Agenda packet — Half Moon Bay City Council, September 15, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

TED ADCOCK COMMUNITY CENTER, 535 KELLY
AVENUE, HALF MOON BAY, CALIFORNIA 94019
Debbie Ruddock, Mayor
Deborah Penrose, Vice Mayor
Robert Brownstone, Councilmember
Patric Jonsson, Councilmember
Paul Nagengast, Councilmember

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
7:00 PM
This agenda contains a brief description of each item to be considered. Those wishing to address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the City Council to resolve, may come forward to the podium during the Public Forum portion of the agenda and will have a maximum of three minutes to discuss their item. Those wishing to speak on a Business or Public Hearing matter will be called forward at the appropriate time during that item´s consideration.

NOTE: Anyone wishing to present materials to the City Council, please submit seven copies to the City Clerk.

Copies of written documentation relating to each item of business on the agenda are on file in the Office of the City Clerk at City Hall where they are available for public inspection. If requested, the agenda shall be available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132.) Information may be obtained by calling 650-726-8271.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, special assistance for participation in this meeting can be obtained by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 650-726-8271. A 48-hour notification will enable the city to provide reasonable accommodation to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). http://halfmoonbay.gov/
1 HYBRID MEETING PARTICIPATION PROTOCOLS
This meeting will be held in-person and via Zoom for public participation. Public comments may be made in-person or remotely via Zoom, and interpretation will be available. During any public comment portions, attendees may use the “raise your hand” feature and will be called upon and unmuted when it is their turn to speak. The meeting will also be streamed on Channel 27, on pacificcoast.tv, and on the City website at https://www.halfmoonbay.gov/315/City-Council-Agendas. Please click to join the webinar: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87674804231 or join by phone at 669-900-9128, using Webinar ID876- 7480-4231. If joining by phone, use *9 to raise your hand, *6 to mute and unmute.

1. ROLL CALL / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

3. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

3.A MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL UPDATE

3.B PICKLEBALL PROCLAMATION

4. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

5. REPORT OUT FROM RECENT CLOSED SESSION MEETINGS

6. COMMISSION / COMMITTEE UPDATES

7. CITY MANAGER UPDATES TO COUNCIL

7.A COASTSIDE WOMEN'S CLUB 40TH ANNIVERSARY PROCLAMATION

7.B WINTER STORM UPDATE

8. PUBLIC FORUM

9. CONSENT CALENDAR

9.A WAIVE READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

9.B APPROVE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 SPECIAL MEETING ATTACHMENT - September 1, 2026 Special Meeting Minutes

9.C APPROVE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 REGULAR MEETING 2 ATTACHMENT - September 1, 2026 Regular Meeting Minutes

9.D ACCEPT THE WARRANTS FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2026
Staff Recommendation: Accept the warrants list for the month of August 2026.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1 - Check Disbursement List

9.E HIGHWAY 1 - NORTH (CIP PROJECT NO. 0538) PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT
Staff Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Peninsula Municipal Engineering, Inc. (PME) in an amount not to exceed $191,000 for project management services for the Highway 1 Safety and Operational Improvements Project - North (CIP Project No. 0538).

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1 - Resolution
ATTACHMENT 2 - PME Proposal

9.F IMPLEMENTATION OF MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND VISION BENEFITS FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS Staff Recommendation:

Adopt 1) A resolution establishing medical, dental, and vision benefits for City Councilmembers; and 2) A resolution extending medical eligibility under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) to the City’s Non-PERS Elected Officials group.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1 - Resolution For Benefits Summary for Elected Officials ATTACHMENT 2 - Resolution for CalPERS

10. ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

11. RESOLUTIONS AND STAFF REPORTS
3 11.A LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE; VOTING DELEGATE AND

RESOLUTION PACKET
Staff Recommendation:

By motion, designate the City’s voting delegate and alternates for the League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference and provide direction regarding the Council’s position on the 2026 Annual Conference Resolutions Packet.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT - 2026 Annual Conference Resolution Packet

11.B REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR REVENUE ADMINISTRATION AND CONSULTING SERVICES Staff Recommendation:

By motion, authorize staff to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for revenue administration and consulting services, including Transient Occupancy Tax administration and audit services, business license administration, and sales tax reporting and forecasting services.

STAFF REPORT

11.C FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED ON JUNE 30, 2026 Staff Recommendation:

Accept the Financial Report for the quarter ended on June 30, 2026.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1 - Quarterly Financial Report

11.DAUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READERS PILOT PROGRAM UPDATE Staff Recommendation:

Receive a report on the two-year ALPR pilot project, which expires on October 28, 2026, and provide direction on a potential continuation of the program and agreement with Fock Group, Inc. (“Flock”).

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1 - SMC ALPR Administrative Policy
4 ATTACHMENT 2 - City of Half Moon Bay ALPR Policy
ATTACHMENT 3 - Grand Jury Report
ATTACHMENT 4 - 2026 ALPR Annual Report

11.E STUDY SESSION ON E-BIKE-RELATED AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS

10.30.010 AND 10.30.140
Staff Recommendation:

Receive a report on development of ordinance language related to electric bicycles (e-bikes) and provide staff with direction on amending Section 10.30.010 (Bicycle Defined) and Section 10.30.140 (Operation of bicycle, skateboard, or scooter) of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT - Draft Ordinance

11.F PUBLIC ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING PROGRAM RATE AND INFRASTRUCTURE

IMPROVEMENTS
Staff Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution: 1) Amending the Master Fee Schedule to establish a public EV charging rate of $0.48 per kilowatt-hour (kWh); and 2) Authorizing the City Manager to implement necessary electrical and metering improvements, and execute related agreements to reduce the City’s operating costs for public EV charging.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1 - Resolution
ATTACHMENT 2 - Public EV Financial Analysis
ATTACHMENT 3 - CC Resolution No 2015-08

11.GCITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES WORKPLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2026-28 Staff Recommendation:
5 Receive a report and provide feedback on the City Council Priorities Workplan for FYs 2026-

28. STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1 - FY 2026-28 Strategic Priorities Workplan Separated ATTACHMENT 2 - FY 2026-28 Strategic Priorities Workplan Merged

12. FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION / POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS

13. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

14. ADJOURNMENT

TRANSLATIONS

TRANSLATED AGENDA
September 15, 2026 Spanish Agenda

LATE CORRESPONDENCE

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comments Received 9.10.26-9.14.26
Comments Received 9.15.26
6 MINUTES

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2026

SPECIAL MEETING
ADCOCK COMMUNITY CENTER, 535 KELLY AVENUE

1. CONVENE SPECIAL MEETING / ROLL CALL
Mayor Ruddock called the Special Meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Councilmembers Brownstone, Jonsson, Nagengast and Mayor Ruddock in person.

ABSENT: Vice Mayor Penrose

OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

3. CLOSED SESSION

4.A CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(D)(1)
Name of case: The People of the State of California et al. v. City of Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 26-CIV-05579

4.B CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (One Potential Case)

4.C CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 and paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 54956.9: (One Potential Case)

4.D PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION-PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957
Title: City Manager Matthew Chidester

4. ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING
Mayor Ruddock adjourned the Special Meeting at approximately 7:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:
7 September 1, 2026
City Council Special Meeting Minutes

Page 2 of 2 ends

Maggie Rodriguez, City Clerk
*Approved by the City Council at the August ___, 2026 Regular meeting. 8 CITY OF HALF MOON BAY CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, September 1, 2026

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
ADCOCK COMMUNITY CENTER, 535 KELLY AVENUE

1. ROLL CALL / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Ruddock called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:13 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. City Clerk Rodriguez called the Roll Call.

PRESENT: Councilmembers Brownstone, Jonsson, Nagengast, Mayor Ruddock ABSENT: Vice Mayor Penrose

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION
Councilmember Brownstone moved and Councilmember Nagengast seconded a motion to approve the agenda hearing item 11A immediately after consent agenda. The motion carried by unanimous vote 4-0, with Vice Mayor Penrose absent.

3. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

3.A SUICIDE PREVENTION MONTH PROCLAMATION
San Mateo County Suicide Prevention Committee Member Verna Barrientos said a few words.

3.B SAMUEL RAMOS PALOMINO RECOGNITION
Captain Eamonn Allen recognized Mr. Palominos for his heroic help on the evening of August 18, 2026.

The following individuals addressed the council on items 3.A and 3.B:
• Joaquin Jimenez
• Willa Chapman
• Jimmy Benjamin

4. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICE None.
9 September 1, 2026
City Council Minutes

Page 2 of 6 ends

5. REPORT OUT FROM RECENT CLOSED SESSION MEETINGS
City Attorney Bazzano reported the Council met in Closed Session on September 1, 2026, on four items. There was no reportable action.

6. COMMISSION / COMMITTEE UPDATES

6.A PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT OUT
Interim Deputy City Manager Decker provided updates from the August Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, where they welcomed two new Youth Representatives, Commissioner Meyer and Commissioner Del Nagro.

6.B PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT OUT
Community Development Director Lacko provided updates from the recent Planning Commission Meetings.

7. CITY MANAGER UPDATES TO COUNCIL

7.A MEASURE I AND Q UPDATE
City Clerk Rodriguez and City Manager Chidester provided updates to the new city webpages that inform the community about the two ballot measures for the November 3, 2026, Election.

The following individuals addressed the council:
•Evelyn DeSouza
•Nancy Fontana
• Sandy Vella
The Council asked clarifying questions of staff.

7.B ONLINE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
City Clerk Rodriguez informed the council and community of a new way to submit public comments before a City Council Meeting.

The following individuals addressed the council:
• Curt Bianchi
• Nancy Fontana

8. PUBLIC FORUM
10 September 1, 2026
City Council Minutes

Page 3 of 6 ends

The following individuals addressed the Council:
• Jimmy Benjamin
• Joaquin Jimenez
• Jade Cling

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Nagengast asked to hear item 9H.

9.A WAIVE READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

9.B APPROVE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 18, 2026 SPECIAL MEETING

9.C APPROVE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 18, 2026 REGULAR MEETING

9.D RESOLUTION NO. 2026-81 CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE UPDATE

9.E APPROVE THE AMENDED 2026 CALENDAR OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

9.F APPROVE THE MAYOR’S LIST OF UPDATED CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTITIVES AND DESIGNATED ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2026.

9.G RESOLUTION NO. 2026-82 AWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO ROBERT D.

NIEHAUS, INC. FOR SEWER RATE STUDY

9.H ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2026-03 AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND LOCAL COASTAL

PROGRAM TO IMPLEMENT THE SIXTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT
The following individuals address the council:
• Dan Haggarty
MOTION
Councilmember Nagengast moved and Councilmember Brownstone seconded a motion to approve the consent calendar items 9A-9G. The motion carried unanimously 4-0 with Penrose absent.

9.H ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO

IMPLEMENT THE SIXTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT
Councilmember Nagengast asked questions and provided a statement. Community Development Director Lacko provided answers.

MOTION
Councilmember Brownstone moved and Councilmember Jonsson seconded a motion to revising section 6 verbiage within the ordinance as follows: “Section 6. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth (30th) day from and after its final passage and upon certification by the California Coastal Commission.” The motion carried unanimously 3-1 with Nagengast voting no and Penrose absent.
11 September 1, 2026
City Council Minutes

Page 4 of 6 ends

RECESS
Mayor Ruddock called for a recess at 8:35 the meeting reconvened at approximately 8:45pm with all four councilmembers present.

10. ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

10.A APPROVE 2026 MEASURE D TRANSFERS
Assistant City Planner Zalduondo and Community Development Director Lacko presented their staff report. The Council asked questions of staff.

Mayor Ruddock opened the Public Hearing. The following individuals address the council:
• Sophia Whiting
• Amy Miller
MOTION
Councilmember Nagengast moved and Councilmember Brownstone seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 2026-83 approving the transfer of 19 of the remaining Downtown base Measure D allocations, to be used for new dwelling units proposed in the Outside Downtown area, prioritized according to the scoring within the Measure D application checklist and as shown within Exhibit A to the Resolution (Attachment 1). The motion carried unanimously 4-0 with Penrose absent.

11. RESOLUTIONS AND STAFF REPORTS

11.A CONSIDERATION OF EXTENDING HEALTH BENEFITS ELIGIBILITY TO ELECTED OFFICIALS Interim Administrative Services Director Stiles presented the staff report to the council. The council discussed the item. Council directed staff to return to the September 15, 2026 Regular Meeting with a consent item.

11.B SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM SUMMARY AND APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH V.W. HOUSEN & ASSOCIATES
Interim Public Works Director Leda presented the staff report to the council. Council discussed the item and made suggestions.

MOTION
Councilmember Nagengast moved and Councilmember Brownstone seconded a motion to 1) Receive a summary report on the condition of the City's sanitary sewer collection system, including the results 12 September 1, 2026
City Council Minutes

Page 5 of 6 ends

of the recent infiltration and inflow assessment; and 2) Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with V.W. Housen & Associates for wastewater collection system engineering support services in an amount not to exceed $99,217. The motion carried unanimously 4-0, with Penrose absent.

11.C COMMUNITY BANNER PROGRAM
Interim Public Works Director Leda and Interim Economic and Community Vitality Manager Acosta presented the staff report. City Council discussed the item and asked clarifying questions.

The following individuals addressed the council:
• Amber Stow
MOTION
Councilmember Nagengast moved and Councilmember Brownstone seconded the motion to adopt Resolution No. 2026-85: 1) Establishing the Community Banner Program and approving the Community Banner Program authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to make amendments to effectively implement and administer the program, subject to the approved Special Sign Program; 2) Amending the Master Fee Schedule to establish a Community Banner Program Application Fee in the amount of $450 per approved banner cycle; 3) Authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the Half Moon Bay Beautification Committee for the installation and removal of community banners, in a form approved by the City Attorney; and 4) Authorizing the City Manager to procure services, supplies, materials and equipment necessary for initial implementation of the Community Banner Program, including banner hardware, banners, paint and related materials, at a total cost not to exceed $100,000. The motion carried unanimously 4-0, with Penrose absent.

11.D CARTER PARK DONOR PROGRAM UPDATE
Interim Deputy City Manager Decker and Interim Economic and Community Vitality Manager Acosta presented the item. Council asked clarifying questions of staff and discussed the item.

MOTION
Councilmember Nagengast moved and Councilmember Brownstone seconded the motion to adopt Resolution No. 2026-86 approving an update to the Donor Recognition and Naming Program for Carter Park, replacing the policy adopted on June 7, 2022, with the Carter Park Donor & Sponsorship Policy. The motion carried unanimously 4-0, with Penrose absent.

12. FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION / POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS
None.
13 September 1, 2026
City Council Minutes

Page 6 of 6 ends

13. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
None.

14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ruddock adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:49 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Maggie Rodriguez, City Clerk
*Approved by the City Council at the ____Regular meeting. 14 BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: September 15, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
From: Kenneth Stiles, Interim Administrative Services Director TITLE: ACCEPT THE WARRANTS FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2026 ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the warrants list for the month of August 2026.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This recommendation supports the Fiscal Sustainability and Inclusive Governance Elements of the Strategic Plan.

DISCUSSION:

During this month, the City processed 5 check runs. The table below outlines each check run and their individual totals:

Check Run Date Amount
August 04 24,946
August 06 75,756
August 13 144,513
August 20 1,081,465
August 27 28,906
Total 1,355,586
The City processed payments related to 2 capital improvement projects, in total amount of $19,831:

Eastside Parallel Trail Expansion, Main Street Bridge Maintenance. 15 Staff has included a list of all vendors who received $30,000 or more during this reporting period, as shown in the table below.

City of Half Moon Bay
Vendor Payments Exceeding $30,000
By Vendor and Funding Source
August 2026
Payee General Fund Other Funds Description
AYUDANDO LATINOS A SONAR 35,000 - CSFA FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR ALAS 2026/27 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 47,567 - JUNE'26- LEGAL SERVICES C/CAG 4,873 40,116 FY 26/27 GEN. FUND & GAS TAX ASSMNTS., CONGESTION RELIEF MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA 110, LP - 210,869 DRAW REQUEST #01 BECKER GRANT FUNDS 555 KELLY MILLER PLANNING ASSOCIATES, LLC - 50,175 JULY'26-IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UPDATE SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE - 610,031 AUG’26 SEWER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Check Disbursement List by Check Date
16 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM Report Criteria:

Report type: GL detail

ABAG POWER PURCHASING POOL
58383 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 08/20/2026 08/26 LEVELIZED CHARGE-NAT GAS 169.8058383 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 08/20/2026 8/26 PG&E TRANSPORTATION COST 19.76 Total ABAG POWER PURCHASING POOL: 189.56

ABUNDANT GRACE COASTSIDE WORKER
58381 ABUNDANT GRACE COASTSIDE WORKER 08/20/2026 CSFA FUNDING AGREEMENT FY 26/27 30,000.00 Total ABUNDANT GRACE COASTSIDE WORKER: 30,000.00
ALAS
58343 ALAS 08/13/2026 REFUND DEPOSIT- CARTER PARK 7/31/26 300.00 Total ALAS: 300.00

ALONDRA ALCANTAR
58311 ALONDRA ALCANTAR 08/06/2026 DEPOSIT REFUND 0725/26 TRAIN DEPOT 500.00 Total ALONDRA ALCANTAR: 500.00
ALTA PLANNING & DESIGN INC.
58382 ALTA PLANNING & DESIGN 08/20/2026 CO 6 INDEPENDANT CHECK OF THE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR THE BIKE/PED BRIDGE FOR THE 1,387.50 Total ALTA PLANNING & DESIGN INC.: 1,387.50
AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVICE INC.
58344 AMERICAN PORTABLES 08/13/2026 RENTAL AND SERVICING OF PORTABLE RESTROOMS 4,362.0058344 AMERICAN PORTABLES 08/13/2026 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL AND SERVICES 2,800.0058344 AMERICAN PORTABLES 08/13/2026 RENTAL AND SERVICING OF PORTABLE RESTROOMS 1,305.0058344 AMERICAN PORTABLES 08/13/2026 RENTAL AND SERVICING OF PORTABLE RESTROOMS 200.00 Total AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVICE INC.: 8,667.00
ANDREINI BROTHERS INC.
58345 ANDREINI BROTHERS INC. 08/13/2026 GRANDVIEW BLVD TRENCH PLATES 1,187.50 Total ANDREINI BROTHERS INC.: 1,187.50
17 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM

ANTONIO RONQUILLO
58346 ANTONIO RONQUILLO 08/13/2026 REFUND DEPOSIT - TACC OAK ROOM 8/7 300.0058346 ANTONIO RONQUILLO 08/13/2026 REFUND DEPOSIT - TACC KITCHEN 8/7 100.0058346 ANTONIO RONQUILLO 08/13/2026 REFUND 2 HOURS - TACC KITCHEN 8/7 60.00 Total ANTONIO RONQUILLO: 460.00

ASRA ZAVERI
58322 Henna Creationz LLC 08/06/2026 SUMMER'S END HENNA ARTIST 2026 - DEPOSIT 250.0058357 Henna Creationz LLC 08/13/2026 SUMMER'S END HENNA ARTIST 2026 - BALANCE 500.00 Total ASRA ZAVERI: 750.00

AYUDANDO LATINOS A SONAR
58384 AYUDANDO LATINOS A SONAR 08/20/2026 CSFA FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR ALAS 2026/27 35,000.00 Total AYUDANDO LATINOS A SONAR: 35,000.00

BIG CREEK LUMBER
58314 BIG CREEK LUMBER 08/06/2026 SDWS .22X6 TIMBER STAR DRIVE SCREW DB 226.0358314 BIG CREEK LUMBER 08/06/2026 DISCOUNT AMOUNT 2.26-58314 BIG CREEK LUMBER 08/06/2026 LUMBER FOR MAIN ST BRIDGE MAINTENANCE PROJECT 18,443.1458314 BIG CREEK LUMBER 08/06/2026 LUMBER FOR MAIN ST BRIDGE MAINTENANCE PROJECT 414.4258314 BIG CREEK LUMBER 08/06/2026 DISCOUNT AMOUNT 188.58- Total BIG CREEK LUMBER: 18,892.75

BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
58385 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION 08/20/2026 JULY-AUG'26-STORMWATER (NPDES) AND ANNUAL REPORTING SERVICES FOR 2026 8,273.50 Total BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION: 8,273.50

BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP
58386 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 08/20/2026 JUNE'26-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FILE# 09446-0001 23,811.13 58386 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 08/20/2026 JUNE'26-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FILE# 09446-0002 5,118.50 58386 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 08/20/2026 JUNE'26-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FILE# 09446-0003 655.5058386 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 08/20/2026 JUNE'26-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FILE# 09446-0005 5,833.5058386 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 08/20/2026 JUNE'26-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FILE# 09446-0007 2,380.0058386 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 08/20/2026 JUNE'26-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FILE# 09446-0008 560.0058386 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 08/20/2026 JUNE'26-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FILE# 09446-0001.001 826.5058386 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 08/20/2026 JUNE'26-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FILE# 09446-0008.001 2,330.0058386 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 08/20/2026 JUNE'26-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FILE# 09446-0012 35.0058386 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 08/20/2026 JUNE'26-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FILE# 09446-0013 102.80 18 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM 58386 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 08/20/2026 JUNE'26-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FILE# 09446-0014 2,839.00 58386 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 08/20/2026 JUNE'26-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FILE# 09446-0015 1,050.0058386 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 08/20/2026 JUNE'26-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FILE# 09446-0016 765.0058386 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 08/20/2026 JUNE'26-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FILE# 09446-0009 1,260.00 Total BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP: 47,566.93

CA DEPT OF JUSTICE
58347 CA DEPT OF JUSTICE 08/13/2026 JUNE'26 FINGERPRINT APPS 32.00 Total CA DEPT OF JUSTICE: 32.00
CALNET3
58312 AT&T 08/06/2026 JULY '26 PHONE SERVICE 63.2258313 AT&T 08/06/2026 JULY '26 PHONE SERVICE 882.6458418 AT&T MOBILITY 08/27/2026 JULY '26 PHONE SERVICE 431.16 Total CALNET3: 1,377.02

CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT
58315 CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT 08/06/2026 MAINT SUPPLIES JULY26 2,707.73 Total CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT: 2,707.73
CCAG
58387 C/CAG 08/20/2026 GENERAL FUND ASSESSMENT FY 26/27 4,873.0058387 C/CAG 08/20/2026 GAS TAX ASSESSMENT FY 26/27 7,256.0058387 C/CAG 08/20/2026 CONGESTION RELIEF FY 26/27 32,860.00 Total CCAG: 44,989.00

CITY OF SAN MATEO
58388 CITY OF SAN MATEO 08/20/2026 COUNCIL OF CITIES - RUDDOCK 50.00 Total CITY OF SAN MATEO: 50.00
CLEARGOV INC.
58348 CLEARGOV INC. 08/13/2026 SINGLE SIGN-ON, DIGITAL BUDGET BOOK, AND TRANSPARENCY SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL FEES FY 26/ 13,946.20 Total CLEARGOV INC.: 13,946.20

COAST RIDGE ECOLOGY
58316 COAST RIDGE ECOLOGY 08/06/2026 REPORTING 145 & 165 MAY-JUNE'26, 2026 PDP2025-049 6,055.00 19 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM 58316 COAST RIDGE ECOLOGY 08/06/2026 REPORTING 145 & 165 MAY-JUNE'26, 2026 PDP2025-049 6,055.00 58316 COAST RIDGE ECOLOGY 08/06/2026 REPORTING 145 & 165 MAY-JUNE'26, 2026 PDP2025-049 6,055.00-58419 COAST RIDGE ECOLOGY 08/27/2026 REPORTING 145 JULY 1-31, 2026 PDP2025-049 1,015.0058419 COAST RIDGE ECOLOGY 08/27/2026 REPORTING 145 JULY 1-31, 2026 PDP2025-049 1,015.0058419 COAST RIDGE ECOLOGY 08/27/2026 REPORTING 145 JULY 1-31, 2026 PDP2025-049 1,015.00- Total COAST RIDGE ECOLOGY: 7,070.00

COASTSIDE AQUATICS CENTER
58317 COASTSIDE AQUATICS CENTER 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT-SWIM LESSONS SESSION 3 7/20/26-7/30/26 55.0058317 COASTSIDE AQUATICS CENTER 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT-SWIM LESSONS SESSION 3 7/20/26-7/30/26 385.0058317 COASTSIDE AQUATICS CENTER 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT-SWIM LESSONS SESSION 3 7/20/26-7/30/26 440.0058317 COASTSIDE AQUATICS CENTER 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT-SWIM LESSONS SESSION 3 7/20/26-7/30/26 385.0058317 COASTSIDE AQUATICS CENTER 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT-SWIM LESSONS SESSION 3 7/20/26-7/30/26 330.0058317 COASTSIDE AQUATICS CENTER 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT-SWIM LESSONS SESSION 3 7/20/26-7/30/26 385.0058317 COASTSIDE AQUATICS CENTER 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT-SWIM LESSONS SESSION 3 7/20/26-7/30/26 110.0058317 COASTSIDE AQUATICS CENTER 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT - SWIM LESSONS - 2 SUNDAY LESSONS 550.00 Total COASTSIDE AQUATICS CENTER: 2,640.00

COASTSIDE COUNTRY LP
58349 COASTSIDE COUNTRY LP 08/13/2026 PAYMENT TO INSTRUCTOR-SUMMER LINE DANCE SERIES ENDING ON 8/6 1,816.5058349 COASTSIDE COUNTRY LP 08/13/2026 PAYMENT TO INSTRUCTOR-SUMMER LINE DANCE SERIES ENDING ON 8/6 84.0058349 COASTSIDE COUNTRY LP 08/13/2026 PAYMENT TO INSTRUCTOR-SUMMER LINE DANCE SERIES ENDING ON 8/6 1,470.0058349 COASTSIDE COUNTRY LP 08/13/2026 PAYMENT TO INSTRUCTOR-SUMMER LINE DANCE SERIES ENDING ON 8/6 931.00 Total COASTSIDE COUNTRY LP: 4,301.50

COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
58350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 723 MILL ST # IRRIGATION 41.4358350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 501 MAIN ST 98.4658350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 501 MAIN ST_DC 48.4558350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 CITY OF HMB/ COAST.COMM.SENIOR.CNTR 48.4558350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 503 JOHNSTON ST 79.4558350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 MEDIAN STRIP/HWY 1 # IRRIGATION 41.4358350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 1310 LORYN LN # IRRIGATION 383.6158350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 FERNANDES PARK/MAIN ST # IRRIGATION 41.4358350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 555 KELLY AVE 41.4358350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 461 OAK AVE 41.4358350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 LIFT STATI FAIRWAY DR 41.4358350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 535 KELLY AVE 146.9658350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 537 KELLY AVE 190.6658350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 201 WAVECREST RD 3,860.62 20 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM 58350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 HIGGINS CYN RD 250.54 58350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 529 RUISSEAU FRANCAIS AVE # IRRIGATION 645.9958350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 627 ALSACE LORAINE AVE 402.6258350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 502 MAIN ST 744.8058350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 MAIN & HWY 1 # IRRIGATION 41.4358350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 HWY 92 MEDIAN # WEST IRRIG 41.4358350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 HWY 92 MEDIAN # EAST IRRIG 41.4358350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 620 CORREAS/LIBRARY 531.9358350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 620 CORREAS/LIBRARY # DC 123.4158350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 620 CORREAS/LIBRARY # IRRIGATION 108.9458350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 10 STONE PINE RD #IRRIGATION 417.8758350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 880 STONE PINE RD # COMM 324.7658350 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/13/2026 HYDRANT METER 207.41 Total COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: 8,987.80

COASTSIDE PRINTERS
58159 COASTSIDE PRINTERS 08/06/2026 UNIFORM EXPENSE FOR J BUTCHER 246.13-58318 COASTSIDE PRINTERS 08/06/2026 UNIFORM EXPENSE FOR J BUTCHER 246.13 Total COASTSIDE PRINTERS: .00

COASTWEST FIRE PROTECTION
58389 COASTWEST FIRE PROTECTION 08/20/2026 INSPECTIONS COMPLETED 1,800.00 Total COASTWEST FIRE PROTECTION: 1,800.00

COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH WHATLEY PC
58390 COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH WHATLEY PC 08/20/2026 APRIL '26 LEGAL SERVICES-SAM 5,852.99 Total COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH WHATLEY PC: 5,852.99

COLORPRINT
58319 COLORPRINT 08/06/2026 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BC'S 130.5958319 COLORPRINT 08/06/2026 SUMMER'S END BUSINESS CARDS 130.5958351 COLORPRINT 08/13/2026 NET PROGRAM BUSINESS CARDS 120.6058391 COLORPRINT 08/20/2026 LANDLORD AND TENANT LETTERS 1,669.92 Total COLORPRINT: 2,051.70

CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC
58352 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC 08/13/2026 JULY '26 RECORDS MANAGEMENT 502.16 21 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM Total CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC: 502.16

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
58374 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 08/13/2026 HEALTH INSPECTION - TED ADCOCK COMMUNITY CENTER 2,555.0058392 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 08/20/2026 JULY '26 MICROWAVE MUX DSO 82.25 Total COUNTY OF SAN MATEO: 2,637.25

CRUZIO INTERNET
58353 CRUZIO INTERNET 08/13/2026 INTERNET SERVICE 24.95 Total CRUZIO INTERNET: 24.95

DAILY JOURNAL
58423 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/27/2026 ADVERTISING PUBLIC NOTICE PDP-25-054 1,044.0058423 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/27/2026 ADVERTISING PUBLIC NOTICE PDP-25-054 1,044.0058423 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/27/2026 ADVERTISING PUBLIC NOTICE PDP-25-054 1,044.00- Total DAILY JOURNAL: 1,044.00

EDDIE BEHLE
58320 EDDIE BEHLE 08/06/2026 REIMBURSEMENT - SUPPLIES 29.22 Total EDDIE BEHLE: 29.22

EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS
58393 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS INC. 08/20/2026 IRRIGATION MATERIALS 219.4958393 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS INC. 08/20/2026 IRRIGATION MATERIALS 809.0658393 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS INC. 08/20/2026 IRRIGATION MATERIALS 39.60 Total EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS: 1,068.15
FLOWBIRD AMERICA INC.
58354 FLOWBIRD AMERICA INC. 08/13/2026 JULY '26 MAINT SERVICE 124.00 Total FLOWBIRD AMERICA INC.: 124.00

FLYERS ENERGY LLC
58394 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 08/20/2026 JUNE'26 FUEL 2,568.6558394 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 08/20/2026 JULY'26 FUEL 2,530.98 22 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM Total FLYERS ENERGY LLC: 5,099.63

