Agenda packet — Half Moon Bay City Council, October 6, 2026

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, OCTOBER 6, 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 NET GRADUATION

3.B HMBLL ALL STAR RECOGNITION

3.C AGE UP PROCLAMATION

3.D CORA / DOMESTIC ABUSE MONTH PROCLAMATION

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

5. REPORT OUT FROM RECENT CLOSED SESSION MEETINGS

6. COMMISSION / COMMITTEE UPDATES

6.A PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT OUT

7. CITY MANAGER UPDATES TO COUNCIL

7.A SUMMERS END MUSIC FESTIVAL REPORT

7.B RAIN BARREL SALE

7.C MAIN STREET BRIDGE

8. PUBLIC FORUM

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 9.A WAIVE READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

9.B APPROVE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 SPECIAL MEETING ATTACHMENT - September 15, 2026 Special Meeting Minutes

9.C APPROVE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 REGULAR MEETING ATTACHMENT - September 15, 2026 Regular Meeting Minutes

9.D APPROVE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 SPECIAL MEETING ATTACHMENT - September 22, 2026 Special Meeting Minutes

9.E APPROVE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING

COMMISSION MEETING
ATTACHMENT - September 22, 2026 Special Joint Meeting Minutes

9.F SIDE LETTER AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AND THE

REPRESENTED MANAGEMENT TEAM REGARDING SPECIALIZED LICENSE PAY AND HR

OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving two Side Letter Agreements between the City of Half Moon Bay and the Represented Management Team (RMT) to: 1) Renew and expand Specialized License Pay eligibility to the Chief Building Official classification and incorporate the provisions into the 2026-2030 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); and 2) Establish a collaborative process for developing HR operational guidelines.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1 - Resolution
ATTACHMENT 2 - RMT Side Letter
ATTACHMENT 3 - RMT Side Letter - HR Operational Guideliness

9.G ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE RELATED TO THE SALE OF THE RITZ CARLTON HALF MOON BAY

PROPERTY
Staff Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an Estoppel Certificate in connection with the private sale of the real property located at 2000 Fairway Drive and 1 Miramontes Point Road, Half Moon Bay, California, otherwise known as the Ritz Carlton Half Moon Bay.
3 STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1 - Resolution - Ritz Sale Estoppel
ATTACHMENT 2 - Estoppel Certificate

10. ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

11. RESOLUTIONS AND STAFF REPORTS

11.A RESPONSE TO SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT " IS OUR FLOCK OF ALPR CAMERAS PROPERLY TENDED?"
Staff Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter in response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report - “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” dated August 3, 2026

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1- Resolution - Flock ALPR Grand Jury Response ATTACHMENT 2 - Grand Jury Report

11.B 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 Amendment

11.C PUBLIC ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING PROGRAM RATE AND INFRASTRUCTURE

IMPROVEMENTS
Staff Recommendation:
4 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 - EV Resolution
ATTACHMENT 2 - Public EV Financial Analysis
ATTACHMENT 3 - CC Resolution No 2015-08

11.DPROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KANKEL CONROY ROSE & HILL LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECTURE FOR PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR THE CITY HALL PLAZA PROJECT (CIP 1049)
Staff Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution: 1) Authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Kankel Conroy Rose & Hill Landscape Architecture (KCRH) for Planning and Construction Documents for the City Hall Plaza Project, including design of a relocated trash enclosure, in an amount not to exceed $108,530 and; 2) Authorizing the City Manager to transfer $80,000 from the Wavecrest Road Water Line Project (CIP 9004) to the City Hall Plaza Project (CIP 1049) to provide sufficient funding to complete design and related activities for the project.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1 - Resolution PSA
ATTACHMENT 2 - Kankel Conroy Rose & Hill Design Proposal ATTACHMENT 3 - Preliminary Site Plan 2026.09.25
ATTACHMENT 4 - Preliminary Cost Estimate 2026.09.25

12. FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION / POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS

13. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

14. ADJOURNMENT
5 MINUTES

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 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 6:03 p.m.

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

2. OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

4. CLOSED SESSION

4.A 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.B 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.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

5. ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING
Mayor Ruddock adjourned the Special Meeting at approximately 7:00 p.m. 6 September 15, 2026
City Council Special Meeting Minutes

Page 2 of 2 ends

Respectfully Submitted:

Maggie Rodriguez, City Clerk
*Approved by the City Council at the October ___, 2026 Regular meeting. 7 CITY OF HALF MOON BAY CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15 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 7:07 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. City Clerk Rodriguez called the Roll Call.

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

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION
Vice Mayor Penrose moved and Mayor Ruddock seconded a motion to approve the agenda hearing item 11D immediately after consent agenda. The motion carried by unanimously.

3. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

3.A MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL UPDATE
Scott Bollinger provided updates to the council.

3.B PICKLEBALL PROCLAMATION
City Manager Chidester and Mayor Ruddock presented A Pickleball Proclamation was presented in recognition of the new courts.

4. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Mayor Ruddock reminds community about Summers End on September 19, 2026.

5. REPORT OUT FROM RECENT CLOSED SESSION MEETINGS
City Attorney Bazzano reported the Council met in Closed Session on September 15, 2026, on three items. There was no reportable action.

6. COMMISSION / COMMITTEE UPDATES
8 September 15, 2026
City Council Minutes

Page 2 of 6 ends

None.

7. CITY MANAGER UPDATES TO COUNCIL

7.A COASTSIDE WOMEN’S CLUB 4OTH ANNIVERSARY PROCLMATION City Manager Chidester provided a report out from the 40th anniversary celebration.

7.B WINTER STORM UPDATE
Public Works Superintendent Seeley and Interim City Engineer/Public Works Director Leda provided the council with a winter storm update.

8. PUBLIC FORUM
The following individuals addressed the Council:
• Joaquin Jimenez
•Kevin S
•Harvey Rarback
•Ron Kies
•Willa Chapman
•Cid Young
• Tim Reily

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ruddock requested to hear item 9F individually.

9.A WAIVE READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

9.B APPROVE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 SPECIAL MEETING

9.C APPROVE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 REGULAR MEETING

9.D ACCEPT THE WARRANTS FOR THEMONTH OF AUGUST 2026

9.E RESOLUTION NO. 2026-87 HIGHWAY 1 – NORTH (CIP PROJECT NO. 0538) PROJECT

MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

9.F RESOLUTION NO. 2026-88 IMPLEMENTATION OF MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND VISION BENEFITS FOR

ELECTED OFFICIALS
MOTION
9 September 15, 2026
City Council Minutes

Page 3 of 6 ends

Vice Mayor Penrose moved and Councilmember Brownstone seconded a motion to approve items 9A-9E. The motion carried unanimously.

