA 94010. WHEREAS the Customer wishes to purchase same on the preliminary terms and conditions set out below; QUOTATION / ESTIMATE DETAILS: THE PRODUCT The Supplier hereby agrees to sell, to supply and to install FieldTurf Vertex Prime 2” Purefill, 2 inches thick outdoor artificial grass in-filled playing surface for use as a Soccer/Lacrosse/Baseball/Softball field measuring approximately 100,631 sq. ft. (the “Product”) to be installed on a suitable existing base at the Site. SUPPLY OF PRODUCT The Supplier shall perform the work required by this Agreement as diligently and expeditiously as is consistent with the highest professional standards and the orderly progress of the work and in a good and workmanlike fashion, and subject to and in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof. The Supplier requires a minimum of 6 weeks lead time from the acceptance of layouts and approval of all plans prior to any work commencing at the Site. 7445 Côte-de-Liesse Road Suite 200, Montreal, QC, Canada H4T 1G2 • Toll Free: 1-800-724-2969 • Website: http://www.fieldturf.com SITE PREPARATION WORK The Supplier shall provide the site preparation work (limited to minor touch-ups of the base surface) in accordance with the specifications provided in this Letter of Commitment. The site preparation work will be subject to the same conditions and requirements indicated in Section 7 “Installation” hereof. Notwithstanding, any work regarding the base and ensuring its planarity is specifically excluded from the Supplier’s scope of work. On occasion, a base will present unique issues, once uncovered upon removal of the existing turf, which may require the import of additional materials and/or the provision of labor to remedy planarity or other deflections in the existing surface. In the event this becomes necessary at the Site, FieldTurf can assist with this process at an additional cost. PRICE The purchase price for the Product fully installed shall be $732,099 (the “Purchase Price”), as set out below, plus any other permanent inlaid lines, logos, applicable taxes, bonding cost and any other unforeseen costs. The Purchase Price is subject to increase if affected by a tax increase, new taxes, and levies or any new legally binding imposition affecting the transaction. A 2 Inch, FieldTurf Vertex Prime (FTVTP-2) Purefill series turf: Cost per square foot (approximately) $4.60/SF Sub Total: $462,516 Supply and Install of Brock YSR and Liner $209,312 Inlaid soccer markings INCLUDED Inlaid unified lacrosse markings INCLUDED Maintenance Equipment (GroomRight and SweepRight) $6,000 8 year 3rd Party Insured Warranty INCLUDED Gmax testing (5 total) $7,500 CMAS Fees INCLUDED Bonding Costs $8,144 Sales Tax on materials only (8.75%) $ 38,627 Total Contract Cost $732,099 7445 Côte-de-Liesse Road Suite 200, Montreal, QC, Canada H4T 1G2 • Toll Free: 1-800-724-2969 • Website: http://www.fieldturf.com Voluntary Alternate: 5-year Maintenance Program (7 total visits over the 5 year period) *Each visit includes an advanced care cleaning and application of anti-static spray. ADD$ 27,100 8-year Maintenance Program (13 total visits over the 8 year period) *Each visit includes an advanced care cleaning and application of anti-static spray. ADD$ 49,300 The Purchase Price shall be payable to Supplier by way of wire transfer or banker’s cheque in accordance with the following payment schedule: i) Thirty five percent (35%) of the Purchase Price due upon Customer’s execution of the Supplier’s Sales Agreement; ii) Thirty-five percent (35%) of the Purchase Price on delivery and receipt of the components of the Product to the Site; iii) Twenty percent (20%) of the Purchase Price upon completion of the work; iv) Remaining balance ten percent (10%) upon the signing of the Certificate of Completion. The Supplier will issue an invoice to Customer upon the occurrence of each of the events listed above, and payment of each invoice is due within 10 days following the date to the applicable invoice. Any unpaid balance bears interest at a rate of 10% per year. ACCEPTANCE Upon the Supplier giving the Customer notice of completion of the work, the parties agree, acting reasonably, to mutually determine whether same conforms to the requirements of this Agreement and in the event the parties mutually determine that there are deficiencies, the Supplier will undertake to correct the deficiencies noted (“Acceptance”); Upon Acceptance both parties sign the Certificate of Completion in the form currently in force; The Warranty currently in force takes effect upon the signing of the Certificate of Completion. 7445 Côte-de-Liesse Road Suite 200, Montreal, QC, Canada H4T 1G2 • Toll Free: 1-800-724-2969 • Website: http://www.fieldturf.com No use whatsoever shall be made of the field by the Customer until the Certificate of Completion is signed and delivered to Supplier. Any such use will be deemed as Acceptance of the field, triggering final payment and will automatically void any and all warranty of the work, subject to the reinstatement of the Warranty later at the discretion of the Supplier upon the signing of the Certificate of Completion and final payment. The Customer shall prohibit use of the field if the Customer alleges said field to be incomplete or dangerous. For greater security, in the event that the Customer deems the field to be incomplete or dangerous the Customer will immediately notify its insurers of this additional risk. INSTALLATION The installation of the Product shall be performed by Supplier’s designated and approved installers. The Customer agrees to allow representatives of Supplier all necessary uninterrupted access and suitable staging area to the site for purposes of installation, and inspection. All lighting and electrical supply must be operational during the installation process. Minimum staging area required is 10,300 square feet and no more than 100 feet from the field. Minimum access should be 15 feet wide by 15 feet high. A 25 feet wide by 25 feet long hard or paved surface area located within 50 feet of the playing surface shall be provided for purposes of proper mixing of in-fill material. Access to any field will include suitable bridging by the Customer over the field curbs from the staging area to permit suitable access to the field by low clearance vehicles. Force Majeure. No Party shall be liable for delay or failure to perform under this Agreement if such delay or failure is due to any contingency beyond its reasonable control, including acts of God, war, explosion, fire, flood or civil disturbance or labor actions, disputes and disruptions by the employees or sub-trades of either Party hereto or delay or destruction caused by public carrier. In addition to force majeure, the parties recognize that in certain cases severe weather while not constituting force majeure could delay the installation process of the work contemplated under this agreement. The Supplier shall not be responsible for any acts of violence or vandalism. The Customer holds Supplier harmless and indemnifies the Supplier from vandalism and acts of violence regarding the present project. The Customer understands that it is to its benefit and therefore undertakes to accept and store for the length of the warranty period, the remaining synthetic turf left over from the project in case of need. 7445 Côte-de-Liesse Road Suite 200, Montreal, QC, Canada H4T 1G2 • Toll Free: 1-800-724-2969 • Website: http://www.fieldturf.com THIS QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SUPPLIER’S STANDARD SALES AGREEMENT WHICH SHALL PREVAIL OVER THIS QUOTATION, AND BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE FROM TIME TO TIME. THIS QUOTATION IS OPEN FOR ACCEPTANCE FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS, AFTER WHICH TIME, IF NOT ACCEPTED, IT WILL BE NULL AND VOID. FOR QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR FIELDTURF REPRESENTATIVE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; ANDREW ROWLEY BY TELEPHONE (707) 586-2066, EMAIL INFO@FIELDTURFNORCAL.COM , OR FAX (707) 313-0167. ACCEPTED QUOTATIONS, DULY SIGNED SHALL BE SENT TO: 1- DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES (DGS), PROCUREMENT DIVISION, DATA MANAGEMENT, 707 THIRD STREET, 2ND FLOOR, WEST SACREMENTO, CALIFORNIA, 95605-2811 (IMS#Z-1). AND 2- FIELDTURF USA, INC. 7445 COTE-DE-LIESSE ROAD, SUITE 200, MONTREAL, QUEBEC, H4T 1G2, TELEPHONE (514) 340-9311, FAX (514) 340 9374 ATTENTION: LINDSAY AGATTAS, PRICING AND PROJECT MANAGER. READ, AGREED, AND ACCEPTED Per:____________________________________ 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Wilsey Ham for the South El Camino Real Water Main Improvements, City Project No. 84890, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a professional services agreement with Wilsey Ham for engineering design services related to the South El Camino Real Water Main Improvements in the amount of $298,917 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND The Water System Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has identified areas along El Camino Real as the next high priority locations to replace aging potable water mains. The areas include El Camino Real between Sanchez and Barroilhet Avenue, and adjacent subdivisions such as Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Park No. 2, 3, and 4, Glenwood Park, and Burlingame Heights Subdivisions. The existing 4‐inch, 6‐inch, 8‐inch and 12‐inch cast iron water mains in these areas were installed nearly 100 years ago and have served their intended service life. This project will focus on improvements along El Camino Real between Sanchez Avenue and Barroilhet Avenue. The South El Camino Real Water Main Improvements project will replace approximately 5,300 linear feet of 4‐inch, 6‐inch, and 8‐inch cast iron pipes with new 8-inch polyvinyl chloride and ductile iron pipes. The project will improve water pressure, volume, and reliability as well as improve fire protection capabilities for the affected areas. DISCUSSION On August 15, 2017, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to a list of qualified engineering firms seeking professional services associated with El Camino Real water main improvements. The City received eight proposals from qualified firms. After a comprehensive review and ranking of the proposals, the consulting firm of Wilsey Ham was selected as the top ranking firm for this phase of the work because of their understanding of the overall project, project approach, and quality of proposal. Staff negotiated the scope of professional services for the project with Wilsey Ham in the amount of $298,917. The following is a brief outline of the scope of professional Agreement with Wilsey Ham for the South El Camino Real Water Main Improvements Project January 16, 2018 2 design services, which is described in detail in Exhibit A of the attached Professional Services Agreement: • Perform pre-design investigation including field surveying, potholing, and utility location to prepare project base map. • Prepare 50% design submittal including preliminary pipeline alignments, construction details, draft specifications, and preliminary engineer’s estimate. • Prepare 90% design submittal including coordination with the City, updating pipeline plans to 90% completion, preparing a draft bid package, and updating the engineer’s estimate. • Coordinate with utility companies and agencies such as Caltrans, City of San Mateo, and SFPUC. Prepare 95% design submittal for Caltrans Encroachment Permit. • Complete and submit 100% design including addressing City comments; finalizing specifications; finalizing cost estimate; completing 100% contract documents; and performing a quality assurance and quality control review of the contract documents. • Provide bidding assistance including attending a pre-bid meeting, answering contractor questions and preparing addenda. • Perform project management functions, including attending meetings, site visits, and agency coordination. The project construction is anticipated to begin in spring of 2019 and be completed by the end of 2019. FISCAL IMPACT The following are the estimated costs relative to the project development: Consultant Design Services $ 298,917 Contingency (15%) $44,838 Engineering Design & Administration $46,245 Total $390,000 There are adequate funds available in the FY2017-18 Water Capital Improvement Program to complete the design of the project. Exhibits: • Resolution • Professional Services Agreement • Project Location Map RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILSEY HAM FOR THE SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT CITY PROJECT NO. 84890 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California which FINDS, ORDERS and DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager is authorized to sign said agreement on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is instructed to attest such signature. _____________________________ Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16TH day of January, 2018 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _____________________________ City Clerk November 3, 2017 Mr. Kevin Okada, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Proposal for Professional Engineering Design Services for South El Camino Real Area Water Main Improvements - City Project 84890 Dear Mr. Okada, On behalf of Wilsey Ham, I am pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Burlingame for design of the water main projects referenced above. We are confident that we have a very good understanding of the scope of work and have a proposed project approach that is cost effective while providing the essential information to minimize change orders. Wilsey Ham has an experienced and responsive staff that will provide a high quality of service to the City. Proposed Design Team I will serve as the Supervising Engineer for our project team, providing input on design issues and playing a major role in the quality control reviews. I have the ultimate responsibility to the City to ensure that the City is happy with our services and work products. Cameron Leitch will serve as our Project Manager/Project Engineer. In this capacity, he will guide all of the day-to-day aspects of the project. As the Project Engineer for the Rollins Road Utility Replacement Project, he has a very good understanding of the City’s design standards and project development process. Cameron will be our primary contact with the City. Corvell Sparks is proposed as our Assistant Project Engineer, supporting the design and preparation of the construction drawings and bid documents. Corvell is the Assistant Project Engineer on the Shoreland Subdivision Water Main Improvement Project. Ron Cameron will direct all of our survey and mapping efforts. In this capacity, he will work closely with our Engineering Department to ensure that the base sheets have all of the necessary information for an accurate design. Project Understanding The City has issued an RFP for the design of Water Main Improvements along El Camino Real from Sanchez Avenue to Barroilhet Avenue and within the Glenwood Park, Burlingame Heights, Burlingame Terrace and Burlingame Park Subdivisions; totaling almost five miles of roadway. The project is programmed to be designed and constructed in four phases over four years with the first design completion in FY 2018-2019. The construction of improvements may be extended into future years if there is not sufficient budget to construct all of the improvements in the program year. November 3, 2017 Kevin Okada, P.E. Page 2 We understand that the total capital funds allocated for annual water projects is $2.75M, although the available budget is often reduced after emergency projects, administrative and other costs are expended. We know that the City needs to maximize the water improvements that are constructed each year within the available budget. To help achieve this objective, it will be important to develop a straightforward design that is easily constructed with minimal construction change orders. These objectives form the foundation of our proposed project approach. To better understand the scope of the project, we have walked the full length of each street to observe and photograph the site conditions. We have also reviewed the City’s GIS maps showing the approximate water, sewer and storm drain locations. From our observations, we have identified some design constraints in each phase of the project that will need to be properly addressed to achieve a successful project. Our staff has also prepared a preliminary layout for the new water mains in each project phase to assist us in developing our scope of work and to illustrate our initial design thoughts. A summary of our observations and comments on the alignments are shown below. The alignments are included at the end of this proposal for your information. The alignments will need to be adjusted once the utility locations are surveyed and we have a more accurate understanding of the site constraints. Phase 1 - El Camino (5,300 LF) El Camino Real (CA-82) is a heavily traveled four-lane road with a posted speed limit of 35mph. This phase will replace 5300 linear feet of twin water lines on two segments of El Camino, from Sanchez Ave. to Burlingame Ave. on the West end and from Howard Ave. to Barroilhet Ave. on the East end. Large trees flank the roadway and overhead utilities line the south side of the road. Apartments and commercial uses predominantly bound the road on each side. The existing water mains are predominantly located on both edges of the roadway serving each side of the street individually. When the new main is installed and connected to the existing water services, the services will need to cross the old main while it is still in service (similar to the southeasterly side of the previous Burlingame Avenue project). We envision using a similar detail to make this connection as previously coordinated with the Water Department. For the most part, storm drainage is collected into drainage facilities that are transverse to the road. However, City base mapping does show sanitary sewer facilities along most of the project with instances of a sewer main on each side of the road (twin system). A fiber optic bank runs the full length of the project toward the middle of roadway as evidenced by the repeating pattern of four manhole clusters. The intersections of El Camino and Peninsula, Cypress, Howard, Burlingame, Chapin, Floribunda, Oak Grove and Sanchez are all signalized and trenching for the new mains will likely require replacement of the signal loops. Since this is all State right-of-way, we intend to reach out to Caltrans early in the design process to collect their record information and coordinate any design issues that may arise with their November 3, 2017 Kevin Okada, P.E. Page 3 facilities. Caltrans' preference is for utilities serving each side of a conventional highway to be split into parallel systems and for those systems to be located as close to the right-of-way line as possible. Alternative configurations will need sound justification and may require some negotiation. In addition, the project will need to be completed under an encroachment permit (including any preliminary engineering investigations). Caltrans may require right-of-way certification and/or utility certification before a permit will be issued (see Alternate Task A on page 10). Based on our recent Encroachment Permit experience, the Contractor will provide traffic control plans reflecting his planned operations and traffic control plans are not anticipated to be a necessary part of the PS&E package delivered to the City. Preliminary Alignment Thoughts In light of the all of the above, this first phase may be the most complicated. Developing a strategy to interface the future work with that of Phase 1 without reinitiating or prolonging the disturbance to traffic and the surrounding residences and businesses will be key to the overall success of the project. This includes carrying the preliminary mapping and design work at the phase interfaces a modest distance into the future phases. The City has an expressed desire to combine the replacement lines into a single main whenever possible. This is an efficient and cost effective approach that reduces future maintenance and the timeline for construction. However, this may require some back and forth discussion with Caltrans and, since a permit is required from them, it might be wise to have a backup alternative for an optimized parallel system ready to go should they push back. The scope and fee of this proposal is based on the City's desire for a single main with limited segments (10% of project street length) of parallel main. If Caltrans' preference for parallel main prevails, additional scope and fee will need to be negotiated to accommodate the design of the additional length of water El Camino Real -Fiber duct in roadway November 3, 2017 Kevin Okada, P.E. Page 4 main. To reduce cost, our approach includes no meetings for Wilsey Ham at Caltrans District 4 and limited interaction directly with Caltrans based on the understanding that the City will lead and perform the majority of Caltrans coordination and negotiation efforts. On the attached sheets, we have shown an alignment within the northern half of the roadway for a single new line between the fiber bank and the existing water. In this area, the existing sewer appears to be less frequent and the trees appear to be fewer and smaller, meaning root conflicts could be less. However, closer to the curb and in the sidewalk zone roots appear to be an issue. Given the volume of traffic on El Camino, the alignment described above will allow for two-way traffic on the north side of the road and we envision that construction would occur in limited lengths in order to minimize traffic impacts. We recommend that the water main connections to the adjacent streets be designed and constructed during Phase 1 so there is no need to affect the traveled way of El Camino or Caltrans permitting required after Phase 1 is complete. Phase 2 - Burlingame Heights and Burlingame Park Subdivisions (6,300 LF) Phase 2 covers an area with several short street segments bounded by the City of Hillsborough, the City of San Mateo and Occidental Ave. All of the streets in this area are tree lined and the residential properties are upscale. Electric service to this area appears to be predominantly from overhead electric lines. Remnants of utility markings indicate a large San Francisco Water District (SFPUC) water line on Occidental and Pepper that will need to be carefully located by the utility location contractor to determine the extent that these lines may impact the future water main alignment. Preliminary Alignment Thoughts The best alignments for the new main on Pepper and Occidental appear to be on the opposite side of the street from the SFPUC mains. The alignment of the new City water main will need to be sufficiently far away to provide continued protection/support of the existing 60" mains during the trenching of the new line. On Ralston, staying to the north along the existing water line and staying east of the existing water main on Chapin appears to provide sufficient clearance to the sanitary sewer. Looking down Elm on border of Hillsborough. November 3, 2017 Kevin Okada, P.E. Page 5 Along Barroilhet and Elm, staying to the north and west respectively minimizes the encroachment into San Mateo and Hillsborough, although the need for early and detailed coordination with these two cities is important in developing a final location. Phase 3 - Glenwood Park Subdivision and Neighborhood (6,720 LF) The third phase of improvements is a triangular area bounded by El Camino, Occidental and Barroilhet. Electric distribution is overhead and City GIS shows most of the drainage occurs on the ground surface with minimal underground drainage improvements providing more room for a new water line. The streets are fairly wide with on-street parking on each side of the road. Preliminary Alignment Thoughts Our initial thoughts on the alignment locations are generally near the existing water mains or on the opposite side of the road depending upon the curvature of the road and the alignment of the sewer. Some additional investigation on Ralston will be needed to confirm the alignment as the field conditions seem to be different from the schematic system maps, particularly at the intersection with Crescent. Phase 4 - Burlingame Terrace and Burlingame Park Subdivisions (6,600 LF) The 60" SFPUC water line from Phase 2 extends into this Phase along Walnut Ave, presenting similar issues for alignment. Willow Ave. and Arc W ay are significantly more congested with underground utilities than the other streets in Phase 4 and again, other areas handle storm water at the ground surface. Two of the subject streets (Paloma and Fairfield) are adjacent to McKinley Elementary School. Our field review of the area coincided with the end of the school Howard Ave. - Existing markings show alignment along gutter November 3, 2017 Kevin Okada, P.E. Page 6 day and we noted increased traffic, lack of parking and heavy pedestrian usage. Coordination of construction with the school calendar will be an important aspect of this phase. Preliminary Alignment Thoughts On most streets, we have preliminarily aligned the new water on the opposite side of the road from the existing water to provide separation from the sewer. Additionally, the alignment may be better on the south side of the street along Walnut to avoid the 60" SFPUC line and to avoid the drip-lines of the existing trees along the existing waterline alignment. All new alignments discussed above are contingent upon the location of PG&E gas facilities and the accurate location of all utilities. Project Approach and Scope of Services In light of our project understanding, the RFP requirements and our site observations, Wilsey Ham proposes the following Project Approach and detailed Scope of Services for each task. Please note the numbering of these tasks pertains to the numbering of the four phases shown in our fee estimate. Tasks 1, 8, 15 & 22 - Pre-Design Investigation – Survey, Utility Locates, Potholing, Base Mapping The surveys to prepare the base mapping will be prepared by ground surveys due to the tree canopies and need to pick up utility markings. The ground surveys will be performed after the utility locator marks the utility locations for water, gas, electric and communications. Sewer and storm drain manholes will be located and dipped to verify the invert elevations. To minimize costs, the surveyors will shoot the curbs, pavement crown elevations, edge of sidewalk and all Walnut Ave-City main aligned in park strip under tree drip-line. SFPUC 60" in parking zone. November 3, 2017 Kevin Okada, P.E. Page 7 visible utility structures and markings. Driveways will be approximately shown for reference using Google Earth imagery and field observations and coordination with tree locations will be field coordinated by our engineering staff. All potholing will be performed during the 90% design phase, after the City has approved the proposed water main alignments and pothole plan. We have also included a 10-day supplemental survey budget to be used during the 90% Phase to collect potholes and to obtain additional/supplemental information that may be needed as the design evolves. The scope of work in this task is detailed below along with our assumptions. 1. Attend a project kickoff meeting at City Hall. 2. Perform records research and collect record utility maps 3. Perform a survey traverse using GPS, install control points. Reduce data and compute control. 4. Perform utility location and mark streets for gas, electric, communications and water. Dedicated traffic control is included for work on El Camino. 5. Perform topographic surveys and base mapping at 1” = 20” using ground surveys. The base maps will be planimetric on 24” x 36” sheets. Dedicated traffic control is included for work on El Camino. 6. Add approximate right of way lines to mapping from Record information. 7. Add topography and utility locates to create base maps. 8. Preform Quality Control/Quality Assurance review. 9. Pothole utilities at potential conflict areas per the approved potholing plan during the 90% design stage. We have assumed a budget of 6 days of potholing on El Camino (approximately 30 potholes) with an additional 5 days for hot patch repair of the asphalt paving. In the other phases, we have assumed 4 days of potholing (approximately 24 potholes) per phase with cold patch asphalt to be performed on the same day. 10. Perform supplemental topographic survey (at 90% design stage) to pick up utility potholes and design information. Deliverable: Project topographic base map Tasks 2, 9, 16 & 23 - 35% Plans, Specifications and Estimate We will focus on determining the best alignment of the new water mains during this task. Many factors will influence our recommendation including avoidance of conflicts with existing utility facilities, simplicity of layout, minimization of costs, and constructability. If there are alignment options, we will show them both for the City’s consideration. Since El Camino Real is a conventional State highway, Caltrans buy-in on the proposed replacement pipe alignment will be needed. A cost estimate will be prepared to get an early idea if the entire extent of the main can be constructed within the City’s budget. A phasing plan will be prepared with recommended limits of improvements that can be constructed within the budget. The rationale for our recommendation will be summarized in a Basis of Design memorandum as well as any design constraints that are identified. The scope of work in this task is detailed below. 1. Layout horizontal locations of water mains and main connection stubs to side streets on the topographic base sheets. November 3, 2017 Kevin Okada, P.E. Page 8 2. Perform a site visit to review site conditions with City Engineering and Maintenance Staff. 3. Prepare a project title sheet. 4. Prepare a preliminary construction cost estimate. 5. Prepare Phasing plan. 6. Prepare a Basis of Design memorandum which describes the recommended alignment, design issues and constraints, the preliminary construction cost estimate and initial thoughts on phasing if the estimate exceeds the budget. 7. Submit the 35% plans, estimate and Basis of Design Memorandum package to City for their review and approval. 8. Attend a meeting with the City to discuss their comments and required revisions. 9. Meet with Caltrans to obtain buy-in on El Camino Real Alignment. Two meetings at District 4 in Oakland are assumed. 10. Revise and resubmit the plans and BOD to reflect the approved approach. Deliverables: 2 sets of 35% Plans, estimate and Basis of Design Report Tasks 3, 10, 17, & 24 - 50% Plans, Specifications and Estimate This task involves the advancement of the plans, specifications and estimate in the phases described above. A potholing plan will be proposed to accompany the 50% PS&E submittal so that we can identify any conflicts early in the 90% design phase before the expending too much budget. We will perform an initial quality control review during this phase to make sure the plans and specifications are well coordinated. The scope of work in this task is detailed below. 1. Prepare plan view sheets. 2. Perform a site visit to review design issues. 3. Coordinate with outside utility companies and Caltrans/Hillsborough/San Mateo. Send initial letter introducing the project with plan set identifying issues. 4. Develop the title sheet and notes sheet. 5. Prepare detail sheets. 6. Update the construction cost estimate and make phasing modifications in the event that the estimated project cost exceeds the budget. 7. Prepare list of technical specifications based on the City’s standard water specifications. 8. Attend a design coordination meeting as needed. 9. Prepare pothole plan. 10. Perform a quality control review and make associated revisions. 11. Submit the 50% plans, specifications and estimate package to City for their review. 12. Attend a meeting with the City to discuss their comments and desired revisions. Deliverables: 2 sets of the 50% Plans, specifications, estimate and pothole plan Tasks 4, 11, 18 & 25 - 90% Plans, Specifications and Estimate This task involves the development of the plans, specifications and estimate with all of the information needed to construct the project. All design issues will be resolved and utility conflicts will be checked by potholing. The estimate will be detailed with individual bid items to provide November 3, 2017 Kevin Okada, P.E. Page 9 the City with the flexibility during construction to make changes as desired while paying for only competitively bid unit prices. We will perform an internal quality control review during this phase to make sure the plans and specifications are well coordinated. The scope of work in this task is detailed below. 1. Incorporate 50% Design Comments from City. 2. Advance design to 90% level of completion. 3. Pothole utilities and finalize Pothole plan with results. 4. Prepare profile views including the locations of new lateral connections. 5. Site visits as needed to review design issues (3 assumed). 6. Coordinate with utility companies and Caltrans/Hillsborough/San Mateo. 7. Update the construction cost estimate. 8. Prepare technical specifications based on the City’s standard water specifications. 9. Attend a design coordination meeting as needed. 10. Perform a quality control review and make revisions as necessary. 11. Submit the 90% plans, specifications and estimate package to City for their review. 12. Attend a meeting with the City to discuss their comments and desired revisions. Deliverables: 2 sets of the 90% Plans, specifications, estimate and Final Pothole Plan Tasks 5, 12, 19 & 26 - 95% Plans, Specifications and Estimate The scope of work in this task is: 1. Incorporate 90% Design Comments from City. 2. Advance design to 95% level of completion. 3. Site visits as needed to review design issues (2 assumed). 4. Coordinate with utility companies and Caltrans/Hillsborough/San Mateo. 5. Update the construction cost estimate/phasing. Prepare bid schedule. 6. Update technical specifications. 7. Attend a design coordination meeting as needed. 8. Prepare bid package including Invitation, General and Special Provisions. 9. Perform a quality control review and make revisions as necessary. 10. Submit the 95% plans, specifications and estimate package to City for their review. 11. Attend a meeting with the City to discuss their comments and desired revisions. Deliverables: 2 sets of the 95% Plans, specifications, and estimate Tasks 6, 13, 20 & 27 - 100% Plans, Specifications and Estimate This task will focus on incorporating the City’s review comments on the 95% complete bid set, and performing our final quality control review. The package will be bid ready after completion of this task. The scope of work in this task is detailed below. 1. Perform the final revisions to the plans, specifications and estimate to address the City’s review comments and perform final quality control review. 2. Re-submit final package to City for approval. 3. Attend a meeting with the City to discuss and final comments and make those revisions. November 3, 2017 Kevin Okada, P.E. Page 10 Deliverables: 2 sets of the 100% Plans, specifications, estimate and bid package for review, and one final hard copy and digital set of plans, specifications and estimate for reproduction of the bid sets Tasks 7, 14, 21 & 28 - Bid Services Wilsey Ham will provide assistance during the bidding process to ensure that questions from contractors are answered. If changes or additional information is necessary as a result of contractor inquiries, bid addenda will be issued as required to clarify the design intent. The scope of work in this task is detailed below. 1. Attend the pre-bid meeting and answer contractor questions. 2. Respond to contractor Question's & issue bid addenda as necessary. Deliverables: Bid addenda as necessary Alternate Task A - Utility & ROW Certification This task includes a budget for utility and right of way certification if required during the Caltrans Encroachment permit process. Utility certification activities will be in accordance with the Caltrans Right of Way Manual, as applicable. This coordination assumes that our utility coordinator will prepare and submit 'A', 'B', and 'C' Utility letters and coordinate utility adjustments. Right-of-way Certification will be per Caltrans Right of Way Manual, Chapter 14. Contract Agreement We have reviewed the City’s Contract Agreement and are willing to accept its terms and conditions. Project Schedule and Staffing Resources For the Preliminary engineering work (Tasks 1 and 2), we have anticipated based on discussion with the City that we will receive a Notice to Proceed to start design in early January, 2018. With that start date, and anticipating significant lead time for base mapping, preliminary engineering, coordinating with Caltrans, SFPUC, Utility agencies and the Cities of Hillsborough and San Mateo, we propose that the project can be built beginning in the Summer of 2019. Since our design contract would already be in place, the subsequent Phases would begin design in the Summers of 2019, 2020 and 2021 respectively, with construction beginning in the summer of the following year as funds become available. These schedules are shown in the table on the next page. We are confident that we can meet the schedule requested by the City, and we make our commitment to the City to achieve these schedules. We also are happy to work with the City to adjust any of these schedules to meet the City’s needs, as we have done on past projects. We also commit to the City that we will provide the project staffing resources necessary to stay on schedule. We highly value the City of Burlingame as one of our best clients and fully intend to maintain our proposed project team on these projects throughout the phases. November 3, 2017 Kevin Okada, P.E. Page 11 Preliminary Engineering - All Phases: January 2018 - August 2018 Phase 1 El Camino Real: Design September 2018 - May 2019 Construction July 2019 - December 2020 Phase 2 Burlingame Heights & Burlingame Park: Design July 2019 - March 2020 Construction July 2020 - December 2020 Phase 3 Glenwood Park & Neighborhood: Design July 2020 - March 2021 Construction July 2021 - December 2021 Phase 4 Burlingame Terrace & Burlingame Park: Design July 2021 - March 2022 Construction July 2022 - December 2022 Assumptions and Exclusions The following assumptions and exclusions were made in the preparation of this proposal in effort to define our scope of work. 1. The RFP identified the required diameter for each new water main, so we understand that water system modeling is not required in our scope of work. 2. The desired pipe material is specified as either PVC or ductile iron. From our experience working on City water projects, we are familiar with the typical applications for each pipe material and the standard corrosion protection measures implemented by the City when ductile iron pipe is used. Therefore, we have not included any services for corrosion investigations or design. 3. We have included a reasonable amount of potholing budget for each project. If through the design process it is agreed by the City that additional potholing should be conducted, additional fees will be required. 4. Only those tasks specifically described herein are included in this proposal. Any other requested work will be performed on a time and materials basis. Fee and Schedule Wilsey Ham's fee for the Scope of Services described above has been detailed and summarized in our fee estimate spreadsheets contained in a separate envelope. Our fees will be charged on a time and materials basis in accordance with the attached Charge Rate Fee Schedule and the City’s contract provisions. We will not exceed this amount without your prior authorization. Work is proposed to be completed in accordance with the attached schedules. The included fees have been calculated using our current fee schedule. Since the project is anticipated to be performed in phases over multiple years, we propose a charge rate fee escalation of 3% per year for the phases of work performed beyond 2017. As we have done with previous projects for the City of Burlingame this escalation would occur with the authorization of each phase of work. November 3, 2017 Kevin Okada, P.E. Page 12 Authorization You may authorize Wilsey Ham to proceed in accordance with this proposal and the City of Burlingame's Contract Provisions by returning a City standard contract for my signature. Work will commence upon receipt of a City purchase order and a Notice to Proceed. We appreciate the opportunity to participate on your project. Very truly yours, WILSEY HAM A California Corporation Brandon Davis Supervising Engineer RCE: C61024 Attached: Fee Estimate 2017 Charge Rate Fee Schedule Preliminary Alignment Layouts 1REIM-TOTALTOTALSUB-BURSABLEWHTOTALWH LABORTASK DESCRIPTION$215 HRS $200 HRS $190 HRS $160 HRS $136 HRS $140 HRS $235 HRS CONSULTANTS EXPENSES LABOR $ ALL $ HOURS1. Pre-Design Investigation (Phase 1)Survey, Utility Locates, Potholing, Base Mapping1Kick-off860480046404502,3002,350122Records Research and Utility Maps20011,920122,1202,120133Control Surveys2151380284061,88081203,3153,435174Utility Mark-out (with Traffic Control on El Camino) by AGS320234,50032034,82025Topographic Surveys (with Traffic Control on El Camino)1,72081,52081,6801215,0406410,80096019,96031,720926Approximate Right-of-way from Record430276041,680122,8702,870187Base-mapping95056,720487,6707,670538QA/QC4302200138021,0101,01059Potholing (at 90%-with Traffic Control on El Camino) by Exaro2001320249,87652050,396310Supplemental Survey - 2 days (at 90%)190116013,760163,6002404,1107,950183,655171,40074,180223,3602110,9207820,6808898,7761,37044,195144,3412332.35% Plans and Estimate (Phase 1)1Layout Water Mains80043,200202,176166,1766,176402Site Vist96068166501,7761,826123Title Sheet16011361140143643634Preliminary Estimate200164041,08881,9281,928135Preliminary Phasing Plan20013202272228021,0721,07276Basis of Design Memo20013202272279279257Submit20013202272279279258Meet with City600348031,0801,08069Revise/Resubmit Plans, Estimate and BOD400296061,360102,7202,7201810QA/QC21514002615615321513,000157,360466,3924742035017,38717,4371123.50% PS&E (Phase 1)1Prepare Plan View Sheets (w/ Signal loops by RKH)40021,920123,264241,680125,8657,26413,129502Perform Site Visit to review design issues96068166251,7761,801123Coordinate Utilities/Caltrans/City of San Mateo80042,560163,3603,360204Develop Title Sheet and Notes1601280244044035Prepare Detail Sheets1,920121,680123,6003,600246Update Cost Estimate/Phasing200164041,088856042,4882,488177Specifications Listing1601272243243238Design Coordination Meeting600348031,0801,08069Prepare Pothole Plan20011,600101,12082,9202,9201910QA/QC Review215160039606816684063,4313,4312211Submit 50% PS&E w/ Pothole Plan20013202272228022001,0721,272712Meet with City60034803251,0801,105621513,6001812,160766,528486,440465,86525028,94335,0581894.90% PS&E (Phase 1)1Incorporate 50% Design Comments from City40021,600102,176161,12085,2965,296362Advance Design to 90% Level (w/ Signal loops by RKH)80043,200204,896364,480325,86513,37619,241923Finalize Potholing Plan3202544456041,4241,424104Prepare Profile Views1,920122,720201,12085,7605,760405Perform Site Visit to review design issues96068166501,7761,826126Coordinate Utilities/Caltrans/City of San Mateo80042,560163,3603,360207Update Cost Estimate/Phasing200164041,08881,12083,0483,048218Prepare Technical Specifications40021,28082,720204,4004,400309Design Coordination Meeting600348031,0801,080610QA/QC Review43021,20061,28081,08881,12085,1185,1183211Submit 90% PS&E w/ Pothole Plan20011601272228023009121,212612Meet with City60034803251,0801,105643025,2002614,8809316,3201209,800705,86537546,63052,8703115.95% PS&E (Phase 1)1Incorporate 90% Design Comments from City2001640481661,12082,7762,776192Advance Design to 95% Level (w/ Signal loops by RKH)80041,920122,176162,240162,3007,1369,436483Perform Site Visit to review design issues48038166251,2961,32194Coordinate Utilities/Caltrans/City of San Mateo400264041,0401,04065Update Cost Estimate/Bid Schedule/Phasing200164041,08881,12083,0483,048216Update Technical Specifications1,20061,920123,1203,120187Design Coordination Meeting600348031,0801,08068Prepare Bid Package40021,28081,08881,12083,8883,888269QA/QC Review43021,20061,28081,632121,12085,6625,6623610Submit 95% PS&E20013202272228024501,0721,522711Meet with City60034803251,0801,105643025,8002910,080637,888587,000502,30050031,19833,998202SubtotalSubtotalSubtotalSubtotalSubtotal11/3/2017SUPERVISINGENG/SURVENGINEERIIDESIGNER2 PERSONSURVEY CREWCity of BurlingameSouth El Camino Real Area Water Main Improvements - City Project 84890Fee ProposalASSISTANTENGINEERPRINCIPALENGR./SRVR.MANAGINGENGR./SRVR.SENIORCorvell BusingerJeff/Ken Brandon CameronRonPhase 1 - El Camino Real 1REIM-TOTALTOTALSUB-BURSABLEWHTOTALWH LABORTASK DESCRIPTION$215 HRS $200 HRS $190 HRS $160 HRS $136 HRS $140 HRS $235 HRS CONSULTANTS EXPENSES LABOR $ ALL $ HOURS11/3/2017SUPERVISINGENG/SURVENGINEERIIDESIGNER2 PERSONSURVEY CREWCity of BurlingameSouth El Camino Real Area Water Main Improvements - City Project 84890Fee ProposalASSISTANTENGINEERPRINCIPALENGR./SRVR.MANAGINGENGR./SRVR.SENIORCorvell BusingerJeff/Ken Brandon CameronRon6.100% PS&E (Phase 1)1Finalize PS&E to address comments (w/ Signal loops by RKH)80042,560162,720202,240161,1508,3209,470562Submit Final Package3202272228024508721,32263Meet with City/ finalize design4803408325888913680043,360213,400252,520181,15047510,08011,705687.Bid Services (Phase 1)1Attend Pre-bid Meeting60034803501,0801,13062Coordination and Addenda600364041,0888502,3282,378151,20061,12071,08881003,4083,50821Subtotal Phase 14,9452321,0001054,1802252,32032741,61630637,10026520,68088113,9563,120181,841298,9171,1368. Pre-Design Investigation (Phase 2)Survey, Utility Locates, Potholing, Base Mapping1Kick-off860480046404502,3002,350122Records Research and Utility Maps20011,920122,1202,120133Control Surveys430276041,12083,760162406,0706,310304Utility Mark-out by AGS320217,25032017,57025Topographic Surveys43021,52081,6801215,0406496018,67019,630866Approximate Right-of-way from Record430276041,400102,5902,590167Base-mapping76046,720487,4807,480528QA/QC4302200138021,0101,01059Potholing by Exaro2001320215,69852016,218310Supplemental Survey - 2 days (at 90%)190116013,760162404,1104,350182,580121,40074,370233,3602110,9207822,5609632,9481,49045,19079,6282379.35% Plans and Estimate (Phase 2)1Layout Water Mains80043,200202,448186,4486,448422Site Vist96068166501,7761,826123Title Sheet16011361140143643634Preliminary Estimate200164041,360102,2002,200155Preliminary Phasing Plan20013202272228021,0721,07276Basis of Design Memo20013202272279279257Submit20013202272279279258Meet with City600348031,0801,08069Revise/Resubmit Plans, Estimate and BOD400296061,360102,7202,7201810QA/QC21514002615615321513,000157,360466,9365142035017,93117,98111610.50% PS&E (Phase 2)1Prepare Plan View Sheets40022,560163,264242,240168,4648,464582Perform Site Visit to review design issues96068166251,7761,801123Coordinate Utilities/City of Hillsborough1,920121,9201,920124Develop Title Sheet and Notes1601280244044035Prepare Detail Sheets1601560472072056Update Cost Estimate/Phasing200164041,08881,12083,0483,048217Specifications Listing1601272243243238Design Coordination Meeting600348031,0801,08069Prepare pothole Plan20011,920121,12083,2403,2402110QA/QC Review215180041,28081,08881,12084,5034,5032911Submit 50% PS&E w/ Pothole Plan20013202272228022001,0721,272712Meet with City60034803251,0801,105621513,0001511,040696,800506,7204825027,77528,02518311.90% PS&E (Phase 2)1Incorporate 50% Design Comments from City40021,920122,720201,12086,1606,160422Advance Design to 90% Level80043,840245,440404,4803214,56014,5601003Finalize Potholing Plan3202544456041,4241,424104Prepare Profile Views2,560163,264241,12086,9446,944485Perform Site Visit to review design issues96068166501,7761,826126Coordinate Utilities/City of Hillsborough1,920121,9201,920127Update Cost Estimate/Phasing400296061,08881,680124,1284,128288Prepare Technical Specifications40021,28082,176163,8563,856269Design Coordination Meeting48034083888888610QA/QC Review43021,60081,920121,632121,680127,2627,2624611Submit 90% PS&E w/ Pothole Plan20011601272228023009121,212612Meet with City4803408325888913643023,8001916,80010518,76813810,9207837550,71851,093342SubtotalSubtotalSubtotalSubtotalSubtotalSubtotalPhase 2 - Burligame Heights & Burlingame Park Subdivisions 1REIM-TOTALTOTALSUB-BURSABLEWHTOTALWH LABORTASK DESCRIPTION$215 HRS $200 HRS $190 HRS $160 HRS $136 HRS $140 HRS $235 HRS CONSULTANTS EXPENSES LABOR $ ALL $ HOURS11/3/2017SUPERVISINGENG/SURVENGINEERIIDESIGNER2 PERSONSURVEY CREWCity of BurlingameSouth El Camino Real Area Water Main Improvements - City Project 84890Fee ProposalASSISTANTENGINEERPRINCIPALENGR./SRVR.MANAGINGENGR./SRVR.SENIORCorvell BusingerJeff/Ken Brandon CameronRon12.95% PS&E (Phase 2)1Incorporate 90% Design Comments from City400264041,08881,680123,8083,808262Advance Design to 95% Level80043,200203,264242,8002010,06410,064683Perform Site Visit to review design issues48038166251,2961,32194Coordinate Utilities/City of Hillsborough960696096065Update Cost Estimate/Bid Schedule/Phasing200196061,08881,680123,9283,928276Update Technical Specifications1,20061,920123,1203,120187Design Coordination Meeting600348031,0801,08068Prepare Bid Package40021,28081,08881,12083,8883,888269QA/QC Review43021,60081,28081,632121,680126,6226,6224210Submit 95% PS&E20013202272228024501,0721,522711Meet with City4803408325888913643025,4002712,000759,656719,2406650036,72637,22624113.100% PS&E (Phase 2)1Finalize PS&E to address comments80042,560162,720202,240168,3208,320562Submit Final Package3202272228024508721,32263Meet with City/ finalize design4803408325888913680043,360213,400252,5201847510,08010,5556814.Bid Services (Phase 2)1Attend Pre-bid Meeting60034803501,0801,13062Coordination and Addenda600364041,0888502,3282,378151,20061,12071,08881003,4083,50821Subtotal Phase 23,8701818,600934,3702355,04034446,64834340,74029122,5609632,9483,240191,828228,0161,20815. Pre-Design Investigation (Phase 3)Survey, Utility Locates, Potholing, Base Mapping1Kick-off860480046404502,3002,350122Records Research and Utility Maps20011,920122,1202,120133Control Surveys430276042,240163,760162407,1907,430384Utility Mark-out by AGS320214,95032015,27025Topographic Surveys1,52081,6801216,9207296020,12021,080926Approximate Right-of-way from Record43021,52081,680123,6303,630227Base-mapping76046,720487,4807,480528QA/QC4302200138021,0101,01059Potholing by Exaro2001320215,69852016,218310Supplemental Survey - 3 days (at 90%)190116015,640243605,9906,350262,150101,40075,130273,3602112,3208826,32011230,6481,61050,68082,93826516.35% Plans and Estimate (Phase 3)1Layout Water Mains80043,200202,448186,4486,448422Site Vist96068166501,7761,826123Title Sheet16011361140143643634Preliminary Estimate200164041,360102,2002,200155Preliminary Phasing Plan20013202272228021,0721,07276Basis of Design Memo20013202272279279257Submit20013202272279279258Meet with City600348031,0801,08069Revise/Resubmit Plans, Estimate and BOD400296061,360102,7202,7201810QA/QC21514002615615321513,000157,360466,9365142035017,93117,98111617.50% PS&E (Phase 3)1Prepare Plan View Sheets40022,560163,264242,240168,4648,464582Perform Site Visit to review design issues96068166251,7761,801123Coordinate Utilities/City of Hillsborough1,920121,9201,920124Develop Title Sheet and Notes1601280244044035Prepare Detail Sheets1601560472072056Update Cost Estimate/Phasing200164041,08881,12083,0483,048217Specifications Listing1601272243243238Design Coordination Meeting600348031,0801,08069Prepare pothole Plan20011,920121,12083,2403,2402110QA/QC Review215180041,28081,08881,12084,5034,5032911Submit 50% PS&E w/ Pothole Plan20013202272228022001,0721,272712Meet with City60034803251,0801,105621513,0001511,040696,800506,7204825027,77528,025183SubtotalPhase 3 - Glenwood Park Subdivision and NeighborhoodSubtotalSubtotalSubtotalSubtotalSubtotal 1REIM-TOTALTOTALSUB-BURSABLEWHTOTALWH LABORTASK DESCRIPTION$215 HRS $200 HRS $190 HRS $160 HRS $136 HRS $140 HRS $235 HRS CONSULTANTS EXPENSES LABOR $ ALL $ HOURS11/3/2017SUPERVISINGENG/SURVENGINEERIIDESIGNER2 PERSONSURVEY CREWCity of BurlingameSouth El Camino Real Area Water Main Improvements - City Project 84890Fee ProposalASSISTANTENGINEERPRINCIPALENGR./SRVR.MANAGINGENGR./SRVR.SENIORCorvell BusingerJeff/Ken Brandon CameronRon18.90% PS&E (Phase 3)1Incorporate 50% Design Comments from City40021,920122,720201,12086,1606,160422Advance Design to 90% Level80043,840245,440404,4803214,56014,5601003Finalize Potholing Plan3202544456041,4241,424104Prepare Profile Views2,560163,264241,12086,9446,944485Perform Site Visit to review design issues96068166501,7761,826126Coordinate Utilities/City of Hillsborough1,920121,9201,920127Update Cost Estimate/Phasing400296061,08881,680124,1284,128288Prepare Technical Specifications40021,28082,176163,8563,856269Design Coordination Meeting48034083888888610QA/QC Review43021,60081,920121,632121,680127,2627,2624611Submit 90% PS&E w/ Pothole Plan20011601272228023009121,212612Meet with City4803408325888913643023,8001916,80010518,76813810,9207837550,71851,09334219.95% PS&E (Phase 3)1Incorporate 90% Design Comments from City400264041,08881,680123,8083,808262Advance Design to 95% Level80043,200203,264242,8002010,06410,064683Perform Site Visit to review design issues48038166251,2961,32194Coordinate Utilities/City of Hillsborough960696096065Update Cost Estimate/Bid Schedule/Phasing200196061,08881,680123,9283,928276Update Technical Specifications1,20061,920123,1203,120187Design Coordination Meeting600348031,0801,08068Prepare Bid Package40021,28081,08881,12083,8883,888269QA/QC Review43021,60081,28081,632121,680126,6226,6224210Submit 95% PS&E20013202272228024501,0721,522711Meet with City4803408325888913643025,4002712,000759,656719,2406650036,72637,22624120.100% PS&E (Phase 3)1Finalize PS&E to address comments80042,560162,720202,240168,3208,320562Submit Final Package3202272228024508721,32263Meet with City/ finalize design4803408325888913680043,360213,400252,5201847510,08010,5556821.Bid Services (Phase 3)1Attend Pre-bid Meeting60034803501,0801,13062Coordination and Addenda600364041,0888502,3282,378151,20061,12071,08881003,4083,50821Subtotal Phase 33,4401618,600935,1302755,04034446,64834342,14030126,32011230,6483,360197,318231,3261,23622. Pre-Design Investigation (Phase 4)Survey, Utility Locates, Potholing, Base Mapping1Kick-off860480046404502,3002,350122Records Research and Utility Maps20011,920122,1202,120133Control Surveys430276041,12082,820121805,1305,310264Utility Mark-out by AGS320212,65032012,97025Topographic Surveys1,52081,6801216,9207296020,12021,080926Approximate Right-of-way from Record430276041,680122,8702,870187Base-mapping860476046,720488,3408,340568QA/QC4302200138021,0101,01059Potholing by Exaro2001320215,69852016,218310Supplemental Survey - 3 days (at 90%)190116015,640243605,9906,350263,010141,40074,370233,3602111,2008025,38010828,3481,55048,72078,61825323.35% Plans and Estimate (Phase 4)1Layout Water Mains80043,200202,448186,4486,448422Site Vist96068166501,7761,826123Title Sheet16011361140143643634Preliminary Estimate200164041,360102,2002,200155Preliminary Phasing Plan20013202272228021,0721,07276Basis of Design Memo20013202272279279257Submit20013202272279279258Meet with City600348031,0801,08069Revise/Resubmit Plans, Estimate and BOD400296061,360102,7202,7201810QA/QC21514002615615321513,000157,360466,9365142035017,93117,981116Phase 4 - Burligame Terrace and Burlingame Park SubdivisionsSubtotalSubtotalSubtotalSubtotalSubtotalSubtotal 1REIM-TOTALTOTALSUB-BURSABLEWHTOTALWH LABORTASK DESCRIPTION$215 HRS $200 HRS $190 HRS $160 HRS $136 HRS $140 HRS $235 HRS CONSULTANTS EXPENSES LABOR $ ALL $ HOURS11/3/2017SUPERVISINGENG/SURVENGINEERIIDESIGNER2 PERSONSURVEY CREWCity of BurlingameSouth El Camino Real Area Water Main Improvements - City Project 84890Fee ProposalASSISTANTENGINEERPRINCIPALENGR./SRVR.MANAGINGENGR./SRVR.SENIORCorvell BusingerJeff/Ken Brandon CameronRon24.50% PS&E (Phase 4)1Prepare Plan View Sheets40022,560163,264242,240168,4648,464582Perform Site Visit to review design issues96068166251,7761,801123Coordinate Utilities1,600101,6001,600104Develop Title Sheet and Notes1601280244044035Prepare Detail Sheets1601560472072056Update Cost Estimate/Phasing200164041,08881,12083,0483,048217Specifications Listing1601272243243238Design Coordination Meeting600348031,0801,08069Prepare pothole Plan20011,920121,12083,2403,2402110QA/QC Review215180041,28081,08881,12084,5034,5032911Submit 50% PS&E w/ Pothole Plan20013202272228022001,0721,272712Meet with City60034803251,0801,105621513,0001510,720676,800506,7204825027,45527,70518125.90% PS&E (Phase 4)1Incorporate 50% Design Comments from City40021,920122,720201,12086,1606,160422Advance Design to 90% Level80043,840245,440404,4803214,56014,5601003Finalize Potholing Plan3202544456041,4241,424104Prepare Profile Views2,560163,264241,12086,9446,944485Perform Site Visit to review design issues96068166501,7761,826126Coordinate Utilities1,600101,6001,600107Update Cost Estimate/Phasing400296061,08881,680124,1284,128288Prepare Technical Specifications40021,28082,176163,8563,856269Design Coordination Meeting48034083888888610QA/QC Review43021,60081,920121,632121,680127,2627,2624611Submit 90% PS&E w/ Pothole Plan20011601272228023009121,212612Meet with City4803408325888913643023,8001916,48010318,76813810,9207837550,39850,77334026.95% PS&E (Phase 4)1Incorporate 90% Design Comments from City400264041,08881,680123,8083,808262Advance Design to 95% Level80043,200203,264242,8002010,06410,064683Perform Site Visit to review design issues48038166251,2961,32194Coordinate Utilities640464064045Update Cost Estimate/Bid Schedule/Phasing200196061,08881,680123,9283,928276Update Technical Specifications1,20061,920123,1203,120187Design Coordination Meeting600348031,0801,08068Prepare Bid Package40021,28081,08881,12083,8883,888269QA/QC Review43021,60081,28081,632121,680126,6226,6224210Submit 95% PS&E20013202272228024501,0721,522711Meet with City4803408325888913643025,4002711,680739,656719,2406650036,40636,90623927.100% PS&E (Phase 4)1Finalize PS&E to address comments80042,560162,720202,240168,3208,320562Submit Final Package3202272228024508721,32263Meet with City/ finalize design4803408325888913680043,360213,400252,5201847510,08010,5556828.Bid Services (Phase 4)1Attend Pre-bid Meeting60034803501,0801,13062Coordination and Addenda600364041,0888502,3282,378151,20061,12071,08881003,4083,50821Subtotal Phase 44,3002018,600934,3702354,08033846,64834341,02029325,38010828,3483,300194,398226,0461,21816,5557776,80038418,05095216,4801,353181,5601,335161,0001,15094,940404205,89813,020765,385984,3034,798A.Alternate Task - Utility and ROW Certification1Utility and ROW Certification Budget1,00054,0002535,0005,00040,000301,00054,0002535,0005,00040,00030Notes:4. All positions may not be shown. If a position is not shown the Charge Rate Fee Schedule will govern.GRAND TOTAL1. The amounts may vary between tasks and individuals but the Grand Total amount will not be exceeded without approval of the Client. 2. Total All$ includes subconsultants and reimbursable costs.3. Hourly rates effective through December 31, 2017 and subject to revision annually thereafter.Additional Fee if Selected (not included in Grand Total above)SubtotalSubtotalSubtotalSubtotalSubtotal Table 20158 2017 Charge Rate Fee Schedule I. Charge Rate Fee Schedule The compensation of Wilsey Ham for work done will be on the basis of an hourly charge rate, plus incurred expenses and will be the sum of all the items set forth below: A. Personnel Services Principal Engineer/Surveyor $215 Per Hr Designer/Technician II $136 Per Hr Supervising Engineer 200 Per Hr Designer/Technician I 125 Per Hr Managing Engineer/Surveyor 190 Per Hr Cad Operator/Drafter II 115 Per Hr Senior Engineer/Project Mgr. 180 Per Hr Designer/Technician 105 Per Hr Associate Engineer 170 Per Hr Administrative Assistant 77 Per Hr Engineer II 160 Per Hr Technical Assistant 65 Per Hr Engineer I 150 Per Hr 2 Person Survey Crew 235 Per Hr Assistant Engineer 136 Per Hr Contract Personnel 2x Invoice Junior Engineer 125 Per Hr Outside Survey Specialist 160 Per Hr Senior Designer 140 Per Hr *Effective through December 31, 2017 and subject to revision annually thereafter. B. Reimbursable Expenses 1. Travel & Transportation Expenses: a) Reimbursement for actual travel and subsistence expenses paid to or on behalf of employees on business connected with the project, plus a handling charge of 15%. b) Fifty-three cents ($0.53) per mile, or the current rate allowable set by the Internal Revenue Service for use of company passenger vehicles, and fifteen dollars ($15.00) per hour for use of vehicles carrying field survey equipment or used for field inspection and supervision. 2. Miscellaneous Expenses: a) The cost of materials, supplies, reproduction work, agency filing fees, and other services, including communication expenses, plus a handling charge of 15%. C. Outside Services a) Invoice cost of services and expenses charged to Wilsey Ham by outside consultants, professional, or technical firms engaged in connection with the order, plus 15% handling charge. CALIFORNIACITY OF BURLINGAMESAN MATEO COUNTYH:\140-Burlingame\140 UTILITY BASEMAPS\BRANDON-SITE WALKS.dwg 8-21-17 02:09:03 PM pbusingerEngineering, Surveying & PlanningWILSEYHAM3130 La Selva Street, Suite 100San Mateo, CA 94403650.349.2151wilseyham.comMATCHLINE SEE BELOWMATCHLINE SEE ABOVELEGENDPHASING KEYSOUTH EL CAMINO AREAWATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTSPRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS14 CALIFORNIACITY OF BURLINGAMESAN MATEO COUNTYH:\140-Burlingame\140 UTILITY BASEMAPS\BRANDON-SITE WALKS.dwg 8-21-17 02:09:03 PM pbusingerEngineering, Surveying & PlanningWILSEYHAM3130 La Selva Street, Suite 100San Mateo, CA 94403650.349.2151wilseyham.comLEGENDSOUTH EL CAMINO AREAWATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTSPRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS24PHASING KEYHSGKY CALIFORNIACITY OF BURLINGAMESAN MATEO COUNTYH:\140-Burlingame\140 UTILITY BASEMAPS\BRANDON-SITE WALKS.dwg 8-21-17 02:09:03 PM pbusingerEngineering, Surveying & PlanningWILSEYHAM3130 La Selva Street, Suite 100San Mateo, CA 94403650.349.2151wilseyham.comLEGENDSOUTH EL CAMINO AREAWATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTSPRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS34PHASING KEYCITY OF SAN MATEO CALIFORNIACITY OF BURLINGAMESAN MATEO COUNTYH:\140-Burlingame\140 UTILITY BASEMAPS\BRANDON-SITE WALKS.dwg 8-21-17 02:09:03 PM pbusingerEngineering, Surveying & PlanningWILSEYHAM3130 La Selva Street, Suite 100San Mateo, CA 94403650.349.2151wilseyham.comLEGENDSOUTH EL CAMINO AREAWATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTSPRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS44PHASING KEYCITY OF SAN MATEOTOWN OF HILLSBOROUGHBBFTOHIT 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8e MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of Resolutions Supporting Submission of Grant Applications for the California Drive Complete Streets – Phase II Project and the School Area Pedestrian Safety and Enhancements Project under the Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions supporting the submission of grant applications for the California Drive Complete Streets – Phase II Project, and the School Area Pedestrian Safety and Enhancements Project under the Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program. BACKGROUND On November 6, 2017, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) issued a Call for Projects (CFP) under the Bicycle/Pedestrian Measure A Grant Program, with an application submittal deadline of December 15, 2017. Under the Measure A Program, an agency can submit up to a maximum of three projects for grant funding. The program can provide a maximum total of $1,000,000 in grant funds per agency, with a $500,000 maximum grant for each project and a minimum of 10% local matching funds. In addition, the program requires that the sponsoring agency provide a Governing Body Resolution supporting the project and the grant application, along with meeting the eligibility criteria. The deadline for submitting the Governing Board Resolution is January 19, 2018. DISCUSSION Staff reviewed the grant application criteria and eligibility requirements, identified two projects as strong candidates, and submitted applications as follows: 1. School Area Pedestrian Safety and Enhancements Project The project scope consists of planning, designing, and constructing school area pedestrian safety improvements and enhancements at three elementary schools in the city: Washington Elementary, Franklin Elementary, and Lincoln Elementary. Below is the detailed scope of work to be undertaken if the grant application is approved: SMCTA Measure A Grant Applications January 16, 2018 2 1. Washington Elementary School West Corner Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Installation of four paved/landscaped concrete bulb-outs with ADA accessible wheelchair ramps, detectable warning surfaces, and storm water drainage systems at the intersection of Howard Avenue and Anita Road. 2. Washington Elementary School East Corner Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Installation of four paved/landscaped concrete bulb-outs with ADA accessible wheelchair ramps, detectable warning surfaces, and storm water drainage systems at the intersection of Howard Avenue and Arundel Road. 3. Franklin Elementary School West Corner Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Installation of four paved/landscaped concrete bulb-outs with ADA accessible wheelchair ramps, detectable warning surfaces, and storm water drainage systems at the intersection of Trousdale Drive and Martinez Drive. 4. Franklin Elementary School East Corner Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Installation of four paved/landscaped concrete bulb-outs with ADA accessible wheelchair ramps, detectable warning surfaces, and storm water drainage systems at the intersection of Trousdale Drive and Quesada Way. 5. Lincoln Elementary School Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Installation and upgrade of 16 curb ramps to ADA accessible wheelchair ramps along the main school access road at Balboa Way and Balboa Avenue. 6. Ray Park Area Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk in order to re-route the existing pedestrian walkway around the existing parking area. Currently, pedestrians walk behind vehicles that may back into pedestrians when exiting a space. 7. High Visibility Pedestrian Safety Signage: Installation of updated, high-visibility signage, school zone striping, and pavement legends. The improvements described above will significantly improve safety for pedestrians, particularly school children. The improvements will also assist in slowing down motorists, resulting in traffic calming and improved safety for all modes of travel. The preliminary project cost is estimated at $738,000. Staff is requesting $500,000 in grant funds, with a local City match in the amount of $238,000. Staff met with members of the citizen-led Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and with the Burlingame School District (BSD) to solicit input regarding the project. In addition, staff presented the project to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) to seek input and support for the grant application. The TSPC discussed this project at their December 14, 2017 meeting and unanimously supported the project grant application. Similarly, the BPAC and BSD also provided significant input, strongly supported the project, and provided letters of support. SMCTA Measure A Grant Applications January 16, 2018 3 2. California Drive Complete Streets – Phase II Project The project scope will consist of improving California Drive between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue by street resurfacing and restriping of the roadway to include a Class II Bike Lane facility. As the City Council has previously approved plans to construct dedicated Class II Bike Lanes on California Drive from Murchison Avenue to north of Broadway, this project will extend the continuation of dedicated and safer bicycle facilities along California Drive, south of Broadway towards the Burlingame Avenue downtown area. The project will serve as a major north-south bicycle route connecting the Burlingame Avenue Train Station, downtown Burlingame Avenue, Broadway Commercial District, and a series of existing and newly planned housing projects. This bicycle route is identified in the City’s Bicycle Master Plan and the countywide regional bicycle master plan. California Drive currently has two lanes in each direction between Broadway and the Burlingame Avenue downtown area. Currently, the roadway is shared by both the bicyclists and motorists through the provision of sharrows (Class III Bicycle Facility), which presents concerns from members of the bicycling community. The roadway is increasingly used by bicyclists traveling between the transit stations and commercial and residential areas and is in need of improved bicycle facility infrastructure. This project will address those needs and will improve safety for bicyclists as well as pedestrians through the provision of improved signage and striping along the corridor. The preliminary estimated cost of this project is $1,200,000. Staff is requesting $500,000 in grant funds, with a local City match in the amount of $720,000. Staff has met with BPAC and TSPC to provide information about the project and to seek input and obtain support. The TSPC discussed this project at their December 14, 2017 meeting and unanimously supported the project grant application. Similarly, the BPAC, BSD, and San Mateo Union High School District also strongly supported the project and provided letters of support. FISCAL IMPACT The preliminary estimated total cost of both projects is approximately $1,938,000, and staff has applied for $1,000,000 in grant funds (maximum allowed). The remaining $938,000 is required as a local match from the General Fund. Exhibits: • Resolutions • Project Location Maps • Grant Application Packets 1 RESOLUTION NO. ___________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPORTING THE SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION FOR MEASURE A PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT RESOLVED by the City Council of Burlingame, that WHEREAS, pedestrian accessibility improvements including bulb-outs and pedestrian ramps are being requested at the local schools of Washington Elementary School, Franklin Elementary School, and Lincoln Elementary School; and WHEREAS, sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements are being requested at the Ray Park area to redirect pedestrians around the parking lot; and WHEREAS, the installation of high visibility pedestrian safety signage is being requested at various locations near schools; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is proposing to address the above pedestrian enhancements by designing and constructing new pedestrian improvements at the above locations; and WHEREAS, the City estimates the preliminary cost of designing and constructing these improvements to be approximately $738,000 to implement the project scope; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to sponsor the implementation of the project scope; and WHEREAS, the City seeks $500,000 in Measure A Grant funds for the project scope; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 1988, the voters of San Mateo County approved a ballot measure to allow the collection and distribution by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) of a half-cent transactions and use tax in San Mateo County for 25 years, with the tax revenues to be used for highway and transit improvements pursuant to the Transportation Expenditure Plan presented to the voters (Original Measure A); and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2004, the voters of San Mateo County approved the continuation of the collection and distribution by the TA of the half-cent transactions and use tax for an additional 25 years to implement the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan beginning January 1, 2009 (New Measure A); and WHEREAS, the TA issued a Call for Projects for the Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program on November 6, 2017, and 2 WHEREAS, the TA requires a governing board resolution from the City in support of the City’s application for $500,000 in San Mateo County Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for the design and construction of the School Area Pedestrian Safety and Enhancements Project, and WHEREAS, the TA requires a governing board resolution from the City committing the City to the completion of the design and construction of new pedestrian facilities, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of $238,000 needed for implementation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Burlingame: 1. Directs staff to submit an application for TA Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for $500,000 for the design and construction of new pedestrian facilities as described above; 2. Authorizes the City Manager to execute a funding agreement with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority to encumber any TA Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds awarded; and 3. Commits $738,000 to the completion of said project, including the commitment of $238,000 in City matching funds needed for implementation, if awarded the requested TA Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds. ________________________ 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 16TH day of January, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _________________________ City Clerk 1 RESOLUTION NO. _________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPORTING THE CALIFORNIA DRIVE COMPLETE STREETS – PHASE II PROJECT, AND SUBMITTING A GRANT APPLICATION FOR MEASURE A PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT RESOLVED by the City Council of Burlingame, that WHEREAS, California Drive is the primary north-south bicycle route connecting the Burlingame Avenue Train Station, the Broadway Train Station, Downtown Burlingame Avenue, the Broadway Commercial District, and a series of existing and newly approved housing projects; and WHEREAS, California Drive currently has two lanes in each direction between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue; and WHEREAS, the roadway currently provides bicycle utilization through the provision of sharrows; and WHEREAS, the roadway is heavily used by bicyclists traveling between the transit stations, commercial areas, and the residential areas, and does not have dedicated bicycle facilities infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is proposing to address the bicycle infrastructure needs created by this use pattern by designing and constructing bicycle facility improvements along the roadway; and WHEREAS, the City estimates the preliminary cost of designing and constructing the improvements to be approximately $1,200,000 to implement the project scope; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to sponsor the implementation of the project scope; and WHEREAS, the City seeks $500,000 in Measure A Grant funds for the project scope; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 1988, the voters of San Mateo County approved a ballot measure to allow the collection and distribution by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) of a half-cent transactions and use tax in San Mateo County for 25 years, with the tax revenues to be used for highway and transit improvements pursuant to the Transportation Expenditure Plan presented to the voters (Original Measure A); and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2004, the voters of San Mateo County approved the continuation of the collection and distribution by the TA the half-cent transactions and use tax 2 for an additional 25 years to implement the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan beginning January 1, 2009 (New Measure A); and WHEREAS, the TA issued a Call for Projects for the Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program on November 6, 2017, and WHEREAS, the TA requires a governing board resolution from the City in support of the City’s application for $500,000 in San Mateo County Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for the design and construction of the Class II bicycle facility, and WHEREAS, the TA requires a governing board resolution from the City committing the City to the completion of the design and construction of the Class II bicycle facility, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of $720,000 needed for implementation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Burlingame: 1. Directs staff to submit an application for TA Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for $500,000 for the design and construction of the Class II bicycle facility; 2. Authorizes the City Manager to execute a funding agreement with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority to encumber any TA Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds awarded; and 3. Commits $1,200,000 to the completion of said project, including the commitment of $720,000 of matching funds needed for implementation, if awarded the requested TA Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds. ________________________ 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 16TH day of January, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _________________________ City Clerk City of Burlingame 2017 Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Application 2017 MEASURE A PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS Page 1 PROJECT APPLICATION FORM Project Information *feasibility studies, alternatives analysis, etc. Applicant Information (Repeat tables if more than one sponsor) Applications due by December 15, 2017 4:00 PM Overall Project Title: School Area Pedestrian Enhancement Project In jurisdiction(s): City of Burlingame Measure A Request for Project Scope: $500,000 Total Cost for Project Scope: $738,000 Phases for Project Scope: Check all applicable phases requesting Measure A funds Pre-project planning* ROW PE/Environmental Construction PS&E Other (please specify): _________________________________ If sponsor (applicant) is submitting more than one application, please indicate the priority of this proposal in relation to the sponsor’s other applications 1st priority 2nd priority 3rd priority Sponsor: City of Burlingame Primary Contact person: Andrew Wong, P.E. Title: Senior Engineer Email: awong@burlingame.org Phone number: 650-558-7230 Secondary Contact person: Michael Tsai Title: Transportation Engineer Email: mtsai@burlingame.org Phone number: 650-558-7230 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Project Readiness and Need II. Effectiveness III. Policy Consistency IV. Funding V. Sustainability APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Required Sponsor Governing Board Resolution* *An endorsement letter from the sponsor’s City Manager/Executive Director must be provided if the resolution is not obtained by the December 15, 2017 application deadline. Required Non-Supplantation of Funds Certification Project Location Map, Plans, Photographs (Section I.1.a.iii) Policy & Plan Consistency Documentation (Section III.a, III.b, III.c) Letters of Support (Section I.1.e) If request is for Right of Way (ROW) acquisition, attach environmental clearance and documentation for estimate of value (Section I.1.b) I. Project Readiness and Need - up to 35 points 1. Project Readiness – up to 20 points a. Clear and Complete Proposal i. Overall Project Description: Describe the overall project that is ultimately to be constructed. If the overall project is larger than the project scope for which the Measure A funds are requested, state the work that may have already been completed and the work that may remain. The overall project scope consists of planning, designing, and constructing school area pedestrian enhancements at three main elementary schools within the City of Burlingame; Washington Elementary, Franklin Elementary, and Lincoln Elementary. Franklin Elementary is home to roughly 600 students per year and is located between two major baseball fields on Trousdale Drive. 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application 11/9/15 Trousdale Drive has a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour, four lanes of traffic and parking on both sides. Students and families that walk and bicycle to the school and the sports fields currently cross Trousdale Drive at Martinez Drive and Quesada Way which is over 60 feet wide. This project aims to enhance the two primary crossings by shortening the 60 foot roadway with the installation of bulbouts and improving driver awareness with enhanced striping, signage and pavement markings. Washington Elementary is home to roughly 350 students per year and is located between the Bayshore Freeway and the Caltrain rail corridor on Howard Avenue. Howard Avenue has a long standing history of reported speeding concerns despite numerous efforts at re-striping the corridor and increased traffic enforcement. This project aims to enhance the two corners to the school by shortening the 46 foot roadway with the installation of bulbouts and improving driver awareness with enhanced striping, signage and pavement markings. The addition of bulbouts will further emphasize the school’s primary crossings and also serve as a traffic calming feature that addresses the long standing speeding concerns near the school. Lincoln Elementary School has had a steadily increasing enrollment that has risen to 500 students per year and the campus shares a corner with Ray Park. The popular local park has two baseball fields that is not only used by the school but also attracts crowds of families after school hours and on the weekends. The lack of curb ramps along school routes leading to Lincoln Elementary has a significant impact on access and safety. Elementary school students still tend to ride their bikes on sidewalks, or next to parents pushing strollers along the sidewalks. Their inability to easily access the sidewalks after crossing the street poses a safety hazard as the students and parents may need to travel in the street until they reach a driveway that allows them onto the sidewalk. In addition, in the areas where there are existing curb ramps, the ramps are located in such a way as to force pedestrians and bicyclists farther out into the roadway than normal when they cross the street, thereby creating an unsafe situation. Finally, the parking area along Balboa Avenue, near Ray Park, needs to be addressed as vehicles back onto the sidewalk when leaving a parking space, creating conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists. With the addition of the project, pedestrian safety will be significantly improved. New curb ramps will ease access onto the sidewalk and ensure that the pedestrian path to these ramps is clear. Re- constructing a portion of the sidewalk along Balboa Avenue to be in front of the parked vehicles rather than behind them will significantly reduce the potential for incidents. 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application 11/9/15 ii. Project Scope: Describe the work and phases (see list of phases in the table for project schedule, iv., below) that will be completed with the requested Measure A funds if it is a subset of the overall project description. Identify and provide justification for any supplementary improvements that enhance/improve the pedestrian and/or bicycle experience, that may include, but are not limited to, landscaping, lighting and street furniture, that are proposed for inclusion as part of the scope of work. The project scope will consist of performing preliminary engineering studies, preparing plans and specifications, and constructing pedestrian safety improvements in the vicinity of various local schools within Burlingame. Burlingame is a diverse community with a median household income of about $90,000. More than 50% of residents are renters, many of whom live in multi-family dwellings located along El Camino Real and other high-traffic areas. Many residents and school students utilize transit, walk, and bicycle to school. This project will significantly improve safety for the students who walk, bike, or take transit to school by reducing crossing distances on streets, increasing the area for students to stage, and making motorists aware of the students and pedestrians in the affected areas. The project construction work will consist of the following: 1. Washington Elementary School West Corner Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Installation of four paved/landscaped concrete bulbouts with ADA accessible wheelchair ramps, detectable warning surfaces, and storm water drainage systems at the intersection of Howard Avenue and Anita Road. 2. Washington Elementary School East Corner Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Installation of four paved/landscaped concrete bulbouts with ADA accessible wheelchair ramps, detectable warning surfaces, and storm water drainage systems at the intersection of Howard Avenue and Arundel Road. 3. Franklin Elementary School West Corner Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Installation of four paved/landscaped concrete bulbouts with ADA accessible wheelchair ramps, detectable warning surfaces, and storm water drainage systems at the intersection of Trousdale Drive and Martinez Drive. 4. Franklin Elementary School East Corner Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Installation of four paved/landscaped concrete bulbouts with ADA accessible wheelchair ramps, detectable warning surfaces, and storm water drainage systems at the intersection of Trousdale Drive and Quesada Way. 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application 11/9/15 5. Lincoln Elementary School Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Installation and upgrade of 16 curb ramps to ADA accessible wheelchair ramps along the main school access road along Balboa Way and Balboa Avenue. 6. Ray Park Area Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk in order to re-route the existing pedestrian walkway around the existing parking area. Currently, pedestrians walk behind vehicles that may back into pedestrians when exiting a space. 