GOOD CITY COMPANY
58395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 GOOD CITY COMPANY PLANNER SERVICES AS NEEDED 2,401.2558395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES: PDP-26-003 38.7558395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES: PDP-26-003 38.7558395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES: PDP-26-003 38.75-58395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES: PDP-25-059 77.5058395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES: PDP-25-059 77.5058395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 ASSISTANT PLANNER SERVICES PDP-26-019 77.50-58395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 ASSISTANT PLANNER SERVICES PDP-26-016 310.0058395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 ASSISTANT PLANNER SERVICES PDP-26-016 310.0058395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 ASSISTANT PLANNER SERVICES PDP-26-016 310.00-58395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES: PDP-25-059 77.50-58395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 ASSISTANT PLANNER SERVICES PDP-25-060 697.5058395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 ASSISTANT PLANNER SERVICES PDP-25-060 697.5058395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 ASSISTANT PLANNER SERVICES PDP-25-060 697.50-58395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 ASSISTANT PLANNER SERVICES PDP-26-019 77.5058395 GOOD CITY COMPANY 08/20/2026 ASSISTANT PLANNER SERVICES PDP-26-019 77.50 Total GOOD CITY COMPANY: 3,602.50

GRANICUS LLC
58355 GRANICUS LLC 08/13/2026 AUG '26, GRANICUS SERVICE 651.56 Total GRANICUS LLC: 651.56

GRANITE ROCK CO
58396 GRANITE ROCK CO 08/20/2026 PENINSULA ROAD MATERIALS 479.88 Total GRANITE ROCK CO: 479.88

HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN
58321 HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN 08/06/2026 50LBS FAST SET CONCRETE 24.0458397 HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN 08/20/2026 DRAIN ROCKS 6.0058397 HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN 08/20/2026 MIXED TOP SOIL 21.88 Total HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN: 51.92

HDL SOFTWARE LLC
58356 HDL SOFTWARE LLC 08/13/2026 FY 25/26 HDL TOT AND BL ADMINISTRATION 4,240.34 23 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM Total HDL SOFTWARE LLC: 4,240.34

HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
58323 HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER 08/06/2026 MAY '26 BID 23,416.0058323 HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER 08/06/2026 MAY '26 BID OOC 6,032.00 Total HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: 29,448.00
HUE & CRY SECURITY SYSTEMS INC.
58324 HUE & CRY SECURITY SYSTEMS INC. 08/06/2026 JULY '26 FIRE ALARM REPAIR 504.9858398 HUE & CRY SECURITY SYSTEMS INC. 08/20/2026 SEPT '26 SECURITY SERVICE 197.7758398 HUE & CRY SECURITY SYSTEMS INC. 08/20/2026 SEPT '26 SECURITY SERVICE 499.9558398 HUE & CRY SECURITY SYSTEMS INC. 08/20/2026 SEPT '26 SECURITY SERVICE 24.00 Total HUE & CRY SECURITY SYSTEMS INC.: 1,226.70

INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES
58399 INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES 08/20/2026 JULY-IT MANAGEMENT RENEWAL FY 26/27 16,604.00 58399 INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES 08/20/2026 JULY-IT MANAGEMENT RENEWAL FY 26/27 236.25 Total INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES: 16,840.25

INTELLI-TECH
58358 INTELLI-TECH 08/13/2026 ANNUAL ADOBE RENEWAL 5,833.00 Total INTELLI-TECH: 5,833.00
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CNTL PROD., INC
58325 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CNTL PROD., INC 08/06/2026 YELLOW PAINT 146.13 Total INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CNTL PROD., INC: 146.13

JAMES J HENDERSON
58330 NEIGHBORHOOD RADIO 08/06/2026 ADVERTISING SERVICE-JULY 2026 350.0058367 NEIGHBORHOOD RADIO 08/13/2026 ADVERTISING SERVICE-JUNE 2026 210.00 Total JAMES J HENDERSON: 560.00

JEN GODINEZ
58359 JEN GODINEZ 08/13/2026 REFUND DEPOSIT - TRAIN DEPOT 8/2/26 500.00 24 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM Total JEN GODINEZ: 500.00

JULISSA ACOSTA
58400 JULISSA ACOSTA 08/20/2026 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: CALED RURAL EXCHANGE 145.92 Total JULISSA ACOSTA: 145.92

KARENN CASTILLO
58360 KARENN CASTILLO 08/13/2026 REFUND DEPOSIT - TRAIN DEPOT 8/8 500.00 Total KARENN CASTILLO: 500.00

KARLAS JANITORIAL & SUPPLIERS, LLC
58361 KARLAS JANITORIAL & SUPPLIERS, LLC 08/13/2026 FY 26/27 JANITORIAL SERVICES-AMENDMENT 2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT 16,946.84 Total KARLAS JANITORIAL & SUPPLIERS, LLC: 16,946.84
KQED INC.
58420 KQED INC. 08/27/2026 SUMMER'S END ADVERTISING 3,000.00 Total KQED INC.: 3,000.00

KRISCH & COMPANY
58401 KRISCH & COMPANY 08/20/2026 JULY-SEWER RATE PROJECT PM SERVICES 4,578.50 Total KRISCH & COMPANY: 4,578.50
LARRY D. FISHER
58421 LARRY D. FISHER 08/27/2026 SOFTBALL UMPIRE 8/04/26-8/26/25 1,440.00 Total LARRY D. FISHER: 1,440.00
LAURA L. BECKER
58326 LAURA L. BECKER 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT- ZUMBA JULY '26 315.0058326 LAURA L. BECKER 08/06/2026 PAID DIRECTLY TO INSTRUCTOR 12.00- Total LAURA L. BECKER: 303.00
LORAL LANDSCAPING INC.
58362 LORAL LANDSCAPING INC. 08/13/2026 JULY 25/26 MEDIAN MAINTENANCE 929.0058362 LORAL LANDSCAPING INC. 08/13/2026 JULY 25/26 MEDIAN MAINTENANCE 3,368.00 25 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM Total LORAL LANDSCAPING INC.: 4,297.00

MAIRA SANCHEZ
58363 MAIRA SANCHEZ 08/13/2026 REFUND DEPOSIT - TRAIN DEPOT 8/1/26 500.00 Total MAIRA SANCHEZ: 500.00

MARCELA CORDOVA
58327 MARCELA CORDOVA 08/06/2026 FACE PAINTING SERVICES-SUMMER'S END 2026 900.00 Total MARCELA CORDOVA: 900.00

MARIAN ELIZABETH POTT
58328 MARIAN ELIZABETH POTT 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR-DOG TRAINING 7/1-7/29 224.0058328 MARIAN ELIZABETH POTT 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR-DOG TRAINING 7/1-7/29 560.0058328 MARIAN ELIZABETH POTT 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR-DOG TRAINING 7/1-7/29 560.0058328 MARIAN ELIZABETH POTT 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR-DOG TRAINING 7/1-7/29 315.00 Total MARIAN ELIZABETH POTT: 1,659.00

MARK HOFMANN
58364 MARK HOFMANN 08/13/2026 INSTRUCTOR-PICKLEBALL-PRIVATE LESSON 8/4 84.00 Total MARK HOFMANN: 84.00

MAZE & ASSOCIATES
58402 MAZE & ASSOCIATES 08/20/2026 FY 25/26 INDEPENDANT AUDITING SERVICES 19,120.00 Total MAZE & ASSOCIATES: 19,120.00

MCA DIRECT
58365 MCA DIRECT 08/13/2026 JUNE'26-MUNICIPAL ELECTION HANDBOOK 494.32 Total MCA DIRECT: 494.32
MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA 110, LP
58403 MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA 110, LP 08/20/2026 DRAW REQUEST #01 BECKER GRANT FUNDS 555 KELLY 210,868.73 Total MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA 110, LP: 210,868.73

METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP
58404 M-GROUP 08/20/2026 PLANNING STAFF SERVICES AS NEEDED 16,469.25 26 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM Total METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP: 16,469.25

MILLER PLANNING ASSOCIATES, LLC
58366 MILLER PLANNING ASSOCIATES, LLC 08/13/2026 JULY'26-IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UPDATE 50,174.50 Total MILLER PLANNING ASSOCIATES, LLC: 50,174.50

MONICA RUIZ
58405 MONICA RUIZ 08/20/2026 REFUND DEPOSIT- TRAIN DEPOT 8/15 500.00 Total MONICA RUIZ: 500.00
MOONALICE TOURING, INC.
58329 MOONALICE TOURING, INC. 08/06/2026 SUMMER'S END MUSIC PERFORMANCE 2026 3,000.00 Total MOONALICE TOURING, INC.: 3,000.00

NATALIA ARELLANO
58406 NATALIA ARELLANO 08/20/2026 REFUND DEPOSIT- TACC 8/15 500.00 Total NATALIA ARELLANO: 500.00

NICOLAS LASZKIEWICZ
58407 NICHOLAS TRANSLATIONS & INTERPRETATIONS 08/20/2026 JULY'26 TRANSLATION SERVICES 380.00 Total NICOLAS LASZKIEWICZ: 380.00

NORA VITALIANI
58408 NORA VITALIANI 08/20/2026 REFUND DEPOSIT-KITCHEN RENTALS 8/12 8/13 8/14 500.00 Total NORA VITALIANI: 500.00

OFFICE DEPOT
58368 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 08/13/2026 OFFICE SUPPLIES 10.3158409 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 08/20/2026 METAL SIGNS 22.1658409 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 08/20/2026 OFFICE SUPPLIES 140.9458409 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 08/20/2026 OFFICE SUPPLIES 21.31 Total OFFICE DEPOT: 194.72

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
58422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 KEHOE PARK 9.91 27 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 12 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM 58422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 OCEAN VIEW PARK 25.1658422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 MAINTENANCE YARD OFFICE - ELECTRIC 123.58 58422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 CITY OF HMB/ STREET LIGHTS 6,682.0158422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 STREETLIGHT PROJECT 485.9858422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 BELL MOON LIFT STATION 34.2858422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 10 STONE PINE RD - CARTER PARK 144.1258422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 DOWNTOWN ST TREE LIGHTS NORTH HOOK UP @ 700 MILL 1,001.6458422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 SMITH FIELD 23.9158422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 SMITH FIELD SNACK BAR 336.9758422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 401 SEYMOUR ST 48.3158422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 401 SEYMOUR ST 112.7258422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 OCEAN COLONY PARTNERS/OCP LIFT STATION 1,150.9458422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 PILARCITOS CREEK BRIDGE 108.6858422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 PACIFIC RIDGE LIGHT POLES 42.8358422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 CITY HALL BUILDING 938.4258422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 FERNANDEZ PARK 9.5358422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 NW HWY 1 & MAIN ST 128.8258422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 PELICAN POINT LIFT STATION 224.7958422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 HWY 1 & MIRAMONTES LIGHTING 36.7258422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 HWY 1 & MIRAMONTES LIGHTING 85.6958422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 HWY 1 & FAIRWAY LIGHTING 37.1858422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 HWY 1 & FAIRWAY LIGHTING 86.7458422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 HWY 1 & MIRAMONTES TRAFFIC SIGNAL 65.1558422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 MOON SCULPTURE SPOTLIGHTS 11.6758422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 MOON SCULPTURE SPOTLIGHTS 27.2358422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 LIBRARY ELECTRICITY ONLY 387.5858422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 DOWNTOWN ST TREE LIGHTS SOUTH HOOK UP @ 650 MIRAMONTES 1,092.6258422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 SHERIFF SUB-STATION 1,968.6158422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 COMMUNITY CENTER 1,719.9358422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 TRAIN DEPOT RSTMS 154.7458422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 PILARCITOS CREEK UNDERPASS 28.7858422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 DUTRA PARK 103.9658422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 CITY OF HMB 501 MAIN ST A 7.8458422 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/27/2026 CORREAS EV CHARGERS 1,152.78 Total PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: 18,599.82

PATRICK WALLACH
58410 PATRICK WALLACH 08/20/2026 REFUND- 1/2 OF REGISTRATION-LATE WITHDRAWAL 250.00 Total PATRICK WALLACH: 250.00
28 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 13 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM

PAULO VINICIUS DE CARVALHO SULTANUM
58369 PAULO VINICIUS DE CARVALHO SULTANUM 08/13/2026 SUMMER'S END MUSIC PERFORMANCE 2026 1,300.00 Total PAULO VINICIUS DE CARVALHO SULTANUM: 1,300.00

PHILS TIRE & AUTO CARE INC
58332 PHILS TIRE & AUTO CARE INC 08/06/2026 VEHICLE SERIVCE 185.2158411 PHILS TIRE & AUTO CARE INC 08/20/2026 VEHICLE SERIVCE 593.40 Total PHILS TIRE & AUTO CARE INC: 778.61

PLAN JPA
58370 PLAN JPA 08/13/2026 JULY'26 GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS 9,891.3858412 PLAN JPA 08/20/2026 WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS JULY'26 467.75 Total PLAN JPA: 10,359.13

QUADIENT FINANCE USA, INC
58175 QUADIENT FINANCE USA, INC 08/13/2026 JUNE FY 25/26 QUADIENT LEASE & POSTAGE 461.00-58371 QUADIENT FINANCE USA, INC 08/13/2026 JUNE FY 25/26 QUADIENT LEASE & POSTAGE 461.0058371 QUADIENT FINANCE USA, INC 08/13/2026 FY 25/26 QUADIENT LEASE & POSTAGE 400.0058371 QUADIENT FINANCE USA, INC 08/13/2026 FY 25/26 QUADIENT LEASE & POSTAGE 49.00 Total QUADIENT FINANCE USA, INC: 449.00

R STOCKAM ENTERTAINMENT
58333 R STOCKAM ENTERTAINMENT 08/06/2026 SUMMER'S END MUSIC PERFORMANCE 2026 - DEPOSIT 750.0058372 R STOCKAM ENTERTAINMENT 08/13/2026 SUMMER'S END MUSIC PERFORMANCE 2026 - BALANCE 750.00 Total R STOCKAM ENTERTAINMENT: 1,500.00

RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA INC
58417 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY 08/20/2026 JULY'26 EXTERMINATOR SERVICES 1,942.23 Total RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA INC: 1,942.23
RUDOLF A. HAAS
58334 RUDOLF A. HAAS 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT-TAI CHI JULY '26 315.00 Total RUDOLF A. HAAS: 315.00

RYAN RAFAEL SARRIA
58335 RYAN RAFAEL SARRIA 08/06/2026 SUMMER'S END MUSIC PERFORMANCE 2026 - DEPOSIT 1,000.00 29 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 14 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM 58373 RYAN RAFAEL SARRIA 08/13/2026 SUMMER'S END MUSIC PERFORMANCE 2026 - BALANCE 1,000.00 Total RYAN RAFAEL SARRIA: 2,000.00

SAN MATEO COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGERS ASSO
58413 SAN MATEO COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGERS 08/20/2026 EMERGENCY MANAGERS ASSOCIATION DUES RENEWAL 100.00 Total SAN MATEO COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGERS ASSO: 100.00
SCOTT D. PHILLIPS
58424 SCOTT D. PHILLIPS 08/27/2026 REIMBURSEMENT-DOCUMENT RECORDATION 76.00 Total SCOTT D. PHILLIPS: 76.00

SERVICE PRESS INC
58375 SERVICE PRESS INC 08/13/2026 BUSINESS CARDS 64.38 Total SERVICE PRESS INC: 64.38

SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE
58414 SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE 08/20/2026 AUG-FY 26/27 SEWER GENERAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 582,412.58 58414 SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE 08/20/2026 AUG-FY 26/27 SAM COLLECTIONS -SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM CLEANING, PREVENTATIVE MAINTENA 27,617.92 Total SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE: 610,030.50

SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
58425 SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 08/27/2026 PRINTER LEASE- 48 MONTHS 800.43 Total SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION: 800.43

SHYLAJA NAGINENI
58336 SHYLAJA NAGINENI 08/06/2026 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT-YOGA 7/19/26 63.00 Total SHYLAJA NAGINENI: 63.00

STAR ELEVATOR INC
58376 STAR ELEVATOR INC 08/13/2026 AUG'26-ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE-2 SITES 273.5558376 STAR ELEVATOR INC 08/13/2026 AUG'26-ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE-2 SITES 273.55 Total STAR ELEVATOR INC: 547.10

STERICYCLE SPECIALTY WASTE SOLUTIONS INC
58377 STERICYCLE, INC. 08/13/2026 PAPER SHREDDING 258.29 30 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 15 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM Total STERICYCLE SPECIALTY WASTE SOLUTIONS INC: 258.29

SUSTAINABLE SAN MATEO COUNTY
58426 SUSTAINABLE SAN MATEO COUNTY 08/27/2026 FY 26/27 SSMC SUPPORT 2,000.00 Total SUSTAINABLE SAN MATEO COUNTY: 2,000.00

SWCA INCORPORATED
58378 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/13/2026 ON-CALL/AS-NEEDED ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOLOGICAL SERVICES 709.2258378 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/13/2026 ON-CALL ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOLOGICAL SERVICES 1,070.53 Total SWCA INCORPORATED: 1,779.75
T-MOBILE USA INC.
58337 T-MOBILE 08/06/2026 ACCT 997385192 JULY '26 400.24 Total T-MOBILE USA INC.: 400.24

TRICOR EMPLOYMENT SCREENING
58338 TRICOR EMPLOYMENT SCREENING 08/06/2026 EMPLOYMENT SCREENING 7.50 Total TRICOR EMPLOYMENT SCREENING: 7.50

TURBO DATA SYSTEMS INC
58379 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS 08/13/2026 JULY '26 CITATION PROCESSING 1,697.08 Total TURBO DATA SYSTEMS INC: 1,697.08
VAYA CONSULTING, LLC.
58380 VAYA CONSULTING, LLC. 08/13/2026 JUNE'26-HUMAN RESOURCES CONSULTING 625.00 Total VAYA CONSULTING, LLC.: 625.00

VESTIS GROUP INC
58339 VESTIS 08/06/2026 MATS - CITY HALL 209.0558339 VESTIS 08/06/2026 MATS - PUBLIC LIBRARY 133.1258415 VESTIS 08/20/2026 MATS - CITY HALL 209.0558415 VESTIS 08/20/2026 MATS - PUBLIC LIBRARY 133.1258415 VESTIS 08/20/2026 MATS - CITY HALL 209.0558415 VESTIS 08/20/2026 MATS - PUBLIC LIBRARY 133.12 31 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 16 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM Total VESTIS GROUP INC: 1,026.51

VICTOR HERNANDEZ
58331 ON POINT LANGUAGE SOLUTIONS LLC 08/06/2026 JULY '26 TRANSLATION SERVICES 726.25 Total VICTOR HERNANDEZ: 726.25

VICTOR SILVA
58427 VICTOR SILVA 08/27/2026 REFUND DEPOSIT - TACC GRAND OAK ROOM 8/21 500.00 Total VICTOR SILVA: 500.00

WELLS FARGO
58428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-PRINT AND BIND BPMP 98.7758428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-PRINT AND BIND BPMP DESIGN GUIDELINES 79.0358428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 PARKING FOR FILING N.O.C. - JULY 1.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-CONSTANT CONTACT 206.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-OFFICE SUPPLY 87.4958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 ADVERTISING JULY 249.4058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-COFFEE 69.9558428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-WRENCHES 78.3558428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-TRACTOR PARTS 335.9858428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-TEA 48.9958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-TRAILER PARTS 21.9658428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-OUTLETS 105.0558428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-PLANTS 342.8958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-TRACTOR PARTS 557.5558428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 SOAP DISPENSERS 125.8058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 HAY 4TH OF JULY 118.5258428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 GLOVES 150.6758428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 TRAFFIC SAFETY CERT 970.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-WEBINAR-WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE - BEN 95.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-COUNCIL MEETING 56.1858428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-ELECTION MATERIALS 549.3858428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-COUNCIL MEETING 94.1758428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26 MEETING EXPENSE 65.7358428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-ZOOM SUBSCRIPTION 343.9258428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-CANVA SUBSCRIPTION 18.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 NEW STAFF ERGONOMICS-JULY 156.5658428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 NEW STAFF ERGONOMICS-JULY 62.6258428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 IIMC MEMBERSHIP-26-27 105.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 MEETING EXPENSE-JULY 39.97 32 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 17 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM 58428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-ELECTION SUPPLIES 112.2958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-MEETING EXPENSE 71.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-COUNCIL MEETING 91.5558428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 4TH OF JUY SUPPLIES-JULY 121.9458428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 4TH OF JUY SUPPLIES-JULY 97.7358428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 4TH OF JUY SUPPLIES-JULY 78.5058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 RECONCILING ITEMS FROM PRIOR PERIOD 66.53-58428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-OFFICE SUPPLIES 27.8358428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-OFFICE SUPPLIES 29.3958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-REMOTE ACCESS LICENSE 316.8058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-OFFICE SUPPLIES 29.0758428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-CITY HALL INTERNET 356.8258428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-OFFICE SUPPLIES 205.1758428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 ZOOM SUBSCRIPTION 33.9858428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-ZOOM SUBSCRIPTION 5.0958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-EOC INTERNET 55.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 PARMA MEMBERSHIP 300.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 GOOGLE SUBSCRIPTION 12.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 SHERIFF INTERNET 249.4358428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 CORP YARD INTERNET 293.2658428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-TRAINING 197.1558428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-APA CA-HIRING COSTS 250.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-ADVERTISING 100.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-TRAINING 299.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-FORM 94X E-FILING 6.9958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-WELCOME BREAKFAST 318.0958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-CERTIFIED MAIL PDP-26-035 185.6058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-CERTIFIED MAIL PDP-26-035 185.6058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-CERTIFIED MAIL PDP-26-035 185.60-58428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-OFFICE SUPPLIES 32.9558428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-OFFICE SUPPLIES 24.5858428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-ZOOM SUBSCRIPTION 95.9758428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-POSTAGE 10.4858428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION-JULY 120.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION 19.9658428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SUPPLIES 13.7358428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SUPPLIES 109.6258428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SUPPLIES 3.4658428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-OFFICE SUPPLIES 44.8758428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26 OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.9958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-EVENT SUPPLIES 15.3658428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-EVENT SUPPLIES 177.2358428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-CLOSED SESSION 156.12 33 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 18 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM 58428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-OFFICE SUPPLIES 32.9558428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 MEETING EXPENSE-JULY 147.5958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-DUMP TRUCK REPAIRS 2,352.5958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-QAL-MASON 70.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-DETOUR SIGNS 27.1358428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-CORE DRILL KIT 2,075.5458428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-UNIFORMS 1,680.1858428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-BARRICADE RENTAL 1,149.7558428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-BACKFLOW GAUGE CALIBRATION 231.7558428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 GENERATOR LICENSES-JULY 2,416.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 MEETING EXPENSE-JULY 4.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 MEETING EXPENSE-JULY 3.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-SUPPLIES 164.8058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-MEMBERSHIP 16.4758428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-ADVERTISING 48.3258428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-SUPPLIES 94.1858428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-ADVERTISING 38.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-ADVERTISING 136.2358428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 SUPPLIES-JULY 18.4558428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 SUPPLIES-JULY 51.6258428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 ADVERTISING-JULY 21.9958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 MEMBERSHIP-JULY 12.9958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 SUPPLIES-JULY 90.6558428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 ADVERTISING-JULY 38.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 SUMMER'S END-JULY 414.4658428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 MEMBERSHIP-JULY 549.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-SUMMER'S END 1,750.7758428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-ADVERTISING 212.9358428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-MEMBERSHIP 9.9958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-ADVERTISING 38.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-ADVERTISING 119.9958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-ADVERTISING 46.9058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-SUPPLIES 17.5758428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-SITE PHOTO .4958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-SITE PHOTO .4958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-SITE PHOTO .4958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-SITE PHOTO .4958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-SUMMER'S END 395.5858428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-MEMBERSHIP 549.0058428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-ADVERTISING 48.3258428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-SITE PHOTO .4958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-SITE PHOTO .4958428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-SITE PHOTO .49 34 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 19 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2026 - 8/31/2026 Sep 01, 2026 05:21PM 58428 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2026 JUNE'26-SUPPLIES 25.90
Total WELLS FARGO: 24,946.42

WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC
58416 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 08/20/2026 JUNE-FY 25/26 TREE MAINTENANCE AND URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT 9,448.00 Total WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC: 9,448.00
WESTWIND COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC.
58340 WESTWIND COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC 08/06/2026 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMUNICATION DEVICES 2,400.00 Total WESTWIND COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC.: 2,400.00

ZACH TRENHOLM
58341 ZACH TRENHOLM 08/06/2026 SUMMER'S END VENDOR 2026 - CARICATURES 950.00 Total ZACH TRENHOLM: 950.00Grand Totals: 1,355,586.34
Report Criteria:

Report type: GL detail
35

Page 1 of 3 ends

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: September 15, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Dale Leda, Interim Public Works Director / City Engineer TITLE: HIGHWAY 1 - NORTH (CIP PROJECT NO. 0538) PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Highway 1 Safety and Operational Improvements Project - North is included in the City's adopted FY 2026-27 Capital Improvement Program. The proposed agreement with PME is for an amount not to exceed $191,000, with services provided on a time-and-materials basis.

Costs will be charged to CIP Project No. 0538 and are eligible for reimbursement under the City's grant funding agreement with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA).

The overall CIP project has a total, fully funded budget of approximately $25.5 million, and sufficient funding is available within the project budget for these services.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This action supports the Infrastructure and Environment and Healthy Communities and Public Safety Elements of the Strategic Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The Planning Commission adopted the project's Negative Declaration and approved the Coastal Development Permit on December 11, 2018. The proposed agreement provides professional project management services needed to implement the project and does not change the approved scope. No additional environmental review is required for this action. 36

Page 2 of 3 ends

BACKGROUND:

The Highway 1 North project will improve safety and operations along Highway 1 between North Main Street and Spindrift Way. Major improvements include:
• New signalized intersection at Terrace Avenue
• Grand Boulevard and Frontage Road extensions to Terrace Avenue • Improvements to the Naomi Patridge Trail
• Extension of the Eastside Parallel Class I Trail from North Main Street to Spindrift Way • Extension of taper lanes north of Terrace Avenue
• Turning-lane and median improvements
• Green infrastructure and upgraded transit stops
The City is currently managing nearly $90 million in active Capital Improvement Program projects while operating with reduced staffing levels. Given the size, complexity, and level of coordination required for the Highway 1 North project, additional consultant support will provide needed project management capacity as the project advances into construction, while allowing City staff to continue effectively managing the City’s broader capital program.

PME has a long history of providing transportation engineering and capital project management services to the City. The City initially entered into an agreement with PME in January 2017 to provide traffic and transportation engineering assistance and capital project management.

In July 2018, the City issued a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services to provide management support for major Capital Improvement Program projects. The Highway 1 North project was specifically included in the RFP, with responsibilities including management of PS&E, Caltrans permitting, coordination of funding with SMCTA, community outreach, City Council support, and management of the project through bidding and award.

Six firms submitted proposals and were determined to be qualified. Following review and ranking by City staff, PME was determined to be the best-qualified consultant to support the City's transportation and traffic engineering efforts based on its ranking, familiarity with similar projects, and project background.

Following that selection, PME continued to provide project management support for the Highway 1 North project through June 2025, gaining extensive familiarity with the project's history, constraints, and coordination requirements.

As of July 2026, Caltrans has approved the project's 100% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E). Remaining preconstruction activities include finalizing the Storm Water Data Report and Quality Management Plan, obtaining right-of-way certification, completing a cooperative agreement associated with additional SMCTA funding, and obtaining the Caltrans encroachment permit. The City currently anticipates advertising the project for construction around December 2026.
37

Page 3 of 3 ends

DISCUSSION:

With the Highway 1 North Project approaching bidding and construction, staff recommends resuming PME's project management support. PME has extensive prior involvement with the project and is familiar with its design history, Caltrans coordination, funding requirements, utilities, right-of-way issues, and key project stakeholders. This continuity will allow PME to immediately support the remaining preconstruction activities and transition into construction without the inefficiency of bringing a new project manager up to speed.

PME's proposed services include coordination of bidding and award, grant reimbursement and reporting, project budget and schedule monitoring, Caltrans and right-of-way coordination, construction funding agreements, construction management coordination, public outreach, utility coordination, and biological mitigation and landscaping requirements. PME would serve as an extension of City staff under the direction of the Public Works Director/City Engineer and would complement the design and construction management consultants assigned to the project as it advances through final preconstruction, bidding, and construction.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. PME Proposal
38 RESOLUTION NO. C-2026-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PENINSULA MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE HIGHWAY 1 SAFETY AND OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT – NORTH (CIP PROJECT NO. 0538) IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $191,000
WHEREAS, the City of Half Moon Bay (City) is implementing the Highway 1 Safety and Operational Improvements Project – North, which includes roadway, bicycle and pedestrian, intersection, and related safety improvements along Highway 1; and WHERAS, Peninsula Municipal Engineering, Inc. (PME) has previously provided the City with transportation engineering and capital project management services, including extensive project management support for the Highway 1 North Project; and WHEREAS, in July 2018, the City conducted a competitive Request for Proposals process for consultant management support services for major Capital Improvement Program projects, which specifically included the Highway 1 North Project; and WHEREAS, City staff determined that PME was the best-qualified consultant to provide transportation and traffic engineering management support based on its qualifications, experience with similar projects, and project background; and WHEREAS, the project is now advancing through final preconstruction activities and toward bidding and construction, requiring continued coordination with Caltrans, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, utility companies, property owners, consultants, funding agencies, and other project stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, PME’s extensive prior involvement with the Project provides substantial project-specific knowledge and continuity that will assist the City in efficiently advancing the Project through bidding and construction; and
WHEREAS, PME has submitted a proposal to provide project management and engineering support services under the direction of the Public Works Director/City Engineer, including bidding and award support, grant administration, budget and schedule monitoring, Caltrans and right-of-way coordination, construction funding coordination, public outreach, utility coordination, and related project management services; and WHEREAS, PME proposes to provide these services on a time-and-materials basis, for a total amount not to exceed $191,000.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT that the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with 39 Peninsula Municipal Engineering, Inc. for project management services for the Highway 1 Safety and Operational Improvements Project – North, CIP Project No. 0538, in an amount not to exceed $191,000, in a form approved by the City Attorney. ******************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 15th of September 2026, by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ _______________________________ Maggie Rodriguez, City Clerk Debbie Ruddock, Mayor
40 PENINSULA MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING, INC. (PME)
1260 PARROTT DR
SAN MATEO, CA 94402
(650) 483-1618
[email protected]
September 1, 2026
City of Half Moon Bay
Public Works Department
501 Main Street, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Attention: Dale Leda, P.E., Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer Subject: Project Management Services for Highway 1 North Project Dear Mr. Leda,
PME is pleased to submit the following proposal for providing Engineering Consulting Services - Project Management for the City’s Highway 1 North Project under the direction of the City Engineer/Public Works Director.

PME has extensive experience managing federally, state and local measure-funded transportation and infrastructure projects in coordinations with Caltrans, Transportation Authority, utility companies, environmental agencies, and construction contractors. This experience enables PME to efficiently manage projects while maintaining compliance with grant requirements.

PME is very familiar with the operations of the City of Half Moon Bay and the Highway 1 North Project, having worked with the City’s engineering and public works staff for the design and environmental clearance of this project. In the past, PME has also provided project management services for the Highway 1 South project in Half Moon Bay..