9.F IMPLEMENTATION OF MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND VISION BENEFITS FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS The following individuals address the council:
• Ron Kies
• Nancy Fontana
• Cid Young
MOTION
Mayor Ruddock moved and Councilmember Brownstone seconded a motion to approve the consent calendar. The motion carried unanimously.

10. ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.

RECESS
Mayor Ruddock requested a recess at 8:28pm. The meeting reconvened at 8:47pm with all councilmembers present.

11. RESOLUTIONS AND STAFF REPORTS

11.D AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READERS PILOT PROGRAM UPDATE City Manager Chidester and Sheriff’s Captain Allen presented the item. Council asked clarifying questions of staff and discussed the item and provided staff with direction on the continuation of the program and agreement with Flock Group, Inc. (“Flock”).

The following individuals addressed the council:
• Steven Muller
• Kelly E
• Jeff Rogers
• Matthew Dupree
• Amber Stow
• Nancy Fontana
• Kimber Moreland
• Cid Young
• Evelyn de Souza
10 September 15, 2026
City Council Minutes

Page 4 of 6 ends

RECESS
Mayor Ruddock requested a recess at 10:05pm. 10:16pm resumed the meeting with all councilmembers present.

Council asked clarifying questions and discussed the item.

Mayor Ruddock reopened public comment and allowed repeat speakers. The following individuals addressed the council:
• Steve Muller
• Cid Young
• Evelyn de Souza
• Matthew Dupree
Council gave their comments and opinions on the item. Three councilmembers do not want to move forward with an agreement, two would be okay moving forward if there were changes implemented.

11.A LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE; VOTING DELEGATE AND RESOLUTION PACKET
City Manager Chidester presented the staff report to the council. The council discussed the item.

MOTION
Vice Mayor Penrose moved and Councilmember Brownstone seconded a motion to designate the City’s voting delegate Councilmember Nagengast and alternates City Manager Chidester and Community Development Director Lacko for the League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference and provided direction regarding the Council’s position on the 2026 Annual Conference Resolutions Packet. The motion carried unanimously.

11.B REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FO REVENUE ADMINISTRATION AND CONSULTING SERVICES Interim Administrative Services Director Stiles presented the staff report to the council. Council discussed the item and made suggestions.

MOTION
Councilmember Brownstone moved and Vice Mayor Penrose seconded a 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. The motion carried unanimously.

11.C FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2026. 11 September 15, 2026
City Council Minutes

Page 5 of 6 ends

Interim Administrative Services Director Stiles presented the staff report to the council. Council discussed the item and made suggestions.

MOTION
Councilmember Brownstone moved and Vice Mayor Penrose seconded the motion to accept the Financial Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2026. The motion carried unanimously.

MOTION
Councilmember Brownstone moved to continue items 11E and 11F to October 6, 2026 Vice Mayor seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

11.E STUDY SESSION ON E-BIKE-RELATED AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 10.30.010 AND 10.30.140

11.F PUBLIC ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARING PROGRAM RATE AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

11.G CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES WORKPLAN FOR FICAL YERS 2026-28 11:28 City Manager Chidester presented the item. Council asked clarifying questions and provided feedback.

12. FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION / POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Jonsson moved to create a zero tolerance policy on discrimination, harassment, targeting based on sexual orientation, seconded by Mayor Ruddock and Councilmember Brownstone.

Councilmember Jonsson moved to explore roundabouts for Highway 92 and Highway 1 using Truckee as a model. Seconded by all councilmembers.

13. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
None.

14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ruddock adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:35 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Maggie Rodriguez, City Clerk
12 September 15, 2026
City Council Minutes

Page 6 of 6 ends

*Approved by the City Council at the ____Regular meeting. 13 MINUTES

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 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 6:06 p.m.

PRESENT: Councilmembers Brownstone, Jonsson, Nagengast, and Mayor Ruddock. Vice Mayor Penrose attended via zoom under the “just cause” provisions of the Brown Act.

2. APPEAL OF TAX ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION OF DELINQUENT TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES - 1 MIRAMONTES POINT RD, HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 (MARRIOTT

INTERNATIONAL, INC)

2.A CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPEAL AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE TAX ADMINISTRATOR’S FINAL DETERMINATION OF

DELINQUENT TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES, PENALTIES AND INTEREST FOR OPERATIONS AT 1 MIRAMONTES POINT ROAD, HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 (MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC) AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS

NECESSARY TO COLLECT THE AMOUNTS DUE, INCLUDING FILING A LIEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY.

City Councilmembers idenLfied if they have had any ex parte communicaLons. There were none.

City Manager Chidester presented the staff report.

The Appellant, the Ritz Carlton’s representaLves addressed the council.

No individuals addressed the council.

Council discussed the item.

MOTION
Councilmember Nagengast moved and Councilmember seconded a moLon to adopt ResoluLon No. 2026-89 of the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay deny the appeal and uphold the Tax Administrator’s Final DeterminaLon of delinquency transient occupancy taxes, penalLes, and interest for operaLons at 1 Miramontes Point Road, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 (Marrio\ InternaLonal, Inc), with the excepLon of $190,872 in interest, and direcLng staff to take all acLons necessary to collect the amounts due, including filing a lien against the property. The moLon carried unanimously.
14 September 22, 2026
City Council Special Meeting Minutes

Page 2 of 2 ends

3. ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING
Mayor Ruddock adjourned the Special Meeting at approximately 6:58 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Maggie Rodriguez, City Clerk
*Approved by the City Council at the October ___, 2026 Regular meeting. 15 CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

JOINT STUDY SESSION

CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
7:00 PM

CONVENE SPECIAL MEETING / ROLL CALL
Mayor Ruddock called the Special Joint Meeting to order at approximately 7:07 p.m.

PRESENT: Councilmembers Brownstone, Jonsson, Nagengast, and Mayor Ruddock. Chair Gorn, Commissioner Rems, Commissioner DelNagro, Commissioner Ruddock. Vice Chair Hernandez attended via Zoom from Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach Resort & Spa Lobby; 21500 Pacific Coast Hwy, Huntington Beach, CA 92648.

ABSENT: Vice Mayor Penrose

PUBLIC COMMENT
The following individuals addressed the Council and Commission:
• Jill Greenberg

RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AAC) Mayor Ruddock recognized the Architectural Advisory Committee and their work for the community.