7. High Visibility Pedestrian Safety Signage: Installation of updated, high-visibility signage, school zone striping, and pavement legends. The improvements described above will significantly improve safety for pedestrians, particularly school children. The improvements will also assist in slowing down motorists, resulting in traffic calming and improved safety for all modes of travel. No right-of-way acquisition is required as the work is within the City of Burlingame’s right-of-way. iii. Attach a Map(s), any plans, drawings and relevant photos of the overall project and scope for the requested Measure A funds. See attached figures. iv. Project Schedule - Indicate the anticipated beginning and end date for each phase of the project. If a phase is not applicable for this application, write “N/A”. If the PS&E phase is underway, indicate the percent complete to date: Phase Month and Year Phase Start Phase End Pre-Project Planning June 2018 Dec. 2018 Preliminary Engineering(PE)/Environmental (ENV) Jan. 2019 June 2019 Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E) July 2019 Nov 2019 ROW Acquisition and Utilities N/A N/A Construction and Procurement February 2020 June 2020 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 6 v. Provide a detailed budget for the applicable phase(s) of the project scope. [Optional: provide any known cost/budget information for prior and/or subsequent phases of the overall project and the basis for the estimate] Project Scope Phases Total Cost Estimate (A+B+C) Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program request (A) Prior Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle approved funding (B) Other Matching Funding (C) Source(s) of Other Matching Funding* Notes Pre-Project Planning $10,000 $ $ $10,000 Local PE/Environmental $20,000 $ $ $20,000 Local Design (PS&E)** $110,000 $0 $0 $110,000 Local Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $598,000 $500,000 $0 $98,000 Local Totals: $738,000 $500,000 $0 $238,000 Local * If there are multiple sources of matching funding, please identify and itemize each one separately. **Indicate status of Design (PS&E), if applicable, by percent complete (e.g. 15%, 35%, etc.) b. ROW certification completed? Yes or N/A No Comments: If request is for, or includes ROW acquisition, describe why the ROW acquisition is necessary to implement the project: No right-of-way is required for this project. c. Permits, Agreements and/or Environmental Clearance approved? Yes No N/A List all permits, agreements and environmental clearance (both CEQA and NEPA) approved and/or needed, to date: Permit/Agreements/Environmental Clearance Status Date Approved Comments: The project is determined to be Categorically Exempt, per CEQA and will be processed during design and construction. 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 7 d. Discuss the public planning process that occurred, or will occur, for the proposed project: The City of Burlingame initiated a public planning process for this project and held several community meetings with community members and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to obtain input regarding their concerns and prioritization of improvements. Additionally, the City has held discussions and sought community input through the City’s Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC), an advisory body to the City Council. The City plans to continue the public planning process and engage members of the public through the City’s TSPC and the B/PAC on a regular basis as part of the project development process. Additionally, City staff has met with representatives from all four elementary schools in the project area to obtain their input. Furthermore, staff previously conducted walking audits and coordinated with the Burlingame School District to obtain their input, which helped the City identify the critical pathways to campus and connectivity barriers that would benefit the most from improvements. e. Comment on level of public support. What is the level of interest in the project? Have any specific concerns been raised? List all non-sponsor stakeholders that have taken a formal position on the project and the action taken. As appropriate, attach documents of support and state composition of relevant committee. (examples: letters, meeting minutes, etc.) This project has a very high level of public support. This project concept has been discussed by the Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (B/PAC), which participated in the initial review and selection of this project and provided feedback. The B/PAC is a citizen advisory committee comprised of two Traffic Safety and Parking Commissioners, one Planning Commissioner, and general public citizens interested in pedestrian and bicycling issues. The B/PAC reviews pedestrian and bicycling matters and forwards recommendations to the Burlingame Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC). As explained above, the TSPC has also held discussions, sought public input, and supports this project. The TSPC is an advisory city commission to the City Council, comprised of five Burlingame citizens appointed by the City Council to serve two-year terms and review traffic safety issues, pedestrian/biking safety issues, and parking matters. In addition, the City has been working with various individual pedestrian and bicycling advocates to ensure that direct public input and insight was gathered during the development of this project. (Letters of support are attached.) 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 8 2. Project Need – Up to 15 points a. Describe the need for the project. In the narrative, state whether the project is primarily for commuter or recreational purposes, or if intended for both, how the project would accommodate both needs. Yes No Explain: During school hours, the streets around Burlingame’s schools are quite congested with parents dropping off and picking up their kids, and, particularly in the mornings, commuters leaving their homes for work. The issue of congestion around schools is a frequent topic of conversation between the City and the Burlingame School District, with both agencies working to ameliorate the problem. The proposed project will significantly increase safety for the numerous students and pedestrians walking to school by reducing crossing distances on streets, increasing the area for students to stage, and making drivers aware of the students and pedestrians in the area. This project meets the needs for students travelling to and from school as well as recreational users. Each of the schools has on-site recreational facilities that may be used after school hours as well as on weekends. Additionally, many of the school sites host regional events, such as soccer tournaments, that draw recreational users from the Peninsula and beyond. Six different bus lines stop in the immediate vicinity of the proposed school locations, with a total of 61 stops per day. Bus passengers travelling to the schools and surrounding neighborhoods stand to benefit from the safety improvements. b. Describe the existing site conditions. Is there a lack of adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities at the site or in the immediate vicinity? How much demand exists for this project? Franklin Elementary School is located in a mixed residential/commercial neighborhood on Trousdale Drive near Quesada Way. Trousdale Drive, which has direct access to Interstate 280, is a major arterial road, with a 35 mph speed limit, four through traffic lanes and on-street parking on both sides of the street. Access to the school is through the two project intersections, which are both all-way stop controlled. There is significant queuing at the intersections during school pick-up and drop-off periods. This increases the potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Over 500 students are enrolled in Kindergarten through fifth grade, and many of these students must cross four lanes of a heavily travelled arterial street in order to get to school. Additionally, Burlingame Intermediate School is adjacent to Franklin Elementary, on Quesada Way, and has an enrollment of over 1,000 students who also use these same intersections to access their school. 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 9 With the addition of the project, pedestrian safety will be significantly improved. Pedestrian crossing times will be reduced; visibility for both pedestrians and motorists will improve; space at the corners will increase; and vehicle speeds will decrease as cars travel around the bulb outs. Lincoln Elementary School is located at 1801 Devereaux Drive, also in a residential neighborhood. Lincoln is surrounded by four local roads: Devereaux Drive, Balboa Avenue/Balboa Way (splits at intersection of Devereaux Drive), Adeline Drive, and Bernal Avenue. Over 500 students are enrolled in Kindergarten through fifth grade each year. The lack of curb ramps along school routes leading to Lincoln Elementary has a significant impact on access and safety. Elementary school students still tend to ride their bikes on sidewalks, or next to parents pushing strollers along the sidewalks. Their inability to easily access the sidewalks after crossing the street poses a safety hazard as the students and parents may need to travel in the street until they reach a driveway that allows them onto the sidewalk. In addition, in the areas where there are existing curb ramps, the ramps are located in such a way as to force pedestrians and bicyclists farther out into the roadway than normal when they cross the street, thereby creating an unsafe situation. Finally, the parking area along Balboa Avenue, near Ray Park, needs to be addressed as vehicles back onto the sidewalk when leaving a parking space, creating conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists. With the addition of the project, pedestrian safety will be significantly improved. New curb ramps will ease access onto the sidewalk and ensure that the pedestrian path to these ramps is clear. Re-constructing a portion of the sidewalk along Balboa Avenue to be in front of the parked vehicles rather than behind them will significantly reduce the potential for incidents. Washington Elementary School is located in a residential neighborhood at 801 Howard Avenue. The school is accessible by auto on three sides: Howard Avenue, Arundel Road, and Anita Road. Howard Avenue is a heavily used east-west arterial in a residential neighborhood. It has two vehicle travel lanes, a Class II bike facility, and on-street parking on both sides of the street. Access to the school is through the two project intersections, which are both all-way stop controlled. As with Franklin Elementary, there is significant queuing at these intersections during pick-up and drop-off periods. The same potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflicts exists here as well. Over 300 students are enrolled in Kindergarten through fifth grade each year, and many of these students must use one of these intersections on their way to and from school With the addition of the project, pedestrian safety will be significantly improved. Pedestrian crossing times will be reduced, visibility for both pedestrians and motorist will improve, staging space at the corners will increase, and vehicle speeds will decrease as they travel around the bulbouts. 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 10 c. Is pedestrian and/or bicycle safety improved because of the project? Yes No Explain and cite any relevant history pertaining to accidents and safety issues in the immediate project vicinity: The project will significantly increase safety for the numerous students walking and biking to school by reducing crossing distances at key intersections, providing a visible area for students to stage, and increasing driver awareness of the students and pedestrians attempting to cross the road. Parents at all four schools were surveyed as part of the walking audit. Although the schools are located in different areas of the city, the parents’ top concerns were very consistent: unsafe intersections, too much traffic along route, and speeding traffic along route. The project addresses two of the three tops concerns. Bulbouts and revised pedestrian signage will increase pedestrian visibility at the intersections and well as reduce speeds as they will traffic calm the immediate roadway. II. EFFECTIVENESS – Up to 35 points a. Does the project provide facilities that accommodate both pedestrians and bicycles? If so, please describe how the project improves conditions for both walking and cycling. Yes, the project is primarily intended to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety in the vicinity of schools. The project significantly improves current crossing conditions for children on foot and on bike by making them more visible in terms of both physical location and in advanced warning with revised signage. The bulbouts will help ensure that pedestrians and bicyclists are more visible to drivers and that the pedestrians and bicyclists are better able to see oncoming cars when preparing to cross the street. In addition, the sidewalk improvements near Lincoln School aim to remove potential hazards. b. What is the relationship of the project to other bicycle or pedestrian routes/facilities (i.e. does it provide access to, or close a gap in the countywide bicycle or pedestrian network)? The project will increase access to the City’s pedestrian network. The work at Lincoln School will improve access by mitigating a potential hazard, while all bulbout locations will increase safety and encourage more pedestrian activity. 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 11 c. Does the project provide access to bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities in high use activity centers (schools, transit stations and other activity nodes)? If so, please describe. Yes, the project is centralized at local schools. d. Describe the cost effectiveness of the project. Does the project provide a relatively high impact for the cost? Based on continuing discussions with the City’s BPAC and the officials at the Burlingame School District, the project does offer a relatively high impact for the cost. Specific locations along established walking and bicycling routes were identified by the groups as barriers to connectivity and improving them are key to encouraging more residents to walk and bike in the areas around the school. All of the schools are situated on heavily used roadways and will directly benefit from the bulbouts which lead right into campus. The project will improve pedestrian safety and creates a more user-friendly environment for all students and bicyclists. Does the project serve a low income/transit dependent population in the immediate vicinity? If so, please explain. Supporting documentation (e.g. census demographics, maps or tables) is recommended. Burlingame is a diverse community with a median household income of about $90,000. More than 50% of the residents are renters, with the majority living in multi-family dwellings. Many residents utilize transit, walk, and bicycle to get to school or work, or to run errands or attend leisure activities. All the project locations are located in residential areas. The project will significantly increase safety for the numerous students walking to school by reducing crossing distances on streets, increasing the area for students to stage, and making drivers aware of the students and pedestrians in the area. These benefits will accrue not only to students and their parents but also to others in the community who walk or ride in the vicinity of the schools. III. POLICY CONSISTENCY – Up to 10 points a. Demonstrate how the project is consistent with policy documents. Is the project identified in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) as part of the Countywide Bikeway Network or located in a Pedestrian Focus Area in the CBPP? Yes No Page number(s): (include excerpt in appendix) b. Is the project identified in a local Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Plan? Yes No Document Name and Page number(s): (include excerpt in appendix) 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 12 c. For any other relevant planning and/or policy documents, list each document with the publication date and the page upon which the project can be found. Attach relevant pages in the appendix. If the project is not specifically identified in a planning or policy document, describe how it supports or is consistent with it. Document or Policy Publication Date Page Walking and Bicycle Audits – Burlingame School District May 2014 3-10, 19-22 Envision Burlingame: General Plan Update (Public Draft) August 2017 M-1, M-2, M-9, M-10, M-11, M- 31 City of Burlingame 2017-18 Adopted Budget Implementation Action Plan FY 2017-2018: Goals, Strategies and Tasks June 2017 XX, XVI, 9, 153 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 13 IV. FUNDING – Up to 10 points a. Using the table below, indicate the sources of funding as well as the percentage that have been secured for the proposed Measure A project work scope. Add rows as needed. If other Measure A funds are involved, be specific about the program, e.g. Measure A Local Streets and Transportation or San Mateo County 2012 Measure A. If any of the match is from the private sector, specify the source (e.g. development impact fees) A ten percent match, at a minimum, is required. Funding Source Total Percentage Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Request $500,000 67.8% Local Match $238,000 32.2% $ % $ % Total Project Cost $738,000 % Total matching funds to be provided: $ 238,000 Total project costs $ 738,000 Local match percentage = total matching funds provided total project cost 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 14 b. If applicable, list all funding sources for prior phases of completed work as well as any committed funding sources for future phases of work, beyond the project scope for the current Measure A request but part of the overall project. Funding Source(s) for Prior Phases of Work Phase Funding Amount Percentage $ % $ % $ % $ % Total: $ % Committed Source(s) for Future Phases of Work Phase Funding Amount Percentage $ % $ % $ % $ % Total: $ % c. Discuss any potential funding shortfalls or risks associated with any of the listed funding sources, and how they will be addressed. If the project is a large capital infrastructure project with a funding gap, as defined in section 6.c. of the Call for Projects Guidelines, what is the plan to close the funding gap within the allotted one year period? There are no potential funding shortfalls or risks associated with non-grant funds. City General Fund dollars will be used as a local match to pay for all pre-project planning, preliminary engineering, and PS&E costs. The City will also contribute a portion of funds needed for the construction phase of the project. d. Can the project be divided into phases or segments if full funding is not available? Yes No If “Yes”, describe the different phases/segments and costs associated with each. 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 15 V. SUSTAINABILITY – Up to 10 points a. What are the environmental benefits of the project (e.g. reduces emissions and improves air quality, utilizes low environmental impact/green development practices)? Provide the methodology for any cited performance data. The project will create a safer environment for pedestrians, thereby making walking to school a more attractive option for students and their parents as well as those community members who live near neighborhood schools or visit them for recreational purposes outside of school hours. The increase in walking, whether for access to school or recreational purposes, also translates to a corresponding decrease in automobile use and the associated hydro-carbon pollution. b. Does the project improve links or facilities between Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and transit stations/other high-use activity centers? How does it contribute toward the creation of livable, walkable, and healthy communities? All of the project locations are in the residential and school areas. Within these areas, there are multi-family residential complexes, as well as developments in the planning stages. Each location has been reviewed to increase safety, be highly visible, and to further encourage walking as a mode option by reducing safety concerns that discourage walking. Six different bus lines stop in the immediate vicinity of the proposed school locations, with a total of 61 stops per day. Bus passengers travelling to the schools and surrounding neighborhoods stand to benefit from the safety improvements. In summary, the project contributes to the creation and improvement of a livable, walkable, and healthy community by fostering more confidence in the public to traverse between all the above activity centers through safety improvements at the project locations. c. Does the project support existing economic activity and/or new economic development in the immediate vicinity? Yes, the project supports existing economic activities in the immediate vicinity. Many of the project locations are a couple of blocks from transit stops. With more pedestrians accessing the project locations via transit, there may be a desire from transit agencies to increase frequency of certain routes. These same routes are also be used by people commuting to work. With over 9,700 new employment opportunities projected over the next couple of decades, improving the pedestrian infrastructure would go a long way to support employment growth. BURLINGAME California — - - - SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENT TYPICAL SCHOOL INTERSECTION ENHANCED SCHOOL INTERSECTION Walking and Bicycling Audits Burlingame School District Franklin Elementary School Lincoln Elementary School McKinley Elementary School Roosevelt Elementary School Washington Elementary School C/CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County FINAL: MAY 2014 DRAFT: BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT WALKING AND BICYCLING AUDITS | 2 CONTENTS Franklin Elementary School ...............................3 Lincoln Elementary School ................................7 McKinley Elementary School .........................11 Roosevelt Elementary School ........................15 Washington Elementary School ....................19 Toolbox of Potential Improvements ............23 DRAFT: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WALKING AND BICYCLING AUDIT | 3 School Information Franklin Elementary School (“Franklin”) is located in a mixed residential/commercial neighborhood at the corner of 2835 Trousdale Drive and Quesada Way. Trousdale Avenue is a minor arterial road located three blocks from El Camino Real, a major arterial road. Peninsula Hospital and the Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center are both significant sources of traffic along Trousdale Avenue, which begins at Highway 280 and ends at El Camino Real. During the 2013–2014 school year, 532 students were enrolled in Kindergarten through fifth grade. Franklin has one designated drop-off / pick-up pull-loop area within the parking lot on Trousdale Drive. Franklin is served by a three-leg crosswalk at the intersection of Trousdale Drive and Quesada Way. Automotive traffic to the school during drop-off and pick-up times is complex, owing to two-way traffic on Trousdale Avenue turning to to the drop-off / pick-up loop, and traffic making loops along Pinon Avenue (parallel to Trousdale Drive). Bell Schedule Grade Morning Afternoon Transitional K - Regular Days 9:00 a.m.12:30 p.m. K – Regular Days 8:30 a.m.2:00 p.m. 1-5 Regular Days 8:30 a.m.3:00 p.m. Transitional K – Tues. Schedule 9:00 a.m.12:30 p.m. K – 5 Tuesday Schedule 8:30 a.m.2:00 p.m. Transitional K – Minimum Days 9:00 a.m.12:30 p.m. K – 5 Minimum Days 8:30 a.m.1:30 p.m. Franklin Elementary School Walking and Biking Audit Figure 2 – Mode split for all school trips (n= 1960) Safe Routes to School Survey A parent survey was conducted at Franklin during the Fall 2012 semester; 126 households were surveyed, representing 197 students at the school. Key findings are reported below: ,Parents perceive a gap in school support for walking and bicycling: A majority of parents recognize that walking and biking to school is fun for their children and important for their children’s health. However, fewer than half agree that walking and biking to school is encouraged by the school. See Figure 1. Figure 1 – Walking and biking to school is… (n= 126)Bayside a. n=64 b. n=65 c. n=65 d. n=65 How strongly do you agree with the following statement? Strongly DisagreeSomewhat Disagree Neutral/ No OpinionSomewhat AgreeStrongly Agree 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 …fun for my child(ren)…important for my child(ren)'s health …encouraged by my child(ren)'s school …something I wish we did more often Walk 19%Bike 1% Family Car 56% School Bus 7% Carpool Transit 5% Other 0% 11% Fall 2012 ResultsWeekly Miles Traveled by Mode Walk Bike Family Car School Bus Carpool Transit Other Morning Trips 84 16 726 0 47 40 5 Afternoon Trips 69 16 663 2 100 60 5 All Trips 152 33 1,389 2 147 100 1,832 Percent of Total Mileage 8% 2% 76%0%8%5% 0% a. n=116 b. n=118 c. n=115 d. n=114 How strongly do you agree with the following statement? Note:This analysis uses the mode frequency by respondent and assumes the median of the distance from school categories or the respondent-provided distance if greater than two miles. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 …fun for my child(ren) …important for my child(ren)'s health …encouraged by my child(ren)'s school …something I wish we did more oftenNumber of ResponsesStrongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral/ No Opinion Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 0 200 400 600 8001,0001,2001,400 Walk Bike Family Car School Bus Carpool Transit OtherMiles Mode 6 | MTC Safe Routes to School Evaluation - School Parent Survey Report 41% 42% 49% 49% 49% 51% 52% 53% 53% 56% 58% 60% 60% 62% 63% 65% 69% Driving is more convenient Don't know best route to school Child has too much to carry Child's before or after school activities Lack of bike parking at school Walking/biking take too long Lack of sidewalks and/or paths Too far from school Violence/crime in neighborhood Bad weather No crossing guards Lack of bikeways No adults to walk or bike with Speeding tra c along route Too much tra c along route Stranger danger Unsafe intersections Franklin Carpool 6% Transit 1% Bike 1% Family Car 66% Walk 25% Source MTC Safe Routes to Schools Parent Survey, 2012 ,Two-thirds of students travel to and from school by family car: Asked about their travel patterns, parents reported 66 percent of trips occurred by family vehicle. Twenty five (25) percent of trips were by foot. However, travel mode varies by time of day. There are more walking trips made in the morning than in the afternoon (28 percent a.m. vs 22 percent p.m.). Some of these afternoon pickup trips occurred by carpool instead (9 percent in the p.m. vs 3 percent in the a.m.). Trips made by bicycle remained constant at only 1 percent. See Figure 2 for a chart of the mode split for all trips made to school (a.m. and p.m. combined). ,A majority of students live more than a quarter mile away from school, which results in low rates of walking to school. Twenty-seven (27) percent of students live within a quarter mile from school, and another 18 percent within a half mile. More than half of the school’s students (55 percent) live more than a half mile away, and most of these students get to school by family car. ,Traffic considerations and neighborhood safety are a high priority: Parents were asked if they would allow their children to walk or bike to school if a variety of concerns were addressed. The top six concerns were, “unsafe intersections” (69 percent), “stranger danger” (65 percent), “too much traffic along route” (63 percent), “speeding traffic along route” (62 percent), “no adults to walk or bike with” (60 percent), and “lack of bikeways” (60 percent). See Figure 3 on page 4. San Francisco Bay Burlingame City Limits FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DRAFT: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WALKING AND BICYCLING AUDIT | 4 Walking and Bicycling Audit A walking and bicycling audit was held on the morning of January 8, 2014. The school’s principal and two teachers joined school district representatives, a Burlingame Police officer, and parents in the audit. Audit participants observed the morning arrival period, particularly the travel behavior by parents and students walking, biking, and dropping off by car. The group also noted transportation infrastructure issues at the school site and surrounding neighborhood. Photos are shown in the following page. 41% 42% 49% 49% 49% 51% 52% 53% 53% 56% 58% 60% 60% 62% 63% 65% 69% Driving is more convenient Don't know best route to school Child has too much to carry Child's before or after school activities Lack of bike parking at school Walking/biking take too long Lack of sidewalks and/or paths Too far from school Violence/crime in neighborhood Bad weather No crossing guards Lack of bikeways No adults to walk or bike with Speeding tra c along route Too much tra c along route Stranger danger Unsafe intersections Franklin Carpool6%Transit1% Bike 1% Family Car 66% Walk 25% Figure 3 – Would you allow your children to walk/bike more often if this concern were addressed? Infrastructure Observations SCHOOL GROUNDS: ,The school provides a well-designed student loading area within the school parking lot, which is accessed from Trousdale Road. Drop-off and pick-up zones are marked with cones, curb striping, and signs. Vehicles pull in to drop off or pick up five at a time. ,The staff parking aisle is differentiated from the drop-off / pick-up zone with orange “DO NOT ENTER” signs and cones. TROUSDALE ROAD: ,Trousdale Road between Castenada Drive and Quesada Way is wide and on a slope. The roadway has on-street parking on both sides and four traffic lanes. It does not have edge lines to separate the outside lanes from curbside parking. ,The City has installed speed feedback signs near the school to discourage speeding. ,There are no midblock crosswalks on the block between Castenada Way and Quesada Drive, which measures more than 900 feet. ,Parents reported that visibility facing southeast is challenging in the morning due to the rising sun. TROUSDALE ROAD AT CASTENADA DRIVE AND QUESADA WAY: ,This intersection is at a break in the slope on Trousdale Drive. Northbound Trousdale Drive is on the downhill approach, as are Martinez Drive and Castenada Drive. As such, vehicles occasionally encroached into intersection while pedestrians were crossing. TROUSDALE ROAD AT QUESADA WAY: ,Right-turning vehicles use the corner red zone as a turn pocket. Behavioral Observations SCHOOL GROUNDS: ,School staff assist with drop-off and pick-up at the loading zone. ,School staff noted that traffic backups occur when drivers queued to enter the school parking lot interfere with vehicles turning left out of the parking lot. TROUSDALE DRIVE: ,Traffic speed on Trousdale is an active concern for the school. ,Parents tended to not drop off on the east side of Trousdale Drive near the school because there is no midblock crosswalk. TROUSDALE DRIVE AT CASTENADA DRIVE: ,The school provides a crossing guard at this highly- trafficked intersection. ,High volumes of parents and students were observed walking downhill to school. The principal, teachers, and parents reported that some parents park remotely on Martinez Drive and walk their children to school through this intersection. ,Vehicles from northbound Trousdale Drive occasionally encroached into the intersection while pedestrians were crossing. TROUSDALE DRIVE AT QUESADA WAY: ,Parents and students crossing the street face several lanes of traffic in every direction. ,The City does not provide a crossing guard in this location, which also serves traffic to and from Burlingame Intermediate School. Improvement Plan Recommendations for the school site appear in the following pages. DRAFT: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WALKING AND BICYCLING AUDIT | 5 Parents, city police, teachers, the principal, and district administrators participated in the walk/bike Audit. The school has a well-defined drop-off / pick-up area.The parking aisle is differentiated from the drop-off / pick-up zone with signs. Trousdale Drive is heavily trafficked in the morning Parents dropping off on Trousdale Drive.Crossing guard assisting at Trousdale Drive and Ashton Avenue.Assembly C School Speed Limit signs on Trousdale Drive.Speed feedback signs remind motorists to control their speed. Trousdale Drive has wide approaches at Quesada Way.The Trousdale Drive / Quesada Way intersection does not have a crossing guard. Parents walking with their children to school on Trousdale Drive.Parents walking back from dropping off their children. Observations DRAFT: FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WALKING AND BICYCLING AUDIT | 6 FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BURLINGAME INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLTrousdale DrS A s h t o n A v e Ca s t e n a d a D r i v e Loy o l a D r Martinez Dr Ma r c e l l a W a y Que s a d a W a y Clarice LnDavis DrSeq u o i a A v e M a r c o P o l o W a y Pinon AveAt Castenada / Trousdale: • Extend red curbs on all corners to within 20 feet of the intersection • Install advance stop bars to improve pedestrian visibility • Long-term improvement: Consider bulb-outs at all four corners At Trousdale / S. Ashton: • Consider installing high-visibility crosswalk on north leg of Trousdale Road with corner bulb-outs and RRFB On Trousdale: • Add edgeline striping from Castenada to Quesada • Refresh red curbs on northbound Trousdale north and south of the school driveways • Long-term improvement: Consider a road diet to reduce from four trac lanes to three lanes and Class II bike lanes Consider prohibiting left turns out of the school parking lot during drop-o / pick-up At Trousdale / Quesada: • Install advance stop bars to improve pedestrian visibility • Consider providing an additional crossing guard • Long-term improvement: Consider bulb-outs at the southeast, southwest, and northeast corners to improve pedestrian visibility and reduce crossing distance • Long-term improvement: Consider a modern roundabout in concert with a road diet on Trousdale Road. 2 3 22 20 22 39 7 7 22 15 13 X For specific recommendations, see Toolbox on page 23.Potential Safe Routes to School Improvements DRAFT: LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WALKING AND BICYCLING AUDIT | 7 School Information Lincoln Elementary School (“Lincoln”) is located at 1801 Devereaux Drive in a residential neighborhood of Burlingame. Lincoln is surrounded by four local roads: Devereaux Drive, Balboa Avenue / Way (splits at inter- section of Devereaux Drive), Adeline Drive, and Bernal Avenue. Access to Lincoln is served directly by auto from Devereaux Avenue. In addition, several pedestrian roads lead to the school from neighboring streets: Ray Drive running parallel to Devereaux Drive, and Cabrillo Avenue and Cortez Avenue running perpendicular to Adeline Drive. El Camino Real, a major arterial collector is located just one block northeast of Lincoln. During the 2013-2014 school year, 512 students were enrolled in Kindergarten through fifth grade. Lincoln has a designated curbside drop-off / pick-up area along Devereaux Drive with traffic flowing in a clockwise position around the school. The single drop-off / pick-up is split by two crosswalks, with one crosswalk being fed directly by a pedestrian-only pathway that originates on Ray Drive. A second pedestrian-only path leads from Albemarle Way (a cul de sac) to a crosswalk on Balboa Avenue. Traffic is prohibited from making a left turn on to Devereaux Drive from Balboa Way. Bell Schedule Grade Morning Afternoon K – Regular Days 8:30 a.m.2:00 p.m. 1-5 Regular Days 8:30 a.m.3:00 p.m. K – 5 Tuesday Schedule 8:30 a.m.2:00 p.m. K - 5 Early Dismissal Schedule 8:30 a.m.1:30 p.m. K – 5 Minimum Days 8:30 a.m.12:00 p.m. Lincoln Elementary School Walking and Biking Audit Figure 2 – Mode split for all school trips (n= 3255) Safe Routes to School Survey A parent survey was conducted at Lincoln during the Fall 2012 semester; 216 households were surveyed, representing 330 students at the school. Key findings are reported below: ,Parents perceive support school support for walking and bicycling: More than two-thirds of parents recognize that biking and walking is both fun for their children as well as important for their children’s health. A nearly equal proportion of parents feel that walking and biking is is encouraged by the school. See Figure 1. Figure 1 – Walking and biking to school is… (n= 822) Source MTC Safe Routes to Schools Parent Survey, 2012 ,Nearly two-thirds of students walk or bike to school. Asked about their travel patterns, parents reported 59 percent of school trips occurred on foot. Thirty-five (35) percent of trips are by family vehicle. However, travel mode varies by time of day. There are more family car trips for afternoon drop- off than the morning pickup (37 percent p.m. vs 33 percent a.m.). Some of these afternoon pickup trips occurred by carpool and school bus instead. Trips made by bicycle remained mostly constant between mornings and afternoons (2 percent a.m., 3 percent p.m.). See Figure 2 for a chart of the mode split for all trips made to school (a.m. and p.m. combined). ,A majority of students live within a quarter-mile from school, which is considered a reasonable walking distance. Sixty (60) percent of students live within a quarter mile from school, and another 21 percent within a half mile. Less than a fifth (19 percent) of students travel more than a half mile to school. ,Traffic considerations are a high priority: Parents were asked if they would allow their children to walk or bike to school if a variety of concerns were addressed. The top three concerns were, “unsafe intersections” (63 percent), “speeding traffic along route” (61 percent), and “too much traffic along route” (60 percent). See Figure 3 on page 8. Bayside a. n=64 b. n=65 c. n=65 d. n=65 How strongly do you agree with the following statement? Strongly DisagreeSomewhat Disagree Neutral/ No OpinionSomewhat AgreeStrongly Agree 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 …fun for my child(ren)…important for my child(ren)'s health …encouraged by my child(ren)'s school …something I wish we did more often Walk 19%Bike 1% Family Car 56% School Bus 7% Carpool Transit 5% Other 0% 11% Fall 2012 ResultsWeekly Miles Traveled by Mode Walk Bike Family Car School Bus Carpool Transit Other Morning Trips 231 39 338 1 45 0 0 Afternoon Trips 187 39 335 2 85 0 0 All Trips 418 78 673 3 129 0 1,302 Percent of Total Mileage 32% 6% 52%0%10%0% 0% a. n=211 b. n=209 c. n=205 d. n=197 Note:This analysis uses the mode frequency by respondent and assumes the median of the distance from school categories or the respondent-provided distance if greater than two miles. How strongly do you agree with the following statement? 0 50 100 150 200 250 …fun for my child(ren) …important for my child(ren)'s health …encouraged by my child(ren)'s school …something I wish we did more oftenNumber of ResponsesStrongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral/ No Opinion Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 0 5001,0001,5002,0002,500 Walk Bike Family Car School Bus Carpool Transit OtherMiles Mode 6 | MTC Safe Routes to School Evaluation - School Parent Survey Reportlincoln Carpool 3% Walk 59% Bike 3% Family Car 35% 30% 36% 37% 38% 41% 43% 43% 44% 45% 47% 47% 54% 56% 56% 60% 61% 63% Don't know best route to school Violence/crime in neighborhood Bad weather Lack of bike parking at school Too far from school Child's before or after school activities Walking/biking take too long Driving is more convenient Child has too much to carry Lack of sidewalks and/or paths Stranger danger No adults to walk or bike with Lack of bikeways No crossing guards Too much tra c along route Speeding tra c along route Unsafe intersections San Francisco Bay Burlingame City Limits LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DRAFT: LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WALKING AND BICYCLING AUDIT | 8 Walking and Bicycling Audit A walking and bicycling audit was held on the afternoon of February 5, 2014. The school principal and a parent guided the audit, which was also attended by school district staff and a City of Burlingame engineer. Audit participants observed the afternoon pick-up period, particularly the travel behavior by parents and students walking, biking, and picking up by car. The group also noted transportation infrastructure issues at the school site and surrounding neighborhood. Photos are shown in the following page. Infrastructure Observations SCHOOL GROUNDS ,The school provides a designated drop-off / pick-up zone at the school’s front entrance on Devereux Drive, which is designated with white curb. The sidewalk was recently widened to better accommodate pedestrians and loading. ,There are four pedestrian pathways that provide access from the surrounding neighborhood to the school; one from the west via Lassen Way, one from the north via Abermale Way, and two from the east via Cabrillo Avenue and Cortez Avenue. BALBOA WAY ,The section of Balboa Way fronting the school (between Devereux and Adeline Drives) has a horizontal S-curve, which negatively affects the sight distance and maneuvering space for approaching vehicles. ,There is an uncontrolled crosswalk across Balboa Way at one end of the S-curve. The crosswalk connects the pedestrian pathway from Abermale Way to the school and Ray Park. ,The perpendicular parking for Ray Park on Balboa Way creates a 150-foot section where pedestrians walk directly behind parked cars, and are therefore susceptible to being hit by cars backing out of the space. Moreover, the perpendicular parking is located within the S-curve section of the street, which makes it even more difficult for vehicles back out of the parking space to see approaching pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobiles. EL CAMINO REAL ,El Camino Real has intermittent sections of paved and unpaved paths on both the north and south side of the road. ,There are two signal controlled intersections on El Camino Real, at Adeline Drive and Ray Drive, which provide access to the school. Figure 3 – Would you allow your children to walk/bike more often if this concern were addressed? lincoln Carpool 3% Walk 59% Bike 3% Family Car 35% 30% 36% 37% 38% 41% 43% 43% 44% 45% 47% 47% 54% 56% 56% 60% 61% 63% Don't know best route to school Violence/crime in neighborhood Bad weather Lack of bike parking at school Too far from school Child's before or after school activities Walking/biking take too long Driving is more convenient Child has too much to carry Lack of sidewalks and/or paths Stranger danger No adults to walk or bike with Lack of bikeways No crossing guards Too much tra c along route Speeding tra c along route Unsafe intersections Behavioral Observations SCHOOL GROUNDS ,The majority of parents and students appear to access the school via the pathway through Ray Park. BALBOA WAY ,School staff act as crossing guards at the uncontrolled Balboa Way / pedestrian path crosswalk. ,Parents walking on the south Balboa Way sidewalk have little separation from vehicles in the Ray Park parking lot. There were several observed instances where a vehicle pulling out of a spot into Balboa Way blocked pedestrians on the south sidewalk. ,Congestion on Balboa was most frequently due to vehicles pulling into and out of the Ray Park parking area, and vehicles maneuvering against traffic traveling in the opposing direction. EL CAMINO REAL ,The City’s Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) collected bicycle and pedestrian counts during the AM peak (7:45-8:45am) over four days in January 2014. Their data show there are twice as many pedestrians, adults and students combined, crossing at El Camino Real at Adeline Drive than at Ray Drive (523 pedestrians vs. 270 pedestrians over four AM counts). The City provides a crossing guard at Adeline Drive, but not at Ray Drive. Improvement Plan Recommendations for the school site appear in the following pages. DRAFT: LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WALKING AND BICYCLING AUDIT | 9 Observations White curb loading area in front of Lincoln Elementary School.Recent sidewalk widening in front of the school.Midblock school crosswalk on Devereux Drive.The midblock crosswalk at Balboa Way provides rear access through Ray Park. There are school crosswalk warning signs and red curbs at the crosswalk. School staff assisting at the crosswalk.Parents and students walking on the south side of Balboa Way behind parked vehicles. Vehicles pulling in and out of the Ray Park parking area. Pedestrian path between Albemarle Way and Balboa Way.Crossing is allowed and assisted on the west side of the El Camino Real / Adeline Drive intersection. Narrow path and cracked pavement on the south side of El Camino Real between Ray and Adeline. Students and parent crossing El Camino Real at Ray Drive. DRAFT: LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WALKING AND BICYCLING AUDIT | 10 LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL El Camino Real Balboa Ave Ray DrAdelline DrHillside DrPoppy DrDevereux DrDavis DrCortez Ave Cabrillo Ave Drake Ave Bernal Ave Vancouver Ave De Soto Ave Albermale Way Balboa Way Coronado Way Lassen Way Marco Polo Way McDonald Way Quesada Way Columbus Ave Monte Corvino Way C a mbrid g e RdX For specific recommendations, see Toolbox on page 23. At El Camino Real / Ray: • Study whether signal timing has pedestrian walk speed assumptions consistent with student walk speed • Consider providing an additional crossing guard At Ray / Balboa: • Consider installing high-visibility crosswalk across Ray Drive, with associated School Crosswalk Warning (Assembly B) signs • Paint red curb 20' on both sides of the crosswalk • Add truncated domes to crosswalk curb ramps At Devereux / Bernal: • Install high-visibility school crosswalk and School Crosswalk Warning (Assembly B) signs Consider establishing a school bike route on Bernal, Devereaux, and Quesada; consider adding school bike route signs and other markings to reinforce the route Encourage AM drop-o on Adeline for parents proceeding to BIS, consistent with the school trac routing plan. Students walk to school via paths at Cortez and Cabrillo. Add "AHEAD" plaque to S1-1 to create School Advance Warning (Assembly D) sign. Install School Advance Warning (Assembly D) sign. At Ray Park: • Consider angling parking to provide more clearance from sidewalk. Study eectiveness of back-in parking vs. potential head-in parking by westbound trac • Long term improvement: Consider reconfiguring park to provide a separated parking lot with parking aisle separated from sidewalk • Add truncated domes to crosswalk curb ramps • Paint red curb 20' on both sides of the crosswalk • Paint yellow centerline to discourage vehicular speeding and crossing into opposing trac • Consider raised crosswalk. Install RRFB if raised crosswalk not preferred. 2 12 12 Move SLOW SCHOOL XING pavement marking to within 100' of crosswalk 5 7 6 7 Add "AHEAD" plaque to S1-1 to create School Advance Warning (Assembly D) sign. 18 12 18 15 Potential Safe Routes to School Improvements LEGEND: Pedestrian Path DRAFT: WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WALKING AND BICYCLING AUDIT | 19 School Information Washington Elementary School (“Washington”) is located in a residential neighborhood at 801 Howard Avenue. The school is accessible by auto on three sides: Howard Avenue, Arundel Road, and Anita Road. During the 2013-2014 school year, 340 students were enrolled in Kindergarten through fifth grade. Washington has three designated curbside drop- off / pick-up areas along Howard Avenue, Arundel Road, and Anita Road. The drop-off/pick-up areas are prioritized with the majority of automotive traffic moving eastward and turning left from Howard Avenue, to the first location, continuing to move clockwise around the block on to Anita Road for the second drop-off / pick- up area, and finally turning left on to Howard Avenue for the third drop-off/pick-up area. A public bus stop is adjacent to the first drop-off / pick-up zone on the corner of Howard Avenue and Arundel Road.Bell Schedule Grade Morning Afternoon K – Regular Days 8:30 a.m.2:00 p.m. 1-5 Regular Days 8:30 a.m.3:00 p.m. Washington Elementary School Walking and Biking Audit Figure 2 – Mode split for all school trips (n= 178) Safe Routes to School Survey A parent survey was conducted at Washington during the Fall 2012 semester; 120 households were surveyed, representing 164 students at the school. Key findings are reported below: ,Parents perceive a gap in school support for walking and bicycling: Approximately two-thirds of parents recognize that biking and walking is both fun for their children as well as important for their children’s health. However, less than half of parents feel that it is encouraged by the school, and about half of parents wish it was something that they did more often. See Figure 1. Figure 1 – Walking and biking to school is…(n= 24) Source MTC Safe Routes to Schools Parent Survey, 2012 ,Riding in family vehicle and walking are the most common modes of travel: Asked about their travel patterns, parents reported 36 percent of school trips occurred on foot. Forty-nine (49) percent of trips are by family vehicle. However, travel mode varies by time of day. There are more family car trips for morning drop-off than the afternoon pickup (52 percent a.m. vs 46 percent p.m.). Some of these afternoon pickup trips occurred by walking and carpool instead. Trips made by bicycle remained mostly constant between mornings and afternoons (6 percent a.m., 5 percent p.m.). See Figure 2 for a chart of the mode split for all trips made to school (a.m. and p.m. combined). ,Walking mode share is less than proportional to the number of students living within easy walking distance from school. Forty-six (46) percent of students live within a quarter mile from school, and another 22 percent within a half mile – a total of 68 percent of students living one half mile or less from the school. Only 16 percent of students travel more than one mile to school. ,Traffic considerations are a high priority: Parents were asked if they would allow their children to walk or bike to school if a variety of concerns were addressed. The top three concerns were, “speeding traffic along route” (57 percent), “unsafe intersections” (56 percent), and “too much traffic along route” (56 percent). See Figure 3 on page 20. Bayside a. n=64 b. n=65 c. n=65 d. n=65 How strongly do you agree with the following statement? Strongly DisagreeSomewhat Disagree Neutral/ No OpinionSomewhat AgreeStrongly Agree 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 …fun for my child(ren)…important for my child(ren)'s health …encouraged by my child(ren)'s school …something I wish we did more often Walk 19%Bike 1% Family Car 56% School Bus 7% Carpool Transit 5% Other 0% 11% Fall 2012 ResultsWeekly Miles Traveled by Mode Walk Bike Family Car School Bus Carpool Transit Other Morning Trips 89 22 709 15 10 0 6 Afternoon Trips 99 17 646 40 25 0 4 All Trips 188 39 1,355 55 34 0 1,679 Percent of Total Mileage 11% 2% 81%3%2%0% 1% a. n=113 b. n=113 c. n=112 d. n=111 How strongly do you agree with the following statement? Note:This analysis uses the mode frequency by respondent and assumes the median of the distance from school categories or the respondent-provided distance if greater than two miles. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 …fun for my child(ren) …important for my child(ren)'s health …encouraged by my child(ren)'s school …something I wish we did more oftenNumber of ResponsesStrongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral/ No Opinion Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 0 100 200 300 400 500600700800900 Walk Bike Family Car School Bus Carpool Transit OtherMiles Mode 6 | MTC Safe Routes to School Evaluation - School Parent Survey Reportwashington 28% 36% 38% 41% 42% 43% 43% 44% 45% 50% 52% 52% 52% 54% 56% 56% 57% Don't know best route to school Bad weather Violence/crime in neighborhood Too far from school Lack of sidewalks and/or paths Driving is more convenient Lack of bikeways Walking/biking take too long Child has too much to carry Lack of bike parking at school Child's before or after school activities No adults to walk or bike with No crossing guards Stranger danger Too much tra c along route Unsafe intersections Speeding tra c along route Walk 36% Bike 6% Other 3% Family Car 49% School Bus 1% Carpool 6% San Francisco Bay Burlingame City Limits WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DRAFT: WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WALKING AND BICYCLING AUDIT | 20 washington 28% 36% 38% 41% 42% 43% 43% 44% 45% 50% 52% 52% 52% 54% 56% 56% 57% Don't know best route to school Bad weather Violence/crime in neighborhood Too far from school Lack of sidewalks and/or paths Driving is more convenient Lack of bikeways Walking/biking take too long Child has too much to carry Lack of bike parking at school Child's before or after school activities No adults to walk or bike with No crossing guards Stranger danger Too much tra c along route Unsafe intersections Speeding tra c along route Walk36%Bike 6% Other 3%Family Car49%School Bus1%Carpool6% Walking and Bicycling Audit A walking and bicycling audit was held on the morning of January 22, 2014. The school principal and a fourth- grade student, joined school district staff on the audit. Audit participants observed the morning drop-off period, focusing on behavior by parents and students walking, biking, and dropping off by car. The group walked the perimeter of the school and adjacent streets to note transportation infrastructure issues at the school site and in the surrounding neighborhood. Photos are shown in the following page. Infrastructure Observations HOWARD AVENUE ,School crossing signs need updating to current California MUTCD standards. ,Crosswalk markings are worn and need to be repainted. ,There is broken pavement on the west side of Howard Avenue to the east and west of Arundel Road. ARUNDEL ROAD ,There is a news rack located that potentially obstructs curbside loading. Behavioral Observations HOWARD AVENUE ,Parents waiting to access the loading zone regularly double park in the bike lane, and will occasionally load while double parked. ,There are very high volumes of pedestrians / bicyclists and vehicular traffic at the Howard Avenue / Arundel Road intersections. The audit team witnessed an automobile turning left from southbound Arundel Road nearly crash into a pedestrian crossing Howard Avenue. ARUNDEL ROAD ,Parents will use the red-curbed bus zone for drop- off / pick-up. The bus services the stop relatively infrequently: twice in the morning and six times in the afternoon. ,The school shares its property with a daycare center accessed from Arundel Road, which results in higher loading activity here. Improvement Plan Recommendations for the school site appear in the fol- lowing pages. Figure 3 – Would you allow your children to walk/bike more often if this concerned were addressed? DRAFT: WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WALKING AND BICYCLING AUDIT | 21 Zubin, a Washington student, joined the principal and district staff on the walk / bike audit. Many parents and students were observed walking and biking to school. The Howard / Arundel intersection has a crossing guard to assist students crossing. Student biking to school. School advance warning signs need to be updated to current CA MUTCD standards. Broken pavement on the north side of Howard Avenue is a tripping hazard. Washington’s primary loading zone is on Howard Avenue in front of the school. Double parking during drop-off on Howard Avenue. The school has a second signed loading zone on Anita Road.There is a third loading zone and bus stop on Arundel Road near the childcare center. Washington Elementary School is served by SamTrans bus service twice in the morning and six times in the afternoon. News rack obstructing the loading zone on Arundel Road. Observations DRAFT: WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WALKING AND BICYCLING AUDIT | 22 WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Peninsula AveState StBayswater AveHoward AveHoward AveChann i n g Rd Stanle y R d Dwigh t R d N Dela w a r e S t Claren d o n R d Bloom fi e l d R d Arund e l R d Anita R d Myrtle R d Woods i d e W a y N San Ma t e o D rBurlingame AveConcord WayLexington WayPlymouth WayVernon WayCalifornia Dr West Ln Add "SCHOOL" plaque (S4-3P) to existing School Zone Sign (S1-1) to create School Warning Assembly A At Arundel / Howard: • Install advance stop bars and high-visibility crosswalks on all legs • Add truncated domes to existing curb ramps • Refresh red curbs at all four corners 20' from the crosswalk • Consider bulb outs at all four corners • Consider adding a second crossing guard or consolidating to one Howard Avenue crosswalk (west leg) At Arundel Road entrance: • Consider moving the news rack out of the loading zone • Consider having sta and students assist with student drop-o / pick-up At Bayswater / Anita: • Paint high-visibility yellow school crosswalk at Anita Rd and install Assembly B School Crosswalk Warning signs Repaint eastbound Bayswater Ave "SLOW SCHOOL XING" pavement stencil to be within 100' of the uncontrolled crossing at Anita Rd At school entrance: • Consider allowing parking on Howard in front of the school to discourage curbside loading and push loading to Anita and Arundel • Enforce against loading in the bike lane Add "SCHOOL" plaque (S4-3P) to existing School Zone Sign (S1-1) to create School Warning Assembly A At Howard / Anita: • Install advance stop bars and high-visibility crosswalks on all legs • Add truncated domes to existing curb ramps • Refresh red curbs at all four corners 20' from the crosswalk • Consider bulb outs at all four corners. Fix broken sidewalk on north side of Howard At Anita Road entrance: • Consider having sta and students assist with student drop-o / pick-up • Consider emphasizing the north side of Anita Road as the preferred drop-o / pick-up location for trac from south of Bayswater Ave Repaint westbound Bayswater Ave "SLOW SCHOOL XING" pavement stencil to be within 100' of the uncontrolled crossing at Anita Rd 2 2 3 2 3 7 7 5 5 18 18 21 20 20 12 X For specific recommendations, see Toolbox on page 23.Potential Safe Routes to School Improvements Burlingame’s Traffic Safety and Parking Commission – December 14, 2017 Motion: To support the Measure A application for the School Improvements. M/S/C: Londer/Martos; 4/0/0 Motion: To support the City’s application for the Measure A grant regarding the California Drive Bicycle Facility Improvements. M/S/C: Bush/Londer; 4/0/0 City of Burlingame 2017 Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Application 2017 MEASURE A PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS Page 1 PROJECT APPLICATION FORM Project Information *feasibility studies, alternatives analysis, etc. Applicant Information (Repeat tables if more than one sponsor) Applications due by December 15, 2017 4:00 PM Overall Project Title: California Drive Complete Streets – Phase II In jurisdiction(s): City of Burlingame Measure A Request for Project Scope: $500,000 Total Cost for Project Scope: $1,200,000 Phases for Project Scope: Check all applicable phases requesting Measure A funds Pre-project planning* ROW PE/Environmental Construction PS&E Other (please specify): _________________________________ If sponsor (applicant) is submitting more than one application, please indicate the priority of this proposal in relation to the sponsor’s other applications 1st priority 2nd priority 3rd priority Sponsor: City of Burlingame Primary Contact person: Andrew Wong, P.E. Title: Senior Engineer Email: awong@burlingame.org Phone number: 650-558-7230 Secondary Contact person: Michael Tsai Title: Transportation Engineer Email: mtsai@burlingame.org Phone number: 650-558-7230 2017 MEASURE A PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS FUNDING APPLICATION Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Project Readiness and Need II. Effectiveness III. Policy Consistency IV. Funding V. Sustainability APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Required Sponsor Governing Board Resolution* *An endorsement letter from the sponsor’s City Manager/Executive Director must be provided if the resolution is not obtained by the December 15, 2017 application deadline. Required Non-Supplantation of Funds Certification Project Location Map, Plans, Photographs (Section I.1.a.iii) Policy & Plan Consistency Documentation (Section III.a, III.b, III.c) Letters of Support (Section I.1.e) If request is for Right of Way (ROW) acquisition, attach environmental clearance and documentation for estimate of value (Section I.1.b) I. Project Readiness and Need - up to 35 points 1. Project Readiness – up to 20 points a. Clear and Complete Proposal i. Overall Project Description: Describe the overall project that is ultimately to be constructed. If the overall project is larger than the project scope for which the Measure A funds are requested, state the work that may have already been completed and the work that may remain. The overall project scope consists of planning, designing, and constructing bicycle facility improvements along an approximately 0.75 mile long segment of California Drive in Burlingame, from Broadway as the northern project limit, 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 3 to Oak Grove as the southern project limit. The construction portion of the project consists of re-paving and then striping the roadway with a new bicycle facility. California Drive is a major arterial within Burlingame, providing connections to multiple destinations including the Broadway Commercial Area, Burlingame Downtown, Broadway and Burlingame Caltrain Stations, the Main Library, City Hall, Washington Park, Burlingame High School, and the Burlingame Recreation Center. The Millbrae Intermodal Station lies just north of the city limits and can be accessed from California Drive. Because of California Drive’s key location in Burlingame, and because El Camino Real lacks adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities, bicyclists use this north-south roadway more than they use any others in Burlingame. Bicycle safety is a major concern for bicyclists riding along California Drive as it is a high-speed roadway with an 85th percentile speed of 39 mph (posted 35 mph). While experienced bicyclists ride on the street, less-experienced riders typically ride on the sidewalks, creating conflicts with pedestrians. This segment of California Drive is a multilane roadway consisting primarily of four vehicle travel lanes with an occasional dedicated left-turn lane at certain intersections. Various small businesses make up the western side of the street, while the Caltrain railroad tracks are adjacent to the entire eastern side of this segment of the street. Currently, there are Class III (sharrows) bicycle markings along the entire segment, with on-street parking on both sides. The project proposes the construction of a Class II dedicated bike lane in both the northbound and southbound directions. The project would utilize the existing roadway width and involve shifting and adjusting existing vehicle travel lanes and parking lanes to accommodate the improved bicycle facility along California Drive. This project would improve the “last mile” connection for all current and future users of BART and Caltrain at the Millbrae, Broadway, and Burlingame Stations. A Class II bicycle facility would significantly improve bicycle safety, while providing a separated bicycle facility for less-experienced riders. This separated facility would definitively show both bicyclists and motorists where bicyclists are to ride. Pedestrian safety also would be improved as bicyclists previously riding on the sidewalks would now ride on this safer Class II facility. The project would also narrow existing vehicular lanes to accommodate the Class II facility. This would serve as a traffic calming measure by reducing vehicle speeds. The City is currently finalizing designs for a new Class II bicycle facility north of Broadway all the way to Murchison Drive on the city’s northern edge. The proposed project would extend a similar bicycle facility from Broadway to Oak Grove Avenue, close to Burlingame’s downtown. 2017 MEASURE A PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS FUNDING APPLICATION Page 4 ii. Project Scope: Describe the work and phases (see list of phases in the table for project schedule, iv., below) that will be completed with the requested Measure A funds if it is a subset of the overall project description. Identify and provide justification for any supplementary improvements that enhance/improve the pedestrian and/or bicycle experience, that may include, but are not limited to, landscaping, lighting and street furniture, that are proposed for inclusion as part of the scope of work. The project scope consists of the following four phases: Pre-Project Planning The Pre-Project Planning stage consists of the City public outreach and developing concept plans to obtain community input before moving onto the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental phase. Preliminary Engineering and Environmental The Preliminary Engineering and Environmental stage consists of preparing engineering studies and designs using the previously obtained community input. During this stage, the City will fully develop feasible design options, secure necessary permits/agreements; and determine a preferred design alternative to carry forward into PS&E and construction. Plans, Specifications & Engineering The PS&E stage will consist of development of 100% engineering design plans and specifications for bidding and final construction. Construction and Procurement The final stage of the project is construction and procurement. This stage will entail bid procurement, contract award, and construction of the project, including repaving and restriping California Drive to include a new Class II bicycle facility. iii. Attach a Map(s), any plans, drawings and relevant photos of the overall project and scope for the requested Measure A funds. (Please see attachments.) iv. Project Schedule - Indicate the anticipated beginning and end date for each phase of the project. If a phase is not applicable for this application, write “N/A”. If the PS&E phase is underway, indicate the percent complete to date: N/A 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 5 Phase Month and Year Phase Start Phase End Pre-Project Planning June 2018 Dec. 2018 Preliminary Engineering(PE)/Environmental (ENV) Jan. 2019 June 2019 Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E) July 2019 Dec. 2019 ROW Acquisition and Utilities N/A N/A Construction and Procurement March 2020 June 2020 v. Provide a detailed budget for the applicable phase(s) of the project scope. [Optional: provide any known cost/budget information for prior and/or subsequent phases of the overall project and the basis for the estimate] Project Scope Phases Total Cost Estimate (A+B+C) Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program request (A) Prior Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle approved funding (B) Other Matching Funding (C) Source(s) of Other Matching Funding* Notes Pre-Project Planning $10,000 N/A N/A $10,000 Local PE/Environmental $20,000 N/A N/A $20,000 Local Design (PS&E)** $70,000 N/A N/A $70,000 Local Right of Way N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Construction $1,100,000 $500,000 N/A $600,000 Local Totals: $1,200,000 $500,000 N/A $700,000 Local * If there are multiple sources of matching funding, please identify and itemize each one separately. **Indicate status of Design (PS&E), if applicable, by percent complete (e.g. 15%, 35%, etc.) b. ROW certification completed? Yes or N/A No Comments: The project will not need any right-of-way acquisition. All project work will be done within the City right-of-way. If request is for, or includes ROW acquisition, describe why the ROW acquisition is necessary to implement the project: 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 6 c. Permits, Agreements and/or Environmental Clearance approved? Yes No N/A List all permits, agreements and environmental clearance (both CEQA and NEPA) approved and/or needed, to date: Permit/Agreements/Environmental Clearance Status Date Approved CEQA Categorically exempt Pending project selection d. Discuss the public planning process that occurred, or will occur, for the proposed project: California Drive is a major north-south bike route serving three regional transit stations and a SamTrans route; as such, the City and the public have identified California Drive as a high priority for an improved bicycle facility. The City’s public planning process for bicycle projects included numerous community meetings with the B/PAC and the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission. In addition, the City engaged the community around improved bicycle facilities during its outreach efforts for the General Plan Update. Public participation in the General Plan Update included appointing and engaging with a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) made up of a diverse cross-section of residents and local business community members. One of the CAC’s primary roles in the General Plan Update process was to connect with Burlingame’s various communities and stakeholders for the purpose of advising and making recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. The City also held a number of community workshops to engage with the public around the General Plan Update process. The draft General Plan specifically lists a separated bikeway on California Drive to enhance both north-south connections in the city and transit integration. Additionally, this bicycle project was previously identified in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is a policy document and implementation guide that sets forth strategies for change, as well as regulatory policies to guide and govern future development within the Burlingame Downtown area. The formulation of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan involved a two- year public process with multiple City Council meetings and public workshops beyond those held by the Burlingame B/PAC and TSPC. The Burlingame City Council officially adopted the Plan on 2010. There will be continued public outreach during the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental phase of the project. During this phase, there will be multiple public outreach events that will consist of a combination of City Council meetings, TSPC meetings, and B/PAC meetings to gather public comments and input about the project. e. Comment on level of public support. What is the level of interest in the project? Have any specific concerns been raised? List all non-sponsor stakeholders that have taken a formal position on the project and the action taken. As appropriate, attach documents of support and state composition of relevant committee. (examples: letters, meeting minutes, etc.) 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 7 This project has public/community/local support, as well as City government support. As explained above, both the Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (B/PAC) and the Traffic Safety & Parking Commission (TSPC) have identified bicycle improvements along California Drive as a high priority. The B/PAC is comprised of two members of the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission, a member of the Planning Commission, and Burlingame citizens involved in bicycling and pedestrian matters. The B/PAC reviews pedestrian and bicycling matters and forwards recommendations to the Burlingame TSPC. The TSPC includes five Burlingame residents appointed by the City Council to provide advice and recommendations to the City Council related to traffic, parking, and bicycle and pedestrian safety in Burlingame. Both the B/PAC and TSPC serve as venues whereby the general public can provide input and indicate support for projects such as this one, and both bodies have had many public discussions about bicycle improvements along California Drive. At the most recent TSPC meeting, the Commission unanimously supported the project. This project has garnered support from City commissions and committees and City government. It has also received support from the bicycling community, the Burlingame School District, and the San Mateo Union School District, as can be seen in the attached letters of support found in this application packet. 2. Project Need – Up to 15 points a. Describe the need for the project. In the narrative, state whether the project is primarily for commuter or recreational purposes, or if intended for both, how the project would accommodate both needs. Yes No Explain: California Drive is a major thoroughfare that connects three regional transit stations (Burlingame Downtown, Broadway, and Millbrae Station) to the Priority Development Area (PDA), but lacks an adequate and safe bicycle facility. There is a high volume of bicycle commuters who regularly use California Drive for commuting purposes between the transit stations and SamTrans stops and their homes. Additionally, recreational bicyclists who tend to ride along the Bayfront area also use this segment of California Drive. This project definitely meets both commuter and recreational bicycling purposes. The project will fill the need for improved bicyclists’ safety in both commuter and recreational modes by providing dedicated bike lanes in each direction along the entire project area on California Drive. A Class II facility would significantly increase bicycle safety, while providing a separated bicycle facility for less-experienced riders. This separated facility definitively shows bicyclists and motorists where to position themselves. Pedestrian safety is also improved, as bicyclists previously riding on the sidewalks would now ride on the Class II facility. The project would also narrow existing vehicular lanes to accommodate the Class II facility. This would serve as a traffic calming measure, which would further improve safety for bicyclists as well as motorists. The lack of separation by a physical barrier or striping between bicycles and cars is a significant problem because California Drive has experienced increased bicycle traffic. This is due to the fact that this corridor links the Millbrae BART/Caltrain/SamTrans Intermodal Station and the Burlingame Caltrain Station to 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 8 the surrounding residential areas and all the adjacent businesses and medical services. The roadway is currently signed and marked as a Class III shared-lane roadway for both vehicles and bicycles. Bicycle traffic has increased significantly along this arterial roadway as a result of past improvements, such as designating and identifying California Drive as a bicycle route. Because of the increased usage by bicyclists, more riders are now forced to travel close to the gutter and/or against parked cars to avoid being hit by speeding vehicles. Additionally, California Drive provides connection to multiple destinations for recreational or casual users including the Broadway Commercial Area, Burlingame Downtown, the Main Library, City Hall, Washington Park, Burlingame High School, and the Burlingame Recreation Center. The street also provides indirect access to the Bay Trail, via Carolan Avenue and Cadillac Way. Current users commute between the Intermodal BART/Caltrain/SamTrans Station in Millbrae and the residential neighborhoods extending to the south. Bicyclists use California Drive to access the Intermodal Station in order to commute to work in San Francisco or Silicon Valley, or to visit locales north and south of Burlingame for recreational purposes. For both commuting and recreational bicyclists, this project improves bicycling conditions as they travel north and south along California Drive. b. Describe the existing site conditions. Is there a lack of adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities at the site or in the immediate vicinity? How much demand exists for this project? California Drive is a major thoroughfare that connects three regional transit stations (Burlingame Downtown, Broadway, and Millbrae Station) to the Priority Development Area (PDA), but lacks an adequate and safe bicycle facility. There is a high volume of bicycle commuters who regularly use California Drive for commuting purposes between the transit stations and SamTrans stops and their homes. Additionally, recreational bicyclists who tend to ride along the Bayfront area also use this segment of California Drive This segment of California Drive is a multilane roadway consisting primarily of four vehicle travel lanes with an occasional dedicated left-turn lane at certain intersections. Various small businesses make up the western side of the street, while the Caltrain railroad tracks are adjacent to the entire eastern side of this segment of California Drive. Currently there are Class III (sharrows) bicycle markings along the whole segment, with on-street parking on both sides. Bicycle safety is a major concern for bicyclists riding along California Drive as it is a high speed roadway with an 85th percentile speed of 39 mph (35 mph speed limit). While experienced bicyclists ride on the street, less-experienced riders typically ride on the sidewalks, encountering conflicts with pedestrians. As previously stated, California Drive lacks an adequate bicycling facility and is in need of improvement, particularly since commuter and recreational bicycle usage along California Drive has increased over the past few years. Currently, the project area only has Class II shared-lane (sharrows) facilities along the entire route, which does not promote or support the safety conditions of a growing bicycling population. The bicycling surface is paved with asphalt concrete, which is the same as the vehicular roadway. The roadway itself was resurfaced over a decade ago and is considered to be in good, acceptable condition. A pedestrian sidewalk currently exists only along the west side of California Drive within the entire project area. 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 9 When constructed, the project will elevate the bicycling experience by increasing safety and accessibility for bicyclists of all levels. The increased demand of the current facility is such that it is a high priority for the City to improve safety of the route by making it a Class II bike facility. c. Is pedestrian and/or bicycle safety improved because of the project? Yes No Explain and cite any relevant history pertaining to accidents and safety issues in the immediate project vicinity: Bicyclists must currently share the roadway with motorists. While there have been no officially reported accidents between bicycles and vehicles recorded over the past 12 months, the City has received input from the public bicycling community requesting bicycle safety improvements. These requests stem from concerns over being hit by fast-moving cars while having to share travels lanes. Furthermore, these concerns are especially heightened for the bicyclists during the winter months, when standard time is implemented and there are fewer daylight hours. California Drive is a major arterial roadway that is used by drivers as an alternate parallel route to El Camino Real. California Drive is also used by drivers and bicycling commuters to travel between the Millbrae Intermodal BART/Caltrain/SamTrans Station and the residential and small commercial businesses south of the station. The ease of access that California Drive offers also means that there is a significant volume of bicyclists and drivers using the same facility. This project would help immensely by providing a safer bicycling facility along a vast majority of California Drive. II. EFFECTIVENESS – Up to 35 points a. Does the project provide facilities that accommodate both pedestrians and bicycles? If so, please describe how the project improves conditions for both walking and cycling. Although this project is primarily intended to provide a safe bicycle facility to serve the increased demand of bicyclists along the project area and the surrounding vicinity, it also provides signing and striping for pedestrians crossing along the corridor, which will further improve pedestrian safety. The project improves bicycling conditions by creating dedicated bike lanes that can be used exclusively by bicyclists in order to keep them separated from vehicular traffic. Additionally less experienced bicyclists who typically ride on the sidewalks due to their lack of comfort riding in traffic can now ride in the Class II facility. b. What is the relationship of the project to other bicycle or pedestrian routes/facilities (i.e. does it provide access to, or close a gap in the countywide bicycle or pedestrian network)? This project is directly related to other bicycle routes and facilities, as it serves as the main north/south route through Burlingame. California Drive spans the entire length of Burlingame and serves as one of three major thoroughfares for vehicles and bicycles. 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 10 The City is already finalizing design on a Class II facility between Murchison on the north end of town and Broadway and has the funds to construct the facility. This new project extends a Class II facility south of Broadway to Oak Grove, close to Burlingame’s downtown, thereby covering a majority of the city with a north- south Class II facility. The project improves a major part of the Burlingame bicycle network and is identified in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan, the Burlingame Bicycle Transportation Plan, and in the City’s draft General Plan Update as a key north-south bicycle route. The project is also identified in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan as an important component to create and/or improve bicycle access and circulation on California Drive. California Drive has numerous secondary residential bike routes that tie into it; the road serves as the main bicycle access route to Burlingame High School, Washington Park, Bayside Park, Burlingame Avenue Caltrain Station, Broadway Caltrain Station, and the Millbrae Intermodal BART/Caltrain/SamTrans Station. Additionally, California Drive is also the route used by bicyclists to access the Broadway and Burlingame Avenue commercial/business districts. Furthermore, the west side of California Drive is lined with numerous small retail businesses, restaurants, automotive sale and repair-related businesses, and other service- oriented businesses. c. Does the project provide access to bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities in high use activity centers (schools, transit stations and other activity nodes)? If so, please describe. The project limits border several high-use activity centers. The project is about a mile south of the Millbrae BART/Caltrain/SamTrans Intermodal Station. At its southern limit, the project is west of Burlingame High School, Washington Park, the Burlingame Aquatic Center, and the Burlingame Recreation Center. The Burlingame Caltrain Station, the Main Library, and City Hall are close to the project's southern limit. The Burlingame Caltrain Station is the only train station with regular service within the city limits. The station also serves as a SamTrans bus stop for the Burlingame Avenue Downtown Business District, as well as the primary stop for the city- sponsored free shuttle bus service. d. Describe the cost effectiveness of the project. Does the project provide a relatively high impact for the cost? Based on public input and the City‘s understanding of the needs, the project is cost effective not only because of the increased safety it will provide bicyclists, but in encouraging others to ride by creating a more user-friendly environment. California Drive is a high profile roadway used by over 11,000 vehicles a day. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) indicated that the bicycle mode share was 1.8% for the Bay Area. If the project was able match this percentage, it would represent significant increase in bicyclists using California Drive. e. Does the project serve a low income/transit dependent population in the immediate vicinity? If so, please explain. Supporting documentation (e.g. census demographics, maps or tables) is recommended. 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 11 Based on recent economic data, the City’s median household income is about $90,000. Many Burlingame residents utilize transit and live in multi-family dwellings. (Burlingame’s rental population exceeds 50%). The project is close to high-density apartment buildings located between California Drive and El Camino Real, and it is situated along a transit- oriented development corridor. This facility would serve a low income and transit- dependent population with its proximity to transit, including the Burlingame Caltrain Station and SamTrans stops. The project site has various small retail, automotive repair-related businesses, small restaurants and café establishments, along the west side of California Drive south of Broadway. All these shops and businesses are low-profit margin establishments that employ a fair number of minimum wage or low-wage workers. Many employees cannot afford to drive and pay for parking; instead, they rely on transit and bicycling to commute to their place of employment or business. Also, there has been a recent shift in workers, with younger workers preferring to bicycle to work rather than to drive and park a car. Many of these workers are employed in the businesses along California Drive in the project area. III. POLICY CONSISTENCY – Up to 10 points a. Demonstrate how the project is consistent with policy documents. Is the project identified in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) as part of the Countywide Bikeway Network or located in a Pedestrian Focus Area in the CBPP? Yes No Page number(s): 57 & 58 (include excerpt in appendix) b. Is the project identified in a local Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Plan? Yes No Document Name and Page number(s): Burlingame Bicycle Transportation Plan, pages C-9, C-10, C-12, C-15 (include excerpt in appendix) c. For any other relevant planning and/or policy documents, list each document with the publication date and the page upon which the project can be found. Attach relevant pages in the appendix. If the project is not specifically identified in a planning or policy document, describe how it supports or is consistent with it. Document or Policy Publication Date Page Envision Burlingame: General Plan Update (Public Draft) August 2017 M-1, M-13, M- 24, M-25 City of Burlingame 2017-18 Adopted Budget Implementation Action Plan FY 2017-2018: Goals, Strategies and Tasks June 2017 XX, XVI, 9, 153 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 12 Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Section III: Environmental Analysis - (F) Traffic May 27, 2010 12, 117 - 119 North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Chapter 5: Circulation & Infrastructure Sept. 20, 2004 Amended: February 5, 2007 36, 41 IV. FUNDING – Up to 10 points a. Using the table below, indicate the sources of funding as well as the percentage that have been secured for the proposed Measure A project work scope. Add rows as needed. If other Measure A funds are involved, be specific about the program, e.g. Measure A Local Streets and Transportation or San Mateo County 2012 Measure A. If any of the match is from the private sector, specify the source (e.g. development impact fees) A ten percent match, at a minimum, is required. Funding Source Total Percentage Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Request $500,000 42% Local City Match $700,000 58% Total Project Cost $1,200,000 100% Total matching funds to be provided: $ 500,000 Total project costs $ 1,200,000 Local match percentage = total matching funds provided total project cost b. If applicable, list all funding sources for prior phases of completed work as well as any committed funding sources for future phases of work, beyond the project scope for the current Measure A request but part of the overall project. Funding Source(s) for Prior Phases of Work Phase Funding Amount Percentage 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 13 N/A $ 0 % Total: N/A $ 0 % Committed Source(s) for Future Phases of Work Phase Funding Amount Percentage N/A $ 0 % Total: N/A $ 0 % c. Discuss any potential funding shortfalls or risks associated with any of the listed funding sources, and how they will be addressed. If the project is a large capital infrastructure project with a funding gap, as defined in section 6.c. of the Call for Projects Guidelines, what is the plan to close the funding gap within the allotted one year period? The City foresees no potential funding shortfalls or risks associated with non-Measure A grant funds. d. Can the project be divided into phases or segments if full funding is not available? Yes No If “Yes”, describe the different phases/segments and costs associated with each. V. SUSTAINABILITY – Up to 10 points a. What are the environmental benefits of the project (e.g. reduces emissions and improves air quality, utilizes low environmental impact/green development practices)? Provide the methodology for any cited performance data. The project will create a safer environment that will encourage more bicycling in the project area. The safer the route is, the more the bicycling public will want to use this facility as well as the train, BART, and bus facilities at any of the three transit stations. The increase in bicycling activity, whether for commuting or recreational purposes, also translates to a corresponding decrease in automobile use and the associated greenhouse gases. b. Does the project improve links or facilities between Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and transit stations/other high-use activity centers? How does it contribute toward the creation of livable, walkable, and healthy communities? The project is along the transit-oriented development corridor, which includes a significant number of multi-family residential complexes, as well as developments in the planning stages. The City’s major commercial areas bookend the project location, with Broadway to the north and Burlingame Avenue to the south. This roadway is regularly used by employees of all the area businesses cited above. 