Under the direction of the Public Works Director/City Engineer, the proposed engineering consulting activities may include the following:
• Manage preparation of construction bid package, estimates and advertisement for bid and award
• Assist with bid opening and evaluation of contractor background and references • Coordinate grant reimbursement requests
• Monitor project budgets and schedules
1 | Page
41 • Attend construction progress meetings as needed
• Prepare status report for the grant agencies
• Meet with Caltrans staff and private properties for right-of-way agreements and certification
• Coordinate agreements for construction funding through SMCTA and other governmental grant sources
• Coordinate project schedule with construction manager • Coordinate public outreach and social media informational broadcasts • Coordinate utilities with PG&E, AT&T and Comcast
• Manage biological mitigation areas and planting specifications Compensation shall be on a time-and-materials basis at an hourly rate of $285 (Principal Civil Engineer), with total compensation not to exceed $191,000 without prior written authorization from the City. The total compensation is based approximately on an average of 40 hours per month until December 2027. The hourly rate will be adjusted in accordance with the yearly CPI effective January 1st of every year.

PME appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal and is looking forward to working with the City of Half Moon Bay on this important project.

Sincerely,
Ray Razavi, P.E.

Principal Civil Engineer/President, PME, Inc.
2 | Page
42

Page 1 of 3 ends

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: September 15, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Kenneth Stiles, Interim Administrative Services Director Mary Huerta, Management Analyst – Human Resources
TITLE: IMPLEMENTATION OF MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND VISION BENEFITS FOR ELECTED

OFFICIALS
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt

1. A resolution establishing medical, dental, and vision benefits for City Councilmembers; and

2. A resolution extending medical eligibility under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) to the City’s Non-PERS Elected Officials group.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The estimated maximum annual cost if all Councilmembers participate at the highest level is approximately $198,436, including $183,805 for medical coverage and $14,631 for dental and vision. Actual costs will vary based on participation and coverage selections.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This recommendation supports the Inclusive Governance Element of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The City provides health benefits to eligible employees through the California Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA), administered by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). Historically, members of the Half Moon Bay City Council have not been eligible to participate in the City’s health benefit programs.

At the request of Council, Staff first brought the issue of extending health benefits to elected officials in February 2026. Consideration was deferred at that time while the City completed labor negotiations with its employee groups. Following completion of those negotiations, Staff returned to Council on September 1, 2026, with additional information regarding available benefit structures, estimated costs, and practices among neighboring jurisdictions. 43

Page 2 of 3 ends

Following discussion, Council directed staff to establish a benefit structure aligned with benefits provided to City employees, including the medical contribution provided to Local 39 employees hired on or after July 1, 2026. The contribution is based on the applicable Kaiser premium for the enrollment tier, with annual increases limited to the lesser of the Kaiser rate increase or

7.5%. Council also directed staff to extend dental and vision benefits to Councilmembers and eligible dependents.

Staff is returning with the necessary resolutions to formally implement Council’s direction.

DISCUSSION:

The first resolution establishes the overall benefit package authorized for members of the City Council. For CalPERS health purposes, elected officials who do not participate in CalPERS retirement are classified as Non-PERS Elected Officials.

The benefit structure is as follows:

Medical Dental Vision
Provider CalPERS Medical Plans MetLife MetLife
Eligibility Non-PERS Elected Officials and
their eligible dependents
All Elected Officials and
their eligible
dependents
All Elected Officials and
their eligible
dependents
Benefit
Level
City contribution based on the
applicable Kaiser rate by
enrollment tier
Fully covered by the City Fully covered by the City
Duration of
Benefits Duration of the elected term Duration of the elected term
Duration of the elected
term
Effective
Dates November 2026* January 2027 January 2027
*CalPERS generally requires 90 days to implement a new health eligibility group. CalPERS has indicated it may be able to expedite implementation, with a potential effective date as early as November 2026. The final effective date will depend on CalPERS processing. 44

Page 3 of 3 ends

The second resolution is the CalPERS PEMHCA resolution required to make medical coverage available to the City’s Non-PERS Elected Officials group. It applies specifically to participation in the CalPERS medical program, while the City resolution establishes the broader benefit package for Councilmembers.

Adoption of the resolutions will establish the benefit programs and allow staff to proceed with implementation. Once implemented, staff will work directly with individual Councilmembers to review available coverage and complete enrollment.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Resolution – Benefits Summary for Elected Officials

2. Resolution – CalPERS Medical Plan - Non-PERS Elected Officials 45 RESOLUTION NO. C-2026-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY ESTABLISHING

MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND VISION BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, Government Code section 53201 authorizes the City Council to provide health and welfare benefits to its officers; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 53208.5 provides that health and welfare benefits provided to members of a legislative body may not exceed the most generous schedule of benefits provided to the City’s non-safety employees; and WHEREAS, members of the Half Moon Bay City Council have historically not received City-sponsored medical, dental, or vision benefits; and WHEREAS, on September 1, 2026, the City Council considered options for extending health benefits to elected officials, including benefit structures, estimated costs, and practices among neighboring jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, following discussion, the City Council directed staff to establish a benefit structure generally aligned with benefits provided to City employees, including the medical contribution applicable to Local 39 employees hired on or after July 1, 2026, and City-paid dental and vision coverage; and
WHEREAS, medical coverage through the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) will be available to Councilmembers eligible as Non-PERS Elected Officials under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (“PEMHCA”), subject to separate action by the City Council and approval by CalPERS.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby establishes the medical, dental, and vision benefits set forth in Exhibit A and authorizes the City Manager or their designee to implement and administer those benefits.

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 15th day of September 2026, by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
46 ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Maggie Rodriguez, City Clerk Debbie Ruddock, Mayor
47 EXHIBIT A

CITY COUNCIL MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND VISION BENEFITS

1. Medical Benefits
Active members of the City Council who are eligible for enrollment as Non-PERS Elected Officials under PEMHCA may elect medical coverage through the City’s CalPERS health program for themselves and their eligible dependents.

For each participating Councilmember, the City shall provide the same medical premium contribution applicable to Local 39 employees hired on or after July 1, 2026, under the thencurrent Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Local 39, based on the Councilmember’s applicable enrollment tier. Any medical premium cost exceeding the applicable City contribution shall be the responsibility of the Councilmember.

Medical coverage shall become available on the effective date approved by CalPERS pursuant to the City’s separate PEMHCA resolution for Non-PERS Elected Officials.

2. Dental Benefits
All active members of the City Council may elect dental coverage through the City’s dental plan for themselves and their eligible dependents, subject to the eligibility and enrollment requirements of the applicable plan.

The City shall pay the full premium for dental coverage for participating Councilmembers and their eligible dependents.

Dental coverage shall become effective January 1, 2027.

3. Vision Benefits
All active members of the City Council may elect vision coverage through the City’s vision plan for themselves and their eligible dependents, subject to the eligibility and enrollment requirements of the applicable plan.

The City shall pay the full premium for vision coverage for participating Councilmembers and their eligible dependents.

Vision coverage shall become effective January 1, 2027.

4. Duration of Benefits
Benefits and City contributions established under this Resolution are available only while an individual is actively serving as an elected member of the Half Moon Bay City Council.

City-sponsored coverage and City contributions shall end upon the expiration or other termination of the Councilmember’s elected service, subject to the terms of the applicable benefit plan and any continuation rights provided by law. 48 5. No Cash in Lieu
A Councilmember who declines coverage, is ineligible for a particular benefit, or does not use the full amount of an available City contribution shall not receive cash or other compensation in lieu of the benefit or unused contribution.

6. Limitations
Benefits provided under this Resolution shall at all times be subject to applicable federal and state law and the eligibility, enrollment, and administrative requirements of the applicable benefit plans.

Benefits provided to Councilmembers shall not exceed the benefits permitted under Government Code section 53208.5.
49 RESOLUTION NO. C-2026-
ELECTING TO BE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT

AT AN EQUAL AMOUNT FOR EMPLOYEES AND ANNUITANTS

WITH RESPECT TO A RECOGNIZED EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION
701 NON-PERS COUNCIL MEMBERS
WHEREAS, A contracting agency meeting the eligibility requirements set forth in Government Code Section 22920, may obtain health benefit plan(s), as defined under Government Code Section 22777, by submitting a resolution to the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (the “Board”), and upon approval of such resolution by the Board, become subject to the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (the “Act”); and WHEREAS, the City of Half Moon Bay is a contracting agency eligible to be subject to the Act under Government Code Section 22920; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 22892(a) provides that a contracting agency subject to the Act shall fix the amount of the employer contribution by resolution; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 22892(b) provides that the employer contribution shall be an equal amount for both employees and annuitants, but may not be less than the amount prescribed by Section 22892(b) of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Half Moon Bay desires to obtain for its employees and annuitants who are members of Non-PERS Council Members the benefit of the Act and to accept the liabilities and obligations of an employer under the Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Half Moon Bay elects to be subject to the provisions of the Act; and be it further

1. That the employer contribution for each employee or annuitant shall be the amount necessary to pay the full cost of his/her enrollment, including the enrollment of family members, in a health benefits plan up to a maximum of the PEMHCA Minimum per month, plus administrative fees and Contingency Reserve Fund assessments; and be it further

2. The City of Half Moon Bay has fully complied with any and all applicable provisions of Government Code Section 7507 in electing the benefits set forth above; and be it further

3. That the participation of the employees and annuitants of the City of Half Moon Bay shall be subject to determination of its status as an “agency or instrumentality of the state or political subdivision of a State” that is eligible to participate in a governmental plan within the meaning of Section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, upon publication of final Regulations pursuant to such Section. If it is determined that the City of Half Moon Bay would not qualify as an agency or instrumentality of the state or political subdivision of a State under such final Regulations, CalPERS may be obligated, and reserves the right to terminate the health coverage of all participants of the employer; and be it further 50 4. That the executive body appoint and direct, and it does hereby appoint and direct, Kenneth Stiles to file with the Board a verified copy of this resolution, and to perform on behalf of the City of Half Moon Bay all functions required of it under the Act; and be it further

5. That coverage under the Act be effective on November 1, 2026. ***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 15th day of September 2026, by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Maggie Rodriguez, City Clerk Debbie Ruddock, Mayor
51 BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: September 15, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Maggie Rodriguez, City Clerk
Whitney Rescino, Assistant City Clerk
TITLE: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE – VOTING DELEGATE

AND RESOLUTION PACKET
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This recommendation supports the Inclusive Governance Element of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. The General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. The City Council may appoint a delegate and up to two alternates prior to the General Assembly. The delegate and alternates may be an elected Council Member or member of staff.

DISCUSSION:

The League sent out its 2026 Annual Conference Resolutions Packet (Attachment 1), which includes one resolution to be considered. If passed, the resolution (submitted to the League by the City of Murrietta), would call for a working group to consider a state constitutional amendment or other form of initiative to ensure final local authority over housing and land use decisions.
52 The City’s designated voting delegate or alternate, will vote and represent the City’s position on the resolution. Staff recommends that 1) the Council appoint a Councilmember or staff delegate as well as at least one alternate, to attend the General Assembly on September 25, and vote on behalf of the Council, and 2) the Council discuss and provide direction regarding the Council’s position on the proposed resolution.

ATTACHMENT:

1. 2026 Annual Conference Resolution Packet
53 2026
Resolution
Packet
54 2026 Resolution Packet
Information on 2026 Resolutions Process
Consideration by Policy Committee (pre-conference)
Per the Cal Cities bylaws, Cal Cities President Gabe Quinto has referred the submitted resolution to the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee. The committee will meet on Thursday, Sept. 17, at 10 a.m. via Zoom to review the resolution and make a recommendation that will be sent to the Resolutions Committee. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Register for the meeting here.

A list of recommendations the policy committee may make during its meeting is on page two of this packet.

Consideration by Resolutions Committee (during conference) On Thursday, Sept. 24, at 1:00 p.m. the Resolutions Committee will meet to review the resolution and the recommendation of the policy committee.

The Resolutions Committee consist of one representative from each of Cal Cities caucuses, departments, divisions, and policy committees, as well as up to ten additional appointments made by the Cal Cities President. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Refer to the onsite conference program for the location.

A list of recommendations the Resolutions Committee may make during its meeting is on page two of this packet.

Consideration by the General Assembly (during conference) The General Assembly will convene on Friday, Sept. 25, at 8:30 a.m. to consider any resolutions the Resolutions Committee has forwarded. To vote during the General Assembly, voting delegates must have checked in at the voting delegate booth.

Conference attendees will receive materials for the General Assembly on the evening of Thursday, Sept. 24. For more information on voting and discussion procedures during the General Assembly, see page three of this packet.

Petitioned Resolutions (during conference)
The petitioned resolution is an alternate method to introduce policy proposals during the annual conference. To initiate a petitioned resolution, voting delegates from 10% of member cities must sign the petition. The resolution and signatures are due at least 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Voting delegates who have checked in at the voting delegate booth can receive more information on petitioned resolutions at the booth onsite. 1 55
2026 Resolution Packet
Policy Committee and Resolutions Committee Actions
The submitted resolution will be heard by the policy committee to which it was assigned, and the Resolutions Committee. The table below shows what recommendations these bodies may make on the resolution.

Policy Committee Actions Resolutions Committee Actions
Approve Approve
Disapprove* Disapprove*
No Action No Action
Amend and approve Amend and approve
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Approve as amended
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Approve with additional
amendment(s)
Additional amendments and refer to
appropriate policy committee for
further study*
*If a resolution is disapproved or referred for further study by all policy committees to which it is assigned and the Resolutions Committee, it will not proceed to the General Assembly. 2 56
2026 Resolution Packet
General Assembly Voting and Discussion Procedures
Discussion Procedures:

Discussion procedures during the General Assembly are guided by two calendars:
the Consent Calendar and the Regular Calendar. As seen below, resolutions are calendared by the recommendations they receive from policy committees and the Resolutions Committee.

For General Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation
Resolutions Committee
Recommendation Calendar
Approve Approve Consent Calendar
Approve Disapprove or refer Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Disapprove or refer Does not proceed to General Assembly
For Petitioned Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation Resolutions Committee Action Calendar
N/A
Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or Refer Regular Calendar
Disqualified Does not proceed to General
Assembly
Items on the Consent Calendar will be presented as one motion during the General Assembly from the Resolutions Committee chair. Unless an item on the Consent Calendar is set aside by the majority of the General Assembly, a vote will be taken on the whole calendar. If an item is set aside, it will be opened for discussion, followed by a vote.

Items on the Regular Calendar will be presented individually by the Resolutions Committee chair. After a recommendation is presented by the Resolutions Committee chair, the resolution will be opened for discussion by the General Assembly. A vote will take place following discussion.

Voting Procedures:

Per Cal Cities Bylaws Article XII, Sec. 2, all votes will be conducted by voice vote first. If the presiding official cannot determine the outcome, a vote will be taken by an alternative method, typically a raise of voting cards by voting delegates. A roll call vote may be called for by delegates of ten percent or more of the General Assembly.
3 57
2026 Resolution Packet
2026 Resolution

1. Resolution No. 1 submitted by City of Murrieta
• Letters of concurrence submitted by:
i. City of Banning;
ii. City of Calimesa;
iii. City of Canyon Lake;
iv. City of Moreno Valley;
v. City of Norco;
vi. City of Torrance;
vii. Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto;
viii. Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
• Referred to Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee
• Policy Committee Recommendation:
• Resolutions Committee Recommendation:
4 58
2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1
Submitted by City of Murietta
5 59
2026 Resolution Packet

1. A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES

CALLING FOR A WORKING GROUP TO CONSIDER A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT OR OTHER FORM OF INITIATIVE TO ENSURE FINAL LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER

HOUSING AND LAND USE DECISIONS
Source: City of Murrieta
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
Cities/city officials: City of Banning; City of Calimesa; City of Canyon Lake; City of Moreno Valley; City of Norco; City of Torrance; Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto; Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
Referred to: Housing, Community, and Economic Development Policy Committee WHEREAS, California cities have historically been responsible for adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing housing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the streets, water, wastewater, public safety, parks, transportation, and other infrastructure and services necessary to support responsible, environmentally sound, and well-planned residential growth; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities is dedicated to protecting and expanding local control for municipalities across the state to ensure their orderly growth and development; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities recognizes that local zoning is a primary function of cities and an essential component of home rule, and that a city’s general plan should guide its land use planning and strategic decision-making free from pre-emption by the state; and
WHEREAS, increasingly prescriptive statewide housing mandates and development approval requirements can override locally adopted plans, zoning standards, and public review procedures without adequately accounting for differences that exist in each unique jurisdiction in infrastructure capacity, water availability, wildfire and evacuation risks, environmental constraints, fiscal impacts, public service needs, and community priorities; and
WHEREAS, California’s housing goals can be more effectively advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships that support housing production while preserving the authority of locally elected officials to determine how and where housing is best planned and approved; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the Annual Conference in Anaheim, California, on September 25, 2026, that the League of California Cities support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballotbased strategies that restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters within municipal boundaries, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications; and
6 60
2026 Resolution Packet
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any constitutional amendment or alternative strategy should preserve the State’s authority to establish broad statewide housing goals and enforce constitutional and civil rights, fair housing requirements, building and life-safety standards, and generally applicable environmental protections, while protecting cities from state actions that compel, through funding conditions or state law, the approval of housing developments that are inconsistent with locally adopted requirements; override local zoning or density standards; or invalidate locally adopted housing or land use decisions when a city has planned in good faith to accommodate its regional housing needs allocation and maintains adequate capacity for housing at all income levels; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters including but limited to: conducting appropriate legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for; the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time frame as determined by the working group.
7 61
2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Background
Information
8 62
2026 Resolution Packet
Background Information for Resolution
Source: City of Murrieta
Background:

California cities are responsible for planning residential growth, adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the infrastructure and public services necessary to support new housing. Since 2010, the State has enacted more than 500 housing-related laws that have increasingly shifted housing and land use authority away from local governments. These laws have expanded by-right development, limited locally adopted standards and review processes, and established enforcement mechanisms, including the builder’s remedy, that may override local plans and zoning. Although these measures are frequently presented as solutions to housing affordability, many increase development capacity or restrict local review without delivering the meaningful production of housing needed to address the housing crisis.

At the same time, the State has continued to prioritize increased development capacity without adequately accounting for the infrastructure, public services, economic realities, and safety measures necessary to support housing growth.

State mandates often fail to reflect local conditions, including roadway and utility capacity, water availability, wildfire exposure, environmental limitations, fiscal impacts, and the availability of essential services. Cities are consequently required to accommodate additional housing while receiving no funding or assistance to address the resulting infrastructure and service demands.

Local elected officials are directly accountable to the residents who experience the effects of development decisions and are responsible for balancing housing production with infrastructure capacity, public safety, environmental protection, fiscal sustainability, and community needs. Cities of all types in California have been grappling with this dynamic, ranging from urban to rural, coastal to inland, small to large, northern to southern, voicing concerns to legislative representatives with minimal responsiveness. This is an issue of statewide concern that needs the strength and diversity of the League of California Cities to pursue a long-term solution.

The proposed resolution directs the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions. The working group would be tasked with developing a more balanced framework that preserves the State’s role in establishing broad housing goals and enforcing constitutional, civil rights, fair housing, building, life-safety, and environmental requirements, while restoring meaningful local authority to allow cities to determine how statewide housing 9 63
2026 Resolution Packet
objectives should be implemented in a manner that reflects local conditions and community priorities while continuing to support responsible housing production.

As the primary statewide organization representing California cities, the League is uniquely positioned to lead this effort. Its established policy, legal, legislative, communications, and advocacy networks enable it to convene municipalities, evaluate potential strategies, conduct legal and fiscal analyses, build consensus, engage stakeholders, and coordinate with statewide decision-makers. League leadership would help ensure that any recommendation reflects the collective interests of California municipalities and would provide the credibility, organizational capacity, and statewide reach necessary to advance a viable strategy.
10 64
2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Letters of
Concurrence
11 65
12 66
13 67
July 23, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and

25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of Canyon Lake, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,
Arron Brown
City Manager
City of Canyon Lake
14 68
July 23, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches to address increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of Moreno Valley, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,
Brian Mohan
City Manager
City of Moreno Valley

15 69
July 22, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority
Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of the Norco, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,
Kevin Bash
City Council Member
(951) 768-8981
16 70
17 71
18 72
19 73
20 74
July 23, 2026
Mr. Gabe Quinto, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for the City of Murrieta's Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto:

I am writing in my individual capacity as Mayor of the City of Temecula to express my strong support for the City of Murrieta's proposed resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities at the 2026 Annual Conference.

The proposed resolution presents an important opportunity to thoughtfully evaluate the appropriate balance between California's statewide housing objectives and the constitutional principle of local governance. Establishing a statewide working group to examine a potential constitutional amendment, legislative reforms, or other policy initiatives will provide a meaningful forum to assess how local authority over housing and land use decisions can be strengthened while continuing to address the State's housing challenges.

Cities are uniquely positioned to understand the needs, opportunities, and constraints of their communities. Local elected officials are accountable to the residents they serve and are best equipped to make land use decisions that reflect a community's character, infrastructure capacity, economic development goals, environmental stewardship, and long-term vision. Equally important, local governments bear the primary responsibility for protecting public safety. Decisions regarding housing density, transportation, emergency access, wildfire preparedness, evacuation routes, police and fire service capacity, water availability, and critical infrastructure are inherently local matters that require the knowledge and judgment of those who serve their communities every day.

While the State has an important role in addressing California's housing needs, a collaborative approach that respects local expertise and preserves meaningful local discretion will produce stronger, safer, and more sustainable communities. The proposed working group offers an opportunity to evaluate policies that achieve these shared objectives while restoring an appropriate balance between state direction and local authority.
21 75
Mr. Gabe Quinto, President
League of California Cities
July 23, 2026

Page 2 ends

Although this letter reflects my personal position and is not an official action or policy of the City of Temecula or the Temecula City Council, I respectfully endorse the City of Murrieta's submission of this resolution and encourage its favorable consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly.

Thank you for your leadership and your thoughtful consideration of this important issue.

Respectfully,
Jessica Alexander
Mayor, City of Temecula
Signing in her individual capacity
and not on behalf of the City of Temecula
or the Temecula City Council.
22 76
2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Staff Analysis
23 77
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1 Staff: Brady Guertin, Legislative Advocate
Committee: Housing, Community, and Economic Development Summary:

Resolution No.1 states that the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) will:

1. Support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategy that restores and strengthens local authority over housing and land use matters, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications.

Pursuant to the resolution, the strategy should preserve the state’s authority to set broad, statewide housing goals and enforce civil rights, fair housing, building safety, and environmental standards while protecting local control by preventing the state from compelling the approval of developments that conflict with local requirements, override local zoning or density standards, or overturn local land use decisions where a city has planned for and maintained sufficient capacity to meet its housing obligations.

2. Consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters.

The resolution states: “conducting legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time period.” Background:

As provided in the background information, the city of Murrieta is sponsoring this resolution in response to concerns over state laws that have increasingly reduced city discretion over housing and land use decisions, including legislation that requires ministerial or by-right approvals for housing projects, limits the application of local development standards, and strengthens state enforcement mechanisms against local governments.

Additionally, the city of Murrieta, in its background information, maintains that these legislative efforts have not resulted in sufficient housing production to address California's housing shortage and have not adequately accounted for 24 78
local infrastructure, public service needs, public safety, market, and fiscal considerations.

The resolution states that California’s housing goals are better advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships, while preserving local authority over how and where housing is best planned and approved.

Consideration of the resolution may be informed by a brief examination of how the California Constitution allocates authority between the state and cities with respect to land use decisions.

The constitution grants cities the power to adopt local laws to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. This grant is called the “police power,” which is the basis for local land use regulation. The constitution grants charter cities the additional power to adopt local laws affecting “municipal affairs.” This power, commonly referred to as “home rule,” is based on the principle that a city, rather than the state, is in the best position to identify and satisfy the needs of the local community.

The constitution’s broad grant of police power contains a significant limitation.

Local law adopted under the police power is not valid if it “conflicts” with state law. A local law “conflicts” with state law when it regulates the same “field” in which the Legislature has stated its intent to occupy. In that case, state law is said to “preempt” the local law and it cannot be enforced.

An ordinance adopted by a charter city under the municipal affairs power cannot be enforced if it affects a “matter of statewide concern.” The subjects that have been identified as “matters of statewide concern” have changed over the years due to economic, social, and political circumstances.

Since the 1960s, the state has enacted numerous laws that limit or preempt aspects of local land use and zoning authority. These laws include the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Housing Element Law, Housing Accountability Act, Density Bonus Law, Permit Streamlining Act, accessory dwelling unit laws, California Environmental Quality Act, and others. In recent years, the state has enacted several laws that Cal Cities was the leading opposition force against, as many of the proposals pre-empted local land use authority, limited public review, and constrained local flexibility. In support of its housing and land use legislation, the Legislature has cited a statewide housing crisis and the need for increased housing production at all income levels while asserting that a uniform approach to local land use decision-making is required. 25 79
Discussion:

The resolution does not prescribe a specific policy mechanism. The eight letters in support recommend creating a working group or committee to evaluate potential approaches, including legislative proposals, constitutional amendments, or ballot initiatives to strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters.

A discussion of a strategy to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters will need to consider the California Constitution’s framework for both preemption of police power enactments and municipal affairs, discussed above. It will also need to determine whether changes to the California Constitution will be proposed, and whether they constitute an amendment or a revision, which require different processes.

A constitutional revision is a multistep process blending legislative consensus, voter support, and on occasion, a constitutional convention. It requires significant public engagement.

A constitutional amendment would require a ballot initiative, which includes gathering enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, building large coalitions to support election efforts, and campaigning to voters to support the initiative. This process can involve significant costs. In the last major election for ballot initiatives in 2024, proponents spent $8-$18 million to qualify for the ballot and spent nearly $700 million for the full election cycle, averaging out to about $100 million per ballot initiative.

Cal Cities has been engaged in ballot advocacy for over 20 years. In the early 2000s, Cal Cities developed a ballot advocacy infrastructure that included forming an issue political action committee, fundraising, establishing a network of regional managers, and building a coalition with other organizations to ultimately advocate on a ballot measure. Ballot advocacy requires the approval of the Board of Directors with a supermajority vote.

In the Legislature, Cal Cities plays an active and influential role to ensure that local flexibility and autonomy in the land use and housing space is maintained by engaging on dozens of bills every legislative session to ensure that cities' voices are heard at the state Capitol. Below, you will find Cal Cities “Existing Policy” on local control, housing, and land use policies.

Fiscal Impact
The resolution itself would not have a significant direct fiscal impact. However, depending on what actions follow, the fiscal costs could be significant. 26 80
Existing Cal Cities Policy
Vision
To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of California's cities.

Mission Statement
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.

We Believe
• Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy. • Our strength lies in the unity of our diverse communities of interest. • In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving problems.
• In conducting the business of government with transparency, openness, respect, and civility.
• The spirit of honest public service is what builds communities. • Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public trust.
• Cities are vital to the strength of the California economy. • The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy.
• The active participation of all city officials increases the League's effectiveness.
• Partnerships and collaborations are essential elements of focused advocacy and lobbying.
• Ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive, visionary leadership and effective and efficient city operations.

Zoning
Cal Cities believes local zoning is a primary function of cities and is an essential component of home rule. The process of adoption, implementation and enforcement of zoning ordinances should be open and fair to the public and enhance the responsiveness of local decision-makers. State policy should leave local siting and use decisions to the city and not interfere with local prerogative beyond providing a constitutionally valid procedure for adopting local regulations. State agency siting of facilities, including campuses and office buildings, should be subject to local notice and hearing requirements in order to meet concerns of the local community. Cal Cities opposes legislation that seeks to limit local authority over parking requirements.

Housing Element
Housing issues should be addressed in the general plan as other planning issues are. The housing element should be prepared for the benefit of local 27 81
governments and should have equal status with the other elements of the general plan.

Encourage Full Community Participation
Foster an open and inclusive community dialogue and promote alliances and partnerships to meet community needs.

Well-Planned New Growth
Recognize and preserve open space, watersheds, environmental habitats, and agricultural lands, while accommodating new growth in compact forms, in a manner that:
• De-emphasizes automobile dependency;
• Integrates the new growth into existing communities;
• Creates a diversity of affordable housing near employment centers; • Provides job opportunities for people of all ages and income levels.

Support:

The following letters of concurrence were received:

City of Banning
City of Calimesa
City of Canyon Lake
City of Moreno Valley
City of Norco
City of Torrance
Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto
Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
28 82

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: September 15, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Kenneth Stiles, Interim Administrative Services Director TITLE: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR REVENUE ADMINISTRATION AND

CONSULTING SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION:

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this item. The City currently spends approximately $85,000 annually for these services. Future costs will depend on the proposals received and the resulting agreements.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This recommendation supports the Fiscal Sustainability and Inclusive Governance elements of the City’s Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The City utilizes specialized third-party services to support the administration, monitoring, compliance, and analysis of several of its major revenue sources, including Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), business licenses, and sales tax. These services provide specialized expertise, technology, taxpayer support, compliance review, and revenue analysis that supplement City staff resources.

In 2022, the City conducted a competitive RFP process for these services. Following the evaluation process, the services were awarded to two separate firms, with one firm providing sales tax reporting and forecasting services and a second firm providing TOT and business license administration services.

The initial agreements resulting from the 2022 RFP expired in 2025. To maintain continuity of 83 services, the City subsequently entered into one-year agreements with both firms. With those agreements approaching expiration, staff recommends conducting a new competitive RFP process.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed RFP would seek qualified firms to provide services in the following areas:

Transient Occupancy Tax Administration and Audit Services TOT is the City’s largest General Fund revenue source. The scope would include administration of the City’s TOT program, including processing returns and payments, maintaining operator records, assisting operators with filing and compliance questions, monitoring delinquencies, and providing reports to City staff.

The scope would also include periodic TOT compliance audits to verify that lodging operators are properly reporting taxable rent and remitting the appropriate tax to the City. Audit services assist the City in identifying potential underpayments or reporting issues and promoting consistent compliance with the City’s TOT requirements.

Business License Administration
The scope would include administration of the City’s business license program, including processing applications and renewals, maintaining business records, collecting applicable taxes and fees, providing customer service to businesses, monitoring compliance, and providing reports and data to City staff.

Sales Tax Reporting and Forecasting
The scope would include sales tax reporting, analysis, and forecasting. Services would include monitoring the City’s sales tax performance, identifying significant changes or anomalies in collections, analyzing economic and industry trends, and preparing revenue forecasts to support the City’s budget and long-term financial planning.

Services may also include identifying potential allocation or reporting errors and assisting the City in pursuing corrections with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, as appropriate.

CONCLUSION:

The proposed RFP will provide the City an opportunity to competitively evaluate available providers, service capabilities, and pricing for these revenue administration services. Following completion of the RFP process, staff will return to the City Council for consideration of the recommended agreements. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to release the RFP.