Council and Planning Commission provided appreciation.

RECESS
Mayor Ruddock called a recess at 7:23 and reconvened at 7:30 with all present.

1. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1 .A JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION

AND CITY COUNCIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UPDATE - ANALYSIS AND

IDENTIFICATION REPORT
Associate Planner Chytla-Hinze and Implementation Plan Consultant Miller presented their staff report to the Council and Commission. 16
The following individuals addressed the council:
• Jimmy Benjamin
• Mike Ferreira
The Council and Commission discussed the item and provided direction to city staff.

ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING
Mayor Ruddock adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at approximately 9:05p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Maggie Rodriguez, City Clerk
*Approved by the City Council at the October ___, 2026 Regular meeting. 17 ADJOURNMENT

LATE CORRESPONDENCE
Public Comment 09/22/2026
18 CIUDAD DE HALF MOON BAY
SESIÓN DE ESTUDIO CONJUNTA
CONCEJO MUNICIPAL Y COMISIÓN DE PLANIFICACIÓN, Y REUNIÓN DEL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL: AGENDA REVISADA
MARTES, 22 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2026
7:00 PM
Debbie Ruddock, Alcaldesa
Deborah Penrose, Vicealcaldesa
Robert Brownstone, Concejal
Patric Jonsson, Concejal
Paul Nagengast, Concejal
David Gorn, Presidente
Rick Hernandez, Vicepresidente
Jacob (Jim) Rems, Comisionado
Christopher Del Negro, Comisionado
Stephen Ruddock, Comisionado

CENTRO COMUNITARIO TED ADCOCK
535 KELLY AVENUE

HALF MOON BAY, CA
PRESENCIAL/HÍBRIDA
Esta agenda contiene una breve descripción de cada asunto que se considerará. Quienes deseen dirigirse a la Comisión de Planificación y al Concejo Municipal sobre cualquier asunto que no figure en la agenda, pero que sea competencia de la Comisión de Planificación y del Concejo Municipal, pueden pasar al podio durante el Foro Público de la agenda y tendrán un máximo de tres minutos para exponer su tema. Quienes deseen hablar sobre un asunto de Negocios o de Audiencia Pública serán llamados al podio en el momento oportuno durante la consideración de ese punto.

Comentarios del público: El personal responderá a los comentarios escritos del público que se presenten antes de las 1:00 PM del lunes, el día anterior a la fecha programada de la reunión. Los comentarios presentados después de esa hora se remitirán a la Comisión de Planificación y al Concejo Municipal hasta una hora antes del inicio de la reunión.

NOTA: Toda persona que desee presentar materiales a la Comisión de Planificación y al Concejo Municipal deberá entregar siete copias al Secretario de Planificación.

Las copias de la documentación escrita relativa a cada asunto de la agenda se encuentran archivadas en la Oficina de la Secretaría Municipal en el Ayuntamiento, donde están disponibles para inspección pública. Si se solicita, la agenda estará disponible en formatos alternativos apropiados para las 19 personas con discapacidad, según lo exige la Sección 202 de la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132). Puede obtener información llamando al 650-726- 8271.

En cumplimiento de la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades, puede obtener asistencia especial para participar en esta reunión comunicándose con la Oficina de la Secretaría Municipal al 650-726- 8271. Un aviso con 48 horas de anticipación permitirá a la ciudad proporcionar adaptaciones razonables para garantizar la accesibilidad a esta reunión (28 CFR 35.102-35.104, ADA Título II). http://halfmoonbay.gov/
LA REUNIÓN CONCLUIRÁ A LAS 10:30 PM, A MENOS QUE LA COMISIÓN DE PLANIFICACIÓN Y EL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL, Y EL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL, DECIDAN EXTENDERLA POR VOTO DE MAYORÍA SIMPLE.

PROTOCOLOS DE PARTICIPACIÓN EN LA REUNIÓN HÍBRIDA
Esta reunión se celebrará de forma presencial y por Zoom para la participación del público. Los comentarios del público podrán hacerse en persona o de forma remota por Zoom, y habrá servicio de interpretación disponible. La Comisión de Planificación, el Concejo Municipal y el personal participarán en persona. Durante los periodos de comentarios del público, los asistentes podrán usar la función "levantar la mano" y se les llamará y se les activará el micrófono cuando sea su turno de hablar. Si se conecta por teléfono, use *9 para levantar la mano y *6 para silenciar y activar el micrófono. La reunión también se transmitirá en el Canal 27 y en pacificcoast.tv.

Haga clic en el siguiente enlace para unirse al seminario web:

Haga clic aquí para unirse a la Sesión de Estudio Conjunta Teléfono: 1-669-900-6833, 83502131401#,*94019#
ID del seminario web: 835 0213 1401
Código de acceso: 94019
Wi-Fi: HMB Public
Contraseña: Recreation1
TELECONFERENCIA/REMOTO: Vice presidente Rick Hernandez, Vestíbulo del Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach Resort & Spa; 21500 Pacific Coast Hwy, Huntington Beach, CA 92648.

JURAMENTO A LA BANDERA Y PASE DE LISTA
COMENTARIOS DEL PÚBLICO
RECONOCIMIENTO Y AGRADECIMIENTO AL COMITÉ ASESOR DE ARQUITECTURA (AAC)

1. ASUNTOS DE AUDIENCIA PÚBLICA
20 1.A SESIÓN DE ESTUDIO CONJUNTA CON EL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL Y LA COMISIÓN DE PLANIFICACIÓN, Y EL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL: ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL PLAN DE IMPLEMENTACIÓN – INFORME DE ANÁLISIS E IDENTIFICACIÓN
Recomendación del personal: Recibir una presentación que introduzca el proyecto general de Actualización del Plan de Implementación, incluidos los hallazgos y las recomendaciones del Informe de Análisis e Identificación del proyecto, y brindar la oportunidad de recibir comentarios del público, debatir y dar instrucciones al personal para orientar la elaboración de los borradores preliminares de la normativa. En esta reunión no se propone adoptar ni modificar el Plan de Implementación ni el Código Municipal.