2017 Measure A Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Funding Application Page 14 Locally, the project improves links to transit stations – the Broadway and Burlingame Caltrain Stations and the SamTrans bus stops. It also improves the link to high-use activity centers such as the Burlingame High School campus, City Hall, the Main Library, Washington Park, and the Burlingame Recreation Center. Regionally, the project serves as a bicycle commute route link between San Francisco and San Francisco Airport to the north, and residential communities to the south. In summary, the project contributes to the creation and improvement of a livable, walkable, and healthier community by making it easier and safer for members of the public to cycle to work, to leisure activities, and to locations beyond Burlingame. c. Does the project support existing economic activity and/or new economic development in the immediate vicinity? Yes, the project supports existing economic activities in the immediate vicinity. At each end of the project are both of the City’s major commercial areas: the Broadway commercial/retail area to the north, and the Burlingame Avenue commercial/retail area to the south. Within both districts are numerous retail, service, and restaurant businesses. Additionally, over the next couple of decades, it is projected that there will be about 9,700 new employment opportunities. With current and future parking concerns, the parking demand cannot be met, so other transportation modes will be sorely needed. BURLINGAME California PUBLIC WORKS—ENGINEERING 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 - 3997 Phone: (650) 558-7230 FAX: (650) 685-9310 CALIFORNIA DRIVE COMPLETE STREETS PHASE II CONCEPT “C” CROSS SECTION –CLASS II DESIGN BROADWAY - OAK GROVE AVE (View looking North) CURB/SIDEWALK BIKE LANE (10’‐0”) TRAVEL LANE (11’‐0”) CURB TRAVEL LANE (11’‐0”) TRAVEL LANE (11’‐0”) TRAVEL LANE (10’‐0”) PARKING (8’‐0”) CURB‐TO‐CURB ROADWAY WIDTH (~64 FEET) BUFFER (3’‐0”) 650 North Delaware Street, San Mateo, CA 94401-1732 (650) 558-2299 (650) 762-0249 FAX Adult School - Aragon - Burlingame - Capuchino - Hillsdale - Middle College - Mills - Peninsula - San Mateo An Equal Opportunity Employer December 7, 2017 San Mateo County Transportation Authority Attention: Pete Rasmussen P.O. Box 3006 San Carlos, CA 94070‐1306 RE: City of Burlingame – California Drive Complete Streets – Phase II Dear Transportation Authority Board Members: The San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) is writing this letter to express our support for the City of Burlingame’s San Mateo County Transportation Authority’s 2017 Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program grant application for the California Drive Complete Streets – Phase II. As you know, the objective of the California Drive Complete Streets Project is to improve and promote bicyclist safety by enhancing the existing Class III bicycle facilities along California Drive from Broadway to Oak Grove Avenue. This project, along with the City’s planned California Drive Roundabout Project and the recently completed Carolan Avenue Complete Streets Project, will all provide bicyclists a major upgrade along the City’s portion of the North‐South County Bicycle Route. This route is also a direct link to our District’s Burlingame High School and will increase the number of users along California Drive. With an improved facility, students would have an alternative to driving as their sole mode of transportation. Our students are encouraged to find modes of travel beyond the automobile in order to stay healthy, as well as to contribute positively to the environment. This project will help them bike safely while carrying out their environmental contribution. SMUHSD believe that Burlingame’s proposed project will be a benefit not only to our students, but to the bicycling community as a whole and support the steps the City is taking to provide improved facilities. There are so many reasons why we need to do everything we can to move people out of cars and using other means to move around our communities. This project will undoubtedly support our collective efforts to improve our community. Should you have any questions regarding our letter, please contact me at (650) 558‐2200, or via email at kskelly@SMUHSD.org. Sincerely, Kevin Skelly, Ph.D. Superintendent San Mateo Union High School District San Mateo Union High School District Kevin Skelly, Ph.D., Superintendent Elizabeth McManus, Deputy Superintendent Business Services Kirk Black, Ed.D., Deputy Superintendent Human Resources & Instruction KindyLee Mackamul, Associate Superintendent Student Services Burlingame’s Traffic Safety and Parking Commission – December 14, 2017 Motion: To support the Measure A application for the School Improvements. M/S/C: Londer/Martos; 4/0/0 Motion: To support the City’s application for the Measure A grant regarding the California Drive Bicycle Facility Improvements. M/S/C: Bush/Londer; 4/0/0 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8f MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director– (650) 558-7209 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Civil Service Rules and Regulations and Employer-Employee Relations Resolution RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving amendments to the Civil Service Rules and Regulations and the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution. BACKGROUND The Civil Services Rules and Regulations (Rules) were last amended in 2009. Those changes were limited to those necessary to omit references to the Civil Service Commission. Given that no significant updates to the Rules have been made since their creation in 1992, staff is proposing updates and changes to the Rules to ensure compliance with current labor laws and modern personnel practices. Starting in 1969, the City was required to establish a policy that governs employer-employee relations. The City’s Employer-Employee Relations Resolution (EERR) was adopted by the City Council on April 20, 1970, in conjunction with a set of rules to guide implementation of the EERR, and has not been updated since that date. DISCUSSION Civil Services Rules and Regulations (Rules) The Burlingame Municipal Code section 3.52 directs the City to establish rules and regulations to provide a merit-based system of personnel administration. The Rules were created in 1992. They were updated in 2009 to eliminate reference to the Civil Service Commission and transfer the functions of the commission to other persons and/or processes within the City. Clearly, laws have changed since then, and best practices for personnel management have evolved. However, the City is bound first by Federal and State laws and then by the existing City rules and regulations, and this sometimes creates obstacles for Human Resources staff and confusion for employees, particularly when the Rules are in conflict with employment law. The Civil Service Rules and Regulations cover the following topics: • Authority and responsibility of the Council, City Manager, Human Resources Department, and employees • Recruitment processes • Administration of the classification plan (job specifications and salary ranges) • Grounds for discipline and discipline appeal processes Amendment to the Civil Service Rules and Employer-Employee Relations Resolution January 16, 2018 2 • Abolishing (filled) positions • Leaves of absence • Improper political activities • Holidays • Outside employment City staff reviewed the existing Rules and has proposed updates (Exhibit A). These proposed changes were provided to the bargaining units, who were given the opportunity to discuss the changes and any impacts of the revisions. Employer-Employee Relations Resolution (EERR) The City adopted the current EERR on April 20, 1970. This document sets forth reasonable rules and procedures between the City, its employees, and employee organizations regarding employer-employee relations matters and a reasonable method for the resolution of disputes regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. It states that the City recognizes the right of City employees to join organizations of their choice and be represented by such organizations in their employment relationship with the City. It governs how the City recognizes bargaining units and decertifies bargaining units. It also covers impasse procedures. The City adopted two documents in 1970, an EERR and a set of implementation rules for the EERR. Unfortunately, these two documents do not work as well together as intended, and there are several conflicting provisions. The EERR is also missing a provision about bargaining unit modification, and the impasse procedures need to be updated based on new legislation. The EERR covers the following topics: • Purpose • Definitions • Representation proceedings o Petition of recognition – process and City response requirements o Decertification of bargaining units o Standards for determining appropriate units o Bargaining Unit modification o Impasse procedures The existing EERR documents required such extensive revisions that it seemed more prudent to adopt one new EERR. This document (Exhibit B) will supersede Resolution No. 33-70 – the EERR, and supplemental rules to implement the EERR. This document has been shared with the bargaining units, who were given an opportunity to review and discuss the proposed changes. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. Exhibits: • Resolution • A - Civil Service Rules and Regulations • B – Employer-Employee Relations Resolution RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Burlingame Municipal Code section 3.52 directs the City to establish rules and regulations to provide a merit-based system of personnel administration; and WHEREAS, the Civil Service Rules and Regulations were created in 1992 and have not been substantially revised since; and WHEREAS, as of 1969, the City was required to establish a policy that governs employer-employee relations; and WHEREAS, the Council adopted the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution (EERR) on April 20, 1970, in conjunction with a set of rules to guide implementation of the EERR; and WHEREAS, the EERR has not been revised since; and WHEREAS, the City desires to update the Civil Service Rules and Regulations and the EERR to ensure compliance with current labor laws and modern personnel practices; and WHEREAS, the proposed EERR will supersede the existing Resolution No. 33- 70; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes have been shared with the bargaining units; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Burlingame amends the Civil Service Rules and Regulations and Employer-Employee Relations Resolution, as stated in Exhibits A and B, attached to this resolution and incorporated herein. Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16th day of January, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 1 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES CITY OF BURLINGAME CATEGORY: Personnel December 2, 2009 PAGE: 4.2 SUBJECT: Civil Service Rules and Regulations CITY OF BURLINGAME CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS REVISED December 2, 2009 These rules may be superseded by Employee Memorandaums of Understanding. 2 INDEX I. PURPOSES, AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MERIT SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 4 A. PURPOSES OF THE MERIT SYSTEM 4 B. MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING 4 C. MERIT SYSTEM AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5 1. City Council. 5 2. City Manager. 5 3. Personnel DivisionHuman Resources Department. 6 4. City Officers and Employees. 7 II. RECRUITMENT AND APPLICATIONS 7 A. RECRUITMENT 7 B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANT POSITIONS TO BE FILLED 7 C. FILING OF APPLICATIONS 8 D. REJECTION OF APPLICATIONS 9 E. RECEIPT AND DURATION OF APPLICATIONS 9 F. POSTPONEMENT OR CANCELLATION OF EXAMINATIONS 9 III. EXAMINATIONS AND RATINGS 10 A. EXAMINATION TYPES AND ELIGIBILITY TO TAKE EXAMINATIONS 10 B. EXAMINATION PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION 10 C. SELF CERTIFICATION OF SKILLS. ABILITY, OR KNOWLEDGE 11 D. ORAL EXAMINATION BOARDS 11 E. IDENTIFICATION OF EXAMINEES CONCEALED 11 F. FRAUDULENT CONDUCT OR FALSE STATEMENTS BY APPLICANT 11 G. INTEGRITY OF THE EXAMINATION PROCESS 11 H. RATING 12 I. NOTIFICATION OF EXAMINATION RESULTS 13 J. WAIVER OF EXAMINATION 13 K. RETENTION OF EXAMINATION RECORDS 14 L. EXAMINATION RESOURCES 14 IV. ELIGIBLE LISTEMPLOYMENT LISTS 14 A. USE OF ELIGIBLE LISTEMPLOYMENT LIST 14 B. ESTABLISHMENT OF ELIGIBLE LISTEMPLOYMENT LISTS 14 C. AVAILABILITY OF ELIGIBLESELIGIBLE PERSONS 14 D. DURATION OF LISTS 14 E. REMOVAL OF NAME FROM LISTS 15 F. RESTORATION OF NAMES TO ELIGIBLE LISTEMPLOYMENT LISTS 16 G. CONSOLIDATION OF ELIGIBLE LISTEMPLOYMENT LISTS 16 V. CERTIFICATION 16 A. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION 16 B. ANTICIPATION OF NEED 16 C. PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLESELIGIBLE PERSONS IN ORDER TO FILL A VACANCY 16 D. APPROPRIATE ELIGIBLE LISTEMPLOYMENT LISTS 17 E. INCOMPLETE CERTIFICATION 17 F. PROCESSING APPLICANTS SELECTED 17 VI. APPOINTMENTS AND MERIT SYSTEM STATUS 18 A. FILLING OF VACANCIES 18 B. PROBATIONARY APPOINTMENT 18 C. INITIAL REGULAR APPOINTMENT 19 D. PROMOTIONAL APPOINTMENTS 19 E. TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS 20 3 VII. ADMINISTRATION OF THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN 21 A. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 21 B. USE OF THE PLAN 21 C. CONTENT OF THE PLAN 21 D. MAINTENANCE OF THE CLASSIFICATION 21 E. CLASSIFICATION AND ALLOCATION REVIEWS 22 F. CLASS SPECIFICATION 22 G. AMENDMENTS TO THE CLASSIFICATION 22 VIII. DEPARTMENT RULES 22 IX. SUSPENSIONS 23 X. DEMOTIONS 23 XI. DISCHARGE 23 A. PROCEDURE 23 B. CAUSE FOR DISCHARGE 24 XII. HEARINGS 24 XIII. ABOLISHMENT OF POSITION 25 XIV. LEAVES OF ABSENCE 25 A. VACATIONS 25 B. SICK AND DISABILITY LEAVES 26 1. Sick Leave Defined. 26 2. Accumulation of Sick Leave 27 3. Disability Leave. 27 4. Application for Sick Leave. 27 5. Use of Sick Leave. 28 6. Compulsory Sick Leave. 28 7. Sick Leave Pay Computation. 28 C. MILITARY LEAVES OF ABSENCE 28 D. OTHER LEAVES OF ABSENCE WITH OR WITHOUT PAY 28 E. RIGHT OF EMPLOYEE TO RETAIN POSITION 28 XV. IMPROPER POLITICAL ACTIVITIES 28 A. SOLICITATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS 28 B. DISCRIMINATION 29 XVI. HOLIDAYS 29 XVII. OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT 30 4 I. PURPOSES, AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MERIT SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION A. Purposes of the Merit System In accordance with the provisions of Chapters 3.48 and 3.52 of the Code of the City of Burlingame, these Rules and Regulations are established to further the intent and policy of the City Council to provide a merit system of personnel administration to accomplish the following:. 1. To recruit, select, and promote employees on the basis of their abilities, knowledge, skills, experience and performance. 2. To classify and where necessary, reclassify employee positions and establish compensation on the basis of relative duties, authorities, responsibilities, and working conditions on a fair, equitable, and uniform basis. 3. To provide equitable and adequate compensation and conditions of employment and in return require efficient, economic, and acceptable performance by city government employees. 4. To train and encourage individual employee development to assure high-quality job performance and to assist and motivate individual growth for promotions to higher level positions in the city organization. 5. To require preparation of thorough and objective evaluations on at least an annual basis and to use them when considering employee compensation, appointment, advancement, or other personnel actions. 6. To retain employees (subject to the availability of funds, the necessity of services, and appropriate employee conduct) only on the relative merit of individual performance, to correct inadequate performance, and to separate employees whose inadequate performance cannot be corrected. 7. To assure fair treatment of applicants and employees in all aspects of personnel administration without regard to political affiliation, race, color, national origin, sex, religious creed, marital status, physical disability, or sexual orientation and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights as citizens. 8. To assure that employees are protected against political coercion and are prohibited from using their official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the results of an election or a nomination for office. 9. To assure that there are no employees on the city payroll for whose services there is no demonstrable public need or benefit or who do not serve the best interest of the public and the city. B. Memorandaums of Understanding Provisions of agreements negotiated with employee organizations (Memorandaums of Understanding) shall take precedent precedence over these rules and regulations where conflicts 5 exist. C. Merit System Authorities and Responsibilities The following designations of authority and responsibility are made with respect to the administration of this merit system: 1. City Council. The City Council shall be the final authority for: a. Approving these merit system rules and regulations and all amendments thereto. It may also request the City Manager to research and prepare amendments and revisions deemed necessary. b. Approving the compensation and pay plan, the classification plan, and all amendments thereto, with the exception of revisions to existing class specifications (including duties, knowledge, and licenses/certifications) and class specification titles, which the City Council delegates to the City Manager. c. Recognizingtion of and approving of any agreements with bargaining units representing employees. d. Rendering final and binding decisions for the city in hearings as described in Section C.4.e.XII Hearings and sustaining, modifying, or overturning the disciplinary or termination actions taken. 2. City Manager. The City Manager shall: a. Be responsible to the City Council for the administration and maintenance of the personnel system subject to these merit system rules and regulations. b. Be the appointing authority responsible for the appointment or removal of all employees subject to the provisions of these rules and regulations, except those appointed and removed by the City Council or elected officials. The City Manager may delegate this appointing authority to such appointed department heads as he or she sees fit. c. Be responsible for the preparation of proposed amendments to the merit system rules and regulations, the classification plan and the compensation and pay plan in cooperation with the Personnel division Human Resources Department. c.d.Approve amendments to existing class specifications (including duties, knowledge, and licenses/certifications) and class specification titles. Changes in compensation, adding and deleting classifications must be approved by the City Council. d.e. Be responsible for negotiating agreements with bargaining units representing employee groups. e.f. Perform such other duties and exercise such other powers for personnel administration as may be described by law or these merit system rules and regulations. 6 3. Personnel DivisionHuman Resources Department. The Personnel DivisionHuman Resources Department shall: a. Be responsible to the City Manager for the administrative and technical direction of the city personnel program. The Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department shall administer the provisions of these rules to develop and administer such recruitment and examination programs as may be necessary to obtain or maintain an adequate supply of competent applicants to meet the needs of the city. b. Develop and maintain a comprehensive classification plan and make recommendations to the City Manager for amendments to the plan to reflect on a current basis the duties and responsibilities of each position. c. Maintain the compensation and pay plan, including the periodic review of salary and wage levels as they reflect city employment, and make recommendations to the City Manager for amendments to the compensation and pay plan as needed. d. In keeping with these rules and regulations, maintain a regular review of staffing and compensation and certify to the Finance Director any addition, deletion, and/or change in city payrolls. e. Review for proper execution and conformance to these rules and regulations all personnel actions, and return for correction any personnel actions not in conformance herewith, and approve as to the conformance all personnel actions. No personnel actions shall be deemed final until approved by the City Manager as being in conformance with these rules and regulations. f. Maintain roster of all employees of the city and pProvide for the proper security of personnel records. g. Provide for the orientation of all new city employees. h. Provide such forms and procedures as appropriate to carry out these rules and regulations and all other aspects of the Burlingame personnel administrative system. i. Develop in cooperation with the City Manager and the department heads such training and educational programs for employees in the city service as needed. j. Be responsible for the administration of such affirmative action programs as the City Council may adopt. Maintain records of conformance and provide reports as required by law or City Council. k.j. Provide staff assistance to the department heads and others in development of effective personnel policies and procedures. k. Recommend to the City Manager amendments to these rules and regulations. l. On behalf of the City Manager, negotiate agreements with bargaining units representing employee groups. 7 m. Participate in the administration of personnel provisions of the Memorandaums of Understanding. n. Perform any other functions as necessary or as directed by the City Manager to carry out the purpose and provisions of these personnel rules and regulations. 4. City Officers and Employees. All department heads and officers, whether elected or appointed, and employees shall comply with and carry out both their prescribed duties and the intent of these merit system rules and regulations. II. RECRUITMENT AND APPLICATIONS A. Recruitment 1. Recruitment of candidates for classified positions which are not to be filled by promotion, demotion, transfer, or re-employment will be carried out through any appropriate media on a timely basis to assure all segments of the public have the opportunity to apply and be considered for such positions. 2. Applicants will be recruited on the basis of the minimum training and experience requirements established for the class. 3. All publicity shall indicate the city is an equal opportunity employer. 4. Individuals shall be recruited from a geographic area as wide as is necessary to assure obtaining well-qualified candidates for the various types of positions. 5.4. The Administrative Assistant PersonnelHuman Resources Department, with the approval of the City Manager, may initiate efforts toward and participate in joint recruitment efforts with other local government employees agencies having similar personnel requirements. 6.5. When it is anticipated the volume of applications will be large in relation to the number of vacant position(s), the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department, upon consultation with the appropriate department head, may restrict recruitment to limit the size of the applicant group by: a. establishing a shorter filing period than that utilized for regular recruitment efforts; and/or b. specifying a maximum number of applications which will be accepted, and closing the recruitment immediately when that number is reached; and/or c. Other means which are appropriate to the circumstances. B. Announcement of Vacant Positions to be Filled 1. All vacant classified positions excluding those being filled by noncompetitive limited competition promotion, transfer, or re-employment, shall be publicized by posting announcements on the City’s website, and other media in the personnel office, on the 8 official department and division bulletin boards, and in other places and by such other means as the Personnel division deems advisable. Copies of all such announcements, except for those pertaining to positions being filled by limited competitive examinations limited to present employees of the City of Burlingame shall be sent to local newspapers and educational institutions, and other media, professional and vocational organizations, public officials, organizations and individuals as the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department may deem appropriate. 2. The announcements, which may be for filling vacancies by initial appointment or by promotion, shall specify: a. The class title, starting salary, and salary range of the position to be filled. b. A description of the duties and responsibilities of the position or class. c. Minimum qualification requirements for eligibility for for admission to written and/or oral tests, if requiredthe position or classification. d. All of the conditions of competition including relative weights assigned to various parts of the examination, the scope of any written test, and rating method to be used. e.d. Closing date of receipt of applications. Notices inviting the filing of applications shall be posted at least 21 days prior to the examination. f.e. The tentative date, time, and place of any examinations if required for the positions, and the date by which and the manner in which an applicant will be notified of his or her eligibility, selection or opportunity to take such examinations. g. The terms of the probationary appointment period associated with the class in which the position falls in the classification plan. 3. When deemed in the best interest of the city, the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department may recruit and examine applicants at any time to increase the quality or quantity of eligibleseligible persons on an existing eligible employment list after consultation with the appropriate department head. He or sheThe Human Resources Department may also recruit and examine on a continuous basis. New eligibleseligible persons to be merged with an existing eligible listemployment list will be ranked according to their numerical score. 4. The Personnel division, with the approval of the City Manager, may initiate efforts towards and participate in joint recruitments with other local public employers having similar vacant positions to be filled. C. Filing of Applications 1. All applications for classified positions shall be made on standard forms prescribed by the Personnel division. 2.1. Applications may be filed in the personnel office or by mail. All applications shall be received in person or by mail by 5:00 p.m. of the final filing date and time listed in the job announcement posting. 9 3. All applications shall be signed by the applicant attesting to the truth of all statements contained in the application form. 4.2. To receive consideration, applications must be filed within any time limit fixed in the examination announcement. However,The the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department, when it is found necessary to assure sufficient numbers of qualified applicants, may extend the originally announced time limit for filing applications and may thereafter continue to accept applications. Such an extension of the time limit for filing shall be given appropriate public notice and publicity. 5.3. No individual shall be denied the right of filing a formal application for a publicly announced vacancy of a classified position. D. Rejection of Applications The Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department may reject any application or applicant when it has been determined that: 1. The application was not received on or before 5:00 p.m. of the final closing date and time established for receiving applications. 2. The application was not filed on the required formusing the required format. 3. The applicant does not possess the minimum qualification requirements as specified in the public announcement of the vacancy. 4. The applicant is physically, or mentally, or legally unfit to perform the essential required duties of the position. 5. The applicant has failed to complete the application form, made a false statement of a material fact, or practiced fraud or attempted to deceive in the application, in any tests, or in attempting to secure appointment. 6. For positions requiring criminal history disclosure, tThe applicant has been convicted of a felony which was related to the employment sought. Applicants having other felony convictions will be considered on an individual case basis, with the position involved, the crime for which convicted, and rehabilitation as the basis for decision. 7. The applicant was previously employed by the city and was dismissed for cause, or resigned not in good standing, and is not currently eligible for re-employment by the City. E. Receipt and Duration of Applications Applications, whether accepted or rejected for consideration for employment, shall remain on file for a period of at least three years and shall not be returned. F. Postponement or Cancellation of Examinations Any examination may be postponed or canceled at the direction of the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department, and efforts will be made to notify each applicant of the 10 postponement or cancellation. III. EXAMINATIONS AND RATINGS A. Examination Types and Eligibility to Take Examinations 1. Open examinations shall be available toare competitive and not all applicants will progress through the examination process. Aany applicant who has a properly executed application for the vacant position to be filled and whose application is not rejected as prescribed in these rules and regulations may be considered. 2. Closed competitive examinations shall be restricted to those permanent classified city employees whom the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department determines shall be eligible, utilizing such criteria as he or she maythe Human Resources Department deems appropriate for a given vacant position to be filled. Such determination of eligibility may be restricted to qualified employees of a single division or department, or may include employees of another or all city departments. a. Limiting competition to city employees through closed examinations must be justified by the department head and approved by the City Manager. b. Among the criteria which may be cited in such justifications are the requirements of special skills or knowledge possessed only by persons currently employed by the city, the maintenance of a continuous established line of career progression which is in the best interest of the city, or the availability of a large number of qualified city employees to fill the vacant position(s). 3. The City Manager shall be the final determining authority as to whether any given examination for a vacancy to be filled shall be conducted as an open competitive examination or a closed examination. B. Examination Preparation and Administration (1) Both open and closed examinations shall be prepared and conducted by or under the direction of Personnel divisionthe Human Resources Department, in cooperation with the advice of the department head(s) in which the vacant position(s) to be filled exist. Examinations may include, but not be limited to, written, oral, or practical demonstration of skill and ability, or any combination of these. Any investigation of education, experience, character, or identity, and any test of technical knowledge, ability, manual skill or physical and mental fitness or other relevant factors may be included in the examination. evaluations of character, training, and experience including performance appraisals; written, oral, physical, or performance tests or other measurements which are technically sound; oral interviews; certifications of experience and skills; or any combination as determined by the Personnel division. The examination process may take into consideration such factors as education, experience, recency of experience, prior job performance, knowledge, skill, physical fitness or any other qualifications which are job related, which may be applied equitably, and which, in the judgment of the Personnel division, enter into the determination of the relative fitness of applicants. 11 All examinations shall stress validity and reliability and relate to those matters which will test fairly the capacity and fitness of the applicant to discharge efficiently the duties of the position to be filled. The Personnel division shall consult with the appropriate department head in the development of the examination. C. Self Certification of Skills. Ability, or Knowledge When in the opinion of both the Personnel division and the department head in whose department the vacant position to be filled exist, the position is one for which no valid test exists for certain required skills, ability, or knowledge, or for which testing for such skills, ability, or knowledge may be inconclusive, unfair, or prohibitively time consuming or expensive, but for which on-the-job performance of a person in the position within a specified probationary or qualifying period will provide opportunity for the demonstration of such skills, knowledge or ability, then the Personnel division may allow as part of the examination a self certification statement by the applicant. Such a statement shall specify the skills, knowledge or ability required by the position to which the applicant certifies possession, and shall also state that false self certification, if determined to be the case by the department head during such probationary or qualifying period, shall be sufficient grounds for termination or demotion. D.C. Oral Examination Boards The Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department may elect to utilize an oral examination board as one of the instruments of the evaluation. Such boards shall be constituted by the Personnel division with the cooperation and advice of the department head in the department in which the vacant position is to be filled exists. The board should consist of at least three persons who may be selected from any of the following: persons who hold a similar or superior position within a department in which a vacant position to be filled exists; who hold a similar or superior position in another city department; who are not a city employee or officer and who have knowledge in the areas of skill, experience, training, and other requirements of the position. E. Identification of Examinees Concealed The Personnel division shall prescribe a procedure to be used in all examinations whereby all examination results shall not be identified with the name of any examinee until after the examination results have all been rated. F.D. Fraudulent Conduct or False Statements by Applicant Fraudulent conduct or false statements by an applicant or in an applicant's behalf, in any application or examination, shall be deemed cause for the exclusion of such applicant from an examination, or for removal of his or her name from all eligible employment lists, or for discharge from the service. G.E. Integrity of the Examination Process 1. Conviction of any employee for corrupt practices in rating and processing papers in connection with examinations for positions under the city merit system will result in dismissal of the guilty party or parties, as provided in these rules and regulations. 12 2.1. No employee or other participant in the exam process may participate, directly or indirectly, in the rating of an examination in which the employee or a relative, by blood or marriage, or a roommate, or anyone in the employee's householda person who resides in the same residence, is a competitor. 3.2. All statements of former employers and character inquiries shall be treated as confidential and not available for public inspection, except as explicitly permitted by the employee and the reviewer. 4.3. It is the responsibility of every employee of the city and every representative of the personnel divisionHuman Resources Department to treat as confidential any information available to them concerning examination material. H.F. Rating 1. Appropriate techniques and procedures based on merit principles shall be used in rating results of examinations and determining the relative ratings of the competitors. 2. For all examinations or segments thereof, the minimum performance requirements by which eligibility is achieved shall be established by the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department after consultation, when appropriate, with the department head(s). A minimum qualifying grade related to these minimum performance requirements shall be established for each exam segment or the combined ratings of the several parts of the examination. Applicants failing to achieve a minimum qualifying grade on any segment may be disqualified from further participation in the immediate examination process. 3. Preference to Veterans and Widows. a. As used herein, the term "veteran" shall be taken to mean any person who has served in the Army, Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps, or any other branch of the armed forces of the United States and received an honorable discharge or certificate of honorable service. b. Veterans with ninety (90) days or more actual service and widows and widowers of such veterans, when the passing mark has been attained in any entrance examination, shall be allowed a credit of three percent (3%) in making up the list of eligibleseligible persons secured by such examination. c. Veterans who have suffered permanent disability in the line of duty shall be allowed an additional credit of three percent (3 %) for entrance appointment, provided that such disability would not prevent the proper performance of the duties required under such service or employment, and provided that such disability is of record in the United States Veterans' Bureau. A disabled veteran is defined as one who has been accorded a disability rating of at least ten percent (10%) at the time of his or her application for appointment. Claim for regular preference must be made at time of filing application and must be 13 accompanied by proof of honorable discharge (either original or copy of discharge or other official record to show period of active service for ninety days or more). Under no circumstances may a claim for veteran preference in an examination be made after the list of eligibleseligible persons for such examination has been adopted. d. Widows or widowers of veterans should submit with their applications: (1) Proof of spouse's right to preference; (2) Proof of marriage; (3) Death certificate or other proof of spouse's death; and (4) Proof he or she was not divorced and has not remarried. 4.3. Final numerical rating shall be expressed on a scale of 100% for maximum possible attainment. To be considered for appointment, an applicant must attain an earned rating of at least 70%. This 70% may be the arithmetic percentage of the possible score achieved by a competitor when his or her results have been scored, or may be an adjusted score based on consideration of the difficulty of the examination, the quality of competition, and the needs of the city. I.G. Notification of Examination Results All applicants who complete the examination process for a position in a given classification shall be notified in writing relative to their passing or failing the examination process and be advised of their score. They shall also be informed of the remaining steps and procedures which may occur before final disposition on their applications. A statement is also to be included stating that position on the list does not assure an interview or hire. J.H. Waiver of Examination The examination process may be waived by the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department with the approval of the City Manager and an eligible listemployment list established showing candidates as qualified or not qualified based on meeting the minimum qualifications of the classification if any of the following conditions apply: 1. It is impractical to establish a selection device that will measure the relative fitness of candidates. 2. The minimum qualification consists solely of a bona fide or state registration such as, but not limited to, professional engineers, etc. 3. There are fewer than six candidates who have been found qualified after the filing deadline for receiving applications. This rule shall not be used to circumvent the normal competitive process as it relates to hiring the best qualified candidates. In the event additional recruitment and subsequent examination is necessary to supplement the eligible listemployment list developed herein,and candidates previously determined as qualified and remaining on the list must compete in the same examination procedure as new applicants to remain on the eligible listemployment list and shall be so notified. 14 K.I. Retention of Examination Records All examination records shall be retained for a period of three years or for the length of time required by federal, state, or city regulations, whichever is greater. L.J. Examination Resources The Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department shall have the authority to initiate into recruitment agreements for the exchange, joint usage, development, administration, evaluation, and validation of any or all segments of the examination program with other local employers and reputable concerns involved in personnel testing as deemed necessary, subject to the approval of the City Manager and, where appropriate, the City Council. IV. ELIGIBLE LISTEMPLOYMENT LISTS A. Use of Eligible ListEmployment List Classified positions shall be filled from eligible listemployment lists established by a competitive process unless the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department determines that the vacancies will be filled by transfer, demotion, reassignment, or through any authorized and established non-competitive process. B. Establishment of Eligible ListEmployment lists 1. The Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department shall establish and maintain such eligible listemployment lists for the various classes of positions as may be necessary to assure an adequate number of eligibleseligible persons to fill vacancies which may or are known to occur. 2. Each list shall contain the names of those eligibleseligible persons that have completed the examination process and have been determined qualified and possess the required knowledge, abilities, and skills necessary for successful job performance. 3. Names of eligibleseligible persons shall be placed on eligible listemployment lists in the order of the numerical ratings resulting from their examinations. C. Availability of EligiblesEligible Persons It shall be the responsibility of eligibleseligible persons to notify the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department in writing of any changes of address or other change affecting availability for employment. Whenever an eligible-in his or her application or by submitting a written statement- restricts the conditions under which he or she will be available for employment, his or her name may be withheld from all certification which does not meet the conditions which he or she specified. As needed and feasible, the Personnel division shall circularize eligibles to maintain availability of eligibles on a current basis. D. Duration of Lists Each eligible listemployment list shall remain in effect for a period of one year. 15 When deemed necessary and in the best interest of the city service, the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department may keep the eligible listemployment list in effect for an additional period not to exceed one year when the City Manager. A statement of the reasons for any such extension shall be entered in the records of the personnel officeHuman Resources Department. E. Removal of Name From Lists Names may be removed from eligible listemployment lists for any of the reasons listed below: 1. At the written request of the eligible; 2. Refusal of an offer of employment; 3. Appointment through certification from such lists to fill a permanent position; 4. Appointment through certification from the eligible listemployment list for another class at the same or higher compensation. (In such case, at the request of the appointee, his or her name may be continued on any or all lists other than the one from which the appointment was made, for the remainder of the period of eligibility on such lists.); 5. Filing of a written statement by the eligible that he or she is not willing to accept appointment; 6. Failure to report for interview or to respond-within the time specified in the notice—to any inquiry of the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department or department head relative to employment or availability unless satisfactory evidence is furnished justifying such failure to respond; 7. Failure to report for work after accepting appointment; 8. INotice by postal authorities of their inability to locate eligible at last known address; 9. Discovery that the eligible has willfully provided erroneous information, withheld information, evaded questions or otherwise misrepresented his or her qualifications in order to qualify for appointment or promotion; 10. Any cause or condition otherwise specified in these rules for rejection of an application; or 10.11. A ny good and sufficient reason. The rejection of an applicant by one department shall not affect the eligibility for appointment to a position in any other department or under any other appointing authority's jurisdiction. 16 F. Restoration of Names to Eligible ListEmployment Lists Whenever any person's name is removed from an eligible listemployment list, he or she may will be notified thereof unless his or her whereabouts are unknown. Such a person may at any time during the life of that eligible listemployment list make written request to the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department for the restoration of his or her name to such list for the duration of their eligibility. The request shall set forth the reasons for the conduct or conditions resulting in the removal of the name from the list and shall further specify the reasons advanced for restoration of the name. The Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department, after full consideration of the request, may restore the name to the eligible listemployment list or may refuse such request and the person shall be notified of the action. G. Consolidation of Eligible ListEmployment Lists 1. The Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department may determine that the needs of the city require that an examination be held for a class for which an eligible listemployment list already exists, prior to its normal expiration date. In such an event, a new eligible listemployment list will be established as a result of the new examination, 2. The names of persons remaining on the old list shall may be placed on the new list in accordance with their previous final score, but such names may be removed from the list at the expiration of one year on the old list. Should such persons elect to take the new examination, their names will be placed on the eligible listemployment list in accordance with the new final score. V. CERTIFICATION A. Request for Certification All requisitions for certification of eligibleseligible persons for the filling of vacancies shall be made to the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department in writing. B. Anticipation of Need Insofar as possible, vacancies shall be anticipated sufficiently in advance to permit the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department to establish an eligible listemployment list. C. Procedure for Obtaining Certification of EligiblesEligible persons in Order to fill a Vacancy 1. Whenever a vacancy is to be filled, the appointing authority shall make requisition to the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department for certification of eligibleseligible persons for appointment to the class of the position for which the vacancy exists and shall recommend whether this shall be an open or closed examination. 2. Upon receipt of a valid requisition for certificate of eligibleseligible persons from an employment list to fill a vacancy, the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department shall certify to the requesting appointing authority the appropriate eligible listemployment list listing the names, addresses and telephone numbers of those persons eligible for appointment and who have indicated willingness to 17 accept appointment in one of the following alternative methods, to be determined at the discretion of the Personnel division. a. All eligibles up to and including the first ten eligibles ranked highest on the competitive eligible list(s). b. c. All eligibles who passed the examination. D. Appropriate Eligible ListEmployment Lists Certification shall ordinarily be made from a list established for the particular class in which the vacancy exists. However, if no such list exists or the list contains an insufficient number of eligibleseligible persons for certification purposes, the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department may certify names from an appropriate alternative eligible listemployment list if such a list is available. Such a list shall be for a class of the same or higher pay level with the qualification requirements equal to or superior to the class in which the vacancy exists--e.g., clerk typist II eligibleseligible persons willing to accept a clerk typist I position. E. Incomplete Certification When the number of names on a certified eligibility list is fewer than six, the appointing authority or department head may select from them or may decline certification for that vacancy and request that a new list or lists be established. F. Processing Applicants Selected The department head or appointing authority shall select the best qualified eligible from among those certified. Once selected, the eligible shall be subject to a background check by appropriate authorities, following which it shall be the responsibility of the appointing authority to make the job offer to the selected person. Once the offer is made by the department head or appointing authority, the applicant will be directed to report to the personnel office for processing and the completion of appropriate forms. The offer of employment is conditional to the following: 1. Passing a physical examination if required for the job being filled. 2. Presenting a social security card and drivers' license as appropriate. 3. Presenting proof of education, if eligibility was based on education and/or any certificates or licenses as stated in the job description. 4. Presenting, documentation of right to work in the United States. 18 5. When appropriate, presenting certificate of separation from the armed forces (military form DD 214). 6. Verifying the date of birth. 7. Taking an oath of office. 8. Furnishing fingerprints. Any exception to this procedure must be by mutual agreement of the appointing authority and the Personnel division. VI. APPOINTMENTS AND MERIT SYSTEM STATUS A. Filling of Vacancies All vacancies in classified positions shall be filled by probationary appointment, demotion, transfer, reassignment, initial regular appointments or promotional appointments. B. Probationary Appointment Probationary appointments shall be given to all persons upon their first employment by the city on a regular full-time basisin a classified position resulting from selection from an appropriate employment list of eligibleseligible persons who have passed the examination for the class. The following rules apply to probationary appointments: 1. A probationary appointment shall be considered the "working test" portion of the examination process. As such, the probationary period shall be regarded as an integral part· of the selection process and shall be utilized for closely observing the employee's work, for securing the most effective adjustment of a new or promoted employee to the position, and for rejecting any employee whose performance or conduct is not satisfactory. 2. The standard period of a probationary appointment shall be twelve months with the exception of police officers which shall be eighteen months. 3. The department head shall cause the submission to the Administrative Assistant Personnel of aAn employee performance review shall be completed on for each employee serving under a probationary appointment at least two weeks prior to the expiration of each six month period of employment. If the employee receives a rating of "unsatisfactory" on any performance review, he or she will be dismissed prior to the expiration of the probationary period. If the employee receives a rating of "conditional" on any performance review while serving under a probationary appointment, he or she will be permitted to improve performance prior to the conclusion of the subsequent three month period of probationary employment; at this time, another performance review will be submitted on the employee. If any subsequent performance review results in an overall rating of "conditional" or has reverted to "unsatisfactory," the employee will be dismissed. Consistent ratings of "satisfactory," "above average," or "excellent" will enable an employee to attain permanent status. In all performance reviews, the decision of the department head shall be final. The department head having authority over any employee serving under a probationary 19 appointment may determine at any time prior to completion of the standard period of the probationary appointment that it is in the best interest of the city to extend the period of the probationary appointment of the employee. Such determination shall be in writing and shall be provided to the appointing authority and the employee prior to the expiration date of the employee's standard probationary period. No extension of the probationary period shall be for more than six months, except that in the event of a work related disability, any extension of the probationary period to allow the employee time for recovery from such disability shall not be considered with respect to the above limitation. 4. At any time during the probationary period, a department head - with the approval of the appointing authority may remove an employee if in his or her opinion the working test period indicates that such employee is unable or unwilling to perform the duties of the position satisfactorily. It shall be the duty of the appointing authority to remove an employee serving under a probationary appointment if the appointing authority determines that the employee's conduct, integrity, lack of dependability, or capacity do not merit continuance with the service. C. Initial Regular Appointment 1. Initial appointment shall be at the minimum salary step of the classification unless otherwise approved by the City Manager. 2. An employee given an original probationary appointment shall be given an initial regular appointment to the same position upon satisfactory completion, as indicated by a written performance evaluation by his or her immediate supervisor, of the probationary "working test" period. The employee shall thereby acquire permanent status within the city's merit system. D.C. Promotional Appointments (1) Insofar as practicable and consistent with the best interests of the serviceCity, all consideration shall be given to filling vacancies in higher positions shall be filled by promotion from within the classified service, after a promotional examination has been given and an eligible listemployment list established. The serving of a probationary period shall not, of itself, prevent a classified employee from being promoted to a position in a higher class, provided the employee is certified from an appropriate employment list for such higher class of position. If, within the above mentioned limitations, an employee is promoted in this way during a probationary period, the probationary period for the class of position to which the employee is promoted shall begin with the date of appointment to such latter class of position. Should the employee return to his or her prior position, he or she shall complete the remainder of his or her initial probationary period. (2) Probationary Periods Promotional appointments are full-time appointments given to an employee in another classification subsequent to his or her initial regular appointment. When such a promotional appointment involves the appointment of an employee to a class other than one which he or she formerly occupied, or involves a transfer of the employee within a Class to a city department other than the one in which he or she was formerly employed, then the employee shall serve a probationary period in the new position. The following rules apply to the probationary period: 1. The serving of a probationary period by an employee shall in no way affect the employee's permanent status within the city's merit system, except as specified in subsection D. 4 20 hereof. 2.1. T he standard probationary period shall be twelve months except police officers who shall be on probation for a period of eighteen months. If during this period the service of the employee is unsatisfactory, he or she shall be returned to the position from which he or she was promoted. 3.2. T he normal procedure of performance evaluation shall be followed for any employee serving a probationary period. However, the employee's immediate supervisor or department head may submit an employee review at any time. The submission of any performance review with an overall rating of unsatisfactory or of two performance reviews with overall ratings of conditional, shall be sufficient to cause the employee's removal from the position he or she is serving during probationary period, and the department head may so request in writing to the City Manager the removal of the employee. 4.3. I f any employee is removed from a position while serving a probationary period, he orf she shall be returned to the position held by the employee prior to the promotion, or offered appointment to a similar position in the original class. 5. When an employee is promoted, he/she shall normally be appointed at the first step in the salary range for the new position. However, if the first step results in a salary increase of less than five percent (5%), he/she shall receive a minimum of five percent (5%) increase. Any employee in the classified service promoted from one position to one of higher class who at the time of such promotion is receiving compensation equal to or greater than the minimum compensation provided for such higher classified service, shall be entitled to receive such compensation in the higher classification next above the rate of compensation he or she had heretofore received, and such increase shall be effective upon the date of promotion. D. Temporary Appointments When any position in the classified service is to be filled and there are no persons on an employment list available eligibles of the classification, the department head - with the approval of the City Manager - may make a temporary appointment of a person who shall hold such appointment not longer than ninety days in any one fiscal year unless extended by the City Manager, or until an eligible listemployment list shall have been established, provided that acceptance of a temporary appointment shall not be a bar to a permanent probationary appointment from an eligible listemployment list. Any person on an established employment list who has been given a temporary appointment shall maintain his or her position on the eligible listemployment list. E. Voluntary Demotions At the request of an employee who has one year of continuous merit system service, and with the approval of the City Manager, an employee may be demoted from a position in one class to a position in another class with a lower salary range involving similar duties and responsibilities. 21 The City Manager may require the employee to demonstrate in an examination that he or she possesses any additional or special requirements. A demotion from one class to another shall require the service of a new probationary period unless such probationary period is waived by the appointing authority. VII. ADMINISTRATION OF THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN A. Purpose of the Plan The classification plan provides a systematic arrangement and inventory of all city positions entitled to receive merit increases and such other positions as may be desired. The plan groups the various positions into understandable classes indicative of the range of duties, responsibilities, and level of work performed. B. Use of the Plan The classification plan shall be utilized to: 1. Determine applicant qualifications. 2. Determine salaries to be paid for the various classes of work. 3. Determine lines of promotion. 4. Provide an understandable and uniform terminology of jobs. C. Content of the Plan The classification plan shall consist of: 1. A grouping of positions into classificationes on the basis of approximately equal difficulty and responsibility which requires the same general qualifications and which can be equitably compensated within the same pay grade. 2. A class specification title, indicative of the work of the classification, which shall be used on all personnel, accounting, budget, and related official records. No person shall be appointed to a classified position under a title not contained in the classification plan. 3. Written job class descriptions specifications for each job classification containing the nature of the work and relative responsibilities of the class, typical illustrative tasks found in the classification, requirements of the classification setting forth the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities required for adequate performance of the work, and the desirable experience and training needed for recruiting to the classification. D. Maintenance of the Classification Plan The plan shall be maintained by the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department who shall be charged with the responsibility of providing for the continued, proper allocation of the employees to positions. The Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department shall: 1. Have the appointing authority submit a position description reflecting current or anticipated changes so the position can be properly allocated when a new position is anticipated or when there is reason to believe that a significant change in the existing duties and responsibilities has or is to occur. 22 2. Recommend the abolition of positions and classes that are obsolete to program needs and recommend new positions and classes where appropriate. New or reclassified positions shall be filled in accordance with Rule IV as determined by the appointing authority and Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department. 3. Periodically review the classification and grade of all positions and where necessary make recommendations to the City Manager for appropriate amendments. The City Manager has the final approval of amendments to class specifications for existing classifications, including revisions to duties, knowledge, and licenses/certifications and class specification titles. Recommendations for changes in compensation, adding new or abolishing old classifications shall be done only with the approval of the City Council. Positions shall not be reclassified unless a significant change in the duties and responsibilities has occurred, and then only with the approval of the City Manager and City Council. 4. A class may be reclassified or regrarded to a higher or lower pay grade based on the relative importance of each class to all other classes in the classification plan. Reclassifying may be necessary due to recruitment difficulties, changes in existing factors such as judgment required, scope and complexity, supervisory responsibilities, etc. Positions shall not be reclassified unless a significant change in the duties and responsibilities has occurred, and then only with the approval of the City Manager and City Council.Reclassifying shall be done only with the approval of the City Manager and City Council. E. Classification and Allocation Reviews Any department head may request the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department to review the existing class or grade level of a position when there is reason to believe a significant change in the duties and responsibilities has occurred. The Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department shall determine the proper class and grade and shall recommend any necessary changes to the City Manager. If the department head does not concur with the decision of the Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department, the determination may be appealed to the City Manager whose decision shall be final. F. Class Specification Class specifications are descriptions of the general kinds of work performed by positions allocated to each class. They are not intended to be restrictions or to list all duties performed by position incumbents. The Personnel divisionHuman Resources Department shall make interpretations as necessary in the administration of the classification plan. G. Amendments to the Classification Plan Recommendations relative to amendments in the classification plan shall be submitted to the City Manager for concurrence and then to the City Council for adoption, with the exception that the City Manager is the final authority for revisions to existing class specifications (including duties, knowledge, and licenses/certifications) and class specification titles as outlined in VII D3. VIII. DEPARTMENT RULES All rules and regulations of the several departments of the city shall be subordinate to the provisions 23 of the rules and regulations of the merit system of personnel administration of the City of Burlingame. The rules governing the various departments as to conduct and hours of employment shall be on file with the City Manager. IX. DISCIPLINE The City Manager, or any department head, with the approval of the City Manager, may suspend, reduce in pay, demote or discharge any classified or unclassified employee, other than direct appointees of the City Council, for due cause and subject to the right of appeal as set forth in Rule X. A written statement of the grounds for proposed disciplinary action shall be delivered to the employee, with copies of all materials relied on in proposing the discipline. At his or her request, the employee shall be given a pre-disciplinary hearing by the City Manager or Department Headassigned Skelly Officer. The decision shall be in writing and copies shall be delivered to the employee.. The decision shall be final unless a written appeal is filed as provided in Rule XII. A. SUSPENSIONS The City Manager may, when necessary for the good of the service for disciplinary purposes, suspend without pay any classified or unclassified employee or officer under him. The City Manager may authorize the head of a department or office to suspend subordinates in such department or office. A statement of the grounds for disciplinary action shall be delivered to the employee. At his or her request, the employee shall be given a hearing by the City Manager or Department Head. The decision shall be in writing and copies shall be delivered to the employee.. The decision shall be final unless a written appeal is filed as provided in Rule XII. B. DEMOTIONS A demotion may be made upon the written request of the employee, or by order of the City Manager. Should the City Manager order a demotion, he or she shall file with the demoted employee within three days a written statement of the reasons for the demotion and shall also notify the department head of the demotion. The employee shall have the right of answer and hearing as provided in Rule XII. C. DISCHARGE A. Procedure A permanent employee in the classified service may be discharged by the City Manager or by any department head, with the approval of the City Manager, for cause. The employee shall be furnished with a written statement of the reasons and cause for the discharge. At his or her request, the employee shall be given a hearing by the City Manager or Department Head. The decision shall be in writing; and copies shall be delivered to the employee. The decision shall be final unless a written appeal is filed as provided in Rule XII. 24 B.A. Cause for DischargeDUE CAUSE The following are declared to be sufficient causes for discharge from the classified servicediscipline, though charges may be based on causes other than those enumerated: 1. That the employee is inefficient or incompetent, inefficient or fails in the performance of his or her duty. 2. That the employee repeatedly has been offensive in his or her conduct toward fellow employees or the public. 3. That the employee has some permanent or chronic physical or mental ailment or defect which incapacitates him or her for the proper performance of his or her duties.is unable to perform his or her duties due to mental or physical disability. 4. That the employee has refused or failed to obey any lawful or and reasonable direction given by his or her supervisor. 5. That the employee has taken for personal use a fee, gift, or other valuable thing in the course of his or her work or in connection with it when such fee, gift, or other valuable thing is given him or her by any person in the hope or expectation of receiving a favor of better treatment than that accorded other persons. 6. That the employee has been convicted of a criminal offense involving moral turpitude. A plea of no contest shall be deemed a conviction. 7. That the employee through negligence or willful conduct has caused serious damage to public property or waste of public supplies or funds. 8. That the employee has been guilty of any conduct unbecoming, including dishonesty, an officer or employee of the city. 9. That the employee has been absent without leave, or has failed to report after leave of absence has expired, or after such leave of absence has been disapproved or revoked and canceled by the City Manager.had excessive absenteeism. 10. Violation of any of the provisions of these Rules, the Municipal Code, or any City or departmental policy. 10. That the employee is guilty of improper political activity as defined in Rule XV of these rules and regulations. IX.X. HEARINGS Any employee who has been suspended or who alleges discrimination, and any permanent employee who is suspended, demoted, or dischargeddisciplined, as defined in Rule IX, shall have the right of appeal. Within five ten (105) business days upon receipt of the Notice of Imposition of Discipline, the 25 employee, by written notice to the Human Resources Director, may request an appeal hearing be submitted to an ad hoc review board. Business days are defined as days that Cit y 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 City Manager. The City Manager 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. X.XI. ABOLISHMENT OF POSITION The City Council may at any time in its discretion abolish a position in the classified service or in the interest of economy vacate a position and thereby discharge the employee holding such position or employment. Should such position or any position involving all or any of the same duties be re- established or created within a year, the employee discharged shall be appointed thereto in preference to any other qualified person on the eligible listemployment list for such position. If the employee whose position is abandoned was appointed from an eligible list, he or she shall be returned to his or her original or a similar position. XI.XII. LEAVES OF ABSENCE A. Vacations EAll employees - excluding seasonal, extra help and part-time help - shall be entitled to vacation pay in accordance with the following schedule:applicable MOUs, and benefit and compensation resolutions. 1. Eligibility for vacation allowance shall start when an employee has served one month. After one year's continuous service, vacation will be allowed at the rate of 3.08 hours biweekly. After 5 years of continuous service, vacation will be allowed at the rate of 4.62 hours biweekly. 26 After 11 years of continuous service, vacation will be allowed at the rate of 4.93 hours biweekly. After 12 years of continuous service, vacation will be allowed at the rate of 5.24 hours biweekly After 13 years of continuous service, vacation will be allowed at the rate of 5.54 hours biweekly. After 14 years of continuous service, vacation will be allowed at the rate of 5.85 hours biweekly. After 15 years of continuous service, vacation will be allowed at the rate of 6.16 hours biweekly. 2.1. E arned vacation time may be accumulated but the employee shall not be allowed to have an accumulation of more than two years credit at any time. 3.2. T he time at which an employee shall be granted vacation shall be at the discretion of the department head. Length of service and seniority shall be given preference as to the time of vacation, but the needs of the department shall govern. 4.3. W hen an employee is separated from the service, his or her earned vacation allowance shall be added to or subtracted from his or her final compensation. B. Sick, Bereavement, and Disability Leaves 1. Sick Leave Defined. Sick leave is absence from duty with pay because of an employee's illness or injury, exposure to contagious disease, necessary medical, dental, or optical examinations, or treatments for the employee, or attendance upon a member of his or her immediate family seriously ill and requiring the care of by the employee. When indicated, the department head or City Manager may at his or her discretion require the employee to submit a doctor's certificate or other acceptable proof to substantiate the employee's statementabsence. 2. Bereavement Leave In the event of the death in the immediate family of an employee, absence from duty shall be allowed not to exceed three days. In the event of the death of a relative not a member of the immediate family, absence from duty shall be allowed not to exceed one day. Such absences shall not be charged to sick leave. For the purposes of this rule, "immediate family" means father, mother, step-father, step- mother, husband, wife, registered domestic partner, son, daughter, step-son, step-daughter, sister, legal guardians/children under guardianship, foster children, or brother, step-sister, step-brother, grandparents, grandchildren, mother- in-law and father-in-lawFather- In-law. 27 The maximum period for sick leave with pay granted an employee for each illness in his immediate family shall be three consecutive work days. 3. Accumulation of Sick Leave All employees--excluding seasonal, extra help, and part-time help, excluding casual, part-time employees, and except as herein otherwise provided--shall be entitled to sick leave allowance at the rate of 8 hours for each calendar month of regular time worked. Casual, part-time employees shall be entitled to sick leave in accordance with the part-time compensation and benefit resolution. Time worked shall not include disability leave, sick leave or military leave. Unused sick leave may be accumulated from year to year up to a maximum of 2,000 hourstotal of 180 days. Termination of employment except by retirement cancels all accumulated sick leave credit. On termination by retirement, the employee shall be entitled to and re-compensated for 25 percent of his or her then accumulated sick leave credit not to exceed a maximum of 150 days.Upon retirement, employees with sick leave balances may convert all sick leave hours to CalPERS credible service per GC Section 20965. a. If an employee works less than eleven work days in two consecutive biweekly pay periods, he or she shall not accumulate any sick leave for that month. 4. Disability Leave. Disability leave is absence from duty granted because of illness or injury arising out of and in the course of his or her employment. Disability leave shall be governed by the provisions of the worker's compensation laws of the State of California and the benefits and allowance provided under it. Disability leave shall not be deemed as sick leave. An employee who suffers illness or injury arising out of and in the course of his or her assigned duties and through no fault of his or her own shall receive disability pay for one year to the extent that his or her loss of earning is not covered by the benefits granted under the provisions of the worker's compensation laws of the State of California, unless he or she is terminated earlier. 5. Application for Sick Leave. In claiming paid sick leave of any duration, the employee shall submit to his or her department head, a signed statement listing the reason for his or her absence and the dates thereof. If the absence was occasioned by illness, the employee must be reasonably specific in showing the nature of the illness; if the absence was due to illness or death in the immediate family, the name and relationship of the family member must be given. Before sick leave can be granted, the employee's statement must be endorsed by his or her department· head who shall have the duty and responsibility of conducting any investigation he or she thinks necessary to establish the legitimacy of the employee's request. If after investigation, the department head is convinced that the employee is not entitled to paid sick leave, he or she shall so indicate on the employee's statement and such statement shall be forwarded to the City Manager. No employee shall be entitled to paid sick leave or disability leave for an injury or illness in the course of employment by any employer other than the City of Burlingame. When indicated, the department head or City Manager may at his or her discretion require 28 the employee to submit a doctor's certificate or other acceptable proof to substantiate the employee's statement. The exact days and/or parts of days for which sick leave is recommended shall be indicated upon the forms prescribed by the City Manager for such use. 4. Use of Sick Leave. Sick leave is charged at the actual time used with a minimum of one-tenth-hour. No employee shall be allowed sick leave pay for time off due to illness for days time which are is not part of the regular normal work week of such employee. 6.5. Compulsory Sick Leave. If in the opinion of the City Manager, an employee is incapacitated for work on account of illness or disability, such employee may be required to submit to a physician designated or approved by the City Manager for examination. If the report of a physician shows the employee to be in an unfit condition to perform his or her duties, the City Manager shall have the right to compel such employee to take sufficient leave of absence to fit him or her to perform his or her duties. 7.6. Sick Leave Pay Computation. Sick leave shall be paid at the rate the employee would be paid for working during the same period. C. Military Leaves of Absence Military leave of absence, with or without pay, shall be granted to employees under applicable provisions of Federal and State law.In addition to the leaves of absence herein provided for members of the classified service, those officers 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. D. Other Leaves of Absence With or Without Pay The City Manager may, for good cause, grant other leaves of absence with or without pay, not to exceed one year. . A leave of absence granted to an employee for the purpose of accepting another position or to become self employed shall be limited to one year; and aAt the end of this period if he or shethe approved leave, if the employee does not return to his or her former position, all Civil Service rights shall be deemed as terminated. E. Right of Employee to Retain Position When leave of absence with or without pay is granted, the employee shall be restored to the position vacated by him or her at the expiration of his or her leave. XII. IMPROPER POLITICAL ACTIVITIES A. Solicitation of Contributions No officers, agent, clerk, or employee under the government of the City shall directly or 29 indirectly solicit or receive, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving any assessment, subscription, contribution, or political service, whether voluntary or involuntary, for any political purpose whatsoever, from anyone on the eligible lists or holding any position in the City of Burlingame. B. Discrimination No person in the classified service or seeking admission thereto, shall be employed, promoted, demoted, or discharged, or in any way favored or discriminated against because of political opinion or affiliations or because of race, creed, color, religious belief, age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, or disability. XIII. HOLIDAYS The following are considered as official holidays for employees of the City of Burlingame subject to modification by employee MOU: January 1 New Year's Day 3rd Monday in January Martin Luther King Jr. Day 3rd Monday in February Washington's BirthdayPresident’s Day Last Monday in May Memorial Day July 4 Independence Day 1st Monday in September Labor Day 2nd Monday in October Columbus Day November 11 Veterans Day 4th Thursday in November Thanksgiving Day Friday after 4th Thursday in November Day after Thanksgiving December 24 (1/2) Christmas Eve December 25 Christmas Day December 31 (1/2) New Years' Eve Every day appointed by the President of the United States or the Governor of this state for a public fast, thanksgiving, or holiday and every day pronounced as a national day ofor mourning is a holiday when approved by City Council. If the first day of January, fourth day of July~ or twenty-fifth day of December falls upon a Saturday, the preceding Friday is a holiday. If the first day of January, fourth day of July, or twenty-fifth day of December falls upon a Sunday, the following Monday is a holiday. Should Christmas or New Years fall on a weekday Tuesday through Friday, the one-half day will be taken on the day preceding the holiday. Should Christmas or New Years fall on Saturday, Friday being the one day off, the one-half day would be taken on Thursday. Should Christmas or New Years fall on Sunday or Monday, Monday being the one day off, the one-half day would be taken on Friday. When due to the requirements of the service it is necessary for an employee to work on any of the 30 above holidays, credit shall' be given and he or she shall be allowed subsequent time off for such work or pay to compensate for such work in accordance with the operational program of the department. XIV. OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT A. Outside employment by a city employee shall be a privilege subject to the approval of the City Manager or the department head which he or she may designate. B. Outside employment shall be limited to a maximum of 20 hours per week; days off accepted. Final Version – all edits accepted. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES CITY OF BURLINGAME CATEGORY: Personnel Revised December 2, 2009 Revised January 16, 2018 PAGE: 4.2 SUBJECT: Civil Service Rules and Regulations CITY OF BURLINGAME CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS 2 INDEX I. PURPOSES, AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MERIT SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 4 A. PURPOSES OF THE MERIT SYSTEM 4 B. MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING 4 C. MERIT SYSTEM AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4 1. City Council. 4 2. City Manager. 4 3. Human Resources Department. 5 4. City Officers and Employees. 6 II. RECRUITMENT AND APPLICATIONS 6 A. RECRUITMENT 6 B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANT POSITIONS TO BE FILLED 7 C. FILING OF APPLICATIONS 7 D. REJECTION OF APPLICATIONS 7 E. RECEIPT AND DURATION OF APPLICATIONS 8 F. POSTPONEMENT OR CANCELLATION OF EXAMINATIONS 8 III. EXAMINATIONS AND RATINGS 8 A. EXAMINATION TYPES AND ELIGIBILITY TO TAKE EXAMINATIONS 8 B. EXAMINATION PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION 9 C. ORAL EXAMINATION BOARDS 9 D. FRAUDULENT CONDUCT OR FALSE STATEMENTS BY APPLICANT 9 E. INTEGRITY OF THE EXAMINATION PROCESS 10 F. RATING 10 G. NOTIFICATION OF EXAMINATION RESULTS 10 H. WAIVER OF EXAMINATION 10 I. RETENTION OF EXAMINATION RECORDS 11 J. EXAMINATION RESOURCES 11 IV. EMPLOYMENT LISTS 11 A. USE OF EMPLOYMENT LIST 11 B. ESTABLISHMENT OF EMPLOYMENT LISTS 11 C. AVAILABILITY OF ELIGIBLE PERSONS 12 D. DURATION OF LISTS 12 E. REMOVAL OF NAME FROM LISTS 12 F. RESTORATION OF NAMES TO EMPLOYMENT LISTS 13 G. CONSOLIDATION OF EMPLOYMENT LISTS 13 V. CERTIFICATION 14 A. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION 14 B. ANTICIPATION OF NEED 14 C. PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE PERSONS IN ORDER TO FILL A VACANCY 14 D. APPROPRIATE EMPLOYMENT LISTS 14 E. INCOMPLETE CERTIFICATION 14 VI. APPOINTMENTS AND MERIT SYSTEM STATUS 14 A. FILLING OF VACANCIES 14 B. PROBATIONARY APPOINTMENT 15 3 C. PROMOTIONAL APPOINTMENTS 15 D. PROBATIONARY PERIODS 16 E. TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS 16 F. VOLUNTARY DEMOTIONS 16 VII. ADMINISTRATION OF THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN 17 A. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 17 B. USE OF THE PLAN 17 C. CONTENT OF THE PLAN 17 D. MAINTENANCE OF THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN 17 E. CLASSIFICATION AND ALLOCATION REVIEWS 18 F. CLASS SPECIFICATION 18 G. AMENDMENTS TO THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN 18 VIII. DEPARTMENT RULES 19 IX. DISCIPLINE 19 A. DUE CAUSE 19 X. HEARINGS 20 XI. ABOLISHMENT OF POSITION 21 XII. LEAVES OF ABSENCE 21 A. VACATIONS 21 B. SICK, BEREAVEMENT, AND DISABILITY LEAVES 21 1. Sick Leave Defined 21 2. Bereavement Leave 21 3. Accumulation of Sick Leave 22 4. Disability Leave. 22 4. Use of Sick Leave. 22 5. Compulsory Sick Leave. 22 6. Sick Leave Pay Computation. 22 C. MILITARY LEAVES OF ABSENCE 22 D. OTHER LEAVES OF ABSENCE WITH OR WITHOUT PAY 23 E. RIGHT OF EMPLOYEE TO RETAIN POSITION 23 XIII. HOLIDAYS 23 XIV. OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT 24 4 I. PURPOSES, AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MERIT SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION A. Purposes of the Merit System In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3.52 of the Code of the City of Burlingame, these Rules and Regulations are established to further the intent and policy of the City Council to provide a merit system of personnel administration. B. Memoranda of Understanding Provisions of agreements negotiated with employee organizations (Memoranda of Understanding) shall take precedence over these rules and regulations where conflicts exist. C. Merit System Authorities and Responsibilities The following designations of authority and responsibility are made with respect to the administration of this merit system: 1. City Council. The City Council shall be the final authority for: a. Approving these merit system rules and regulations and all amendments thereto. It may also request the City Manager to research and prepare amendments and revisions deemed necessary. b. Approving the compensation and pay plan, the classification plan, and all amendments thereto, with the exception of revisions to existing class specifications (including duties, knowledge, and licenses/certifications) and class specification titles, which the City Council delegates to the City Manager. c. Recognizing of and approving of any agreements with bargaining units representing employees. d. Rendering final and binding decisions for the city in hearings as described in Section XII Hearings and sustaining, modifying, or overturning the disciplinary or termination actions taken. 2. City Manager. The City Manager shall: a. Be responsible to the City Council for the administration and maintenance of the personnel system subject to these merit system rules and regulations. b. Be the appointing authority responsible for the appointment or removal of all employees subject to the provisions of these rules and regulations, except those appointed and removed by the City Council or elected officials. The City 5 Manager may delegate this appointing authority to such department heads as he or she sees fit. c. Be responsible for the preparation of proposed amendments to the merit system rules and regulations, the classification plan and the compensation and pay plan in cooperation with the Human Resources Department. d. Approve amendments to existing class specifications (including duties, knowledge, and licenses/certifications) and class specification titles. Changes in compensation, adding and deleting classifications must be approved by the City Council. e. Be responsible for negotiating agreements with bargaining units representing employee groups. f. Perform such other duties and exercise such other powers for personnel administration as may be described by law or these merit system rules and regulations. 3. Human Resources Department. The Human Resources Department shall: a. Be responsible to the City Manager for the administrative and technical direction of the city personnel program. The Human Resources Department shall administer the provisions of these rules to develop and administer such recruitment and examination programs as may be necessary to obtain or maintain an adequate supply of competent applicants to meet the needs of the city. b. Develop and maintain a comprehensive classification plan and make recommendations to the City Manager for amendments to the plan to reflect on a current basis the duties and responsibilities of each position. c. Maintain the compensation and pay plan, including the periodic review of salary and wage levels as they reflect city employment, and make recommendations to the City Manager for amendments to the compensation and pay plan as needed. d. In keeping with these rules and regulations, maintain a regular review of staffing and compensation and certify to the Finance Director any addition, deletion, and/or change in city payrolls. e. Review for proper execution and conformance to these rules and regulations all personnel actions and return for correction any personnel actions not in conformance herewith. No personnel actions shall be deemed final until approved by the City Manager as being in conformance with these rules and regulations. f. Provide for the proper security of personnel records. g. Provide for the orientation of all new city employees. 6 h. Provide such forms and procedures as appropriate to carry out these rules and regulations and all other aspects of the Burlingame personnel administrative system. i. Develop in cooperation with the City Manager and the department heads such training and educational programs for employees in the city service as needed. j. Provide staff assistance to the department heads and others in development of effective personnel policies and procedures. k. Recommend to the City Manager amendments to these rules and regulations. l. On behalf of the City Manager, negotiate agreements with bargaining units representing employee groups. m. Participate in the administration of personnel provisions of the Memoranda of Understanding. n. Perform any other functions as necessary or as directed by the City Manager to carry out the purpose and provisions of these personnel rules and regulations. 4. City Officers and Employees. All department heads and officers, whether elected or appointed, and employees shall comply with and carry out both their prescribed duties and these merit system rules and regulations. II. RECRUITMENT AND APPLICATIONS A. Recruitment 1. Recruitment of candidates for classified positions which are not to be filled by promotion, demotion, transfer, or re-employment will be carried out through any appropriate media on a timely basis to assure all segments of the public have the opportunity to apply and be considered for such positions. 2. Applicants will be recruited on the basis of the minimum training and experience requirements established for the class. 3. All publicity shall indicate the city is an equal opportunity employer. 4. The Human Resources Department, with the approval of the City Manager, may initiate efforts toward and participate in joint recruitment efforts with other local government agencies having similar personnel requirements. 5. When it is anticipated the volume of applications will be large in relation to the number of vacant position(s), the Human Resources Department may restrict recruitment to 7 limit the size of the applicant group by: a. establishing a shorter filing period than that utilized for regular recruitment efforts; and/or b. specifying a maximum number of applications which will be accepted, and closing the recruitment immediately when that number is reached; and/or c. Other means which are appropriate to the circumstances. B. Announcement of Vacant Positions to be Filled 1. All vacant classified positions excluding those being filled by limited competition promotion, transfer, or re-employment, shall be publicized by posting announcements on the City’s website, and other media as the Human Resources Department may deem appropriate. 2. The announcements, which may be for filling vacancies by initial appointment or by promotion, shall specify: a. The class title and salary range of the position to be filled. b. A description of the duties and responsibilities of the position or class. c. Minimum qualification requirements for eligibility for the position or classification. d. Closing date of receipt of applications. e. The tentative date of any examinations if required for the positions. 3. When deemed in the best interest of the city, the Human Resources Department may recruit and examine applicants at any time to increase the quality or quantity of eligible persons on an existing employment list after consultation with the appropriate department head. The Human Resources Department may also recruit and examine on a continuous basis. New eligible persons to be merged with an existing employment list will be ranked according to their numerical score. C. Filing of Applications 1. All applications shall be received by the final filing date and time listed in the job announcement posting. 2. The Human Resources Department may extend the originally announced time limit for filing applications. Such an extension of the time limit for filing shall be given appropriate public notice and publicity. 3. No individual shall be denied the right of filing a formal application for a publicly announced vacancy of a classified position. D. Rejection of Applications The Human Resources Department may reject any application or applicant when it 8 has been determined that: 1. The application was not received on or before the final closing date and time established for receiving applications. 2. The application was not filed using the required format. 3. The applicant does not possess the minimum qualification requirements as specified in the public announcement of the vacancy. 4. The applicant is physically, mentally, or legally unfit to perform the essential required duties of the position. 5. The applicant has failed to complete the application, made a false statement of a material fact, or practiced fraud or attempted to deceive in the application, in any tests, or in attempting to secure appointment. 6. For positions requiring criminal history disclosure, the applicant has been convicted of a felony which was related to the employment sought. Applicants having other felony convictions will be considered on an individual case basis, with the position involved, the crime for which convicted, and rehabilitation as the basis for decision. 7. The applicant was previously employed by the city and was dismissed for cause, or resigned not in good standing, and is not currently eligible for re-employment by the City. E. Receipt and Duration of Applications Applications, whether accepted or rejected for consideration for employment, shall remain on file for a period of at least three years. F. Postponement or Cancellation of Examinations Any examination may be postponed or canceled at the direction of the Human Resources Department, and efforts will be made to notify each applicant of the postponement or cancellation. III. EXAMINATIONS AND RATINGS A. Examination Types and Eligibility to Take Examinations 1. Open examinations are competitive and not all applicants will progress through the examination process. Any applicant who has a properly executed application for the vacant position to be filled and whose application is not rejected as prescribed in these rules and regulations may be considered. 9 2. Closed competitive examinations shall be restricted to those classified city employees whom the Human Resources Department determines shall be eligible, utilizing such criteria as the Human Resources Department deems appropriate for a given vacant position to be filled. a. Limiting competition to city employees through closed examinations must be justified by the department head and approved by the City Manager. b. Among the criteria which may be cited in such justifications are the requirements of special skills or knowledge possessed only by persons currently employed by the city, the maintenance of a continuous established line of career progression which is in the best interest of the city, or the availability of a large number of qualified city employees to fill the vacant position(s). 3. The City Manager shall be the final determining authority as to whether any given examination for a vacancy to be filled shall be conducted as an open competitive examination or a closed examination. B. Examination Preparation and Administration Both open and closed examinations shall be prepared and conducted by or under the direction of the Human Resources Department, in cooperation with the department in which the vacant position(s) to be filled exist. Examinations may include, but not be limited to, written, oral, or practical demonstration of skill and ability, or any combination of these. Any investigation of education, experience, character, or identity, and any test of technical knowledge, ability, manual skill or physical and mental fitness or other relevant factors may be included in the examination. C. Oral Examination Boards The Human Resources Department may elect to utilize an oral examination board as one of the instruments of the evaluation. The board should consist of at least three persons who may be selected from any of the following: persons who hold a similar or superior position within a department in which a vacant position to be filled exists; who hold a similar or superior position in another city department; who are not a city employee or officer and who have knowledge in the areas of skill, experience, training, and other requirements of the position. D. Fraudulent Conduct or False Statements by Applicant Fraudulent conduct or false statements by an applicant or in an applicant's behalf, in any application or examination, shall be deemed cause for the exclusion of such applicant from an examination, or for removal of his or her name from all employment lists, or for discharge from the service. 10 E. Integrity of the Examination Process 1. No employee or other participant in the exam process may participate, directly or indirectly, in the rating of an examination in which the employee or a relative, by blood or marriage, or a person who resides in the same residence, is a competitor. 2. All statements of former employers and character inquiries shall be treated as confidential and not available for public inspection, except as explicitly permitted by the employee and the reviewer. 3. It is the responsibility of every employee of the city and every representative of the Human Resources Department to treat as confidential any information available to them concerning examination material. F. Rating 1. Appropriate techniques and procedures based on merit principles shall be used in rating results of examinations and determining the relative ratings of the competitors. 2. For all examinations or segments thereof, the minimum performance requirements by which eligibility is achieved shall be established by the Human Resources Department after consultation, when appropriate, with the department head(s). A minimum qualifying grade related to these minimum performance requirements shall be established for each exam segment or the combined ratings of the several parts of the examination. Applicants failing to achieve a minimum qualifying grade on any segment may be disqualified from further participation in the immediate examination process. 3. Final numerical rating shall be expressed on a scale of 100% for maximum possible attainment. To be considered for appointment, an applicant must attain an earned rating of at least 70%. This 70% may be the arithmetic percentage of the possible score achieved by a competitor when his or her results have been scored, or may be an adjusted score based on consideration of the difficulty of the examination, the quality of competition, and the needs of the city. G. Notification of Examination Results All applicants who complete the examination process for a position in a given classification shall be notified in writing relative to their passing or failing the examination process. They shall also be informed of the remaining steps and procedures which may occur before final disposition on their applications. A statement is also to be included stating that position on the list does not assure an interview or hire. H. Waiver of Examination The examination process may be waived by the Human Resources Department with 11 the approval of the City Manager and an employment list established showing candidates as qualified based on meeting the minimum qualifications of the classification if any of the following conditions apply: 1. It is impractical to establish a selection device that will measure the relative fitness of candidates. 2. The minimum qualification consists solely of a bona fide or state registration such as, but not limited to, professional engineers, etc. 3. There are fewer than six candidates who have been found qualified after the filing deadline for receiving applications. This rule shall not be used to circumvent the normal competitive process as it relates to hiring the best qualified candidates. In the event additional recruitment and subsequent examination is necessary to supplement the employment list and candidates previously determined as qualified and remaining on the list must compete in the same examination procedure as new applicants to remain on the employment list and shall be so notified. I. Retention of Examination Records All examination records shall be retained for a period of three years or for the length of time required by federal, state, or city regulations, whichever is greater. J. Examination Resources The Human Resources Department shall have the authority to initiate into recruitment agreements for the exchange, joint usage, development, administration, evaluation, and validation of any or all segments of the examination program with other local employers and reputable concerns involved in personnel testing as deemed necessary, subject to the approval of the City Manager and, where appropriate, the City Council. IV. EMPLOYMENT LISTS A. Use of Employment List Classified positions shall be filled from employment lists established by a competitive process unless the Human Resources Department determines that the vacancies will be filled by transfer, demotion, reassignment, or through any authorized and established non-competitive process. B. Establishment of Employment lists 1. The Human Resources Department shall establish and maintain such employment lists for the various classes of positions as may be necessary to assure an adequate number of eligible persons to fill vacancies which may or are 12 known to occur. 2. Each list shall contain the names of those eligible persons that have completed the examination process and have been determined qualified and possess the required knowledge, abilities, and skills necessary for successful job performance. 3. Names of eligible persons shall be placed on employment lists in the order of the numerical ratings resulting from their examinations. C. Availability of Eligible Persons It shall be the responsibility of eligible persons to notify the Human Resources Department in writing of any changes of address or other change affecting availability for employment. Whenever an eligible-in his or her application or by submitting a written statement- restricts the conditions under which he or she will be available for employment, his or her name may be withheld from all certification which does not meet the conditions which he or she specified. D. Duration of Lists Each employment list shall remain in effect for a period of one year. When deemed necessary and in the best interest of the city service, the Human Resources Department may keep the employment list in effect for an additional period not to exceed one year. A statement of the reasons for any such extension shall be entered in the records of the Human Resources Department. E. Removal of Name From Lists Names may be removed from employment lists for any of the reasons listed below: 1. At the written request of the eligible; 2. Refusal of an offer of employment; 3. Appointment through certification from such lists to fill a permanent position; 4. Appointment through certification from the employment list for another class at the same or higher compensation. (In such case, at the request of the appointee, his or her name may be continued on any or all lists other than the one from which the appointment was made, for the remainder of the period of eligibility on such lists.); 5. Filing of a written statement by the eligible that he or she is not willing to accept appointment; 6. Failure to report for interview or to respond-within the time specified in 13 the notice—to any inquiry of the Human Resources Department or department head relative to employment or availability unless satisfactory evidence is furnished justifying such failure to respond; 7. Failure to report for work after accepting appointment; 8. Inability to locate eligible; 9. Discovery that the eligible has willfully provided erroneous information, withheld information, evaded questions or otherwise misrepresented his or her qualifications in order to qualify for appointment or promotion; 10. Any cause or condition otherwise specified in these rules for rejection of an application; or 11. Any good and sufficient reason. The rejection of an applicant by one department shall not affect the eligibility for appointment to a position in any other department or under any other appointing authority's jurisdiction. F. Restoration of Names to Employment Lists Whenever any person's name is removed from an employment list, he or she will be notified. Such a person may at any time during the life of that employment list make written request to the Human Resources Department for the restoration of his or her name to such list for the duration of their eligibility. The request shall specify the reasons advanced for restoration of the name. The Human Resources Department, after full consideration of the request, may restore the name to the employment list or may refuse such request and the person shall be notified of the action. G. Consolidation of Employment Lists 1. The Human Resources Department may determine that the needs of the city require that an examination be held for a class for which an employment list already exists, prior to its normal expiration date. In such an event, a new employment list will be established as a result of the new examination, 2. The names of persons remaining on the old list may be placed on the new list in accordance with their previous final score, but such names may be removed from the list at the expiration of one year on the old list. Should such persons elect to take the new examination, their names will be placed on the employment list in accordance with the new final score. 14 V. CERTIFICATION A. Request for Certification All requisitions for certification of eligible persons for the filling of vacancies shall be made to the Human Resources Department in writing. B. Anticipation of Need Insofar as possible, vacancies shall be anticipated sufficiently in advance to permit the Human Resources Department to establish an employment list. C. Procedure for Obtaining Certification of Eligible persons in Order to fill a Vacancy 1. Whenever a vacancy is to be filled, the appointing authority shall make requisition to the Human Resources Department for certification of eligible persons for appointment to the class of the position for which the vacancy exists and shall recommend whether this shall be an open or closed examination. 2. Upon receipt of a valid requisition for certificate of eligible persons from an employment list to fill a vacancy, the Human Resources Department shall certify to the requesting appointing authority the appropriate employment list listing the names of those persons eligible for appointment. D. Appropriate Employment Lists Certification shall ordinarily be made from a list established for the particular class in which the vacancy exists. However, if no such list exists or the list contains an insufficient number of eligible persons for certification purposes, the Human Resources Department may certify names from an appropriate alternative employment list if such a list is available. Such a list shall be for a class of the same or higher pay level with the qualification requirements equal to or superior to the class in which the vacancy exists. E. Incomplete Certification When the number of names on a certified eligibility list is fewer than six, the appointing authority or department head may select from them or may decline certification for that vacancy and request that a new list or lists be established. VI. APPOINTMENTS AND MERIT SYSTEM STATUS A. Filling of Vacancies All vacancies in classified positions shall be filled by probationary appointment, demotion, transfer, reassignment, or promotional appointments. 15 B. Probationary Appointment Probationary appointments shall be given to all persons upon their first employment by the city in a classified position resulting from selection from an appropriate employment list eligible persons who have passed the examination for the class. The following rules apply to probationary appointments: 1. A probationary appointment shall be considered the "working test" portion of the examination process. As such, the probationary period shall be regarded as an integral part· of the selection process and shall be utilized for closely observing the employee's work, for securing the most effective adjustment of a new or promoted employee to the position, and for rejecting any employee whose performance or conduct is not satisfactory. 2. The standard period of a probationary appointment shall be twelve months with the exception of police officers which shall be eighteen months. 3. An employee performance review shall be completed for each employee serving under a probationary appointment at least two weeks prior to the expiration of each six month period of employment. In all performance reviews, the decision of the department head shall be final. The department head having authority over any employee serving under a probationary appointment may determine at any time prior to completion of the standard period of the probationary appointment that it is in the best interest of the city to extend the period of the probationary appointment of the employee. Such determination shall be in writing and shall be provided to the appointing authority and the employee prior to the expiration date of the employee's standard probationary period. No extension of the probationary period shall be for more than six months, except that in the event of a work related disability, any extension of the probationary period to allow the employee time for recovery from such disability shall not be considered with respect to the above limitation. 4. At any time during the probationary period, a department head - with the approval of the appointing authority may remove an employee if in his or her opinion the working test period indicates that such employee is unable or unwilling to perform the duties of the position satisfactorily. It shall be the duty of the appointing authority to remove an employee serving under a probationary appointment if the appointing authority determines that the employee's conduct, integrity, lack of dependability, or capacity do not merit continuance with the service. C. Promotional Appointments Insofar as practicable and consistent with the best interests of the City, consideration shall be given to filling vacancies in higher positions by promotion from within the classified service, after a promotional examination has been given and an employment list established. The serving of a probationary period shall not, of itself, prevent a classified 16 employee from being promoted to a position in a higher class, provided the employee is certified from an appropriate employment list for such higher class of position. If, within the above mentioned limitations, an employee is promoted in this way during a probationary period, the probationary period for the class of position to which the employee is promoted shall begin with the date of appointment to such latter class of position. Should the employee return to his or her prior position, he or she shall complete the remainder of his or her initial probationary period. When an employee is promoted, he/she shall normally be appointed at the first step in the salary range for the new position. However, if the first step results in a salary increase of less than five percent (5%), he/she shall receive a minimum of five percent (5%) increase. D. Probationary Periods The following rules apply to the probationary period: 1. The standard probationary period shall be twelve months except police officers who shall be on probation for a period of eighteen months. If during this period the service of the employee is unsatisfactory, he or she shall be returned to the position from which he or she was promoted. 2. The normal procedure of performance evaluation shall be followed for any employee serving a probationary period. However, the employee's immediate supervisor or department head may submit an employee review at any time. 3. If any employee is removed from a position while serving a probationary period, he or she shall be returned to the position held by the employee prior to the promotion, or offered appointment to a similar position in the original class. E. Temporary Appointments When any position in the classified service is to be filled and there are no persons on an employment list available, the department head - with the approval of the City Manager - may make a temporary appointment of a person who shall hold such appointment not longer than ninety days in any one fiscal year unless extended by the City Manager, or until an employment list shall have been established, provided that acceptance of a temporary appointment shall not be a bar to a probationary appointment from an employment list. Any person on an employment list who has been given a temporary appointment shall maintain his or her position on the employment list. F. Voluntary Demotions At the request of an employee who has one year of continuous merit system service, and with the approval of the City Manager, an employee may be demoted from a position in one class to a position in another class with a lower salary range involving similar duties and responsibilities. The City Manager may require the employee to demonstrate in an 17 examination that he or she possesses any additional or special requirements. A demotion from one class to another shall require the service of a new probationary period unless such probationary period is waived by the appointing authority. VII. ADMINISTRATION OF THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN A. Purpose of the Plan The classification plan provides a systematic arrangement and inventory of all city positions entitled to receive merit increases and such other positions as may be desired. The plan groups the various positions into understandable classes indicative of the range of duties, responsibilities, and level of work performed. B. Use of the Plan The classification plan shall be utilized to: 1. Determine applicant qualifications. 2. Determine salaries to be paid for the various classes of work. 3. Determine lines of promotion. C. Content of the Plan The classification plan shall consist of: 1. A grouping of positions into classifications on the basis of approximately equal difficulty and responsibility which requires the same general qualifications and which can be equitably compensated within the same pay grade. 2. A class specification title, indicative of the work of the classification, which shall be used on all personnel, accounting, budget, and related official records. No person shall be appointed to a classified position under a title not contained in the classification plan. 3. Written class specifications for each classification containing the nature of the work and relative responsibilities of the class, typical illustrative tasks found in the classification, requirements of the classification setting forth the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities required for adequate performance of the work, and the desirable experience and training needed for recruiting to the classification. D. Maintenance of the Classification Plan The plan shall be maintained by the Human Resources Department who shall be charged with the responsibility of providing for the continued, proper allocation of the employees to positions. The Human Resources Department shall: 1. Have the appointing authority submit a position description reflecting current or 18 anticipated changes so the position can be properly allocated when a new position is anticipated or when there is reason to believe that a significant change in the existing duties and responsibilities has or is to occur. 2. Recommend the abolition of positions and classes that are obsolete to program needs and recommend new positions and classes where appropriate. New or reclassified positions shall be filled in accordance with Rule IV as determined by the appointing authority and Human Resources Department. 3. Periodically review the classification and grade of all positions and where necessary make recommendations to the City Manager for appropriate amendments. The City Manager has the final approval of amendments to class specifications for existing classifications, including revisions to duties, knowledge, and licenses/certifications and class specification titles. Recommendations for changes in compensation, adding new or abolishing old classifications shall be done only with the approval of the City Council. 4. A class may be reclassified or regraded to a higher or lower pay grade based on the relative importance of each class to all other classes in the classification plan. Reclassifying may be necessary due to recruitment difficulties, changes in existing factors such as judgment required, scope and complexity, supervisory responsibilities, etc. Positions shall not be reclassified unless a significant change in the duties and responsibilities has occurred, and then only with the approval of the City Manager and City Council. E. Classification and Allocation Reviews Any department head may request the Human Resources Department to review the existing class or grade level of a position when there is reason to believe a significant change in the duties and responsibilities has occurred. The Human Resources Department shall determine the proper class and grade and shall recommend any necessary changes to the City Manager. If the department head does not concur with the decision of the Human Resources Department, the determination may be appealed to the City Manager whose decision shall be final. F. Class Specification Class specifications are descriptions of the general kinds of work performed by positions allocated to each class. They are not intended to be restrictions or to list all duties performed by position incumbents. The Human Resources Department shall make interpretations as necessary in the administration of the classification plan. G. Amendments to the Classification Plan Recommendations relative to amendments in the classification plan shall be submitted to the City Manager for concurrence and then to the City Council for adoption, with the exception that the City Manager is the final authority for revisions to 19 existing class specifications (including duties, knowledge, and licenses/certifications) and class specification titles as outlined in VII D3. VIII. DEPARTMENT RULES All rules and regulations of the departments of the city shall be subordinate to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the merit system of personnel administration of the City of Burlingame. IX. DISCIPLINE The City Manager, or any department head, with the approval of the City Manager, may suspend, reduce in pay, demote or discharge any classified or unclassified employee, other than direct appointees of the City Council, for due cause and subject to the right of appeal as set forth in Rule X. A written statement of the grounds for proposed disciplinary action shall be delivered to the employee, with copies of all materials relied on in proposing the discipline. At his or her request, the employee shall be given a pre-disciplinary hearing by the assigned Skelly Officer. The decision shall be in writing and copies shall be delivered to the employee. The decision shall be final unless a written appeal is filed as provided in Rule X. A. DUE CAUSE The following are declared to be sufficient causes for discipline, though charges may be based on causes other than those enumerated: 1. That the employee is inefficient or incompetent, inefficient or fails in the performance of his or her duty. 2. That the employee repeatedly has been offensive in his or her conduct toward fellow employees or the public. 3. That the employee is unable to perform his or her duties due to mental or physical disability. 4. That the employee has refused or failed to obey any lawful and reasonable direction given by his or her supervisor. 5. That the employee has taken for personal use a fee, gift, or other valuable thing in the course of his or her work or in connection with it when such fee, gift, or other valuable thing is given him or her by any person in the hope or expectation of receiving a favor of better treatment than that accorded other persons. 20 6. That the employee has been convicted of a criminal offense involving moral turpitude. A plea of no contest shall be deemed a conviction. 7. That the employee through negligence or willful conduct has caused serious damage to public property or waste of public supplies or funds. 8. That the employee has been guilty of any conduct unbecoming, including dishonesty, an officer or employee of the city. 9. That the employee has been absent without leave, or has had excessive absenteeism. 10. Violation of any of the provisions of these Rules, the Municipal Code, or any City or departmental policy. X. HEARINGS Any employee who has been disciplined, as defined in Rule IX, shall have the right of appeal. Within ten (10) business days upon receipt of the Notice of Imposition of Discipline, the employee, by written notice to the Human Resources Director, may request an appeal hearing be submitted to an ad hoc review board. Business days are defined as days that Cit y 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 City Manager. The City Manager 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. 21 XI. ABOLISHMENT OF POSITION The City Council may at any time in its discretion abolish a position in the classified service or in the interest of economy vacate a position and thereby discharge the employee holding such position or employment. Should such position or any position involving all or any of the same duties be re- established or created within a year, the employee discharged shall be appointed thereto in preference to any other qualified person on the employment list for such position. XII. LEAVES OF ABSENCE A. Vacations Employees shall be entitled to vacation pay in accordance with applicable MOUs, and benefit and compensation resolutions. 1. Earned vacation time may be accumulated but the employee shall not be allowed to have an accumulation of more than two years credit at any time. 2. The time at which an employee shall be granted vacation shall be at the discretion of the department head. 3. When an employee is separated from the service, his or her earned vacation allowance shall be added to or subtracted from his or her final compensation. B. Sick, Bereavement, and Disability Leaves 1. Sick Leave Defined Sick leave is absence from duty with pay because of an employee's illness or injury, exposure to contagious disease, necessary medical, dental, or optical examinations, or treatments for the employee, or attendance upon a member of his or her immediate family seriously ill and requiring care by the employee. When indicated, the department head or City Manager may at his or her discretion require the employee to submit a doctor's certificate or other acceptable proof to substantiate the employee's absence. 2. Bereavement Leave In the event of the death in the immediate family of an employee, absence from duty shall be allowed not to exceed three days. In the event of the death of a relative not a member of the immediate family, absence from duty shall be allowed not to exceed one day. Such absences shall not be charged to sick leave. 22 For the purposes of this rule, "immediate family" means father, mother, step-father, step-mother, husband, wife, registered domestic partner, son, daughter, step-son, step-daughter, sister, legal guardians/children under guardianship, foster children, brother, step-sister, step-brother, grandparents, grandchildren, mother-in-law and father-in-law. 3. Accumulation of Sick Leave All employees, excluding casual, part-time employees, shall be entitled to sick leave allowance at the rate of 8 hours for each calendar month of regular time worked. Casual, part-time employees shall be entitled to sick leave in accordance with the part-time compensation and benefit resolution. Unused sick leave may be accumulated from year to year up to a maximum of 2,000 hours. Termination of employment except by retirement cancels all accumulated sick leave credit. Upon retirement, employees with sick leave balances may convert all sick leave hours to CalPERS credible service per GC Section 20965. 4. Disability Leave. Disability leave is absence from duty granted because of illness or injury arising out of and in the course of his or her employment. Disability leave shall be governed by the provisions of the worker's compensation laws of the State of California and the benefits and allowance provided under it. Disability leave shall not be deemed as sick leave. 4. Use of Sick Leave. Sick leave is charged at the actual time used. No employee shall be allowed sick leave pay for time off due to illness for time which is not part of the regular normal work week of such employee. 5. Compulsory Sick Leave. If in the opinion of the City Manager, an employee is incapacitated for work on account of illness or disability, such employee may be required to submit to a physician designated or approved by the City Manager for examination. If the report of a physician shows the employee to be in an unfit condition to perform his or her duties, the City Manager shall have the right to compel such employee to take sufficient leave of absence to fit him or her to perform his or her duties. 6. Sick Leave Pay Computation. Sick leave shall be paid at the rate the employee would be paid for working during the same period. C. Military Leaves of Absence Military leave of absence, with or without pay, shall be granted to employees under applicable provisions of Federal and State law. 23 D. Other Leaves of Absence With or Without Pay The City Manager may, for good cause, grant other leaves of absence with or without pay, not to exceed one year. At the end of the approved leave, if the employee does not return to his or her former position, all Civil Service rights shall be deemed as terminated. E. Right of Employee to Retain Position When leave of absence with or without pay is granted, the employee shall be restored to the position vacated by him or her at the expiration of his or her leave. XIII. HOLIDAYS The following are considered as official holidays for employees of the City of Burlingame subject to modification by employee MOU: January 1 New Year's Day 3rd Monday in January Martin Luther King Jr. Day 3rd Monday in February President’s Day Last Monday in May Memorial Day July 4 Independence Day 1st Monday in September Labor Day 2nd Monday in October Columbus Day November 11 Veterans Day 4th Thursday in November Thanksgiving Day Friday after 4th Thursday in November Day after Thanksgiving December 24 (1/2) Christmas Eve December 25 Christmas Day December 31 (1/2) New Year’s Eve Every day appointed by the President of the United States or the Governor of this state for a public fast, thanksgiving, or holiday and every day pronounced as a national day of mourning is a holiday when approved by City Council. If the first day of January, fourth day of July~ or twenty-fifth day of December falls upon a Saturday, the preceding Friday is a holiday. If the first day of January, fourth day of July, or twenty-fifth day of December falls upon a Sunday, the following Monday is a holiday. Should Christmas or New Year’s fall on a weekday Tuesday through Friday, the one-half day will be taken on the day preceding the holiday. Should Christmas or New Year’s fall 24 on Saturday, Friday being the one day off, the one-half day would be taken on Thursday. Should Christmas or New Year’s fall on Sunday or Monday, Monday being the one day off, the one-half day would be taken on Friday. When due to the requirements of the service it is necessary for an employee to work on any of the above holidays, credit shall' be given and he or she shall be allowed subsequent time off for such work or pay to compensate for such work in accordance with the operational program of the department. XIV. OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT A. Outside employment by a city employee shall be a privilege subject to the approval of the City Manager or the department head which he or she may designate. B. Outside employment shall be limited to a maximum of 20 hours per week; days off accepted. 1 EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME Article I -- General Provisions ........................................................................................................................... 2 Sec. 1. Statement of Purpose: .................................................................................................................... 2 Sec. 2. Definitions: ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Article II -- Representation Proceedings .......................................................................................................... 4 Sec. 3. Filing of Recognition Petition by Employee Organization: ......................................................... 4 Sec. 4. City Response to Recognition Petition: ......................................................................................... 5 Sec. 5. Open Period for Filing Challenging Petition: ................................................................................ 5 Sec. 6. Granting Recognition Without an Election: .................................................................................. 5 Sec. 7. Election Procedure: ......................................................................................................................... 6 Sec. 8 Procedure for Decertification of Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization: ................ 6 Sec. 9. Policy and Standards for Determination of Appropriate Units: ................................................. 7 Sec. 10. Procedure for Modification of Established Appropriate Units: ................................................. 8 Sec. 11. Procedure for Processing Severance Requests:...................................................................... 9 Sec. 12. Appeals: .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Article III -- Administration ................................................................................................................................. 9 Sec. 13. Submission of Current Information by Recognized Employee Organizations: ..................... 9 Sec. 14. Employee Organization Activities -- Use of City Resources: ................................................. 10 Sec. 15. Administrative Rules and Procedures: ..................................................................................... 10 Article IV -- Impasse Procedures .................................................................................................................... 10 Sec. 16. Initiation of Impasse Procedures: .............................................................................................. 10 Sec. 17. Impasse Procedures: .................................................................................................................. 10 Sec. 18. Costs of Impasse Procedures: ................................................................................................... 12 Article V -- Miscellaneous Provisions ............................................................................................................. 13 Sec. 19. Construction: ................................................................................................................................ 13 Sec. 20. Severability: .................................................................................................................................. 13 2 Article I -- General Provisions Sec. 1. Statement of Purpose: This Resolution implements Chapter 10, Division 4, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California (Sections 3500 et seq.) captioned "Local Public Employee Organizations," (the Meyers- Milias-Brown Act) by providing orderly procedures for the administration of employer-employee relations between the City and its employee organizations. However, nothing contained herein shall be deemed to supersede the provisions of state law, ordinances, resolutions and rules which establish and regulate the civil service system, or which provide for other methods of administering employer- employee relations. This Resolution is intended, instead, to strengthen civil service and other methods of administering employer-employee relations through the establishment of uniform and orderly methods of communications between employees, employee organizations and the City. This resolution supersedes the resolution and supplemental rules to implement the resolution adopted by the Council on April 20, 1970. It is the purpose of this Resolution to provide procedures for meeting and conferring in good faith with Recognized Employee Organizations regarding matters that directly and significantly affect and primarily involve the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment of employees in appropriate units and that are not preempted by federal or state law. However, nothing herein shall be construed to restrict any legal or inherent exclusive City rights with respect to matters of general legislative or managerial policy, which include among others: The exclusive right to determine the mission of its constituent departments, commissions, and boards; set standards of service; determine the procedures and standards of selection for employment; direct its employees; take disciplinary action; relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other lawful reasons; determine the content of job classifications; subcontract work; maintain the efficiency of governmental operations; determine the methods, means and personnel by which government operations are to be conducted; take all necessary actions to carry out its mission in emergencies; and exercise complete control and discretion over its organization and the technology of performing its work. Sec. 2. Definitions: As used in this Resolution, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: a. "Appropriate unit" means a unit of employee classes or positions, established pursuant to Article II hereof. b. "City" means the City of Burlingame, and, where appropriate herein, refers to the City Council or any duly authorized City representative as herein defined. c. "Confidential Employee" means an employee who, in the course of his or her duties, has access to confidential information relating to the City's administration of employer-employee relations. d. "Consult/Consultation in Good Faith" means to communicate orally or in writing with all effected recognized employee organizations for the purpose of presenting and obtaining views or advising of proposed actions in a good faith effort to reach a consensus; and, as distinguished from meeting and conferring in good faith regarding matters within the required scope of the meet and confer process, does not involve an exchange of proposals and counterproposals in 3 an endeavor to reach agreement in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding, nor is it subject to Article IV hereof. e. "Day" means calendar day unless expressly stated otherwise. f. "Municipal Employee Relations Officer" means the Human Resources Director. g. "Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization" means an employee organization which has been formally acknowledged by the City as the sole employee organization representing the employees in an appropriate representation unit pursuant to Article II hereof, having the exclusive right to meet and confer in good faith concerning statutorily required subjects pertaining to unit employees, and thereby assuming the corresponding obligation of fairly representing such employees. Such recognition status may only be challenged by another employee organization as set forth in Article II section 8. h. "Impasse" means that the representatives of the City and a Recognized Employee Organization have reached a point in their meeting and conferring in good faith where their differences on matters to be included in a Memorandum of Understanding, and concerning which they are required to meet and confer, remain so substantial and prolonged that further meeting and conferring would be futile. i. "Management Employee" means an employee having responsibility for formulating, administering or managing the implementation of City policies and programs and employees who exercise supervisory authority. j. "Proof of Employee Support" means (1) an authorization card recently signed and personally dated by an employee, provided that the card has not been subsequently revoked in writing by the employee (2) a verified authorization petition or petitions recently signed and personally dated by an employee, or (3) employee dues deduction authorizations, using the payroll register for the period immediately prior to the date a petition is filed hereunder, except that dues deduction authorizations for more than one employee organization for the account of any one employee shall not be considered as proof of employee support for any employee organization. The only authorization which shall be considered as proof of employee support hereunder shall be the authorization last signed by an employee. The words "recently signed" shall mean within ninety (90) days prior to the filing of such proof of support. k. "Supervisory Authority" means any employee having authority, in the interest of the City, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. l. Terms not defined herein shall have the meanings as set forth in the MMBA. 4 Article II -- Representation Proceedings Sec. 3. Filing of Recognition Petition by Employee Organization: An employee organization which seeks to be formally acknowledged as an Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization representing the employees in an appropriate unit shall file a petition with the Municipal Employee Relations Officer containing the following information and documentation: a. Name and address of the employee organization. b. Names and titles of its officers. c. Names of employee organization representatives who are authorized to speak on behalf of the organization. d. A statement that the employee organization has, as one of its primary purposes, the responsibility of representing employees in their employment relations with the City. e. A statement whether the employee organization is a chapter of, or affiliated directly or indirectly in any manner, with a local, regional, state, national or international organization, and, if so, the name and address of each such other organization. f. Certified copies of the employee organization's constitution and bylaws. g. A designation of those persons, not exceeding two in number, and their addresses, to whom notice sent by regular United States mail will be deemed sufficient notice on the employee organization for any purpose. h. A statement that the employee organization has no restriction on membership based on race, color, religion, creed, sex, national origin, age, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability or medical condition. i. The job classifications or position titles of employees in the unit claimed to be appropriate and the approximate number of member employees therein. j. A statement that the employee organization has in its possession proof of employee support as herein defined to establish that a majority of the employees in the unit claimed to be appropriate have designated the employee organization to represent them in their employment relations with the City. Such written proof shall be submitted for confirmation to the Municipal Employee Relations Officer or to a mutually agreed upon disinterested third party. k. A request that the Municipal Employee Relations Officer formally acknowledge the petitioner as the Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization representing the employees in the unit claimed to be appropriate for the purpose of meeting and conferring in good faith. The Petition, including the proof of employee support and all accompanying documentation, shall be declared to be true, correct and complete, under penalty of perjury, by the duly 5 authorized officer(s) of the employee organization executing it. Sec. 4. City Response to Recognition Petition: Upon receipt of the Petition, the Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall determine whether: a. There has been compliance with the requirements of the Recognition Petition, and b. The proposed representation unit is an appropriate unit in accordance with Sec. 9 of this Article II. If an affirmative determination is made by the Municipal Employee Relations Officer on the foregoing two matters, he/she shall so inform the petitioning employee organization, shall give written notice of such request for recognition to the employees in the unit and shall take no action on said request for thirty (30) days thereafter. If either of the foregoing matters are not affirmatively determined, the Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall offer to consult thereon with such petitioning employee organization and, if such determination thereafter remains unchanged, shall inform that organization of the reasons therefore in writing. The petitioning employee organization may appeal such determination in accordance with Sec. 12 of this Resolution. Sec. 5. Open Period for Filing Challenging Petition: Within thirty (30) days of the date written notice was given to affected employees that a valid recognition petition for an appropriate unit has been filed, any other employee organization may file a competing request to be formally acknowledged as the exclusively recognized employee organization of the employees in the same or in an overlapping unit (one which corresponds with respect to some, but not all the classifications or positions set forth in the recognition petition being challenged), by filing a petition evidencing proof of employee support in the unit claimed to be appropriate of at least thirty (30) percent and otherwise in the same form and manner as set forth in Sec. 3 of this Article II. If such challenging petition seeks establishment of an overlapping unit, the Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall call for a hearing on such overlapping petitions for the purpose of ascertaining the more appropriate unit, at which time the petitioning employee organizations shall be heard. Thereafter, the Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall determine the appropriate unit or units in accordance with the standards in Sec. 9 of this Article II. The petitioning employee organizations shall have fifteen (15) days from the date notice of such unit determination is communicated to them by the Municipal Employee Relations Officer to amend their petitions to conform to such determination or to appeal such determination pursuant to Sec. 12 of this Article II. Sec. 6. Granting Recognition Without an Election: If the Petition is in order, and the proof of support shows that a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit have designated the petitioning employee organization to represent them, and if no other employee organization filed a challenging petition, the petitioning employee organization and the Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall request the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, or another agreed upon neutral third party, to review the count, form, accuracy and propriety 6 of the proof of support. If the neutral third party makes an affirmative determination, the Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall formally acknowledge the petitioning employee organization as the Exclusive Recognized Employee Organization for the designated unit. Sec. 7. Election Procedure: Where recognition is not granted pursuant to Sec. 6, the Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall arrange for a secret ballot election to be conducted by a party agreed to by the Municipal Employee Relations Officer and the concerned employee organization(s), in accordance with such party's rules and procedures subject to the provisions of this Resolution. All employee organizations who have duly submitted petitions which have been determined to be in conformance with this Article II shall be included on the ballot. The ballot shall also reserve to employees the choice of representing themselves individually in their employment relations with the City. Employees entitled to vote in such election shall be those persons employed in regular permanent positions within the designated appropriate unit who were employed during the pay period immediately prior to the date which ended at least fifteen (15) days before the date the election commences, including those who did not work during such period because of illness, vacation or other authorized leaves of absence, and who are employed by the City in the same unit on the date of the election. An employee organization shall be formally acknowledged as the Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization for the designated appropriate unit following an election or run-off election if it received a numerical majority of all valid votes cast in the election. In an election involving three or more choices, where none of the choices receives a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the two choices receiving the largest number of valid votes cast; the rules governing an initial election being applicable to a run-off election. There shall be no more than one valid election under this Resolution pursuant to any petition in a 12- month period affecting the same unit. In the event that the parties are unable to agree on a third party to conduct an election, the election shall be conducted by the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service. Costs of conducting elections shall be borne in equal shares by the City and by each employee organization appearing on the ballot. Sec. 8 Procedure for Decertification of Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization: A Decertification Petition alleging that the incumbent Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization no longer represents a majority of the employees in an established appropriate unit may be filed with the Municipal Employee Relations Officer only during the month of March of any year following the first full year of recognition or during the thirty (30) day period commencing one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the termination date of a Memorandum of Understanding then having been in effect less than three (3) years, whichever occurs later. A Decertification Petition may be filed by two or more employees or their representative, or an employee organization, and shall contain the following information and documentation declared by the duly authorized signatory under penalty of perjury to be true, correct and complete: a. The name, address and telephone number of the petitioner and a designated representative authorized to receive notices or requests for further information. 7 b. The name of the established appropriate unit and of the incumbent Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization sought to be decertified as a representative of that unit. c. An allegation that the incumbent Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization no longer represents a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, and any other relevant and material facts relating thereto. d. Proof of employee support that at least thirty (30) percent of the employees in the established appropriate unit no longer desire to be represented by the incumbent Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization. Such proof shall be submitted for confirmation to the Municipal Employee Relations Officer or to a mutually agreed upon disinterested third party within the time limits specified in the first paragraph of this Section. An employee organization may, in satisfaction of the Decertification Petition requirements hereunder, file a Petition under this Section in the form of a Recognition Petition that evidences proof of employee support of at least thirty (30) percent, that includes the allegation and information required under this Section 8, and otherwise conforms to the requirements of Section 3 of this Article. The Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall initially determine whether the Petition has been filed in compliance with the applicable provisions of this Article II. If his/her determination is in the negative, he/she shall offer to consult thereon with the representative(s) of such petitioning employees or employee organization and, if such determination thereafter remains unchanged, shall return such Petition to the employees or employee organization with a statement of the reasons therefore in writing. The petitioning employees or employee organization may appeal such determination in accordance with Sec. 12 of this Article II. If the determination of the Municipal Employee Relations Officer is in the affirmative, or if his negative determination is reversed on appeal, he/she shall give written notice of such Decertification or Recognition Petition to the incumbent Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization and to unit employees. The Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall thereupon arrange for a secret ballot election to be held on or about fifteen (15) days after such notice to determine the wishes of unit employees as to the question of decertification and, if a Recognition Petition was duly filed hereunder, the question of representation. Such election shall be conducted in conformance with Sec. 7 of this Article II. During the "open period" specified in the first paragraph of this Sec. 8, the Municipal Employee Relations Officer may on his/her own motion, when he/she has reason to believe that a majority of unit employees no longer wish to be represented by the incumbent Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization, give notice to that organization and all unit employees that he/she will arrange for an election to determine that issue. In such event any other employee organization may within fifteen (15) days of such notice file a Recognition Petition in accordance with this Sec. 8, which the Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall act on in accordance with this Sec. 8. If, pursuant to this Sec. 8, a different employee organization is formally acknowledged as the Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization, such organization shall be bound by all the terms and conditions of any Memorandum of Understanding then in effect for its remaining term. Sec. 9. Policy and Standards for Determination of Appropriate Units: The policy objectives in determining the appropriateness of units shall be the effect of a proposed unit on (1) the efficient operations of the City and its compatibility with the primary responsibility of the City 8 and its employees to effectively and economically serve the public, and (2) providing employees with effective representation based on recognized community of interest considerations. These policy objectives require that the appropriate unit shall be the broadest feasible grouping of positions that share an identifiable community of interest. Factors to be considered shall be: a. Similarity of the general kinds of work performed, types of qualifications required, and the general working conditions. b. History of representation in the City and similar employment; except however, that no unit shall be deemed to be an appropriate unit solely on the basis of the extent to which employees in the proposed unit have organized. c. Consistency with the organizational patterns of the City. d. Effect of differing legally mandated impasse resolution procedures. e. Number of employees and classifications, and the effect on the administration of employer- employee relations created by the fragmentation of classifications and proliferation of units. f. Effect on the classification structure and impact on the stability of the employer-employee relationship of dividing a single or related classifications among two or more units. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section, managerial, supervisory and confidential responsibilities, as defined in Sec. 2 of this Resolution, are determining factors in establishing appropriate units hereunder, and therefore such managerial, supervisory and confidential employees may only be included in units that do not include non-managerial, non- supervisory and non- confidential employees, unless specifically exempted from this by the Municipal Employee Relations Officer. Managerial, supervisory and confidential employees may not represent any employee organization which represents other employees. Peace Officers have the right to be represented in separate units composed solely of such peace officers. Also under the MMBA, professional employees have the right to be represented separately from non- professional employees. The Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall, after notice to and consultation with affected employee organizations, allocate new classifications or positions, delete eliminated classifications or positions, and retain, reallocate or delete modified classifications or positions from units in accordance with the provisions of this Section. The decision of the Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall be final. Sec. 10. Procedure for Modification of Established Appropriate Units: Requests by employee organizations for modifications of established appropriate units may be considered by the Municipal Employee Relations Officer only during the period specified in Sec. 8 of this Article II. Such requests shall be submitted in the form of a Recognition Petition and, in addition to the requirements set forth in Sec. 3 of this Article, shall contain a complete statement of all relevant facts and citations in support of the proposed modified unit in terms of the policies and standards set forth in Sec. 9 hereof. The Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall process such petitions as other 9 Recognition Petitions under this Article II. The Municipal Employee Relations Officer may by his own motion propose that an established unit be modified. The Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall give written notice of the proposed modification(s) to any affected employee organization and shall hold a meeting concerning the proposed modification(s), at which time all affected employee organizations shall be heard. Thereafter the Municipal Employee Relations Officer shall determine the composition of the appropriate unit or units in accordance with Sec. 9 of this Article II, and shall give written notice of such determination to the affected employee organizations. The Municipal Employee Relations Officer's determination may be appealed as provided in Section 12 of this Article. If a unit is modified pursuant to the motion of the Municipal Employee Relations Officer hereunder, employee organizations may thereafter file Recognition Petitions seeking to become the Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization for such new appropriate unit or units pursuant to Sec. 3 hereof. Sec. 11. Procedure for Processing Severance Requests: An employee organization may file a request to become the recognized employee organization of a unit alleged to be appropriate that consists of a group of employees who are already a part of a larger established unit represented by another recognized employee organization. The timing, form and processing of such request shall be as specified in Sec. 10 for modification requests. Sec. 12. Appeals: An employee organization aggrieved by an appropriate unit determination of the Municipal Employee Relations Officer; or an employee organization aggrieved by a determination of the Municipal Employee Relations Officer that a Recognition Petition (Sec. 3), Challenging Petition (Sec. 5), Decertification Petition (Sec. 8), Unit Modification Petition (Sec. 10) --- or employees aggrieved by a determination of the Municipal Employee Relations Officer that a Decertification Petition (Sec. 8) or Severance Request (Sec. 11) ---has not been filed in compliance with the applicable provisions of this Article, may, within ten (10) days of notice of the Municipal Employee Relations Officer’s final decision, request to submit the matter to mediation by the State Mediation and Conciliation Service, or may, in lieu thereof or thereafter, appeal such determination to the City Council for final decision within fifteen (15) days of notice of the Municipal Employee Relations Officer’s determination or the termination of mediation proceedings, whichever is later. Appeals to the City Council shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk, and a copy thereof served on the Municipal Employee Relations Officer. The City Council shall commence to consider the matter within thirty (30) days of the filing of the appeal. The City Council may, in its discretion, refer the dispute to a non-binding third party hearing process. Any decision of the City Council on the use of such procedure, and/or any decision of the City Council determining the substance of the dispute shall be final and binding. Article III -- Administration Sec. 13. Submission of Current Information by Recognized Employee Organizations: 10 All changes in the information filed with the City by an Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization under items (a.) through (h.) of its Recognition Petition under Sec. 3 of this Resolution shall be submitted in writing to the Municipal Employee Relations Officer within fourteen (14) days of such change. Exclusively Recognized Employee Organizations that are party to an agency shop provision shall provide annually to the Municipal Employee Relations Officer and to unit members within 60 days after the end of its fiscal year the financial report required under Government Code Section 3502.5 (f) of the Meyers-Milias Brown Act. Sec. 14. Employee Organization Activities -- Use of City Resources: Access to City work locations and the use of City paid time, facilities, equipment and other resources by employee organizations and those representing them shall be authorized only to the extent provided for in Memoranda of Understanding and/or administrative procedures, shall be limited to lawful activities consistent with the provisions of this Resolution that pertain directly to the employer- employee relationship and not such internal employee organization business as soliciting membership, campaigning for office, and organization meetings and elections, and shall not interfere with the efficiency, safety and security of City operations. Sec. 15. Administrative Rules and Procedures: The City Manager is hereby authorized to establish such rules and procedures as appropriate to implement and administer the provisions of this Resolution after consultation with affected employee organizations. Article IV -- Impasse Procedures Sec. 16. Initiation of Impasse Procedures: If the meet and confer process has reached impasse as defined in Section 2 of this Resolution, either party may initiate the impasse procedures by filing with the other party a written request for an impasse meeting, together with a statement of its position on all issues. An impasse meeting shall then be scheduled promptly by the Municipal Employee Relations Officer. The purpose of such meeting shall be: a. To review the position of the parties in a final effort to reach agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding; and b. If the impasse is not resolved, to discuss arrangements for the utilization of the impasse procedures provided herein. Sec. 17. Impasse Procedures: Impasse procedures are as follows: a. If the parties agree to submit the dispute to mediation, and agree on the selection of a mediator, the dispute shall be submitted to mediation. All mediation proceedings shall be private. The mediator shall make no public recommendation, nor take any public position at any time 11 concerning the issues. b. If the parties agree to, and do participate in mediation, and if mediator is unable to effect settlement of the controversy, the employee organization may present a request to the City and the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to submit the impasse to fact-finding. This request by the employee organization to submit the impasse to fact-finding must be made no sooner than 30 days, but no later than 45 days, following the selection of a mediator by the parties. c. If the parties do not agree to participate in mediation, the employee organization may present a request to the City and PERB to submit the impasse to fact-finding no later than 30 days following the date that either party has provided the other a written notice of declaration of impasse. d. Within five (5) working days after PERB’s determination that the request for factfinding is sufficient, a fact-finding panel of three (3) shall be appointed in the following manner: One member of the panel shall be appointed by the Municipal Employee Relations Officer, and one member shall be appointed by the Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization. PERB shall, within five (5) working days after making its determination that the request for fact-finding is sufficient, submit the names of seven persons, drawn from the list of neutral fact-finders established pursuant to Government Code section 3541.3(d). PERB shall thereafter designate one of the seven persons to serve as the chairperson unless notified by the parties within five (5) working days that they have mutually agreed upon a person to chair the panel in lieu of a chairperson selected by PERB. e. The following constitute the jurisdictional and procedural requirements for fact-finding: (1) The panel shall, within ten (10) days after its appointment, meet with the parties or their representatives, either jointly or separately, and may make inquiries and investigations, hold hearings, and take any other steps it deems appropriate. The panel shall have subpoena power with regard to hearings, investigations and inquiries. (2) Subject to the stipulations of the parties, the fact-finders shall consider, weigh and be guided by the following measures and criteria in arriving at their findings and recommendations: a. State and federal laws that are applicable to the employer. b. Local rules, regulations, or ordinances. c. Stipulations of the parties. d. The interests and welfare of the public, and the financial ability of the public agency. e. Comparison of the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of the employees involved in the fact-finding proceeding with the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of other employees performing similar services in comparable public agencies. f. The consumer price index for goods and services, commonly known as the cost of living. g. The overall compensation presently received by the employees, including direct wage compensation, vacations, holidays, and other excused time, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization benefits, the continuity and stability of employment, and all other benefits received. 12 h. Any other facts not confined to those specified in paragraphs (a)-(g), inclusive, which are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in making the findings and recommendations, including, but not limited to: (i) Maintaining appropriate compensation relationships between classifications and positions within the City; (ii) Other legislatively determined and projected demands on agency resources (i.e., budgetary priorities as established by the governing body); (iii) Allowance for equitable compensation increases for other employees and employee groups for the corresponding fiscal period(s); (iv) Revenue projections not to exceed currently authorized tax and fee rates for the relevant fiscal year(s); (v) Assurance of sufficient and sound budgetary reserves; and (vi) Constitutional, statutory, and Municipal Code limitations on the level and use of revenues and expenditures. (3) Within thirty (30) days after the appointment of the fact-finding panel, or, upon agreement by both parties within a longer period, the panel shall make written findings of fact and advisory recommendations for the resolution of the issues in dispute, which shall be presented in terms of the criteria and limitations specified above. Any member of a fact-finding panel shall be accorded the right to file dissenting written findings of fact and recommendations. The fact-finder or chairperson of the fact-finding panel shall serve such findings and recommendations on the Municipal Employee Relations Officer and the designated representative of the Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization before they are made available to the public. (4) If these parties have not resolved the impasse within ten (10) days after service of the findings and recommendations upon them, the City shall make them public by submitting them to the City Clerk for consideration by the City Council in connection with the Council's legislative consideration of the impasse. (5) After any applicable mediation and fact-finding procedures have been exhausted, but no earlier than ten (10) days after the fact finders' written findings of fact and recommended terms of settlement have been submitted to the parties, the City Council may hold a public hearing regarding the impasse, and take such action regarding the impasse as it in its discretion deems appropriate as in the public interest, including implementation of the City’s last, best and final offer. Any legislative action by the City Council on the impasse shall be final and binding. (6) The costs for the services of the panel chairperson agreed upon by the parties shall be equally divided between the parties, and shall include per diem fees, if any, and actual and necessary travel and subsistence expenses. The per diem fees shall not exceed the per diem fees stated on the chairperson's résumé on file with PERB. The chairperson's bill showing the amount payable by the parties shall accompany his or her final report to the parties and PERB. The parties shall make payment directly to the chairperson. (7) Any other mutually incurred costs shall be borne equally by the parties. Any separately incurred costs for the panel member selected by each party shall be borne by that party. Sec. 18. Costs of Impasse Procedures: 13 The cost for the services of a mediator and chairperson of a fact-finding panel utilized by the parties, and other mutually incurred costs of mediation and fact-finding, shall be borne equally by the City and Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization. The cost for a fact-finding panel member selected by each party, and other separately incurred costs, shall be borne by such party. Article V -- Miscellaneous Provisions Sec. 19. Construction: This Resolution shall be administered and construed as follows: (a) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed to deny to any person, employee, organization, the City, or any authorized officer, body or other representative of the City, the rights, powers and authority granted by federal or state law. (b) This Resolution shall be interpreted so as to carry out its purpose as set forth in Article I. (c) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed as making the provisions of California Labor Code Section 923 applicable to City employees or employee organizations, or of giving employees or employee organizations the right to participate in, support, cooperate or encourage, directly or indirectly, any strike, sickout or other total or partial stoppage or slowdown of work. In consideration of and as a condition of initial and continued employment by the City, employees recognize that any such actions by them are in violation of their conditions of employment except as expressly otherwise provided by legally preemptive state or contrary local law. In the event employees engage in such actions, they shall subject themselves to discipline up to and including termination, and may be replaced, to the extent such actions are not prohibited by preemptive law; and employee organizations may thereby forfeit rights accorded them under City law or contract. Sec. 20. Severability: If any provision of this Resolution, or the application of such provision to any persons or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this Resolution, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8g MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk – (650) 558-7203 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Service Agreement with ECS Imaging Inc. for the Purchase of an Electronic Content Management System and Scanning Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a service agreement with ECS for an electronic content management system (ECMS) and scanning services. BACKGROUND Currently, the City’s official records are retained and stored in their paper version in three locations: the relevant department’s filing cabinets, the City Clerk’s vault, or off-site at Datasafe. By keeping records only in paper form, the following issues arise: 1) misplacement of original versions of records; 2) incomplete project files, as each department keeps their portion separate; 3) length of time needed for staff to answer public records requests; and 4) preservation of historical and permanent records. To avoid the listed challenges, staff recommends purchasing an ECMS, which will allow staff to connect documents between departments, quickly create a history of any project, and create a public-facing search tool for the community. A team consisting of Deputy Finance Director Fariba Ghahremani, Senior Engineer Martin Quan, Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, and City Clerk Meaghan Hassel-Shearer was created to manage the process of purchasing an ECMS. Diane Gladwell, a consultant who specializes in retention schedules and records management, was hired to assist in: 1. Organizing the City records, 2. Determining what records should be scanned and imported to an ECMS, 3. Handling and reviewing responses for different ECMS proposals, and 4. Implementing the procedures once an ECMS is purchased. At the end of October, Diane Gladwell and City Clerk Hassel-Shearer met with each department to assess their needs. From these meetings, a list of priorities for each department was created, with an estimate of the number of records that would need to be scanned and imported into an ECS Imaging Inc. Service Agreement January 16, 2018 2 ECMS (over four million records). As a result of these meetings, it was determined that the City should draft two RFPs, one for scanning of the City’s records, and one for the ECMS. At the December 6, 2016 City Council meeting, staff presented Council with an informational report on the recommendation to purchase an ECMS and the work that had been done to prepare for this purchase. Thereafter, at the Mid-Year Budget Study Session, a request for $250,000 was included in the proposed FY 2017-18 General Fund CIP to purchase an electronic content management system. Additionally, funds were set aside in the IT department for scanning. The CIP project and scanning funds were approved in the FY 2017-18 budget. DISCUSSION In July 2017, staff released the RFPs for scanning and an ECMS. In August, the City received timely proposals from ECS Imaging, Inc. and ARC Technology Solutions in response to the scanning RFP, and it received timely proposals from ECS Imaging, Inc., Complete Paperless Solutions and ARC Technology Solutions in response to the ECMS RFP. Each of the three ECMS vendors was asked to demonstrate its software on September 6, 2017 before the team and consultant Diane Gladwell. Prior to the demonstration, City Clerk Hassel- Shearer called references for each of the three vendors and asked them a list of standardized questions including: ease of software, type of records scanned, customer service, tips, and advice. Staff reviewed the demonstrations and proposals and called additional references. They then met and discussed the three ECMS proposals. An emphasis was placed on two elements: 1. Security of electronic records storage – Under Government Code Section 34090.5(d), an electronic version of a document/record can be kept as the official record if “a true copy of archival quality of the film, optical disk, or any other medium reproductions shall be kept in a safe and separate place for security purposes.” 