ATTACHMENT:

No Attachments
84

Page 1 of 2 ends

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: September 15, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Kenneth Stiles, Interim Administrative Services Director TITLE: FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED ON JUNE 30, 2026 ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the Financial Report for the quarter ended on June 30, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact with the acceptance of this report.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This recommendation supports the Fiscal Sustainability and Inclusive Governance Elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

One of the City Council Strategic Elements includes planning for and implementing long-term fiscal sustainability. A key component of this goal includes preparing a quarterly financial report that would provide readers with an executive summary of the City’s current financial conditions as it relates to the annual operating budget to ensure accountability and transparency in managing public funds.

DISCUSSION:

As of June 30, 2026, General Fund revenues totaled $27.2 million or 108% of the approved budget for FY 2025-26. General Fund expenditures totaled $20.5 million or 81% of budget. As outlined in the attached report, revenues are projected to exceed budget by $1.9 million, driven primarily by stronger-than-expected Transient Occupancy Tax and Sales Tax performance. Expenditures are projected to come in $4.7 million under budget, largely due to less spending overall and salary savings from vacant positions.

The City anticipates additional unassigned funds at the conclusion of the audit and delivery of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report in December. With the information available, staff 85

Page 2 of 2 ends

holds no great concern for financial stability for the current fiscal year; however longer-term fiscal challenges persist.

ATTACHMENT:

Financial Report for the quarter ended on June 30, 2026 86 CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
Quarterly Financial Report
June 30, 2026
Prepared By:

AdministraGve Services Department
87 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Capital Project Funds
Sewer Funds
Internal Service Funds
Pension Stabilization Fund
Revenue & Expenditure Summary
Revenues to Budget Expenditures to Budget
Funds Actual % of Budget Actual % of Budget
General Fund 27,260,252 108% 17,346,553 78%
Special Revenue Funds 3,831,333 22% 2,102,574 12%
Capital Project Funds 1,645,045 23% 1,125,709 13%
Sewer Funds 8,392,892 92% 6,665,688 81%
Internal Service Funds 1,346,069 104% 1,429,800 71%
Pension StabilizaGon Fund 1,504,058 100% 1,491,217 100% TOTAL FOR ALL FUNDS 43,979,649 71% 30,161,541 50.5%
Revenues Expenditures
88 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Transient Occupancy Tax
Property Taxes
Sales & Use Tax
Franchise Tax
Business License Tax
Charges for Services
Interest and Investment
Other Revenues
General Fund Revenue Summary
Revenues to Budget
Department Budget Actual % of
Budget
Variance
Over / (Under)
Variance
% Delta
Transient Occupancy Tax 9,889,557 10,807,758 109% 918,201 9% Property Taxes 4,339,795 4,661,587 107% 321,793 7%
Sales & Use Tax 5,049,300 5,309,163 105% 259,863 5%
Franchise Tax 999,463 1,052,332 105% 52,869 5%
Business License Tax 44,306 63,812 144% 19,505 44%
Charges for Services 2,135,054 2,605,404 122% 470,350 22% Interest and Investment 474,272 491,691 104% 17,419 4%
Other Revenues 1,812,201 1,659,039 92% (153,162) -8%
Transfers in 609,554 609,466 100% (88) -0.01%
TOTAL 25,353,502 27,260,252 108% 1,906,750 100%
89 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Administrative Services
City Attorney
City Clerk / Communications
City Council
City Managers Office
Community Development
Public Safety
Public Works
General Fund Expenditure Summary
Expenditures to Budget
Department Budget Actual % of Budget Variance
Over / (Under)
Variance
% Delta
Administra*ve Services 1,572,528 1,302,517 83% (270,011) -17% City A>orney 1,164,000 898,945 77% (265,055) -23%
City Clerk / Communica*ons 1,050,481 624,296 59% (426,185) -41% City Council 228,642 188,769 83% (39,873) -17%
City Managers Office 2,985,055 2,241,803 75% (743,251) -25% Community Development 2,300,647 1,704,895 74% (595,751) -26% Public Safety 7,631,997 5,945,506 78% (1,686,491) -22%
Public Works 4,365,229 3,467,653 79% (897,576) -21%
Non Departmental / Debt Service 918,596 972,168 106% 53,573 6% Transfers 3,162,433 3,242,947 103% 80,514 3%
TOTAL 25,379,607 20,589,500 81% (4,790,107) -19%
90 GENERAL FUND ANALYSIS:

The General Fund is the primary opera;ng fund of the City and is used to account for most opera;ng ac;vi;es. Table 1 below provides year-to-date through the fourth quarter comparable data for the current fiscal year and the prior year.

For fiscal year 2025-26, the City generated $27.2 million in revenues, exceeding budgetary expecta;ons, primarily due to TOT, sales tax revenue, and charges for services.

Expenditures for the year total $20.5 million. At 81% of budget, the City has ended the year under budget primarily due to salary savings and less spending overall.

Revised
Budget
Actuals as of
06/30/2026
% of
Budget
Final
Actuals
Actuals as of
06/30/2025
% of
Actuals
Revenues
Transient Occupancy Tax 9,889,557 10,807,758 109% 9,616,592 9,616,592 100% Property Taxes 4,339,795 4,661,587 107% 3,757,360 3,757,360 100% Sales & Use Tax 5,049,300 5,309,163 105% 3,634,164 3,634,164 100% Franchise Tax 999,463 1,052,332 105% 1,032,642 1,032,642 100% Business License Tax 44,306 63,812 144% 408,035 408,035 100% Charges for Services 2,135,054 2,605,404 122% 2,421,671 2,421,671 100% Interest and Investment 474,272 491,691 104% 706,358 706,358 100% Other Revenues 1,812,201 1,659,039 92% 1,340,419 1,340,419 100% Transfers in 609,554 609,466 100% 587,760 587,760 100%
Total Revenues 25,353,502 27,260,252 108% 23,505,000 23,505,000 100% Expenditures
Administra*ve Services 1,572,528 1,302,517 83% 1,243,492 1,243,492 100% City A>orney 1,164,000 898,945 77% 1,317,015 1,317,015 100% City Clerk / Communica*ons 1,050,481 624,296 59% 869,870 869,870 100% City Council 228,642 188,769 83% 214,195 214,195 100%
City Managers Office 2,985,055 2,241,803 75% 2,822,865 2,822,865 100% Community Development 2,300,647 1,704,895 74% 2,059,998 2,059,998 100% Public Safety 7,631,997 5,945,506 78% 7,207,366 7,207,366 100% Public Works 4,365,229 3,467,653 79% 3,272,661 3,272,661 100% Non Departmental / Debt Service 918,596 972,168 106% 590,723 590,723 100% Opera*ng Transfers 2,157,433 2,237,947 104% 2,259,619 2,259,619 100% Capital Transfers 1,005,000 1,005,000 100% 2,112,704 2,112,704 100% Total Expenditures 25,379,607 20,589,500 81% 23,970,509 23,970,509 100% Table 1: Fourth Quarter Budget to Actual Comparison
FY 2025-26 FY 2024-25
91 Revenues
Table 2 below shows a year-to-date summary of actual revenues through the fourth quarter for fiscal year 2025-26 and es;mated final over/under performance of revenues • Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT): The City received $10.8 million in TOT revenue through June 30, exceeding the revised budget by approximately $918 thousand, or 9%. Collections exceeded the prior year in every month, with annual TOT revenue increasing approximately 12% year over year.

While this performance is positive, TOT remains one of the City’s more volatile revenue sources and can fluctuate significantly positively or negatively. • Property Taxes: Property tax revenues totaled $4.6 million, approximately $321 thousand, or 7%, above budget, primarily due to higher Vehicle License Fee (VLF) revenues. VLF remains a contested revenue stream between San Mateo County cities and the State. Following a recent State adjustment to the amounts it considers payable, the City is anticipating lower VLF-related revenues in FY 2026-27.
• Sales & Use Taxes: The City collected $5.3 million in sales and use tax revenues, approximately $259 thousand, or 5%, above budget. The favorable variance reflects continued strength in the local sales tax base, including revenues from Measure R, and is consistent with the strong tourism activity reflected in higher TOT collections.
• Charges for Services: Charges for services exceeded budget primarily due to higher engineering and planning revenues, along with a one-time recognition of revenue from older permits that had not previously been recorded. These revenues can fluctuate from year to year based on development activity and permit volumes, so the City budgets them conservatively. As a result, the full favorable variance should not be assumed to continue in future years.

Revised
Budget
Actuals as of
06/30/2026
% of
Budget
Over /
(Under)
%
Delta
Revenues
Transient Occupancy Tax 9,889,557 10,807,758 109% 918,201 9% Property Taxes 4,339,795 4,661,587 107% 321,793 7%
Sales & Use Tax 5,049,300 5,309,163 105% 259,863 5%
Franchise Tax 999,463 1,052,332 105% 52,869 5%
Business License Tax 44,306 63,812 144% 19,505 44%
Charges for Services 2,135,054 2,605,404 122% 470,350 22% Interest and Investment 474,272 491,691 104% 17,419 4%
Other Revenues 1,812,201 1,659,039 92% (153,162) -8%
Transfers in 609,554 609,466 100% (88) 0%
Total Revenues 25,353,502 27,260,252 108% 1,906,750 8%
Table 2: Fourth Quarter Revenues
FY 2025-26 Variance
92 Expenditures
Table 3 below shows a summary of fourth quarter budget-to-actual revenues for FY 2025-26 and final over/under performance of expenditures.

General Fund expenditures totaled $20.5 million, or 81% of budget. The favorable variance was driven in large part by savings in public safety expenditures and approximately $2.0 million in salary savings, as the City held several posi;ons vacant while comple;ng its organiza;onal study to evaluate staffing levels, organiza;onal structure, and long-term service needs. These savings, along with con;nued departmental cost controls, helped reduce General Fund spending during the fiscal year.

Budget Adjustments
Table 4 below shows a summary of council ac;ons with poten;al budgetary effects during the third quarter not reflected in the numbers above.

Revised
Budget
Actuals as of
06/30/2026
% of
Budget
Over /
(Under)
%
Delta
Expenditures
Administra*ve Services 1,572,528 1,302,517 83% (270,011) -17% City A>orney 1,164,000 898,945 77% (265,055) -23%
City Clerk / Communica*ons 1,050,481 624,296 59% (426,185) -41% City Council 228,642 188,769 83% (39,873) -17%
City Managers Office 2,985,055 2,241,803 75% (743,251) -25% Community Development 2,300,647 1,704,895 74% (595,751) -26% Public Safety 7,631,997 5,945,506 78% (1,686,491) -22%
Public Works 4,365,229 3,467,653 79% (897,576) -21%
Non Departmental / Debt Service 918,596 972,168 106% 53,573 6% Opera*ng Transfers 2,157,433 2,237,947 104% 80,514 4%
Capital Transfers 1,005,000 1,005,000 100% - 0%
Total Expenditures 25,379,607 20,589,500 81% (4,790,107) -19% Table 3: Fourth Quarter Expenditures
FY 2025-26 Variance
Item Major Funding
Source
Total Fiscal
Impact
GF
Impact
No budgetary adjustments during this quarter $ -
Total $ - $ -
Table 4: Budget Adjustments
93 Conclusion
Table 5 below shows an updated summary of general fund balances for the fiscal year.

Due to revenues exceeding expecta;ons and expenditures ending significantly under budget, the City an;cipates an es;mated $8.3 million in unassigned fund balance as of June 30, 2026. A por;on of these funds has already been designated to help balance the Fiscal Year 2026-27 projected budget deficit. With this use, the City projects $5.9 million in unassigned funds remaining as of June 30, 2027.

Given the ongoing structural deficit, staff recommends maintaining the unassigned fund balance rather than commieng funds to one-off programs or projects. As part of the mid-year review and future budget process, the City should also revisit its TOT assump;ons. While collec;ons have exceeded budget, increasing the es;mate would reduce the projected deficit but also increase reliance on a historically vola;le revenue source.

Evalua;ng these issues together through the budget process will allow the City to weigh compe;ng needs, updated revenue expecta;ons, and the broader mul;-year fiscal outlook. Preserving flexibility will remain important as the City may need to rely on reserves over mul;ple years while addressing its longer-term structural imbalance.

FY 2025-26
Budget
FY 2025-26
Est. Final Actuals*
FY 2026-27
Budget
Beginning Fund Balance 13,902,420 13,902,420 20,573,172 Revenues 25,353,502 27,260,252 24,202,867
Expenditures (25,379,607) (20,589,500) (26,323,922)
Annual Surplus / (Deficit) (26,105) 6,670,752 (2,121,055) Ending Fund Balance 13,876,315 20,573,172 18,452,117
General Fund Reserve (7,312,382) (7,312,382) (7,529,892) Economic Uncertainty (4,874,922) (4,874,922) (5,019,928) Unassigned 1,689,011 8,385,868 5,902,297
*Numbers are unaudited. Final audited numbers are presented with the delivery of the Annual Comprehensive Financial report in December
Table 6: General Fund Balance Summary
94

Page 1 of 4 ends

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: September 15, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Captain Eamonn Allen, Chief of Police Services
TITLE: AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READERS PILOT PROGRAM UPDATE ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

FISCAL IMPACT:

For the initial installation, setup, and utilization of ALPR units, the City expended approximately $61,250 of Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) grant funds, which are received from the State on an annual basis to supplement existing front-line law enforcement services. There has been no impact to the General Fund. If the City were to continue utilizing ALPRs through Flock, the annual cost would be approximately $50,000, potentially subject to escalations and some maintenance costs. There are sufficient funds in the COPS grant to continue paying for these services for the foreseeable future.

STRATEGIC ELEMENTS:

This action supports the Healthy Communities and Public Safety, Fiscal Sustainability, and Inclusive Governance Elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) technology uses a combination of cameras and computer software to scan the license plates of passing vehicles. The cameras, which can be fixed (e.g., mounted on road signs or traffic lights) or mobile (i.e., mounted on a vehicle), capture computer-readable images that allow law enforcement to compare plate numbers against plates of known stolen vehicles as well as vehicles associated with individuals wanted on criminal charges or who are at-risk. When a match is found, a real-time alert is generated, notifying police of the location where the image of the stolen or wanted vehicle was captured.

ALPR data can also be used by investigators, after a crime has been committed, to identify and locate associated vehicles.
95

Page 2 of 4 ends

The question of using ALPR technology in Half Moon Bay was originally discussed at City Council meetings in 2019, but at that time the Council did not move forward with further exploration of their use. In fall 2023, in response to community concerns regarding improper and illicit activity, the Sheriff (with consent of the City) placed a mobile ALPR unit in the vicinity of Pilarcitos and Kelly Avenues. This action followed neighborhood meetings and general consensus agreement to, among other strategies, utilize mobile ALPR technology. The mobile unit was then removed following a significant de-escalation of activity in the area. At that time, the Council reevaluated the potential use of ALPR technology, and after several study sessions, meetings with residents, and meetings with the ACLU, approved a pilot program in October 2024. The Pilot Program was for two-years, included 16 ALPR units mounted in 7 locations throughout Half Moon Bay, and was governed by changing State laws, the Sheriff’s ALPR Policy (Attachment 1), and the City’s ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy (Attachment 2), which was adopted along with the Pilot.

Permitting and installation of the units was incremental and took approximately one-year, during which time the Sheriff’s Office managed the data collected by the units, worked with Flock to develop a Transparency Portal (also linked on the City’s ALPR Pilot Project page), and ensured compliance with County and City policies. The agreement with Flock expires on October 28, 2026, with an option to extend the Term for an additional two years, which extension must be exercised by September 28, 2026. Although the Sheriff has managed the Program in strict accordance with City, County, and agency policies, state law, and best practices, and finds ALPR technology to be an important tool in its public safety efforts, concerns about Flock and ALPR use across the Country have led to local concerns and questions that should be addressed prior to considering an extension.

DISCUSSION:

Challenges
Since initiation of the Pilot Program, the use of ALPRs and specifically Flock units has come under intense scrutiny due to several reported issues, including unauthorized data access and data sharing (mostly by out of state law enforcement agencies where the uses of ALPR data are much less regulated than in California), use of ALPR data for immigration enforcement and other discriminatory actions, and personal misuse by law enforcement officers who were authorized to have access to the data. As a result, dozens of agencies across the Country have terminated contracts with Flock and deactivated ALPR units, including in the Bay Area: Santa Clara County, Mountain View, Los Altos, Santa Cruz, and El Cerrito. Many other agencies are also evaluating the future of ALPR use, including our neighboring City of Pacifica.

In response to these concerns, Flock has made several improvements and changes to their policies and practices, including: reducing the default data retention period; instituting mandatory audit assistance (previously optional); making mandatory case numbers for all data searches; automatic lockouts based on abnormal user search patterns; limits on interagency sharing that can be tied to offense types, rather than all-or-nothing sharing; and alert verification messaging, to require independent verification of plate matches before taking enforcement actions. Critics claim that the burden of configuring the system correctly remains with the agencies themselves, leaving room for human error or misuse. It remains important 96

Page 3 of 4 ends

for the operator (SMCO in Half Moon Bay’s case) to have proper policies, procedures, and checks and balances in place to prevent or identify and address any issues.

The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury has also taken up the issue, and their report dated August 3, 2026, and titled “Is our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” (Attachment 3), examines whether ALPR operators in San Mateo County are in full compliance with applicable California law and whether their practices align with their adopted ALPR policies. The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office and City are included as Operators in the report, and we are working collaboratively to review and respond to the report. The current plan is to return to Council on October 6 with the City’s official response. Of note, the City was identified as having six findings and six recommendations, which is approximately in the middle of the agencies within the County. If the City extends the program, the vendor contract and City’s ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy would likely need to be updated in accordance with the Grand Jury Report.

Pursuant to the City’s ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy, the Sheriff (as the City’s Flock Administrator) is to perform quarterly audits to ensure Sheriff employee inquiries meet the requirements established by the Policy. Although those audits have taken place (on a monthly basis), the City Manager is then required make reports to the City Council, along with associated crime statistics, evaluating whether or not the technology has been beneficial. Those reports to Council were not completed during the initial year of operation, which is an oversight of the City Manager. If the City does extend the program beyond the current Pilot, procedures will be developed and implemented to ensure compliance with this reporting requirement going forward. Additionally, the Sheriff must produce an annual report that includes summaries of the quarterly reports, as well as other specified data. The first annual report (Attachment 4) covers the period of September 2025 through September 2026. Of concern, out of the 314 agencies that were authorized to access the City’s ALPR data, 7 have been identified as having documented sharing issues, although it is important to note that the agency issues took place prior to the City’s ALPR units going online, and it is not believed that any City data has been used or shared inappropriately. If the City were to extend the program, modification of the Policy to reduce the number of agencies with access to City data could be considered to reduce the risk of misuse going forward.

During the Pilot period, there has been one incident that included four documented cases of vandalism of the City’s ALPR equipment, which required repair and replacement of parts. The vandalism consisted of targeted disabling of camera equipment and no breach of data occurred.

Positive Outcomes
In addition to generating critical leads in several high-profile investigations, ALPR technology has contributed to dramatic reductions in vehicle-related crime in Half Moon Bay. Compared with the 2022–2025 year-to-date average, vehicle burglaries have decreased approximately 88% and vehicle thefts approximately 89% in 2026. While no single public-safety tool can be solely credited for these reductions, ALPR technology provides deputies with a significant proactive and investigative advantage by identifying suspect vehicles, locating stolen vehicles, and generating actionable leads.
97

Page 4 of 4 ends

Flock ALPR technology has also directly assisted the Sheriff’s Office in Half Moon Bay in identifying and apprehending multiple felony suspects, including individuals wanted in connection with violent crimes such as assaults with deadly weapons and shootings.

Investigative leads generated through Flock have also contributed to the recovery and seizure of multiple firearms and helped identify felony burglary suspects traveling into Half Moon Bay from outside jurisdictions, including as far away as Fairfield. In several of these cases, there was no known local connection or other readily available investigative lead that would have identified the suspects without ALPR data.

Flock has also played an important role in urgent, life-safety incidents involving individuals in the greater Bay Area region who have threatened suicide by “driving off a cliff”—a threat with particular significance on the Coastside because of its geography and the very real potential for such an act to occur. This threat was tragically demonstrated by the widely reported Devil’s Slide incident in which a vehicle carrying a family was intentionally driven off a cliff in 2023. In these circumstances, the ability to rapidly identify and locate a vehicle can significantly reduce response time and provide deputies with a critical opportunity to intervene before a threatened act becomes a tragedy. Conversely, the technology can rule out whether the vehicle is on the Coastside at all, ruling out idle threats in moments without dedicating precious resources to searching miles of jurisdiction. Collectively, these cases demonstrate Flock’s value not only as an investigative tool, but as a critical public-safety resource capable of helping apprehend dangerous offenders, recover firearms, solve crimes across jurisdictional boundaries, and potentially save lives.

These results directly support Half Moon Bay’s strategic goals of maintaining a safe and welcoming community and a resilient local economy. Although property crimes are lower-level offenses, effectively deterring them has a broader impact in a tourism-dependent community.

Reducing vehicle crime protects residents and visitors, promotes confidence in Half Moon Bay as a safe destination, supports local businesses and tourism, and ultimately contributes to the resiliency of the City’s economy.

CONCLUSION:

Given the information above, as well as ongoing resident concerns about the continued use of ALPRs (specifically Flock), it is important for the Council to thoroughly consider the value of having this technology available in the community against the financial and other potential costs and risks, before deciding to move forward with an extension of the contract and program.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. San Mateo County ALPR Administrative Policy

2. City of Half Moon Bay ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy

3. Grand Jury Report: “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”

4. 2026 ALPR Annual Report – City of HMB, prepared by SMCSO 98 Policy
420
San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/02/04, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 1
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
420.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance for the capture, storage and use of digital data obtained through the use of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology. 420.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR): A device that uses cameras and computer technology to compare digital images of license plates to existing law enforcement inquiries and/or investigations lists.

Detection: An ALPR read of a license plate within public view, including potential images of the plate and vehicle on which it was displayed, and information regarding the location of the ALPR at the time the data was obtained.

Hit: An alert from the ALPR system that a scanned license plate number may be in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) or other law enforcement database for a specific reason including, but not limited to, being related to a stolen vehicle, wanted person(s), missing person(s), domestic violence protective order, registered sex offender or terrorist-related activity.

Hotlist: License plate(s) associated with existing law enforcement investigations.

Plate of Interest: A license plate appearing on a hotlist or that has been entered into the ALPR database and is believed to be associated with criminal activity and/or a vehicle/person of interest. 420.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office (SMCSO) to utilize ALPR technology only for official and legitimate law enforcement purposes, with the goal being to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its public safety efforts in a manner that safeguards the legitimate privacy concerns of law abiding citizens. Consistent with Civil Code 1798.90.55, the Sheriff's Office shall provide the opportunity for public comment at a regularly scheduled meeting of the governing body of any area prior to the installation of any fixed ALPR camera.

Office personnel may use the ALPR system for official use only. Any matches received from the ALPR must be verified before enforcement action is taken unless exigent circumstances exist.

ALPR data that is not considered intelligence and investigative information may be retained for a maximum of one (1) year unless the information is from an ALPR device deployed within an area wherein the local government has requested a different retention period. Data from FLOCK cameras that is not considered intelligence or investigative information will be purged after 30 days.
420.3 OPERATIONS
Use of an ALPR is restricted to the purposes outlined below. Office members shall not use, or allow others to use the equipment or database records for any unauthorized purpose (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53).
99 San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/02/04, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 2
(a) An ALPR shall only be used for official law enforcement business. (b) An ALPR may be used in conjunction with any routine patrol operation or criminal investigation. Reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required before using an ALPR.
(c) While an ALPR may be used to canvass license plates around any crime scene, particular consideration should be given to using ALPR-equipped cars to canvass areas around homicides, shootings and other major incidents. Partial license plates reported during major crimes should be entered into the ALPR system in an attempt to identify suspect vehicles.
(d) No member of this office shall operate ALPR equipment or access ALPR data without first completing office-approved training.
(e) No ALPR operator may access office, state or federal data unless otherwise authorized to do so.
(f) If practicable, the deputy should verify an ALPR response through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) before taking enforcement action that is based solely on an ALPR alert.
420.4 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
(a) General Use

1. ALPR systems shall be deployed solely for official law enforcement purposes, including, but not limited to:
(a) Locating stolen vehicles, carjacked vehicles, stolen license plates, wanted or missing persons, or vehicles on the Hotlist;
(b) Canvassing areas surrounding recent crimes to capture license plates that may be connected to the crime event.
(b) ALPR Administrator

1. The ALPR Administrator duties and Official Custodian duties are the responsibility of the Operations Assistant Sheriff or designee for the applicable area.

2. The ALPR Administrator shall ensure all ALPR system equipment is inspected, at a minimum, on a quarterly basis.

3. The ALPR Administrator shall coordinate all training for use of the ALPR systems and related technologies.
(a) No member of the Office shall operate ALPR equipment or access ALPR data without first completing department-approved training. (b) The following classifications are authorized to be trained in the use of the ALPR system:
100
San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/02/04, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 3
i. Duly sworn peace officers.
ii. Professional staff whose duties require or call for the use of the system or data, for example, Community Service Officers assigned to investigative positions or Crime Analysts.
(c) Training in the use of the system shall consist of:
i. Privacy and civil liberties protections.
ii. Legal authorities, developments and issues involving the use of ALPR data and technology.
iii. Current Office policy regarding appropriate use of ALPR systems. iv. Technical, physical, administrative and procedural measures to protect the security of ALPR data against unauthorized access or use; and
v. Practical exercises in the use of the ALPR system.

4. The ALPR Administrator shall submit an ALPR quarterly report to the Area Commander of any deployment of ALPR technology:
(a) The report will include at a minimum, total detections and hits generated from the ALPR equipment and a confirmation that there is no data in the system older than is permitted by this policy.

5. The Sheriff's Office will give an annual report to the Governing Bodies on the number of license plates captured in any given time period, number of times the data was accessed by law enforcement, including but not limited to, a report from the law enforcement agency as to how many of the license plates included in the data accessed were Hits on an active wanted list, the number of inquiries made by law enforcement personnel by agency relative to the data, the justification(s) for those inquiries, and information on any data retained beyond retention periods (maximum of 12 months) and the reasons for such retention.

6. The ALPR Administrator shall conduct periodic audits of user queries as well as update access to the database. This includes eliminating access to persons separated from the organization for any reason.
(c) ALPR Operators

1. Shall ensure the ALPR cameras are properly affixed to the assigned Sheriff's patrol vehicle prior to starting their shift; inspecting units for damage or excessive wear.

2. Upon discovery of any ALPR equipment that is inoperable or damaged in any way, the Operator shall:
(a) Immediately notify the ALPR Administrator in writing. (b) Document the damage/issue on the County Vehicle Damage form and notify the Technology Services Unit (TSU).
101
San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/02/04, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 4

3. Shall start the ALPR system software to activate the system and receive the automatic updated Hotlist at the beginning of each shift.

A. ALPR units installed on marked Sheriff's patrol vehicles shall be activated and used at all times unless the operator of the vehicle has not been trained and certified to use the system.

B. Staff assigned unmarked Sheriff's vehicles equipped with an ALPR system may use their discretion on removing the external ALPR cameras based on mission needs.

4. Shall ensure that the ALPR system software, hardware, and GPS are fully operational.

5. Shall not attempt to repair defective or inoperable ALPR equipment. (d) ALPR Hits

1. When an alarm is received alerting operators of a positive Hit from the Hotlist database, a digital image of the license plate will be displayed on the mobile data computer screen.

2. Absent exigent circumstances, or other information to establish probable cause for a detention, ALPR operators shall compare the digital image of the license plate to the Hotlist information to verify the Hit for both the state in which the license plate was issued and characters on the plate. ALPR systems will alert based on the alpha numeric characters displayed for license plates issued and false positives are possible based on license plates with the same numbers from other states. ALPR systems may also misread letters and numbers of similar shapes. This is the primary reason that, absent exigent circumstances, all positive Hits must be confirmed prior to taking law enforcement action.

3. Absent exigent circumstances, or other information to establish probable cause for a detention, ALPR operators shall confirm the ALPR information by radio or mobile data computer to immediately confirm the Hit prior to taking enforcement or any other type of action.
420.5 ACCOUNTABILITY
All data will be closely safeguarded and protected by both procedural and technological means.

The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office will observe the following safeguards regarding access to and use of stored data (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53):
(a) All ALPR data downloaded to the mobile workstation and in storage shall be accessible only through a login/password-protected system capable of documenting all access of information by name, date and time (Civil Code § 1798.90.52). (b) Members approved to access ALPR data under these guidelines are permitted to access the data for legitimate law enforcement purposes only, such as when the data relate to a specific criminal investigation or office-related civil or administrative action. (c) ALPR system audits should be conducted on a regular basis. 102
San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/02/04, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 5
For security or data breaches, see the Records Release and Maintenance Policy. 420.6 PROHIBITED USE
(a) ALPR usage is prohibited from invading the privacy of individuals or looking into private area or areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, nor shall they be used to harass, intimidate or discriminate against any individual or group, nor for any purpose not specifically authorized by this policy.
(b) Unauthorized access, possession or release of data is a violation of policy and various federal and state criminal statutes. Any employee who accesses, possesses or releases data from the ALPR database without authorization or in violation of this policy and such additional policies established by this Office, may face discipline up to and including termination, criminal prosecution and/or civil liability. (c) The Sheriff's Office does not permit the sharing of ALPR data gathered by the Office or its contractors/subcontractors/municipalities for purpose of federal immigration enforcement, pursuant to the California Values Act (Government Code § 7282.5; Government Code § 7284.2 et seq) – these federal immigration agencies include Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CPB). (d) The Sheriff's Office will also consider the California Reproductive Privacy Act (Health and Safety Code § 123460 - § 123469) before approving the sharing of ALPR data for the purpose of investigating any person seeking to exercise their reproductive health care rights within California. The Sheriff's Office does not permit the sharing of ALPR data gathered by the Office or its contractors/subcontractors for the purpose of prosecuting, investigating or initiating any legal proceeding against any person for the exercise of reproductive health care rights as defined by California law. (e) The Sheriff's Office will not share ALPR data with federal or out-of-state agencies in compliance with Civil Code §§1798.90.55(b) and 1798.90.5(f). (f) ALPR technology shall not be used for the purpose of monitoring, tracking, identifying, or investigating individuals or groups based solely on the exercise of rights protected by the First Amendment of the United States or California Constitution, including but not limited to lawful speech, association, assembly, or participation in protests, demonstrations, or other expressive activities.
420.7 POLICY
The policy of the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office is to utilize ALPR technology to capture and store digital license plate data and images while recognizing the established privacy rights of the public.

All data and images gathered by the ALPR are for the official use of this office. Because such data may contain confidential information, it is not open to public review. 420.8 ADMINISTRATION
The ALPR technology, also known as License Plate Recognition (LPR), allows for the automated detection of license plates. It is used by the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office to convert data 103
San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/02/04, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 6
associated with vehicle license plates for official law enforcement purposes, including identifying stolen or wanted vehicles, stolen license plates and missing persons. It may also be used to gather information related to active warrants, homeland security, electronic surveillance, suspect interdiction and stolen property recovery.