Presentación a cargo de: Paul Chytla-Hinze, Planificador Asociado, y Martha Miller, Consultora del Plan de Implementación

INFORME DEL PERSONAL
ANEXO 1

CLAUSURA
21

Page 1 of 3 ends

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: October 6, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Kenneth Stiles, Interim Administrative Services Director TITLE: SIDE LETTER AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AND THE

REPRESENTED MANAGEMENT TEAM REGARDING SPECIALIZED LICENSE PAY

AND HR OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution approving two Side Letter Agreements between the City of Half Moon Bay and the Represented Management Team (RMT) to:

1. Renew and expand Specialized License Pay eligibility to include the Chief Building Official classification and incorporate the provisions into the 2026–2030 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); and

2. Establish a collaborative process for developing HR operational guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The estimated annual cost of extending Specialized License Pay to the Chief Building Official is $17,931. The side letter regarding HR operational guidelines has no fiscal impact.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

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

BACKGROUND:

The City and RMT previously entered into a Side Letter Agreement establishing Specialized License Pay of ten percent (10%) for eligible Public Works Supervisors who possess and maintain designated professional licenses.

The City recently approved a successor MOU with RMT covering July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2030.

Since the establishment of the original Side Letter Agreement, the City has introduced the Chief Building Official (CBO) as a new classification. The City proposes extending eligibility for 22

Page 2 of 3 ends

Specialized License Pay to the CBO and incorporating the updated provisions into the 2026– 2030 RMT MOU.

DISCUSSION:

Specialized License Pay
Public Works inspections may include the installation or repair of sidewalks, curbs and gutters, driveway approaches, sewer connections, and other improvements within the public right-ofway. These inspections help ensure compliance with applicable construction standards and City requirements and require specialized technical knowledge and appropriate professional licensure.

While the Chief Building Official is responsible for overseeing the City's building inspection and code enforcement functions, Public Works inspections are not ordinarily included within the classification's expected duties.

The City previously recognized these specialized qualifications through a Side Letter Agreement providing ten percent (10%) Specialized License Pay to eligible Public Works Supervisors.

Extending eligibility to the newly established CBO classification would provide consistency in how the City compensates employees who possess the professional qualifications necessary to perform these specialized inspections.

Under the proposed Side Letter, the Chief Building Official would be eligible for ten percent (10%) Specialized License Pay upon obtaining and maintaining the designated professional license. The agreement would also renew the existing provisions for eligible Public Works Supervisors.

As the successor MOU has been approved by the City Council but has not yet been executed by the parties, the City proposes incorporating the updated provisions into the final agreement prior to signature. This would consolidate the Specialized License Pay provisions into the successor MOU and provide greater clarity and consistency in their administration.

Human Resources Operational Guidelines
The City and RMT have also developed a separate Side Letter Agreement to establish a collaborative process for developing HR operational guidelines during the term of the 2026–2030 MOU.

The proposed Side Letter identifies six areas for collaboration: promotions, working out of class and interim assignments, specialized assignments, employee off-boarding, annual evaluations, and temporary staffing.

The intent is to establish a consistent framework for administering personnel practices while providing RMT an opportunity to participate in the development of operational guidelines affecting represented employees.
23

Page 3 of 3 ends

Under the proposed agreement, the City and RMT would commence collaborative discussions during the first year of the MOU. Following these discussions, the City would retain final authority over the content and implementation of the guidelines, subject to applicable legal obligations.

The Side Letter does not establish specific personnel policies or modify existing compensation or benefits. Rather, it establishes a commitment to collaborate on the identified operational matters.

The agreement would remain in effect through June 30, 2030, and automatically expire with the successor MOU unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Resolution

2. Specialized License Pay Side Letter Agreement

3. HR Operational Guidelines Side Letter Agreement
24 Resolution No. C-2026-____

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

SIDE LETTER AGREEMENTS WITH THE REPRESENTED MANAGEMENT TEAM (RMT) REGARDING

SPECIALIZED LICENSE PAY AND HR OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, the City of Half Moon Bay (City) and the Represented Management Team (RMT) previously entered into a Side Letter Agreement providing ten percent (10%) Specialized License Pay to eligible Public Works Supervisors who hold and maintain a designated Inspector License; and
WHEREAS, the City has since established the Chief Building Official (CBO) as a new classification and desires to extend eligibility for Specialized License Pay to this classification under the same compensation structure; and
WHEREAS, the City and RMT have reached agreement to renew the existing Specialized License Pay provisions and extend eligibility to the CBO classification, contingent upon obtaining and maintaining the designated professional license; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved a successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with RMT for the period of July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2030, which has not yet been formally executed by the parties; and
WHEREAS, the City and RMT desire to incorporate the updated Specialized License Pay provisions into the 2026–2030 MOU prior to its execution; and WHEREAS, the City and RMT have also developed a separate Side Letter Agreement establishing a collaborative process for developing HR operational guidelines addressing promotions, working out of class and interim assignments, specialized assignments, employee off-boarding, annual evaluations, and temporary staffing; and WHEREAS, the HR Operational Guidelines Side Letter provides for collaborative discussions during the first year of the MOU, while preserving the City's final authority over the content and implementation of such guidelines, subject to applicable legal obligations; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve both Side Letter Agreements to support consistent administration of personnel practices and the implementation of the 2026–2030 RMT MOU.

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

1. Approves the Side Letter Agreement between the City and RMT regarding Specialized License Pay, attached hereto as Exhibit A, extending eligibility for ten percent (10%) 25 Specialized License Pay to the Chief Building Official classification and renewing the existing provisions for eligible Public Works Supervisors.

2. Authorizes incorporation of the Specialized License Pay provisions into the previously approved 2026–2030 RMT Memorandum of Understanding prior to execution by the parties.

3. Approves the Side Letter Agreement between the City and RMT regarding HR Operational Guidelines, attached hereto as Exhibit B, establishing a collaborative process for developing operational guidelines during the term of the 2026–2030 MOU.

4. Authorizes the City Manager to execute both Side Letter Agreements and take the necessary administrative actions to implement their provisions. ***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 6th day of October 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
26 Side Le'er Agreement
Between
The City of Half Moon Bay and
The Represented Management Team
This Side Le*er Agreement (“Side Le*er”) is entered into between the City of Half Moon Bay (“City”) and the Represented Management Team (“RMT”) and supplements the Memorandum of Understanding effecFve July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2030.

The purpose of this Side Le*er is to memorialize the conFnuaFon of previously negoFated Specialized License Pay and to expand eligibility for such pay to the Chief Building Official classificaFon.