2. Conversion of Papervision data to the new ECMS platform. Papervision is the current software that holds the permits and planning documents for all buildings and projects in the City. Information and documents on this platform are not organized and are hard to find. The conversion and re-indexing of these records will be a painstaking task. Accordingly, it was stressed to all three vendors that they must have a plan in place to handle this conversion and assist in the re-indexing for customer ease. The three proposals for ECMS are outlined below. Information about the scanning proposals from Arc Technology Solutions and ECS Imaging, Inc. is included in these outlines. 1. Arc Technology Solutions (“Arc”) offered the lowest price, with one-time installation costs at $16,524, and an annual cost of $12,990. This bid was far lower than either of the other two. This vendor’s system is cloud-based and was developed by the vendor. Although the documents/records are kept in a cloud-based platform, in order to comply with Government Code 34090.5(d), Arc writes the files to optical media to be stored offsite. ECS Imaging Inc. Service Agreement January 16, 2018 3 The vendor is located locally and explained that they would be able to create the indexing fields, handle the scanning, perform quality checks, and then either transport the records back to the City or destroy them at one of their facilities. Their solution was all-in-one. Records would all be sent to them for scanning and indexing. An emphasis was placed on Arc creating the indexing and handling the documents. The City team expressed concern over this aspect and the need to have control over how documents are interlinked and the knowledge of how City departments work together. Arc discussed handling data conversions from other platforms in the past. They explained that they had not worked specifically with Papervision but had ideas on how to solve indexing issues. In checking their references, staff found that the technology was being used mainly for invoices, audit purposes, and tracking of bond funds. Additionally, Arc only listed one city, Palo Alto, as a reference. At the time, Palo Alto was only using Arc for purchasing documents but was considering opening the application up to other departments. Arc’s scanning proposal allowed for flexibility in the amount of records sent, and how they would be indexed and quality checked. The pricing was established per document, by size, and whether color or black and white. In talking with their references, their scanning was found to be clean and of a good quality. 2. Complete Paperless Solutions (“CPS”) is a reseller of Laserfiche, which is the predominant ECMS platform in the Bay Area. Their price was a one-time installation fee of $99,988, with an annual maintenance and license cost of $11,570. The vendor is located in Southern California and stated that in-person support hours could be arranged. The vendor proposed using a WORM (write once read many times) storage. This device stores data in a non-rewritable format to prevent users from accidentally erasing or altering sensitive information. Complete Paperless Solutions was the one vendor out of the three that did not submit a bid for scanning. Accordingly, records would need to be scanned through another vendor and then converted by CPS. This would create an extra step where staff hours would be required for quality check. During the vendor demonstration, CPS offered a number of solutions to converting Papervision data into Laserfiche. Additionally, they showed how their software could be used for workflow processes like routing contracts, new hire on-boards, and public records requests. Lastly, in checking their references, staff found that cities used Laserfiche across all their departments. They received high praise for their customer service and technical support. 3. ECS Imaging, Inc. (“ECS”) is also a reseller of Laserfiche. Their price was a one-time installation fee of $124,155 (this included a proposed $47,293 WORM, which was later re- evaluated to an $8,000 WORM) and an annual maintenance and license cost of $11,400. ECS has an office located in Concord, CA, and it is from this office that the City’s project would be managed. Like CPS, ECS proposed using WORM storage so that data was constantly reviewed and maintained in its original version. ECS Imaging Inc. Service Agreement January 16, 2018 4 During the vendor demonstration, ECS offered a number of solutions to converting Papervision data into Laserfiche. Additionally, ECS demonstrated that they had experience converting Papervision data. They also introduced the team to their expert in this matter who would be handling the conversion. ECS also discussed workflow options that would come with the product and could be used to create electronic timecards, route contracts, provide new hire on-board, etc. Staff discussed the City’s interest in purchasing a new financial system and whether they would be able to connect the new financial system with the Laserfiche platform. ECS gave staff assurances that this could be managed. ECS’ scanning proposal was on par with Arc’s proposal. The pricing was broken down by image for scanning and indexing, with quality checks at an hourly charge. In checking references, it was determined that ECS had vast experience in working with cities in scanning their documents and properly preparing them for storage. Lastly, in checking ECS’ ECMS references, staff found that many cities were using ECS. Moreover, the City’s police department has had a long-standing agreement with ECS. Staff reviewed the electronic storage at the police department and asked questions about their relationship with ECS. Overall, ECS’ references stressed their training, support, and technical expertise. After reviewing the three proposals the team decided that they wanted to use Laserfiche. This was based on the number of cities already using the product, the years of experience that Laserfiche has assisting governments, and the WORM storage. While Arc provided a new and innovative way to scan and store government data, staff felt that the WORM was more secure and accessible. Additionally, after checking with the IT department, it was their guidance to go with WORM, based on their experience in Redwood City using Laserfiche. Therefore, after deciding that the City’s needs would best be met by Laserfiche, the team awarded the contract to ECS for the following reasons: 1. Location – ability to obtain in-person support on the day of if necessary 2. Experience with Papervision – because this is an arduous project, it was important to find someone with experience in this conversion 3. Scanning – ECS submitted a bid on scanning. The two scanning bids came in at comparable prices. Therefore, it was determined that it would be more cost efficient and secure to award the scanning proposal and ECMS proposal to the same vendor. The proposed three-year service agreement will allow the City to begin the process of converting records into an electronic database. The agreement includes initial training of staff on using Laserfiche, indexing records, and creating workflows. Initially, ECS and the City will focus on the conversion and indexing for City Clerk records and the Community Development department. From there, the City has the option to either develop the indexing for other departments or request assistance from ECS. ECS Imaging Inc. Service Agreement January 16, 2018 5 Additionally, the agreement allows the City to send records to ECS on an as-needed basis for scanning, indexing, and conversion into the Laserfiche platform. The City will be purchasing scanners to handle scanning of records on a present-day forward basis, but a majority of the older records will be sent to ECS. If approved, the agreement will be effective through January 16, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of the three-year agreement with ECS Imaging, Inc. is $300,000. The initial cost is $107,572, and thereafter an annual maintenance and licensing cost of $19,150. The initial one-time cost differs from what was in the proposal as after ECS was awarded the contract, the City and ECS refined the services and WORM that the City wanted. The annual maintenance and licensing cost increased from the original proposal because of the City’s request to have 40 hours of priority support (in which the City will only be charged for what is used), and additional features to assist with the transfer of documents. The total cost for three years of this portion of the agreement is $145,872. Currently, the City has over four million records that staff would like scanned into an ECMS. Instead of utilizing staff time to scan and index, the City will be utilizing the services of ECS to assist in the backlog. The cost of utilization of ECS’ scanning services as well as other (optional) workflow products that will alleviate the necessity of additional staff time is estimated to be $150,000. Again, the City will only be charged for the options actually selected, and the services actually utilized. Exhibits: • Resolution • Agreement RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH ECS IMAGING INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN ELECTRONIC CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND SCANNING SERVICES WHEREAS, in July, 2017, the City released RFPs for the purchase and implementation of an electronic content management system (“ECMS”) and scanning services; and WHEREAS, all proposals for scanning services were received and opened on August 4, 2017; and WHEREAS, all proposals for an ECMS were received and opened on August 11, 2017; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2017, the three vendors who delivered ECMS proposals were invited to conduct a demonstration of their software; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2017 the two vendors who also submitted scanning proposals were asked questions concerning their service and process; and WHEREAS, staff with the help of their consultant chose to award ECS Imaging Inc. with a contract to provide both an ECMS and scanning services; and WHEREAS, the service agreement will be effective through January, 2021; and WHEREAS, the initial costs of the ECMS are $88,422 with annual maintenance and licensing costs of $19,150; and WHEREAS, it is expected that the total cost of the service agreement for 3 years will be $300,000 to include scanning services on an as needed basis; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City Manager is authorized to execute a three-year service agreement with ECS Imaging Inc. to provide an electronic content management system and scanning services. ________________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16th day of January, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _____________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND ECS IMAGING, INC. THIS AGREEMENT is by and between ECS IMAGING, INC. (“ECS”) and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California (“City”). ECS and City agree: 1. Services. City wishes to obtain the services of ECS to implement an electronic content management system and assist in the scanning of records. ECS shall provide the Services set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. Support and License. Incorporated into this agreement and attached as Exhibit C and D are the ECS Priority Support Agreement and Laserfiche End User License Agreement, respectively. 3. Compensation. Notwithstanding the expenditure by ECS of time and materials in excess of said Maximum compensation amount, ECS agrees to perform all of the Scope of Services herein required of ECS for $300,000, including all materials and other reimbursable amounts (“Maximum Compensation”). ECS shall submit invoices when Payment Milestones are completed as defined in the Scope of Work. Additional invoices will be submitted on a quarterly basis for scanning and subscription fees. All bills submitted by ECS shall contain sufficient information to determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is accurate. Bills shall include a brief description of services performed, the date services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and the ECS’s signature. 4. Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereof and terminates on February 1, 2020 unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof. ECS agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to completion and in accordance with any schedules specified herein. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays beyond the ECS’s control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City’s Contract Administrator prior to the expiration of the specified completion date. 5. Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of ECS. Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by ECS without the prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that ECS is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. 6. Insurance. ECS, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ECS shall demonstrate proof of required insurance coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance and original endorsements to City. Except in the case of professional design/errors and omissions insurance, the City shall be named as a primary insured. 7. Indemnification. ECS shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, 2 claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of ECS, 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 ECS to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section 2782.8. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve ECS 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. 8. Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time by City for its convenience upon written notice to ECS. In the event of such termination, ECS shall be entitled to pro-rated compensation for authorized Services performed prior to the effective date of termination provided however that City may condition payment of such compensation upon ECS's delivery to City of any or all materials described herein. In the event the ECS ceases performing services under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, ECS shall, without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement. ECS shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services performed up to the time of ECS’s cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment. 9. Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, photographs, computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final revisions, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the property of City. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including but not limited to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, and any other material referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be made available, upon request, to City at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation on their use. Upon City’s request, ECS shall execute appropriate documents to assign to the City the copyright or trademark to work created pursuant to this Agreement. ECS shall return all City property in ECS’s control or possession immediately upon termination. 10. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, ECS shall abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. ECS warrants that all work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws, statutes, and practices, including but not limited to Cal/OSHA regulations. If a license or registration of any kind is required of ECS, its employees, agents, or subcontractors by law, ECS warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and ECS shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. 3 11. Conflict of Interest. ECS warrants and covenants that ECS presently has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable state, local, or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter arise, ECS shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that the City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. ECS further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.) respecting this Agreement. 12. Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written or oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein. This Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed by both ECS and the City Manager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Such document shall expressly state that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms and conditions of this Agreement. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed but the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of the City Clerk is the version of the Agreement that shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 13. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to the other party that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. 14. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties. 15. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i) depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) transmitting such notice by means of Federal Express or similar overnight commercial courier (“Courier”), postage paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same by facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confirmation of receipt by the sending facsimile machine’s acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (iv) by personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown on the 4 receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice, change the address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent. 16. Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of the term used herein, the captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor. Capitalized terms refer to the definition provide with its first usage in the Agreement. When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine, the feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singular includes the plural. The terms “shall”, “will”, “must” and “agree” are mandatory. The term “may” is permissive. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. When a party is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole cost and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific provision is made otherwise. Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such party is also obligated to restrain any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents, invitees, contractors, subcontractors and employees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ECS and City execute this Agreement. CITY OF BURLINGAME ECS IMAGING, INC. 501 Primrose Road 5905 Brockton Ave, Suite C Burlingame, CA 94010 Riverside, CA 92506 By: By: Lisa Goldman James F. Pappas City Manager Chief Executive Officer Date: Date: 5 Attest: Federal Employer ID Number: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer License Number: City Clerk Expiration Date: Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane City Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A Scope of Services Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions Exhibit A Overview of Professional Services The projected start date of this implementation is early February 2018. ECS resources will provide the necessary information for server development, and perform all Laserfiche related software installations and services in full compliance with the City’s Request for Proposal dated 7/3/2017 (attached as Attachment A), and ECS’s response to the RFP (attached as Attachment B). ECS will provide consulting, training, and implementation services for records series identified in the City’s Imaging Plan (attached as Attachment C) for two departments: City Clerk and Community Development (which consists of 2 divisions: Building and Planning). The services will include assistance with the development of a folder structure and template configuration supporting the records retention workflow as identified in Attachment A’s Appendix D. As part of the implementation process The City of Burlingame will provide ECS with rough designs of its desired folder structure and template information for the City Clerk and Building/Planning department (Appendix D of Attachment A will provide most of the information required). ECS will work to refine these designs and implement the solution for the City Clerk and Community Development departments. ECS will also provide implementation and training on Zone OCR, and other components required in the RFP, including the design the Public Portal Interface with the assistance of City employees to facilitate quick and successful searching of public records from the City Clerk and Community Development departments, similar to Newport Beach’s Weblink search designs. During the design, ECS will train City employees on how to develop their own customized searches in the Public Portal.1 ECS will perform relevant software training of general Laserfiche software functionality, and general business process automation training. This training will allow the City to develop additional workflows to implement other departments with records retention. It is expected that representatives from the departments, including IT will be well represented in these trainings. ECS resources will perform the migration of PaperVision documents to Laserfiche using the existing imaging and indexing information in PaperVision as outlined in the RFP and in the Questions and Answers accompanying the RFP. “The City is aware that there are deficiencies in the indexing of these records, but the task is to ONLY convert the records into the new system, including the images and the indexing as they currently exist. The “upstream” needs are not part of this scope of work, but may be addressed later as a separate scope of work.”2 1 RFP requirement: 1.g Implementation Services: Configuration / application design for all components. Provide breakout pricing for different modules where applicable. 2 RFP requirement: 3a: Includes improving the way the documents were indexed in the past (adding date fields, etc.)…; Appendix B, questions and ECS responses to 6h and 6i mention that “a method [must] be determined to identify documents” to develop a workflow to assist in the identification of documents” and that an “interface with CRW to correlate one of the existing data fields to associate the image’s metadata” could be developed – this presumes that existing data fields (presumably the permit number) sufficient to perform a look up to CRW exist; and the Questions and Answers submitted to all proposers states that the vendor is expected to “ONLY convert the records into the new system, including the images and the indexing as they currently exist.” Exhibit A ECS will make every possible effort to automatically correct some of the deficiencies with indexing, specifically ECS will work to automate the separation of some Plans and Permits files and adding the date field, pursuant to the RFP. Based our preliminary analysis we believe there are a few general rules we can use to distinguish between plans and permits. 1.When two documents have the same Permit Number, the one with more pages is generally the Permit Number. 2.When a document contains pages that are all landscape, the landscape document is generally the Plan. 3.When the file size of a document is relatively large, compared to other documents, the file is generally a plan. One or more of these rules will be used to add a metadata field to the document indicating if it is a permit or a plan. ECS will develop a confidence level for each Plan and Permit to aid the City in prioritizing, which Permits, or Plans need to be validated first. No guarantee of the accuracy of the classification can be made, but our preliminary review of the data and conversations with the City indicates that the accuracy should be acceptable to the City. ECS will add additional metadata information to each document, such as a date or address, provided an Excel or CSV file generated by the City that contains the Permit Number and any additional metadata that should be added or modified for that Permit Number. There should be one row per Permit Number. The information will need to be provided at the start of the project. Manual indexing of content is outside the scope of the Statement of Work. Additional departments are expected to be implemented by City staff based on training provided throughout the implementation of the two departments by ECS. The City has the option to amend this contract to expand the scope of professional services at the original professional services rate for a period of two-years from execution. ECS will scan and quality check City records on an as needed basis in accordance with the pricing tables on pages 12-14 of ECS’ scanning proposal. (Attached as Attachment D) Departments to be implemented by ECS •City Clerk •Community Development (Building/Planning) Departments to be implemented by City •Public Works •Finance •Human Resources •Parks &Recreation •Library Exhibit A Payment Milestones The project will consist of six primary payment milestones. These milestones ensure that the City is only paying for services that are being delivered and the ECS is paid for services accepted by the City. Milestone 1 – Initiation and Planning – 2 Days Initial Project Planning (Site Preparation and Installation) •Creation of Project Plan based on the RFP requirements and the Imaging Plan, establishment of performance metrics, stakeholder dialogues, timeline development, detailed tasks creation, and communication plan development Milestone 2 – Software Installation – 1 Day Installation of all Laserfiche Software and Licensing – (1 Day) Milestone 3 – Hardware Installation – 1 Day Installation and Configuration of the GreenTec WORM drive (1 Day) City IT staff will need to be available to assist with racking and configuration of device. Milestone 4 – System Implementation – 4.5 Days Initial Setup Consultation and implementation for City Clerk •Provide consultation on folder structure and template design with focus on records retention management. Implement records management retention workflow with auto-file functionality and email notifications to report on records ready for disposition (everything is permanent, except for some Agreements or Contracts.) Initial Setup Consultation and implementation for Community Development •Build folder structure/template based on information provided by the City. Records management needs are minimal as all records are permanent. General Laserfiche Training – 1 Day •Train approximately 20 employees on On-site Scan / Index / OCR Training •Train approximately 20 employees in two sessions on On-site search and retrieval Laserfiche Administrator Training – 0.5 Day •Provide Laserfiche Admin Training for 4 System Administrators 3 o Training will cover administrative tasks such as: back-ups, system maintenance, assigning licenses, establishing security permissions, creating index templates and workflow creation for retention management Milestone 5 – Data Migration – Flat Rate 3 The RFP requires 4. (1.k) Exhibit A Test migration and identification of Permit vs. Plan, and adding the document date, working with IT and the Building Division. May include pulling data from the City’s permitting system; however, if this data is not sufficient to meet the RFP requirements, ECS will analyze and provide the required data by hand. Conversion Services for PaperVision (Migrate Documents from Existing System) – $7,322 •Conversion of data from existing PaperVision system to new Laserfiche repository Milestone 6 – Monitor/Control and Project Close – 2 Days On-going Project Management (Testing and Production Implementation) – 2 Days •Progress Meetings, Stakeholder Dialogues, and General Communication User Acceptance Testing – 0 Days •Sample UAT documentation will be provided to assist the City with Testing •Completed by City to Verify all Components are Working as Described •Project Sign-off Completed by City Payment Milestones MS# Milestone Description Est. Time (Days) Est. Date of Completion Est. Cost 1 Initiation and Planning Conduct Needs Analysis Initial Project Planning 2 02/12/2018 $3,600 2 Software Installation Software Purchased, includes maintenance Materials + 1 02/21/2018 $75,150 3 Hardware Installation GreenTec WORM device, installation and configuration Materials + 1 02/21/2018 $9,800 4 System Implementation Initial Setup Consultation and implementation for City Clerk Initial Setup Consultation and implementation for Community Development General Laserfiche Training Laserfiche Administrator Training 4.5 03/7/2018 $8,100 5 Data Migration Flat Rate 03/7/2018 $7,322 6 Monitor/Control and Project Close 2 03/30/2018 $3,600 Total $107,572 Exhibit A Quote Software SKU Unit Price Quantity Line Total MSE30 5,000.00$ 1 5,000.00$ MNF16 600.00$ 30 18,000.00$ MCA01 1,495.00$ 1 1,495.00$ MCQ01 595.00$ 3 1,785.00$ MCQC3 2,795.00$ 3 8,385.00$ MCQC4 1,695.00$ 3 5,085.00$ MPPS 25,000.00$ 1 25,000.00$ MDGSG16 25.00$ 30 750.00$ MATM16 75.00$ 30 2,250.00$ $ (13,550.00)Software Subtotal 54,200.00$ Annual Maintenance and Licensing SKU Unit Price Quantity Line Total MSE30B 1,000.00$ 1 1,000.00$ MNF16B 120.00$ 30 3,600.00$ MCA01B 390.00$ 1 390.00$ MCQ01B 120.00$ 3 360.00$ MCQC3B 560.00$ 3 1,680.00$ MCQC4B 340.00$ 3 1,020.00$ MPPSB 5,000.00$ 1 5,000.00$ MDGSG16B 5.00$ 30 150.00$ MATM16B 15.00$ 30 450.00$ ECS40 5,500.00$ 1 5,500.00$ Annual Maintenance Subtotal 19,150.00$ Hardware SKU Unit Price Quantity Line Total MN-104 & 4xGN310WRD3 8,000.00$ 1 8,000.00$ Hardware Subtotal 8,000.00$ Professional Services SKU Rate Quantity Line Total ECSCI 1,800.00$ 9.50 17,100.00$ ECSC 7,322.00$ 1.00 7,322.00$ ECSCI 1,800.00$ 1.00 1,800.00$ Professional Services Subtotal 26,222.00$ Special Terms Subtotal 107,572.00$ Tax Rate 0.000%Tax -$ Software is only available via download and is not subject to CA sales tax Shipping -$ Total 107,572.00$ Laserfiche Avante Server for MS SQL with Workflow Software Discount Description Avante includes Workflow and Forms Essentials Laserfiche Named Full User w/Web Access, Snapshot, and Email Laserfiche Import Agent Laserfiche Quick Fields Description ECS Install, Configuration, Consulting, & Project Management Services Description Software Only (Download Only) GreenTec 4TB (4x1TB) WORM Applicance Laserfiche Quick Fields Zone OCR and Validation Package Laserfiche Quick Fields Barcode and Validation Package Laserfiche Avante Server for MS SQL with Workflow LSAP Laserfiche Named Full User w/Web Access, Snapshot, & Email LSAP Description Laserfiche Digital Signatures Laserfiche Standard Audit Trail Laserfiche Zone OCR and Validation Package LSAP ECS Data Conversion Services GreenTec 4TB (4x1TB) WORM Applicance (Install and Config) Laserfiche Standard Public Portal (25 retrieval user licenses) Laserfiche Barcode and Validation Package LSAP *ECS Priority Support - 40 Hours Laserfiche Import Agent LSAP Laserfiche Standard Public Portal (25 retrieval user licenses) LSAP Laserfiche Digital Signatures LSAP Laserfiche Standard Audit Trail LSAP Laserfiche Quick Fields LSAP Exhibit A Optional Services 1.Consult to Develop Folder Structure, Metadata, and Retention Management for Additional Departments ($2,700 to $5,400 per Department) 2.Develop GIS Integration based on Laserfiche URL Based Searches from GIS system ($1,800) a.Will provide training to GIS team to perform URL based searches for documents in Laserfiche b.Will provide services to convert existing links that may exist to records folders to Laserfiche links. The links will need to be replaced by the City in the GIS system, but ECS can provide expertise where applicable to assist with this migration. c.More robust GIS integration is possible, such as those using a map layer – but this would be outside the scope of the proposal and would require further requirements gathering 3.Development of Time Card Workflow Process $3,600 to $9,000 a.Further requirements gathering would be required to understand the number of approvers and all possible routes the workflow could take. Attachment A to Scope of Work Burlingame RFP – ECMS 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Electronic Content Management System / Document Imaging and Management System (Archive & Retrieve) Release Date: July 3, 2017 Optional Pre-Bid Conference: August 1, 2017 10:30 am, Conference Room A, City Hall Deadline for Registration and Questions: July 24, 2017, 10 am Deadline for Submission: August 11, 2017, 10 am On-site Demonstrations for Selected Vendors: September 6, 2017 Burlingame RFP – ECMS 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 – Project Overview .......................................................................................... 3 Section 2 – Process Instructions ..................................................................................... 4 Section 3 – Specifications ............................................................................................... 7 Section 4 – Conditions .................................................................................................... 9 Proposal Form – Part 1 – Questionnaire Proposal Form – Part 2 – Proposal Pricing City’s Professional Service Agreement Burlingame RFP – ECMS 3 SECTION 1 – PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame has a population of 29,700 and has 209 full time equivalent employees. There is no legacy ECMS, except Building Permits and Plans have been scanned and placed in a stand-alone system using PaperVision to view and retrieve (both staff and the public use the same computer.) The City will NOT consider hosted / Cloud-based systems. A scanning RFP is being issued as a separate document. The contracting firms must agree to all of the terms in the City’s Professional Services Agreement, as provided as an attachment to this RFP, including all insurance requirements in Exhibit B of the City’s agreement. 1.2 EXISTING TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENT Operating Platform: Windows Server 2008 R2 Database: SQL Server 2005 Hardware: Dell Servers are virtualized 1.3 PROJECT TEAM The City has a cross-functional Stakeholder Team to facilitate the selection of the system. The consultant for this project is Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. All questions must be directed via e-mail to: Diane Gladwell – Gladwell4@aol.com and Meaghan Hassel-Shearer – mhasselshearer@burlingame.org Contact with other City employees, Council Members or other officials is expressly prohibited without prior consent and may result in disqualification of the bidder. Burlingame RFP – ECMS 4 SECTION 2 – PROCESS INSTRUCTIONS 2.0 OPTIONAL PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE An optional Pre-Bid Conference will be held on August 1, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. at Conference Room A in City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame. Participants may request to participate via teleconference. Requests to participate via teleconference shall be directed via e-mail to: Diane Gladwell – Gladwell4@aol.com and Meaghan Hassel-Shearer – mhasselshearer@burlingame.org The conference will be audio-recorded. 2.1 REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED All vendors must register on or before July 24, 2017 at 10:00 am by e-mailing: Diane Gladwell – Gladwell4@aol.com and Meaghan Hassel-Shearer – mhasselshearer@burlingame.org 2.2 DEADLINE FOR QUESTIONS All questions must be submitted via e-mail on or before July 24, 2017 at 10:00 am by e-mailing: Diane Gladwell – Gladwell4@aol.com and Meaghan Hassel-Shearer – mhasselshearer@burlingame.org The City will endeavor to provide answers back to all registered vendors the following week. 2.3 PROPOSAL FORM All proposals must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the RFP Specifications. Supplemental material may also be submitted. The proposal forms will be provided in Word and Excel format to all registered vendors. Burlingame RFP – ECMS 5 2.4 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION 2.4.1 Proposals must be received no later than August 11, 2017 at 10:00 am at the following location: City of Burlingame City Clerk’s Office 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 2.4.2 Proposals must be submitted via mail, courier, or in person. No fax or e- mail submittals will be accepted. All proposals must be submitted in a sealed envelope or package, plainly marked: Request for Proposal ECMS Name and Address of Proposer 2.4.3 Eight (8) complete paper copies, double-sided, and one PDF copy on DVD-r, CD-r, or Flash Drive of the proposal and supplemental material must be enclosed in the envelope containing the proposal. 2.4.4 Proposals must be signed by an individual authorized to bind the proposing entity to all commitments contained therein. 2.4.5 Proposers shall send in a separate envelope clearly identified as “confidential” all financial statements, copyrighted material, trade secrets, or other proprietary information that it asserts is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. Note that pricing proposals are available to the public. 2.5 EVALUATION CRITERIA Burlingame will award the contract based upon the proposal the City determines to be most advantageous. Selection criteria includes, but is not limited to: 2.5.1 Price: The cost to complete the project or the part(s) of the project the City elects to award, including annual software maintenance and support. 2.5.2 Quality: Ease and simplicity of user interface 2.5.3 Quality: Ease and simplicity of configuration, implementation, and support 2.5.4 Quality: The quality and responsiveness of technical support and the quality of employee training. 2.5.5 Ability, capacity, and skill of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the supplies or services required, as determined by the vendor’s experience and references of the vendor. Burlingame RFP – ECMS 6 2.5.6 Ability to perform the contract, or provide services promptly, without delay or interference. 2.6 CONDITIONS Upon award of contract, the proposer shall agree that: 2.6.1 Information received from the City about its operations, plans, products, or services may not be revealed to any third party without prior written consent of the City’s Project Manager. 2.6.2 Proposal shall include a list of all subcontractors or business partners that the vendor contemplates using for approval by the City. Once approved, the list shall not be changed without prior written approval by the City. Burlingame RFP – ECMS 7 SECTION 3: SPECIFICATIONS 3.0 DELIVERABLES Deliverables shall include, at the least, the following components, installed and fully functional as described below and elsewhere in this proposal, at specified City buildings as appropriate: 3.0.1 All required software. 3.0.2 The successful installation must take place within the agreed upon timeframe(s). Successful installation is defined as: All components purchased via this proposal and contractual agreement are fully operational (includes employee training as directed by the City) and able to be relied upon on a daily basis by City. 3.0.3 Onsite or remote employee training completed within an agreed upon timeframe 3.0.4 Annual software technical support 3.0.5 Annual software maintenance and upgrades 3.1 SPECIFICATION SUMMARY The vendor must provide the following components to the City, including installation, training, technical support and at least one software upgrade annually. The City prefers one vendor to provide all of the requested functionality, but will consider separate proposals for different technologies (all subcontractors must be clearly disclosed.) 3.1.1 ECMS (archival & retrieval), including electronic imports, scanning, OCR, indexing, searching via Full-text & Metadata combined at the same time, retrieval of text and images, e-mail (MAPI) of images in PDF or TIFF format for 25 (twenty-five) thin- client users (the City has an Intranet). a.All software must be Microsoft terminal server compatible. b.Training of 4 Syst em Administrators – At least two half days on site. c.Thin Client access (search & retrieve) for 25 employees. Disclose all software and other services required to provide this. d.Public Portal: Able to support 20 Concurrent public users. e.Scanning, Indexing, OCRing License for 5 (five) Users. f.The ability to combine full text searches with metadata searches in both the Thin Client and Public Portal software. g.WORM, or other Unalterable Media for Trustworthy Electronic Records Compliance h.Installation and Configuration on City’s servers. i.Annual Software Maintenance and Support Burlingame RFP – ECMS 8 3.1.2 Conversion of Building Permits and Plans from the PaperVision, including images and metadata. Burlingame RFP – ECMS 9 SECTION 4: CONDITIONS 4.1 VALIDITY OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be valid for one hundred twenty (120) days from the submittal deadline. 4.2 STATUS OF CONTRACTOR / PRIME CONTRACTOR It is agreed to and understood that any employees of the contractor and the employees of any approved subcontractor selected for this project shall be considered private contractors and not employees of City. City prefers to contract with a primary vendor. If a multi-vendor, solution partner, or subcontracted approach is proposed, the proposer should clearly identify the responsibilities of each vendor and the assurances of performance offered. The prime vendor will be responsible, and must take responsibility, for the entire contract performance whether or not other vendors, subcontractors or solution partners are used. 4.3 RIGHTS City reserves the following rights: 4.4.1 To modify this RFP at any time 4.4.2 To determine the professional and financial competence and responsibility of proposers. 4.4.3 To select a limited number of proposers to be interviewed or to provide on-site demonstrations at the City’s sole discretion. 4.4.4 To accept the most qualified proposal. 4.4.5 To require additional demonstrations and site visits to existing installations. 4.4.6 To purchase some components from other vendors (e.g. hardware). 4.4.7 To adjust the project schedule and scope to best meet the City’s needs. 4.4.8 To ask a proposer to provide alternative pricing for various components than those originally proposed. 4.4.9 To reject any or all proposals. 4.4 LATEST TECHNOLOGY The proposer must provide the latest versions of all software. All manufacturer licenses, titles, manuals, and warrantees will be passed through to City. The proposer warrants that deliverables will be in conformance with the RFP, free from defects of product or workmanship, and fit for the intended purpose. All warrantees survive delivery and are not waived by the City’s acceptance or payment. Burlingame RFP – ECMS 10 4.5 ABILITY TO PERFORM Proposer warrantees that it possesses the expertise to provide all equipment, labor, materials and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work in compliance with the request for proposal as well as any and all federal or state laws and regulations. The proposer shall guarantee that all provisions of the proposal submitted shall remain in effect for a period of 120 calendar days from the date of proposal opening. Proposal may not be withdrawn after the submission date. 4.6 P AY MENT TERMS Payment for software, less 10% of the software and consulting price, will be made upon successful installation at CITY. Successful installation is defined as all components purchased via this proposal and contractual agreement are fully operational and able to be relied upon on a daily basis using CITY’s existing network (includes completion of employee training). Payment for all services will be made following the successful delivery of those services. 4.7 BILLING The successful bidder shall provide itemized billing for equipment, software, installation, training, and maintenance, less the 10% software and consulting services holdback, after successful installation. 4.8 ACCEPTANCE TEST / TITLE The City will require a 120-day acceptance test, which will begin after completion of successful installation. Successful installation is defined as all components purchased via this proposal and contractual agreement are fully operational and able to be relied upon on a daily basis using City’s existing network (including employee training). Ten percent (10%) of the software and consulting services price and consulting services will be retained by the City and will be released after successful performance of the acceptance test. The City will exercise all functions of the system to ensure it meets all requirements as stated in this RFP and in the vendor's proposal. The vendor has a duty to repair or replace any problem components within the agreed upon time frame. The City's acceptance will be transmitted in writing. If completion of the acceptance test is unsuccessful, the City shall have the option to return all equipment and software and the vendor shall refund any monies paid. 4.9 NO ACCESS TO CITY’S COMPUTER SYSTEMS WITHOUT IT ESCORT Vendor will not access the City’s systems without the express prior permission of the Information Technology Department, who will provide escorted access Burlingame RFP – ECMS 11 4.10 PROPOSAL DEVELOPED BY CONSULTANT This proposal was developed by Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. It contains pre-existing copyrighted material, and cannot be utilized or distributed for purposes other than those of CITY without the prior written consent of Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. Questionnaire PROPOSAL FORM - PART 1 QUESTIONNAIRE Provide short, complete answers to the following questions. Additional pages may be attached, if necessary. 1. COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE 1.a State why your system is the best solution to meet CITY’s needs (maximum ½ page). 1.b. State concisely why your company is the best to deliver the product (maximum ½ page). 2.COMPANY PROFILE 2.a In this section, provide a short narrative of your company (NOT the software manufacturer, if a VAR). If you would like to include information about the software manufacturer in addition to your company’s information, you may do so. Include: •How long your company has been in business; •The number of employees; •An organization chart listing the titles and names of employees; •The date of the first document imaging installation; •The number of installations you have performed for the software that you have proposed (if different for each component, disclose) 2.b What personnel will be involved with this installation? List the name and position, whether that person is a subcontractor, the responsibilities on this project, length of employment with your company, and time in the ECMS business. 3. TRAINING 3.a User Training for employees. Provide a syllabus or agenda for user training. Include the number of recommended hours for user training. 3.b System Administrator Training. Provide a syllabus or agenda for system administrator training. Include the number of recommended hours for system administrator training. 4. SUPPORT 4.a Provide your Support telephone number, e-mail and website, if any. Questionnaire 4b. Describe your normal support levels, including: •Days of the week and hours support is available (PST). •Average response times (initial call). •Maximum “call-back” times (during normal business hours). •Average “open ticket” or problem resolution time. 4.c Enhanced service – Please indicate the level and cost of any additional or enhanced service you provide, e.g., extended help desk hours, weekend response, on-site service, expedited response, etc. 5.REFERENCES 5.a Provide 10 current local governments or other agencies currently utilizing your software Organization Name Year(s) Installed # of User Licenses Departments Installed Products Currently Used Website Address / ECMS Public Portal, if Applicable Contact Name / Phone / e- mail address 6.FUNCTIONALITY 6.a Provide a company website or YouTube or video link for employees to use to see a demonstration of your product. 6.b Provide screen shots of the ECMS Searching (Thin Client / Web Interface) interface. 6.c Describe the process to implement your public portal on the City’s website, and any other information about the Public Portal that would be helpful to the City. 6.d Describe the process to import agenda packets into your database, making them accessible to the public to search and retrieve. 6.e What mobile devices / systems does your public portal software currently support? 6.f Describe the process you would use to convert the Building Permits and Plans from the PaperVision system. Questionnaire 6.g How many PaperVision conversions has your firm completed? How many other conversions has your firm completed? Are you planning on utilizing a subcontractor to assist with the conversion (if so, please disclose the name and address of the subcontractor, and provide information about their background)? 6.h. The PaperVision index does not currently indicate what is a Permit, and what is a Plan. Can you provide ideas on how this could be added during the conversion? 6.i. The PaperVision index does not currently indicate date(s). The permit # indicates what year. Can you provide ideas on how dates or years could be added during the conversion? 7.PROJECT SCHEDULE / APPROACH 7.a Please provide a draft project schedule, starting with contract sign-off, and ending with completion of training and implementation. 7.b Explain your approach to the work, and what the City can expect (parallel processing, turnaround, etc.) City’s Professional Service Agreement AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND < Name of Firm> THIS AGREEMENT is by and between < Name of Firm> (“Consultant”) and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California (“City”). Consultant and City agree: 1.Services. Consultant shall provide the <Type of Services> Services set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. Compensation. Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum compensation amount, Consultant agrees to perform all of the Scope of Services herein required of Consultant for <not-to-exceed amount>, including all materials and other reimbursable amounts (“Maximum Compensation”). Consultant shall submit invoices as the work is completed over the contract term. Invoices shall be paid within 30 days of approval. All bills submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information to determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is accurate. In accordance with the Scope of Services, bills shall include a brief description of services performed, the date services were performed and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and the Consultant’s signature. In no event shall City be obligated to pay late fees or interest, whether or not such requirements are contained in Consultant’s invoice. 3.Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereof and terminates on <final date of term> unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof. Consultant agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to completion and in accordance with any schedules specified herein. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant’s control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City’s Contract Administrator prior to the expiration of the specified completion date. 4.Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without the prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee(s) of the City. 5.Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance to City. 6.Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the City’s Professional Service Agreement negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section 2782.8. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. 7.Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time by City for its convenience upon written notice to Consultant. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall be entitled to pro-rated compensation for authorized Services performed prior to the effective date of termination provided however that City may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant's delivery to City of any or all materials described herein. In the event the Consultant ceases performing services under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall, without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services performed up to the time of Consultant’s cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment. 8.Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, photographs, computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final revisions, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the property of City. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including but not limited to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, and any other material referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be made available, upon request, to City at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation on their use. Upon City’s request, Consultant shall execute appropriate documents to assign to the City the copyright or trademark to work created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall return all City property in Consultant’s control or possession immediately upon termination. 9.Compliance with Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. Consultant warrants that all work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws, statutes, and practices, including but not limited to Cal/OSHA regulations. If a license or registration of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors by law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. City’s Professional Service Agreement 10.Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant presently has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable state, local, or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that the City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.) respecting this Agreement. 11.Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written or oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein. This Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed by both Consultant and City's City Manager, and approved as to form by the City’s City Attorney. Such document shall expressly state that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms and conditions of this Agreement. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed but the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of City's City Clerk is the version of the Agreement that shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 12.Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to the other party that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. 13.Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties. 14.Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i) depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) transmitting such notice by means of Federal Express or similar overnight commercial courier (“Courier”), postage paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same by facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confirmation of receipt by the sending facsimile machine’s acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (iv) by City’s Professional Service Agreement personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown on the receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice, change the address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent. 15.Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of the term used herein, the captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor. Capitalized terms refer to the definition provided with its first usage in the Agreement. When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine, the feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singular includes the plural. The terms “shall”, “will”, “must” and “agree” are mandatory. The term “may” is permissive. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. When a party is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole cost and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific provision is made otherwise. Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such party is also obligated to restrain any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents, invitees, contractors, subcontractors and employees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement. CITY OF BURLINGAME CONSULTANT 501 Primrose Road Name Burlingame, CA 94010 Address By: By: Lisa Goldman Name City Manager Title Date: Date: City’s Professional Service Agreement Attest: Federal Employer ID Number: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer License Number: City Clerk Expiration Date: Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane City Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - Scope of Services Exhibit B – Insurance Requirements EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES City’s Professional Service Agreement EXHIBIT B INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof that is acceptable to the District, the insurance specified herein. 1.Insurance Requirements. Statutory Worker’s Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000 Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000 (Minimum), $2,000,000 Aggregate Automobile Liability Insurance-including owned, non-owned and hired vehicles: $1,000,000 per occurrence 2.Workers' Compensation. Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant shall be provided as required by the California Labor Code. 3.Commercial General and Automobile Liability. Consultant, at Consultant's own cost and expense, shall maintain Commercial General and Business Automobile Liability insurance for the period covered by this Agreement in an amount not less than the amount set forth in this Exhibit B, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting there from, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of hired, owned and non-owned automobiles. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest edition of the Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 and Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90) Code 1 (any auto). No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage. a.A policy endorsement must be delivered to District demonstrating that District, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as insured as respects each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Consultant, including the insured's general supervision of Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to District, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. b.The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims made basis. c. An endorsement must state that coverage is primary insurance and that no other insurance affected by the District will be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage. d. Any failure of Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to District and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. e.Insurance is to be placed with California-admitted insurers. 4.Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement. Any self-insured retention or deductible is subject to approval of District. During the period covered by this Agreement, upon express written authorization of District Legal Counsel, Consultant may increase such deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to District, its officers, employees, City’s Professional Service Agreement agents, and volunteers. The District Legal Counsel may condition approval of an increase in deductible or self-insured retention levels upon a requirement that Consultant procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of them. 5.Notice of Reduction in Coverage. In the event that any coverage required under the Agreement is reduced, limited, or materially affected in any other manner, Consultant shall provide written notice to District at Consultant's earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than five days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage. 6.Remedies. In addition to any other remedies District may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, District may, at its sole option: a.Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; b. Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment which becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; c. Terminate this Agreement. Exercise of any of the above remedies, however, is an alternative to other remedies District may have and is not the exclusive remedy for Consultant's failure to maintain insurance or secure appropriate endorsements. Delivering Paperless Solutions Since 1990 Laserfiche Support Document Scanning Records Management Project Management Data Migration Integration Largest Provider of Laserfiche in Western USA Southern California 5905 Brockton Ave., Suite C Riverside, CA 92506 Phone (951)787-8768 Fax (951) 787-0831 Toll Free (877) 790-1600 Northern California 5052 Forni Drive, Suite A Concord, CA 94520 Arizona 10781 E. Salsabila Tucson, AZ 85747 Phone (520) 599-8124 Colorado 403 15th Street, Suite 301 Denver, CO 80202 Phone (720) 598-9176 www.ecsimaging.com sales@ecsimaging.com Laserf iche® Authorized Reseller Attachment B to Scope of Work Version 4.0 ECMS - Calculation / Estimate for Scanning Records page 1 of 4 Priority Record Series Index Fields (Possible)Retention Already Scanned or PDF/ Import # of Files to Import Location(s)Notes # of cabinets # of drawers # of Boxes # of Inches Total Linear inches # of images 1 Contracts & Agreements (from Excel File)Comp + 10 years 2015 forward, with Excel Index (from Excel)Vault Purge old contracts first; estimate 1/3 destroyed 92 92 9,174 2 Resolutions (from Excel File)Perm 1990 forward, with Excel index (from Excel)Vault 1 90 105 10,500 3 Ordinances (from Excel File)Perm Ordinance 400 forward, with Excel index (from Excel)Vault 12 12 1,200 4 Minutes (from Excel File)Perm 2014 forward, with Excel index (from Excel) Vault - binders 2008 forward in CC office 59 5,900 5 Agenda Face Sheets Meeting Date, CC Doc Type, Body Perm PDFs only CC Office - 6 Agenda Packets Meeting Date, CC Doc Type, Body Perm 2014 forward in Granicus; will create PDFs to import 48 Vault 49 735 73,500 7 Campaign Statements for current council only last name, first name, Date - Document Perm Some have been scanned; need to fill in the gaps 100 CC Office 10 10 1,000 8 Deeds, Easements Grantor, Grantee, Date - Document Perm Vault 16 16 1,600 9 Encroachment Permits - Recorded Only last name, first name, Date - Document Perm CC Office 4 4 400 SUBTOTAL - CITY CLERK 148 0 0 50 223.74 1032.74 103274 1 W-2s (300 employees) last name, first name, Date - Document Perm Print to PDF bi-weekly reports for most recent W-2s Fin. Office & Datasafe Older W-2s at Datasafe?100 10,000 2 Payroll Report / Payperiod Date - Payperiod Ending Perm Print to PDF bi-weekly reports (from the financial system) Fin. Office & Datasafe Are there old payroll reports at Datasafe?- 3 Timecards Date - Pay period; Last name, first name? OCR (name is printed)? ?Fin. Office & Datasafe Are all printd names so they can be scanned by payperiod & OCR'd? 100 1,500 150,000 4 Accounts Receivable Payment Receipts Date AA+5 being scanned now; no backfile Fin. Office No Backfile - 5 Budget (adopted) Doc Type - Finance, Fiscal Year Perm PDFs for most recent ones Fin. Office & Datasafe 60 6,000 6 Audit Report / CAFR (final) Doc Type - Finance, Fiscal Year Perm Fin. Office & Datasafe 30 3,000 7 Business License - Initial Application Building Contractor's are 2 sided. Some correspondence & cards Date, Business License # (e.g., 12150), Name of Business, Address Close + 5 years Fin. Office Pull name and address from Finance database? (7,700 open businesses) 2 42 84 8,400 (Paper to be scanned, Indexed and Quality Checked)To Be Imported CITY CLERK FINANCE By Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 Attachment C to Scope of Work Version 4.0 ECMS - Calculation / Estimate for Scanning Records page 2 of 4 Priority Record Series Index Fields (Possible)Retention Already Scanned or PDF/ Import # of Files to Import Location(s)Notes # of cabinets # of drawers # of Boxes # of Inches Total Linear inches # of images (Paper to be scanned, Indexed and Quality Checked)To Be Imported 8 Water Applications (current) Number (Book, Sequence - e.g. 32-0440), Last Name, First Name Corporate Name, Address. Perm Fin. Office Pull name and address from Finance database? (5,500 Meters) 2 33 66 6,600 9 Invoices no time to do this Perm Fin. Office & Datasafe No Backfile - This is for one fiscal year. Option - just scan CIP invoices? (5% of total, or $350) 6 189 279 27,900 10 Grants - from other departments Lead Dept. Office Meet with other departments to see how this works? - SUBTOTAL - FINANCE 0 4 0 106 264 2119 211900 1 As-Builts / Construction Record Drawings Drawing #, date (more)Perm. All scanned (TIIF or PDF); some older ones not good quality and being re-scanned. 3,000 Eng. Office 3,000 is Diane's guess). Some are indexed in Access &/or ESRI GIS 2 CIP Projects - PS&E Portion (Project Specifications & Estimates) Project #, Title, Date, Doc Type - Engineering Perm. Portion only Eng. Office & Datasafe Backfile for ad-hoc scanning as record is needed. Engineers are scanning current projects to network drives. No index for older projects 0 0 - 3 Encroachment Permits - Permanent & Chairs & Tables that are NOT recorded Perm.Eng. Office & Datasafe 2 30 3,000 4 Easements Perm.Eng. Office & Datasafe 3 45 4,500 5 CIP Projects - Other than PS&E Portion, after purging of records (Permanent records only) Project #, Title, Date, Doc Type - Engineering Perm. Portion only Eng. Office & Datasafe 450 boxes = $168,750 to scan everything at Datasafe. Diane estimated 5 boxes that you really want scanned in right now. City Clerk will scan agreements & contracts. Backfile for ad-hoc scanning as record is needed. Engineers are scanning current projects to network drives. No index for older projects 5 75 7,500 6 Landfill Monitoring Date Perm Eng. Office & Datasafe Guess by Diane 1 15 1,500 SUBTOTAL - PUBLIC WORKS 3,000 0 0 11 0 165 16,500 PUBLIC WORKS By Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 Version 4.0 ECMS - Calculation / Estimate for Scanning Records page 3 of 4 Priority Record Series Index Fields (Possible)Retention Already Scanned or PDF/ Import # of Files to Import Location(s)Notes # of cabinets # of drawers # of Boxes # of Inches Total Linear inches # of images (Paper to be scanned, Indexed and Quality Checked)To Be Imported 1 Norberg Archetectural Drawings (PW)Perm Library & PW To PW 25 2 Library Board of Trustees Agenda Packets & Minutes Meeting Date, Doc Type, Body Perm 12 Vault 1 69 84 8,400 3 Library CIP Projects - Audit to Public Works have (PW)Perm Library & PW Work with Joanne to ensure they have the final SUBTOTAL - LIBRARY 12 0 0 1 69 84 8,425 1 As-Builts / Construction Record Drawings Parks Department Only Drawing #, date, facility name (more) Perm.Parks & Rec 80 2 Beautification Commission Agenda Packets & Minutes Meeting Date, CC Doc Type, Body Perm 9/2016 forward in Granicus; CC will create PDFs to import Parks & Rec 2 30 3,000 3 Parks & Recreation Commission Agenda Packets & Minutes Meeting Date, CC Doc Type, Body Perm 9/2016 forward in Granicus; CC will create PDFs to import Parks & Rec 3 45 4,500 4 CIP Projects - PS&E Portion (Project Specifications & Estimates), Permanent Portion of files Project #, Title, Date, Doc Type - Engineering Perm. Portion only Parks & Rec & Datasafe?3 45 4,500 5 Tree Removal Permit (private, protected trees) Address, date, Last name, first name Has Excel Spreadsheet last 5 year Parks & Rec & Datasafe?4 60 6,000 SUBTOTAL - PARKS & RECREATION 0 0 0 12 0 180 18,080 1 Building Plans & letter sized documents - ALL Project #, address, date, Doc Type (Permit, Plan, etc.), Permit Type Perm Scanned start to finish, Databank picks up plans and letter sized docs, on CD-r & microfilm rolls. Has itemized lists. Doing this for at least 12 years. CD-r just in the last year - Goes to IT (at least 10 years) - searched by address or permit #. Papervision software. Permit Tech QC's it before they authorize Databank to destroy paper. IT has copy of digital version. Kiosk, staff and public use both. They scan each document seperate under the permit # - you Building CRW contains 11 years of data (permit #); City Attorney does all Code Enforcement. RFP - improve this? Address problem - not organized when you open the file (other project shows in) Trial and error to locate images. Wants sepearate plans, permits & Calcs / Studies SUBTOTAL - BUILDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Date, CC Doc Type, Body Perm PDFs of minutes for several years Planning 128 12,800 LIBRARY PARKS & RECREATION BUILDING PLANNING By Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 Version 4.0 ECMS - Calculation / Estimate for Scanning Records page 4 of 4 Priority Record Series Index Fields (Possible)Retention Already Scanned or PDF/ Import # of Files to Import Location(s)Notes # of cabinets # of drawers # of Boxes # of Inches Total Linear inches # of images (Paper to be scanned, Indexed and Quality Checked)To Be Imported 1 Planning Commission Resolutions Meeting Date, CC Doc Type, Body Perm Planning 72 7,200 2 Planning Commission Agenda Packets Meeting Date, CC Doc Type, Body Perm 2014 forward in Granicus; CC will create PDFs to import Planning 144 14,400 3 Planning Entitlement Project Files CRW Planning Permit # (since 2013) - Doc Type - Planning (Aopplication, Project Plans, Staff Reports, Approval Letter, Correspondence & Miscellaneous, Resolution, Noticing) Perm Planning Some contain microfiche of plans (need to convert this?) Does have reduced sized drawings - default to paper (leave it out of the specs) Dayforward & Ad-Hoc Historical only; CRW (Land Track) since 2013 - Planning Permit #; Filed by Address (not entitlement #). Folder Structure - may vary with the Planner 3,160 316,000 SUBTOTAL - PLANNING 0 0 0 0 0 3,504 350,400 1 Final Settlements / Court Judgements SUBTOTAL - CITY ATTORNEY 0 0 0 0 0 6,664 666,400 GRAND TOTAL - CITY-WIDE 3,160 4 0 180 557 13,749 1,374,979 CITY ATTORNEY By Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 Attachment D to Scope of Work Exhibit C Page 1 of 2 ECS PRIORITY SUPPORT AGREEMENT - TERMS AND CONDITIONS This ECS Priority Support Agreement (the “Support Agreement”) is incorporated by this reference in the agreement to which it is attached (the “Master Agreement”. Products covered by this Support Agreement (“Products”) are any item or group of items supplied by ECS which are set forth in the Master Agreement or any corresponding ECS invoice for support services (each an “Invoice”). Unless specified differently, defined terms herein shall have the same meaning as attributed to them in the Master Agreement. ECS Imaging, Inc. (“ECS”), a Value-Added Reseller of Laserfiche, and the Client agree to be governed by this Support Agreement relative to the software and/or hardware maintenance services (“Service” or “Services”) which ECS will provide relative to the Products. The terms and provisions in this Master Agreement shall control over any inconsistent terms or provisions in the Support Agreement. 1) Software Maintenance/Priority Support Services: Based on the software provided as part of the Master Agreement or applicable Invoice, ECS will supply the following software maintenance/support services: (a) ECS shall provide all necessary telephone support for reporting and resolving problems with the software products covered by this Support Agreement, and shall be available to receive notification by the Client of any software problem. The Client must provide adequate information and documentation to enable ECS to recreate the reported problem. If it is determined that there is no problem with the software products, ECS will so inform the Client and, in such case, ECS reserves the right to charge the Client for the services provided at ECS 's then current standard rates plus reasonable associated expenses. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, ECS makes no warranties that the maintenance/support provided hereunder will be successful in resolving any problems or in diagnosing faults. (b) Service is available by calling 877-790-1600 or via E-mail at helpdesk@ecsimaging.com during Regular Business Hours, defined as the hours between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PST, Monday through Friday (excluding ECS company holidays). ECS agrees to use reasonable efforts to respond to the Client's service request within four (4) hours of receipt of notification. ECS shall first attempt to diagnose the reported problem via telephone and/or e-mail, if considered appropriate, shall attempt to resolve the reported problem by requesting that the Client perform any required/standard operational maintenance or simple adjustments which the Client can reasonably be expected to conduct. If the reported problem is not resolved via telephone and/or e-mail, ECS shall arrange for a system engineer to visit the Client's site during ECS's Regular Business Hours. (c) The Client has purchased a fixed number of Priority Support Hours per year as defined in the Invoice for support services. Priority Support Hours will be debited when ECS performs remote desktop support, on-site support, on-site and remote upgrades, and on-site training. When Priority Support Hours are used for on-site activities, ECS will debit a minimum of two to twenty-four hours from the Priority Support Agreement based on the travel time of the support engineer or trainer. Scheduled After-Hours Support, defined as any time-period outside of ECS’s Regular Business Hours, is available at the discretion of ECS. The Client will be debited double the total number of Priority Support Hours used for After-Hours Support. Priority Support Hours expire one year from the annual renewal date and do not roll-over to the next year period. Priority Support Hours can only be used for support related modification services of existing business processes for Laserfiche Forms or Laserfiche Workflow. Therefore, Priority Support services cannot be used as professional services for the development of new Laserfiche Forms or Laserfiche Workflows, nor can they be used for systems integration, migration, or software development services. If insufficient Priority Support hours are available, you will be asked to increase your annual Priority Support Hours at a cost or purchase additional Professional Services Hours at a rate of $250/Hr. 2) Hardware Maintenance/Support Services: If applicable based on the above-described Products, ECS will supply the following hardware maintenance/support services: (a) Hardware maintenance will be covered if such hardware is covered by the manufacturer’s warranty and the warranty is maintained through ECS. 3) Charges: ECS will invoice Client for the total software/hardware maintenance/support services cost, including any applicable taxes. Client agrees to remit complete payment for such invoice in advance of the renewal date indicated. An interest payment of 1.5% compounded monthly and any applicable software maintenance reinstatement fees imposed by the software manufacturer shall be added to any such invoices not paid by the renewal date specified on the Master Agreement or Invoice. 4) Client Responsibility: Client is responsible for: (a) Notifying ECS in advance of any material changes to the supported Products components, including, but not limited to, the system's network, server/workstation hardware, operating system or security configuration. (b) Having a valid backup of data at all times to maintain original operating system, data and application software. (c) Promptly notifying ECS of any need for service and making product(s) available to ECS engineers. (d) Running diagnostic tests on all non-supported system components (network, server/workstation hardware, operating system or security configuration) before having a product serviced under this Support Agreement. 5) Limitations of Service: Maintenance/support services provided under this Support Agreement do not include: (a) Cost of bringing product(s) to operational status prior to placing them under maintenance. (b) Costs related to the resolution of software problems caused by unapproved changes to the supported system's network, server/workstation hardware, operating system or security configuration. (c) Repair of damage caused by; accidents, natural disaster, improper use, damage during transportation/relocation by Client, work performed on software/hardware by personnel other than ECS employees/subcontractors, causes beyond ECS 's control. Exhibit C Page 2 of 2 (d) Furnishing consumable supplies or accessories as specified by the manufacturer. (e) Hardware with missing or altered serial numbers. (f) Repair of damage or increase in service time caused by the use of the product for purpose other than for which it was designed or beyond the manufacturer's specifications. If services are required due to the above causes, ECS will provide services at ECS's then current standard service rates. 6) Term: This Support Agreement shall be in effect beginning on the first date of support and continue for one year, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 7 of this Support Agreement. 7) Termination: Client may terminate this Support Agreement for any reason with sixty (60) days written notice prior to the anniversary. Client may also terminate this Support Agreement if any material agreement or obligation contained or referred to in the Support Agreement has been breached by ECS, provided that Client has given ECS notice of such breach and there has been a failure to cure such breach, if curable, within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice. Unless such breach has been cured, termination shall be effective thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice, and shall be without prejudice to any other right or remedy to which Client may be entitled either at law, in equity, or otherwise, including, without limitation, under this Support Agreement, may terminate this Support Agreement at any time for any reason with sixty (60) days written notice. Upon terminating the Support Agreement, ECS will issue a prorated refund of any remaining prepaid Support Agreement coverage. The refund amount will be for the ECS Priority Support Hours only and will not include prepaid, non-refundable maintenance/support fees paid to the software manufacturer(s) or third-party hardware service provider(s). 8) Rate Changes: The Priority Support rates stated within this Support Agreement will not change for a period of one year. All rates are adjustable for Priority Support coverage periods after one year from the annual renewal date. 9) Limitation of Liability: Client must provide ECS with notice of claims of damage, improper service, or lawsuit within thirty (30) days of service. ECS shall not be liable for performance delays or for nonperformance due to causes beyond its reasonable control. For any material breach of this Support Agreement by ECS, Client's remedy and ECS's liability shall be limited to a refund of related maintenance/support fees paid during the period of breach, up to a maximum of twelve (12) months. The remedies provided herein are Client's sole and exclusive remedies. In no event will ECS be liable for special, punitive, incidental, or consequential damages, whether based in contract, tort, or otherwise, including, without limitation, claims for loss or corruption of data or lost profit. 10) Entire Agreement: Client acknowledges that he/she/it has read this Support Agreement, understands it and agrees to be bound by the terms and provisions set forth herein. This Support Agreement may not be modified or amended except by written instrument duly executed by the parties. This Support Agreement, contains the entire agreement and understanding between ECS and the Client respecting the subject matter hereof and it supersedes and replaces any prior or contemporaneous written or oral proposals or Support Agreements relative to Support Agreement services. 11) Binding Effect: Subject to any prohibition against assignment contained herein, the within Support Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. 12) Governing Law - Venue: This Support Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. It shall be deemed to have been made and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California, and all legal actions or arbitrations pertaining thereto shall occur with regard to such specification of venue. 13) Professional Services: ECS provides professional services for developing workflows, electronic forms, or data conversions and several other services. If the client chooses, these services will be provided by ECS at the rate of $250 per hour with a two-hour minimum, portal-to- portal. 