All installation and maintenance of ALPR equipment, as well as ALPR data retention and access, shall be managed by the Operations Assistant Sheriff or their designee. The Operations Assistant Sheriffwill assign members under their command to administer the day-to-day operation of the ALPR equipment and data.
420.8.1 ALPR ADMINISTRATOR
The Support Services Assistant Sheriff shall be responsible for developing guidelines and procedures to comply with the requirements of Civil Code § 1798.90.5 et seq. This includes, but is not limited to (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53):
(a) A description of the job title or other designation of the members and independent contractors who are authorized to use or access the ALPR system or to collect ALPR information.
(b) Training requirements for authorized users.
(c) A description of how the ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws. (d) Procedures for system operators to maintain records of access in compliance with Civil Code § 1798.90.52.
(e) The title and name of the current designee in overseeing the ALPR operation. (f) Working with the Custodian of Records on the retention and destruction of ALPR data. (g) Ensuring this policy and related procedures are conspicuously posted on the office's website.
420.9 REVISIONS
• Adopted: January 13, 2017
• Revised: February 20, 2024
• Revised: February 3, 2026
104
City of Half Moon Bay
Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR)
Usage and Privacy Policy
Adoption Date: October 1, 2024
Last Revision Date: October 1, 2024

1. Introduction & Purpose
The City of Half Moon Bay (“City”) owns or leases and authorizes the use of Automated License Plate Readers (“ALPR”) at fixed locations within the City, as shown on Attachment A, for law enforcement and public safety purposes as described herein.

ALPRs use high speed cameras to capture still images of vehicles including the make, color, license plate, roof racks and bumper stickers (“Footage”). City, through its contract for law enforcement services with the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, has agreed to provide the Sheriff’s Office with access to the Footage to view, search, and archive the Footage and to receive notifications via email or SMS to facilitate gathering of evidence for use in bona fide law enforcement investigations.

California Civil Code section 1798.90.51 requires public agencies operating ALPR to adopt and implement a usage and privacy policy to ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of information collected by ALPR protects individual privacy and civil liberties. Consistent with the state law mandate, the City has adopted this Automatic License Plate Reader Usage and Privacy Policy (“Policy”) to regulate the use, management, and retention of ALPR and ALPR Data which includes the Footage metadata, such as time stamp and geolocation of the cameras, as well as who has accessed records,search history, and any other auditable data collected or used to store, index, and access the information. This Policy is available to the public in writing and posted on the City’s website.

2. Definitions
A) “Aggregated Data” means information that relates to a group or category of individuals, from which any potential individuals’ personal identifying information has been permanently “anonymized” by commercially available tools to irreversibly alter data in such a way that a data subject (i.e., individual person or impersonal entity) can no longer be identified directly or indirectly.

B) “Automated License Plate Reader” means the technology, also known as License Plate Recognition, which provides still images and other data, including vehicular attributes such as make, color, license plate, roof rack, and bumper stickers, captured by the ALPR System.

C) “ALPR Data” means the content obtained by an ALPR, including the Footage metadata, such as time stamp and geolocation of the camera, as well as who has accessed records, search history, and any other auditable data collected by the software system or used in the Embedded Software used to store, index, and access the information gathered by an ALPR.

D) “ALPR System” means the ALPR hardware and software including cameras or device, pole, clamps, solar panel, installation components, and any other physical elements used for the capture, retention, indexing, accessing, and utilizing ALPR Data.

E) “Embedded Software” means the software and/or firmware embedded or preinstalled on the ALPR System.
105
City of HMB ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy Page | 2
F) “Flock” means Flock Group Inc, the vendor who will provide to the City a software and hardware solution for ALPR through Flock’s technology platform.

G) “Footage” means still images and other data, including vehicular attributes such as make, color, license plate, roof rack, and bumper stickers, captured by the ALPR System during and provided via the services provided by Flock.

H) “Hotlist(s)” means a digital file containing alphanumeric license plate related information pertaining to vehicles of interest, which may include stolen vehicles, stolen vehicle license plates, vehicles owned or associated with wanted or missing person(s), vehicles suspected of being involved with criminal or terrorist activities, and other legitimate law enforcement purposes. Hotlist also includes, but is not limited to, National Crime Information Center (NCIC), Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and local Be on the Lookouts (BOLOs) for similar categories, license plates associated with AMBER Alerts or Missing Persons/Vulnerable Adult Alerts, and includes manually entered license plate information associated with crimes that have occurred in any local jurisdiction.

I) “Law Enforcement Agency” refers to an agency charged with maintaining public safety and enforcing federal law or California law.

J) “Notifications” means alerts sent via Electronic Mail (E-mail) or Short Message/Messaging Service (SMS) to the Sheriff’s officers through the ALPR System based on Hotlists hits.

K) “Requisite Training” means training and education conducted by the Sheriff before access to the City’s ALPR Data is provided and thereafter annually on ALPR Data protection and authorized and prohibited uses. Training in the use of the system shall consist of:
i. Privacy and civil liberties protections;
ii. Legal authorities, developments and issues involving the use of ALPR data and technology; iii. Current Sheriff policy regarding appropriate use of ALPR systems; iv. Technical, physical, administrative and procedural measures to protect the security of ALPR data against unauthorized access or use;
v. Practical exercises in the use of the ALPR system; and vi. All training and updates provided by Lexipol.

L) “Sheriff” means the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office and its sworn officers or authorized staff.

M) “City” means the City of Half Moon Bay, California.

N) “City Council” means the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay, California.

O) “City Manager” means the official representative of the City or their duly authorized agent.

3. Authorized Purposes and Prohibited Uses
Use of the City ALPR System will take place 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, and 365 days per year within the City of Half Moon Bay, with ALPR Data captured at the locations identified on Attachment A. City ALPR shall not be used in areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as on private property not readily visible from public right of ways.

ALPR Data captured by City ALPR will only be used for the following purposes:

A) to assist in identifying and investigating crimes against persons and property; B) to locate missing children, adults, and/or elderly individuals, including in response to Amber Alerts and Silver Alerts;
C) to locate stolen, wanted, and/or other vehicles that are the subject of an investigation; D) to assist in gathering evidence to identify, apprehend, and prosecute criminal offenders; 106
City of HMB ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy Page | 3
E) to respond to emergency events;
F) to locate and/or apprehend individuals subject to arrest warrants; G) to locate victims, witnesses, and suspects associated with an investigation; and/or H) to check, either manually or automated, for license plate data appearing on active Hotlists.

The following uses of the ALPR system are specifically prohibited:

A) to harass and/or intimidate any individual or group; B) to use the ALPR system or associated scan files or hot lists for any personal purpose; C) to use the ALPR system or associated scan files or hot lists for the purpose or known effect of infringing upon First Amendment rights of any person,
D) to assist or support immigration enforcement or prosecuting, investigating or initiating any legal proceeding against any person for the exercise of reproductive health care rights as defined by California law; and/or
E) except when done pursuant to a court order such as a search warrant, to record license plates except those of vehicles that are exposed to public view (e.g., vehicles on a public road or street, or that are on private property but whose license plate(s) are visible from a public road, street, or a place to which members of the public have access, such as the parking lot of a shop or other business establishment).

Any ALPR Data obtained from City ALPR shall be used pursuant to this Policy, the Sheriff’s policy, any agreements between the City, Sheriff and/or Flock, and any applicable state and federal law. All other uses not referenced above are prohibited. Possession of ALPR Data does not negate the need to comply with other applicable laws or regulations including the requirement to obtain a search warrant when legally required.

4. Data Storage and Protection
ALPR Data collected by ALPR is automatically uploaded to the ALPR System’s associated cloud storage at the time of capture. Cloud storage and server capacity is provided for and maintained by Flock as a part of its scope of services. The City Manager shall review and confirm at least annually to the City Council in writing that Flock has installed and implemented appropriate security measures for such storage including encryption, firewalls, authentication, and other reasonable data protection measures.

ALPR Data will not be downloaded to a local server, stored locally on a hard drive or portable device, or produced in a physical printout, except authorized Sheriff personnel may download ALPR Data for local storage or printout for authorized purposes stated herein. ALPR Data may not otherwise be downloaded for any other purpose.

Downloaded, copied, and printed ALPR Data will be maintained in accordance with applicable law, including state and federal evidentiary laws. Additionally, the Sheriff shall implement physical security, encryption, firewalls, authentication, and other reasonable security measures to protect ALPR Data, including all ALPR Data downloaded to the mobile workstation or in storage shall be accessible only through a login/password-protected system capable of documenting all access of information by name, date, and time.
107
City of HMB ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy Page | 4

5. ALPR Data Access
Access to ALPR Data is restricted to sworn officers or authorized staff of the Sheriff, who may download and store ALPR Data, but only for the authorized purposes listed in Section 3 above and subject to all conditions, restrictions, and protections of this Policy.

The City contracts with Flock for the provision, operation, and maintenance of the ALPR System.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, one or more employees of the City may have access to the ALPR system for the sole purpose of facilitating and ensuring the use of the ALPR system in coordination with Flock.

Flock’s access to data collected by City ALPR is limited to access required to operate and improve the ALPR System, in which case only anonymized and Aggregated Data may be accessed and used by Flock.

In addition to this Policy, the Sherriff’s personnel shall observe and comply with this Policy, and all applicable internal or departmental ALPR policies and any additional guidelines and regulations that are in place governing ALPR.

6. ALPR Data Retention
ALPR Data will not be stored by the ALPR System beyond thirty (30) days from the date it was uploaded to the cloud system except when lawfully required to by a subpoena, court order or associated ongoing investigation.

ALPR Data that is downloaded and stored pursuant to Section 5 above shall be deleted and purged no later than six (6) months from the date it was downloaded for local storage, unless the ALPR Data thereafter becomes associated with a criminal investigation or prosecution for any of the authorized purposes identified in Section 3 above. In the latter case, the ALPR Data shall be purged no later than one (1) year from the date the criminal investigation no longer remains active or the ongoing prosecution for which it was retained is resolved.

7. ALPR Data Public Access
ALPR Data will not be made public unless required by state or federal law or by court order. Prior to disclosing to a third party any ALPR Data, Flock shall provide the City with reasonable notice to provide the City with ability to seek a protective order and/or other legal remedies to minimize the scope of required disclosure. If a California Public Records Act request for ALPR Data is received by the City or the City becomes aware of such request to the Sheriff, the City Attorney’s Office will be consulted to determine whether the requested ALPR Data is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act or other state or federal law provisions.

8. Third-Party ALPR Data-Sharing
The City, Flock, and the Sheriff shall maintain robust security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect ALPR Data from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.

The Sheriff is authorized to share ALPR Data in the following limited circumstances upon a lawful request from:
• a California District Attorney's Office for use as evidence to aid in prosecution, in accordance with laws governing evidence;
108
City of HMB ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy Page | 5
• a California Public Defender's Office or criminal defense attorney in accordance with applicable criminal discovery laws; and/or
• a California Law Enforcement Agency, but only for an Authorized Purpose listed in Section 3 above and subject to all conditions, restrictions, and protections of this Policy.

Any ALPR Data sharing must be documented by either the associated case or incident number, and lawful reason for the request.

9. Law Enforcement Training
ALPR Data may only be accessed by authorized Sheriff personnel pursuant to Section 5 and who have undergone Requisite Training. Prior to sharing ALPR Data with any other Law Enforcement Agency, the Sheriff shall ensure that the receiving Law Enforcement Agency is aware of and will comply with the conditions, restrictions, and protections of this Policy.

10. ALPR Maintenance
The City or Flock will regularly inspect and adequately maintain the ALPR equipment in proper working order and will ensure that the ALPR System continues to function as provided for in this Policy.

11. ALPR Data Audits and Annual Reporting
A) Quarterly Reports
On a quarterly basis, the City Manager will make a report to the City Council which includes a data audit from the Sheriff. In order to prepare the report, the Sheriff shall randomly select at least ten detection browsing inquiries conducted by Sheriff employees since the date of activation of the ALPR and determine if each inquiry meets the requirements established in this Policy.

The report shall include any data errors or Policy violations found so that such errors can be corrected, and violations addressed. Additionally, the report shall include an evaluation of the system's efficacy, including relevant crime statistics and/or data to help the community assess whether use of the technology is beneficial. After the quarterly review by the City Council, the report and any associated documentation shall be filed and retained according to the City of Half Moon Bay’s retention policies.

B) Annual Reports
Commencing within twelve (12) months following first activation of the ALPRs, and annually thereafter, the Sheriff will prepare an annual report for submission to the City Council. The annual report will include, at a minimum:
i. a summary of the quarterly reports including any corrective action taken, excluding any confidential disciplinary information prohibited by law from disclosure; ii. the number of fixed ALPR cameras;
iii. the number of scanned license plates;
iv. the number of Hotlist hits or alerts;
v. the number of search queries and the justification for such queries; vi. the number of investigative leads generated by use of ALPR Data; vii. the number of witnesses located by use of ALPR Data; 109
City of HMB ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy Page | 6
viii. the number of stolen vehicles recovered by use of ALPR Data; ix. the number of suspects apprehended by use of ALPR Data; x. a list of Law Enforcement Agencies that accessed or received ALPR Data; and xi. any ALPR Data requests from third-parties pursuant to Section 8.

Policy Revision History:

Date Actions
10/01/2024 Council Adoption
Adopted:

Signature:

Matthew Chidester, City Manager
110
City of HMB ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy Page | 7
Attachment A
ALPR Locations
(16 ALPR units at 7 locations)

1. N/B Highway 1 and Main Street

2. S/B Highway 1 and Main Street

3. E/B Strawflower Shopping Center

4. W/B Strawflower Shopping Center

5. Highway 92 and N/B Main Street

6. Highway 92 and S/B Main Street

7. E/B Kelly West of Highway 1

8. W/B Kelly East of Highway 1

9. E/B Kelly East of Highway 1

10. W/B Kelly West of Highway 1

11. N/B Main and Highway 1 at Higgins
Canyon Road

12. S/B Main and Highway 1 at Higgins
Canyon Road

13. E/B Redondo Beach Road

14. W/B Redondo Beach Road

15. E/B Wavecrest Road at Highway 1

16. E/B Poplar Street at Railroad
111
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 1
Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras
Properly Tended?
San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
2025-2026
Release Date: August 3, 2026
112
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 2
ISSUE | SUMMARY | BACKGROUND | METHODOLOGY | DISCUSSION | FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS | REQUEST FOR RESPONSES | RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS | BIBLIOGRAPHY | APPENDIX
ISSUE
Over the past year, Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) have come under increasing public scrutiny. This report examines whether ALPR operators in San Mateo County (SMC) are in full compliance with applicable California law and whether their practices align with their adopted ALPR policies.

SUMMARY
Automated License Plate Readers have become widely deployed in SMC, with more than 500 cameras now in operation by law enforcement agencies (LEAs) within the County. The rapid increase in ALPR deployment has been accompanied by California legislation governing ALPR use, and also by increased media coverage of alleged violations. Over the past year, SMC LEAs have made notable operational improvements, particularly with respect to out-of-state data sharing. Most changes were driven by stronger default compliance made by Flock Safety (Flock), now the dominant ALPR platform among the SMC operators reviewed. But SMC ALPR operators continue to have many of the same operational deficiencies identified by a 2019 California State Audit that investigated four operators elsewhere in California. Many of the required policy documents are deficient or need significant revision to accurately reflect current operations, and audit materials produced were inconsistent in scope and rigor. Although the materials reviewed did not identify current sharing by SMC operators with out-of-state entities, most operators did not document criteria, process, or controls governing in-state sharing in a manner sufficient to demonstrate compliance with law. This report presents findings and recommendations to promote transparent operation of ALPR systems consistent with public safety, privacy, and applicable law.

BACKGROUND
Automated License Plate Readers
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are camera-based systems that automatically capture and analyze license plates on passing vehicles. Cameras are typically located at fixed roadside locations along high-traffic corridors, major intersections, city entry/exit routes, areas with high crime rates, and transportation infrastructure (bridges, tunnels, freeways). These systems combine high-speed cameras, infrared illumination, and optical character recognition software to convert license plate images into searchable digital data. Law enforcement agencies use ALPR systems to locate stolen vehicles, identify vehicles connected to criminal investigations, generate investigative leads, and assist in locating missing persons. When connected through regional or national networks, ALPR systems allow investigators to reconstruct vehicle movements across jurisdictions.

Digital imaging, optical character recognition, and large-scale data storage allow ALPR systems to process large numbers of license plates quickly and automatically. Modern systems can read thousands of plates per hour and store the results in databases that investigators can search later.

When a motor vehicle is detected by an ALPR as it passes through the camera's field of view, a digital record is generated recording the vehicle's license plate number, an image of the plate, a 113
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 3
contextual image of the vehicle (make, model, color, etc.), the date and time of the scan, the location of the camera, and the identification number of the camera device. Once the image is captured, the digital record is immediately transmitted to a cloud-based database that compares the scanned license plate and other vehicle data against law enforcement watch lists, often referred to as “hot lists,” that may include information on vehicles that have been reported stolen, those associated with criminal investigations, outstanding warrants, or connected to missing persons or Amber Alerts.

When a match occurs, the system can send an alert to officers or dispatch centers in real time.

ALPR cameras are usually deployed as part of a network such that when the same vehicle is detected by multiple cameras, investigators can analyze those detections to determine travel routes and timelines. By default, only data captured by cameras within that local jurisdiction are available.

LEAs typically elect to contribute their data to regional databases or multi-jurisdictional systems that allow sharing across multiple cities, counties, or states. The ability to share data among multiple jurisdictions is more effective in assisting law enforcement in their investigations as suspects rarely limit their travel within a single jurisdiction.

As of March 30, 2026, more than 582 ALPR cameras were deployed across SMC. These cameras are operated by municipal police departments within their respective jurisdictions and by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (SMCSO) in unincorporated areas and in jurisdictions where the Sheriff provides contracted law enforcement services. The only police department in SMC with no ALPR cameras is Broadmoor.

Operator Cameras as of
3/30/2026
Comments
Atherton 53 Earliest in SMC, 2020.

Belmont 10
Brisbane 16
Burlingame 18
Colma 11
Daly City 44
East Palo Alto 25
Foster City 20
Half Moon Bay 14 Separate Flock contract, operated by
SMCSO.

Hillsborough 22
Menlo Park 32
Pacifica 10
Redwood City 25
San Bruno 54
San Mateo 66
114
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 4
Operator Cameras as of
3/30/2026
Comments
San Mateo County Sheriff's
Office
109 Includes unincorporated SMC (except
Broadmoor), Portola Valley, San Carlos
and Millbrae.

South San Francisco 37
Woodside 26 Separate Flock contract, operated by
SMCSO
Key Issue
ALPRs and the sharing of image data across jurisdictional lines have created controversy with respect to issues of privacy. While not the focus of this report, some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that vehicle tracking could affect freedom of association if it reveals attendance at protests, political meetings, or religious gatherings (First Amendment).

Others, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) question whether large-scale tracking of vehicle locations over time could constitute a search under constitutional law (Fourth Amendment).

While the focus of this report is not to investigate the constitutional issues surrounding ALPRs, data sharing among law enforcement agencies has become a significant public concern and has, in some communities, resulted in the suspension or termination of ALPR programs. Although no such actions have occurred in SMC, several Bay Area jurisdictions—including Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, and Santa Cruz—have discontinued their use of ALPR systems.

This report evaluates, based on records obtained during the investigation, whether SMC LEAs satisfy California law governing the use of ALPR systems and the sharing of ALPR data. Civil Code section 1798.90.51 requires APLR operators to implement and publicly post a usage and privacy policy. This report also evaluates whether the policies produced accurately describe actual operations.

Legislative Framework
California has enacted legislation governing the use of ALPR systems, with a focus on transparency, accountability, and limitations on data sharing. The primary statutory framework was enacted by Senate Bill 34 (SB 34) (Stats. 2015, Ch. 532), codified at Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55.

Effective January 1, 2016, SB 34 imposes requirements governing the collection, storage, access, and sharing of ALPR data. SB 34 applies to both operators of ALPR systems and entities that access ALPR data. Among other requirements, ALPR operators must adopt written usage policies, maintain detailed audit logs, implement reasonable security measures, and provide an opportunity for public comment prior to implementing an ALPR program. The California Department of Justice has issued guidance on SB 34 in Information Bulletin No. 2023-DLE-06.

In addition to SB 34, Senate Bill 54 (SB 54) (Stats. 2017, Ch. 495), known as the California Values Act (Gov. Code § 7284 et seq.) restricts the use of state and local law enforcement resources for 115
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 5
federal immigration enforcement purposes. SB 54 limits the sharing of certain information with federal immigration authorities and reinforces the principle that local law enforcement data systems, including ALPR databases, must not be used in a manner inconsistent with California law. The California Department of Justice has issued guidance clarifying these restrictions in Information Bulletin No. 2025-DLE-08.

In 2025, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 274, which would have imposed additional restrictions and oversight. The bill proposed limiting retention periods for non-matching records and expanding state-level review of ALPR use. However, SB 274 was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom, who concluded that SB 274 did “not strike the delicate balance between protecting individual privacy and ensuring public safety,... particularly with respect to cold cases.” Collectively, these statutes establish a legal framework that emphasizes transparency, accountability, and restricted data sharing, while placing primary responsibility for compliance on individual law enforcement agencies.

Data Sharing and Side-Sharing
The effectiveness of ALPR systems depends in large part on the ability of LEAs to share data across jurisdictions. Within most ALPR platforms, each agency organizes its cameras into one or more networks that govern both system configuration and data sharing. Agencies may control which other agencies can discover their networks and whether access requests are automatically approved or require explicit authorization. Once access is granted, authorized users from another agency may query shared ALPR data without further approval.

While this model enhances investigative capability—particularly in cases involving vehicles that travel across jurisdictional boundaries—it also places responsibility on each agency to ensure that data sharing practices comply with California law. Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b) provides that a public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law. The SMCCGJ found that data sharing practices vary widely among agencies, with some limiting access to nearby jurisdictions and others permitting broad sharing within the state. The decentralized nature of these sharing controls creates a structural risk:
compliance with California law depends not on system-enforced restrictions, but on how individual agencies configure and manage their networks. As a result, even where written policies are compliant, system configurations may permit data sharing practices that are inconsistent with statutory requirements. In general, as the size of a network increases and more law enforcement agencies are granted access, the risk of misuse correspondingly increases.

A related concern is the practice commonly referred to as “side-sharing.” For purposes of this report, “side-sharing” refers to the practice in which a California ALPR operator conducts a network query on behalf of an organization that is not authorized to access the data directly—typically an out-ofstate or federal agency—and then provides the results outside of the ALPR system. In such cases, audit records reflect that the query was initiated and used by a California agency, when in fact the request originated from, and the results were delivered to, an external entity.

Because the ALPR audit logs reviewed by the SMCCGJ record only the identity of the querying agency and do not capture the ultimate recipient of the data, side-sharing is inherently difficult to detect. Activity that appears compliant on its face may, in fact, circumvent the restrictions imposed by California law, including limitations on sharing ALPR data with entities outside the state. 116
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 6
Side-sharing may involve attempts to access ALPR data outside of established sharing arrangements, including by law enforcement personnel who do not have authorized access. For example, a federal immigration agency may seek to obtain ALPR data from a California jurisdiction in a manner inconsistent with the restrictions imposed by SB 54. Such access could be facilitated by directly contacting personnel within a California LEA and requesting that they conduct an ALPR query on behalf of the external agency.

This issue has been the subject of media reporting and public concern, although verification in specific instances is challenging due to the limitations of available audit data. Media coverage of public statements by certain law enforcement officials has further highlighted the potential risk.

The SMCCGJ found that existing controls to prevent or detect improper data sharing, including sidesharing, are limited. While the ALPR platform provides audit logs, role-based access controls, and, more recently, anomaly detection tools, these features rely on agency-level oversight and do not provide a comprehensive or system-enforced safeguard. There is no centralized mechanism to prevent a user from conducting a query on behalf of an unauthorized entity or to ensure that query results are used solely for authorized purposes.

As a result, compliance with California law in this area depends largely on the policies, training, and oversight practices of individual agencies. In the absence of stronger technical controls or more robust audit capabilities, the risk of unauthorized data access—whether through misconfiguration or side-sharing—remains a significant concern.

Flock Safety
Flock Safety is the largest provider of ALPR systems in the United States and the primary provider of ALPR systems used by LEAs in SMC. The company provides both the physical camera infrastructure and a cloud-based software platform that enables agencies to collect, store, search, and share vehicle detection data. This represents a significant market shift from Vigilant Solutions, who was the most common provider in 2019.

Note that while nearly all ALPR cameras in SMC are provided by Flock, Pacifica also operates 4 Axon mobile cameras that were not investigated by SMCCGJ. Also, ALPR data collected by Flock cameras may also be forwarded to intelligence fusion systems that include other types of surveillance data. Some SMC LEAs use C3.ai, and SMC has recently funded a pilot with Peregrine Systems. These systems are capable of sharing data among agencies and across state boundaries but were not investigated by SMCCGJ and have not received wide media attention.

Flock cameras are typically installed at fixed locations such as major intersections, highways, and entry or exit points to a community. These cameras do not continuously track vehicles; rather, they capture individual “snapshots” or detections as vehicles pass through a camera’s field of view. Each detection includes a license plate number, vehicle characteristics (such as make, color, and body type), and metadata including the date, time, and location of the observation.

This information is transmitted to Flock’s cloud-based platform, where it is indexed and made searchable. Authorized users access the system through a web-based interface, allowing them to query historical detections or monitor real-time alerts. For example, agencies may create “hotlists” of vehicles of interest—such as stolen vehicles or those associated with criminal investigations— which trigger notifications when detected by any connected camera. 117
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 7
A key feature of the system is its ability to aggregate data across multiple cameras and jurisdictions.

While a single camera provides only a point-in-time observation, multiple detections across different locations can allow investigators to infer travel patterns or identify a vehicle’s movement over time.

All user activity—including searches, alerts, and administrative actions—is recorded in audit logs.

These logs are intended to support oversight and accountability by providing a record of how the system is used. Although Flock hosts the data and provides the technical infrastructure, each customer agency retains control over its own data and is responsible for determining who may access it and under what conditions.

Data Sharing Framework
A defining feature of the Flock platform is its ability to facilitate data sharing among law enforcement agencies. This capability is implemented through a system of configurable “Networks,” which function as both administrative groupings and sharing mechanisms. Each agency organizes its cameras into one or more networks and determines whether those networks are visible to other agencies within the platform. When a network is made visible, other agencies may discover it— typically through a map-based interface—and request access.

These access requests are routed to a designated administrator within the owning agency. Depending on how the system is configured, the administrator may review and approve each request individually, or the system may automatically approve requests based on predefined criteria. Once access is granted, users from the approved agency can query the shared data directly, without needing to request permission for each individual search.

This model allows investigators to search for vehicles across jurisdictional boundaries, which can be particularly useful in cases involving regional travel or coordinated criminal activity. At the same time, it introduces complexity, as each agency must determine which other agencies should be granted access and under what conditions.

Agencies can limit sharing in several ways, including restricting access to specific agencies, geographic regions, or operational groupings. Importantly, sharing permissions are not transitive: if Agency A shares data with Agency B, and Agency B shares data with Agency C, Agency C does not automatically gain access to Agency A’s data.

Private entities, such as commercial businesses or homeowners’ associations, participate in the system differently. Their cameras are not visible within the shared network interface, and they do not independently request access to law enforcement data. Instead, data from private cameras is typically shared directly with local LEAs through arrangements managed with Flock outside the standard user interface.

While this network-based architecture enables collaboration and enhances investigative capabilities, it also places primary responsibility on each agency to manage its sharing relationships in a manner consistent with applicable laws and local policy.

Concerns
Beginning in 2025, a number of media reports and public records analyses brought increased attention to the use of ALPR systems, particularly with respect to how data was being shared among law enforcement agencies. These reports identified instances in which California agencies had configured their systems in a manner that allowed access to ALPR data by out-of-state entities, a practice inconsistent with California law.
118
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 8
Within SMC, the Menlo Park Police Department acknowledged prior instances in which ALPR data had been shared across state lines. Similar issues were identified in other jurisdictions throughout California, suggesting that these were not isolated occurrences but rather reflected broader challenges in how the systems were configured and used.

In addition to concerns regarding system configuration, analysis of audit data highlighted issues related to how queries were conducted and documented. In some cases, users entered generalized descriptions such as “Investigation,”1 without specifying a particular law enforcement purpose.

While such entries are not necessarily improper, they limit the ability of agencies, auditors, and the public to determine whether queries were conducted for authorized purposes.

Taken together, these findings raised questions not only about compliance with legal requirements, but also about the adequacy of system controls and oversight mechanisms. They also underscored the degree to which proper use of the system depends on both technical configuration and user behavior.

System Controls and Vendor Response
In response to these concerns, Flock implemented a series of changes beginning in 2025, aimed at reducing the likelihood of improper data sharing and improving the ability of agencies to monitor system use. These changes reflect a shift from a system that relied heavily on user discretion to one that incorporates more structured controls and constraints.

One of the most significant changes involved restrictions on data sharing across state lines. Prior to 2025, agencies had broad discretion to configure sharing relationships, including the ability to enable “Nationwide” access or establish direct connections with out-of-state agencies. Although such configurations were inconsistent with California law, they were technically permitted within the system.

To address this issue, Flock implemented a phased set of changes. Nationwide sharing was first disabled by default in February 2025 and then permanently removed in March 2025, eliminating the ability for California agencies to broadly expose their data to agencies outside the state. In June 2025, Flock further restricted sharing by disabling the ability to create new out-of-state sharing relationships.

Importantly, these changes did not automatically terminate existing shared relationships. Instead, Flock undertook a process of customer outreach and education, encouraging agencies to review and modify their configurations. As a result, most agencies voluntarily discontinued such arrangements, although some pre-existing relationships remain subject to ongoing legal proceedings. As of this writing, the City of El Cajon is the only California agency with ALPR network sharing relationships extending outside the state. In October 2025, the California Attorney General filed an action against El Cajon alleging non-compliance with SB 34; the case is currently in litigation.

In addition to changes in sharing controls, Flock introduced enhancements aimed at improving how system use is documented and monitored. Historically, users were able to enter free-form text to 1 Analysis done by the SMCCGJ on all 2025 network queries in California on one SMC LEA’s data found that 13.1% of queries entered only “Investigation” as the “Reason” for performing the query. 119
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 9
describe the purpose of a query in a “Reason” field. In practice, this resulted in inconsistent and often vague entries2, limiting the effectiveness of audit review.

In December 2025, Flock augmented this approach by requiring users to select an “Offense Type” from a standardized list3based on National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) codes.

Within California, categories inconsistent with SB 54 are disabled. This change provides a more consistent framework for documenting queries and enables more meaningful analysis of system use.

Many agencies have supplemented this requirement by mandating the entry of a case number, linking each query to a specific investigation. This case number is useful for auditing queries within a department but is ineffective for analysis of network queries as LEAs in California do not share a common case management system.

Flock also expanded its audit and monitoring capabilities. Audit logs continue to record all user activity, but additional tools have been introduced to support review. Activity logs track changes to system configuration, including modifications to sharing settings, while the Transparency Portal allows agencies to publish usage statistics and audit summaries.