1. Specialized License Pay
Subject to City Council approval, employees in the following classificaFons who hold and maintain the qualifying inspector license shall receive a wage differenFal equal to ten percent (10%) of base pay:
• Public Works Supervisor
• Chief Building Official
The City and RMT agree that this provision shall be incorporated into the Memorandum of Understanding. Except as expressly modified by this Side Le*er, all other terms of the MOU remain unchanged.
____________________ ________ ___________________ ____________ Julissa Acosta Date Ma*hew Chidester Date
Represented Management City Manager
____________________ ________ ___________________ ____________ Ma*hew Nicholes Date Kenneth SFles Date
Represented Management Interim AdministraFve Services Director 27 Side Le'er Agreement
Between
The City of Half Moon Bay and
The Represented Management Team
This Side Le*er Agreement (“Side Le*er”) is entered into between the City of Half Moon Bay (“City”) and the Represented Management Team (“RMT”) and supplements the Memorandum of Understanding effecFve July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2030.

HR Opera>onal Guidelines
During the term of the 2026–2030 MOU, the City will collaborate with RMT regarding the development of HR operaFonal guidelines addressing the following subject ma*ers:
• PromoFons
• Working Out of Class and Interim Assignments
• Specialized Assignments
• Employee Off-Boarding
• Annual EvaluaFons
• Temporary Staffing
The parFes agree to commence collaboraFve discussions regarding these guidelines during the first year of the MOU.

The parFes acknowledge and agree that, following such collaboraFon, the City shall retain final authority to determine the content and implementaFon of any guidelines developed under this Side Le*er, subject to any applicable legal obligaFons.

Term
This Side Le*er shall remain in effect through June 30, 2030 and shall automaFcally expire upon expiraFon of the 2026–2030 MOU unless otherwise agreed to in wriFng by the parFes.

Except as expressly provided in this Side Le*er, all other terms of the MOU remain unchanged. ____________________ ________ ___________________ ____________ Julissa Acosta Date Ma*hew Chidester Date
Represented Management City Manager
____________________ ________ ___________________ ____________ Ma*hew Nicholes Date Kenneth SFles Date
Represented Management Interim AdministraFve Services Director 28 BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

MOON BAY PROPERTY
_____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolu:on authorizing the City Manager to execute an Estoppel Cer:ficate in connec:on with the private sale of the real property located at 2000 Fairway Drive and 1 Miramontes Point Road, Half Moon Bay, California, otherwise known as the Ritz Carlton Half Moon Bay.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this ac:on.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This ac:on supports the Infrastructure and Environment Elements of the Strategic Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This administra:ve ac:on is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sec:on 15301 (Exis:ng Facili:es), as the execu:on of this cer:ficate involves no physical changes to the environment or expansion of use.

BACKGROUND:

On June 26, 2000, the City entered into an Encroachment Agreement for the Construc:on and Maintenance of a Hotel Greeter Sta:on and Appurtenant Facili:es within the Miramontes Point Road Public Right of Way.

The current private property owner, Strategic Hotels & Resorts, has entered into an escrow agreement to sell the underlying real estate asset to Regency Half Moon Bay. As a standard due diligence con:ngency for commercial real estate and private transac:ons, buyers and lenders require tenants or associated public agencies to execute an Estoppel Cer:ficate. This prevents any party from later claiming different terms or unrecorded defaults. 29 DISCUSSION:

Staff and the City A2orney’s Office have reviewed the requested Estoppel Cer:ficate. Staff has verified the following opera:onal and financial parameters:
• Status: The Encroachment Agreement remains in full force and effect and has not been amended.
• Financial Standing: The current property owner/seller is not in default with the City for any related payments, taxes, or fees, with the excep:on of …. • No Defaults: To the best of staff’s knowledge, neither the City nor the current property owner/seller is in default of any obliga:ons under the Encroachment Agreement, with the excep:on of….

Execu:ng this document is a standard contractual request. Refusing to sign could delay or stall the private real estate transac:on or violate Sec:on 25 "Estoppel Cer:ficate" of the Encroachment Agreement.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolu:on

2. Estoppel Cer:ficate (to be a2ached later)
30 Resolution No. C-2026-

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

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRIVATE SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2000 FAIRWAY DRIVE AND 1 MIRAMONTES POINT

ROAD, HALF MOON BAY, CALIFORNIA, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE RITZ CARLTON HALF MOON BAY.

WHEREAS, on June 26, 2000, the City entered into an Encroachment Agreement for the Construction and Maintenance of a Hotel Greeter Station and Appurtenant Facilities within the Miramontes Point Road Public Right of Way; and
WHEREAS, the current private property owner, Strategic Hotels & Resorts, has entered into an escrow agreement to sell the underlying real estate asset to Regency Half Moon Bay, LLC; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 25 of the Encroachment Agreement, the parties have requested the City execute an Estoppel Certificate to prevent any party from later claiming different terms or unrecorded defaults; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed and approved the Estoppel Certificate as being true and correct.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an Estoppel Certificate in connection with the private sale of the real property located at 2000 Fairway Drive and 1 Miramontes Point Road, Half Moon Bay, California, otherwise known as the Ritz Carlton Half Moon Bay. ***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 6th day of October 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
31 ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE

ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
The undersigned hereby certifies, as of this 6th day of October, 2026, in accordance with that certain Encroachment Agreement and Permit Between the City of Half Moon Bay and VestarAthens/YCP II Half Moon Bay, L.L.C. for the Construction and Maintenance of a Hotel Greeter Station and Appurtenant Facilities within Public Right of Way dated June 26, 2000 and recorded June 7, 2000 as Instrument No. 2000-096002 in the Official Records of San Mateo County, California (the “Agreement”), to REGENCY HALF MOON BAY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, (together with its successors and assigns, “Purchaser”) and any lender which makes a loan to Purchaser with respect to the Hotel (as defined below), and such lender’s successors and assigns (“Lender”), as follows (capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Agreement):

1. That the undersigned, City of Half Moon Bay (the “City”), is the “City” under the Agreement.

2. That the property commonly known as 2000 Fairway Drive and 1 Miramontes Point Road, Half Moon Bay, California and more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Hotel”) is subject to the Agreement.

3. That the Agreement is in full force and effect and has not been amended, assigned, or repealed in any respect, except as indicated above, and that no additional property has been added to the jurisdiction of the Agreement other than as set forth in the Agreement.

4. There are no other agreements (recorded or otherwise) relating to encroachments in the public right of way with respect to the Hotel other than the Agreement.

5. To the best of the City’s knowledge, no default exists under the Agreement with respect to the owner of the Hotel nor the Hotel, and no event has occurred which, with the giving of notice or passage of time, or both, would constitute such a default. There are no liens pending with respect to the non-payment of assessments or any other default under the Agreement with respect to the Hotel.