14) Acceptance: This Support Agreement is deemed accepted by and binding upon Client by virtue of any of the following: (i) Client’s execution of the Master Agreement; or (ii) ECS receiving a Client generated purchase order at any time during the period specified for any Services to be performed by ECS; or (iii) Client availing itself of the Services to be provided hereunder. Exhibit D LASERFICHE END USER SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT 2017.0106 v. 10.2 This Laserfiche End User Software License Agreement ("License Agreement") is made between Compulink Management Center, Inc., a California corporation doing business as Laserfiche, whose principal place of business is in Long Beach, California ("Laserfiche"), and the party (referred to as the "Licensee") on whose server or systems the Software (as described in Section 1.A below) will be made available for use. PLEASE READ THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY. BY INSTALLING, COPYING OR USING THE SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT (THE "DOCUMENTATION"), LICENSEE AGREES TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY ON WHOSE SERVER OR SYSTEMS THE SOFTWARE WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR USE. IF LICENSEE DOES NOT AGREE OR IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO LICENSE AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF SUCH PARTY, DO NOT DOWNLOAD, INSTALL, COPY OR USE THE SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION WITHOUT OBTAINING THE AGREEMENT OF AN AUTHORIZED INDIVIDUAL AND, IF APPLICABLE, RETURN THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION TO YOUR SUPPLIER FOR A FULL REFUND. RECITALS A. Laserfiche has developed and markets document imaging, enterprise content management, and related software programs, solutions and products under the brand name Laserfiche®. B. Laserfiche Software includes confidential proprietary information and trade secrets of Laserfiche, which embody substantial creative efforts and confidential information, ideas, and expressions. Laserfiche has invested large amounts of capital and time to develop and promote the Software. Laserfiche claims copyrights in the Software. C. Licensee understands that the Software is compatible only with certain types of computers and operating systems and that Licensee is responsible for assuring the compatibility between its computer systems, its software solutions, if any, and the Software. THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and covenants contained in this License Agreement, Laserfiche and Licensee agree as follows: Terms of License Agreement 1. Grant of License. Laserfiche grants Licensee a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to install and use the Software subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement and the Acquisition Agreement (described in Section 1.B.i below). A. Description of the Software. The Software may include, without limitation express or implied, some or all of the following types of software: (a) "Server Software" that provides document management services to other programs; (b) "Client Software" that allows a computer or workstation to access or utilize the services functionality provided by the Server Software; (c) "Stand-alone Software" that operates on a single computer; (d) "Demonstration Software" that is provided only for demonstration, testing and feedback purposes; (e) "Distributed Computing Cluster Software" that allows distribution of processing work for certain Laserfiche application tasks onto other machines; and/or (f) "Plug-in Software Modules" that Exhibit D can be added to the previously mentioned types of software. If a separate license applies to particular Laserfiche software, such as terms that accompany a software development kit or Laserfiche software designated for "application service provider" purposes, those terms will also apply. Otherwise, this License Agreement applies to the Software installed on Licensee’s systems. B. Definitions. The following definitions will apply to this Agreement: i. “Acquisition Agreement” means the applicable Laserfiche invoice, Licensee Order (defined in Section 1.B.v below), or other written agreement by which Licensee acquires the License (described in Section 1.B.iv below) to the Software and which lists the specific Software products and components, including the types and numbers of Licenses, that Licensee acquires. The Acquisition Agreement may also grant additional rights to Licensee or limit the scope of the License being granted to Licensee. If a conflict or inconsistency arises between the terms of several acquisition documents, the following order of precedence will control: (1) an agreement for software, services and support that is negotiated and signed by both Laserfiche and Licensee; (2) the Laserfiche invoice; (3) Licensee’s Order; and (4) any other writings that satisfy the definition of “Acquisition Agreement.” ii. “Documentation” means getting started guides, user guides, quick reference guides, and other technical and operations manuals and specifications. iii. “Laserfiche Confidential Information” means all nonpublic information regarding the Software, whether disclosed by Laserfiche or others, that is designated as confidential or that, given the nature of the information or circumstances surrounding its disclosure, reasonably should be understood to be confidential. Laserfiche Confidential Information also includes: (a) nonpublic information relating to Laserfiche or its affiliates, technology, Software, source code, trade secrets, customers, business plans, promotional and marketing activities, finances and other business affairs; (b) third-party information that Laserfiche is obligated to keep confidential by agreement or by law; and (c) the nature, content and existence of any agreements, discussions or negotiations between Licensee and Laserfiche, software resellers or affiliates. Laserfiche Confidential Information does not include any information that: (i) is or becomes publicly available without either a breach of this Agreement or a breach of an obligation of confidentiality by someone else; (ii) can be shown by documentation to have been known by Licensee when it received it from Laserfiche; (iii) is received from a third party that lawfully acquired and disclosed it; or (iv) can be shown by documentation to have been independently developed by Licensee without reference to the Laserfiche Confidential Information. iv. “The License” sets forth the specific rights granted to Licensee and the limitations of Licensee’s use of the Software and scope of this License. The License also defines Licensee’s right to use the Software and may have a set expiration date for test, evaluation, beta, demonstration, or subscription Software, which is subject to the limitations based on the Acquisition Agreement, Product Sheet (described in Section 1.B.vi below), and any other limitations agreed upon by Laserfiche and Licensee. v. “Licensee Order” means an order, purchase order, or similar document that is submitted to Laserfiche by Licensee or a Laserfiche authorized reseller or distributor on Licensee’s behalf, which specifies the particular Software products and components that Licensee intends to acquire, and which must be accepted by Laserfiche. vi. “Product Sheet” means the Laserfiche documentation that specifies the limitations and restrictions of each release of the Software. Exhibit D C. Limitations and Requirements. i. If the Software is furnished to Licensee with materials indicating that it is "Demonstration," “Evaluation,” "Beta" or "Test" software, Licensee acknowledges that: (A) Laserfiche is furnishing the Software to Licensee solely for demonstration, evaluation, testing and/or feedback purposes; (B) Licensee is strictly prohibited from using the Software for any purposes other than (i) demonstration of its capabilities to prospective licensees of the Software, (ii) evaluation and testing of the Software for suitability for the period allowed with the License, or (iii) providing feedback to Laserfiche; (C) demonstration, evaluation, beta and/or test Software may not be used in a production environment; (D) Laserfiche disclaims all warranties, representations or any other claims, express or implied, with regard to the Software's usability, reliability, performance, or overall quality; (E) Licensee's receipt of the Software does not constitute a license to use, sell, distribute, or commercialize the Software or copies of it. No compensation will be paid to Licensee for any use of the Software or for performing any service or giving any advice, analysis or feedback to, or for the benefit of, Laserfiche. Licensee assigns and agrees to assign to Laserfiche without charge any suggestions, ideas, improvements and resulting intellectual property relating to any feedback it provides, for any purpose. Laserfiche’s rights to the feedback survive the termination of this License Agreement. ii. Licensee may use the Software only for the number and types of users, until the expiration date(s), if any, described in the Acquisition Agreement, and subject to the other limitations of the License. iii. Licensee waives all liability, claims, damages and suits against Laserfiche and its affiliates, and all of their respective employees, officers, directors, shareholders and contractors, in any way related to the unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, information, data or documentation in the databases, account, or in any repository, whether or not due to a defect in or malfunction of the Software. Licensee must indemnify and defend Laserfiche against any claim, suit, damages or other losses, including attorney’s fees and expenses, resulting from or related to the use of the Software by Licensee. Licensee acknowledges that this License Agreement contains other limitations and waivers of damages and claims, and that Licensee's waiver of liability in this section is in addition to, and not in lieu of, Licensee's other waivers set forth elsewhere in this License Agreement. iv. Add-ons and additional features that the Software can support may be used only when listed in the Acquisition Agreement. v. Activation associates the use of particular software with a specific device. This procedure is to prevent unlicensed use. During activation, the Software will send information about the Software and the device to Laserfiche. This information may include the product key of the Software, the internet protocol address of the device and information derived from the hardware configuration of the device. By downloading and using the Software, Licensee consents to the transmission of this information. vi. If the Software requires a product key or keys to install or access it, Licensee is responsible for the use of the keys assigned to Licensee. Licensee is not authorized to share the keys with third parties. vii. If Licensee receives a License Manager or Laserfiche Directory Services (LFDS) program (the “License Manager”) that enables installation of the Software for access by multiple users, Licensee may use the License Manager program only to install the Software for access by the numbers and types of users, and subject to the other limitations, included with the License. viii. If Server Software is part of the License, Licensee may install one copy of the Server Exhibit D Software on a single physical or a single virtual operating system environment (the instance of the running Server Software will be referred to as the "Server"), unless the Licensee is acquiring a license to a Laserfiche Rio product. If a Laserfiche Rio product is being licensed, Licensee may install up to the maximum number copies of the Server Software included with the License (referred to as "instances") to multiple physical or virtual operating system environments so long as those installations have continuous network access to a running instance of the included License Manager program. Licensee may install only one copy of any License Manager program on a single physical or a single virtual operating system environment. ix. If Licensee is acquiring a license to a Laserfiche Rio or a Laserfiche Avante software product, the License may include Distributed Computing Cluster Software. Licensee may operate one cluster, unless a greater number of clusters is included with the License, and then may operate up to the specified maximum number of clusters. If the License specifies a maximum number of instances of the Distributed Computing Cluster Software, Licensee may include no more than the specified number of machines running the Distributed Computer Cluster Software (referred to as “nodes”) across their clusters. A scheduler node will count as one instance. Licensee may only run those Plug-in Software Modules to the Laserfiche Distributed Computer Cluster Software included with the License. If the License includes a maximum number of instances of the Plug-in Software Module, Licensee may run the module on no more than the specified number of nodes across their clusters. x. The Server Software may only be operated with the database system(s) (Microsoft SQL Server or Oracle) listed in the Acquisition Agreement. If no database system is listed in the Acquisition Agreement, then such Server Software may only be operated with Microsoft SQL Server Express. xi. If the Acquisition Agreement includes an item labeled as "databases" (also known as repositories), the Server Software may only host the number of databases included with the License, unless Licensee is acquiring a license to a Laserfiche Rio product. If Laserfiche Rio is being licensed, each running copy of the Server Software may host up to the number of databases included with the License. xii. If the License includes Software with "named user connections," Licensee may allocate the named user connections to specific individuals or devices in its discretion. When a named user connection is allocated to a specific individual person's Laserfiche or external directory account, that individual may not share the use of that named user connection by sharing the use of the account with others. When a named user connection is allocated to a device, the connection may only be used from that device, and various individuals may share the use of that device so long as only one individual is accessing the Server Software from that device at a time. There are two principal types of named user connections: first, a named user connection capable of modifying a database governed by the Server and, second, a named user connection capable of only read-only access (referred to as a "Named Retrieval User"). A third type of named user connection is available on a limited basis, which has all of the capabilities of a Named Retrieval User connection, plus a limited set of additional read-write capabilities, which are included with the License. This third type of connection is referred to as “Restricted Named User” connection, and it has the additional capabilities included with the License. Only the maximum number of each type of named user connection included with the License may be allocated to individuals or devices. Named user connections may not be routinely reallocated for the purpose of reducing the number of named user connections required. xiii. If the License includes Software with "concurrent user connections," the concurrent user connections may be shared among individuals. There are two types of concurrent Exhibit D user connections: concurrent user connections capable of modifying a database governed by the Server (referred to as "Concurrent Full User" connections) and concurrent user connections capable of only read-only access (referred to as "Concurrent Retrieval" connections). Once the maximum number of read-write or read-only concurrent user connections included with the License is reached, no additional user connections of that type may be made, until some user connections of that type are closed. xiv. “Multiplexing” occurs when Licensee utilizes hardware, software, an automated process, or other technical means (1) to pool connections, reroute information, or reduce the number of devices or users that directly access or use a Laserfiche software product; or (2) to permit access to more user connections than are authorized by the License Agreement; or (3) to automatically, routinely, or systematically reallocate named user connections for the purpose of either reducing the number of named user licenses required by Licensee, or avoiding the purchase of additional named user licenses. Hardware or software may not be used to multiplex. xv. If the License has a maximum number of "Public Portal" connections, which are intended to allow members of the public (referred to as “Public Users”) read-only access to the Server Software only using a Laserfiche application known as WebLink, once the maximum number of Public Portal connections is reached, no additional Public Portal connections may be made until some Public Portal connections are closed. If the License has a maximum number of CPU sockets that may be utilized to support Public Portal access, then Public Portal connections may be made only if the physical or virtual machine on which the Server Software is running has the allowed number of CPUs or fewer. If neither a maximum number of Public Portal connections nor a maximum number of CPUs for Public Portal access is included with the License, then no Public Portal connections may be made. If the Software is licensed with the Web Distribution Portal, all connections through WebLink will have the same security profile. xvi. Licensee may not install a version of the Server Software later than the version permitted by the License. xvii. If the License is subject to an expiration date, the Software that is subject to the expiration date may not be run after that date. xviii. If the License specifies one or more languages, then the Laserfiche user interface may only be run in those specified languages. xix. If Licensee desires to upgrade or enhance the capabilities of the Software or the numbers of users, connections or other features, Licensee must acquire the required additional rights from Laserfiche or an authorized Laserfiche reseller or distributor, in which case Licensee will also receive a new or updated Acquisition Agreement. xx. The Software may only be used as intended, according to the capabilities made available through its various user interfaces and according to the Documentation. xxi. As between Laserfiche and Licensee, Licensee will be solely responsible for configuring the Software and the databases to restrict access only to particular individuals who are permitted users of the Software and the databases. Licensee may delegate responsibilities relating to configuration to a third-party such as an authorized Laserfiche reseller; however, Licensee remains ultimately liable for complying with this License Agreement and the Acquisition Agreement. xxii. The basic forms features of Laserfiche may be used by Named Full Users. If the License includes the Forms Portal feature, then Public Users may submit forms that initiate a forms business process, but Public Users may not participate in subsequent steps in the forms business processes, or create or configure forms or forms business processes, or otherwise use the basic forms features of Laserfiche. Named Retrieval Users and Restricted Named Users are defined as Public Users for this purpose. If the License Exhibit D includes the Forms Portal and Authenticated Participants, then users designated as Authenticated Participants may submit forms after authentication and may participate in forms business processes at steps after the initial submission. However, Authenticated Participants may not create or configure forms or forms business processes or otherwise use the basic forms features of Laserfiche. If the license includes Advanced Forms features, then Full Named Users may view the Performance Dashboard and configure reporting data visualizations, reporting aggregations, payment integration, and data lookups, while all user types may view and utilize preconfigured reporting data visualizations, reporting aggregations, payment gateway integration, and data lookups. xxiii. If Licensee is acquiring a license to a Laserfiche Rio or a Laserfiche Avante Software product, the License may include Laserfiche Discussions Software if it is listed in the Acquisition Agreement. Licensee may operate the number of instances of the Laserfiche Discussions web application included with the License on the same number of physical or virtual operating system environments. If the software product is Laserfiche Rio, those Laserfiche Discussions installations must have continuous network access to a running instance of the included License Manager program. All users added to License Manager may log in and contribute content to the Laserfiche Discussions web site. Other site visitors, including Public Users, may read content on the Laserfiche Discussions web site, but they may not log in and contribute new content unless authorized under the License. If the License permits, the employees and contractors of Licensee, who are contractually obligated to use the Software solely in the course of Licensee’s business and strictly in accordance with this License Agreement, may log in and contribute content, but only if they are listed in the section of the LDAP directory configured within Laserfiche Discussions or listed in the LFDS directory configured within Laserfiche Discussions. xxiv. The Business Process Library includes templates for using Laserfiche Software to run business processes within an organization. Accessing the Business Process Library feature requires an internet connection. During retrieval of components of the Business Process Library, certain information is sent to Laserfiche, which may include a customer ID, anonymous user ID, and theinternet protocol address of the workstation making the request. By using the Business Process Library feature, Licensee consents to the transmission of this information to Laserfiche. D. Subscription License. i. A Subscription License allows Licensee to use Laserfiche Software on a subscription basis (the “Subscription”). If the License is a Subscription License, Licensee may use the Software covered by the Subscription (the “Subscription Software”) during the term of the Subscription until the Subscription expires or is otherwise terminated. After the Subscription expires or is terminated, the Subscription Software will stop functioning entirely, and Licensee’s rights to use the Subscription Software will terminate. ii. Automatic Renewal. Unless otherwise terminated according to the terms of this License Agreement, the Subscription will automatically renew for an additional 12-month term unless Licensee gives Laserfiche written notice of its intention not to renew the Subscription at least 45 days before the end of the then-current Subscription term. The renewal Subscription fee is due before the start of the renewal term. iii. Modification of Fees Upon Renewal. Laserfiche may modify the Subscription fee by notifying Licensee at least 90 days before the end of the then-current Subscription term. The Subscription fee change will take effect upon the start of the next Subscription term. iv. Consequences of Non-Payment. If Licensee fails to make full payment of the Exhibit D Subscription fee and any outstanding balance remains unpaid thirty (30) days after the due date, the Subscription Software will automatically stop functioning entirely. Licensee must make full payment of the Subscription fee before the Subscription Software will resume functioning. v. Updates and Support. The Subscription includes Software updates, access to online support resources, and Basic support as described in the Laserfiche Software Assurance Plan during the term of the Subscription. No portion of the Subscription will be credited toward the purchase of new Laserfiche Software products. vi. If the License specifies Community Users, Education Community Users, or Employee Participants, then each of these types may utilize all features permitted to Authenticated Participants and Named Retrieval Users. Community Users may not be used by employees or contractors of Licensee. Education Community Users may only be used by students, alumni, teachers, faculty, and parents and guardians of current students interacting with Licensee’s educational institution. Faculty is defined as professors (assistant, adjunct, associated, tenured), lecturers, and researchers. 2. Ownership of Software. The Software is licensed and is not sold. Laserfiche retains all rights to ownership of, and title to, the Software and Documentation (including all adaptations, copies and derivative works). Licensee is acquiring the license under the terms described in this License Agreement, and Licensee acquires no other rights. 3. Protection of Software. During the term of this License Agreement and for seven years following termination of this License Agreement, and for such additional period that the Software contains, embodies or consists of Laserfiche Confidential Information or trade secrets, Licensee agrees that it will not directly or indirectly, alone or in conjunction with any other person or company, (a) attempt to write or develop software in an effort to discover, copy or recreate the source code or any trade secrets contained or embodied in the source code; or (b) utilize the Software, Documentation, or Laserfiche Confidential Information, trade secrets, know how, ideas, plans, designs, specifications, coding, programming, processes, production techniques, technology, and methodology incorporated in the Software or Documentation, either directly or indirectly, to sell, market, develop or distribute any software product that competes with the Software; or (c) utilize the Software, Documentation, or Laserfiche Confidential Information, directly or indirectly, to assist, advise or consult with any other person or company in selling, marketing, developing or distributing any software product that competes with the Software; or (d) publish the Software for others to copy or use; or (e) utilize the Software, Documentation, or Laserfiche Confidential Information, directly or indirectly, to convert, or to assist, advise or consult with any other person or company to convert, any end user of the Software to a software product that competes with the Software; or (f) seek to discover or use Laserfiche's trade secrets or Laserfiche Confidential Information by reverse engineering, decompiling, disassembling, copying or any other technique. Licensee must not remove any product identification, copyright legend or other notices from the Software or Documentation, or directly or indirectly attempt to challenge the validity of the copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets in the Software claimed by Laserfiche or third parties identified in the Software or Documentation. The Software source code and the trade secrets therein are not licensed to Licensee, and all modifications of, additions to, or deletions from the source code are strictly prohibited. Licensee must obtain Laserfiche’s prior written approval to disclose to a third party the results of any benchmark test of the Software. 4. Other Restrictions on Use. Unless a separate license expressly authorizes a particular application or use of the Software, such as for "application service provider" or for “Forms Portal users and Forms Authenticated Participants,” all users of the Software must be employees, officers, directors, shareholders, owners or independent contractors of Licensee, who are only permitted to use the Software exclusively in the course of Licensee’s business and strictly in accordance with this License Agreement. All other uses of the Software are strictly prohibited, including, without limitation, (a) use in the business of an application Exhibit D service provider, commercial software hosting business or a scanning bureau, and (b) transferring, copying or other dissemination of the Software outside of the legal person that constitutes Licensee. Licensee must not rent, lease, lend, sublicense, distribute, transfer, copy, reproduce, display, or timeshare with any other person the Software or Documentation or any right granted by this License. The restrictions in this paragraph do not apply to read-only access by public users who utilize an authorized read-only Public Portal connection. 5. Term and Termination. This License Agreement will commence and terminate as follows: A. The term of this License Agreement will commence upon Licensee's acceptance of this License Agreement and continue until terminated as provided in this License Agreement, provided that test, beta, evaluation, demonstration, Subscription or similar temporary Software will have their own expiration dates. In addition, if the Acquisition Agreement contains an express expiration date applicable to particular Software, Licensee will have no further right or license to use such Software after the expiration date. Laserfiche may terminate this License Agreement for cause immediately following a breach of this License Agreement. Laserfiche may also terminate this License Agreement if Licensee violates, infringes or compromises any trademark, copyright, patent or trade secret of Laserfiche or any third party identified in the Software or Documentation, or interferes with any relationship between Laserfiche and any of its other licensees, End Users, or authorized resellers of the Software, or materially breaches its obligation to pay for the Software. B. Upon termination of this License Agreement, Licensee must immediately cease all use of the Software and the Documentation and return to Laserfiche or destroy all versions and copies of the Software and the Documentation. Licensee must remove and uninstall all such programs and materials from all hard drives and other devices on which the Software or the Documentation may be found. C. The termination of this License Agreement will not terminate Licensee's obligations under this License Agreement, nor will it release Licensee from the obligation to pay any monies that it may owe Laserfiche or operate to discharge any liability that Licensee incurs before termination or waive any obligation which is intended to survive termination. 6. LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER. THE SOFTWARE IS WARRANTED TO THE ORIGINAL LICENSEE AGAINST MATERIAL DEFECTS FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ORIGINAL ACQUISITION. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, LASERFICHE LICENSES THE SOFTWARE TO LICENSEE "AS IS" AND WITH ALL FAULTS. LASERFICHE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. LASERFICHE DOES NOT WARRANT THAT (A) THE SOFTWARE OR ANY LASERFICHE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“SERVICES”) OR LASERFICHE SUPPORT WILL SATISFY LICENSEE’S REQUIREMENTS; OR (B) THAT THE SOFTWARE, PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES AND DELIVERY OF SUPPORT WILL BE WITHOUT DEFECT OR ERROR; OR (C) THAT THE SOFTWARE WILL OPERATE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION. NO RESELLER, DISTRIBUTOR OR OTHER THIRD PARTY MAY MODIFY, SUPPLEMENT OR CHANGE THIS WARRANTY, AND ANY SUCH MODIFICATIONS, SUPPLEMENTS OR CHANGES WILL BE WITHOUT ANY LEGAL FORCE OR EFFECT. 7. NO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL LASERFICHE OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, RESELLERS, DISTRIBUTORS, AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, CONSULTANTS, OR SUPPLIERS (COLLECTIVELY, Exhibit D "REPRESENTATIVES") BE LIABLE TO LICENSEE OR ANYONE ELSE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS; LOSSES FROM BUSINESS INTERRUPTION; LOSS OF BUSINESS REVENUES, INFORMATION OR DATA; COSTS OF RECREATING LOST INFORMATION OR DATA; OR COSTS OF SUBSTITUTE SOFTWARE, SERVICES, OR SUPPORT; OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS WHATSOEVER), REGARDLESS OF WHETHER LASERFICHE OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES OR LOSSES. 8. ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES. ANY AND ALL DAMAGES SUFFERED BY LICENSEE OR ANYONE ELSE FOR WHICH LASERFICHE OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES ARE LIABLE, WHETHER RELATING TO THE SOFTWARE, SERVICES, OR SUPPORT, WHETHER BASED ON A BREACH OF CONTRACT OR WARRANTY, OR NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION OR OTHER TORT, OR ON ANY OTHER LEGAL OR EQUITABLE THEORY, WILL BE STRICTLY LIMITED TO THE ACTUAL DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT LICENSEE ACTUALLY PAID FOR THE DEFECTIVE SOFTWARE COMPONENT, SERVICES OR SUPPORT WITHIN THE 12-MONTH PERIOD IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE THAT LASERFICHE RECEIVES NOTICE OF AN EXISTING OR POTENTIAL CLAIM OR SUIT AGAINST IT. NO CLAIM OR SUIT MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST LASERFICHE OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES BASED ON A BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF WARRANTY, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION OR OTHER TORT, OR ON ANY OTHER LEGAL OR EQUITABLE THEORY, MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER LICENSEE FIRST DISCOVERED OR SHOULD HAVE DISCOVERED ANY OF THE FACTS THAT GAVE RISE TO THE CLAIM OR SUIT. THIS LIMITATION APPLIES EVEN IF THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE TO LICENSEE OR ANY OTHER CLAIMANT DO NOT FULLY COMPENSATE THEM FOR ANY OR ALL OF THEIR LOSSES OR LASERFICHE WAS ADVISED, KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DAMAGES OR A CLAIM. 9. Copyright. The Software and the Documentation are owned by Laserfiche and are protected by United States and other international copyright laws, conventions and treaties. Licensee must treat the Software and Documentation like any other copyrighted material except Licensee may install the Software and the Documentation as expressly authorized by this License Agreement. Licensee may copy the Documentation solely for internal, reference purposes, as long as this License Agreement is in effect and the copy includes all trademark and copyright notices set forth on the Documentation, and the use of such copy does not violate or breach any other term or provision of this License Agreement. 10. No Waiver. No failure by Laserfiche to exercise or delay in exercising any right, power, or privilege under this License Agreement will operate as a waiver of any right, power, or privilege under this License Agreement. No single or partial exercise by Laserfiche of any right, power, or privilege under this License Agreement will preclude further exercise of any such right, power or privilege. 11. Severability. If any provision of this License Agreement is adjudicated or held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court or arbitration panel, it will be interpreted to effect the intent of the original portion. If such construction is not possible, the invalid or unenforceable provision will be severed from this License Agreement and will be deemed to have never been a part of this License Agreement. Severance of any invalid or unenforceable provision will not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this License Agreement. 12. Governing Law. This License Agreement is deemed to have been made in, and will be construed pursuant to the laws of, the State of California, as if all parties were residents of California and this License Agreement was to be wholly performed within the State of California. The parties agree that the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods will not apply to this Agreement. Exhibit D 13. Jurisdiction; Venue; Arbitration. Each party consents to the personal jurisdiction of the California Superior Court and the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Each party agrees to arbitrate any and all disputes in any way related to this License Agreement by final and binding arbitration in accordance with JAMS Arbitration Rules in effect at the time of the arbitration. The arbitrator's authority will be no greater than that which is available under the statutory or common law theory asserted. The arbitration will be heard by one arbitrator at JAMS offices in Los Angeles, California. Licensee further waives the right to bring a class action against Laserfiche, or to serve as a representative of a class in a class action against Laserfiche, whether in arbitration or in court. All judicial actions and proceedings will be conducted only in, and each party consents to exclusive venue in, Los Angeles County, California. This paragraph does not apply to any agency or official body of the United States of America or any foreign government, or to their respective state, regional and local government bodies and subdivisions if, and to the extent that, it is unenforceable under applicable law. 14. Entire Agreement. This License Agreement is the complete and exclusive statement of the mutual understanding of the parties concerning its subject matter, and it supersedes all previous written and oral agreements, representations, warranties, statements, advertising and marketing materials, and other communications relating to the subject matter of this License Agreement. No course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade will override the written terms of this License Agreement. 15. Modifications to the License Agreement. If Licensee installs a new version of the Software, or any update, modification, or upgrade of the Software, the Laserfiche License Agreement applicable to the new updated, modified or upgraded version of the Software will modify this License Agreement upon such installation, if or to the extent that the new Laserfiche License Agreement is different than this License Agreement. A revised version of the License Agreement will be available at www.laserfiche.com/eula/home. By continuing to use the Software after the effective date of any modifications to this License Agreement, Licensee agrees to be bound by the modified terms. 16. Limitation on Actions. Any suit, claim, action or proceeding based on or related to this License Agreement, its terms, provisions or warranties, or arising out of its performance or breach, whether in contract or tort, must be instituted by Licensee against Laserfiche or its Representatives within one year after the occurrence of any one or more of the acts, omissions, facts, conduct, events, claims or allegations upon which the action, proceeding or claim is based. Licensee waives the benefit of any statute of limitations which specifies a period longer than one year for filing an action or proceeding. 17. U.S. Government Restricted Rights Notice. This Software is provided with restricted rights. Use, duplication or disclosure for or by the government of the United States, including without limitation any of its agencies or instrumentalities, is subject to the restrictions set forth, as applicable: (i) in subparagraphs (a) through (d) of the Commercial Computer Software Restricted Rights clause at FAR 52.227-19; (ii) in subparagraph (c)(1)(ii) of the Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software clause at DFARS 252.227-7013; or (iii) in similar clauses in other federal regulations, including the NASA FAR supplement. Licensee and any end user must not remove or deface any restricted rights notice or other legal notice appearing in the Software or on any packaging or other media associated with the Software. The contractor/ manufacturer is Compulink Management Center, Inc., 3545 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, California 90807, a California corporation dba Laserfiche. 18. Export Restrictions. Licensee acknowledges that the Software and all related technical information, documents, and materials are subject to United States export jurisdiction and controls under the U.S. Export Administration Regulation. Licensee must comply with all applicable federal, state, county, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and codes including, but not limited to, the procurement of required permits, certificates, approvals, and inspections in Licensee's performance of this Agreement. In addition, Licensee Exhibit D must comply with applicable international export laws and regulations. Licensee represents, warrants and certifies that Licensee will (i) comply strictly with all legal requirements, (ii) cooperate fully with Laserfiche in any official or unofficial audit or inspection that relates to these controls, and (iii) not export, re-export, divert, transfer, or disclose, directly or indirectly, any Software or related technical information, document, or material or direct products to any country restricted by applicable export laws or regulations, as modified from time to time, or to any national or resident of such country, unless Licensee has obtained the prior written authorization of Laserfiche, the U.S. Commerce Department and any other required governmental authority. 19. Captions. The captions used on this License Agreement are for convenience only and are not a part of this License Agreement. Should Licensee have any questions concerning this Agreement, or if you desire to contact Laserfiche for any reason, please write to: Laserfiche, 3545 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90807, U.S.A. © 2015-2017 Laserfiche 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8h MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk – (650) 558-7203 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Amend the Service Agreement with Granicus, Inc. to Purchase Laserfiche Integration and eComment Application RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the service agreement with Granicus, Inc. to purchase Laserfiche integration and the eComment application. BACKGROUND In 2016, the City renewed its service agreement with Granicus, Inc. to provide video streaming services for City Council and Planning Commission meetings. In the fall of 2017, the City began videoing Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission meetings. The video streaming service allows the City to provide community members with searchable access to all recorded meetings, making local government more accessible and transparent. Additionally, Granicus’ agenda management service streamlines the meeting agenda and packet creation process, saving staff time, paper, and copying costs while ensuring timely production and distribution of the packet materials. The City is now entering into an agreement with ECS, a Laserfiche reseller, to create an electronic content management system. The system will act as an easily sortable storage bank for the City’s records. Granicus offers an integration solution that allows all documents that are created or uploaded onto their system to be exported and indexed in Laserfiche by the push of a button. This amendment would allow for the purchase of this service. Additionally, the City is always looking to increase transparency and civic engagement. Granicus offers an application called eComment that allows individuals who cannot attend a meeting to comment on a matter online. The ability to write an eComment would be open for a set period of time and preserved under the corresponding staff report. This feature will offer members of the public another avenue to give the governing body their input and have their voices heard on a matter. Amendment to Service Agreement with Granicus, Inc. January 16, 2018 2 DISCUSSION The proposed amendments to the Granicus service agreement will assist in the storage, retention, and transparency of City records. The Laserfiche integration offers staff an inexpensive and quick solution to storing and indexing agendas, packets, meeting minutes, and staff reports of the Council and various commissions. The eComment solution from Granicus offers the City an opportunity to enhance its transparency. Many individuals are not able to attend Council meetings because of their work or family schedules. Therefore, the ability to comment directly on a matter allows them the same opportunity as if they were at the meeting. Comments will be monitored for profane language and inappropriate subject matter. Additionally, the Ralph M. Brown Act will govern eComments in the same manner as public comments at a meeting. eComments will be printed in a report for the Council, staff, and members of the public at the Council meeting. Staff recommends utilizing eComment for City Council and Planning Commission meetings to begin with, and then reviewing its effectiveness for other commissions. The proposed changes will cost the City an additional $3,000 annually and, if approved, will be effective through May 23, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of the amendment will be an annual increase of $3,000, with the total cost of the Granicus service agreement becoming $25,860. Funds for the annual cost of the service agreement have been included in the City Clerk’s FY 2017-18 General Fund budget. Exhibits: • Resolution • Amendment • May 23, 2016 Agreement RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH GRANICUS, INC. TO PURCHASE LASERFICHE INTEGRATION AND eCOMMENT APPLICATION WHEREAS, in 2016, the City Council renewed its agreement with Granicus, Inc. for video streaming and distribution of live and archived video and agenda management services; and WHEREAS, Granicus offers a Laserfiche integration solution to assist in storing and indexing records in the City’s electronic database; and WHEREAS, the City, in striving to increase transparency and civic engagement, would benefit from Granicus’ eComment application that allows individuals to comment on agendized matters online; and WHEREAS, the amended service agreement shall be effective through May 23, 2019; and WHEREAS, the annual cost of the changes is $3,000, with a total annual cost for the amended Granicus agreement of $25,860. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: The City Manager is authorized to execute the amendment to the May 23, 2016 service agreement with Granicus, Inc. ________________________________ Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16th day of January, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ________________________________ City Clerk FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE GRANICUS SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN GRANICUS, INC. AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA This First Amendment to the Granicus, Inc. Service Agreement is dated January 16, 2018, and entered into by and between Granicus, Inc., a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Granicus”), and the City of Burlingame, CA (hereinafter referred to as “Client”), with reference to the following: WHEREAS, the Client and Granicus entered into an Agreement dated May 23, 2016 (the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, in addition to Client’s existing solution, Client wishes to add certain products and services as detailed in the quote dated November 20, 2017, which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties intend that the Agreement be amended as follows: 1. Compensation shall be amended to include an additional three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) per year as detailed in Exhibit A. As amended, Client’s Granicus solution shall now include additions to the Agreement as detailed in Exhibit A. 2. Except as amended by this First Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 3. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this First Amendment and the documents comprising the Agreement, the provisions of this First Amendment shall prevail. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this First Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives, CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA GRANICUS, INC. By:______________________________ By: _______________________________ Mark Hynes CEO Date:____________________________ Date:______________________________ Procurement Vehicle: Direct In Support of: Burlingame, CA Quote Number: Q-17783 Quote Prepared On: 11/20/2017 Quote Valid Through: 12/8/2017 Payment Terms: Net 30 Granicus Contact: Name: Chavin Muniz Phone: 720-240-9586 x1039 Email: chavin.muniz@granicus.com ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION FEE Product Name Product Description Invoice Schedule Quantity Annual Total eComment eComment only Annual 1 Hours $1,800.00 Legistar Add- On - Laserfiche Integration Legistar Add-On - Laserfiche Integration is for the Legistar\Laserfiche integration that allows for documents to be imported from Laserfiche to Legistar and for Legistar to export reports \attachments to Laserfiche Annual 1 Each $1,200.00 TOTAL:$3,000.00 TERMS AND CONDITIONS • All fees are due at the beginning of the period of performance. Any lapse in payment may result in suspension of service and will require the payment of a setup fee to reinstate the subscription. • This quote is exclusive of applicable state, local, and federal taxes, which, if any, will be included in the invoice. It is the responsibility of Burlingame, CA to provide applicable exemption certificate(s). Q-17783 : 11/20/2017 Page 1 of 1 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8i MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243 Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing the Composition and Scope of the City of Burlingame’s Measure I Citizens’ Oversight Committee and Open Nomination Period for Committee Applicants RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing the composition and scope of the City of Burlingame’s Measure I Citizens’ Oversight Committee and open the nomination period for Committee applicants. BACKGROUND In November, Burlingame’s voters approved Measure I, a retail transactions and use tax of ¼ percent, which effectively increases the sales tax rate in Burlingame from 8.75 percent to 9 percent. In addition to requiring a separate external audit of the collections and expenditures of the new transactions tax, the Measure also provides for the establishment of a Citizens’ Oversight Committee consisting of no fewer than three persons appointed by the City Council to review and report on the receipt of revenue and expenditure of funds from the Measure I tax. Members of the Committee shall be residents of the City or representatives of Burlingame businesses. DISCUSSION Composition At the January 2, 2018 City Council meeting, the City Council discussed and gave direction regarding the composition of the Citizens’ Oversight Committee: • Number: The Oversight Committee will have five members total, with three resident members and two members representing businesses in Burlingame. The Council prefers that the business representatives live in Burlingame as well as work in Burlingame, but residency is not a minimum requirement for these seats. The Council would also prefer that one or two of the members have strong financial backgrounds. • Term: Oversight Committee members will serve three-year terms, and there will be no term Establishment of Measure I Oversight Committee January 16, 2018 2 limits. For the inaugural members of the Oversight Committee, three members will serve for three years, and two members will serve for two years in order to stagger the terms. Staff recommends that two of the resident members and one of the business representatives serve for three years, while the remaining resident member and the remaining business representative serve for two years. • Appointment Process: The City will employ the same appointment procedure it uses for other Commissions and the Storm Drain Oversight Committee: interested community members will fill out a written application and be interviewed by the Council. The Council will then vote on the applicants at a subsequent Council meeting. • Ex-officio Members: The Council agreed that the members of the Council’s Audit Committee should serve as ex-officio members of the Oversight Committee, lending their expertise to the Committee members but not voting on any Oversight Committee matters. Scope The ballot measure provides guidance regarding the Oversight Committee’s scope. At a minimum, the Oversight Committee shall annually review the auditors’ findings regarding the revenues and expenditures and transmit a statement regarding that review to the City Council. In addition, the Oversight Committee shall provide oversight of any bonds that are backed in whole or in part by the Measure I revenues. Next Steps According to the Measure I ordinance, the Council must adopt a resolution “establishing the composition of the committee and defining the scope of its responsibilities consistent with” the ordinance prior to January 31. The Council should adopt the attached resolution in order to meet that deadline. As noted above, the Measure also requires that the Oversight Committee be in place by March 1, 2018. Given the Council meeting calendar, the only way to meet that deadline is to ask the Council to either appoint Oversight Committee members at the February 20 meeting, or ask the Council to hold a special meeting prior to March 1 to appoint the members. Since it can be difficult to schedule special meetings, staff recommends that the Council open the application period on January 17 and close it two weeks later on January 31. (Staff will publicize the application period in the eNews and via social media.) This will give the Council time to interview the applicants prior to the February 20 Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT Although there is no direct fiscal impact resulting from the creation of the Measure I Citizens’ Oversight Committee, this action will foster an objective and transparent review of the use of the new revenue generated from the additional ¼ percent transactions and use tax. Exhibits: • Resolution • Application and Questionnaire RESOLUTION NO._______ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING THE COMPOSITION AND SCOPE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MEASURE I CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, in November, Burlingame’s voters approved Measure I, a retail transactions and use tax of ¼ percent, which effectively increases the sales tax rate in Burlingame from 8.75 percent to 9 percent; and WHEREAS, Measure I requires a separate external audit of the collections and expenditures of the new transactions tax; and WHEREAS, the Measure also provides for the establishment of a Citizens’ Oversight Committee consisting of no fewer than three persons appointed by the City Council to review and report on the receipt of revenue and expenditure of funds from the Measure I tax; and WHEREAS, members of the Committee shall be residents of the City or representatives of Burlingame businesses; and WHEREAS, at the January 2, 2018 City Council meeting, the City Council discussed and gave direction regarding the composition of the Citizens’ Oversight Committee; and WHEREAS, the Committee shall have five members total, with three resident members and two members representing businesses in Burlingame; and WHEREAS, Committee members will serve three-year terms, with two of the five inaugural members of the Committee serving two-years, and there will be no term limits; and WHEREAS, the City will employ the same appointment procedure it uses for other Commissions and the Storm Drain Oversight Committee; and WHEREAS, the members of the City Council’s Audit Committee shall serve as ex-officio members of the Committee; and WHEREAS, the Committee shall annually review the auditors’ findings regarding the revenues and expenditures and transmit a statement regarding that review to the City Council, and the Committee shall provide oversight of any bonds that are backed in whole or in part by the Measure I revenues. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Burlingame establishes the composition and scope of the Measure I Citizens’ Oversight Committee as described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council retains the authority to modify the number or composition of the Citizens’ Oversight Committee, within the requirements of Measure I, if it is determined at a later date that the functions of the Committee or the available applicant pool for Committee members require such modification. ______________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16th day of January, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk CITY OF BURLINGAME Measure I Citizens Oversight Committee Member Application Form FOR CITY USE ONLY □ Burlingame registered voter Copies to: CC, CM, _______ Mission – This Committee shall review the annual audit prepared by the City’s independent auditor related to the prior fiscal year’s collection and expenditure of Measure I revenue, and transmit a report to the City Council regarding the auditor’s findings. Time Commitment and Term – Committee members are expected to attend all regular meetings and special meetings as needed. The Committee will meet at least annually to review the Measure I Audit Report. Committee members will serve three-year terms, except for those appointed in 2018 to two-year terms. Please print or type. NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: (day) (evening) EMAIL: If you are a resident, how many years have you lived in Burlingame? Are you registered to vote in Burlingame? Yes No If you are a business community member, how many years have you worked in Burlingame, which business are you affiliated with, and what is your position there? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ EDUCATION: Degree(s)/Major(s): OCCUPATION/SPECIALTY: Signature: Date: Please return your application and supplemental questionnaire to: Ana Silva City Manager’s Office 501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010 Measure I Citizens’ Oversight Committee Supplemental Questionnaire Applicant’s Name: In November 2017, Burlingame’s voters approved Measure I, a retail transactions and use tax of ¼ percent, which effectively increases the sales tax rate in Burlingame from 8.75 percent to 9 percent. The City Council-appointed Measure I Citizens’ Oversight Committee is charged with reviewing the annual audit prepared by the City’s independent auditor related to the prior year’s collection and expenditure of Measure I revenue and transmitting a report to the City Council regarding the auditor’s findings. To assist in the selection process, please answer the following questions and submit written responses with your application form. Please write clearly or type. You may use additional sheets of paper. Thank you. . 1. Please describe how your education, training, skills, experience, and community involvement has prepared you to serve on the Measure I Citizens’ Oversight Committee. 2. Why do you want to serve on this committee? 3. As a member of the Citizens’ Oversight Committee, you may need to provide a briefing to the City Council or community members regarding the auditor’s report on Measure I’s revenues and expenditures. Have you ever been in a situation where you have had to make public presentations on important issues while under public scrutiny? If so, please describe that experience. 4. Please list the community activities or organizations you have participated in and indicate your level of involvement (member, attended event, ran a booth, worked on the organizing committee, was an officer, etc.). Indicate the amount of time each month you spend on each of these activities. 5. Please list any additional information pertaining to your appointment to the Measure I Citizens’ Oversight Committee that the City Council should consider. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8j MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Brad McCulley, City Librarian – (650) 558-7404 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Illuminated Libraries Grant in the Amount of $6,881 for the Upgrade of Burlingame Library WiFi Access Points RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the $6,881 California State “Libraries Illuminated” grant to assist with technical upgrades allowing better use of high-speed broadband connections. BACKGROUND The Burlingame Library was awarded this California State grant as part of the “Libraries Illuminated” project. The project’s goal is to assist California public libraries in making software and hardware improvements to maximize benefits to patrons as they access new high-speed broadband connections and utilize internet connections for learning, entertainment, and personal business. DISCUSSION At the end of 2014, Burlingame Library was connected to high-speed broadband through the California Research and Education Network (CalREN)—a high-capacity 3,800-mile fiber-optic- based network designed to meet the unique requirements of over 20 million statewide library users. However, much like replacing outdated bathroom fixtures without replacing outdated plumbing, the Library’s current WiFi access points inhibit the full use of the high-speed broadband internet. New access points will allow staff and patrons to utilize the full one gigabyte of high- speed broadband internet. FISCAL IMPACT Funds from the grant will be used to purchase and upgrade WiFi access points. Although matching funds are required, there will be no fiscal impact to the General Fund as the matching funds will come from the Library Board of Trustees. Exhibit: • Resolution RESOLUTION NO. _________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING THE ILLUMINATED LIBRARIES GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,881 FOR THE UPGRADE OF BURLINGAME LIBRARY’S WIFI ACCESS POINTS WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has applied for and has been awarded a grant in the amount of $6,881 from the California State Library Illuminated Libraries project; and WHEREAS, funds from the Illuminated Libraries grant will be used to purchase and install WiFi Access Points. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. All the facts recited above, in the staff report and supporting documentation are true and correct and the Council relies upon same in accepting the grant. 2. The City Manager is authorized to review and execute any necessary documents to receive the funds and take any further steps necessary in order to accept the grant. 3. The City Council approves the acceptance of the grant revenue and amends the Fiscal Year 2017- 18 Budget to include the additional appropriation. 4. The budget amendment shall become effective on January 16, 2018. ____________________________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on January 16, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ______________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8k MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. to Perform Environmental Review Services Related to the Proposed Village at Burlingame and Public Parking Structure Development of Parking Lots F and N RECOMMENDATION The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. for environmental review services in the amount of $113,936 related to the proposed Village at Burlingame and Public Parking Structure Development of Parking Lots F and N. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame has received an application from The Pacific Companies to construct a new 132-unit residential apartment building at City of Burlingame Parking Lot F, and a 384-space parking garage at City of Burlingame Parking Lot N. An environmental review finding for the project will be required. DISCUSSION A Class 32 Infill Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be pursued for the Project. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300 to 15333 include a list of classes of projects that have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment and, as a result, are exempt from review under CEQA. Among the classes of projects that are exempt from CEQA review are those projects that are specifically identified as urban infill development. Based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, the understanding is that the project qualifies for a Class 32 Infill Exemption. If it is determined, through the analysis process, that additional CEQA review is required (such as an Initial Study), a revised work scope and cost estimate will be prepared. Staff emphasizes that the Class 32 Infill Exemption does not imply an absence of environmental review. The documentation for the exemption will benefit from the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan. To qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption, which applies to infill projects, the approval of the project cannot result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality per CEQA Guidelines Section Professional Services Agreement with ICF January 16, 2018 2 15332. The IS/MND prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan analyzed potential impacts of new infill development and included standard conditions of approval (SCAs) to mitigate potential environmental impacts. As applicable, the SCAs are adopted as requirements of individual projects when approved by the City and are designed to avoid or substantially reduce a project’s environmental effects. Because the SCAs are mandatory City requirements, the Exemption will assume that these SCAs will be imposed and implemented by the Project and will not be imposed as mitigation measures under CEQA. The scope of work includes preparation of the necessary technical documents to allow the findings to determine that the project would not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. Environmental review is a duty imposed on the lead agency under state law, but such review is funded by the development applicant. Therefore, although the contract is with the City of Burlingame, the applicant will pay $113,936 to the City to cover the costs of the environmental review. The City will administer the contract and will pay the consultant on a monthly basis as services are rendered. Attached is a draft Agreement for Professional Services with ICF to perform the environmental review services for the proposed project, in an amount not to exceed $113,936 (Agreement, Exhibit 2). Because the cost of the agreement exceeds $100,000, Council approval is required. The Scope of Work for services to be provided by ICF is included in the proposal attached to this report as Exhibit 3. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for the project's environmental review is provided by the project applicant. Therefore, there will be no fiscal impact to the City's budget. Exhibits: Resolution Draft Agreement for Professional Services with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. Proposal to Prepare Environmental Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project– ICF RESOLUTION NO. 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ICF JONES & STOKES, INC. TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME AND PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT OF PARKING LOTS F AND N WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by The Pacific Companies to construct a new 132-unit residential apartment building at City of Burlingame Parking Lot F, and 384-space parking garage at City of Burlingame Parking Lot N.; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental review of the project must occur prior to consideration of the proposed development at Parking Lots F and N by the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, ICF Jones & Stokes Inc. has submitted a proposal to conduct the required environmental review related to the proposed development at Parking Lots F and N; and WHEREAS, an agreement has been prepared incorporating the Scope of Services prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes Inc., and provides for compensation in the amount of $113,936, which was found to be adequate to provide the level of environmental review required for the proposed development at Parking Lots F and N, and the costs associated with the services to be provided by ICF Jones & Stokes Inc. are to be reimbursed by the applicant; and WHEREAS, because the agreement will authorize work in excess of $100,000, City Council approval is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with ICF Jones & Stokes Inc. for environmental review services related to the proposed 132-unit residential apartment building at City of Burlingame Parking Lot F, and 384-space parking garage at City of Burlingame Parking Lot N, consistent with the Scope of Work attached to this resolution, for a maximum cost of $113,936.00, as stated in the Scope of Work. 2. The City Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the City Manager upon execution of the Professional Services Agreement. _______________________________________ Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on the 16th day of January, 2018, and as adopted thereafter by the following vote: 2 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________ City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND ICF JONES & STOKES, INC. THIS AGREEMENT is by and between ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (“Consultant”) and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California (“City”). Consultant and City agree: 1. Services. Consultant shall provide environmental consulting services for review of a proposed development project located at on City of Burlingame Parking Lot F and Lot N (together referred to as “the Village at Burlingame”), as further set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. Compensation. Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum compensation amount, Consultant agrees to perform all of the Scope of Services herein required of Consultant for $113,936.00, including all materials and other reimbursable amounts (“Maximum Compensation”), for preparation of a CEQA document for the proposal at the Village at Burlingame. Consultant shall submit invoices on a monthly basis. All bills submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information to determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is accurate. Bills shall include a brief description of services performed, the date services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and the Consultant’s signature. 3. Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereof and terminates on December 31, 2018, unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof. Consultant agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to completion and in accordance with any schedules specified herein. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant’s control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City’s Contract Administrator prior to the expiration of the specified completion date. 4. Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without the prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. 5. Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance to City. 6. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such claim 2 arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section 2782.8. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. 7. Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time by City for its convenience upon written notice to Consultant. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall be entitled to pro-rated compensation for authorized Services performed prior to the effective date of termination provided however that City may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant's delivery to City of any or all materials described herein. In the event the Consultant ceases performing services under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall, without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services performed up to the time of Consultant’s cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment. 8. Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, photographs, computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final revisions, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the property of City. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including but not limited to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, and any other material referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be made available, upon request, to City at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation on their use. Upon City’s request, Consultant shall execute appropriate documents to assign to the City the copyright or trademark to work created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall return all City property in Consultant’s control or possession immediately upon termination. 9. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. Consultant warrants that all work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws, statutes, and practices, including but not limited to Cal/OSHA regulations. If a license or registration of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors by law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. 10. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant presently has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable state, 3 local, or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that the City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.) respecting this Agreement. 11. Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written or oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein. This Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed by both Consultant and the City Manager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Such document shall expressly state that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms and conditions of this Agreement. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed but the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of the City Clerk is the version of the Agreement that shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 12. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to the other party that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. 13. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties. 14. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i) depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) transmitting such notice by means of Federal Express or similar overnight commercial courier (“Courier”), postage paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same by facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confirmation of receipt by the sending facsimile machine’s acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (iv) by personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown on the receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice, change the address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent. 4 15. Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of the term used herein, the captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor. Capitalized terms refer to the definition provide with its first usage in the Agreement. When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine, the feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singular includes the plural. The terms “shall”, “will”, “must” and “agree” are mandatory. The term “may” is permissive. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. When a party is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole cost and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific provision is made otherwise. Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such party is also obligated to restrain any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents, invitees, contractors, subcontractors and employees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement. CITY OF BURLINGAME ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. 501 Primrose Road 620 Folsom Street, 2nd Floor Burlingame, CA 94010 San Francisco, CA 94107 By: By: Lisa Goldman Trina Prince City Manager Contracts Administrator Date: Date: -- Attest: Federal Employer ID Number: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer License Number: City Clerk Expiration Date: 5 Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane City Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A Scope of Work Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions 620 Folsom Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94107 USA +1.415.677.7100 +1.415.677.7177 fax icf.com November 13, 2017 Kevin Gardiner Planning Manager 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Proposal to Prepare Environmental Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project Dear Mr. Gardiner, ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (“ICF”) is pleased to submit this proposal for a Class 32 Exemption Checklist. ICF formed our team to help the City successfully and efficiently prepare an environmental document in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We offer a team of highly skilled environmental professionals who will produce legally defensible and comprehensive CEQA documentation, allowing the project to be environmentally cleared and developed as expeditiously as possible. The Village at Burlingame Project (Project) includes two sites within the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Lot F and Lot N. These two lots include approximately 210 public parking spaces. Under the Project, Lot F would include a five-story public parking garage for 384 vehicles, resulting in a net increase of approximately 174 parking spaces. Lot N would include a residential building with 78 workforce units and 54 senior units, for a total of 132 affordable housing units. Parking for residents would be provided partially below grade in 149 stackable parking spaces. The ground floor would also include community space for the residents. A 6,750-sf public park would be accessible from Lorton Avenue. As demonstrated in our proposal, ICF has formed a team of expert internal staff and includes subconsultants (Hexagon [transportation/traffic], Edward L Pack [noise], and Ramboll [air quality]) to successfully and efficiently provide environmental services for the City. This submittal includes our scope of work, cost estimate, and tentative schedule for the Village at Burlingame Class 32 Exemption. ICF proposes to invoice costs monthly, on a time-and-materials basis. This proposal is valid for a period of 90 days, at which time ICF reserves the right to revise the contents or extend the validity date, if needed. We are excited to work with you on this important project and believe we are the best fit for your needs. ICF looks forward to negotiating mutually acceptable terms. To discuss further how ICF can assist you on this project, please feel free to contact Kirsten Chapman, our proposed Project Manager, at 415.537.1702 or kirsten.chapman@icf.com. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Trina L. Prince-Fisher Contracts Administrator 620 Folsom Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94107 USA +1.415.677.7100 +1.415.677.7177 fax icf.com Attachment A – Hexagon Scope of Work Attachment B – Edward L Pack Associates Scope of Work Attachment C – Ramboll Scope of Work Attachment D – Budget Attachment E – Schedule Proposal to Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project 1 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. A. Firm Profile Founded in 1969, ICF is a leading global professional services firm that provides consulting and implementation services addressing today’s most complex management, technology, and policy challenges. Our work is primarily focused in four key markets: environment and infrastructure; energy and climate change; health, human services, and social programs; and homeland security and defense. Our environmental practice provides services in environmental planning, land use planning, regulatory compliance, regulatory implementation, natural resources, and supporting environmental review. Our full- time professional staff includes environmental compliance experts, land-use and natural resource planners, wildlife and fisheries biologists, plant and wetland biologists, watershed planners, restoration experts, archaeologists, architectural historians, community affairs experts, attorneys, engineers, and information technologists. With more than 4,500 employees on six continents, we combine passion for our work with industry and technical expertise to protect and improve the quality of life. ICF is a recognized leader in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, having prepared thousands of environmental impact studies and related documents since the founding of the former Jones & Stokes. Bob Jones, one of the founders of Jones & Stokes, was instrumental in drafting the legislation that ultimately became CEQA in California. Shortly thereafter, Bob joined fellow biologist Jim Stokes to form Jones & Stokes, which rose to prominence in the fields of environmental planning and natural resources management. By the time it was acquired by ICF in 2008, Jones & Stokes was one of the most well-known and well-respected firms providing NEPA and CEQA compliance services in the Bay Area and throughout the west. Although we are able to draw expertise from all west coast offices, we will service the Project primarily by our San Francisco office. B. Key Personnel and Project Experience We offer unique advantages with our local knowledge on the San Francisco peninsula and experience with issues important to the City of Burlingame (City). This deep local knowledge and familiarity with the area and similar jurisdictions directly relates to enabling us to deliver high-quality environmental support. We understand the issues important to City staff as well as members of the public and, using our relevant experience on other local projects, can anticipate these needs and keep projects on schedule and budget. The ICF team will be led by Erin Efner (Project Director), Kirsten Chapman (Project Manager), and Alex Hunt (Deputy Project Manager). ICF will be supported by subconsultants Hexagon (transportation), Edward L Pack Associates (noise), and Ramboll (air quality). Key ICF staff prepared the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and the Burlingame Safeway Mixed-Use Development Project IS/MND while at previous firms. ICF recently prepared the Burlingame Point Project EIR Addendum and has extensive experience with residential projects throughout the peninsula and Bay Area. Our team is familiar with the local values and issues in the Proposal to Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project 2 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. Project area and have demonstrated exceptional project management skills on similar projects in the peninsula. We are eager to assist the City with this important Project. ICF has a long reputation as a leader in the preparation of documents on development, infrastructure, and transportation projects throughout the Bay Area. A list of relevant work is presented below. This is not an exhaustive list of projects completed by ICF on the peninsula/in the Bay Area; additional project information is available upon request. Burlingame Point Project—City of Burlingame 1300 El Camino Real Project—City of Menlo Park Middle Plaza Project at 500 El Camino Real—City of Menlo Park Various CEQA Streamlining Infill Projects—City of Oakland 15888 Hesperian Blvd. Affordable Housing IS/MND—Mercy Housing California Various Community Plan Exemptions—City of San Francisco The Nueva School 2012 Master Plan Update IS/MND—Town of Hillsborough City Place Santa Clara EIR—Related Santa Clara (Related), Santa Clara SF Giants Mission Seawall Lot 337 Pier 48 EIR—Seawall Lot 337 Associates LLC C. Project Understanding and General Approach The Village at Burlingame Project (Project) includes two sites within the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Lot F and Lot N. These two lots are currently operated by the City and include approximately 210 public parking spaces. Under the Project, Lot N would include a five-story public parking garage for 384 vehicles, resulting in a net increase of approximately 174 parking spaces. Access to the garage would be located off both Highland Avenue and Lorton Avenue. Lot F would include a 137,459-sf residential building with 78 workforce units and 54 senior units, for a total of 132 affordable housing units. Parking for residents would be provided partially below grade in 149 stackable parking spaces. The ground floor would also include community space for the residents. A 6,750-sf public park would be accessible from Lorton Avenue. ICF has reviewed the information provided by the applicant. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300 to 15333 includes a list of classes of projects that have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment and, as a result, are exempt from review under CEQA. Among the classes of projects that are exempt from CEQA review are those projects that are specifically identified as urban infill development. Based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, we understand that a Class 32 Infill Exemption is the required level of CEQA review for the Project. This submittal includes our work scope, cost estimate, and tentative schedule for a Class 32 Infill Exemption. If it is determined, through the analysis process, that additional CEQA review is required (such as an Initial Study), a revised work scope and cost estimate will be prepared. Proposal to Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project 3 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. D. Scope of Work Task 1. Kick-Off, Scoping, and Team Meeting The CEQA process will be initiated by discussing key issues, reviewing completed environmental documents, planning data collection, and refining the schedule for completion of individual tasks. At the outset of the CEQA process, ICF will meet with City staff and the applicant team (Project team). At this meeting, the Project team will: Review the work scope for the document; Discuss pertinent documents, materials, and technical studies developed by the applicant; Review the Project schedule and milestones; and Identify the roles of each team member. The Project initiation efforts will also include a review of the Specific Plan Standard Conditions of Approval (SCAs) for incorporation into the document. Following a review of all materials and provided technical studies, ICF, in coordination with the subconsultants, will provide a data needs list of any additional materials or information needed. At this time, any necessary refinement to the scope of work could be made. Deliverables Revised schedule and work scope, if applicable Memorandum of data requests for the applicant Task 2. Project Description Prior to starting the CEQA analysis, ICF will prepare the Project Description for the Exemption based on discussions with the applicant team, data needs responses, and review of the Project application, plan sets, and supplemental reports. A clear and accurate Project Description, which will be distributed to the subconsultants, is essential for a consistent Project analysis. Based on discussions with the team and on the applicants’ application and plans, ICF will prepare a Project Description that will incorporate the following topics:1 Project Overview and Background Project Site Location Project Characteristics including: Site plan Development area and uses Site access, circulation, and parking 1 Assumes that data needs outlined in ICF’s data request have been fulfilled. Proposal to Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project 4 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. Amenities/Utilities Phasing and Construction Scenario Project Approvals and Entitlements Deliverables ICF will submit electronic copies of the draft Project Description in Microsoft (MS) Word and Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). Task 3. Administrative Draft 1 Class 32 Infill Exemption California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15300 includes a list of classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. To qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption, which applies to infill projects like the Project, the approval of the Project cannot result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. An IS/MND was prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan, which analyzed potential impacts of new infill development and included SCAs to mitigate potential environmental impacts. The SCAs for the Downtown Specific Plan have been found to substantially mitigate environmental effects of projects proposed in the area. As applicable, the SCAs are adopted as requirements of individual projects when approved by the City and are designed to avoid or substantially reduce a project’s environmental effects. Because the SCAs are mandatory City requirements, the Exemption will assume that these SCAs will be imposed and implemented by the Project and will not be imposed as mitigation measures under CEQA. The Exemption would use the checklist in Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines in order to consider: (a) consistency with applicable general designation and zoning; (b) project location, size, and context; (c) endangered, rare, or threatened species; (d) impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; (e) utilities and public services. With the exception of 15332(d), a detailed analysis is not needed for these topics. The Project is consistent with existing land use regulations, located on a site smaller than five acres surrounded by urban uses, served by existing utilities and infrastructure, and developed as parking lots. Therefore, the Project site does not have value as habitat and is not expected to result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. It is not anticipated that the Project would result in any significant impacts on water quality because it is assumed that the Project would comply with regulations and SCAs that require specific measures for reducing potential impacts on hydrology and water quality, including the Proposal to Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project 5 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. Construction General Permit, Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater discharges (including how the project relates to C.3 requirements), the City Code, and the California Building Code. Thus, in-depth analysis would only be required to analyze the Project’s potential traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. Hexagon, Edward L Pack Associates, and Ramboll would prepare a stand-alone technical memorandum to analyze the Project’s potential impacts related to traffic, noise, and air quality, respectively. ICF will review the memorandums and incorporate them into the Exemption. The scopes of work for the stand-alone technical memorandums are provided in Attachments A, B, and C. It should be noted that if the Project would require the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce any impacts to a less-than-significant level, the Project would not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption and a IS/MND would likely be required. In addition to investigating the applicability of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32), the Exemption will also assess whether any of the exceptions to qualify for the Class 32 categorical exemption for an Infill Project are present. The analysis would compare the criteria of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (Exceptions) to the Project. Topics include location, cumulative impacts, significant effects, scenic highways, hazardous waste sites, and historical resources. ICF will use the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments to analyze the hazardous materials present on the site. Otherwise, none of the other topics will be evaluated in detail. Deliverables Two (2) hard copies of Administrative Draft 1 Class 32 Infill Exemption Memorandum and technical memorandums One (1) electronic copy of Administrative Draft 1 Class 32 Infill Exemption Memorandum and technical memorandums in MS Word/Adobe PDF Task 4. Administrative Drafts 2, Screencheck, and Final Class 32 Infill Exemption The purpose of this task is to prepare Administrative Draft 2, the Screencheck, and the Final of the Class 32 Infill Exemption for City staff review (if necessary). ICF will prepare each subsequent draft to respond to the City’s comments on the previous drafts. Following, based on comments received from City staff, ICF will revise the draft Class 32 Infill Exemption as necessary. The scope of work assumes that the City will distribute the Notice of Exemption, which will be filed by the Project Sponsor. Deliverables Two (2) hard copies of Administrative Draft 2 and Screencheck Draft of the Class 32 Infill Exemption Memorandum and technical memorandums One (1) electronic copy of Administrative Draft 2 and Screencheck Draft of the Class 32 Infill Exemption Memorandum and technical memorandums in MS Word/Adobe PDF format Proposal to Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project 6 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. Three (3) hardcopies of the Final Class 32 Infill Exemption Memorandum and technical memorandums One (1) electronic copy of the Final Class 32 Infill Exemption Memorandum and technical memorandums in MS Word/Adobe PDF format Task 5. Project Management/Meetings The purpose of this task is to effectively manage the above tasks, maintain communication with City staff, and be available for regular meetings. The Project Manager will be responsible for project coordination activities, will maintain QA/QC requirements for document preparation, and will monitor schedule and performance for all work tasks. Project management subtasks also include maintaining internal communications among ICF staff with City staff and other team members through emails, frequent phone contact, and in-person meetings, as well as the preparation of all correspondence. The Project Manager will coordinate internal staff, subconsultants, project guidance, and analysis criteria. Team members will attend and participate in meetings on an as-needed basis. For purposes of the cost estimates, ICF has assumed one City staff and/or Project Sponsor face-to-face meetings and two phone conference calls. Additional meetings may be appropriate during the course of this effort, and will be invoiced on a time-and-materials basis. The total budget and schedule are included as Attachments D and E, respectively. Proposal to Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. ATTACHMENT A – HEXAGON SCOPE OF WORK November 6, 2017 Ms. Erin Efner ICF International 620 Folsom Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 Re: Proposal to Prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Report for the Proposed Village at Burlingame Residential Development in Burlingame, California Dear Ms. Efner: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare a transportation impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Village at Burlingame residential development. The project is located in downtown Burlingame on Park Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue. The existing site is currently occupied by a City-owned surface parking lot, identified as Lot F. The proposed project would replace the existing Lot F with a five- story building that would include 101 one-bedroom units and 31 two-bedroom units, as well as a parking garage to serve the development. To replace the loss of public parking spaces in Lot F and provide additional public parking in the area, the project would replace the existing City- owned surface Lot N, located on Lorton Avenue between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue, with a stand-alone 5-story parking structure. This scope of services was developed by Hexagon staff based on our knowledge of City of Burlingame and San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) transportation study requirements, as well as our past experience with preparing various traffic studies for projects within the City of Burlingame. Our proposed scope of work must be reviewed and approved by Burlingame staff prior to our commencement of the study. The Scope of Services provided below is therefore subject to change. We will inform you if the City requests additional work elements not included in our proposal that would affect the project schedule or budget. Note that our scope of work does not include an analysis of the proposed adjacent parking structure on City Lot N. Analysis of the proposed parking structure would, therefore, be considered additional services and would require additional time and budget. Scope of Services The purpose of the traffic study is to satisfy the requirements of the City of Burlingame and C/CAG and to determine the traffic impacts of the proposed residential development on key intersections in the vicinity of the site. The traffic analysis will include an analysis of weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions on the surrounding roadway network. The study will determine the traffic impacts of the proposed project at up to 12 intersections in the study area. The tasks to be included in the traffic analysis are: 1. Site Reconnaissance and Existing Conditions. The physical characteristics of the site and the surrounding roadway network will be reviewed to identify existing roadway cross- sections, intersection lane configurations, traffic control devices, and surrounding land uses. Observations of existing traffic conditions will be made to identify any operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of the calculated levels of service. Attachment A Ms. Erin Efner November 6, 2017 Page 2 of 4 2. Data Collection. New manual peak-hour turning movements counts will be conducted during the typical weekday peak commute hours (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). Hexagon has up-to-date (less than two years old) traffic counts on file for nearby intersections on El Camino Real, but new count data is not available for most of intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project site. New manual peak-hour turning movement counts will be conducted at up to 10 intersections during both the AM and PM peak hours (20 intersection counts total). In addition, new manual AM and PM peak-hour counts will be conducted at the existing Lot F driveways. 3. Evaluation of Existing Conditions. Existing traffic conditions will be evaluated based on existing traffic volumes at the study intersections. The existing traffic conditions at the key study intersections will be evaluated using the Synchro software, which employs the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for intersection analyses, and is the designated City of Burlingame and C/CAG level of service methodology. 4. Project Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment. Estimates of trips to be added to the surrounding roadway network by the proposed residential development will be based on the trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of Traffic Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The directional distribution of site-generated traffic will be forecast based on the projected areas to be served by the residential development as well as existing travel patterns, relative locations of complementary land uses, and information obtained from previous traffic studies conducted for developments in the study area, as available. The site-generated traffic will be assigned to the roadway network based on the trip generation and distribution pattern discussed above. 5. Evaluation of Existing Plus Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic will be added to the existing traffic volumes. Intersection levels of service under existing plus project conditions will be evaluated using the Synchro software. Intersection level of service calculations will be conducted to estimate existing plus project traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak hours after the completion of the proposed residential development. Intersection impacts associated with the development of the proposed residential development will be evaluated relative to existing conditions. The existing plus project conditions analysis will include reassignment of the existing Lot F trips to the future parking structure on Lot N. 6. Evaluation of Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes represent the existing volumes plus the projected volumes from approved developments that have not yet been constructed and occupied. Approved project trips and/or approved project information will be obtained from the City of Burlingame. In addition, roadway improvements associated with approved developments will be assumed as directed by City staff. Intersection levels of service under background conditions will be evaluated using the City methodology. 7. Evaluation of Background Plus Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic will be added to the background condition traffic volumes. Intersection levels of service under background plus project conditions will be evaluated using the Synchro software. Intersection impacts associated with the proposed residential development will be evaluated relative to background conditions. The background plus project conditions analysis will include reassignment of the existing Lot F trips to the future parking structure on Lot N. Attachment A Ms. Erin Efner November 6, 2017 Page 3 of 4 8. Evaluation of Cumulative Conditions. Traffic volumes under cumulative no project conditions will either be obtained by applying a growth factor of 1% per year to the existing traffic volumes (growth factor taken from the C/CAG travel demand forecast model) or another source as directed by City staff. Roadway improvements associated with volume forecasts will be assumed as directed by City staff. Project-generated traffic will then be added to the cumulative traffic volumes to derive cumulative plus project volumes. Intersection levels of service under cumulative conditions with and without the project will be evaluated using the Synchro software. Cumulative intersection impacts associated with the proposed project will be evaluated relative to cumulative no project conditions. 9. Site Access, On-Site Circulation, and Parking. A review of the project site plan will be performed to determine the overall adequacy of site access and on-site circulation in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. This will include a quantitative analysis of the anticipated traffic volumes at the site’s driveway, as well as a qualitative analysis of the proposed site circulation and parking layout. The site plan review will consider driveway location and dimensions, sight distance, truck access, pedestrian access and circulation, and vehicle queuing. Parking supply will be evaluated relative to the City of Burlingame parking requirements. 10. Signal Warrant Analysis. The need for future signalization at selected unsignalized study intersections near the project site will be evaluated on the basis of the Peak Hour Warrant (Warrant 3 – Part B) in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The warrant will be evaluated using peak-hour volumes for all study scenarios. 11. Evaluation of Vehicle Queuing. For selected locations where the project would add a significant number of left-turning vehicles (e.g., more than 10 trips per left-turn lane), the adequacy of existing and/or planned storage at turn pockets will be assessed by means of comparison with expected maximum vehicle queues. Vehicle queues will be estimated using a Poisson probability distribution. 12. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities. A qualitative analysis of the project’s effect on transit services in the area and on bicycle and pedestrian circulation in the study area will be included in the traffic report. The traffic study will identify any deficiencies due to the project and will recommend improvements if necessary. 13. Description of Impacts and Recommendations. Based on the results of the intersection level of service analysis, impacts of the site-generated traffic will be identified and described. Recommendations will be formulated that identify the locations and types of improvements or modifications necessary to mitigate significant near-term or long-range project impacts, if any. Improvements could include street widenings, lane additions, changes in lane usage, or modifications to existing traffic signals. 14. Reports and Meetings. Our findings and recommendations will be summarized in a draft TIA report. Hexagon Transportation Consultants will respond to editorial comments on the draft report and prepare a final report. This proposal does not include attendance at any meetings. Meetings with the project team and/or City staff, as well as appearances or presentations at neighborhood meetings or public hearings, shall be considered additional services and will be billed separately on a time and materials basis. Attachment A Ms. Erin Efner November 6, 2017 Page 4 of 4 Additional Services Any work not specifically referenced in the above Scope of Work—for example analyzing a modified project description or project alternative, analyzing different phases of development, conducting additional counts of any kind, analyzing more than 15 intersections, analyzing roadway segments or freeway segments, analyzing the proposed new parking structure, developing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, drawing conceptual plans for mitigation measures, or attending any meetings— shall be considered additional services. Additional services will require additional budget and additional time. Time of Performance Barring any unforeseen delays, a draft traffic report will be submitted approximately four weeks after: (1) authorization to proceed, (2) City approval of our proposed scope of work, (3) receipt of background project data (ATI), and (4) receipt of all new count data. Overall, we estimate a draft traffic report will be delivered to you in approximately ten weeks. Note that this schedule is subject to the responsiveness of City staff to our requests for information. The final traffic report will be delivered one week after receipt of all review comments. We are ready to start work immediately upon authorization and are prepared to sign your standard contract agreement. Cost of Services The total fee for the Scope of Services (Tasks 1 through 14) rendered under this agreement is quoted for a lump sum amount of $40,000, which includes $5,000 for data collection (i.e., traffic counts). Billings will be conducted monthly, on a percent complete basis. This price quote is good for 30 days and assumes all project-related activities will be completed within one year. Extended project schedules may require additional budget for project administration. We look forward to working with you on this project and appreciate your consideration of Hexagon Transportation Consultants for this assignment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you. Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Gary K. Black President Brian Jackson Senior Associate Rueben R. Rodriguez Engineer Attachment A Proposal to Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. ATTACHMENT B – EDWARD L PACK ASSOCIATES SCOPE OF WORK ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS November 6, 2017 Ms. Erin Efner ICF 620 Folsom Street 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 Subject: Proposal to Perform a Noise Assessment Study for the Planned “The Villages at Burlingame” Multi-family and Parking Structure Development, Park Road and Lorton Avenue, Burlingame Dear Ms. Efner: We are pleased with the opportunity to submit this proposal to perform a noise assessment study for the planned “The Villages at Burlingame” multi-family and parking structure development along Park Road and Lorton Avenue in Burlingame. Upon review of the building plans, we propose the following scope-of-work: 1) Conduct on-site noise level measurements of the existing ambient noise environment at residential properties adjacent to the south of the proposed parking structure. 2) Determine the noise levels at the adjacent residences generated by the parking structure. Determine the noise levels at the adjacent residences generated by roof-top mechanical equipment at the residential portion of the project. Determine the project-generated noise levels from demolition and construction of the project. Determine the effect of project traffic noise on the existing noise environment. 3) Calculate the Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) and evaluate the noise exposure impacts against the standard of the City of Burlingame Noise Element and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 4) Develop noise mitigation measures, as necessary, to achieve compliance with the standards. EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1975 HAMILTON AVENUE Acoustical Consultants TEL: 408-371-1195 SUITE 26 FAX: 408-371-1196 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 www.packassociates.com Attachment B - 2 - 5) Prepare and submit a report including our findings and recommendations. The above work tasks will require 18 man-hours of engineering labor and our fee is Not- to-Exceed $4,500.00. Terms of payment are: Due & Payable upon completion of the report. Required attendance at meetings, presentations or other required services beyond the above described scope-of-work will be billed on a time and materials basis at $250.00/hr. portal to portal. Public testimony, meetings or engineering commencing after 6:00 p.m. or on weekends will be billed on a time and materials basis at $300.00/hr. Judicial/expert witness testimony is billed at $300.00/hr. This proposal can be made a contract by affixing an authorized signature and date of acceptance in the spaces below and returning one copy to us. A Purchase Order or Consultant Service Agreement may also be submitted. Thank you for considering us for this project and we look forward to working with you. Respectfully Submitted, EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. Jeffrey K. Pack President ACCEPTANCE: Signature: _____________________ Title: _____________________ Print Name: _____________________ Date: _____________________ P.O. #: _____________________ IDF: THE VILLAGES AT BURLINGAME Attachment B Proposal to Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. ATTACHMENT C – RAMBOLL SCOPE OF WORK 1/7 November 9, 2017 Ramboll Environ 201 California Street Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 USA T +1 415 796 1950 F +1 415 398 5812 www.ramboll-environ.com Via Electronic Mail Erin Efner ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. 620 Folsom Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94107 erin.efner@icfi.com PROPOSAL FOR AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR THE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME ON PARK ROAD, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA Dear Ms. Efner: Ramboll Environ US Corporation (“Ramboll Environ,” formerly ENVIRON International Corporation) is pleased to present this proposal to ICF Jones & Stokes (“ICF”) to analyse air quality impacts of the construction and operation of the Village at Burlingame on Park Road in Burlingame, California (“Project” or the “Site”). This proposal provides our understanding of the Project, regulatory background, and a description of the scope of work proposed, along with the cost estimate. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING We understand that the proposed Project, as currently designed, includes the following elements: • Demolition of parking lot “F” (105 spaces) and parking lot “N” (94 spaces); • Construction of a five-level, 305 space parking structure on parking lot “N”; • Construction of a five story, 132 unit residential apartment building on lot “F”, with 78 units for affordable workforce housing and 54 of the units for affordable senior housing; • Construction of an underground parking structure for the residential building; and • 6,750 square foot public park/open space. REGULATORY BACKGROUND Ramboll Environ understands this Project is pursuing a Class 32 exemption for infill projects. Projects that qualify for a Class 32 exemption do not require analyses of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts, so this scope does not address GHG emissions. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines (“Guidelines”)1 provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality (AQ) impacts during the environmental review process consistent with 1 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2017. Attachment C 2/7 CEQA requirements. The analyses we propose herein and methods to perform the analysis is consistent with recommendations in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. PROPOSED TECHNICAL APPROACH Ramboll Environ proposes to conduct the following technical analyses to estimate emissions and health risk impacts from construction of the Project. Ramboll Environ will use the most up-to-date tools and methods to assess Project impacts. Individual tasks are described in detail below. Operational Emissions Estimation In its CEQA Guidelines, BAAQMD provides screening level sizes for land use projects in Table 3-1. As stated in the guidelines, “If the project meets the screening criteria in Table 3-1, the project would not result in the generation of operational-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors that exceed the Thresholds of Significance.” The screening level size for operational criteria air pollutants (CAPs) for mid-rise apartments2 is 494 dwelling units. The Project is 132 dwelling units, so it meets the screening criteria and additional analysis of operational CAP emissions is not required. Table 3-1 of the CEQA Guidelines does not provide screening levels for parking structures. However, parking structures do not generate mobile trips and only emit CAPs from area sources such as architectural coating, consumer products and landscaping. The parking structure is smaller in square footage than the apartment building. Because the apartment building meets the screening criteria with a large buffer and the parking structure is expected to have much lower emissions than the apartment building, we assume additional analysis of operational CAP emissions from the parking structure is not required. Thus, analysis of operational emissions will not be conducted, but the screening comparison will be documented in our technical documentation. Task 1. Project Construction Emissions BAAQMD also provides screening level sizes for construction emissions. The screening level size for construction criteria pollutants for mid-rise apartments is 240 dwelling units. The Project is 132 dwelling units, so it meets the screening criteria and additional analysis of construction criteria pollutant emissions is not required. However, as discussed in Task 2, a construction health risk assessment is needed and construction toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions are needed to perform that assessment. Thus, Ramboll Environ will estimate TAC and PM2.5 emissions from construction, but not CAPs. For cost estimation purposes, Ramboll Environ assumes all construction equipment will be diesel fired and the only TAC from construction will be diesel particulate matter (DPM). If gasoline, propane, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), or other equipment types are proposed, a supplemental cost estimate can be prepared at that time to incorporate corresponding TAC and PM2.5 emissions associated with such equipment, and the resulting risk. Ramboll Environ proposes to use CalEEMod® (California Emissions Estimator Model), or equivalent methods, for the development of the construction-related DPM and PM2.5 emissions inventory.3 CalEEMod® was developed by Ramboll Environ in collaboration with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for use in developing emission inventories suitable for CEQA analysis. 2 According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, “Mid-rise apartments are units located in rental buildings that have between 3 and 10 levels.” The Project is 5 levels, so would be considered a mid-rise apartment. 3 Software and User’s Guide available publically at www.caleemod.com. Version 2016.3.2. Attachment C 3/7 The model is publically available and employs widely accepted calculation methodologies for emission estimates combined with appropriate default data if site-specific information is not available. We will provide a data request for Project-specific data. If such data are not available, default assumptions specific for the Project size and type in consideration can be used when available. However, the default data may overestimate construction activity, particularly for the parking structure. The type of data we will request includes: 1. Equipment details and usage specific to all phases of construction, including the availability of Tier 4 equipment and line power to the site. Due to the proximity of other residences, construction impacts are unlikely to be below thresholds without some Tier 4 equipment;4 2. Total material imported and exported (in either tons of debris or cubic yards) for the site preparation and grading phases or equivalent hauling trips required; and 3. Tons of debris generated for the demolition phase or equivalent hauling trips required. For purposes of this cost estimate, Ramboll Environ assumes one CalEEMod® run, or set of equivalent calculations, will be required. Should additional runs, or rounds of calculations, be required due to refined data beyond the initial data collection or the incorporation of mitigation measures, a supplemental cost estimate can be prepared at that time. This task is estimated to cost $8,000, which includes a kick-off call with the Project Sponsor, the preparation of a data request, one CalEEMod® run (or set of equivalent calculations), and one conference call with ICF and the Project Sponsor. Task 2. HRA Methodology and Risk Results Both the residential building and parking structure are surrounded by residential and other sensitive locations. Thus, the impact of health impact of the construction of the Project needs to be analysed. This task includes estimating health risks based on emissions from Project construction. Ramboll Environ will base the health risk assessment (HRA) on the total exhaust PM10 (assuming all exhaust PM10 from construction equipment is DPM) and PM2.5 emissions from exhaust attributable to onsite equipment during the construction of the Project. As mentioned above, Ramboll Environ assumes all construction equipment will be diesel or electric. For construction emissions, potential receptors evaluated will include offsite sensitive receptors, including nearby residents, childcare centers, and schools. Ramboll Environ will order an offsite receptor report from Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) to identify sensitive receptors nearby the Project to be included in the evaluation. The EDR report will be supplemented by manual checks to identify nearby residential areas. For purposes of this proposal, Ramboll Environ assumes there will not be any early occupancy of residential units during construction on any part of the site. To estimate ambient air concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 from diesel exhaust from onsite construction activity, Ramboll Environ will use the most recent version of the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency regulatory air dispersion model (AERMOD). We will use meteorological data collected at San Francisco International Airport. The most recent five-year period available in model ready format will be used (2012-2016). The estimated annual concentration of PM2.5 at the maximum offsite receptor will be compared with the proposed BAAQMD CEQA threshold for PM2.5 from a single source. The maximum annual 4 In particular, appropriate default data for the additional excavation required for an underground parking structure is not available in CalEEMod®. Attachment C 4/7 concentration of DPM at the various types of offsite sensitive receptors will be used to estimate excess lifetime cancer risks and noncancer hazard index (HI). Estimated cancer risks and noncancer HI will be calculated according to the current BAAQMD Guidance and using default BAAQMD and California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) exposure assumptions. Ramboll Environ will use the most recent OEHHA Guidelines released in March 2015, which include refinements of the assumptions and methodologies relating to children. If the construction risk thresholds are exceeded, Ramboll Environ can discuss potential mitigation scenarios. If evaluation of mitigation scenarios is needed, Ramboll Environ can provide an additional cost estimate for this effort. We assume construction of the parking structure and residential building will be completed before residents move into the residential building. If construction will be phased and residents will be present as construction continues, an additional cost estimate can be provided. This task is estimated to cost $15,000, which includes a sensitive receptor search, modeling using AERMOD and BAAQMD-processed meteorological data, one round of health risk calculations using the new OEHHA Guidance, and one conference call with ICF and the Project Sponsor. Task 3. Cumulative Analysis The BAAQMD recommends performing a cumulative analysis of offsite sources on the maximum individual sensitive receptor from construction. The cumulative HRA will evaluate the health impact of offsite sources on the individual who is maximally exposed from the construction activity. The offsite sources include permitted stationary sources and nearby roadways. Caltrain is about 1,000 feet away from the Project. Due to the distance from the Project and the plans to electrify Caltrain locomotives, we expect this source to have minimal cumulative impact. Therefore, we do not propose to analyze it. If an analysis of the health impact of Caltrain is needed, Ramboll Environ can provide an additional cost estimate for this effort. In accordance with BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Ramboll Environ will evaluate the health impact of all sources within 1,000 feet of the Project on the maximally exposed offsite sensitive receptor identified in the construction HRA. The BAAQMD provides tools with conservative estimates of impacts from certain offsite sources, including a stationary source tool,5 highway screening tool,6 and roadway screening tool.7 Ramboll Environ will use these tools and other screening methods, as discussed below, to evaluate each of the sources within 1,000 feet of the Project. The impacts from each source, including the construction of the Project, will be added together and compared against thresholds. In 2015, the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessments (OEHHA) released new guidance on how to evaluate cancer risk. The BAAQMD screening tools were developed under the old guidance. Thus, Ramboll Environ will use scaling factors approved by BAAQMD to convert risks from the screen tools to be consistent with new guidance. In 2015, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA does not require an analysis of the impact of the surrounding community on new residents. Thus, we assume an analysis of off-site sources on new residents of the Project is not required. However, if this analysis is required by the City of Burlingame for approvals, we can prepare this analysis under a separate scope. 5 BAAQMD.2012. San Mateo County stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. 6 BAAQMD. 2011. San Mateo County Highway Screening Analysis Tool. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. 7 BAAQMD. 2015. Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. Attachment C 5/7 Task 3a. Roadway Air Toxics Analysis The Project is within 1,000 feet of El Camino Real, which is a major roadway. Vehicles on the roadway emit TACs from the combustion of fuel and thus must be evaluated in an offsite risk evaluation. Ramboll Environ proposes to use the BAAQMD screening tools to estimate the health impact from all roadways with over 10,000 vehicles per day within 1,000 feet of the Project. The health impact will be evaluated at the maximally exposed offsite sensitive receptor identified in the construction HRA. Ramboll Environ will work with the City of Burlingame to obtain traffic volumes for nearby roadways. As discussed above, the cancer risk found in the tool will be scaled to account for the new OEHHA guidance. Task 3b. Stationary Source Air Toxics Analysis Permitted stationary sources can emit TACs through their operations. Ramboll Environ will use BAAQMD’s tool with risks from permitted stationary sources to evaluate impact of other sources within 1,000 feet of the Project. Where appropriate, Ramboll Environ will use the distance multiplier to take into account the dispersion with distance from the source and will use refined values from BAAQMD where available. As discussed above, the cancer risk found in the tool will be scaled to account for the new OEHHA guidance. Task 3 is estimated to cost $3,000. Task 4. Documentation Ramboll Environ will communicate the preliminary results of the analysis to ICF and the Project Sponsor via conference call prior to drafting final documentation. At your direction, we will prepare documentation of our analysis. This documentation can take two forms: 1. Annotated tables and figures summarizing the results of the analysis and the methodologies used. 2. A technical memorandum with annotated tables and figures summarizing the results of the analysis and the methodologies used. Supporting documentation for the calculations and assumptions will be discussed in the report. The form of documentation is dependent on cost and amount of documentation needed. Both forms will be prepared as a stand-alone documents; therefore, all aspects of the analyses will be presented. References will be made to the original source documents from which environmental data and information are derived; the data that forms the basis of the calculations will be presented. All key assumptions and descriptions of methodologies will be presented. The figures and tables will be in PDF format. For cost estimation purposes, we assume one iteration of client review and that comments will be editorial in nature. Annotated tables and figures (Option 1) is estimated to cost $5,000 and the technical memorandum (Option 2) is estimated to cost an additional $5,000. COST ESTIMATE The following table describes the cost estimates and scope for each task. Attachment C 6/7 Table 1: Task List and Cost Estimates Task Description Estimated Cost 1 Project Construction Emissions - Kick-off call - Preparation of Data Request - One CalEEMod® Run (or set of equivalent calculations) - One conference call $8,000 2 HRA Methodology and Risk Results - Sensitive receptor search - AERMOD modeling, with BAAQMD-processed meteorological data - Health risk calculations using new OEHHA Guidance - One conference call $15,000 3 Cumulative Analysis - Roadway Air Toxics Analysis - Stationary Source Air Toxics Analysis $3,000 4 Documentation - One conference call to discuss draft results - Preparation of annotated tables and figures - Preparation of technical memorandum (optional - $5,000) $5,000 - $10,000 Total $31,000 - $36,000 The cost estimate for the proposed work is approximately $31,000 and $36,000 if the technical memorandum is desired. Ramboll Environ will conduct this work on a time-and-material basis in accordance with our General Terms and Conditions shown in Attachment A and rates shown in Attachment B. This represents our best estimate of the expected cost to complete the evaluation, and is based on the assumptions described above. Ramboll Environ will not exceed the cost estimate listed here without prior authorization from you. We will work with all parties to deliver the work products on a mutually agreed upon schedule. Attachment C 7/7 CLOSING Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this matter. We look forward to working with you to complete this assignment. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact us at your convenience. Yours sincerely, //Shari Beth Libicki// //Sarah Manzano// Shari Libicki, PhD Sarah Manzano Principal Senior Consultant D +1 415 796 1933 D +1 415 426 5011 slibicki@ramboll.com smanzano@ramboll.com Attachments: A: General Terms and Conditions B: Rates Authorization to Proceed with Scope of Work for up to $36,000 for the Air Quality Analysis for Village at Burlingame: Accepted and Agreed to: Name: Signature: Title: Date: Attachment C Ramboll Environ ATTACHMENT A GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Attachment C 1/4 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Ramboll Environ US Corporation, a Virginia corporation, (“Ramboll Environ”) agrees to provide professional services under the following General Terms and Conditions: 1. Fees: Ramboll Environ bills for its services on a time and materials basis using standard hourly rates. If requested, we will provide an estimate of the fees for a particular task, and we will not exceed that estimate without prior Client approval. For deposition and testimony we charge premium hourly rates. In certain circumstances we will undertake an assignment on a fixed fee basis if the requirements can be clearly defined. 2. Invoicing: Ramboll Environ bills its clients on a monthly basis using a standard invoice format. This format provides for a description of work performed and a summary of professional fees, expenses, and communication and reproduction charges. For more detailed invoicing requests, Ramboll Environ reserves the right to charge for invoice preparation time by staff members. 3. Payment: Ramboll Environ invoices are payable UPON RECEIPT. Ramboll Environ reserves the right to assess a late charge of 1.5 percent per month for any amounts not paid within 30 days of the receipt date. Ramboll Environ also reserves the right to stop work or withhold work product if invoices remain unpaid for more than 60 days past the receipt date. If Ramboll Environ’s work relates to a business transaction, Ramboll Environ shall be paid in a timely fashion, without regard to whether or when the transaction closes. If Ramboll Environ legal counsel determines that Ramboll Environ is required to take legal action to obtain payment for unpaid invoices and Ramboll Environ prevails in court, Client agrees to pay all of Ramboll Environ’s costs associated with the legal action, including reasonable legal fees. 4. Subcontractors: Ramboll Environ has a policy that its Clients should directly retain other contractors whose services are required in connection with field services for a project (e.g., drillers, analytical laboratories, transporters). As a service to you, we will advise you with respect to selecting other such contractors and will assist you in coordinating and monitoring their performance. In no event will we assume any liability or responsibility for the work performed by other contractors you may hire. When Ramboll Environ engages a subcontractor on behalf of the Client, the expenses incurred, including rental of special equipment necessary for the work, will be billed as they are incurred, at cost plus 15 percent. By engaging us to perform these services, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold Ramboll Environ, its directors, officers, employees, and other agents harmless from and against any claims, demands, judgment, obligations, liabilities and costs (including reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees) relating in any way to the performance or non-performance of work by another contractor, except claims for personal injury or property damage to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Ramboll Environs’ employees. 5. Reimbursable Expenses: Project-related expenses including travel, priority mail, and overnight delivery, outside reproduction and courier services will be billed at cost plus 15 percent. The use of company-owned cars, trucks, and vans will be charged at $125 per day. The use of company-owned equipment and protective clothing will be billed in accordance with our standard fee schedule. 6. Access and Information: Client agrees to grant or obtain for Ramboll Environ reasonable access to any sites to be investigated as part of Ramboll Environ’s scope of work. Client also agrees to indicate to Ramboll Environ the boundary lines of the site and the location of any underground Attachment C Ramboll Environ’s General Terms and Conditions 2/4 structures, including tanks, piping, water, telephone, electric, gas, sewer, and other utility lines. Client agrees to notify Ramboll Environ of any hazardous site conditions or hazardous materials, about which Client has knowledge and to which Ramboll Environ’s employees or contractors may be exposed while performing services on behalf of Client, including providing copies of relevant Material Safety Data Sheets. Client also shall make available to Ramboll Environ all information within its control necessary to allow Ramboll Environ to perform its services and agrees to comply with reasonable requests by Ramboll Environ for clarification or additional information. Client shall be responsible for the accuracy of this information. Ramboll Environ shall not be responsible for any damage to underground structures or utilities to the extent such damage was caused by incomplete or inaccurate information provided to us by the client or other party. Client agrees to make Ramboll Environ aware of any unsafe conditions at any project site about which Client has knowledge. 7. Reporting Requirements: Client may be required under federal, state or local statutes or regulations to report the results of Ramboll Environ’s services to appropriate regulatory agencies. Ramboll Environ is not responsible for advising Client about its reporting obligations and Client agrees that it shall be responsible for all reporting, unless Ramboll Environ has an independent duty to report under applicable law. In those situations, Ramboll Environ will provide Client with advance notice that Ramboll Environ believes that it has an obligation to report as well as the substance of the report it intends to make. 8. RCRA Compliance: Client shall be responsible for complying with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et. seq. (“RCRA”) and its implementing regulations in connection with Ramboll Environ’s work under this Agreement. Client may request Ramboll Environ’s assistance in meeting its RCRA and other similar waste management obligations, including analytical testing to assist Client in proper characterization of waste, identifying potential transporters and disposal facilities for waste (provided that Client shall make the final selection of both the transporter and disposal facility), entering into subcontracts or purchase order arrangements with the transporters and/or disposal facilities selected by Client, and preparing manifests for the Client’s approval and execution. Client agrees that, by virtue of providing these services, Ramboll Environ shall not be deemed a “generator” or a party who “arranges” for the “transportation,” “treatment” or “disposal” of any “hazardous waste” or “hazardous substance” (as those terms are defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act or “CERCLA”, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601). Client agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Ramboll Environ, its directors, officers, employees and agents, harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, judgments, obligations, liabilities, any costs (including reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees) relating to: (1) Ramboll Environ’s work in assisting Client with its RCRA obligations; and (2) the transportation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous substances or hazardous waste generated by the field activities conducted for Client. 9. Confidentiality: We treat all information obtained from Clients as confidential, unless such information is previously known to us, comes into the public domain through no fault of ours, or is furnished to us by a third party who is under no obligation to keep the information confidential. If we are subpoenaed to disclose confidential information obtained from you or about our work for you, we will give you reasonable notice and the opportunity to object before releasing any confidential information. 10. Independent Contractor: Client agrees that Ramboll Environ is acting as an independent contractor and shall retain responsibility for and control over the means for performing its services. Attachment C Ramboll Environ’s General Terms and Conditions 3/4 Nothing in these Terms and Conditions shall be construed to make Ramboll Environ or any of its officers, employees or agents, an employee or agent of Client. 11. Standard of Care: In performing services, we agree to exercise professional judgment, made on the basis of the information available to us, and to use the same degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised in similar circumstances by reputable consultants performing comparable services in the same geographic area. This standard of care shall be judged as of the time the services are rendered, and not according to later standards. Ramboll Environ makes no other warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to its services. Estimates of cost, recommendations and opinions are made on the basis of our experience and professional judgment; they are not guarantees. Reasonable people may disagree on matters involving professional judgment and, accordingly, a difference of opinion on a question of professional judgment shall not excuse a Client from paying for services rendered. Client recognizes that there may be hazardous conditions at sites to be investigated as part of Ramboll Environ’s work. Client acknowledges that Ramboll Environ has neither created nor contributed to the existence of any hazardous, toxic or otherwise dangerous substance or condition at the site(s) which are covered by Ramboll Environ’s work. Client also recognizes that some investigative procedures may carry the risk of release or dispersal of pre-existing contamination, even when exercising due care. Client releases Ramboll Environ from any claim (including claims under CERCLA or state law) that it is an “operator” of any site where it performs work for Client or a “generator” or a party who “arranges” for the “transportation,” “treatment” or “disposal” of any “hazardous substance” (as those terms are defined in CERCLA), by virtue of its work for Client at any site. 12. Insurance: Ramboll Environ shall maintain the following insurance coverage while it performs the work described in Exhibit “A:” (1) statutory Workers Compensation and Employer’s Liability Coverage; (2) General Liability for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 aggregate; (3) Automobile Liability with $1,000,000 combined single limit; and (4) Professional Liability and Contractor’s Pollution Liability with a combined single limit of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. If Client desires additional insurance or special endorsements, premiums associated with that coverage would be considered a reimbursable expense. Upon request, we will provide you with a certificate of insurance. 13. Third Parties: Ramboll Environ’s services are solely for Client’s benefit and may not be relied upon by any third party without Ramboll Environ’s express written consent. Any use or dissemination of Ramboll Environ work products (including Ramboll Environ reports), without the written consent of Ramboll Environ, shall be at Client’s risk and Client shall indemnify and defend Ramboll Environ from any and all claims, demands, judgments, liabilities and costs (including reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees), related to the unauthorized use or dissemination of Ramboll Environ’s work. Client also agrees to be solely responsible for and to defend, indemnify, and hold Ramboll Environ harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, judgments, liabilities and costs (including reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees), asserted by third parties arising out of or in any way related to our performance or non-performance of services, except for claims of personal injury or property damage to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Ramboll Environ’s employees. 14. Limitation of Liability: Ramboll Environ shall be liable only for direct damages that result from Ramboll Environ's negligence or willful misconduct in the performance of its services. UNDER NO Attachment C Ramboll Environ’s General Terms and Conditions 4/4 CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL RAMBOLL ENVIRON BE LIABLE FOR INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE CLIENT'S FAILURE TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER LAW OR CONTRACT. Ramboll Environ shall not be liable for and Client shall indemnify Ramboll Environ from and against all claims, demands, liabilities and costs (including attorneys’ and expert fees) arising out of or in any way related to our performance or non- performance of services, including all on-site activities except to the extent caused by Ramboll Environ’s negligence or willful misconduct. In no event shall our liability exceed the amount paid to us by you for our professional services (net of reimbursable expenses) and Client specifically releases Ramboll Environ for any damages, claims, liabilities and costs in excess of that amount. 15. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon ten (10) days written notice to the other. If Client terminates the Agreement, Client agrees to pay Ramboll Environ for all services performed until the effective date of the termination. Client’s obligations under Paragraphs 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 20 shall survive termination of this Agreement and/or completion of the services hereunder. 16. Disputes: All disputes under this Agreement shall be resolved by binding arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. If our personnel or documents are subpoenaed for depositions or court appearance in any dispute related to the project (except disputes between Ramboll Environ and Client related to our services), Client agrees to reimburse us at our then current billing rates for responding to those subpoenas, including out-of-pocket reimbursable expenses. 17. Scope of Agreement: Once Client has signed Ramboll Environ’s proposal, that proposal and these Terms and Conditions shall constitute the complete and exclusive Agreement between the parties and will supersede all prior or contemporaneous agreements, whether written or oral. No provision of these Terms and Conditions may be waived, altered or modified except in writing and signed by Ramboll Environ. Client may use standard business forms, such as purchase orders, for convenience only; any provision on those forms that conflict with these Terms and Conditions shall not apply. 18. Nonsolicitation: Both Ramboll Environ and Client agree during the term of this Agreement and for 12 months following its termination for any reason, neither party will solicit for employment, or hire as an employee or contractor, any personnel of the other party involved in the performance of services hereunder. 19. Force Majeure: Ramboll Environ shall not be liable in any way because of any delay or failure in performance hereunder due to unforeseen circumstances or causes beyond its control, including without limitation strike, lockout, embargo, riot, war, act of terrorism, fire, act of God, accident, failure or breakdown of components necessary to order completion, subcontractor or supplier non- performance, inability to obtain labor, materials or manufacturing facilities, or compliance with any law, regulation or order. 20. Intellectual Property. If Ramboll Environ delivers a written product to the Client, Ramboll Environ hereby grants to Client a perpetual, nonexclusive, royalty-free license to copy, modify and otherwise utilize the product in connection with the Client project for which the Services were provided. Ramboll Environ retains all intellectual property rights. REVISION – May 2015 Attachment C Ramboll Environ ATTACHMENT A RATES Attachment C Ramboll Environ US Corporation 2017 Rate Structure Ramboll Environ will bill monthly for the actual time and expenses incurred on the client's behalf in performance of the contracted effort. Labor will be billed at the fixed hourly rates indicated below. Materials and supplies, travel, and any other direct costs will be billed at actual cost plus a handling charge (G&A) of 15%. Any subcontracted effort will be billed at actual cost plus a handling charge of 15%. Ramboll Environ does not directly charge for in house copies or normal phone company charges. Labor Category Rates Principal $320 Principal Consultant $320 Sr. Managing Consultant $275 Managing Consultant $245 Senior Consultant 2 $220 Senior Consultant 1 $185 Consultant 3 $175 Consultant 2 $160 Consultant 1 $115 Drafting $110 Support $85 This document is PROPRIETARY to Ramboll Environ. It is being made available for the recipient's proposal evaluation and/or contract administration purposes only. No right is granted to the recipient to use, disclose, or reproduce any information presented herein without Ramboll Environ’s express written permission. Attachment C Proposal to Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. ATTACHMENT D – BUDGET Attachment D. Cost Estimate for the Village at Burlingame Project Class 32 ExemptionConsulting StaffEfner EChapman K Hunt A Roberts D Rocha L Hatcher S Scott E Mathias JHexagonEdward L Pack RambollProject DirectorProject ManagerDeputy Project Manager Hazards Hydrology Air Quality NoiseDocument ProductionTrans Noise Air Quality TaskProj DirSr Consult IISr Consult IISr Consult IMng ConsultMng ConsultAssoc Consult II Asst Consult Subtotal Subtotal Labor TotalDirect Expenses Total PriceTask 1. Kick-Off, Scoping, and Team Meeting 2 4 6$1,846 $0 $1,846Task 2. Project Description 2 8 2 $1,528 $0 $1,528Task 3. Admin Draft 1 Class 32 Exemption 6 14 32 8 4 4 2 8 $11,266 $40,000 $4,500 $36,000 $80,500 $91,766Task 4. Admin Draft 2, Screencheck, Final 2 10 26 2 2 1 1 4 $6,644 $0 $6,644Task 5. Project Management/Meetings 4 12 4$3,332 $0 $3,332Total hours 14 42 76 10 6 5 3 14ICF E&P 2017 Billing Rates$235 $158 $124 $130 $175 $208 $112 $110Subtotals $3,290 $6,636 $9,424 $1,300 $1,050 $1,040 $336 $1,540 $24,616 $40,000 $4,500 $36,000 $80,500 $105,116Direct Expenses523.02 Reproductions$500523.04 Postage and Delivery$100523.05 Travel, Auto, incld. Mileage at current IRS rate (.535/mile)$100Mark up on all non-labor costs and subcontractors: 10%$8,120Direct expense subtotal$8,820Total price$113,936SubcontractorEmployee NameProject RoleLabor ClassificationDate printed 11/13/2017 7:10 AMApproved by Finance { sh }6. Attach D_Budget.xls Proposal to Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. ATTACHMENT E – SCHEDULE Attachment E - ScheduleMonth 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5Task Description1234567891011121314151617181920Project KickoffKickoff, Scoping, Team MeetingICF Prepares Project DescriptionTechnical StudiesHexagon, Edward L Pack, and Ramboll Prepare Tech StudiesICF Reviews Tech StudiesSubconsultants Revise Tech Studies (as needed)Prepare Draft Class 32 ExemptionICF Prepares Draft 1 Class 32 ExemptionCity/Applicant Reviews Draft 1 ExemptionICF/Subs Prepare Draft 2 ExemptionCity/Applicant Reviews Draft 2 ExemptionICF Prepares Screencheck ExemptionCity/Applicant Reviews Screencheck ExemptionICF Prepares Final Exemption 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8l MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Bradley McCulley, City Librarian – (650) 558-7404 Subject: Approval of Public Library Association Conference Out of State Travel RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the out-of-state travel request of two library staff members, Cynthia Rider and Jason Yap. BACKGROUND The Public Library Association’s annual conference will be held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 20-24, 2018. Cynthia Rider, Adult Services librarian, and Jason Yap, Technical Services library assistant (currently working on Masters of Library & Information Science), both are full-time employees with PLA memberships and have requested to attend this conference for their professional development. As part of the Library’s new Strategic Plan, employees are highly recommended to take advantage of the opportunities these conferences provide for staff professional growth and overall job satisfaction. DISCUSSION The early bird registration fee for the conference is $280, the room rate will be $199/night for three nights, and air travel will be approximately $399. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds have been budgeted in the library’s travel, conference, and meetings account for attendance at this conference. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Sigalle Michael, Sustainability Coordinator – (650) 558-7261 Subject: Informational Report on the Installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations at City Hall and the Police Station RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council accept this informational report on the installation of electric vehicle charging stations at City Hall and the Police Station. Staff plans to release a request for proposals to collect competitive bids and select a contractor to complete the project. BACKGROUND California is working to expand electric vehicle (EV) purchases and the EV charging station network to meet adopted greenhouse gas emission goals. AB 32 directs the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15% in 2020 and by 80% in 2050; and Executive Order B-30-15 established a reduction target of 40% by 2030. Transforming the state’s transportation system away from gasoline to zero-emission vehicles is a key part of California’s strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the growth of EVs will significantly improve air quality as vehicle emissions are the largest contributor to air pollution in California and in the Bay Area. Burlingame’s climate action goals are aligned with the state’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. Burlingame adopted its first climate action plan in 2009 and is currently updating the plan as part of the City’s general plan update process. The City’s general plan and updated climate action plan will stay consistent with the state’s climate goals and will include strategies to enhance and support Burlingame’s EV network. In the draft general plan, policy HP 2-5: Municipal Electric Vehicles calls for the City to “install electric vehicle charging stations to incentivize City employees to use electric vehicles.” DISCUSSION Several Burlingame staff members have inquired about workplace charging stations to charge their EV vehicles at work. Workplace charging stations are becoming more common as EV use and demand for charging grows. Workplaces are installing EV chargers to support their employees, ease commutes, recruit and retain employees, and meet corporate goals and/or government regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For commuters, driving an EV has multiple benefits including: reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, avoiding fossil fuel use, saving money, using carpool lane benefits, and accessing federal and state rebates. A Municipal EV Stations January 16, 2018 2 recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that EVs are cheaper to fuel and drive than gasoline vehicles, and drivers can save around $1,077/year at the pump. The national average price of electricity as a vehicle fuel is around $1 per gallon, while gasoline prices range between $2-4.50 per gallon. Staff surveyed Burlingame City employees to gauge interest and demand for EV chargers. City Hall staff expressed the highest demand for chargers, followed by Police Station staff. The survey results are summarized in the table below. EV Charging Station Survey Results (2017) City Hall Police Corp Yard Rec Center Library Parks Yard Currently drives an EV 6 5 3 2 0 0 Would charge at work if could 6 5 3 2 0 0 Would pay to charge at work 6 4 1 1 0 0 Would purchase an EV if charging stations were installed 8 5 1 4 0 1 Many local jurisdictions have workplace EV charging stations. The cities of San Carlos, San Mateo, Menlo Park, and Portola Valley have EV charging stations at their City Halls for staff and public use; and the cities of Millbrae, San Mateo, and Redwood City have EV charging stations at their libraries for staff and public use. Burlingame has four public EV charging ports at the Burlingame Caltrain Station. In addition, two Burlingame auto dealerships and a few hotels have EV chargers for their customers, and the City recently approved an agreement with EVgo to install three high speed chargers in downtown Broadway to primarily serve the neighborhood’s multifamily residents. Staff applied for and was awarded a grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Charge! program for $10,000 to install four municipal level 2 EV stations ($2,500/station): one each at City Hall, the Police Station, Corp Yard, and Main Library. The Recreation Center was not considered since it is slotted for a renovation and will include EV chargers at that time. Staff received a preliminary cost estimate of $53,510 for installation of the four chargers. Additional costs include soft costs for staff time and permit fees estimated to be 35% of the total, or $18,728; and ChargePoint’s annual fee of $400/charger or $1,600/year. The total cost of the project (excluding ChargePoint’s annual fee) is estimated to be $72,238. With the Charge! grant, the total would be $62,238. After careful consideration, staff is recommending that the City focus its resources on the municipal sites with the highest demand – City Hall and the Police Station. The preliminary cost estimate for installing EV chargers at the two sites is $27,764; plus 35%, or $9,717 in soft costs, for a total of $37,481(does not include ChargePoint’s annual fee). The City Hall and Police Station chargers will be single stations, each with two ports allowing two vehicles to charge at once. The stations will contain signage stating a two-hour time limit for charging to allow for turnover. The Police Station charger would be installed in the station’s back Municipal EV Stations January 16, 2018 3 lot and be usable only for staff. In City Hall, the charger would be installed in the building’s open lot and be available for staff exclusively during business hours. The station will be available for public use at all other times to benefit the community and surrounding multifamily residents. Staff recommends installing ChargePoint chargers primarily for the capability to charge users directly per use. With ChargePoint, users pay for their EV charging by credit card or with a ChargePoint card. Charging at time-of-use avoids back-end financing hassles to charge staff for electricity use. The City’s existing ChargePoint chargers at the Caltrain Station cost the user $.30 per kWh. The price represents the estimated cost recovery for electricity rates and ChargePoint fees. The charging trends at the Caltrain EV chargers last year indicate that users charged for an average of two hours and spent an average of $3.00 per charge. Staff believes that the usage at the Corp Yard and Library will not justify the cost, annual fees, and grant administrative time for the EV chargers. The proposed charging station at the Corp Yard would be located by the nearest power source in the back parking lot and be for staff use only. Corp Yard staff did not express a strong demand for this amenity. The proposed charger at the Library would be located by a power source by the parking lot’s elevator and be available for both staff and public use. Library staff indicated no demand for EV charging, and if a staff member were to need charging, he or she could use the nearby City Hall charger. For the public, staff believes that better opportunities will be available in the future for high speed chargers in downtown Burlingame. Staff will continue to explore other opportunities to enhance the City’s public EV network. Staff inquired with the Air District whether the City could receive a grant for just the two stations rather than four. Air District staff denied the request and explained that the $10,000 grant awarded is the minimum size grant allowable by the Charge! program. Staff initially applied for the Charge! grant with a misunderstanding of the eligible grant amount. The $10,000 grant award is significantly less than staff’s expectations. Therefore, staff reevaluated the best use of City funds for installing EV chargers. Staff recommends declining the grant and investing in EV stations in the City buildings with the highest anticipated usage and biggest benefit to staff commuters – City Hall and the Police Station. FISCAL IMPACT The total project cost is estimated to be about $40,000, but will be determined once the competitive bid process is complete, and the final project details have been decided. Staff will request the establishment of a capital project budget for the project with the City’s mid-year report and analysis. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10a MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Ana Silva, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Consider Appointment to the Mosquito & Vector Control Board RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council make appointment to fill one vacancy on the Mosquito and Vector Control Board or take other action. BACKGROUND The position is up for appointment due to the expired term of Board member Joe Galligan. The vacancy was publicized, and notification letters were sent to past commission applicants. One application was received from the incumbent, Joe Galligan. Mr. Galligan was interviewed by the Council on January 3, 2018. The Council may elect to make the appointment for either a two-year term (ending January 2020) or a four-year term (ending in January 2022). 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10b MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director– (650) 558-7209 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment of the City Manager’s Employment Agreement to Provide a Salary Increase of 3%, and Approving the City of Burlingame Pay Rates and Ranges (Salary Schedule) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an amendment to City Manager Lisa Goldman’s employment agreement to increase her salary by 3% effective the first pay period in January 2018, and authorizing the City of Burlingame pay rates and ranges for employees (salary schedules). BACKGROUND City Manager Lisa Goldman began her service with the City of Burlingame on December 27, 2012. On December 6, 2017, the City Council met with Ms. Goldman in closed session to review her performance after her fifth year in office. DISCUSSION Following their evaluation of her performance, Ms. Goldman left the closed session, and the Council thereafter discussed her compensation. In recognition of Ms. Goldman’s positive performance evaluation and existing market rates for comparable positions, the City Council discussed at the December 6 closed session a proposal to increase the City Manager’s salary by 3%, the same percentage increase that the Department Heads and Unrepresented Employees are receiving. In order to increase her salary, Section 5 of the employment agreement must be amended to increase the monthly salary from $19,344.24 per month to $19,924.57 effective the first pay period in January. The proposed increase requires the City Council to authorize a new salary schedule that, once approved, will be made available to the public via the City of Burlingame website. FISCAL IMPACT The financial impact of this increase is approximately $9,087 annually. The City Manager’s Office budget can absorb the increase using existing funds for the remainder of this fiscal year. Amendment to the City Manager’s Employment Agreement and Salary Schedule January 16, 2018 2 Exhibits: • Resolution • Fourth Amendment to City Manager’s Employment Agreement • Salary Schedule RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY MANAGER’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A COST OF LIVING SALARY INCREASE OF 3%, AND REVISIONS TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SALARY SCHEDULES WHEREAS, City Manager Lisa K. Goldman began her service with the City on December 27, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted performance evaluations for Ms. Goldman upon completion of each year with the City, all of which have been positive; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined, following its evaluation on December 6, 2017, that a salary increase of 3% was warranted in recognition of Ms. Goldman’s successful performance, effective at the beginning of the first pay period in January 2018; and WHEREAS, all other terms and conditions of Ms. Goldman’s employment are to remain as provided in her original employment agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Salary Schedule and City of Burlingame Salary Schedule – Casual Positions have been revised in accordance with this action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Burlingame authorizes the Mayor to execute the attached Fourth Amendment to Ms. Goldman’s City Manager Employment Agreement, to increase Ms. Goldman’s gross salary by 3%, effective the first pay period in January 2018, and leaving all other terms and conditions of employment as provided in the City Manager Employment Agreement, and authorizes and adopts the City of Burlingame Salary Schedules. Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16th day of January, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND LISA K. GOLDMAN FOR EMPLOYMENT AS CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME This amendment is entered into this day of January, 2018, by and between the City of Burlingame, a Municipal Corporation existing under the laws of the State of California, herein called the “City,” and Lisa K. Goldman (“Ms. Goldman”), as follows: RECITALS A. Ms. Goldman is currently serving as City Manager for the City of Burlingame pursuant to that contract denominated “Agreement Between the City of Burlingame and Lisa K. Goldman for Employment as City Manager of the City of Burlingame” (“Employment Agreement”), entered into on November 19, 2012, and amended on January 6, 2014, January 5, 2015, and January 3, 2017. B. Ms. Goldman has successfully completed her fifth year with the City. Subsequent to a performance evaluation, the City Council determined that her salary should be increased by 3% effective the first full pay period of January 2018. C. Both parties are amenable to this change and desire that all other terms and conditions of the existing Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect. AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Paragraph 5, Monthly Compensation, of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to provide that the City shall pay Ms. Goldman a salary of $19,924.57 per month. 2. All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Ms. Goldman have executed this Amendment as of the date indicated above. CITY OF BURLINGAME LISA K. GOLDMAN Michael Brownrigg, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk Kathleen Kane, City Attorney Class Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F A109 ACCOUNTANT I MONTHLY $6,259.50 $6,572.48 $6,892.41 $7,240.16 $7,604.13 BIWEEKLY $2,889.00 $3,033.45 $3,181.11 $3,341.61 $3,509.60 HRLY.RATE $36.11 $37.92 $39.76 $41.77 $43.87 A104 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $4,277.33 $4,495.25 $4,720.13 $4,945.01 $5,181.48 BIWEEKLY $1,974.15 $2,074.73 $2,178.52 $2,282.31 $2,391.45 HRLY.RATE $24.68 $25.93 $27.23 $28.53 $29.89 A160 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $4,720.13 $4,945.01 $5,181.48 $5,422.58 $5,686.87 BIWEEKLY $2,178.52 $2,282.31 $2,391.45 $2,502.73 $2,624.71 HRLY.RATE $27.23 $28.53 $29.89 $31.28 $32.81 A102 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT III MONTHLY $5,422.58 $5,686.87 $5,969.71 $6,268.77 $6,581.75 BIWEEKLY $2,502.73 $2,624.71 $2,755.25 $2,893.28 $3,037.73 HRLY.RATE $31.28 $32.81 $34.44 $36.17 $37.97 A103 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,981.30 $6,280.37 $6,593.34 $6,920.23 $7,267.98 BIWEEKLY $2,760.60 $2,898.63 $3,043.08 $3,193.95 $3,354.45 HRLY.RATE $34.51 $36.23 $38.04 $39.92 $41.93 D202 ACTING POLICE CHIEF MONTHLY $15,628.70 $16,407.15 BIWEEKLY $7,213.24 $7,572.53 HRLY.RATE $90.17 $94.66 A105 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $5,169.88 $5,438.81 $5,712.37 $5,990.57 $6,280.37 BIWEEKLY $2,386.10 $2,510.22 $2,636.48 $2,764.88 $2,898.63 HRLY.RATE $29.83 $31.38 $32.96 $34.56 $36.23 A100 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $5,686.87 $5,969.71 $6,264.14 $6,558.57 $6,873.86 BIWEEKLY $2,624.71 $2,755.25 $2,891.14 $3,027.03 $3,172.55 HRLY.RATE $32.81 $34.44 $36.14 $37.84 $39.66 D106 ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ ADMIN. SVCS. DIRECTOR MONTHLY $12,569.82 $13,183.50 $13,844.95 $14,530.27 $15,265.74 BIWEEKLY $5,801.45 $6,084.69 $6,389.98 $6,706.28 $7,045.73 HRLY.RATE $72.52 $76.06 $79.87 $83.83 $88.07 A605 ASSISTANT ENGINEER MONTHLY $7,335.21 $7,692.23 $8,058.53 $8,480.46 $8,911.67 City of Burlingame Salary Schedule Amended 12/25/2017 BIWEEKLY $3,385.48 $3,550.26 $3,719.32 $3,914.06 $4,113.08 HRLY.RATE $42.32 $44.38 $46.49 $48.93 $51.41 B421 ASSISTANT PARKS SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,136.85 $7,493.71 $7,868.38 $8,261.80 $8,674.90 BIWEEKLY $3,293.93 $3,458.64 $3,631.56 $3,813.14 $4,003.80 HRLY.RATE $41.17 $43.23 $45.39 $47.66 $50.05 A111 ASSISTANT PLANNER MONTHLY $6,257.18 $6,572.48 $6,894.72 $7,237.84 $7,604.13 BIWEEKLY $2,887.93 $3,033.45 $3,182.18 $3,340.54 $3,509.60 HRLY.RATE $36.10 $37.92 $39.78 $41.76 $43.87 A608 ASSOCIATE ENGINEER MONTHLY $8,067.80 $8,461.92 $8,865.31 $9,333.61 $9,804.23 BIWEEKLY $3,723.60 $3,905.50 $4,091.68 $4,307.82 $4,525.03 HRLY.RATE $46.55 $48.82 $51.15 $53.85 $56.56 A112 ASSOCIATE PLANNER MONTHLY $6,987.46 $7,335.21 $7,703.82 $8,093.30 $8,499.01 BIWEEKLY $3,224.98 $3,385.48 $3,555.61 $3,735.37 $3,922.62 HRLY.RATE $40.31 $42.32 $44.45 $46.69 $49.03 B600 ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY $12,302.51 $12,922.32 $13,544.58 $14,238.16 $14,951.42 BIWEEKLY $5,678.08 $5,964.15 $6,251.35 $6,571.46 $6,900.65 HRLY.RATE $70.98 $74.55 $78.14 $82.14 $86.26 S607 AUTOMOTIVE MECHANIC MONTHLY $5,760.98 $6,041.30 $6,344.03 $6,662.47 $7,003.33 BIWEEKLY $2,658.92 $2,788.29 $2,928.02 $3,074.99 $3,232.31 HRLY.RATE $33.24 $34.85 $36.60 $38.44 $40.40 A705 BUILDING ATTENDANT MONTHLY $3,447.36 $3,616.60 $3,804.39 $3,994.49 $4,186.91 BIWEEKLY $1,591.09 $1,669.20 $1,755.87 $1,843.61 $1,932.42 HRLY.RATE $19.89 $20.87 $21.95 $23.05 $24.16 A706 BUILDING ATTENDANT ‐ CS MONTHLY $4,536.98 BIWEEKLY $2,093.99 HRLY.RATE $26.17 A603 BUILDING INSPECTOR MONTHLY $6,936.45 $7,267.98 $7,645.86 $8,007.52 $8,392.37 BIWEEKLY $3,201.44 $3,354.45 $3,528.86 $3,695.78 $3,873.40 HRLY.RATE $40.02 $41.93 $44.11 $46.20 $48.42 A101 BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER MONTHLY $5,264.94 $5,543.14 $5,768.01 $6,071.72 $6,370.78 BIWEEKLY $2,429.97 $2,558.37 $2,662.16 $2,802.33 $2,940.36 HRLY.RATE $30.37 $31.98 $33.28 $35.03 $36.75 S603 CCTV LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,783.41 $6,074.93 $6,377.67 $6,705.08 $7,041.45 BIWEEKLY $2,669.27 $2,803.82 $2,943.54 $3,094.65 $3,249.90 HRLY.RATE $33.37 $35.05 $36.79 $38.68 $40.62 B604 CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL MONTHLY $10,543.90 $11,067.84 $11,613.85 $12,184.46 $12,789.50 BIWEEKLY $4,866.45 $5,108.23 $5,360.24 $5,623.60 $5,902.85 HRLY.RATE $60.83 $63.85 $67.00 $70.30 $73.79 D102 CITY ATTORNEY MONTHLY $18,264.54 BIWEEKLY $8,429.79 HRLY.RATE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $105.37 D109 CITY CLERK MONTHLY $8,628.00 $9,004.29 $9,447.02 $9,902.02 $10,389.01 BIWEEKLY $3,982.15 $4,155.83 $4,360.16 $4,570.16 $4,794.93 HRLY.RATE $49.78 $51.95 $54.50 $57.13 $59.94 B602 CITY ENGINEER MONTHLY $11,187.07 $11,754.55 $12,322.01 $12,955.31 $13,601.31 BIWEEKLY $5,163.26 $5,425.18 $5,687.08 $5,979.37 $6,277.53 HRLY.RATE $64.54 $67.81 $71.09 $74.74 $78.47 D801 CITY LIBRARIAN MONTHLY $12,998.57 $13,687.23 $14,378.35 $15,099.00 $15,834.38 BIWEEKLY $5,999.34 $6,317.18 $6,636.16 $6,968.77 $7,308.17 HRLY.RATE $74.99 $78.96 $82.95 $87.11 $91.35 D200 CITY MANAGER MONTHLY $19,924.57 BIWEEKLY $9,195.95 HRLY.RATE $114.95 B103 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER MONTHLY $7,022.31 $7,371.93 $7,741.78 $8,126.85 $8,534.70 BIWEEKLY $3,241.07 $3,402.43 $3,573.13 $3,750.86 $3,939.09 HRLY.RATE $40.51 $42.53 $44.66 $46.89 $49.23 D110 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER AND SENIOR RISK ANALYST MONTHLY $7,543.86 $7,889.29 $8,285.72 $8,696.07 $9,131.92 0.9 FTE (36 hours/week )BIWEEKLY $3,481.78 $3,641.21 $3,824.18 $4,013.57 $4,214.73 HRLY.RATE $43.52 $45.52 $47.80 $50.17 $52.68 T900 COMMUNICATION DISPATCHER I MONTHLY $5,793.68 $6,054.61 $6,343.38 $6,639.80 $6,966.59 BIWEEKLY $2,674.00 $2,794.43 $2,927.71 $3,064.52 $3,215.35 HRLY.RATE $33.43 $34.93 $36.60 $38.31 $40.19 T901 COMMUNICATION DISPATCHER II MONTHLY $6,079.92 $6,345.93 $6,660.06 $6,966.59 $7,323.78 BIWEEKLY $2,806.12 $2,928.89 $3,073.87 $3,215.35 $3,380.20 HRLY.RATE $35.08 $36.61 $38.42 $40.19 $42.25 D108 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,106.79 $13,758.54 $14,449.68 $15,172.77 $15,927.85 BIWEEKLY $6,049.29 $6,350.10 $6,669.09 $7,002.82 $7,351.32 HRLY.RATE $75.62 $79.38 $83.36 $87.54 $91.89 D100 COUNCIL MEMBER MONTHLY $590.04 BIWEEKLY $272.33 HRLY.RATE $3.40 A106 CUSTODIAN MONTHLY $4,316.74 $4,516.11 $4,738.67 $4,986.74 $5,244.07 BIWEEKLY $1,992.34 $2,084.36 $2,187.08 $2,301.57 $2,420.34 HRLY.RATE $24.90 $26.05 $27.34 $28.77 $30.25 B603 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS MONTHLY $11,262.25 $11,827.84 $12,416.67 $13,041.62 $13,687.23 BIWEEKLY $5,197.96 $5,459.00 $5,730.77 $6,019.21 $6,317.18 HRLY.RATE $64.97 $68.24 $71.63 $75.24 $78.96 B107 DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR MONTHLY $10,020.09 $10,521.83 $11,048.16 $11,596.63 $12,179.55 BIWEEKLY $4,624.66 $4,856.23 $5,099.15 $5,352.29 $5,621.33 HRLY.RATE $57.81 $60.70 $63.74 $66.90 $70.27 D600 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY $13,859.39 $14,550.51 $15,280.99 $16,043.45 $16,847.72 BIWEEKLY $6,396.64 $6,715.62 $7,052.77 $7,404.67 $7,775.87 HRLY.RATE $79.96 $83.95 $88.16 $92.56 $97.20 A451 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST MONTHLY $7,627.32 $8,012.16 $8,413.23 $8,832.85 $9,275.65 BIWEEKLY $3,520.30 $3,697.92 $3,883.03 $4,076.70 $4,281.07 HRLY.RATE $44.00 $46.22 $48.54 $50.96 $53.51 B605 ELECTRICAL SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,924.20 $8,283.89 $8,704.44 $9,132.56 $9,591.11 BIWEEKLY $3,657.32 $3,823.33 $4,017.43 $4,215.03 $4,426.66 HRLY.RATE $45.72 $47.79 $50.22 $52.69 $55.33 A301 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS/FIRE EDUCATION SPECIALIST MONTHLY $5,907.11 $6,187.63 $6,498.29 $6,832.13 $7,159.01 BIWEEKLY $2,726.36 $2,855.83 $2,999.21 $3,153.29 $3,304.16 HRLY.RATE $34.08 $35.70 $37.49 $39.42 $41.30 A604 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II MONTHLY $5,883.93 $6,180.68 $6,498.29 $6,818.22 $7,152.06 BIWEEKLY $2,715.66 $2,852.62 $2,999.21 $3,146.87 $3,300.95 HRLY.RATE $33.95 $35.66 $37.49 $39.34 $41.26 A615 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR MONTHLY $6,630.43 $6,959.64 $7,312.02 $7,676.00 $8,058.53 BIWEEKLY $3,060.20 $3,212.14 $3,374.78 $3,542.77 $3,719.32 HRLY.RATE $38.25 $40.15 $42.18 $44.28 $46.49 D105 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT MONTHLY $6,311.13 $6,598.88 $6,938.31 $7,285.11 $7,651.57 BIWEEKLY $2,912.83 $3,045.64 $3,202.30 $3,362.36 $3,531.49 HRLY.RATE $36.41 $38.07 $40.03 $42.03 $44.14 B900 FACILITIES DIVISION MANAGER MONTHLY $8,440.98 $8,864.03 $9,307.37 $9,773.49 $10,259.90 BIWEEKLY $3,895.84 $4,091.09 $4,295.71 $4,510.84 $4,735.34 HRLY.RATE $48.70 $51.14 $53.70 $56.39 $59.19 S704 FACILITIES LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,783.41 $6,074.93 $6,377.67 $6,705.08 $7,041.45 BIWEEKLY $2,669.27 $2,803.82 $2,943.54 $3,094.65 $3,249.90 HRLY.RATE $33.37 $35.05 $36.79 $38.68 $40.62 S703 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER MONTHLY $5,263.15 $5,538.98 $5,776.68 $6,074.93 $6,368.70 BIWEEKLY $2,429.15 $2,556.45 $2,666.16 $2,803.82 $2,939.40 HRLY.RATE $30.36 $31.96 $33.33 $35.05 $36.74 D103 FINANCE DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,733.97 $14,420.17 $15,135.89 $15,898.34 $16,690.31 BIWEEKLY $6,338.75 $6,655.46 $6,985.79 $7,337.70 $7,703.22 HRLY.RATE $79.23 $83.19 $87.32 $91.72 $96.29 B606 FLEET MANAGER MONTHLY $8,250.97 $8,668.97 $9,099.62 $9,553.09 $10,029.34 BIWEEKLY $3,808.14 $4,001.06 $4,199.82 $4,409.12 $4,628.93 HRLY.RATE $47.60 $50.01 $52.50 $55.11 $57.86 A805 GRAPHIC ARTIST MONTHLY $5,221.56 $5,479.81 $5,755.28 $6,043.05 $6,345.56 BIWEEKLY $2,409.95 $2,529.14 $2,656.28 $2,789.10 $2,928.72 HRLY.RATE $30.12 $31.61 $33.20 $34.86 $36.61 S403 GROUNDS EQUIPMENT REPAIR WORKER MONTHLY $5,240.72 $5,487.40 $5,760.98 $6,041.30 $6,344.03 BIWEEKLY $2,418.80 $2,532.65 $2,658.92 $2,788.29 $2,928.02 HRLY.RATE $30.23 $31.66 $33.24 $34.85 $36.60 D107 HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST II MONTHLY $7,390.85 $7,762.24 $8,133.64 $8,549.29 $8,979.72 BIWEEKLY $3,411.16 $3,582.57 $3,753.99 $3,945.83 $4,144.48 HRLY.RATE $42.64 $44.78 $46.92 $49.32 $51.81 D805 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR MONTHLY $12,929.69 $13,615.90 $14,299.64 $15,015.36 $15,753.21 BIWEEKLY $5,967.55 $6,284.26 $6,599.83 $6,930.17 $7,270.71 HRLY.RATE $74.59 $78.55 $82.50 $86.63 $90.88 D400 HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,623.47 $5,888.52 $6,177.45 $6,485.49 $6,824.57 BIWEEKLY $2,595.45 $2,717.78 $2,851.13 $2,993.30 $3,149.80 HRLY.RATE $32.44 $33.97 $35.64 $37.42 $39.37 S404 IRRIGATION REPAIR SPECIALIST MONTHLY $5,240.72 $5,487.40 $5,760.98 $6,041.30 $6,344.03 BIWEEKLY $2,418.80 $2,532.65 $2,658.92 $2,788.29 $2,928.02 HRLY.RATE $30.23 $31.66 $33.24 $34.85 $36.60 A606 JUNIOR ENGINEER MONTHLY $6,662.89 $6,978.18 $7,335.21 $7,692.23 $8,058.53 BIWEEKLY $3,075.18 $3,220.70 $3,385.48 $3,550.26 $3,719.32 HRLY.RATE $38.44 $40.26 $42.32 $44.38 $46.49 S605 LABORER MONTHLY $4,707.01 $4,944.71 $5,218.30 $5,462.73 $5,725.10 BIWEEKLY $2,172.47 $2,282.18 $2,408.45 $2,521.26 $2,642.36 HRLY.RATE $27.16 $28.53 $30.11 $31.52 $33.03 A801 LIBRARIAN I MONTHLY $5,475.90 $5,740.19 $6,004.48 $6,312.82 $6,611.89 BIWEEKLY $2,527.34 $2,649.32 $2,771.29 $2,913.61 $3,051.64 HRLY.RATE $31.59 $33.12 $34.64 $36.42 $38.15 A800 LIBRARIAN II MONTHLY $6,027.67 $6,329.05 $6,632.75 $6,957.32 $7,321.30 BIWEEKLY $2,782.00 $2,921.10 $3,061.27 $3,211.07 $3,379.06 HRLY.RATE $34.78 $36.51 $38.27 $40.14 $42.24 B801 LIBRARIAN III MONTHLY $7,604.97 $7,984.99 $8,370.04 $8,803.24 $9,233.90 BIWEEKLY $3,509.99 $3,685.38 $3,863.10 $4,063.04 $4,261.80 HRLY.RATE $43.87 $46.07 $48.29 $50.79 $53.27 A804 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $4,193.87 $4,411.79 $4,627.39 $4,840.68 $5,095.70 $5,227.84 BIWEEKLY $1,935.63 $2,036.21 $2,135.72 $2,234.16 $2,351.86 $2,412.85 HRLY.RATE $24.20 $25.45 $26.70 $27.93 $29.40 $30.16 A803 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $4,678.40 $4,887.05 $5,149.02 $5,380.85 $5,645.14 $5,791.20 BIWEEKLY $2,159.26 $2,255.56 $2,376.47 $2,483.47 $2,605.45 $2,672.86 HRLY.RATE $26.99 $28.19 $29.71 $31.04 $32.57 $33.41 A802 LIBRARY ASSISTANT III MONTHLY $5,223.21 $5,461.99 $5,747.15 $6,032.30 $6,317.46 BIWEEKLY $2,410.71 $2,520.92 $2,652.53 $2,784.14 $2,915.75 HRLY.RATE $30.13 $31.51 $33.16 $34.80 $36.45 B803 LIBRARY CIRCULATION SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $5,998.87 $6,282.59 $6,578.99 $6,923.52 $7,242.71 BIWEEKLY $2,768.71 $2,899.66 $3,036.46 $3,195.47 $3,342.79 HRLY.RATE $34.61 $36.25 $37.96 $39.94 $41.78 B805 LIBRARY SERVICES MANAGER MONTHLY $8,866.56 $9,320.02 $9,781.07 $10,272.56 $10,804.55 BIWEEKLY $4,092.26 $4,301.55 $4,514.34 $4,741.18 $4,986.71 HRLY.RATE $51.15 $53.77 $56.43 $59.26 $62.33 S606 MAINTENANCE ELECTRICIAN MONTHLY $6,456.16 $6,776.84 $7,124.42 $7,476.50 $7,857.72 BIWEEKLY $2,979.77 $3,127.77 $3,288.20 $3,450.69 $3,626.64 HRLY.RATE $37.25 $39.10 $41.10 $43.13 $45.33 B610 MANAGEMENT ANALYST MONTHLY $7,544.18 $7,888.71 $8,286.44 $8,696.83 $9,132.56 BIWEEKLY $3,481.93 $3,640.94 $3,824.51 $4,013.92 $4,215.03 HRLY.RATE $43.52 $45.51 $47.81 $50.17 $52.69 A120 MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT MONTHLY $6,236.32 $6,549.29 $6,873.86 $7,221.61 $7,578.63 BIWEEKLY $2,878.30 $3,022.75 $3,172.55 $3,333.05 $3,497.83 HRLY.RATE $35.98 $37.78 $39.66 $41.66 $43.72 A107 OFFICE ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $4,108.09 $4,316.74 $4,530.02 $4,747.95 $5,005.28 $5,121.20 BIWEEKLY $1,896.04 $1,992.34 $2,090.78 $2,191.36 $2,310.13 $2,363.63 HRLY.RATE $23.70 $24.90 $26.13 $27.39 $28.88 $29.55 A670 OFFICE ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $4,499.89 $4,703.90 $4,940.37 $5,186.11 $5,424.90 BIWEEKLY $2,076.87 $2,171.03 $2,280.17 $2,393.59 $2,503.80 HRLY.RATE $25.96 $27.14 $28.50 $29.92 $31.30 S401 PARK MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,783.41 $6,074.93 $6,377.67 $6,705.08 $7,041.45 BIWEEKLY $2,669.27 $2,803.82 $2,943.54 $3,094.65 $3,249.90 HRLY.RATE $33.37 $35.05 $36.79 $38.68 $40.62 S407 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER I MONTHLY $4,724.95 $4,944.71 $5,218.30 $5,462.73 $5,725.10 BIWEEKLY $2,180.75 $2,282.18 $2,408.45 $2,521.26 $2,642.36 HRLY.RATE $27.26 $28.53 $30.11 $31.52 $33.03 S406 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER II MONTHLY $4,944.71 $5,218.30 $5,462.73 $5,725.10 $6,009.90 BIWEEKLY $2,282.18 $2,408.45 $2,521.26 $2,642.36 $2,773.80 HRLY.RATE $28.53 $30.11 $31.52 $33.03 $34.67 A201 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MONTHLY $4,592.62 $4,810.54 $5,047.01 $5,302.03 $5,568.64 BIWEEKLY $2,119.67 $2,220.25 $2,329.39 $2,447.09 $2,570.14 HRLY.RATE $26.50 $27.75 $29.12 $30.59 $32.13 A200 PARKING SYSTEM TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $4,986.74 $5,244.07 $5,485.18 $5,754.10 $6,041.58 BIWEEKLY $2,301.57 $2,420.34 $2,531.62 $2,655.74 $2,788.42 HRLY.RATE $28.77 $30.25 $31.65 $33.20 $34.86 D705 PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR MONTHLY $12,998.57 $13,687.23 $14,378.35 $15,099.00 $15,834.38 BIWEEKLY $5,999.34 $6,317.18 $6,636.16 $6,968.77 $7,308.17 HRLY.RATE $74.99 $78.96 $82.95 $87.11 $91.35 B410 PARKS SUPERINTENDENT/CITY ARBORIST MONTHLY $9,306.83 $9,788.88 $10,266.04 $10,785.00 $11,343.30 BIWEEKLY $4,295.46 $4,517.95 $4,738.17 $4,977.69 $5,235.37 HRLY.RATE $53.69 $56.47 $59.23 $62.22 $65.44 B420 PARKS SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,617.65 $8,005.23 $8,408.04 $8,831.11 $9,375.76 BIWEEKLY $3,515.84 $3,694.72 $3,880.63 $4,075.90 $4,327.27 HRLY.RATE $43.95 $46.18 $48.51 $50.95 $54.09 B430 PARKS SUPERVISOR/CITY ARBORIST MONTHLY $7,802.58 $8,205.39 $8,610.71 $9,038.83 $9,596.16 BIWEEKLY $3,601.19 $3,787.10 $3,974.17 $4,171.77 $4,429.00 HRLY.RATE $45.01 $47.34 $49.68 $52.15 $55.36 A614 PERMIT TECH/GREEN BUILDING SPECIALIST MONTHLY $6,043.90 $6,345.28 $6,669.85 $6,994.41 $7,346.80 BIWEEKLY $2,789.49 $2,928.59 $3,078.39 $3,228.19 $3,390.83 HRLY.RATE $34.87 $36.61 $38.48 $40.35 $42.39 A609 PERMIT TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,494.45 $5,765.70 $6,064.76 $6,359.19 $6,676.80 BIWEEKLY $2,535.90 $2,661.09 $2,799.12 $2,935.01 $3,081.60 HRLY.RATE $31.70 $33.26 $34.99 $36.69 $38.52 A108 PLANNER MONTHLY $6,987.46 $7,332.89 $7,708.46 $8,067.80 $8,480.46 BIWEEKLY $3,224.98 $3,384.41 $3,557.75 $3,723.60 $3,914.06 HRLY.RATE $40.31 $42.31 $44.47 $46.55 $48.93 D104 PLANNING DIRECTOR MONTHLY $12,863.30 $13,497.85 $14,181.59 $14,698.09 $15,622.88 BIWEEKLY $5,936.91 $6,229.78 $6,545.35 $6,783.74 $7,210.56 HRLY.RATE $74.21 $77.87 $81.82 $84.80 $90.13 B111 PLANNING MANAGER MONTHLY $10,192.25 $10,701.38 $11,232.63 $11,795.87 $12,388.59 BIWEEKLY $4,704.12 $4,939.10 $5,184.29 $5,444.25 $5,717.81 HRLY.RATE $58.80 $61.74 $64.80 $68.05 $71.47 A205 POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COORDINATOR MONTHLY $5,362.31 $5,626.60 $5,904.80 $6,183.00 $6,479.74 BIWEEKLY $2,474.91 $2,596.89 $2,725.29 $2,853.69 $2,990.65 HRLY.RATE $30.94 $32.46 $34.07 $35.67 $37.38 M200 POLICE CAPTAIN MONTHLY $12,038.57 $12,622.73 $13,175.19 $13,825.00 $14,495.20 BIWEEKLY $5,556.27 $5,825.88 $6,080.86 $6,380.77 $6,690.09 HRLY.RATE $69.45 $72.82 $76.01 $79.76 $83.63 D201 POLICE CHIEF MONTHLY $14,975.33 $15,721.97 $16,506.18 $17,322.97 $18,194.89 BIWEEKLY $6,911.69 $7,256.29 $7,618.24 $7,995.22 $8,397.64 HRLY.RATE $86.40 $90.70 $95.23 $99.94 $104.90 A202 POLICE CLERK I MONTHLY $4,277.33 $4,495.25 $4,720.13 $4,945.01 $5,181.48 BIWEEKLY $1,974.15 $2,074.73 $2,178.52 $2,282.31 $2,391.45 HRLY.RATE $24.68 $25.93 $27.23 $28.53 $29.89 A203 POLICE CLERK II MONTHLY $4,720.13 $4,945.01 $5,181.48 $5,422.58 $5,686.87 BIWEEKLY $2,178.52 $2,282.31 $2,391.45 $2,502.73 $2,624.71 HRLY.RATE $27.23 $28.53 $29.89 $31.28 $32.81 A204 POLICE CLERK III MONTHLY $6,549.29 BIWEEKLY $3,022.75 HRLY.RATE $37.78 M202 POLICE LIEUTENANT MONTHLY $10,301.59 $10,814.07 $11,357.26 $11,924.06 $12,519.20 BIWEEKLY $4,754.58 $4,991.11 $5,241.81 $5,503.41 $5,778.09 HRLY.RATE $59.43 $62.39 $65.52 $68.79 $72.23 P200 POLICE OFFICER MONTHLY $7,118.06 $7,510.10 $7,850.18 $8,263.47 $8,657.87 BIWEEKLY $3,285.26 $3,466.20 $3,623.16 $3,813.91 $3,995.94 HRLY.RATE $41.07 $43.33 $45.29 $47.67 $49.95 P201 POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE MONTHLY $6,850.68 BIWEEKLY $3,161.85 HRLY.RATE $39.52 M201 POLICE SERGEANT MONTHLY $8,648.42 $9,056.99 $9,508.07 $9,989.85 $10,499.97 BIWEEKLY $3,991.58 $4,180.15 $4,388.34 $4,610.70 $4,846.14 HRLY.RATE $49.89 $52.25 $54.85 $57.63 $60.58 B201 POLICE SERVICES MANAGER MONTHLY $8,724.82 $9,161.06 $9,619.14 $10,100.07 $10,605.10 BIWEEKLY $4,026.84 $4,228.18 $4,439.60 $4,661.57 $4,894.66 HRLY.RATE $50.34 $52.85 $55.50 $58.27 $61.18 A711 PROGRAM COORDINATOR MONTHLY $3,739.47 $3,922.62 $4,117.36 $4,321.37 $4,536.98 BIWEEKLY $1,725.91 $1,810.44 $1,900.32 $1,994.48 $2,093.99 HRLY.RATE $21.57 $22.63 $23.75 $24.93 $26.17 A612 PROGRAM MANAGER MONTHLY $8,988.18 $9,440.25 $9,906.24 $10,404.68 $10,926.31 BIWEEKLY $4,148.39 $4,357.04 $4,572.11 $4,802.16 $5,042.91 HRLY.RATE $51.85 $54.46 $57.15 $60.03 $63.04 A130 PROGRAM OUTREACH SPECIALIST MONTHLY $4,463.33 $4,686.50 $4,920.37 $5,166.76 $5,425.64 0.8 FTE (32 hours/week )BIWEEKLY $2,060.00 $2,163.00 $2,270.94 $2,384.66 $2,504.14 HRLY.RATE $25.75 $27.04 $28.39 $29.81 $31.30 A610 PROJECT MANAGER/GIS COORDINATOR MONTHLY $10,295.72 BIWEEKLY $4,751.87 HRLY.RATE $59.40 A611 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR MONTHLY $6,917.91 $7,258.70 $7,625.00 $8,005.21 $8,410.91 BIWEEKLY $3,192.88 $3,350.17 $3,519.23 $3,694.71 $3,881.96 HRLY.RATE $39.91 $41.88 $43.99 $46.18 $48.52 S610 PUMP STATION LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,783.41 $6,074.93 $6,377.67 $6,705.08 $7,041.45 BIWEEKLY $2,669.27 $2,803.82 $2,943.54 $3,094.65 $3,249.90 HRLY.RATE $33.37 $35.05 $36.79 $38.68 $40.62 A701 RECREATION COORDINATOR MONTHLY $5,392.44 $5,652.10 $5,918.71 $6,215.45 $6,523.79 BIWEEKLY $2,488.82 $2,608.66 $2,731.71 $2,868.67 $3,010.98 HRLY.RATE $31.11 $32.61 $34.15 $35.86 $37.64 B710 RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT MONTHLY $8,866.56 $9,322.55 $9,781.07 $10,277.61 $10,807.07 BIWEEKLY $4,092.26 $4,302.72 $4,514.34 $4,743.51 $4,987.88 HRLY.RATE $51.15 $53.78 $56.43 $59.29 $62.35 B700 RECREATION SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,465.64 $7,853.24 $8,215.52 $8,646.18 $9,076.83 BIWEEKLY $3,445.68 $3,624.57 $3,791.78 $3,990.54 $4,189.31 HRLY.RATE $43.07 $45.31 $47.40 $49.88 $52.37 B106 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT MONTHLY $6,872.86 $7,232.60 $7,617.65 $8,015.38 $8,438.46 BIWEEKLY $3,172.09 $3,338.12 $3,515.84 $3,699.41 $3,894.67 HRLY.RATE $39.65 $41.73 $43.95 $46.24 $48.68 A602 SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR MONTHLY $7,782.65 $8,167.49 $8,554.65 $9,006.73 $9,463.44 BIWEEKLY $3,591.99 $3,769.61 $3,948.30 $4,156.95 $4,367.74 HRLY.RATE $44.90 $47.12 $49.35 $51.96 $54.60 B601 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER MONTHLY $10,652.53 $11,184.54 $11,746.93 $12,332.12 $12,952.78 BIWEEKLY $4,916.55 $5,162.10 $5,421.66 $5,691.75 $5,978.21 HRLY.RATE $61.46 $64.53 $67.77 $71.15 $74.73 A113 SENIOR PLANNER MONTHLY $8,480.46 $8,902.40 $9,345.20 $9,813.51 $10,309.63 BIWEEKLY $3,914.06 $4,108.80 $4,313.17 $4,529.31 $4,758.29 HRLY.RATE $48.93 $51.36 $53.91 $56.62 $59.48 A607 SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR MONTHLY $7,682.96 $8,067.80 $8,461.92 $8,865.31 $9,333.61 BIWEEKLY $3,545.98 $3,723.60 $3,905.50 $4,091.68 $4,307.82 HRLY.RATE $44.32 $46.55 $48.82 $51.15 $53.85 S601 STREET & SEWER LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,783.41 $6,074.93 $6,377.67 $6,705.08 $7,041.45 BIWEEKLY $2,669.27 $2,803.82 $2,943.54 $3,094.65 $3,249.90 HRLY.RATE $33.37 $35.05 $36.79 $38.68 $40.62 S604 STREET & SEWER MAINTENANCE WORKER MONTHLY $4,944.71 $5,218.30 $5,462.73 $5,725.10 $6,009.90 BIWEEKLY $2,282.18 $2,408.45 $2,521.26 $2,642.36 $2,773.80 HRLY.RATE $28.53 $30.11 $31.52 $33.03 $34.67 B608 STREET & SEWER SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,250.66 $7,614.68 $7,995.91 $8,394.34 $8,812.45 BIWEEKLY $3,346.46 $3,514.47 $3,690.42 $3,874.31 $4,067.28 HRLY.RATE $41.83 $43.93 $46.13 $48.43 $50.84 B607 STREETS, STORM DRAINS, AND SEWER DIVISIONS MANAGER MONTHLY $8,440.98 $8,864.03 $9,307.37 $9,773.49 $10,259.90 BIWEEKLY $3,895.84 $4,091.09 $4,295.71 $4,510.84 $4,735.34 HRLY.RATE $48.70 $51.14 $53.70 $56.39 $59.19 S602 TRAFFIC SIGN & PAINT LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,783.41 $6,074.93 $6,377.67 $6,705.08 $7,041.45 BIWEEKLY $2,669.27 $2,803.82 $2,943.54 $3,094.65 $3,249.90 HRLY.RATE $33.37 $35.05 $36.79 $38.68 $40.62 A601 TRAFFIC‐CIVIL ENGINEER MONTHLY $7,692.23 $8,058.53 $8,480.46 $8,911.67 $9,359.11 BIWEEKLY $3,550.26 $3,719.32 $3,914.06 $4,113.08 $4,319.59 HRLY.RATE $44.38 $46.49 $48.93 $51.41 $53.99 A600 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER MONTHLY $8,869.94 $9,317.38 $9,781.05 $10,270.22 $10,789.52 BIWEEKLY $4,093.82 $4,300.33 $4,514.33 $4,740.10 $4,979.78 HRLY.RATE $51.17 $53.75 $56.43 $59.25 $62.25 S405 TREE LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,783.41 $6,074.93 $6,377.67 $6,705.08 $7,041.45 BIWEEKLY $2,669.27 $2,803.82 $2,943.54 $3,094.65 $3,249.90 HRLY.RATE $33.37 $35.05 $36.79 $38.68 $40.62 S409 TREE MAINTENANCE WORKER MONTHLY $5,065.81 $5,355.09 $5,599.52 $5,870.87 $6,160.15 BIWEEKLY $2,338.07 $2,471.58 $2,584.40 $2,709.63 $2,843.15 HRLY.RATE $29.23 $30.89 $32.30 $33.87 $35.54 S411 TREE WORKER MONTHLY $5,229.51 $5,476.19 $5,752.01 $6,034.57 $6,339.55 BIWEEKLY $2,413.62 $2,527.47 $2,654.78 $2,785.19 $2,925.95 HRLY.RATE $30.17 $31.59 $33.18 $34.81 $36.57 S400 UTILITIES INSPECTOR/LOCATOR MONTHLY $5,783.41 $6,074.93 $6,377.67 $6,705.08 $7,041.45 BIWEEKLY $2,669.27 $2,803.82 $2,943.54 $3,094.65 $3,249.90 HRLY.RATE $33.37 $35.05 $36.79 $38.68 $40.62 B500 WATER DIVISION MANAGER MONTHLY $8,440.98 $8,864.03 $9,307.37 $9,773.49 $10,259.90 BIWEEKLY $3,895.84 $4,091.09 $4,295.71 $4,510.84 $4,735.34 HRLY.RATE $48.70 $51.14 $53.70 $56.39 $59.19 S501 WATER MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,783.41 $6,074.93 $6,377.67 $6,705.08 $7,041.45 BIWEEKLY $2,669.27 $2,803.82 $2,943.54 $3,094.65 $3,249.90 HRLY.RATE $33.37 $35.05 $36.79 $38.68 $40.62 S503 WATER MAINTENANCE WORKER MONTHLY $4,944.71 $5,218.30 $5,462.73 $5,725.10 $6,009.90 BIWEEKLY $2,282.18 $2,408.45 $2,521.26 $2,642.36 $2,773.80 HRLY.RATE $28.53 $30.11 $31.52 $33.03 $34.67 S502 WATER METER REPAIRER MONTHLY $4,991.81 $5,231.75 $5,482.91 $5,756.50 $6,041.30 BIWEEKLY $2,303.91 $2,414.66 $2,530.58 $2,656.85 $2,788.29 HRLY.RATE $28.80 $30.18 $31.63 $33.21 $34.85 S508 WATER QUALITY AND METER LEAD WORKER MONTHLY $5,783.41 $6,074.93 $6,377.67 $6,705.08 $7,041.45 BIWEEKLY $2,669.27 $2,803.82 $2,943.54 $3,094.65 $3,249.90 HRLY.RATE $33.37 $35.05 $36.79 $38.68 $40.62 S507 WATER QUALITY AND METER TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,218.30 $5,480.67 $5,754.26 $6,041.30 $6,344.03 BIWEEKLY $2,408.45 $2,529.54 $2,655.81 $2,788.29 $2,928.02 HRLY.RATE $30.11 $31.62 $33.20 $34.85 $36.60 B503 WATER QUALITY SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,250.66 $7,614.68 $7,995.91 $8,394.34 $8,812.45 BIWEEKLY $3,346.46 $3,514.47 $3,690.42 $3,874.31 $4,067.28 HRLY.RATE $41.83 $43.93 $46.13 $48.43 $50.84 S505 WATER SERVICE & OPERATIONS TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,783.41 $6,074.93 $6,377.67 $6,705.08 $7,041.45 BIWEEKLY $2,669.27 $2,803.82 $2,943.54 $3,094.65 $3,249.90 HRLY.RATE $33.37 $35.05 $36.79 $38.68 $40.62 B501 WATER SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,250.66 $7,614.68 $7,995.91 $8,394.34 $8,812.45 BIWEEKLY $3,346.46 $3,514.47 $3,690.42 $3,874.31 $4,067.28 HRLY.RATE $41.83 $43.93 $46.13 $48.43 $50.84 A110 ZONING TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,965.07 $6,250.23 $6,560.88 $6,894.72 $7,228.56 BIWEEKLY $2,753.11 $2,884.72 $3,028.10 $3,182.18 $3,336.26 HRLY.RATE $34.41 $36.06 $37.85 $39.78 $41.70 NOTES All positions are 40‐hour week, unless otherwise noted Effective 6/26/2017 6/26/2017 3% salary increase for all AFSCME bargaining unit positions, per applicable MOUs Amended 7/10/17 FY2017‐18 budget classification and compensation revisions Amended 8/21/17 classification and compensation revisions Amended 9/18/17 classification and compensation revisions Amended 12/25/17 3% salary increase Department Head and Unrepresented Unit, Teamsters, AFSCME BAMM, 2% salary increase POA, Police Sergeants, Police Sergaeants, Police Administrators Units, per applicable MOUs 3% salary increase City Manager, per employment agreement Class Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Step G C100 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT $31.55 $33.09 $34.72 $36.36 $38.11 C500 ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER $50.34 $52.85 $55.50 $58.27 $61.19 C112 ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS $70.98 $74.55 $78.14 $82.14 $86.26 C601 AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICIAN $24.44 $25.65 $26.93 $28.29 $29.69 C705 BUILDING ATTENDANT $17.68 $18.54 $19.53 $20.49 $21.47 C102 BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER $27.00 $28.41 $29.61 $31.15 $32.69 C106 CUSTODIAN $21.72 $22.73 $23.83 $25.08 $26.39 C613 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II $31.08 $32.68 $34.33 $36.03 $37.79 C602 FACILITIES PROJECT MANAGER $46.91 C805 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR $74.59 $78.55 $82.50 $86.63 $90.88 C600 INTERN I $14.89 $15.64 $16.42 $17.24 $18.11 $19.01 $19.97 C608 INTERN II $25.75 $30.90 $36.05 $41.20 $46.35 C700 JUNIOR RECREATION LEADER $11.03 $11.59 $12.17 C606 LABORER $25.08 $26.23 $27.68 $28.98 $30.38 C807 LIBRARIAN I $28.07 $29.44 $30.81 $32.38 $33.92 C806 LIBRARIAN II $30.93 $32.46 $34.03 $35.73 $37.56 C801 LIBRARY AIDE $12.57 $13.17 $13.83 $14.55 $15.25 C804 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I $21.51 $22.64 $23.75 $24.84 $26.15 $26.81 C803 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II $24.00 $25.09 $26.43 $27.60 $28.96 C611 MANAGEMENT ANALYST $42.24 $44.17 $46.41 $48.70 $51.14 C107 OFFICE ASSISTANT I $21.07 $22.16 $23.23 $24.36 $25.67 C702 PARK AND RECREATION FIELD MONITOR $22.07 $23.17 $24.33 $25.54 $26.83 C211 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER $26.49 $27.76 $29.12 $30.58 $32.13 C201 PARKING ENFORCEMENT TECHNICIAN $23.58 $24.69 $25.90 $27.20 $28.58 C409 PARKS AND TREE WORKER $26.87 $28.37 $29.68 $31.14 $32.68 C809 PASSPORT APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AGENT $21.51 $22.64 $23.75 $24.84 $26.15 C900 PER DIEM COMM DISPATCHER $17.39 $21.09 $34.77 $40.58 C199 POLICE SERVICE AIDE $13.33 $13.95 $14.63 $15.32 $15.95 C712 PRESCHOOL MUSIC SPECIALIST $63.65 C711 PRE‐SCHOOL SITE COORDINATOR $19.36 $20.32 $21.34 $22.40 $23.51 C714 PRE‐SCHOOL TEACHER $18.10 $19.00 $19.96 $20.95 $22.00 C612 PROGRAM MANAGER $47.45 $49.82 $52.31 $54.93 $57.68 $60.56 C713 PROGRAM OUTREACH SPECIALIST $26.52 $27.85 $29.24 $30.70 $32.24 C701 RECREATION LEADER $12.77 $13.41 $14.08 C710 RECREATION SPECIALIST $16.64 $17.45 $18.33 $19.26 $20.24 City of Burlingame Salary Schedule ‐ Casual Positions (Non‐PERS) Amended 12/25/17 C703 SENIOR RECREATION LEADER $14.79 $15.52 $16.31 $17.11 $17.97 C614 SIDEWALK PROGRAM COORDINATOR $32.39 $34.01 $35.71 $37.49 $39.37 C641 SUMMER CREW $11.03 $11.59 $12.17 $12.77 $13.02 C642 SUMMER CREW LEADER $14.08 $14.79 $15.52 $16.31 $16.61 NOTES All positions are hourly Effective 1/1/16 Amended 8/21/17 Amended 12/25/17 3% salary increase per approved salary and benefit memo for part‐time casual employees Class Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E CP50 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY $37.13 $79.56 CP25 ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER $50.34 $52.86 $55.50 $58.28 $61.20 CP60 LABORER $25.07 $26.23 $27.68 $28.97 $30.38 CP80 LIBRARY AIDE $12.57 $13.17 $13.83 $14.55 $15.25 CP10 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I $21.51 $22.63 $23.75 $24.83 $26.15 CP40 PARKS AND TREE WORKER $26.72 $28.05 $29.46 $30.92 $32.48 CP15 PER DIEM COMM DISPATCHER $18.60 $22.56 $37.21 $43.42 CP71 RECREATION SPECIALIST $16.64 $17.45 $18.33 $19.26 $20.23 CP05 SENIOR PLANNER $47.01 $49.37 $51.82 $54.40 $57.14 CP20 SUSTAINABILITY COORDINATOR $44.44 $46.67 $49.00 $51.45 $54.02 NOTES All positions are hourly Effective 7/10/2017 Amended 9/18/17 Amended 12/25/17 3% salary incr per approved salary and benefit memo for part‐time casual ees City of Burlingame Salary Schedule ‐ Casual Positions Amended 12/25/2017 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10c MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director – (650) 558-7209 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Side Letter Agreement to the Compensation and Benefit Plan for the City of Burlingame Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to modify the Compensation and Benefit Plan for the City of Burlingame Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications to include the attached side letter agreement. BACKGROUND The Compensation and Benefit Plan (“Plan”) for the City of Burlingame (“City”) Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications covers the position of Police Chief. Representatives for the City and the Department Heads and Unrepresented Employees have met to discuss POST certificate premium pay for the Police Chief. In 2017, the City’s external auditors discovered during their testing of payroll that the City is paying more for flat rate premiums than was approved in the agreements with bargaining units. Staff researched this discrepancy and determined that there is no written document to support the slightly higher premium pay rates. Staff determined that there must have been a verbal agreement, over 16 years ago, that the City would pay a portion of the employees’ PERS contribution on top of the flat rate premiums. On June 19, 2017, the Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute side letter agreements with the various bargaining units to correct this issue. During a recent comprehensive audit of the City’s payroll practices, covering 100% of all special pays paid to employees, the City’s auditors discovered the same issue existed for the unrepresented Police Chief POST certificate premium pay under the Plan. DISCUSSION The attached side letter agreement (Exhibit A) specifies a new rate for POST certificate premium pay for the Police Chief in the Plan. The monthly premium is increased to a fixed amount based on the actual amount currently being paid to the Police Chief for this certificate. This will ensure that the Police Chief does not get a pay decrease, and that the rate being currently paid is approved by the City Council. This is a one-time correction that must be approved by the Council and memorialized in the Plan. Side Letter Agreement January 16, 2018 2 Therefore, the City has agreed to revise the language of the applicable article in the Plan as outlined in the attached Side Letter. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of this action, which equates to an $85.50/month increase in the POST Executive Certificate pay, is included within the Fiscal Year 2017-18 budget, and no additional funds are needed. Exhibits: • Resolution • Side Letter to the Compensation and Benefit Plan for the City of Burlingame Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT TO THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DEPARTMENT HEAD AND UNREPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS WHEREAS, the Compensation and Benefit Plan (“Plan”) for the City of Burlingame (“City”) Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications is set to expire on December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City and the Department Heads and Unrepresented Classifications unit have met to discuss POST certificate premium pay for the Police Chief; and WHEREAS, the amendments are related to language changes to Article 9.4 POST Certificate Pay of the Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications’ Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments regarding flat rate POST certificate premium pay will memorialize the City’s actual contribution to flat rate premium pay for the Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. The amendment to the Compensation and Benefit Plan for the City of Burlingame Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications, set forth in the Side Letter attached as Exhibit A, is approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Side Letter Compensation and Benefit Plan for the City of Burlingame Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications. ____________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16th day of January 2018, 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 DEPARTMENT HEAD & UNREPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME November 1, 2017 Representatives for the Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications group agree to modify the Compensation and Benefit Plan, which expires on December 31, 2018, in the following manner: 9.4 POST Certificate Pay The Police Chief shall be eligible to receive $1,035.50/month upon obtaining the POST Executive Certificate. If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding, please indicate your approval and acceptance in the space provided below. Approved and Accepted: For Department Head and Unrepresented Employees For City of Burlingame _______________________________ _____________________________ _______________________________ _____________________________ _______________________________ _____________________________ Date: _________________________ Date: _________________________ 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10d MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 16, 2018 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: City of Burlingame Comments in Response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the US 101 Managed Lanes Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the draft comments prepared in response to the US 101 Managed Lanes Project Draft Environment Impact Report (DEIR), and provide feedback. Further, staff recommends that the Council authorize the Public Works Director to sign the attached comments letter with any amendments as the City’s official response to the DEIR. BACKGROUND PROPOSED PROJECT Caltrans, in cooperation with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), proposes to construct continuous managed lanes in the northbound and southbound directions of the US 101 freeway in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, from the terminus of the existing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in northern Santa Clara County to north of Interstate 380 (I-380). Specifically, the project would convert the existing single HOV lane in each direction to a single express lane from approximately San Antonio Road in Palo Alto to Whipple Avenue in Redwood City. The project would also add a new express lane in each direction from Whipple Avenue to approximately the I- 380 interchange in South San Francisco. This would create a total of approximately 22 miles of managed lanes. The project limits include allowance for the installation of a new overhead tolling system as well as signage beginning approximately one mile in advance of the start of the managed lanes in each direction of US 101. The purpose of the project is to provide continuous traffic flow and management in each direction on US 101 from the terminus of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) proposed express lanes in Santa Clara County to I-380 in northern San Mateo County to reduce congestion along the corridor by incentivizing carpooling and transit use. The project is also intended to provide managed lanes for travel time reliability; minimize operational degradation of the general purpose lanes; increase person throughput (the number of people moved); and apply technology and/or design features to help manage traffic. City of Burlingame Comments in Response to the Draft January 16, 2018 Environmental Impact Report for the US 101 Managed Lanes Project 2 The project proposes to allow high occupancy vehicles (HOV) with 3+ occupants, vanpools, buses, motorcycles, and eligible clean air vehicles to use managed lanes free of cost, while vehicles with fewer than 3+ occupants would be charged tolls depending on traffic congestion, commute conditions, and travel times in accordance with federal and state regulations. The details of the toll charges are not available at this time. The project is needed to help address traffic congestion and provide transportation options in the project corridor in particular, and the region as a whole. Caltrans has prepared a DEIR for the project and is considering one Build Alternative along with a No Build Alternative. Additional alternatives were considered but eliminated as none were deemed viable because of physical constraints and feasibility, or because they did not meet the project’s purpose and need. Caltrans is continuing to evaluate additional design refinements that may reduce the project footprint and minimize environmental effects. JOINT NEPA/CEQA (NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT/CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT) DOCUMENT The proposed project is subject to state and federal environmental review requirements. Project documentation, therefore, has been prepared in compliance with both CEQA and NEPA. Caltrans is the lead agency under both NEPA and CEQA. The deadline for submitting comments in response to the DEIR is January 19, 2018. After receiving comments from the public and reviewing agencies, a Final EIR/EA (Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment) will be prepared. Caltrans may prepare additional environmental and/or engineering studies to address public comments. The Final EIR/EA will include responses to comments received on the Draft EIR/EA and will identify the preferred alternative. If the decision is made to approve the project, a Notice of Determination will be published for compliance with CEQA, and Caltrans will decide whether to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), or require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for compliance with NEPA. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the FONSI, should it be necessary, will be sent to the affected units of federal, state, and local government, and to the State Clearinghouse in compliance with Executive Order 12372. DISCUSSION Auxiliary lanes, acceleration lanes, and deceleration lanes are all traffic lanes that run parallel to through lanes on the US 101 freeway. Auxiliary lanes generally span from one interchange to the next, while acceleration lanes and deceleration lanes span only one portion of an interchange. To accommodate additional lanes (Express Lanes/Managed Lanes), portions of the existing auxiliary lanes would be converted to continuous general purpose lanes. In Burlingame, this would occur in the northbound direction from Peninsula Avenue to Anza Boulevard, and in the southbound direction from Broadway to the Poplar Avenue exit in San Mateo. An acceleration lane would be added in the southbound direction for approximately 3,000 feet between the Broadway on-ramp and Poplar Avenue off-ramp to accommodate the converted auxiliary lane. The proposed acceleration lane would require relocating the existing sound wall and encroaching it on Rollins Road throughout the transition. The relocation of the sound wall will result in the elimination of the existing planter strip between the roadway and the sound wall. It is unclear whether the new sound wall will have ivy/vines planted along its length to restore the aesthetics. That said, the City of Burlingame Comments in Response to the Draft January 16, 2018 Environmental Impact Report for the US 101 Managed Lanes Project 3 project maintains the existing two-way traffic lanes with the parking lane along Rollins Road, which is vital for Burlingame residents and businesses. Staff from the City’s Public Works and Planning Departments reviewed the Project DEIR as it relates to Burlingame and prepared the following comments for Council review and approval: • The DEIR lacks adequate information regarding detailed impacts resulting from the new acceleration lane and sound wall relocation in the southbound direction for 3,000 feet from the Broadway on-ramp. In order to mitigate the effects of the sound wall encroachment into Rollins Road, there needs to be a minimum landscape area maintained adjacent to the sound wall behind the face of curb to re-establish ivy/vines on the wall and to provide a buffer between the northbound travel lanes of Rollins Road with the sound wall. • As a result of the sound wall relocation, the Rollins Road roadway shall maintain a minimum of 11-foot wide travels lanes in both directions, and an 8-foot wide parking lane throughout the length of the newly relocated wall. These shall be called out as minimum widths, with any additional roadway width being used towards increasing the landscaped buffer. • The architectural features on the new sound wall shall be consistent with features used in the US 101/Broadway Interchange Project, and remain in line with the character of Burlingame. The new sound wall height shall be consistent with the existing wall. • The DEIR shows that the project encroaches several feet into Rollins Road in order to relocate the sound wall; however, it lacks the details of the right-of-way impacts, dimensions, and sections. The project shall provide details of the right-of -way impacts and obtain necessary approval from the City Council regarding the encroachment. • The DEIR plans reflect the old Broadway Interchange, and it is not clear how the proposed project affects/impacts the newly constructed Interchange. The Project plans shall reflect the newly constructed Interchange, show proposed improvements in reference to the recent improvements, and address any potential impacts. • Drainage plans shall be provided to confirm that all freeway drainage (existing and proposed) does not negatively impact the non-freeway drainage from Burlingame. Any necessary storm drainage improvements that become evident as a result of the project shall be corrected and included in the project scope. All existing underground drainage infrastructure crossings under the freeway should be evaluated to confirm adequate structural integrity and addressed as required as part of the project scope. • All City owned infrastructure and utilities along Rollins Road shall be protected in place during the project construction. The project shall be responsible for repairing any damage to City facilities as a result of the project construction. • Rollins Road along its entire affected length shall be fully resurfaced with new asphalt concrete pavement as approved by the City of Burlingame Public Works Department, as City of Burlingame Comments in Response to the Draft January 16, 2018 Environmental Impact Report for the US 101 Managed Lanes Project 4 the project construction, including the relocation of the sound wall, is expected to cause significant disruption, result in wear and tear, and damage the roadway. • The project shall take adequate measures to minimize construction noise and disruption to Burlingame businesses and residents during construction. Any additional comments that the City Council would like to add can be incorporated in the comment letter. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Exhibits: • Draft Comment Letter • Project Map and Plans • Project Fact Sheet • Sound Wall Rendering Illustration • Summary of Impacts & Mitigation Measures The City of Burlingame PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TEL: (650) 558-7230 FAX: (650) 685-9310 CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org CORPORATION YARD TEL: (650) 558-7670 FAX: (650) 696-1598 January 17, 2018 California Department of Transportation, District 4 Yolanda Rivas, Environmental Branch Chief Office of Environmental Analysis, Mail Station 8B 111 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Email: y olanda_rivas@dot.ca.gov m101DEIR_EA_comments@dot.ca.gov Subject: City of Burlingame Comments to Caltrans in Response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the US 101 Managed Lanes Project Dear Ms. Rivas: The City of Burlingame would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to Caltrans for the opportunity to submit comments in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the US 101 Managed Lanes Project. The City has reviewed the Draft EIR and would like to submit the following comments: • The DEIR lacks adequate information regarding detailed impacts resulting from the new acceleration lane and sound wall relocation in the southbound direction for 3,000 feet from the Broadway on-ramp. In order to mitigate the effects of the sound wall encroachment into Rollins Road, there needs to be a minimum landscape area maintained adjacent to the sound wall behind the face of curb to re-establish ivy/vines on the wall and to provide a buffer between the northbound travel lanes of Rollins Road with the sound wall. • As a result of the sound wall relocation, the Rollins Road roadway shall maintain a minimum of 11-foot wide travels lanes in both directions, and an 8-foot wide parking lane throughout the length of the newly relocated wall. These shall be called out as minimum widths, with any additional roadway width being used towards increasing the landscaped buffer. • The architectural features on the new sound wall shall be consistent with features used in the US 101/Broadway Interchange Project, and remain in line with the character of Burlingame. The new sound wall height shall be consistent with the existing wall. Ms. Yolanda Rivas January 17, 2018 Page 2 • The DEIR shows that the project encroaches several feet into Rollins Road for relocating the sound wall; however, it lacks the details of the right-of-way impacts, dimensions, and sections. The project shall provide details of the right-of-way impacts and obtain necessary approval from the City Council. • The DEIR plans reflect the old Broadway Interchange, and it is not clear how the proposed project affects/impacts the newly constructed Interchange. The project plans shall reflect the newly constructed Interchange, show proposed improvements in reference to the recent improvements, and address any potential impacts. • Drainage plans shall be provided to confirm that all freeway drainage (existing and proposed) does not negatively impact the non-freeway drainage from Burlingame. Any necessary storm drainage improvements that become evident as a result of the project shall be corrected and included in the project scope. All existing underground drainage infrastructure crossings under the freeway should be evaluated to confirm adequate structural integrity and addressed as required as part of the project scope. • All City owned infrastructure and utilities along Rollins Road shall be protected in place during the project construction. The project shall be responsible to repair damage caused to City facilities as a result of the project construction. • Rollins Road along its entire affected length shall be fully resurfaced with new asphalt concrete pavement as approved by the City of Burlingame Public Works Department, as the project construction, including the relocation of the sound wall, is expected to cause significant disruption, result in wear and tear, and damage the roadway. • The project shall take adequate measures to minimize construction noise and disruption to Burlingame businesses and residents during construction. The City of Burlingame appreciates the opportunity to provide comments in response to the DEIR, and looks forward to working cooperatively with Caltrans to address Burlingame’s concerns as stated in this letter. Please contact Asssistant Public Works Director Art Morimoto at amorimoto@burlingame.org for questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, Syed Murtuza Director of Public Works c: Burlingame City Council San Mateo County Transportation Authority Board C/CAG Board A l a m e d aCounty S a n M a t e oCounty S a n t a C l a r aCounty PM SCL 50.6 PM SM 21 .8 82 237 92 92 85 114 262 35 10 9 82 185 1 84 1 84 35 238 101 101 Lower CrystalSpringReservoir Upper CrystalSpringReservoir BelmontReservoir BearGulchReservoir An za L a go o n Sanchez CreekLagoon DonCastroReservoir Tule Pond ShorelineLake SanFranciscoBay Fremont San Jose San Lorenzo Newark San Leandro Union City East PaloAlto Pacifica SanBruno Mountain View Hayward Pleasanton Palo Alto DalyCity Redw ood City SanMateo Santa ClaraSunnyvale Sunol Cherr yland Fairview Ather ton Brisbane Belmont Colma Foster City Nor thFair Oaks Hillsborough Millbrae Montara Woodside Los Altos Stanford Burlingame El Granada Menlo Park San Carlos San FranciscoInternationalAirport 380 238 580 680 880 280 AECOM Oakland CA 9/28/2017 USER alexander.remar PATH \\Oakland.na.aecomnet.com\Oakland\Projects\GIS\Projects\San_Mateo_101_Managed_Lanes_Expressway\02_M aps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\EnvironmentalDocumentation\Figure_1pt1-1_ProjectLocation.m xd FIGURE 1.1-1Project Location ProjectLocation SM 101 Managed LanesSan Mateo County 0 2 Miles 1:149,9991 inch = 12,500 feet Study Area DATA SOURCENHD, 2016 MAP PREPARED BY:AEC OM Alex R emar,9/28/2017 PROJECTIONNAD 1983 StatePlaneCalifornia III FIPS 0403 FeetPM SM – Post Mile, San Ma teo CountyPM SCL – Post Mile, S anta Clara County $+$+$+$+$+$+$+$+$+$+#*$+$+%,%,")")9 2 0 9 2 5 9 3 0 9 3 5 9 4 0 9 4 5 9 5 0 9 5 5 Replacement wallconforms to existing Replacement wallconforms to existing Replacement wallconforms to existing N Kin gs to n S t 101 P o p l a r C r e e k G o l f C o u r s e S 2 5 L2 6 S 2 7 M 2 7 a M 2 7 b S 2 8 S 2 9S 3 0 M 2 9 18 19a PM 14.5 N A m p h l e t t B l v dE P o p la r A v eA i r p o r t B l v dPeninsulaAve N I d a h o S t C o y o t e PointD rC o l l e g e A v eS t a t e S t N I d a h o S t E P o p l a r A v e Poplar Creek PoplarCreekAECOM Oakland CA 10/3/2017 USER alexander.remar PATH \\Oakland.na.aecomnet.com\Oakland\Projects\GIS\Projects\San_Mateo_101_Managed_Lanes_Expressway\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\EnvironmentalDocumentation\AppendixD_MajorProposedProjectFeatures.mxd PROPOSED MAJORPROJECT FEATURES41 of 59 S F O R e d w o o dC ity S a nM a te o M illb ra e SanFranciscoBay P a loA lto 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 11 1 2 1 5 1 8 2 0 21 2 3 2 4 27 2 9 3 03 2 3 3 3 437 4 0 41 4 4 4 5 475 0 5 25 3 5 55 8 5 9 Map LocationSM 101 Managed LanesSan Mateo County E xte n t o f o th e r sh e e ts in fig u re E xistin g C a ltra n s C e n te r L in e E xistin g C a ltra n s R ig h t-o f-W a y M a xim u m P ro je ct F o o tp rin t $+N o ise R e ce p to r Lo ca tio n S e rvice P o in t E n viro n m e n ta lly S e n sitive A re a S to rm w a te r C u lve rt Fre sh w a te r W e tla n d DATA SOURCESUSGS (imagery), 2015;USFWS (NWI), 2016; USGS(NHD), 2016; Illingworth andRodkin Inc., 2017; AECOM,2017 MAP PREPARED BY:AECOM Alex Remar,10/3/2017PROJECTIONNAD 1983 StatePlaneCalifornia III FIPS 0403 FeetN o te s:- M a p p in g o u tsid e o f m a xim u m p ro je c t fo o tp rin t is sh a d e d .- A ll e xisitin g w a lls n o t la b e led rem a in u n c h a n g e d . 0 2 0 0 Fee t 1 :1 ,8 0 0 1 in ch = 1 5 0 fe e t $+$+$+$+$+%,%,")9 4 5 9 5 0 9 5 5 9 6 0 9 6 5 9 7 0 Ch a n n i n g R d 101 S 2 2S 2 3 S 2 4 S 2 5 PM 15.0 A ir p o r t B lv d R o l l i n s R d H u m b o l d t R d A m p h l e t t B l v dB u r l i n g a m e A v eBayswaterAveH o w a r d A v e V i c t o r i a R d B a n c r o f t R d B e a c h R dL a n g R d N I d a h o S t BurlingameLagoon SanFranciscoBay AECOM Oakland CA 10/3/2017 USER alexander.remar PATH \\Oakland.na.aecomnet.com\Oakland\Projects\GIS\Projects\San_Mateo_101_Managed_Lanes_Expressway\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\EnvironmentalDocumentation\AppendixD_MajorProposedProjectFeatures.mxd PROPOSED MAJORPROJECT FEATURES42 of 59 S F O R e d w o o dC ity S a nM a te o M illb ra e SanFranciscoBay P a loA lto 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 11 1 2 1 5 1 8 2 0 21 2 3 2 4 27 2 9 3 03 2 3 3 3 437 4 0 41 4 4 4 5 475 0 5 25 3 5 55 8 5 9 Map LocationSM 101 Managed LanesSan Mateo County E xte n t o f o th e r sh e e ts in fig u re E xistin g C a ltra n s C e n te r L in e E xistin g C a ltra n s R ig h t-o f-W a y M a xim u m P ro je ct F o o tp rin t $+N o ise R e ce p to r Lo ca tio n C C T V S e rvice P o in t ")S ig n (O H S ig n Tru ss) S ig n (V TM S ) %,To ll R e a d e r P ro p o se d E le c tro n ic To ll S yste m C o n d u it E n viro n m e n ta lly S e n sitive A re a O p e n W a te r B ra c k ish M a rsh W e tla n d Fre sh w a te r W e tla n d DATA SOURCESUSGS (imagery), 2015;USFWS (NWI), 2016; USGS(NHD), 2016; Illingworth andRodkin Inc., 2017; AECOM,2017 MAP PREPARED BY:AECOM Alex Remar,10/3/2017PROJECTIONNAD 1983 StatePlaneCalifornia III FIPS 0403 FeetN o te s:- M a p p in g o u tsid e o f m a xim u m p ro je c t fo o tp rin t is sh a d e d .- A ll e xisitin g w a lls n o t la b e led rem a in u n c h a n g e d . 0 2 0 0 Fee t 1 :1 ,8 0 0 1 in ch = 1 5 0 fe e t $+$+$+9 7 0 9 7 5 9 8 0 9 8 5 9 9 0 Cu m b e r l a n d D rClare nd o n R d 101 L2 0 S 21M 2 1 PM 15.5 R o l l i n s R d D w i g h t R d T r e n t o n W a yB u r l i n g a m e A v e C h a n n i n g R d B a n c r o f t R d B l o o m f i e l d R d L e x in g t o n W a yL a n g R d C o n c o r d W a yP l y m o u t h W a y B e a c h R d BurlingameLagoon BurlingameLagoon SanchezCreekLagoon AECOM Oakland CA 10/3/2017 USER alexander.remar PATH \\Oakland.na.aecomnet.com\Oakland\Projects\GIS\Projects\San_Mateo_101_Managed_Lanes_Expressway\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\EnvironmentalDocumentation\AppendixD_MajorProposedProjectFeatures.mxd PROPOSED MAJORPROJECT FEATURES43 of 59 S F O R e d w o o dC ity S a nM a te o M illb ra e SanFranciscoBay P a loA lto 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 11 1 2 1 5 1 8 2 0 21 2 3 2 4 27 2 9 3 03 2 3 3 3 437 4 0 41 4 4 4 5 475 0 5 25 3 5 55 8 5 9 Map LocationSM 101 Managed LanesSan Mateo County E xte n t o f o th e r sh e e ts in fig u re E xistin g C a ltra n s C e n te r L in e E xistin g C a ltra n s R ig h t-o f-W a y M a xim u m P ro je ct F o o tp rin t $+N o ise R e ce p to r Lo ca tio n E n viro n m e n ta lly S e n sitive A re a O p e n W a te r B ra c k ish M a rsh W e tla n d S a lt M a rsh W e tla n d DATA SOURCESUSGS (imagery), 2015;USFWS (NWI), 2016; USGS(NHD), 2016; Illingworth andRodkin Inc., 2017; AECOM,2017 MAP PREPARED BY:AECOM Alex Remar,10/3/2017PROJECTIONNAD 1983 StatePlaneCalifornia III FIPS 0403 FeetN o te s:- M a p p in g o u tsid e o f m a xim u m p ro je c t fo o tp rin t is sh a d e d .- A ll e xisitin g w a lls n o t la b e led rem a in u n c h a n g e d . 0 2 0 0 Fee t 1 :1 ,8 0 0 1 in ch = 1 5 0 fe e t $+$+$+9 9 0 9 9 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 Replacement wallconforms to existingTren t o n W a y 101 S 1 9 M 1 9M 2 0 20b PM 16.0 R o l l i n s R dO a k G r o v e A v eA n za B lvd B l o o m f i e l d R d ParkAveW i n c h e s t e r P lM a r i n D r Winchester Dr M a p l e A v e C u m b e r l a n d D r F r a n c i s c o D rC o r b i t t D r BurlingameLagoon SanchezCreekLagoon AECOM Oakland CA 10/3/2017 USER alexander.remar PATH \\Oakland.na.aecomnet.com\Oakland\Projects\GIS\Projects\San_Mateo_101_Managed_Lanes_Expressway\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\EnvironmentalDocumentation\AppendixD_MajorProposedProjectFeatures.mxd PROPOSED MAJORPROJECT FEATURES44 of 59 S F O R e d w o o dC ity S a nM a te o M illb ra e SanFranciscoBay P a loA lto 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 11 1 2 1 5 1 8 2 0 21 2 3 2 4 27 2 9 3 03 2 3 3 3 437 4 0 41 4 4 4 5 475 0 5 25 3 5 55 8 5 9 Map LocationSM 101 Managed LanesSan Mateo County E xte n t o f o th e r sh e e ts in fig u re E xistin g C a ltra n s C e n te r L in e E xistin g C a ltra n s R ig h t-o f-W a y M a xim u m P ro je ct F o o tp rin t $+N o ise R e ce p to r Lo ca tio n P ro p o se d E le c tro n ic To ll S yste m C o n d u it E n viro n m e n ta lly S e n sitive A re a O p e n W a te r B ra c k ish M a rsh W e tla n d S a lt M a rsh W e tla n d DATA SOURCESUSGS (imagery), 2015;USFWS (NWI), 2016; USGS(NHD), 2016; Illingworth andRodkin Inc., 2017; AECOM,2017 MAP PREPARED BY:AECOM Alex Remar,10/3/2017PROJECTIONNAD 1983 StatePlaneCalifornia III FIPS 0403 FeetN o te s:- M a p p in g o u tsid e o f m a xim u m p ro je c t fo o tp rin t is sh a d e d .- A ll e xisitin g w a lls n o t la b e led rem a in u n c h a n g e d . 0 2 0 0 Fee t 1 :1 ,8 0 0 1 in ch = 1 5 0 fe e t $+$+$+$+$+$+$+$+%,%,")1 0 1 5 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 5 1 0 3 0 1 0 3 5 Replacement wallconforms to existing 101 S16 S17M17 M19 M15b 20b 20b 21 PM 16.0 S a n c h e z C r e e k R o l l i n s R d Toyon DrLinden Av e Azalea Ave Rose CtMorrell AveMapl e A v e Laurel A v e Anz a B l vd Larkspur DrSanchezCreekLagoon Sanchez Creek BurlingameLagoon AECOM Oakland CA 10/3/2017 USER alexander.remar PATH \\Oakland.na.aecomnet.com\Oakland\Projects\GIS\Projects\San_Mateo_101_Managed_Lanes_Expressway\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\EnvironmentalDocumentation\AppendixD_MajorProposedProjectFeatures.mxd PROPOSED MAJORPROJECT FEATURES45 of 59 SFO RedwoodCity SanMateoMillbrae SanFranciscoBay PaloAlto 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 11 12 1518 20 21 2324 27 29 3032 333437 4041 4445 4750 5253 5558 59 Map LocationSM 101 Managed LanesSan Mateo County Extent of other sheets in figure Existing Caltrans Center Line Existing Caltrans Right-of-Way Maximum Project Footprint $+Noise Receptor Location CCTV Service Point ")Sign (OH Sign Truss) Sign (VTMS) %,Toll Reader Proposed Electronic Toll System Conduit Environmentally Sensitive Area Open Water Salt Marsh Wetland DATA SOURCESUSGS (imagery), 2015;USFWS (NWI), 2016; USGS(NHD), 2016; Illingworth andRodkin Inc., 2017; AECOM,2017 MAP PREPARED BY:AECOM Alex Remar,10/3/2017PROJECTIONNAD 1983 StatePlaneCalifornia III FIPS 0403 FeetNotes:- Mapping outside of maximum project footprint is shaded.- All exisiting walls not labeled remain unchanged. 0 200 Feet 1:1,8001 inch = 150 feet $+$+$+$+#*$+$+1 0 3 0 1 0 3 5 1 0 4 0 1 0 4 5 1 0 5 0 1 0 5 5 1 0 6 0 Rollin sR d 101 S 1 5 M 1 6 M 1 5 a 20b 21 PM 16.5S a n c h e z C r e e kRollinsRdB a y s h o r e H w y AirportBlvdBr oadwa y M a r s t e n R dWh i t e h o r n W a y N e r l i L n SanchezCreekLagoon Sanchez Creek Easton Creek AECOM Oakland CA 10/3/2017 USER alexander.remar PATH \\Oakland.na.aecomnet.com\Oakland\Projects\GIS\Projects\San_Mateo_101_Managed_Lanes_Expressway\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\EnvironmentalDocumentation\AppendixD_MajorProposedProjectFeatures.mxd PROPOSED MAJORPROJECT FEATURES46 of 59 S F O R e d w o o dC ity S a nM a te o M illb ra e SanFranciscoBay P a loA lto 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 11 1 2 1 5 1 8 2 0 21 2 3 2 4 27 2 9 3 03 2 3 3 3 437 4 0 41 4 4 4 5 475 0 5 25 3 5 55 8 5 9 Map LocationSM 101 Managed LanesSan Mateo County E xte n t o f o th e r sh e e ts in fig u re E xistin g C a ltra n s C e n te r L in e E xistin g C a ltra n s R ig h t-o f-W a y M a xim u m P ro je ct F o o tp rin t $+N o ise R e ce p to r Lo ca tio n S e rvice P o in t P ro p o se d E le c tro n ic To ll S yste m C o n d u it E n viro n m e n ta lly S e n sitive A re a O p e n W a te r B ra c k ish M a rsh W e tla n d S a lt M a rsh W e tla n d DATA SOURCESUSGS (imagery), 2015;USFWS (NWI), 2016; USGS(NHD), 2016; Illingworth andRodkin Inc., 2017; AECOM,2017 MAP PREPARED BY:AECOM Alex Remar,10/3/2017PROJECTIONNAD 1983 StatePlaneCalifornia III FIPS 0403 FeetN o te s:- M a p p in g o u tsid e o f m a xim u m p ro je c t fo o tp rin t is sh a d e d .- A ll e xisitin g w a lls n o t la b e led rem a in u n c h a n g e d . 0 2 0 0 Fee t 1 :1 ,8 0 0 1 in ch = 1 5 0 fe e t E 3RD AVEE HILL S D A L E B L V D HOLLY STUNIVERSITY AVEN SHORELINE BLVDMOFFETT BLVDN RENGSTORFF AVEE POPLAR AVECHATEAU RD MILLB R AE AVE IEWAIN VAIN VIEWAIN VIEWMOUNTAIN VAIN VMOUAIN VIEWNTAIN VMOUNT MILLBMILLBMILLBMILLBMILLBMILLBMILLB RUNOSAN BRUNORUNOSAN BRUNOSAN BRUNOSAN BSAN BSAN BRUNO SANTA CLARA COUNTYSANTA CLARA COUNTYSANTA CLARA COUNTYSANTA CLARA COUNTYSANTA CLARA COUNTYSANTA CLARA COUNTYSANTA CLARA COUNTYSANTA CLARA COUNTYSANTA CLARA COUNTYSANTA CLARA COUNTY MILLB R AE AVEAE AVE MILLB R AE AVEAE AVE PALO ALTOPALO ALTOALTOPALO ALTOPALO ALTOPALO ALTOPALO PALO ALTOALTOPALO ALTOPALO ALTOPALO ALTOALTO MILLBRAEMILLB BURLIBURLIBURLIBURLIBURLIBURLI RUNO ALTOALTOE 3RD AVEE 3RD AVEE 3RD E HILL SDALE E HILL SDALE BLVDBLVD SDALE BLVD SDALE BLVD E HILL BLVD SFO InterSFO International AirportSFO Inter rport HOLLY HOLLY STUNIVERSITY AVESITY AVEUNIVERUNIVERUNIVERSITY AUNIVERSITY AUNIVERUNIVERSITY AE POPLAR AVECHATEAU RD CHATEAU RD CHATEACHATEACHATEAU RD SAN MATEOATEOSAN MSAN MSAN MSAN M R CITYR CITFOSTEFOSTEFOSFOSFOSR CR CFOSR CFOSFOSFOSR CTER C BELMOBELMONTBELMONTNT ARLOSARLOSARLOSARLOSSAN CARLOSSAN CSAN CARLOSARLOSSAN CARLOS REDWOOD CITYTYTYREDWOREDWOREDWOREDWOOD CIOD CIOD CITYREDWOREDWO MENLO PARK PARK PARK PARK PARK PARK EAST EAST PALO ALTOEAST EAST EAST EAST EAST BURLIBURLINGAMEBURLIBURLINGAMEBURLIBURLIBURLI SAN FRANCISCO BAY E 3RD SAN BSAN BSAN BSAN B WOODSIDE RDRALSTON A V E EXISTING HOV LANES PROPOSED EXPRESS LANE COUNTY LINE L E G E N D Caltrans proposes to build an express lane in both directions on Highway 101 in San Mateo County. The express lanes would connect with existing carpool lanes at Whipple Avenue which would be converted into express lanes themselves, creating new continuous express lanes that extend from I-380 in San Bruno to San Antonio Road in Mountain View. New express lanes (blue) would connect with existing carpool lanes (red), which will be converted to express lanes themselves, creating a 22-mile express lane in each direction. Connecting these lanes with a system of express lanes in Santa Clara County is part of a regional master plan. Construct Start: Spring 2019 Project Cost: $534 Million (Dependent upon funding) Construct Finish: Early 2022 Contractor: To be Determined Project Limits: Between I-380 in South San Francisco to San Antonio Road in Palo Alto Purpose and Need: · Encourage carpooling and transit use · Improve travel time reliability for express lane users · Increase person throughput (the number of people moved) · Apply technology and design features to help manage trac · Reduce congestion in the corridor · Reduce operational problems in the general purpose lanes. Project Partners: Caltrans, San Mateo County Transportation Authority, City/County Association of San Mateo GLOSSARY THROUGHPUT: The number of vehicles or people passing through a lane in an hour; person throughput, vehicle throughput HOV LANE: High Occupancy Vehicle Lane, also known as a carpool lane EXPRESS LANE: A carpool lane that allows single-occupancy vehicles that pay a toll. Also, known as at HOT Lane, a high occupancy toll lane. MANAGED LANE: A general term for a lane that is either a carpool lane or an express lane. This project is called the Managed Lanes Project because both carpool and express lanes were studied. AUXILIARY LANE: An outer lane that begins at an on-ramp and ends at an o-ramp. “Aux” lanes allow space for vehicles to safely merge on and o the freeway. An auxiliary lane is not a through lane. 3+ CARPOOL LANE: A carpool lane that requires three or more occupants during a specied time For more information of the project, go to the Project Webpage: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d4/101managedlanes/ EXPRSLANEEXPRSLANEHOV 3 + N O T O L L W / F A S T R A K F L E X EXPRE S S LANE ONLY NO TO L L HOV 3+ flex To avoid the high cost and time-consuming process of acquiring new right of way, Caltrans designed the project to stay within the existing right of way wherever possible. The auxiliary lanes (see glossary) in San Mateo County would be connected to create a continuous lane. The far left lane would be converted to an express lane. New auxiliary lanes would be built to replace the ones used to build the new lane, except for a segment in Burlingame. Some soundwalls in San Mateo and Burlingame and the Monte Diablo pedestrian overcrossing would be rebuilt to accommodate the widening. Buses, 3+ carpools drive for free in Express Lane * Electronic tolls collected by FasTrak Solo drivers may expect reduced travel times in general purpose lanes Public express buses could be funded with excess tolls Caltrain Electrication Project: Construction is underway to electrify Caltrain’s railway. New electric trains will be in use by 2022, eventually increasing passenger capacity by 30% US 101 Express Bus Study: SamTrans is studying regional bus service to bring congestion relief to the Highway 101 corridor. Report will be nished in mid-2018 Extending Managed Lane to SF: The San Mateo and San Francisco transportation authorities are studying a project that would connect the managed lanes to San Francisco Express Lane - Route 85 to San Mateo County: The Valley Transportation Authority is nishing design on a project to add express lanes from south of Route 85 to the San Mateo County line * Eligible clean air vehicles will also be permitted in the express lane Jobs, housing and population growth continues From 2011 – 2015, the Bay Area added 500,000 new jobs and 65,000 housing units By 2040, San Mateo County will see an additional 128,700 new jobs and 60,200 new households Vehicle trips to grow 4-7% by 2020 No incentive to share a ride Cars avoid the freeway Currently there is no carpool or express lane on Highway 101 in San Mateo County forcing buses and carpoolers to share lanes with solo drivers. An express lane would increase person throughput and create an incentive to use transit or carpool. Highways 101/92 Interchange: Planning is underway to dene the scope and cost of improvements For more information of the project, go to the Project Webpage: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d4/101managedlanes/ Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures US 101 Managed Lanes Project 2-53 November 2017 KEY VIEW 7: From Bayshore Boulevard looking north toward Poplar Avenue Key View 7 was selected for the same reasons as Key Views 4, 5, and 6. Key View 7: Existing Condition Similar to Key Views 4 and 5, the sound wall here provides a visual and sound screen between residents along the frontage road and the highway. Deciduous vines cover the 16-foot high wall. The existing condition of Key View 7 is shown in Figure 2.1.9-8. Viewer Response: High (H) Residents living along this frontage road are intimately familiar with this setting and are anticipated to have a high viewer response. Key View 7: Proposed Condition Similar to Key Views 4 and 5, the frontage road would be narrowed and the sound wall moved to accommodate adding a lane (shown in Figure 2.1.9-8). Under the Build Alternative, there wouldn’t be sufficient width to allow replanting vines. The roadway narrowing would be perceptible, and the proposed condition of the roadway meeting the wall without any planting strip creates a more engineered and static character. The presence of dense street trees along the opposite side of the frontage road slightly alleviates this change. The loss of greenery would be highly noticeable, but the wall would still provide a visual screen. These alterations would result in a moderate-low level of resource change. Build Alternative features at Key View 7 are anticipated to have a high degree of viewer sensitivity and a moderate-low level of resource change resulting in a moderate-high visual impact. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures US 101 Managed Lanes Project 2-54 November 2017 Key View 7 – Existing View Key View 7 – Simulated View Figure 2.1.9-8: Key View 7 Existing and Simulated Views Summary US 101 Managed Lanes Project iii November 2017 Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Resource Potential Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative Existing and Future Land Use None. The Build Alternative would require expansion of the State right-of-way into local roads and parcels in San Mateo and Burlingame. This would result in narrowing some frontage road lane widths and acquisition of a portion of an institutional property. Once constructed, the frontage roads would continue to provide the same circulation and no full property acquisitions or relocations are proposed. None. Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs The No Build Alternative would not be consistent with the goals of several city general plans. Portions of the Build Alternative are within the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) jurisdiction. Caltrans would work with BCDC to submit and obtain any required permits prior to construction. None. Parks and Recreational Facilities None. The Build Alternative would not encroach into any public parklands. Construction noise and dust may be increased during project construction at the Poplar Creek Golf Course in the Coyote Point Recreation Area as the adjacent sound wall is removed and then reconstructed following freeway construction. None. Growth None. The Build Alternative would serve recent and anticipated future growth in the project area but would not contribute to direct or indirect growth. None. Relocations and Real Property Acquisition None. Partial property acquisition from city right-of-way in San Mateo and Burlingame as well as one institutional property in San Mateo would be required. No residences or businesses would be displaced. None. Environment al Justice None. Minority and low-income communities near the project area would be impacted by construction noise, dust, and temporary removal of sound walls. However, these impacts would not represent a disproportionately high and adverse effect on these communities. None. Summary US 101 Managed Lanes Project iv November 2017 Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Resource Potential Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative Utilities/ Emergency Services None. Full or partial lane and shoulder closures for roadwork and utility work may affect emergency service providers. As described in Section 1.4.1.5, a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared during the design phase of the project to minimize traffic disruptions from project construction. The TMP will include outreach to inform the agencies listed above and the public of the times and locations of upcoming construction, construction signs in and approaching the project area, and incident management for traffic control in the vicinity of construction activities. Access will be maintained for emergency response vehicles. None. Traffic and Transportatio n/ Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The No Build Alternative would result in higher travel times compared to Existing Conditions. In 2020, the No Build Alternative would result in a longer travel time on US 101 compared to Existing Condition by as much as 50 minutes in the general purpose lanes. The travel time at 9:00 AM would be 37 minutes at Existing Conditions, and 87 minutes for the No Build Alternative in the northbound direction. In the southbound direction, travel time differences would be essentially the same between Existing and No Build Alternative conditions. See Appendix D for detailed results. In 2040, the No Build Alternative would result in a longer travel time on US 101 compared to Existing Conditions by as much as 111 minutes in the The Build Alternative would result in travel time savings between 4 minutes and 27 minutes in the general purpose lanes compared to the No Build Alternative in 2020 (AM peak period in the northbound direction). In the southbound 2020 PM peak period, vehicles traveling between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM would experience 1 minute of delay, and vehicles traveling between 5:30 PM and 6:30 PM would experience 3 to 4 minutes of delay. During other time periods, the Build Alternative would result in no delay or a travel time savings with respect to the No Build. The Build Alternative would result in travel time savings of as much as 103 minutes in the express lanes in 2040, compared to the No Build Alternative (AM peak period in the southbound direction). During the 2040 AM peak period, vehicles traveling after 9:00 AM would experience longer travel times (by 8 to 28 minutes in the general purpose lanes in the northbound direction). In the southbound direction, vehicles traveling at 8:00 AM would experience a delay of 8 minutes compared to the No Build Alternative. TRA-1: Overcrossing Closure Plan. The Monte Diablo Avenue pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing would need to be temporarily closed during project construction. Caltrans will coordinate with the City of San Mateo to develop an overcrossing closure plan during the final design phase. The overcrossing closure plan will: -Minimize the number of days that the overcrossing will be closed to the public; and -Include a mandatory signage plan notifying pedestrian overcrossing users of closures. Notices will be posted at pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing access points as appropriate. Summary US 101 Managed Lanes Project v November 2017 Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Resource Potential Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative general purpose lanes. The travel time would be as much as 39 minutes at 8:00 AM for Existing Conditions, and 150 minutes for the No Build Alternative in the northbound direction. Delays would be similar in the southbound direction with 41 minutes under Existing conditions at 9:30 AM, and 152 minutes for the No Build conditions. See Appendix D for details. As shown in the tables in Appendix D, one intersection would improve in LOS during the 2020 AM peak hour, and two intersections would improve in LOS during the 2020 PM peak hour. In 2040, three intersections would improve in LOS during the AM peak hour, and two intersections would improve in LOS during the PM peak hour. Project construction would require temporary lane and shoulder closures, resulting in temporary increased congestions/delays during these events. Project construction would also require the temporary closure of the Monte Diablo Avenue pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing to replace the center column and girders over US 101. Visual/ Aesthetics None. Most of the project area would experience only low visual impacts with the addition of new signage, lighting, and toll collection and monitoring equipment, as well as restriping. Moderate visual impacts would result from vegetation removal required for highway widening and ramp realignment and would include mature trees and shrubs, and vines growing on sound walls. Frontage roads in San Mateo and Burlingame would experience high temporary visual impacts from the replacement of sound walls. VIS-1: Replacement highway planting, including trees, shrubs and groundcover, will be provided throughout the project area to enhance the visual character and quality of the corridor. Replacement highway planting will be executed as a separate contract, will include three years of plant establishment, and will be implemented within two years of completion of all road work. VIS-2: New overhead signs would be placed to avoid obstructing bay views to the extent feasible. VIS-3: New electronic variable tolling message signs (VTMS) would be placed away from residential areas to the extent feasible. VIS-4: Minimize tree and vegetation removal to the extent feasible. VIS-5: Trees and vegetation outside of clearing and grubbing limits shall be protected from the contractor’s operations, equipment, and materials storage. VIS-6: Newly constructed sound walls and the visible portions of retaining walls would include aesthetic treatments. Wall texture and color treatments shall be coordinated throughout the project corridor and carry consistent patterns and colors. Summary US 101 Managed Lanes Project vi November 2017 Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Resource Potential Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative VIS-7: Construction activities in residential areas should limit all construction lighting to within the area of work and avoid light trespass through directional lighting, shielding, and other measures as needed. Cultural Resources None. None. CUL-1: If cultural materials are discovered during construction, all earth-moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area will be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. CUL-2: If human remains are discovered, the Caltrans Office of Cultural Resources will be contacted. In addition, the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and activities shall stop in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the County Coroner contacted. If the remains are thought by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC, who, pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, will then notify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). At this time, the person who discovered the remains will contact Caltrans Office of Cultural Resource Studies so that they may work with the MLD on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains. Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 are to be followed as applicable. Summary US 101 Managed Lanes Project vii November 2017 Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Resource Potential Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative Hydrology and Floodplain The No Build Alternative would include seven encroachments of US 101 into the 100-year floodplain. The Build Alternative would not change the alignment of US 101 and would, therefore, continue to encroach on the 100-year floodplain. The Build Alternative would add new impervious surfaces to three interchange areas in the 100-year floodplain. The proposed project would not increase the base flood elevation. The measures described for Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff and Wetlands and Other Waters would minimize impacts to hydrology and floodplain. Temporary and permanent treatments will be included with the project. Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff None. The Build Alternative construction would have temporary impacts to water quality and storm water runoff from increased erosion and subsequent transport of sediment to surface waters. Spills and fluid leaks from construction vehicles, equipment, or materials may also occur during construction. The Build Alternative would disturb 139 acres of soil area, add 29 acres of new impervious area, and replace 48 acres of disturbed impervious area which may increase the volume and velocity of runoff. WQ-1: Hydromodification measures will be required for new and modified impervious surface, and may include on-site and off-site mitigation areas. These measures would be developed during the design phase and may include retention, detention, and infiltration measures, ditches, and storm drains. The measures would be developed in accordance with the Highway Design Manual and implemented in accordance with any permit requirements. The performance goal for the measures would be to reduce post-construction flows to pre-construction flow volumes and velocities. Geology/ Soils/ Seismicity/ Topography The No Build Alternative would be subject to the same geologic, soils, and seismic hazards as the Build Alternative. The Build Alternative could be exposed to strong ground shaking, cracking, liquefaction, shrink swell, and differential compaction as well as landslides, settlement, and erosion of slope stability. GEO-1: A geotechnical investigation will be performed during final design for any proposed new earthwork or new structure within the project limits including retaining walls, overhead signs, embankments, bridges, and sound walls, and it will address geologic hazards including liquefaction, cracking, differential compaction, ground shaking, and shrink swell. GEO-2: Caltrans’ design and construction guidelines incorporate engineering standards that address seismic risks. Project elements will be designed and constructed to meet seismic design requirements for ground shaking and ground motions, as determined for the project vicinity and site conditions. GEO-3: Proposed embankments will be designed and constructed in accordance with Caltrans 2010 Standard Specifications. Summary US 101 Managed Lanes Project viii November 2017 Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Resource Potential Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative Paleontology None. The Build Alternative would have a low potential to encounter paleontological resources. None. Hazardous Waste/ Materials None. Construction and maintenance of the Build Alternative are expected to involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, paints, and lubricants) on US 101, and could result in the potential disturbance of hazardous materials in soil, groundwater, and building materials. Nineteen schools are located within ¼ mile of the project area. HAZ-1: During the project design phase, a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) will be performed in accordance with current Caltrans guidance to investigate hazardous materials concerns related to soil, groundwater, and building materials within the project limits, as identified in the project’s Initial Site Assessment (ISA). Caltrans will prepare a work plan for the PSI. The findings of the PSI will be used to evaluate soil and groundwater handling practices, construction worker health and safety concerns, and soil and groundwater reuse and disposal options. If hazardous materials are identified during the PSI, additional investigation might be required to fully evaluate hazardous materials. All environmental investigations for the project will be provided to project contractors, so the findings can be incorporated into their Health and Safety and Hazard Communication Programs. The PSI will include recommendations for managing hazardous materials encountered during project construction to protect human health and the environment; these measures for hazardous materials shall be incorporated into the construction contract documents. Based on the findings of the investigation, the PSI report shall refine, as necessary, the recommendations listed in Section 2.2.5.4 for managing hazardous materials in soil, groundwater, and buildings materials. Summary US 101 Managed Lanes Project ix November 2017 Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Resource Potential Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative Air Quality None. As shown in Table 2.2.6-4, the Build Alternative would slightly increase MSAT emissions compared to the No Build Alternative. MSAT emissions would decrease in the design year (2040), compared to existing conditions as well as the opening year (2020). The results show that the project would not result in a substantial increase in MSAT emissions. Construction of the Build Alternative would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. As shown in Table 2.2.6-5, the daily average emissions during construction of the Build Alternative would be below the BAAQMD’s recommended thresholds for ROG, NOx, and exhaust PM10 and PM2.5. Since the daily average emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would be below the recommended thresholds, the construction of the Build Alternative would not be expected to result in an air quality violation. AIR-1. Caltrans’ Special Provisions and Standard Specifications will include the requirement to minimize or eliminate dust during project construction through the application of dust palliatives (water, dust suppressant, or dust binder). Control measures will be implemented as specified in Standard Specifications Section 14-9.02 “Air Pollution Control,” Section 18-1.03 “Dust Palliatives; Construction,” and other sections related to dust control. The dust control measures listed in Section 2.2.6.4 will also be considered during development of Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) for the project construction contract. Noise None. The Build Alternative would increase noise levels by 0-5 decibels throughout the project area, as shown in Table 2.2.7-4. Some existing sound walls would be removed and reconstructed as part of the Build Alternative. Traffic noise would be particularly pronounced at these locations until sound walls are rebuilt. Instantaneous construction and traffic noise could be 5-20 decibels higher than ambient noise levels but would be temporary in nature until sound walls are rebuilt and construction is completed. NOI-1: Require all construction equipment to conform to Section 14- 8.02, Noise Control, of the latest Standard Specifications. NOI-2: Noise-generating construction activities will be conducted during the allowable hours of construction as identified by local jurisdictions, where feasible. However, construction work may be necessary during night and early morning periods to minimize traffic disruption, and would be limited to temporary short-term periods at any one location. NOI-3: Pile driving activities will be limited to daytime hours to the extent feasible. NOI-4: Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. NOI-5: Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines within 100 feet of residences should be prohibited. Summary US 101 Managed Lanes Project x November 2017 Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Resource Potential Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative NOI-6: Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. NOI-7: Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other "quiet" equipment where such technology exists. NOI-8: Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines within 100 feet of residences. NOI-9: Avoid staging of construction equipment within 200 feet of residences and locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as air compressors, portable power generators, or self- powered lighting systems as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors. NOI-10: In locations where existing barriers are planned to be removed and replaced, construct each replacement barrier as soon as feasible after the removal of the existing barrier. Energy None. The Build Alternative would have small direct and indirect energy increases compared to the No Build Alternative. None. Natural Communities None. Temporary and permanent effects on trees would result from the Build Alternative including tree pruning and removal. This would affect primarily landscaped vegetation and trees. No substantial adverse effects are anticipated. All construction activities and staging will be limited to the project footprint BIO-1: Vegetation Removal. Minimize vegetation removal to the extent feasible. No clearing or grubbing will be permitted beyond designated construction sites. Remove cleared vegetation from the biological study area (BSA) to avoid attracting wildlife. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining all permits, licenses, and environmental clearances for properly disposing of such materials BIO-2: Tree Removal. To minimize effects on trees that occur within the project footprint, the following minimization measures will be implemented: o Only those trees requiring removal will be cut down. o Whenever possible, trees will be trimmed rather than removed. Summary US 101 Managed Lanes Project xi November 2017 Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Resource Potential Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative BIO-3: To avoid potential damage to retained trees, trees will be safeguarded during construction through implementation of the following measures as applicable: o No construction equipment, vehicles, or materials will be stored, parked or staged within the tree dripline; and o Work will not be performed within the dripline of remaining trees without consultation with an International Society of Arboriculture-certified arborist. If trees are damaged during construction and become unhealthy or die, the damaged tree(s) will be removed and replaced. BIO-4: During final design, Caltrans will develop replacement highway planting plans to replace vegetation removed during construction. Trees, shrubs and groundcover will be provided throughout the project area in available planting areas while maintaining required clear recovery zones and sight distances. Wetlands and Other Waters None. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) would be established to protect wetland and water features, including creeks and salt marsh habitat. Up to 0.84 acre of temporary impacts and 0.03 acre of permanent impacts to wetlands may occur. Although project activities would affect these wetland areas, the functions and values associated with these features would not be diminished. There would be no substantial adverse effects to wetlands. Implementation of erosion control BMPs (Section 1.4.1.5) would prevent runoff and pollutants from entering aquatic features. Further refinement during final design may minimize or avoid these impacts. If these areas are identified in the final design phase as being unavoidable, Section 401 and 404 permits will be obtained and mitigation approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). None. Summary US 101 Managed Lanes Project xii November 2017 Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Resource Potential Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative Animal Species None. Construction of the Build Alternative would not have an adverse effect on the white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, and salt marsh common yellowthroat, if present along with nesting birds. BIO-5: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys. Tree removal or trimming will be conducted during the non- nesting period, between September 1 and January 31, to the maximum extent feasible. If vegetation trimming or tree removal cannot be completed prior to January 31 and must occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist(s) will survey for nesting birds, including raptors within 14 days prior to construction. If active raptor nests are detected within 300 feet of an active construction site, or if active nests of other migratory birds are detected within 50 feet, the biological monitor will establish an appropriate non-disturbance buffer to avoid direct effects of construction- related disturbance. All nest avoidance requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code will be observed. Should construction be suspended for a period longer than 14 days, then a new pre-construction nesting bird survey will be conducted within 14 days prior to resuming construction activities. BIO-6: Trash Control. To eliminate attraction to predators of protected species, all food-related trash items (e.g., wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps) will be disposed of in solid, closed containers (trash cans) and will be removed from the BSA at the end of each day. BIO-7: Speed Reduction. Project- related vehicles will be required to observe a 10-mile-per-hour speed limit in all staging or storage areas. BIO-8: Firearms and Pet Restrictions. No firearms or pets will be permitted in the project area at any time. BIO-9: Wildlife-Safe Erosion-Control Materials. To prevent listed species from becoming entangled or trapped in erosion-control materials, plastic mono-filament netting (i.e., erosion- control matting or wattles) or similar material will not be used in the BSA. Straw wattles will be made of natural fiber, and no plastic or synthetic material will be used. Summary US 101 Managed Lanes Project xiii November 2017 Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Resource Potential Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative Threatened and Endangered Species None. Temporary construction of the Build Alternative has the potential to affect 0.38-acre of salt marsh harvest mouse, and Ridgway’s rail habitat. Permanent effects are estimated at up to 0.001-acre for salt marsh harvest mouse, and Ridgway’s rail. Effects are not expected to be adverse. In addition, Avoidance and minimization measures would further limit effects. WQ-1, WQ-2, BIO-1, BIO-6 and BIO- 10: ESA Fencing. The boundary between the construction areas and the West of Bayshore mitigation site and the Millbrae overcrossing cloverleaf will be fenced with reptile and amphibian-specific wildlife exclusion fencing and will be placed a minimum distance of 3 feet from the existing edge of the gravel shoulder. ESA fencing will also be placed at the wetland and aquatic habitats along the project route. Project-related work will not cross any ESA fencing. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)- approved biologist will be present on- site during the installation of the wildlife exclusion fencing and periodically verify that the exclusion fence remains effectively in place and that no CRLF or SFGS are present. BIO-11: Preconstruction Surveys and Biological Monitoring. Preconstruction surveys will be conducted by a qualified biologist, prior to vegetation clearing and before the start of construction activities in the immediate vicinity of CRLF and SFGS habitat (the West of Bayshore mitigation site and Millbrae overcrossing cloverleaf) and in the immediate vicinity of salt marsh harvest mouse, Ridgway’s rail, western snowy plover, and black rail (Smith Slough and Belmont Slough). The qualified biologist also will inspect any open holes, pipes, and equipment in designated staging areas for the presence of listed species. BIO-12: Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Before the start of construction activities, a qualified biologist will conduct environmental awareness training for project construction workers who are working in the immediate vicinity of CRLF, SFGS habitat (the West of the Bayshore mitigation site and the Millbrae overcrossing cloverleaf), as well as salt marsh harvest mouse, Ridgway’s rail, western snowy plover, and black rail habitat (Smith Slough and Belmont Slough). At a minimum, the training will include a description of these species habitats; the potential for occurrence of these Summary US 101 Managed Lanes Project xiv November 2017 Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Resource Potential Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative species in the BSA; an explanation of the status of these species and protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); the measures to be implemented to conserve listed species and their habitats as they relate to construction sites; and boundaries within which construction may occur. A fact sheet conveying this information will be prepared and distributed to all construction workers before they enter the project footprint. On completion of this training, each person will sign a form, confirming attendance and an understanding of all the avoidance and minimization measures. BIO-13: Wildlife Escape Ramps. In the immediate vicinity of CRLF, SFGS, and salt marsh harvest mouse habitat —West of Bayshore mitigation site, Millbrae overcrossing cloverleaf, Smith Slough, and Belmont Slough — all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches 1 foot or more deep will be covered at the end of each work day, or a dirt ramp will be built to provide a means of escape for wildlife. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they will be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. BIO-14: Pipe Capping. In the immediate vicinity of CRLF and SFGS habitat (West of Bayshore mitigation site and Millbrae overcrossing cloverleaf) and in the immediate vicinity of salt marsh harvest mouse, Ridgway’s rail, western snowy plover, and black rail (Smith Slough and adjacent to Belmont Slough) all pipes, culverts, and similar structures staged in the project footprint will be capped or will be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals before being buried, re-capped, or moved. Invasive Species None. In compliance with the Executive Order on Invasive Species, EO 13112, and subsequent guidance from the Federal Highway Administration, the landscaping and erosion control included in the project will use species that are not listed as noxious weeds. However, project construction activities have None. Summary US 101 Managed Lanes Project xv November 2017 Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Resource Potential Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Build Alternative the limited potential to inadvertently spread invasive species. Cumulative Impacts None. None. None. Climate Change The No Build Alternative would increase greenhouse gas emissions above existing conditions. The Build Alternative has the potential to temporarily increase greenhouse gas emissions during construction and slightly increase overall carbon dioxide emissions annually compared to the No Build Alternative, as shown in Table 3.2- 2. However, Table 3.2-2 shows that emissions per VMT would not increase over the No Build Alternative. None. Coordination with Public and Other Agencies Caltrans filed a Notice of Preparation for the Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) with the State Clearinghouse on October 19, 2016. The filing of the Notice of Preparation began a 30-day scoping period that extended through November 17, 2016. On October 27, 2017, during the 30-day scoping period, a public scoping meeting was held in the City of San Mateo. Additional information about public scoping and coordination with other agencies is shown in Table S-2 and Chapter 4. Average Annual Loss for private properties expected from coastal flooding events in the 21st century, by city, under an optimistic global CO2 emissions and sea level rise scenario (RCP 2.6), computed using the Stanford risk assessment framework in Fall 2017. Stanford Flood Resilience project, in partnership with Burlingame and San Mateo County Two project-based learning courses from Stanford (organized by the Public Policy Practicum Program and the Sustainable Urban Systems Initiative) are assisting the County of San Mateo Office of Sustainability to research, identify, and analyze the impacts of future land use development on flood damage risk in the County’s coastal and bayshore regions, in service of the County’s future Adaptation Framework. The Sustainable Urban Systems (SUS) project team is specifically developing a quantitative economic damage assessment tool that receives inputs and produces outputs at the parcel level and can be used to evaluate the impacts of land use policies. Some preliminary work has already been completed in the Fall 2017 phase of the project and will continue to be refined in January-June, with the final deliverable being an open-source, fully documented software tool for use by County and City planning staff. The SUS team engaged with Burlingame Sustainability Coordinator Sigalle Michael, Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, and others in Fall 2017 and looks forward to continued engagement with the City of Burlingame in 2018. Stanford point of contact: Derek Ouyang, Lecturer, douyang1@stanford.edu SUS assessment work from Fall 2017: http://sus.stanford.edu/resilience ●Includes an interactive map of results for Burlingame San Mateo County Sea Change website: http://seachangesmc.com/ Sea Level Rise in Burlingame Sabine Loos and Ben Mullet --Graduate students at Stanford Derek Ouyang --Lecturer at Stanford Outline ●Introduction to partnership with Stanford ●Summary of Autumn project work ●Scope of Winter/Spring continued work Goal: Empower local communities to mitigate their risk to sea level rise and other hazards. Stanford students presenting to Kevin Gardiner on 11/14/17 100yr floodplain with 100cm of base SLR, from Our Coast Our Future 1947 Today Image Courtesy Burlingame Historical Society The South Bay has flooded before Components of Risk Direct Loss Method -General Flow Chart Data & Methodology -SURI Risk Tool Exposure Model Building Footprints, Value and Type Flood Hazard Maps Flood Depth Maps Vulnerability Fragility Curves From Scenario-Based to Probabilistic Average Annual Loss (AAL) considering Sea Level Rise over time Sea level rise projection AAL AAL AAL AAL AAL Different sea level rise depths Cascading Impacts Displaced Families Power Outages Lost Work Displaced Infrastructure Saltwater Intrusion Dam Failure Increased Traffic Increased Utility Costs Sea Level Rise Current sea level Loss per year $44 million RCP2.6 Loss per year $1.2 billion 30x loss at current sea level RCP2.6 Loss per year by city The Bayshore Area Is At Risk Annual Percent Damage Hotels Are Relatively Spared Annual Percent Damage Cascading Impacts: Road Closures From diagnosis to decision: How will future land use development exacerbate or mitigate risk? Current zoning map Future land use planvs.