In April 2026, Flock introduced “Audit Assistance,” an automated tool that analyzes system activity and identifies patterns that deviate from an agency’s typical usage. These alerts are intended to assist administrators in identifying potential misuse, including unusual query patterns or activity that may warrant further review (side-sharing).

Additional controls have been implemented to restrict system access and reinforce appropriate use.

These include limitations on “guest” users outside the agency’s domain and role-based access controls that allow agencies to tailor system permissions based on user responsibilities. Flock’s terms of service also prohibit use of the system on behalf of unauthorized individuals or agencies.

While these changes represent meaningful improvements, they are primarily designed to support and guide user behavior rather than to enforce compliance directly. As such, their effectiveness depends on how agencies configure and use the system.

Training and Compliance Support
Flock provides training on system operation, legal use, and compliance requirements as part of its onboarding process. Agencies may supplement this training with local policies, procedures, and internal controls tailored to their operational environment. While these resources support compliance, they do not substitute for agency responsibility to ensure that system use is consistent with applicable laws and policies.

Remaining Limitations
Notwithstanding these enhancements, important limitations remain in the system’s ability to prevent or detect improper use.

First, while audit logs provide a record of which agency conducted a query and when it occurred, they do not capture how the resulting information is ultimately used or shared. This means that even 2 The search reason “warrant” could refer to a warrant issued by a California judge for an authorized law enforcement purpose, or alternatively to an administrative warrant issued by a federal agency such as ICE. Numeric strings typically correspond to sections of California penal code, but many LEA’s listed a crime category such as “theft” or “burglary”.

The SMCCGJ found no accepted usage of the “Reason” field across or even within LEAs. 3 A list of these offense codes is provided in Appendix A. 120
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 10
where a query appears appropriate on its face, there is no direct way to determine whether the results were subsequently provided to an unauthorized party.

Second, the system does not technically prevent a user from conducting a query on behalf of another individual or agency (side-sharing). Although such conduct may violate policy or law, it is not inherently detectable through system controls alone. As a result, certain forms of misuse— particularly those involving indirect access—are difficult to identify through audit data.

Finally, the effectiveness of audit and monitoring tools depend on active review by agency personnel. Identifying potential issues requires not only access to audit data but also the time, expertise, and judgment to interpret that data. This introduces variability in how different agencies monitor system use and respond to potential concerns.

These limitations illustrate that, while system-level controls can reduce risk, they cannot fully eliminate it. Effective oversight requires a combination of technical controls, clear policies, and consistent enforcement.

Conclusion
Flock has implemented a number of substantive changes to its platform in response to concerns regarding data sharing and legal compliance. These changes have improved transparency, standardized key aspects of system use, and provided agencies with additional tools to monitor activity.

At the same time, the system continues to rely heavily on agency-level decisions regarding configuration, access, and oversight. Certain risks—particularly those associated with indirect or unauthorized use—cannot be fully mitigated through system design alone.

As a result, responsibility for ensuring compliance with Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55 ultimately rests with each individual law enforcement agency. The effectiveness of the system, therefore, depends not only on the capabilities of the technology but also on how it is implemented and governed at the local level.

METHODOLOGY
To determine whether ALPR operators in SMC comply with applicable California law and whether their practices align with their adopted ALPR policies, the SMCCGJ began by reviewing the content available on the public websites of each LEA in the County. Most LEA websites include information regarding ALPR usage and transparency, often with a link to the agency’s Flock Transparency Portal, which is maintained by Flock on behalf of its customers.

The SMCCGJ issued document requests to all ALPR operators in SMC, seeking ALPR policies, recent audit reports, current Flock contracts, and any supporting documentation demonstrating compliance with California law and agency policy. Findings based on nonproduction reflect the absence of responsive records produced to the SMCCGJ, not a conclusive determination that no responsive record exists.

The SMCCGJ was able to identify an ALPR policy document for every SMC ALPR operator, which guided the examination of compliance with that policy. For some operators we were provided an organization audit report, which lists all ALPR queries initiated within that LEA. The organization audit was visually reviewed in a spreadsheet, which is feasible for what is at most a few hundred rows. Some operators provided a network audit report, which lists all ALPR queries initiated by 121
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 11
other Flock customers on that operator’s data. As the network audit report can be quite large (upwards of 25,000/month), analysis of this data was carried out by first loading it into a database.4 The SMCCGJ examined network sharing reports from the operators that provided them. This information is also publicly available through Flock Safety’s Transparency Portal. The network sharing reports identify the agencies and entities with which each operator shares ALPR data.

The SMCCGJ conducted interviews with several LEAs in SMC, with representatives of Flock, and with the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC).The SMCCGJ collected media reports related to ALPR implementations in SMC, in the state of California, and nationwide.

DISCUSSION
Public Interest
Issues related to the use of ALPR systems have received significant public attention in both SMC and throughout California. Several communities within the County have debated canceling their ALPR contracts or exploring alternative provider. As of this date, all have decided to continue operations with Flock. An article on ALPR usage published by Palo Alto Online on December 29, 2025, was the publication’s most-downloaded article of the year.

For the general public, it can be difficult to determine the root cause of security breaches reported in the media. Coverage has variously attributed these incidents to product design limitations, accidental or intentional misconfiguration, and inadequate operator training. As discussed earlier in this report, ALPR system functionality has evolved in response to public concerns, with enhancements intended to facilitate compliance with applicable laws.

Sharing Within San Mateo County
This investigation found that the extent of data sharing among SMC ALPR operators varies significantly, with the number of network sharing relationships ranging from three in Woodside to 335 in San Bruno. During the course of this investigation, one SMC operator reduced the scope of their network sharing after evaluating the public safety value of broader data access against local privacy considerations. Some LEAs felt that broad access was valuable in addressing the pattern of crimes committed in their community. Others felt that sharing too broadly would not solve more crimes and could risk losing the support of their local community.

As of December 2025, no SMC operators were found to be sharing ALPR data with entities outside California. The investigation did identify instances in which SMC operators shared ALPR data with private organizations, specifically security agencies serving Stanford University and University of the Pacific. Under Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b), a public agency may share ALPR information only with another “public agency” and only as otherwise permitted by law. The materials produced did not establish that the private university security recipients meet the definition of a “public agency” or that an applicable statutory exception authorizes the sharing. It remains the responsibility of each LEA to determine whether such entities qualify as public agencies under applicable law. If deemed public agencies, these entities would be subject to the same statutory and policy requirements governing ALPR use.
4 The network audit report was delivered in comma-separated value format, was then bulk-loaded into a MySQL database and then queried using the Structured Query Language. 122
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 12
The table below summarizes these findings.

Operator Network
Shares
2/26/2026
Network
Shares
4/13/2026
Private University
Security Shares
4/13/2026
Apparent Sharing
Guideline
Atherton 315 317 2
Belmont 157 145 2 Adjacent Counties
Brisbane 93 92 1 50-mile radius
Burlingame Not available 357 2
Colma 321 326 2
Daly City Not available Not available not available Flock portal is not enabled.

East Palo Alto 303 308 2
Foster City Not available Not available Not available Flock portal excluded network sharing report.

Half Moon Bay Not available 290 0
Hillsborough 303 318 2
Menlo Park 247 242 1
Pacifica 276 283 2
Redwood City 102 100 1 Bay Area Counties
San Bruno 331 335 2
San Mateo 283 280 0
San Mateo County
Sheriff's Office
299 300 2 Reduced in February to
adjacent Counties.

South San Francisco 15 15 0 San Mateo County
Woodside 3 3 0 Adjacent towns
Public Commentary
Under Civil Code section 1798.90.55(a), a public agency that operates an ALPR system must provide the opportunity for public comment. The SMCCGJ did not identify any instances in which ALPR cameras were deployed without the required public notice and discussion.

ALPR Policies
California law requires each ALPR operator to adopt a written ALPR policy and to post that policy in a conspicuous manner (Civ. Code, §§ 1798.90.53(a)–(b); 1798.90.51 (a)–(b)). The California Department of Justice provides a model ALPR policy template, which agencies may adopt or 123
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 13
modify. Some departments also utilize policy templates developed by Lexipol, a provider of standardized law enforcement policy materials.

The following section evaluates each SMC law enforcement agency’s ALPR policy, including whether it is conspicuously posted, and assesses whether the agency’s actual operations are consistent with its stated policy.

Summary Matrix of ALPR Policy and Operational Findings
Policy Posting and Currency. Most LEAs and police departments provided an ALPR policy in response to the SMCCGJ document request. The SMCGJ reviewed each policy for alignment with the policy templates and guidance provided by the State of California and Lexipol. The SMCCGJ also reviewed each department’s public website to determine whether the policy was conspicuously posted in accordance with California DOJ guidance 2023-DLE-06, and whether the publicly posted version matched the version provided in response to the document request.

Audit Practices. The SMCCGJ requested copies of recent audit reports from each LEA. Where an audit frequency was specified in an agency’s ALPR Policy, the SMCCGJ reviewed the materials provided to determine whether audits appeared to have been conducted at the stated intervals. The SMCCGJ also examined the contents and scope of each audit report.

For purposes of this investigation, a “strong” audit is one that substantiates compliance with both applicable California law and each material element of the LEA’s stated ALPR Policy. California law requires a policy to describe monitoring and “a process for periodic system audits,” but does not prescribe a uniform audit report format or methodology. The labels “strong,” “partial,” and “weak” are assessment terms used in this report and are not statutory classifications.

In the absence of meaningful audit controls, the public has limited assurance that an agency’s stated policies are being consistently implemented in practice. By contrast, a “weak” audit examines only selected legal or policy elements and does not comprehensively evaluate operational compliance.

Finally, the SMCCGJ reviewed whether audit reports were made available to the public or presented to the relevant city, town, or county governing body.

Data Retention. Civil Code section 1798.90.51(b)(2)(D) requires each ALPR policy to specify a data retention period after which ALPR data will be deleted unless it is associated with an active investigation or otherwise retained pursuant to law. The SMCCGJ compared the retention period stated in each agency’s ALPR policy with the retention period displayed on Flock’s Transparency Portal and, where available, the retention provisions contained in the agency’s Flock contract.

Matching retention periods were classified as “consistent,” while differing retention periods were classified as “inconsistent.” We did not examine in detail the process by which Flock deletes data after the stated retention period, as this topic has been addressed by third-party audits.

Data Sharing Process. Each policy must describe criteria and a process for sharing ALPR data. We examined this statement to ensure that it prohibits the sale of ALPR data, out-of-state sharing, sharing to private parties, and usage for other than valid law enforcement purposes. We examined any written guidelines and processes for receiving and approving requests for sharing data, and for any documentary evidence supporting the implementation of that process. Most policies included the sharing process description and documented from templates, but our interviews and document requests did not find an LEA who followed the process described in this “Template.” Several LEAs described the sharing process provided by the Flock platform, which is what we heard described 124
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 14
during interviews as the adopted process. The LEAs with outdated policies described an outdated sharing process mediated by NCRIC. No LEA’s policy described guidelines for ALPR data sharing within California, though several outlined coherent criteria for what sharing requests to approve.

Contract Terms. The SMCCGJ reviewed the 14 Flock contracts provided in response to its document requests. One contract included an addendum with California compliance provisions (“CA terms”) requiring Flock to adhere to California law governing the protection, access, and disclosure of ALPR data maintained on behalf of California LEA customers, consistent with recommendations previously issued by the California State Auditor.

The absence of express contractual compliance terms does not itself establish a violation of California law, which applies regardless of contract language. In this report, the presence or absence of such terms is evaluated as an additional contractual compliance control.

The table below summarizes the SMCGJ’s assessment of ALPR policy compliance and operational alignment among LEAs in SMC.

Agency Policy Posting /
Currency
Audit Practices Data
Retention
Data
Sharing
Process
Contract
Terms
Atherton Not conspicuous;
current, but with
multiple versions
Strong;
published in
Council
Minutes
Inconsistent Template No CA
terms
Belmont Conspicuous;
current
Strong; not
published
Consistent Flock No CA
terms
Brisbane Not conspicuous;
current
Audit reports
not provided
Consistent Template No CA
terms
Burlingame Not conspicuous;
current
Audit reports
not provided
Consistent Template Contract
not
provided
Colma Not conspicuous;
current
Strong; not
published
Inconsistent Template CA terms
included in
addendum
Daly City Conspicuous,
outdated (NCRIC
references)
Strong, regular
audit; not
published
Inconsistent Outdated No CA
terms
East Palo Alto Conspicuous;
current
Partial; publicly
posted
Consistent Not
described
No CA
terms
125
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 15
Agency Policy Posting /
Currency
Audit Practices Data
Retention
Data
Sharing
Process
Contract
Terms
Foster City Conspicuous;
current, but broken
link to policy
Audit reports
not provided.

Inconsistent Template No CA
terms
Hillsborough Not conspicuous;
Outdated (NCRIC
references)
Audit reports
not provided.

Consistent Outdated No CA
terms
Menlo Park Not conspicuous;
current
Weak;
published in
City Council
minutes.

Consistent Template No CA
terms
Pacifica Conspicuous;
current
Brief, but
strong; not
published
Consistent Flock Contract
not
provided
Redwood City Conspicuous,
outdated (NCRIC
references)
Strong; not
published
Inconsistent Outdated No CA
terms
San Bruno Conspicuous;
current
Partial; not
published
Consistent Flock No CA
terms
San Mateo Conspicuous;
current
Weak; not
published
Consistent Template No CA
terms
SMC Sheriff's
Office
Conspicuous;
current
Partial;
published in
BOS minutes.

No stated
retention
Template No CA
terms
South San
Francisco
Conspicuous;
current
Partial; not
published.

Consistent Template No CA
terms
Woodside Conspicuous (via
SMC SO) and
current
Strong;
published in
Town Council
minutes
Consistent Template Contract
not
provided.

As shown above, while several agencies demonstrate strong alignment between policy and operational practices, others exhibit deficiencies in audit procedures, inconsistencies in stated data retention practices, and incomplete or inaccurate documentation of data-sharing processes and decisions. These findings highlight the absence of standardized ALPR governance and oversight practices across SMC.
126
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 16

FINDINGS
This section summarizes findings based on evidence produced or otherwise reviewed by the SMCCGJ. The accompanying table identifies the findings assigned to the governing body of each LEA based on the evidence described in this report.

F1. The ALPR operator’s ALPR policy was not posted in a manner that appears consistent with the California Attorney General’s guidance on “conspicuous” posting.

F2. The ALPR operator’s ALPR Policy appears to be outdated because it describes ALPR operations as mediated by NCRIC, a practice the investigation found was discontinued several years ago.

F3. The ALPR operator shared ALPR information with private university security entities but did not establish that the receiving entity was a “public agency” as defined in Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b), or that the sharing was otherwise permitted by law within the meaning of Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b).

F4. The ALPR operator did not produce records demonstrating that audits required by its ALPR policy had been conducted.

F5. The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator were insufficient to substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.

F6. The ALPR operator’s Flock Safety contract does not include provisions specifically requiring compliance with applicable California ALPR laws.

F7. The operator’s ALPR policy described a process requiring written requests and executed agreements for ALPR data-sharing relationships; however, the records produced did not substantiate that this process was followed or that the required agreements were obtained.

F8. The operator’s ALPR policy did not establish criteria governing the approval of in-state ALPR data-sharing requests or the termination of existing network-sharing relationships.

F9. The retention period specified in the operator’s ALPR Policy does not match the retention period as reported by the Flock transparency portal or Flock contract.

RECOMMENDATIONS
While the recommendations below are generally applicable to all LEAs in SMC, some recommendations have already been implemented by some LEAs. The accompanying table identifies the recommendations directed to the governing body of each LEA reviewed by the SMCCGJ.

R1. The ALPR operator should conspicuously post the current version of their ALPR Policy as required by Civil Code sections 1798.90.51(a)–(b).

R2. The ALPR operator with outdated ALPR policies should revise those policies to accurately reflect current operational practices.

R3. The ALPR operator currently identified as sharing ALPR data with private university security entities should obtain and retain a written legal and factual determination that the recipient is a “public agency” under Civil Code section 1798.90.5(f), or that the sharing is otherwise permitted by law; if no lawful basis exists, the operator should terminate the sharing relationship. 127
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 17
R4. The ALPR operator should prepare audit reports in accordance with the frequency stated in the operator’s published ALPR policy.

R5. The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator should substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.

R6. Upon contract renewal, the ALPR operator should incorporate contractual language requiring vendor compliance with applicable California law and prohibiting vendors from disclosing ALPR data to unauthorized third parties. Operators should consider provisions similar to those contained in the Town of Colma contract with Flock.

R7. The ALPR operator should update its ALPR policy to accurately reflect the process used to approve ALPR data-sharing relationships.

R8. The ALPR operator should include in their ALPR policies written criteria governing the approval, denial, periodic review, and termination of in-state ALPR network-sharing relationships.

R9. The ALPR operator should update their ALPR policy or Flock contract terms, as necessary, so that the stated retention rule accurately reflects operations.

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies:

Respondent Findings Recommendations
Atherton Town Council F1, F3, F6, F7, F8, F9 R1, R3, R6, R7, R8, R9 Belmont City Council F3, F6, F8 R3, R6, R8
Brisbane City Council F1, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 Burlingame City Council F1, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 Colma City Council F1, F3, F5, F7, F8, F9 R1, R3, R5, R7, R8, R9 Daly City City Council F3, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R6, R7, R8, R9 East Palo Alto City Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8 Foster City City Council F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 Half Moon Bay Town Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 Hillsborough Town Council F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 Menlo Park City Council F1, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8 Millbrae City Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 Pacifica City Council F3, F5, F6, F8 R3, R5, R6, R8
Portola Valley Town Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Redwood City F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 San Bruno City Council F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 San Carlos City Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 128
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 18
Respondent Findings Recommendations
Ken Binder, San Mateo County
Sheriff
F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9
San Mateo City Council F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 South SF City Council F5, F6, F7, F8 R5, R6, R7, R8
Woodside Town Council F5, F6, F7, F8 R5, R6, R7, R8

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
California Penal Code Section 933.05 provides as follows (emphasis added):
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable with an explanation therefor.

Under Penal Code section 933(c), the governing body of a public agency must respond within 90 days after the grand jury submits its final report, and an elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility under Penal Code section 914.1 must respond within 60 days regarding matters under that officer’s or agency head’s control. 129
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Automated License Plate Readers, Report 2019-118, California State Auditor, February 2020.

California Automated License Plate Reader Data, 2023-DLE-06, California Department of Justice.

National Crime Information Center Administration of Warrants, 2025-DLE-08, California Department of Justice, April 7, 2025.

A Delicate Balance: Privacy vs. Protection, Report of the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, 2016–2017.

FOOTNOTES
1 Analysis done by SMCCGJ on all 2025 network queries in California on one SMC LEA’s data found that 13.1% of queries entered only “Investigation” as the Reason for performing the query. 2 The search reason “warrant” could refer to a warrant issued by a California judge for an authorized law enforcement purpose, or alternatively to an administrative warrant issued by a federal agency such as ICE. 3 A list of these offense codes is provided in Appendix A. 4 The network audit report was delivered in comma-separated value (CSV) format, bulk-loaded into a MySQL database and analyzed using the Structured Query Language (SQL).
5 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/police/2025/11/05/east-palo-alto-leaders-push-back-on-license-plate-readers-amid-privacyconcerns/ 6 https://www.coastsidenews.com/news/half-moon-bay-to-revisit-license-plate-reader-program-and-ice-policies/ 7 https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2025/12/29/the-years-biggest-stories/ 130
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 20
Appendix A - Flock Safety Offense Types
131

CONFIDENTIAL
For San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office Internal Use Only City of Half Moon Bay
Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Annual Report
Reporting Period: Sept. 1, 2025-Sept. 1, 2026
Prepared by: San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office – Half Moon Bay Police Bureau Submitted to: Half Moon Bay City Council

1. Purpose and Overview
The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office provides this Annual Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Report to the City of Half Moon Bay in accordance with the City’s ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy. The current vendor for ALPR technology in the City of Half Moon Bay is Flock Safety.

The policy requires the Sheriff to prepare an annual report commencing within twelve months following the first activation of the City’s ALPR system and annually thereafter. This report is intended to provide the City Council and the community with information regarding the deployment, use, oversight, and public-safety outcomes associated with ALPR technology during the reporting period.

ALPR technology is utilized as an investigative and public-safety tool to assist law enforcement personnel in identifying vehicles associated with criminal investigations, locating stolen vehicles, developing investigative leads, and supporting other authorized law-enforcement purposes. Use of ALPR data remains subject to applicable law, Sheriff’s Office policy, and the safeguards established by the City of Half Moon Bay’s ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy.

DATE: September 8, 2026
TO: Half Moon Bay City Manager Matthew Chidester
FROM: Captain Eamonn Allen
SUBJECT: 2026 ALPR Annual Report-City of Half Moon Bay
132

Page 2 of 12 ends

2. Annual Reporting Summary
During the reporting period, the City of Half Moon Bay operated [16] fixed ALPR cameras, which collectively scanned 15,312, 394 license plates.

The system generated 2,781Hotlist hits or alerts, and authorized personnel conducted 42,051 search queries for legitimate law-enforcement purposes. These searches contributed to 20 investigative leads specific to Half Moon Bay cases, resulted in the recovery of three stolen vehicles, and contributed to the apprehension of 13 suspects. Of note, there were no witnesses located utilizing ALPR technology, however the ALPR system is generally used to located individuals in distress (WI 5150) or active suspects in criminal activity.

The Sheriff’s Office continues to monitor ALPR use to ensure compliance with applicable policies, privacy protections, access restrictions, and authorized-use requirements.

3. Quarterly Reports and Corrective Action
This Annual Report represents the first formal ALPR report submitted to the City of Half Moon Bay.

Quarterly reports were not previously produced due to the absence of a designated Half Moon Bay ALPR Program Coordinator. A dedicated coordinator was established approximately two months ago to provide program oversight and ensure compliance with ongoing reporting requirements.

Quarterly reports will be prepared and made available moving forward.

No corrective action requiring disclosure was identified during the reporting period. Any confidential personnel or disciplinary information prohibited from disclosure by law is excluded from this report
133

Page 3 of 12 ends

4. ALPR Deployment and Usage Statistics
Reporting Requirement Annual
Total
Fixed ALPR cameras 16
License plates scanned 15,312,394
Hotlist hits/alerts 2,781
Search queries 8,431
Investigative leads generated 17
Witnesses located 0
Stolen vehicles recovered 3
Suspects apprehended 13

5. Search Queries and Justification
During the reporting period, authorized Sheriff’s Office personnel conducted 42,051 queries.

ALPR queries were conducted only for authorized law-enforcement purposes consistent with applicable policy. The justification for those queries included:

Of note-Coastside communities are closely interconnected, and criminal activity and investigations frequently cross jurisdictional boundaries. As a result, ALPR cameras located in unincorporated areas routinely support Half Moon Bay investigations and vice versa. While this report highlights Half Moon Bay-specific cases, many of the search queries and Hotlist alerts originate from incidents outside City limits but nonetheless contribute directly to public safety and investigative efforts within Half Moon Bay.

Violent Crimes Drugs DUI Stolen Veh Wanted Persons Missing Persons Hit and Runs 980 787 72 901 973 56 395
134

Page 4 of 12 ends

6. Law Enforcement Agency Access
Please refer to Appendix A for a complete list.

7. Third-Party Requests
The Sheriff’s Office received no third-party requests for City of Half Moon Bay ALPR data during the reporting period.

8. Conclusion
ALPR technology serves as a force-multiplying investigative resource for the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office and the City of Half Moon Bay. When appropriately governed and responsibly utilized, the technology allows deputies and investigators to more efficiently identify vehicles connected with criminal activity, develop investigative leads, recover stolen property, locate individuals, and apprehend suspects.

The Sheriff’s Office remains committed to balancing the public-safety benefits of ALPR technology with appropriate privacy protections, transparency, accountability, and compliance with the City of Half Moon Bay’s ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy.

Next Annual Report: October 1, 2027
135

CONFIDENTIAL
For San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office Internal Use Only Appendix A
Law Enforcement Agency Access List

1. [DEACTIVATED] - Bishop CA PD

2. [DEACTIVATED] - El Cerrito CA PD

3. [DEACTIVATED] - Mountain View CA PD

4. [DEACTIVATED] - Santa Barbara PD CA

5. [INACTIVE] Oxnard CA PD

6. Alameda County CA SO

7. Albany CA PD

8. Alhambra CA PD

9. Amador County CA Sheriff's Office

10. Anaheim CA PD

11. Anderson CA PD

12. Angels Camp CA PD

13. Antioch CA PD

14. Arcadia CA PD

15. Atherton CA PD

16. Atwater CA PD

17. Auburn CA PD

18. Azusa CA PD

19. Bakersfield CA PD

20. Baldwin Park CA PD

21. Barstow CA PD

22. Beaumont CA PD

23. Bell CA PD

24. Benicia CA PD

25. Berkeley CA PD

26. Beverly Hills CA PD

27. Brawley CA PD

28. Brentwood CA PD

29. Brisbane CA PD

30. Buena Park CA PD

31. Burbank Airport CA PD

32. Burbank CA PD

33. Burlingame CA PD

34. Butte County CA SO
136
Page
6 of 12

35.Cal Fire

36.Cal Maritime (CA)

37.Calexico CA PD

38.California Department of Corrections

39.California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CA)

40.California Highway Patrol

41.California State Parks

42.Calistoga CA PD

43.Campbell CA PD

44.Capitola CA PD

45.Carmel CA PD

46.Cathedral City CA PD

47.Central Marin CA PD

48.Cerritos College CA PD

49.Chino CA PD

50.Chula Vista CA PD

51.Citrus Heights CA PD

52.City of Lemoore CA

53.City of Riverside CA PD

54.City of San Dimas CA (LASD)

55.Claremont CA PD

56.Clayton CA PD

57.Cloverdale CA PD

58.Colma CA PD

59.Colton CA PD

60.Colusa CA PD

61.Concord CA PD

62.Contra Costa County CA SO

63.Corona CA PD

64.Coronado CA PD

65.Costa Mesa CA PD

66.Cotati CA PD

67.Covina CA PD

68.Cypress CA PD

69.Daly City CA PD

70.Danville CA PD

71.Delano CA PD

72.Desert Hot Springs CA PD

73.Dinuba CA PD

74.Dixon CA PD

75.Downey PD CA

76.Dublin CA PD (ACSO)
137
Page
7 of 12

77. East Bay Parks CA PD

78. East Palo Alto CA PD

79. El Cajon CA PD

80. El Centro CA PD

81. El Dorado County CA SO

82. El Monte CA PD

83. El Segundo CA PD

84. Elk Grove CA PD

85. Emeryville CA PD

86. Escalon CA PD

87. Escondido CA PD

88. Fairfield CA PD

89. Farmersville CA PD

90. Folsom CA PD

91. Fontana CA PD

92. Fort Bragg CA PD

93. Fountain Valley CA PD

94. Fowler CA PD

95. Fremont CA PD

96. Fresno CA PD

97. Fullerton CA PD

98. Galt CA PD

99. Garden Grove CA PD
100. Gilroy CA PD
101. Glendale CA PD
102. Glendora (CA) PD
103. Grass Valley CA PD
104. Greenfield CA PD
105. Grover Beach CA PD
106. Gustine PD CA
107. Hanford CA PD
108. Hayward CA PD
109. Hemet CA PD
110. Hercules CA PD
111. Hermosa Beach PD CA
112. Hillsborough CA PD
113. Hollister CA PD
114. Humboldt County CA SO
115. Huntington Beach CA PD
116. Imperial City CA PD
117. Imperial County CA SO
118. Indio CA PD
138
Page
8 of 12
119. Inglewood CA PD
120. Irvine CA PD
121. Irwindale CA PD
122. Kerman CA PD
123. Kern County CA SO
124. Kensington CA PD
125. Kings County CA DAs Office
126. Kings County Sheriff's Office CA
127. Kingsburg CA PD
128. La Habra CA PD
129. La Mesa CA PD
130. La Verne CA PD
131. Laguna Beach CA PD
132. Lake County CA SO
133. Lakeport CA PD
134. Lancaster CA PD
135. Lassen County SO (CA)
136. Lathrop CA PD
137. Lincoln CA PD
138. Lindsay Public Safety Department CA
139. Livermore CA PD
140. Livingston CA PD
141. Lodi CA PD
142. Lompoc CA PD
143. Los Alamitos PD CA
144. Los Angeles CA PD
145. Los Angeles County CA SD
146. Los Angeles Port Police CA
147. Los Gatos CA
148. Madera CA PD
149. Madera County SO CA
150. Manteca CA PD
151. Marin County CA DA
152. Marin County CA SO
153. Marina CA PD
154. Marysville CA PD
155. McFarland CA PD
156. Mendocino County SO-CA
157. Mendota CA PD
158. Menifee CA PD
159. Menlo Park CA PD
160. Merced County CA SO
139
Page
9 of 12
161. Milpitas CA PD
162. Monrovia CA PD
163. Montclair CA PD
164. Montebello CA PD
165. Monterey County CA SO
166. Monterey County District Attorney's Office
167. Monterey Park CA PD
168. Moraga CA PD
169. Morgan Hill CA PD
170. Murrieta CA PD
171. Napa CA PD
172. Napa County CA SO
173. National City CA PD
174. NCRIC
175. Nevada City CA PD
176. Nevada County CA SO
177. Newark CA PD
178. Newport Beach PD CA
179. Novato CA PD
180. Oakland CA PD
181. Oakley CA PD
182. Oceanside CA PD
183. Ontario CA PD
184. Orange CA PD
185. Orange County (CA) DA Office
186. Orange County Fire Authority (CA)
187. Orange County SO CA
188. Orange Cove CA PD
189. Oroville CA PD
190. Pacifica CA PD
191. Palm Springs CA PD
192. Palo Alto CA PD
193. Pasadena CA PD
194. Petaluma CA PD
195. Piedmont CA PD
196. Placentia CA PD
197. Placer County CA DA Office
198. Placer County CA SO
199. Pleasant Hill CA PD
200. Pleasanton CA PD
201. Pomona CA PD
202. Port Hueneme CA PD
140

Page 10 of 12 ends

203. Porterville CA PD
204. Redding PD - CA
205. Redlands CA PD
206. Redondo Beach CA PD
207. Redwood City CA PD
208. Reedley CA PD
209. Rialto PD CA
210. Richmond CA PD
211. Ridgecrest CA PD
212. Rio Vista CA PD
213. Riverside County Arson Task Force CA PD
214. Riverside County CA District Attorney
215. Riverside County CA SO
216. Rocklin CA PD
217. Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety (CA)
218. Sacramento CA DA
219. Sacramento CA PD
220. Sacramento County CA SO
221. Sacramento County Parks Department CA
222. Salinas CA PD
223. San Benito County SO CA
224. San Bernardino CA PD
225. San Bernardino County CA SO
226. San Bruno CA PD
227. San Diego County CA SO
228. San Diego Harbor CA PD
229. Sand City CA PD
230. San Fernando CA PD
231. San Francisco CA PD
232. San Francisco District Attorney CA
233. San Gabriel CA PD
234. San Joaquin CA DA
235. San Joaquin County CA SO
236. San Jose - Evergreen Community College Campus PD CA 237. San Jose CA PD
238. San Jose State University CA
239. San Leandro CA PD
240. San Luis Obispo CA PD
241. San Luis Obispo County (CA) Sheriff
242. San Mateo CA PD
243. San Mateo County CA SO
244. San Pablo CA PD
141

Page 11 of 12 ends

245. San Pasqual CA PD
246. San Rafael CA PD
247. San Ramon CA PD
248. Sanger CA PD
249. Santa Ana CA PD
250. Santa Barbara County CA SO
251. Santa Clara CA PD
252. Santa Clara DA CA
253. Santa Maria CA PD
254. Santa Monica CA PD
255. Santa Paula CA PD
256. Santa Rosa CA PD
257. Sausalito CA PD
258. Seal Beach CA PD
259. Seaside CA PD
260. Selma CA PD
261. Shafter PD CA
262. Shasta Arson Task Force CA
263. Shasta County SO
264. Simi Valley CA PD
265. Solano County CA SO
266. Solano County DA CA
267. Soledad CA PD
268. Sonoma County CA SO
269. South Gate CA PD
270. South Pasadena CA PD
271. St. Helena CA PD
272. Stallion Springs CA PD
273. Stockton CA PD
274. Suisun City CA PD
275. Sunnyvale CA PD
276. Sutter County CA SO
277. Taft CA PD
278. Tehachapi CA PD
279. Tehama County CA SO
280. Tracy CA PD
281. Truckee CA PD
282. Tulare CA PD
283. Turlock CA PD
284. Tustin CA PD
285. Ukiah CA PD
286. Union City CA PD
142

Page 12 of 12 ends

287. University of California, Berkeley PD
288. University of San Francisco CA PD
289. University of the Pacific (CA)
290. Upland CA PD
291. Vacaville CA PD
292. Vallejo CA PD
293. Ventura CA PD
294. Ventura County CA SO
295. Ventura County District Attorney's Office CA
296. Vernon CA PD
297. Visalia CA PD
298. Walnut Creek CA PD
299. Wasco CA PD
300. Watsonville CA PD
301. West Covina CA PD
302. West Sacramento CA PD
303. West Valley Mission College Dist Campus (CA)
304. Westmorland CA PD
305. Westminster CA PD
306. Whittier CA PD
307. Williams CA PD
308. Willits CA PD
309. Winters CA PD
310. Woodlake CA PD
311. Woodland CA PD
312. Yolo County CA SO
313. Yuba City CA PD
314. Yuba County Sheriffs Office
143

Page 1 of 3 ends

BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: September 15, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Dale Leda, Interim Public Works Director
Matt Nichols, Senior Management Analyst
TITLE: STUDY SESSION ON E-BIKE-RELATED AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 10.30.010 and 10.30.140
_____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a report on development of ordinance language related to electric bicycles (e-bikes) and provide staff with direction on amending Section 10.30.010 (Bicycle Defined) and Section

10.30.140 (Operation of bicycle, skateboard, or scooter) of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This discussion has no direct fiscal impact. However, additional costs may arise for enhanced enforcement by the City or its designee, as well as for any posting or signage related to this updated ordinance.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This action supports the Healthy Communities and Public Safety and Infrastructure and Environment Elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

In 1983, the City adopted Municipal Code Chapter 10.48, prohibiting motorized vehicles on public trails. While this regulation remains active and relevant today, subsequent changes in State law have significantly altered local regulatory authority over electric bicycles. In 2016, California Assembly Bill 1096 amended the California Vehicle Code (CVC) by establishing definitions for three distinct classes of electric bicycles (e-bikes) and categorizing them as bicycles rather than motor vehicles. While granting e-bikes many of the same rights and responsibilities as traditional bicycles, AB 1096 initially maintained local authority for jurisdictions to restrict or regulate e-bike access on specific municipal paths and trails.