6. To the best of the City’s knowledge, that the Hotel is in compliance with the Agreement.

The date of the last determination of such compliance is October 6, 2026.

7. The undersigned hereby further certifies that the City has not assigned any of its rights or duties under the Agreement to any other person or entity, and that the person(s) executing this Estoppel Certificate on behalf of the undersigned is authorized to do so.

8. It is understood by the undersigned that (i) Purchaser is relying upon this Estoppel Certificate in connection with its acquisition and/or financing of the Hotel and (ii) any Lender may rely upon this Estoppel Certificate in connection with Lender’s financing of the Hotel. 32 2

9. This Estoppel Certificate is limited to matters relating to the Agreement only, and does not extend to any other obligations, duties or regulations that may exist between the City and Hotel, including but not limited to compliance with the City’s Transient Occupancy or Business License requirements. Transient Occupancy Taxes with respect to the Hotel for the period covering September 2021 through August 2024 have been audited and paid in full by Hotel. Transient Occupancy Taxes for the periods September 2024 to August 2026 have been paid by Hotel but not yet audited by the City.
[Signatures appear on following page]
33 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Estoppel Certificate as of the date first above written.

ASSOCIATION: The City of Half Moon Bay,
a municipal corporation
By:

Name:

Title:
34 4
Exhibit “A”
Legal Description of the Hotel

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF HALF MOON

BAY, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

TRACT ONE:

PARCEL ONE:

PARCELS A AND B, AS DELINEATED UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED “PARCEL MAP, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 1 AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED JANUARY 14TH, 1985 IN THE RECORDER’S OFFICE OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS DOCUMENT NO. 85003957, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS” FILED FOR RECORD ON APRIL 23, 2001, IN BOOK 73, PAGE 64, OF PARCEL

MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

APN: 066-092-770 AND 066-092-780
JPN: 066-009-092-31 AND 066-009-092-31.02
PARCEL TWO:

A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR SIGN PURPOSES AS CONVEYED IN GRANT OF EASEMENTS RECORDED MARCH 5, 1990, UNDER RECORDER’S DOCUMENT NO. 90029638, OFFICIAL RECORDS, OVER A PORTION OF PARCEL "A" OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 61, PAGES 92 AND 93, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE

OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL "A",

SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE LABELED "NORTH 82° 08' 44" EAST, 77.71'"; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, WESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE, SOUTH 82° 08' 44" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 18.91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 10° 02' 19" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 33.65 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY EDGE OF THAT CERTAIN 24 FOOT WATERLINE EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY EDGE OF SAID EASEMENT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56° 57' 38", A DISTANCE OF 44.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87° 00' 00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 24.52 FEET TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL "A"; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00° 12' 19.2", A DISTANCE OF

35.62 FEET (RECORD) ((00°11’26.2” A DISTANCE OF 33.07 FEET)) TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 83° 53' 26", A DISTANCE OF 43.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
35 5
PARCEL THREE:

NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, ABOVE, FOR

DRAINAGE, AS CREATED BY THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT AGREEMENT (VESTAR HOTEL DRAINAGE) DATED JANUARY 14, 1999, RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1999, DOCUMENT NO. 99012016, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.

PARCEL FOUR:

NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, ABOVE, FOR

PRIVATE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, CONNECTION TO PUBLIC UTILITIES AND

PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS, AS CREATED BY THAT

CERTAIN NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AGREEMENT (FAIRWAY DRIVE EXTENSION) DATED JANUARY 14, 1999, RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1999, DOCUMENT NO. 99012017, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.

PARCEL FIVE:

NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, ABOVE, FOR

COASTAL TRAIL AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, INGRESS AND EGRESS, AS CREATED

BY THAT CERTAIN NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AGREEMENT (OCP COASTAL TRAIL) DATED JANUARY 14, 1999, RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1999, DOCUMENT NO. 99012018, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.

PARCEL SIX:

NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, ABOVE, FOR

ACCESS, INGRESS AND EGRESS OF MAINTENANCE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES,

AS CREATED BY THAT CERTAIN NONEXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AGREEMENT (ORIGINAL COURSE EMERGENCY AND MAINTENANCE VEHICLE ACCESS) DATED JANUARY 14,1999, RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1999, DOCUMENT NO. 99012019, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.

PARCEL SEVEN:

NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, ABOVE, FOR

ACCESS, INGRESS AND EGRESS OF MAINTENANCE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES,

AS CREATED BY THAT CERTAIN NONEXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AGREEMENT (OCEAN COURSE EMERGENCY AND MAINTENANCE VEHICLE ACCESS) DATED JANUARY 14, 1999, RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1999, DOCUMENT NO. 99012020, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.

PARCEL EIGHT:
36 6

NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, ABOVE, FOR

COASTAL TRAIL AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, INGRESS AND EGRESS, AS CREATED

BY THAT CERTAIN NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AGREEMENT (SWC COASTAL TRAIL) DATED JANUARY 14, 1999, RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1999, DOCUMENT NO. 99012021, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.

PARCEL NINE:

NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, ABOVE, FOR

ENCROACHMENTS, AS CREATED BY THAT CERTAIN NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AGREEMENT (HOTEL ENCROACHMENTS) DATED JANUARY 14,1999, RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1999, DOCUMENT NO. 99012022, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.

PARCEL TEN:

NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, ABOVE, FOR USE OF

ROADWAY, INCLUDING INGRESS AND EGRESS, AS CREATED BY THAT CERTAIN

NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AGREEMENT (MIRAMONTES POINT ROAD) DATED JANUARY 14, 1999, RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1999, DOCUMENT NO. 99012023, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.

PARCEL ELEVEN:

NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, ABOVE, FOR

LANDSCAPING, AS CREATED BY THAT NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AGREEMENT (GOLF COURSE LANDSCAPING) DATED JANUARY 14, 1999, RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1999, DOCUMENT NO. 99012024, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.

PARCEL TWELVE:

NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, ABOVE, FOR

PARKING FACILITIES, AS CREATED BY THAT CERTAIN NON-EXCLUSIVE RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT (PARKING) DATED JANUARY 14, 1999, RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1999, DOCUMENT NO. 99012002, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.

PARCEL THIRTEEN:

RIGHTS OF USE AND ENJOYMENT, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, ABOVE, OF

THOSE GOLF COURSES LOCATED ON THE ORIGINAL COURSE PROPERTY AND THE

OCEAN COURSE PROPERTY, AS DEFINED IN THE UNRECORDED HOTEL, GOLF

COURSES AND COLONY CLUB OPERATION AND ACCESS AGREEMENT DATED JANUARY 14, 1999, A MEMORANDUM OF WHICH WAS RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1999, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS, SERIAL NO. 99012028, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.