As e-bike use increased locally, City Council directed the newly formed Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to study these devices and develop municipal policy 144

Page 2 of 3 ends

recommendations. BPAC completed its research in early 2023, and at the April 4, 2023 City Council work session, staff presented BPAC's findings and policy options for regulating e-bikes on City paths. During that meeting, Council directed staff to move forward with the committee's recommendations for the trails along Highway 1, and directed staff to draft an ordinance prohibiting e-bikes on the City-owned portion of the Coastal Trail.

In mid-2023, staff identified updates stemming from California Assembly Bill 1909, which amended CVC § 21207.5 by removing local authority to prohibit e-bikes on bicycle paths and trails. Because this statutory change preempted the City from enacting the e-bike ban originally requested by Council, staff returned to Council for updated direction. Council subsequently directed staff to evaluate prohibiting Class 3 e-bikes, restrict e-bikes on unpaved trails where legally allowable, establish a speed limit across City trails, and develop a supporting public education and enforcement program. Since then, Council has reiterated its interest in e-bikes through various meetings and public forums, as well as through informal discussions with staff and during Council priority-setting sessions. Since receiving that direction, staff has been collaborating closely with both the BPAC and the Parks and Recreation Commission to craft the updated ordinance presented in this report.

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this item is for City Council to review and provide final feedback on the draft amendments to sections 10.30.010 and 10.30.140, which include adding specific trail speed limits. Staff developed this recommendation in close coordination with the BPAC and the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Due to evolving state legislation regarding electric bicycles (including pending bills AB 2595 and AB 2346), Staff and BPAC recommend focusing strictly on a behavior-based speed limit rather than device-specific restrictions. This avoids potential conflicts with state law while establishing clear safety standards. BPAC has expressed a desire to work on a comprehensive update to the City's bicycle regulations once state legislation stabilizes.

The draft amendments to section 10.30.140 (E), (F) and (G) would establish a speed limit for bicycles (including electric bicycles), skateboards and scooters on trails and bicycle paths. The proposed amendments would include establishing a baseline 15 mph speed limit and safepassing rules for City multi-use trails, with a 10 mph speed limit for the Coastal Trail. While 15 mph is standard regionally, a 10 mph limit on the Coastal Trail accounts for high pedestrian density and aligns directly with the adjoining California State Parks segment at Francis Beach Campground. Staff will also engage the Coastside Land Trust regarding speed alignment on connecting southern trails. The proposed ordinance also updates outdated language referencing the former City Police Department, allowing the City flexibility to designate enforcement authority as needed. Community feedback from the City's 2022 survey showed strong support for establishing a speed limit, even if physical enforcement is infrequent.

Formally adopting the ordinance enables the City to post regulatory signs, which commission 145

Page 3 of 3 ends

members and staff agree will serve as a visual deterrent and establish clear norms for trail behavior.

High-speed electric dirt bikes ("e-motos") remain prohibited on City trails under existing Municipal Code Chapter 10.48, as well as state law. However, because many e-motos are falsely marketed as e-bikes, staff is coordinating separately with the Sheriff’s Office, the County Office of Education, and local school districts on targeted outreach to educate parents and youth regarding their illegal status and safety risks.

ATTACHMENT:

Draft Municipal Code Amendment
146
§ 10.30.010 Bicycle defined.

For the purpose of this chapter, the word "bicycle" including the term “electric bicycle” shall have the same meaning as that term is defined in the Vehicle Code, as the same exists or may be amended hereafter. The term bicycle in this chapter shall include electric bicycle unless otherwise stated.
(Ord. 11-75 § 1(part), 1975)
§ 10.30.140 Operation of a bicycle, skateboard, or scooter.

A. The operator of a bicycle, skateboard, or scooter shall obey all vehicular traffic control devices and the applicable laws under the Vehicle Code of the state of California.

B. No person shall ride or operate a bicycle upon any sidewalk or pedestrian walkway or pedestrian mall.

C. No person shall operate a skateboard on any sidewalk, public plaza, walkway or pedestrian mall in any commercially zoned district in the city.

D. No person shall operate an electric bicycle as defined by the Vehicle Code of the State of California on any equestrian trail, unpaved trail, or hiking or recreational trail.

Electric bicycles are permitted on bicycle paths or trails, bikeways, and bicycle lanes in accordance with section 21207.5 of the California Vehicle Code.

E. No person operating a bicycle, skateboard, scooter, or other device shall exceed 5 miles per hour when passing any pedestrian, equestrian, or a person who is stopped, or on blind turns.

F. No person shall operate a bicycle, skateboard, scooter, or other device on any trail or multi-use path at a speed exceeding 15 miles per hour, or exceeding 10 miles per hour on the Coastal Trail and its Poplar Street tributary.

G. No Person shall operate a bicycle, skateboard, scooter, or other device on any trail, or multi-use path, at a speed exceeding 5 miles per hour when within 300 feet of a trailhead, parking lot, or beach access point.

H. Where any provision of this section has been violated by a minor, then in lieu of criminal proceedings the City of Half Moon Bay or designee may prohibit the operation of a bicycle or skateboard, or scooter by said minor, in the city for a period of time not to exceed thirty days and in such an event the City of Half Moon Bay or its designee may impound a bicycle or skateboard, or scooter or other device used in any such violation for a period of time not to exceed thirty days.
(Ord. 10-83 § 2, 1984)
147

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: September 15, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Dale Leda, Interim Public Works Director/ City Engineer Matt Nichols, Senior Management Analyst
TITLE: PUBLIC ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING PROGRAM RATE AND INFRASTRUCTURE

IMPROVEMENTS
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution:

1. Amending the Master Fee Schedule to establish a public EV charging rate of $0.48 per kilowatt-hour (kWh); and

2. Authorizing the City Manager to implement necessary electrical and metering improvements, and execute related agreements to reduce the City’s operating costs for public EV charging.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City currently operates its public EV charging program at a financial deficit. The City owns seven charging stations, five of which are available for public use and are currently billed under the PG&E B-1 and B-10 rate schedules. In addition to electricity costs, each station incurs approximately $1,370 annually in ChargePoint network and maintenance expenses.

As an example, staff’s analysis of the Correas Street ST2 station estimates approximately $16,010 in annual operating costs compared with approximately $5,393 in annual charging revenue, resulting in an estimated annual General Fund subsidy of approximately $10,617 at that location.

The proposed $0.48 per kWh charging rate, together with modifications to applicable PG&E rate schedules and electrical infrastructure, is intended to substantially reduce or eliminate the General Fund subsidy associated with the program. The $0.48 is the estimated break-even cost in staff's analysis to account for electricity costs under the more advantageous B-EV rate, as well as accounting for network and maintenance costs, and does not account for infrastructure improvements.
148
Costs associated with physical infrastructure improvements will vary by location and have not yet been fully determined. Improvements would be completed within available budget authority, with any additional appropriations brought back to the City Council as necessary.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This action supports the Fiscal Sustainability, and Infrastructure and Environment Elements of the Strategic Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Adoption of the proposed EV charging fee and authorization to pursue utility rate changes are administrative actions that would not result in a direct physical change to the environment.

Future electrical or infrastructure improvements would consist primarily of modifications to existing developed facilities and would be evaluated for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as applicable, prior to implementation.

BACKGROUND
In March 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. C-2015-08 amending the Master Fee Schedule to establish a rate of $1.00 per hour for use of City-owned electric vehicle charging stations. At the time, staff anticipated the rate would generally offset electricity, ChargePoint fees, and other operating costs associated with the charging stations.

Since that time, the City has expanded its EV charging infrastructure and experienced significant changes in electricity rates, utility rate structures, equipment utilization, and network and maintenance costs.

Staff recently completed a high-level financial review of the City’s public EV charging program.

The analysis found that the existing $1.00-per-hour rate does not adequately recover the City’s costs and that the electrical service and PG&E rate schedules serving several charging locations further contribute to the program’s operating deficit.

The attached financial analysis evaluates the City’s existing charging infrastructure, operating expenses, utility rate structures, and opportunities to improve cost recovery.

DISCUSSION
Existing Charging Rate and Program Costs
The City currently operates seven EV charging stations, five of which are available for public use, providing a total of ten public charging ports. Most are dual-port Level 2 ChargePoint stations.

Public users are currently charged $1.00 per hour. At the maximum output of the City’s Level 2 chargers, the existing rate equates to approximately $0.14 per kWh of electricity delivered. 149
The City’s actual costs are substantially higher. In addition to electricity, each station incurs fixed ChargePoint network and maintenance costs. The financial analysis also found that the City’s existing electrical service configurations can significantly affect utility costs.

Chargers connected to City Hall and the Library share electrical service with those facilities and may contribute to commercial demand charges. Other chargers are connected to lower-use electrical accounts that avoid demand charges but carry comparatively high volumetric electricity rates. At some of these locations, staff’s analysis estimates electricity costs of approximately $0.47 to $0.60 per kWh before network, maintenance, and other expenses are considered.

As a result, the City currently subsidizes a significant portion of the cost of providing public EV charging.

Proposed Charging Rate Adjustment
Staff recommends replacing the existing time-based rate with an energy-based rate of $0.48 per kWh.

Charging by kWh more directly relates the amount paid by a customer to the amount of electricity actually received. Under the current time-based structure, different vehicles may consume different amounts of electricity during the same charging period while paying the same fee.

The proposed $0.48 per kWh rate is intended to more closely recover the City’s current costs for electricity, network services, maintenance, transaction fees, and other expenses associated with providing public charging. This rate was calculated by averaging the costs per session to cover network and maintenance costs, along with electricity and transmission costs from PG&E; the attached rate analysis shows the exact formula used.

The intent of the proposed rate structure is to recover the reasonable cost of providing the service and reduce or eliminate the existing General Fund subsidy, rather than generate revenue beyond the costs of operating the program. It should be noted that implementing all necessary changes may take time, and the proposed $0.48 per kW rate would not immediately provide a break-even rate.

Utility Rate and Infrastructure Improvements
Staff’s analysis also determined that adjusting the user rate alone will not fully address the program’s underlying cost structure.

Under the City’s existing electrical configurations, achieving full cost recovery could require substantially higher user rates at some locations because of demand charges and other utility costs. The analysis estimates that retaining the existing configurations could result in break-even rates ranging from approximately $0.74 to $1.31 per kWh, depending on station utilization and location.
150
Staff therefore recommends addressing both sides of the program’s financial structure by establishing a reasonable public charging fee while also working to reduce the City’s underlying utility costs.

The analysis identifies opportunities to separate certain charging stations from existing building or streetlight electrical services, establish dedicated metering where appropriate, and transition eligible accounts to EV-specific PG&E rate schedules. Under the modeled configuration, these changes could eliminate certain demand charges and substantially reduce the City’s electricity costs.

If authorized by Council, Staff would coordinate with PG&E and other necessary parties to evaluate each charging location and implement appropriate service, metering, and rate changes.

This authority would include completing related physical infrastructure improvements and executing utility agreements or other documents necessary to implement the changes, subject to available budget authority and the City’s applicable purchasing and contracting requirements.

Together, the proposed rate adjustment and utility infrastructure improvements are intended to establish a more financially sustainable public EV charging program while continuing to provide publicly accessible charging within the community.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule and Authorizing EV Charging Infrastructure and Utility Rate Improvements

2. Public EV Charging Infrastructure Financial and Utility Rate Analysis

3. Resolution No. C-2015-08 Establishing Electric Vehicle Charging Fees 151
RESOLUTION NO. C-2026-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AMENDING

THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING AND

AUTHORIZING RELATED UTILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Half Moon Bay owns and operates electric vehicle charging stations available for public use; and
WHERAS, in 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. C-2015-08 establishing a fee of $1.00 per hour for use of City-owned electric vehicle charging stations; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the current operating costs associated with providing public electric vehicle charging, including electricity, utility charges, network fees, maintenance, transaction costs, and related expenses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to revise the public electric vehicle charging fee to better reflect actual operating costs and to provide administrative flexibility to adjust the rate as those costs change; and
WHEREAS, the City has also identified opportunities to reduce operating costs through modifications to electrical service, metering, and applicable Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) rate schedules.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT that the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby:

1. Amends the Master Fee Schedule to establish a public EV charging rate of $0.48 per kilowatt-hour (kWh); and

2. Authorizes the City Manager to implement necessary electrical and metering improvements, and execute related agreements to reduce the City’s operating costs for public EV charging.
******************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 15th of September 2026, by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
152
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ _______________________________ Maggie Rodriguez, City Clerk Debbie Ruddock, Mayor
153

PUBLIC EV CHARGING

INFRASTRUCTURE & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Matthew Nichols, Senior Management Analysis
August 2026
154

1. Executive Summary
The City of Half Moon Bay currently operates its network of public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at a financial deficit. Because the City uses a time-based billing system ($1.00 per hour) and shares utility meters with municipal buildings, the City is inadvertently subsidizing up to 90% of the cost for every unit of electricity dispensed. For our highest-use station alone, this has created an annual net loss to the General Fund of $10,617.20.

This memo clarifies the mechanics of this deficit, details the compounding impact of utility "demand charges," and presents a multi-phase transition plan. This plan would bring the City into mandatory compliance with California state law (CCR Title 4 § 4001 and 4002) and eliminate building-level power spikes via PG&E Electric Rule 29, restoring a self-sustaining financial model by implementing a $0.19 to $0.48 per kWh pricing structure under the PG&E B-EV Rate. The financial modeling, rate projections, and utility calculations contained in this memo are based on unbundled Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) commercial rate schedules. Utility tariffs change frequently due to seasonal adjustments, regulatory revisions, and balancing account updates. All energy procurement costs and demand charge penalties should be interpreted as localized estimates. Final break-even pricing configurations should be dynamically calibrated by staff to match the active, verified utility rates at the time of system deployment.

2. Current Infrastructure and Vendor Operating Costs
The City owns and operates 7 charging stations. Five stations are open to the public, and two are restricted to the City’s municipal fleet. Most are dual-port Level 2 ChargePoint CT4000 series stations (13 total physical plugs, 10 are public).

To keep this infrastructure functional, the City contracts with ChargePoint, the hardware manufacturer and network software provider. Each station incurs static, non-negotiable vendor fees regardless of how much electricity it dispenses:
• ChargePoint Commercial Cloud Plan ($740.00/yr per station): This software license connects the physical hardware to cellular networks. It enables the station to process credit card/app payments, map the charger location for drivers, and compile diagnostic data. It costs $370.00 per port (plug) per year. • ChargePoint Assure Warranty ($630.00/yr per station): A comprehensive maintenance and repair contract. Because public stations are exposed to marine weather and heavy physical use, this warranty ensures that parts, field labor, and electronics replacements are covered with zero out-of-pocket costs to the City. 155
Annual Fixed Vendor Overhead = $740.00 Cloud + $630.00 Warranty = $𝟏, 𝟑𝟕𝟎.𝟎𝟎 per station This translates to a mandatory baseline operational expense of $114.17 per month per station that must be recovered before energy costs are factored in.

3. Legal Mandate (CCR Title 4 § 4001)
Historically, the City has billed public charging by time ($1.00 per hour). However, California law now officially classifies electricity used to propel vehicles as a "motor vehicle fuel".

Under California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 4 § 4001 and 4002, all public EV charging infrastructure must transition to energy-based billing, meaning drivers must be billed directly for the kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed, exactly how gasoline is sold by the gallon. • Compliance Timeline: Stations installed after January 1, 2021, had to comply instantly. Legacy hardware installed prior to that date must comply by January 1, 2031. Most of Half Moon Bay's chargers are legacy hardware; this transition plan ensures compliance ahead of the statutory cutoff.
• Driver Fairness: Time-based billing is inherently inequitable. Different EV models accept power at radically different speeds. Under a time-based model, a car with a slow onboard charger receives far less "fuel" in an hour than a fast-charging model, yet both drivers are billed the exact same $1.00. kWh-based billing ensures drivers pay exclusively for the energy they receive.

4. PG&E Rate Analysis and Demand Charge Penalties
To understand why the public chargers lose money, it helps to separate how the chargers collect revenue from how Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) bills the City for electricity.

The $1.00/Hour to $0.14/kWh Revenue Breakdown
When a resident plugs into a City charger, they pay $1.00 per hour. The City's Level 2 ChargePoint stations can deliver a maximum power flow of 7.0 kilowatts (kW).

A kilowatt (kW) measures the speed of electrical flow, while a kilowatt-hour (kWh) measures the actual volume of fuel delivered. If a car draws power at maximum speed (7.0 kW) for a full hour, it absorbs exactly 7.0 kWh of energy. 156
Effective Revenue per kWh =
Hourly User Fee
Power Delivery Speed =
$1.00

7.0 kW = $𝟎. 𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟖 per kWh
Thus, the City's current pricing model brings in a flat effective revenue of approximately $0.14 per kWh.

Scenario A: Building-Integrated Chargers (City Hall & Library) The chargers located at 714 Kelly Ave (City Hall) and 620 Correas St (Library) do not have their own electrical meters; they are wired directly into the main panels of the buildings.

Because these facilities consume high volumes of power for HVAC, servers, and lighting, PG&E places them on the B10S Medium Use commercial rate.

Commercial accounts on the B10S rate are subject to a Demand Charge. This is a heavy utility penalty based on the single highest 15-minute "spike" of electrical draw registered during the month. PG&E implements this to cover the cost of maintaining grid capacity for sudden surges. You can think of each building as having a natural facility baseline as well as an EV-induced peak penalty on top of that.

When two vehicles plug into a building-linked station simultaneously, they draw at a combined speed of 14.0 kW. If this occurs during an afternoon when City Hall's AC is already running, a new “higher” monthly power peak is instantly established because of the EV draw on top of the natural facility baseline demand charge of the building. The financial penalty for just the EV portion is calculated as follows:

𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝐹𝑒𝑒 = 𝑁Ports × 𝑘𝑊port × 𝑅demand
Where:

𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒Fee = Total monthly demand charge/spike fee incurred.

𝑁ports = Number of charging ports active simultaneously (the "plugs"). 𝑘𝑊port = Maximum power delivery rate per port (the capacity or "energy dispensing" speed).

𝑅demand} = Standard PG&E B10S monthly demand charge rate (the penalty rate per kW).

Demand Charge = 2 × 7.0 kW × $22.71/kW = $𝟑𝟏𝟕. 𝟗𝟒 per month 157
This single 15-minute event triggers an irreversible $317.94 monthly penalty on that building's utility bill, in addition to what the building would normally generate for its natural demand charge. If the City only recovers $0.14 per kWh from drivers, the station would need to sell thousands of kWh just to pay off this single spike penalty. * Natural demand charge being the highest spike from the city running HVAC, Servers, Lights, and so on.

Scenario B: Non-Building Chargers (Tree Light Pedestals & Correas #2) The chargers at 604 Main St (Miramontes), 401 Main St (Mill/Main), and the isolated Correas ST2 pedestal operate under the B1 Low Use commercial rate. The Miramontes and Mill chargers share utility meters with low-draw public streetlights. • The B1 rate schedule sets the demand fee to 𝑅demand = $0.00/kW. These chargers never trigger peak power penalties.
• However, to compensate for zero demand fees, PG&E charges a very high flat rate for the volume of energy consumed, ranging from $0.47 to $0.60 per kWh depending on the season.

Since the City is buying power from PG&E at an average of $0.53/kWh but only selling it to drivers at an effective rate of $0.14/kWh, the City loses roughly $0.39 on every single kWh dispensed at these locations.

5. Baseline Financial Performance Analysis
To establish a clear baseline, this section audits the financial performance of the Correas ST2 station. This public pedestal represents a high-use environment, dispensing an average of 26,620 kWh of energy per year (averaging roughly 2,218 kWh per month, or 72.93 kWh per day).

Component Definitions
• Current Net Deficit: The total money the General Fund loses operating the asset. It represents the collected time revenue minus the combined cost of utility energy and fixed ChargePoint vendor fees.

Current Net Deficit = Current Revenue − (Fixed Vendor Overhead + Volumetric Electricity Cost) • Proposed Net Position: The balanced target state where the pricing schedule perfectly offsets all operational outlays, resulting in a net cost of $0.00 to taxpayers. 158
Proposed Net Position = Proposed Revenue − (Fixed Vendor Overhead + Optimized Electricity Cost) = $𝟎. 𝟎𝟎 Current Performance Matrix
The table below illustrates the exact structural deficit occurring at our baseline Correas ST2 station under the current time-based setup:

Interval
Fixed Vendor
Overhead (FC)
Volumetric
Energy Cost
Total
Operating
Cost
Current Revenue
($1.00/hr)
Current Net
Deficit (CRTOC)
Daily $3.75 $40.11 $43.86 $14.77 ($29.09)
Monthly $114.17 $1,220.00 $1,334.17 $449.40 ($884.77)
Yearly $1,370.00 $14,640.00 $16,010.00 $5,392.80 ($10,617.20)

6. Full Cost-Recovery Fee Structure Scenarios
To eliminate the current net deficit without relying on separate session connections or overstay fees, the City must implement a pure energy rate (billed per kWh) that recovers all costs.

To achieve true cost insulation, the formula must incorporate the 10% ChargePoint transaction collection fee. This fee is charged by the vendor to securely process credit card transactions, host the cellular data tunnel, clear payments back to the City treasury, and provide real-time status updates to drivers. To keep the General Fund whole, user-facing rates must scale by a factor of $0.90$ using this core billing equation:

Required Base User Rate =
Amortized Fixed Costs per kWh + Utility Power Cost per kWh

𝟏.𝟎𝟎 − ChargePoint Fee Percentage (0.10)
Public utilization heavily alters our risk. If a station sits idle, fixed costs are concentrated onto fewer users; if a station is busy, fixed costs are safely diluted. Below are the two separate operational paths available to the City. Both feature a Peak (4:00 PM to 9:00 PM) and Off-Peak (all other hours) structure to replicate PG&E’s seasonal system. 159
Scenario 1: Full Cost Recovery Under Current Shared-Meter Connections This model leaves the physical utility connections exactly as they are today. Streetlightlinked chargers pay high flat energy rates ($0.53/kWh average), and building-integrated panels absorb the $317.94/month demand spikes. To protect the City from a budget shortfall, the monthly demand penalty must be factored into the per-kWh consumer rate. • Risk A: Under Moderate Station Utilization (750 kWh/month). When usage is low, fixed vendor overhead and building demand spikes heavily inflate the price of each individual unit of electricity sold. Amortized Costs: Network Fees ( $114.17
750 kWh
= $0.152) +
Demand Penalty (
$317.94
750 kWh
= $0.424) = $0.576 per kWh flat overhead burden.

RateOff-Peak =
$0.576 + $0.47

0.90 ≈ $𝟏. 𝟏𝟔 per kWh
RatePeak =
$0.576 + $0.60

0.90 ≈ $𝟏. 𝟑𝟏 per kWh
• Risk B: Under High Station Utilization (2,218 kWh/month baseline) If a station experiences high volume, the $317.94 building spike is diluted across more drivers, lowering the baseline break-even price. Amortized Costs: Network Fees ( $114.17
2,218 kWh
=
$0.051) + Demand Penalty (
$317.94
2,218 kWh
= $0.143) = $0.194 per kWh flat overhead burden.

RateOff-Peak =
$0.194 + $0.47

0.90 ≈ $𝟎. 𝟕𝟒 per kWh
RatePeak =
$0.194 + $0.60

0.90 ≈ $𝟎. 𝟖𝟖 per kWh
Operational Reality: Under our current utility meter setup, the true break-even rate requires charging drivers anywhere from $0.74 to $1.31 per kWh. These rates exceed regional averages and could cause the public to abandon City infrastructure entirely.

Scenario 2: Full Cost Recovery Under Optimized Business-EV (B-EV) Rates This model restructures our utility configuration by utilizing PG&E Electric Rule 29 to install dedicated, isolated service meters at each station location.

Isolating the chargers allows the City to transition them to the commercial Business EV (BEV) tariff. The B-EV rate schedule eliminates demand charges (𝑅demand = $0.00/kW), dropping the additional monthly building spike from EV’s to zero. Additionally, power costs fall 160
significantly, dropping to an average of $0.12/kWh during Off-Peak hours and $0.38/kWh during Peak hours.

Because the demand spike penalty from EV’s is removed, financial volatility disappears.

Spreading our standard $1,370.00 annual vendor cost over our baseline volume creates a predictable, static overhead burden of just $0.051 per kWh. • Off-Peak Price Calculation:

RateOff-Peak =
$0.051 Overhead + $0.12 Power

0.90 =
$0.171

0.90 ≈ $𝟎. 𝟏𝟗 per kWh
• Peak Price Calculation:

RatePeak =
$0.051 Overhead + $0.38 Power

0.90 =
$0.431

0.90 ≈ $𝟎.𝟒𝟖 per kWh
Operational Reality: Scenario 2 achieves complete financial cost recovery for the City while offering the public an affordable, highly competitive local rate ($0.19 to $0.48 per kWh) that is in line with regional market standards.

7. Recommendations and Implementation Roadmap
To successfully transition the public charging network to the optimized, self-sustaining model outlined in Scenario 2, staff recommends the execution of the following roadmap:

Phase 1: Immediate Administrative Rate Adjustment
• Temporary Staffing Allocation: Authorize the retention of a temporary, 6-month management analyst to systematically manage the technical Rule 29 utility onboarding process and audit the City's remaining PG&E accounts for other rateoptimization opportunities. • Action: Direct staff to immediately transition the existing utility meter for the Correas ST2 station to the PG&E B-EV rate schedule.
• Justification: Unlike the building-integrated locations, this specific station is already physically isolated on its own streetlight account loop. It can be moved to the lower-cost commercial rate schedule immediately via an administrative request to PG&E, capturing instant operational savings.
161
Phase 2: Infrastructure Meter Isolation via PG&E Rule 29 • Action: Submit engineering applications to PG&E under Electric Rule 29 to install new, separate service meters for the stations at City Hall, the Library, and both Downtown Tree Light pedestals. Under Rule 29, the City will need to install its own upgraded pedestals for the new meters.
• Utility Cost Breakdown: Under the Rule 29 tariff, PG&E pays for the majority of utility-side trenching, wiring, and transformer infrastructure required to set up the dedicated meters. Once installed, each separate commercial meter carries a fixed utility account service fee of $15.00 to $25.00 per month in addition to the cost of the new pedestals. This minor fixed overhead is easily absorbed by the immediate $317.94 per month demand charge savings realized at each building site. • Onboarding: Upon physical installation, coordinate with PG&E to formally move all newly created accounts onto the optimized B-EV commercial rate tier.

Phase 3: Update Pricing Schedule and Delegate Authority • Action: Adopt a resolution to officially retire legacy time-based billing ($1.00/hour) and establish a tiered energy pricing framework ($0.19/kWh Off-Peak / $0.48/kWh Peak) in the city’s master fee schedule.
• Administrative Pricing Flexibility: To ensure the network remains permanently self-funded, include a provision in the resolution granting administrative authority to designated City staff to quickly adjust public kWh consumer pricing levels in direct response to future structural adjustments by PG&E (tariff adjustments) or ChargePoint (network clearing changes). This allows the City to protect the General Fund in real time without the standard delay of formal council agenda revisions. • Optional Vehicle Turnover Control: To preserve downtown parking availability and prevent vehicles from camping out in high-demand stalls, consider including a master provision allowing staff to activate a $1.00 per minute overstay fee. This fee would automatically apply to any vehicle that remains physically plugged into a station 15 minutes after its active charging session has concluded.