TRACT TWO:
37 7

A LEASEHOLD INTEREST CREATED BY AN UNRECORDED GROUND LEASE DATED AUGUST 7, 2024, EXECUTED BY COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, (LANDLORD) IN FAVOR

OF DTRS HALF MOON BAY, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (TENANT), A MEMORANDUM OF WHICH RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 2024, INSTRUMENT NO. 2024-053320, OFFICIAL RECORDS IN AND TO THE FOLLOWING:

SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND BEING A

PORTION OF LANDS DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, RECORDED MAY 11, 1998 IN INSTRUMENT NO. 98-070330, OFFICIAL

RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID DEED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO;

1. THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LANDS DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED, NORTH 78° 27' 00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 274.62 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION;

2. THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 78° 27' 00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 44.47 FEET;

3. THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 26° 31' 54" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 71.75 FEET;

4. THENCE SOUTH 71° 14' 48" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 49.75 FEET;

5. THENCE NORTH 26° 31' 54" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 79.67 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: PORTION OF 066-082-040
JPN: 066-008-082-01.01 PORTION
38 BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
FOR THE MEETING OF: OCTOBER 6, 2026
_____________________________________________________________________________ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Ma2hew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Maggie Rodriguez, City Clerk
Captain Eamonn Allen, Chief of Police Services
TITLE: RESPONSE TO SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT – “IS OUR FLOCK OF ALPR CAMERAS PROPERLY TENDED?”
_____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolu:on authorizing the Mayor to sign a le2er in response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report - “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” dated August 3, 2026 FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this ac:on.

BACKGROUND:

On August 3, 2026, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury issued a report - “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” (A2achment 2). The main issue that prompted the report was that over the past year, Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) have come under increasing public scru:ny. The report examines whether ALPR operators in San Mateo County (SMC) are in full compliance with applicable California law and whether their prac:ces align with their adopted ALPR policies.

The City implemented a two-year pilot of the use of ALPR technology in Half Moon Bay and entered into an agreement with Flock, Inc. for 14 units mounted in 7 loca:ons, which went online beginning in mid-to-late 2025. The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, who provides contract law enforcement services to the City, is the administrator of the City’s ALPR data, under the City’s ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy and the County’s ALPR Privacy Policy, as well as State and Federal laws.

On September 15, 2026, the City Council held a study session on the Pilot Program, and directed staff to not exercise an extension of the Flock agreement, which expires on October 28, 2026.

Staff and the Sheriff ware working with Flock to wind down the program and remove the cameras at this :me.
39 DISCUSSION:

The Civil Grand Jury Report - “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” contains findings and recommenda:ons. The City’s draa response le2er, included as Exhibit A to the Resolu:on, includes responses to those findings.

Pursuant to Penal Code Sec:ons 933 and 933.05, the City is obligated to respond to the Grand Jury report’s findings and recommenda:ons no later than November 3, 2026.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolu:on including Exhibit A: Response le2er

2. Grand Jury Report dated August 3, 2026 - “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”
40 Resolution No. C-2026-

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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SAN MATEO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT - “IS OUR FLOCK OF ALPR CAMERAS PROPERLY TENDED”
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2026, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury issued a report - “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended”; and
WHEREAS, the Grand Jury Report included a request to the City of Half Moon Bay to respond to the report’s findings and recommendations by November 3, 2026; and WHEREAS, at the regular City Council meeting on October 6, 2026, the City Council reviewed this report, its findings and recommendations, and authorized the Mayor to sign the response letter as required under Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05(b).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby accepts the findings and recommendations from the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report - “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended” and authorizes the Mayor to sign and submit the response (Exhibit A).
***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 6th day of October 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
41 October 6, 2026
Hon. Rachel Holt
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Jenarda Dubois
Hall of Justice
400 County Center – 8th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
RE: San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report - “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”
Dear Judge Holt,
The City of Half Moon Bay hereby submits this letter in reply to the San Mateo Grand Jury Report, “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” Pursuant to Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 and the Brown Act, this response was approved by the City Council at the October 6, 2026, public meeting.

It should be noted, on September 15, 2026, the Half Moon bay City Council hosted a study session on the use of ALPR technology in Half Moon Bay, and the City’s Pilot ALPR program. At the meeting, Council directed staff not to pursue an extension of the City’s contract with Flock, Inc, which expires on October 28, 2026. The City has already initiated the wind-down of the ALPR pilot program, and does not have any current plans to utilize ALPR technology in the future. It should also be noted that the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement services to the City via a contract, and is the designated administrator of the Flock ALPR units within the City and associated data. All responses reflect these clarifications.

FINDINGS
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.SS(b).

Response: Wholly Agree
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.

Response: Wholly Agree
42 F6: The ALPR operator's Flock Safety contract does not include provisions specifically requiring compliance with applicable California ALPR laws.

Response: Wholly Agree
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.

Response: Wholly Agree
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 relationship.

Response: Wholly Agree
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.

Response: Wholly Agree

RECOMMENDATIONS
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.S(f), or that the sharing is otherwise permitted by law; if no lawful basis exists, the operator should terminate the sharing relationship.

Response: Support this recommendation; This recommendation has been implemented by the Sheriff’s Office in the following manner, which also applies to the City: the Sheriff's Office has terminated sharing relationships with all private university security entities. As of July 2026, no private universities have had access to Sheriff's Office or City of Half Moon Bay ALPR data.

Further, the Sheriff's Office will not develop sharing relationships with any private university security entity unless it obtains written legal and factual determinations that the security entity qualifies as a public agency pursuant to Civil Code section 1798.90.5(f), or that sharing is permitted by law.

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. 43 Response: Support this recommendation; This recommendation will be implemented in the following manner: The City of Half Moon Bay will not be renewing its current contract with Flock.

Any future contracts will ensure that the recommended contractual language is included.

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

Response: Support this recommendation; This recommendation has been implemented by the Sheriff’s Office in the following manner, which also applies to the City: the Sheriff's Office ALPR policy has been updated to accurately reflect the process used to approve ALPR data-sharing relationships. If the City were to reinstate the use of ALPRs, it would first update its 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 relationship.