8. Hypothetical Direct Current (DC) Fast Charger Impact As the City considers the long-term future of its public charging network, a common "whatif" scenario involves the potential deployment of a high-speed Direct Current Fast Charger (DCFC). Fast-charging infrastructure operates under a fundamentally more intensive operational and utility cost profile than standard Level 2 units, particularly regarding fixed 162
vendor software fees, volumetric energy costs, merchant processing fees, and peak demand charges.

Public Market Context (San Mateo County Benchmarks)
To contextualize what local drivers encounter, public commercial DC fast charging rates within San Mateo County across major public networks (such as Tesla Supercharger, EVgo, and Electrify America) typically average between $0.35 and $0.65 per kWh, depending on the time of day and membership access.

A. Ongoing Vendor & Baseline Operating Cost Profile
A single commercial DC Fast Charger (such as a ChargePoint Express 250) commands significantly steeper static operating costs than standard Level 2 systems due to highvoltage hardware management:
• ChargePoint Enterprise DC Cloud Plan: $1,200.00 per port × 2 ports = $2,400.00/year
• ChargePoint Express Assure Warranty: $2,530.00/year per station 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = $4,930.00 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝐶 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ($410.83/𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ) Fixed Cost Comparison: A single DC Fast Charger costs the City 3.6 times more per year in mandatory software and maintenance subscriptions than an existing Level 2 station ($4,930 vs. $1,370).

B. Utility Integration Scenarios & Break-Even Modeling
Assuming an active, high-utilization station averaging 5 uses per day (approximately 150 charging sessions per month), with an average session duration of 45 minutes delivering 30 kWh per session, the total monthly station throughput scales to 4,500 kWh/month.

Crucially, because ChargePoint retains a 10% merchant transaction processing fee on all gross revenue collected at the station, the consumer price must be structured using a gross-up factor of 0.90 to ensure the City's net payout covers 100% of its operating expenses. The financial projections under various pricing models break down as follows:
163

1. Legacy Time-Based Model ($1.00 / Hour Pricing)
If the City hypothetically applies its legacy Level 2 pricing model to a DC fast charger mounted on a shared building meter, higher utilization actually accelerates the financial deficit.
• Mechanics: Because a DC Fast Charger delivers power rapidly, a driver pulling 30 kWh will be plugged in for roughly 45 minutes (0.75 hours). At a rate of $1.00 per hour, the user pays gross fees of $0.75. After ChargePoint's 10% cut, the City receives $0.675 per session.
• Monthly Revenue Remitted to City: 150 sessions × $0.675 = $101.25 / month • Demand Charge Deficit: On a shared building meter, adding a standard 125 kW fast charger triggers a fixed monthly utility demand spike penalty based on peak draw:

Monthly Spike Penalty = 125 kW × $22.71/kW = $𝟐, 𝟖𝟑𝟖.𝟕𝟓 per month Volumetric Cost: At an average building electricity import rate of $0.32/kWh, the energy itself costs the City $1,440.00 per month (4,500 kWh × $0.32). • Total Monthly Cost to City: $410.83 (Vendor Fees) + $2,838.75 (Demand Charge) + $1,440.00 (Energy) = $4,689.58
• Net Monthly General Fund Deficit: $101.25 (Revenue) − $4,689.58 (Cost) = −$4,588.33 per month (An annual loss of over $55,000 on a single station).

2. Volumetric Break-Even Pricing (Shared Building Meter) To completely insulate the General Fund from the demand charge spike on a shared building meter, the City would be forced to shift to a volumetric (per-kWh) rate structure designed to fully absorb all fixed expenses, volumetric energy, and the 10% transaction fee.
• Raw Cost to Recover: $1.04 per kWh ($4,689.58 / 4,500 kWh) • True Consumer Price (Adjusted for 10% Fee):
$1.04 Base Cost

0.90 Revenue Retention = $𝟏. 𝟏𝟔 per kWh
• Market Impact: A price of $1.16/kWh is nearly triple the local commercial market average ($0.35 – $0.55/kWh). This extreme pricing premium would guarantee the 164
station sits abandoned, leaving the City stuck paying the fixed subscription costs out of the General Fund with zero revenue to offset it.

3. Volumetric Break-Even Pricing under PG&E Rule 29 (Dedicated B-EV Meter) By utilizing PG&E Electric Rule 29 to isolate the fast charger onto its own dedicated Business EV (B-EV) service meter, the building demand charges are removed from the equation.
• Elimination of Spikes: Under the B-EV rate, the variable $2,838.75 monthly peak demand penalty is replaced by a predictable flat monthly subscription capacity fee of roughly $190.00.
• Volumetric Cost: The B-EV rate drops the baseline cost of energy down significantly, averaging roughly $0.25 per kWh across time-of-use blocks. • Total Monthly Base Cost: $410.83 (Vendor Fees) + $190.00 (B-EV Capacity Fee) + $1,125.00 (4,500 kWh × $0.25 Energy Cost) = $1,725.83 / month (Or $0.38 per kWh baseline cost).
• True Consumer Price (Adjusted for 10% Fee):
$0.38 Base Cost

0.90 Revenue Retention = $𝟎. 𝟒𝟐 per kWh
Section Summary
The numbers demonstrate that a legacy time-based structure ($1.00/hr) is fundamentally incompatible with fast-charging speeds, triggering catastrophic monthly deficits exceeding $4,500. Attempting to achieve financial break-even on a shared building meter forces an unmarketable consumer price of $1.16/kWh due to building peak demand charges and network collection transaction fees.

Crucially, with a utilization rate of 5 uses per day, transitioning to a dedicated utility connection via PG&E Rule 29 drops the true, all-inclusive break-even price to $0.42 per kWh. This lands the City directly within San Mateo County's public market rate ($0.35 - $0.65/kWh), proving that higher station utilization combined with isolated utility metering creates a completely self-sustaining, fiscally responsible infrastructure asset. 165
ChargePoint Fixed Costs
166
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Bundled Commercial/General Service
Electric Rates at a Glance
New B Schedules
Rates Effective:

March 1, 2026 -
Present
Season Time-of-Use
Period
Time-of-Use
Period
PDP1/
Charges
($ per kWh)
Power Factor
Adjustment
($/kWh/%)
"Average"
Bundled Total Rate3/
($ per kWh)
Summer On-Peak -
Part-Peak
Single-phase $0.32854 Off-Peak
Poly-phase $0.82136 Winter On-Peak
Off-Peak
Super Off-Peak
Summer On-Peak
Part-Peak
Single-phase $0.32854 Off-Peak
Poly-phase $0.82136 Winter On-Peak
Part-Peak
Off-Peak
Super Off-Peak
Summer On-Peak -
Single-phase $0.32854 Off-Peak
Poly-phase $0.82136 Winter On-Peak
Off-Peak
Super Off-Peak
Secondary Primary Transmission Secondary Primary Transmission Secondary Primary Transmission Secondary Primary Transmission Peak $0.33947 $0.31874 $0.22249 - ($0.08489) ($0.08489) ($0.08489) - Secondary Part-Peak $0.27778 $0.26044 $0.16574 ($0.02941) ($0.02941) ($0.02941) $0.35514 Off-Peak $0.24522 $0.22960 $0.13568 - Primary
On-Peak $0.26321 $0.24588 $0.16944 -
$0.32369
Off-Peak $0.22773 $0.21224 $0.13660 Transmission
Super Off-Peak $0.19139 $0.17590 $0.10026 $0.19284
Summer Max. Peak $46.16 $37.89 $14.67 Peak $0.18648 $0.16454 $0.14803 ($6.72) ($6.61) ($5.46) $0.00000 $0.00000 $0.00000 $0.00005 Secondary Mandatory B-19 S: $58.62824 Max. Part-Peak $10.52 $8.54 $3.67 Part-Peak $0.14775 $0.13500 $0.13556 ($0.98) ($0.97) ($1.37) $0.00000 $0.00000 $0.00000 $0.32110 Mandatory B-19 P: $87.34546 Maximum $37.37 $29.11 $16.94 Off-Peak $0.12037 $0.10931 $0.10902 - - Primary Mandatory B-19 T: $117.10726 Winter Max. Peak $2.31 $1.69 $1.41 Peak $0.16188 $0.14737 $0.14719 - - $0.25566
Voluntary B-19: S, P, T: $11.36882 - - - - Off-Peak $0.12026 $0.10963 $0.10961 Transmission Maximum $37.37 $29.11 $16.94 Super Off-Peak $0.06442 $0.05594 $0.05433 $0.16875 1/Peak Day Pricing (PDP) Consecutive Day, Three-Hour Event. PDP Charges apply to all Usage During PDP Event Hours. See specific tariff for further details and program options. 2/Peak Day Pricing (PDP) Consecutive Day Three-Hour Event. PDP Credits apply to components shown in all summer billing months. See specific tariff for further details and program options. 3/Based on estimated forecast. Average bundled rates provided only for general reference, and individual customer's average rate will depend on its applicable kW, kWh, and TOU data.

This table provided for comparative purposes only. See current tariffs for full information regarding rates, applicability, eligibility and additional options.

NOTE - ABOVE Rates are Total Bundled Time-of-Use Rates
Advice Letter 6713-E, Effective October 1, 2022, Changed Schedule B-6 Only on this page $0.26085
Summer
-
$20.50
- $0.37933
$0.49377
$0.35247
$0.30514
$0.39545
Customer Charge
($ per meter per day)
$0.38491
$0.64253
$0.35225
$0.31617
$0.39584
Demand Charge
($ per kW)
Total Energy Charge
($ per kWh)
-
$0.36291
$0.47087
$0.42164
$0.40083
$0.39582
$0.36632
$0.27727
B-10 TOU
Winter
$11.36882
B-1 TOU
$20.50
B-6 TOU
B1-ST $7.86
(assessed from 2:00 pm to 11:00 pm only)
$7.86
(assessed from 2:00 pm to 11:00 pm only)
$19.77
-
$12.55
$19.77 $12.55
B-19 TOU
$0.00005
$0.90
$0.40737
$0.40737
$0.40013
-
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
$0.90
$0.60
($0.06014)
-
-
$0.60
-
-
-
-
($0.01787)
($0.07245)
-
-
PDP2/ Credits
DEMAND
($ per kW)
PDP2/ Credits
ENERGY
($ per kWh)
-
-
167
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Bundled Commercial/General Service
Electric Rates at a Glance
New B Schedules, (B-19, Option S, For Qualifying Storage Customers) Rates Effective:

March 1, 2026 -
Present
Season Time-of-Use Period Time-of-Use
Period
PDP1/
Charges
($ per kWh)
Power Factor
Adjustment
($/kWh/%)
"Average"
Bundled Total Rate3/
($ per kWh)
Summer On-Peak -
Part-Peak
Single-phase $0.32854 Off-Peak
Poly-phase $0.82136 Winter On-Peak
Off-Peak
Super Off-Peak
Summer On-Peak
Part-Peak
Single-phase $0.32854 Off-Peak
Poly-phase $0.82136 Winter On-Peak
Part-Peak
Off-Peak
Super Off-Peak
Summer On-Peak -
Single-phase $0.32854 Off-Peak
Poly-phase $0.82136 Winter On-Peak
Off-Peak
Super Off-Peak
Secondary Primary Transmission Secondary Primary Transmission Secondary Primary Transmission Peak $0.33947 $0.31874 $0.22249 ($0.08489) ($0.08489) ($0.08489) - Secondary Part-Peak $0.27778 $0.26044 $0.16574 ($0.02941) ($0.02941) ($0.02941) $0.35514 Off-Peak $0.24522 $0.22960 $0.13568 - Primary
On-Peak $0.26321 $0.24588 $0.16944 -
$0.32369
Off-Peak $0.22773 $0.21224 $0.13660 Transmission
Super Off-Peak $0.19139 $0.17590 $0.10026 $0.19284
Summer Max. Peak (per day) $1.60 $1.07 $0.36 Peak $0.43568 $0.39207 $0.24804 $0.00005 Secondary Mandatory B-19 S: $58.62824 Max. Part-Peak (per day) $0.08 $0.07 - Part-Peak $0.25184 $0.21733 $0.16654 $0.32110 Mandatory B-19 P: $87.34546 Maximum1/ $6.35 $3.95 $1.40 Off-Peak $0.19137 $0.16028 $0.12439 Primary Mandatory B-19 T: $117.10726 Maximum2/ $9.13 $9.13 $9.13 - - - - $0.25566
Voluntary B-19: S, P, T: $11.36882 Winter Max. Peak (per day) $1.22 $0.79 $0.36 Peak $0.18276 $0.16296 $0.15828 Transmission Maximum1/ $6.35 $3.95 $1.40 Off-Peak $0.14044 $0.12531 $0.12460 $0.16875 Maximum2/ $9.13 $9.13 $9.13 Super Off-Peak $0.10462 $0.08949 $0.08878 1/Peak Day Pricing (PDP) Consecutive Day, Three-Hour Event. PDP Charges apply to all Usage During PDP Event Hours. See specific tariff for further details and program options. 2/Peak Day Pricing (PDP) Consecutive Day Three-Hour Event. PDP Credits apply to components shown in all summer billing months. See specific tariff for further details and program options. 3/Based on estimated forecast. Average bundled rates provided only for general reference, and individual customer's average rate will depend on its applicable kW, kWh, and TOU data.

This table provided for comparative purposes only. See current tariffs for full information regarding rates, applicability, eligibility and additional options.

March 1, 2026 -
Present
Season Time-of-Use
Period
Time-of-Use
Period
PDP1/
Charges
($ per kWh)
Power Factor
Adjustment
($/kWh/%)
"Average"
Bundled Total Rate3/
($ per kWh)
Summer On-Peak -
Part-Peak
Single-phase $0.32854 Off-Peak
Poly-phase $0.82136 Winter On-Peak
Off-Peak
Super Off-Peak
Summer On-Peak
Part-Peak
Single-phase $0.32854 Off-Peak
Poly-phase $0.82136 Winter On-Peak
Part-Peak
Off-Peak
Super Off-Peak
Summer On-Peak -
Single-phase $0.32854 Off-Peak
Poly-phase $0.82136 Winter On-Peak
Off-Peak
Super Off-Peak
Secondary Primary Transmission Secondary Primary Transmission Secondary Primary Transmission Peak $0.33947 $0.31874 $0.22249 ($0.08489) ($0.08489) ($0.08489) - Secondary Part-Peak $0.27778 $0.26044 $0.16574 ($0.02941) ($0.02941) ($0.02941) $0.35514 Off-Peak $0.24522 $0.22960 $0.13568 - Primary
On-Peak $0.26321 $0.24588 $0.16944 -
$0.32369
Off-Peak $0.22773 $0.21224 $0.13660 Transmission
Super Off-Peak $0.19139 $0.17590 $0.10026 $0.19284
Summer Max. Peak $6.50 $5.20 $0.00 Peak $0.43568 $0.39207 $0.24804 Secondary Mandatory B-19 S: $58.62824 Max. Part-Peak $1.87 $1.49 $0.00 Part-Peak $0.25184 $0.21733 $0.16654 $0.32110 Mandatory B-19 P: $87.34546 Maximum $36.61 $28.43 $16.26 Off-Peak $0.19137 $0.16028 $0.12439 Primary Mandatory B-19 T: $117.10726 Winter Max. Peak $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Peak $0.18276 $0.16296 $0.15828 $0.25566 Voluntary B-19: S, P, T: $11.36882 - - - - Off-Peak $0.14044 $0.12531 $0.12460 Transmission Maximum $36.61 $28.43 $16.26 Super Off-Peak $0.10462 $0.08949 $0.08878 $0.16875 1/Peak Day Pricing (PDP) Consecutive Day, Three-Hour Event. PDP Charges apply to all Usage During PDP Event Hours. See specific tariff for further details and program options. 2/Peak Day Pricing (PDP) Consecutive Day Three-Hour Event. PDP Credits apply to components shown in all summer billing months. See specific tariff for further details and program options. 3/Based on estimated forecast. Average bundled rates provided only for general reference, and individual customer's average rate will depend on its applicable kW, kWh, and TOU data.

This table provided for comparative purposes only. See current tariffs for full information regarding rates, applicability, eligibility and additional options.

NOTE - ABOVE Rates are Total Bundled Time-of-Use Rates
Advice Letter 6713-E, Effective October 1, 2022, Changed Schedule B-6 Only on this page Customer Charge
($ per meter per day)
Demand Charge
($ per kW)
Total Energy Charge
($ per kWh)
PDP2/ Credits
ENERGY
($ per kWh)
B-1 TOU
-
$0.47087
$0.60
($0.06014)
-
$0.40737
$0.42164 ($0.01787)
$0.40083 -
$0.39545
$0.37933 - -
$0.36291
- -
$0.40737
(assessed from 2:00 pm to 11:00 pm only) $0.35247
$0.30514
$0.39582
- -
$7.86 $0.49377
-
$7.86 $0.36632
(assessed from 2:00 pm to 11:00 pm only) $0.27727
$0.26085
B-6 TOU -
$0.64253
-
B1-ST
$0.90
$0.60
($0.07245)
$12.55
$0.40013
$0.38491 -
$0.39584
$0.35225 - -
$0.31617
-
$12.55
$0.00005
B-19 TOU
(Option R)
(for qualifying
solar customers
only)
-
-
-
$0.00005
B-10 TOU
$11.36882
Summer $20.50 $19.77
Winter $20.50 $19.77
169
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Commercial/General Service
Schedule B-1, B-6, B-10 and B-19
Time Periods
Summer (June-September)
Peak: 4:00 pm to 9:00 pm Every day, including weekends and holidays Partial-Peak: 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm AND Every day, including weekends and holidays 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm
Off-Peak: All other hours
Winter (October-May)
Peak: 4:00 pm to 9:00 pm Every day, including weekends and holidays Super Off-Peak 9:00 am to 2:00 pm Every day in March, April and May only, including weekends and holidays
Off-Peak: All other hours
For Customers on B1-ST Only
Partial-Peak: 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm AND Every day, including weekends and holidays 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm
Summer (June-September)
Peak: 4:00 pm to 9:00 pm Every day, including weekends and holidays Off-Peak: All other hours
Winter (October-May)
Peak: 4:00 pm to 9:00 pm Every day, including weekends and holidays Super Off-Peak 9:00 am to 2:00 pm Every day in March, April and May, including weekends and holidays
Off-Peak: All other hours
Holidays:

Holidays for the purposes of these Rate Schedules are New Year's Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.

The dates will be those on which the holidays are legally observed.

B-1, B-6, B-10 and B-19 Time Periods
B-1, B-10 and B-19
B-6
170
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Commercial Business Electric Vehicle
Electric Schedule BEV
Rate Schedule Effective:

March 1, 2026 - Present
Block Size
(kW)
Subscription
Charge
(per block)
Subscription
Charge
($ per kW) 1/
Overage Fee
($ per kW)
Time-of-Use
Period
Total Energy
Charges
($ per kWh)
Peak $0.35711
Off-Peak $0.16510
Super Off-Peak $0.13844
Peak $0.36977
Off-Peak $0.15654
Super Off-Peak $0.13327
Peak $0.36003
Off-Peak $0.15115
Super Off-Peak $0.12849
1/ $/kW for informational purposes only. This does not constitute an additional charge. See tariff for further details.

Time Periods:

Peak: 4:00 pm to 9:00 pm, Every day including weekends and holidays, all year Off-Peak: 9:00 pm to 9:00 am And 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm, Every day including weekends and holidays, all year Super Off-Peak: 9:00 am to 2:00 pm, Every day including weekends and holidays, all year This table provided for comparative purposes only. See current tariffs for full information regarding rates, application, eligibility and additional options.

BEV-2-S Secondary
The BEV-2 rate option is applicable to customers with kW usage at or above 100 kW. Customers may be on the BEV-1 or BEV-2 at usage of 100 kW based on the customer's
preference. BEV-2 is designed with a Primary and Secondary Voltage service option.

BEV-2-P Primary/Transmission
The BEV-2 rate option is applicable to customers with kW usage at or above 100 kW. Customers may be on the BEV-1 or BEV-2 at usage of 100 kW based on the customer's
preference. BEV-2 is designed with a Primary and Secondary Voltage service option. Transmission Voltage customers are eligible for enrollment on the BEV-2 Primary rate.
10 $1.24 $2.48
BEV-1
The BEV-1 rate option is applicable to customers with kW usage at or below 100 kW. Customers may be on the BEV-1 or BEV-2 at usage of 100 kW based on the customer's
preference. BEV-1 is for Secondary Voltage service.
$12.41
50 50 $85.98 $1.72 $3.44
$95.56 $1.91 $3.82
171

COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND GENERAL SERVICE CUSTOMERS
A-1-A (PG&E Equivalent: A-1)
SUMMER May 1 through October 31 0.08334 0.11999 0.13332 WINTER November 1 through April 30 0.04722 0.08387 0.09319 A-1-A-P
SUMMER May 1 through October 31 0.07818 0.11483 0.12759 WINTER November 1 through April 30 0.04351 0.08016 0.08907 A-1-B (PG&E Equivalent: A-1X)
SUMMER May 1 through October 31
PEAK 12 PM to 6 PM Mon-Fri except holidays2 0.08615 0.12280 0.13644

PART-PEAK
8:30 AM to 12 PM and 6 PM to 9:30 PM Mon-Fri
except holidays2 0.08615 0.12280 0.13644
OFF-PEAK All other summer hours 0.06391 0.10056 0.11173 WINTER November 1 through April 30
PART-PEAK 8:30 AM to 9:30 PM Mon-Fri except Holidays2 0.05847 0.09512 0.10569 OFF-PEAK All other winter hours 0.05795 0.09460 0.10511 A-1-B-P
SUMMER May 1 through October 31
PEAK 12 PM to 6 PM Mon-Fri except holidays2 0.08088 0.11753 0.13059

PART-PEAK
8:30 AM to 12 PM and 6 PM to 9:30 PM Mon-Fri
except holidays2 0.08088 0.11753 0.13059
OFF-PEAK All other summer hours 0.05953 0.09618 0.10686 WINTER November 1 through October 31
PART-PEAK 8:30 AM to 9:30 PM Mon-Fri except holidays2 0.05431 0.09096 0.10107 OFF-PEAK All other winter hours 0.05381 0.09046 0.10051 B-1 (PG&E Equivalent: B-1)
SUMMER June 1 through September 30
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.12209 0.15874 0.17638 PART-PEAK 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM and 9:00 PM to 11:00 PM
Every day 0.07779 0.11444 0.12715
OFF-PEAK All other hours 0.05906 0.09571 0.10634
WINTER October 1 through May 31
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.07237 0.10902 0.12113 OFF-PEAK All other hours 0.05786 0.09451 0.10501
SUPER OFF-PEAK 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM Every day in March, April, and May only 0.04308 0.07973 0.08859
B-1-P
SUMMER June 1 through September 30
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.11539 0.15204 0.16893

COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND AGRICULTURAL CUSTOMER RATES Rates Effective February 1, 2026

RATE SCHEDULE SCHEDULE TIMES
ENERGY CHARGE $/kWh

GENERATION
RATE

RATE WITH PG&E
SURCHARGES 1

01.01.26 PG&E

GENERATION RATE
Small Commercial
Small Commercial (Primary Service Voltagee)
Small Commercial Time of Use
Small Commercial Time of Use (Primary Service Voltage)
New Small Commercial
New Small Commercial (Primary)
172
PART-PEAK 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM and 9:00 PM to 11:00 PM
Every day 0.07285 0.10950 0.12167
OFF-PEAK All other hours 0.05487 0.09152 0.10169
WINTER October 1 through May 31
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.06765 0.10430 0.11589 OFF-PEAK All other hours 0.05372 0.09037 0.10041
SUPER OFF-PEAK 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM Every day in March, April, and May only 0.03954 0.07619 0.08465
B-1-ST (PG&E Equivalent: B-1-ST)
SUMMER June 1 through September 30
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.12638 0.16303 0.18114 PART-PEAK 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM and 9:00 PM to 11:00 PM
Every day 0.08816 0.12481 0.13868
OFF-PEAK All other hours 0.05599 0.09264 0.10293
WINTER October 1 through May 31
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.08085 0.11750 0.13056 PART-PEAK 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM and 9:00 PM to 11:00 PM
Every day 0.06975 0.10640 0.11822
OFF-PEAK All other hours 0.04995 0.08660 0.09622
SUPER OFF-PEAK 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM Every day in March, April, and May only 0.03517 0.07182 0.07980
A-6 (PG&E Equivalent: A-6)
SUMMER May 1 through October 31
PEAK 12 pm to 6 pm Mon-Fri except holidays2 0.09777 0.13442 0.14936 PART-PEAK 8:30 am to 12 pm and 6 pm to 9:30 pm Mon-Fri
except holidays2 0.09777 0.13442 0.14936
OFF-PEAK All other summer hours 0.06740 0.10405 0.11561 WINTER November 1 through April 30
PART-PEAK 8:30 am to 9:30 pm Mon-Fri except holidays2 0.05896 0.09561 0.10623 OFF-PEAK All other winter hours 0.05832 0.09497 0.10552 A-6-P
SUMMER May 1 through October 31
PEAK 12 pm to 6 pm Mon-Fri except holidays2 0.09204 0.12869 0.14299 PART-PEAK 8:30 am to 12 pm and 6 pm to 9:30 pm Mon-Fri
except holidays2 0.09204 0.12869 0.14299
OFF-PEAK All other summer hours 0.06288 0.09953 0.11059 WINTER November 1 through April 30
PART-PEAK 8:30 am to 9:30 pm Mon-Fri except holidays2 0.05478 0.09143 0.10158 OFF-PEAK All other winter hours 0.05416 0.09081 0.10090 B-6 (PG&E Equivalent: B-6)
SUMMER June 1 through September 30
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.20626 0.24291 0.26990 OFF-PEAK All other hours 0.05332 0.08997 0.09997
WINTER October 1 through May 31
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.07988 0.11653 0.12948 OFF-PEAK All other hours 0.04429 0.08094 0.08993
SUPER OFF-PEAK 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM Every day in March, April, and May only 0.01182 0.04847 0.05385
B-6-P
SUMMER June 1 through September 30
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.19619 0.23284 0.25871 New Small Commercial (Storage)
Small Commercial Time of Use
Small Commercial Time of Use (Primary)
New Small Commercial
New Small Commercial (Primary)
173
SBTOUP (PG&E Equivalent: STANDBY - B - P)
SUMMER June 1 through September 30
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.07989 0.10565 0.11739 PART-PEAK 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM and 9:00 PM to 11:00 PM
Every day 0.06883 0.09459 0.10510
OFF-PEAK All other hours 0.05653 0.08229 0.09143
WINTER October 1 through May 31
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.07546 0.10122 0.11247 OFF-PEAK All other hours 0.05757 0.08333 0.09259
SUPER OFF-PEAK 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM Every day in March, April, and May only 0.01784 0.04360 0.04844

0.93 0.93 1.03
SBTOUT (PG&E Equivalent: STANDBY - B - T)
SUMMER June 1 through September 30
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.06220 0.08796 0.09773 PART-PEAK 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM and 9:00 PM to 11:00 PM
Every day 0.05142 0.07718 0.08576
OFF-PEAK All other hours 0.03944 0.06520 0.07244
WINTER October 1 through May 31
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.05797 0.08373 0.09303 OFF-PEAK All other hours 0.04055 0.06631 0.07368
SUPER OFF-PEAK 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM Every day in March, April, and May only 0.00075 0.02651 0.02946

0.42 0.42 0.47
B-EV-1 (PG&E Equivalent: B-EV-1)
ALL YEAR ROUND January 1 through December 31
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.20527 0.23581 0.26201 OFF-PEAK 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM and 9:00 PM to 9:00 AM
Every day 0.04097 0.07151 0.07945
SUPER OFF-PEAK 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM Every day 0.01811 0.04865 0.05406 B-EV-2-S (PG&E Equivalent: B-EV-2-S)
ALL YEAR ROUND January 1 through December 31
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.20527 0.23581 0.26201 OFF-PEAK 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM and 9:00 PM to 9:00 AM
Every day 0.04097 0.07151 0.07945
SUPER OFF-PEAK 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM Every day 0.01811 0.04865 0.05406 B-EV-2-P (PG&E Equivalent: B-EV-2-P)
ALL YEAR ROUND January 1 through December 31
PEAK 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM Every day 0.21847 0.25314 0.28127 OFF-PEAK 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM and 9:00 PM to 9:00 AM
Every day 0.03545 0.07012 0.07791
SUPER OFF-PEAK 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM Every day 0.01259 0.04726 0.05251

AGRICULTURAL CUSTOMERS
AG-1-A (PG&E Equivalent: AG-1-A)
SUMMER May 1 through October 31 0.05130 0.08593 0.09548 WINTER November 1 through April 30 0.03913 0.07376 0.08196 SUMMER MAX 2.82 2.82 3.13
AG-1-B (PG&E Equivalent: AG-1-B)
SUMMER May 1 through October 31 0.05821 0.09284 0.10315 WINTER November 1 through April 30 0.03067 0.06530 0.07256 RESERVATION CHARGE ($/kW)
New Standby Time of Use (Transmission)
RESERVATION CHARGE ($/kW)
Small Business EV
Large Business EV (Secondary Voltage)
Large Business EV (Primary Voltage)
New Standby Time of Use (Primary)
Agricultural
CONNECTED LOAD ($/HP)
Agricultural
DEMAND CHARGE ($/kW)
174
PEAK 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM Every day except
Wednesdays and Thurdsays 0.05551 0.09014 0.10015
OFF-PEAK All other hours 0.03170 0.06633 0.07370
SUMMER PEAK 14.58 14.58 16.20

STREET AND OUTDOOR LIGHTING
SL-1 (PG&E Equivalent: LS-1, LS-2, LS-3, OL-1) 0.05611 0.08668 0.09631 TC-1 (PG&E Equivalent: TC-1) 0.05574 0.09239 0.10266
ECO100 (100%

RENEWABLE ENERGY

OPTION)
Customers electing the 100% renewable energy service
option will pay the applicable rate for the default service option plus the 100% Renewable Energy Charge.
$ 0.01
DEMAND CHARGE ($/kW)
1 Peninsula Clean Energy's generation rates are calculated using the 2016 Vintage Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) and Franchise Fee rates 2 “Holidays” for the purposes of this rate schedule are New Year’s Day, President’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.

Peninsula Clean Energy is committed to protecting customer privacy. Learn more at www.PenCleanEnergy.com/privacy 175
Resolution No. C- 2015 - 08

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO

INCLUDE FEES FOR THE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING STATION WHEREAS, an amendment to the Master Fee Schedule is required to include fees for the Electrical Vehicle Charging Station; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby approves and amends the Master Fee Schedule to include a $ 1. 00 per hour rate for the use of City owned electrical vehicle charging stations.

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 3rd day of March 2015 by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers: Kowalczyk, Muller, Penrose, Ruddock and Mayor Fraser NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Siobhan Smith, City Clerk Marina Fraser, Mayor
176

Page 1 of 2 ends

Half Moon Bay City CouncilSeptember 15, 2026

Half Moon Bay City Council
September 15, 2026