Response: Support this recommendation; This recommendation has been implemented by the Sheriff’s Office in the following manner, which also applies to the City: the Sheriff's Office ALPR policy has been updated to include written criteria governing the approval, denial, periodic review, and termination of in-state ALPR network-sharing relationships. If the City were to reinstate the use of ALPRs, it would first update its policy to include written criteria governing the approval, denial, periodic review, and termination of in-state ALPR network-sharing relationship.

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

Response: Support this recommendation; This recommendation has been implemented by the Sheriff’s Office in the following manner, which also applies to the City: the Sheriff's Office ALPR policy has been updated. The conflicting verbiage, stating ALPR data was retained for 1-year, has been removed. Now, Sheriff's Office policy and the Flock Transparency Portal are aligned with the retention period of 30 days, per the current contract between Flock Group Inc. and the Sheriff's Office. If the City were to reinstate the use of ALPRs, it would ensure that the contract terms for retention match the City’s policy.

In closing, the City of Half Moon Bay thanks the Civil Grand Jury for its efforts to address the issues found related to Automated License Plate Reader Technology, specifically as provided by Flock Inc. We appreciate the opportunity to share our responses.

Sincerely,
Debbie Ruddock, Mayor
City of Half Moon Bay
44 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
45 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 46 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
47 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 48 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. 49 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. 50 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.
51 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. 52 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. 53 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 54 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. 55 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 56 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 57 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
58 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.
59 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. 60 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 61 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. 62 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/ 63 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 20 Appendix A - Flock Safety Offense Types
64

Page 1 of 4 ends

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

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: October 6, 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 Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to study these devices and develop municipal policy recommendations. BPAC completed 65

Page 2 of 4 ends

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.

With the rise in popularity of e-bikes, many jurisdictions and the State have been evaluating or adopting regulations that apply to e-bikes. San Mateo County recently adopted “Ayden’s Ordinance” (named after Ayden Fang) on August 25, 2026. The County’s Ordinance amends County Code Chapter 7.80 to add provisions relating to “Electric Micromobility Devices.” The County’s amendments include, among other things, revisions to definitions, prohibiting operations in an unsafe manner (e.g., acrobatics, tricks), limiting speed when operating on sidewalks or blocking sidewalks or pedestrian paths, and tampering with the manufacturer serial number or identifier. The County’s Ordinance also amends enforcement tools and specifies that the Sheriff’s Office will enforce violations.

There were also number of bills relating to e-bikes that were considered during the 2025-2026 legislative session. Some bills that are awaiting the Governor’s review relating to e-bikes are as follows:
• AB 2595 (Papan) would create the San Mateo Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program and would authorize a local authority within the County of San Mateo, or the County of San Mateo in unincorporated areas, to adopt an ordinance or resolution that would prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle. For the first 60 days following the adoption of an ordinance or resolution for this purpose, the bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a warning notice.

After 60 days, the bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a fine of $25, except as specified. This bill would make a parent or legal guardian with control or custody of an unemancipated minor who violates the ordinance or resolution 66

Page 3 of 4 ends

jointly and severally liable with the minor for the amount of the fine imposed. The Program has a sunset date of January 1, 2031. The bill would also require a local authority or county to administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the enactment of the ordinance or resolution, as specified. • AB 2346 (Wilson) would require sellers and distributors of electric bicycles to disclose specified information at or before the point of sale, including, among other things, the classification and maximum speed of the electric bicycle and a recommendation that persons under 16 years of age should not ride an electric bicycle at a speed greater than 15 miles per hour. The bill would also set a prima facie speed limit of 10 miles per hour on a sidewalk and specify that a conviction of a violation of that speed limit shall not result in a violation point count and make other changes to local authority to set speed limits on a bicycle path or multiuse trail, subject to signage requirements.

The Governor recently signed the following bills relating to e-bikes:
• AB 1569 (Davies) requires that before March 1, 2028, the California Department of Education in consultation with the California Highway Patrol develop a standardized electric bicycle safety and training program for pupils in grades 7 to 12. This bill would encourage local educational agencies and parent organizations to offer training demonstrations to student and parents on electric bicycle operations in collaboration with local law enforcement agencies or local governments, as specified. • AB 1614 (Dixon), requires all bicycle operators and passengers to be properly seated when riding on a Class 1 bikeway.
• SB 1167 (Blakespear) makes a number of changes to the Vehicle Code as well as the Education and Health and Safety Code to update various definitions, including the definition for mopeds and motor-driven cycles. This bill prohibits certain marketing of e-motos or mopeds as standard electric bicycles and also requires that every manufacturer, importer, or seller of a motor-driven cycle, moped, or off-highway electric motorcycle that is powered by an electric motor provide a specified disclosure to all potential buyers in any advertising, including any online advertising on internet websites or social media. This bill also makes changes to the existing label requirements, including adding a requirement that a retailer and bicycle repair shop of electric bicycles verify that the classification label matches the electric bicycle class before installing the classification label on an electric bicycle. 67

Page 4 of 4 ends

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this item is for City Council to review and provide final feedback on 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 discussed above), 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. Staff is discussing the proposed amendments to the speed limit with the City’s partner agencies, including the Coastal Land Trust for the portion of the Coastal Trail south of Seymour and they are amenable to the proposed changes. 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 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
68 § 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, or 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.

D. H. Where any provision of this section has been violated by a minor, then in lieu of criminal proceedings the chief of police 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 chief of police 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)
69 BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: October 6, 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:

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.

Recent analysis has shown that the operating costs for these stations are generally higher than the revenues. 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.
70 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. 71 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.
72 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 73 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 6th of October 2026, by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
74 ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ _______________________________ Maggie Rodriguez, City Clerk Debbie Ruddock, Mayor
75 PUBLIC EV CHARGING

INFRASTRUCTURE & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Matthew Nichols, Senior Management Analysis
August 2026
76 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. 77 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. 78 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 79 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. 80 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. 81 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 82 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.
83 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 84 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:
85 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 86 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. 87 ChargePoint Fixed Costs
88 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)
-
-
89 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
91 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
92 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
93 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)
94 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)
95 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)
96 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 97 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
98

Page 1 of 3 ends

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: October 06, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Dale Leda, Interim Public Works Director / City Engineer TITLE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KANKEL CONROY ROSE & HILL

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE FOR PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR THE CITY HALL PLAZA PROJECT (CIP 1049)
__________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Kankel Conroy Rose & Hill Landscape Architecture (KCRH) for Planning and Construction Documents for the City Hall Plaza Project, including design of a relocated trash enclosure, in an amount not to exceed $108,530.

2. Authorizing the City Manager to transfer $80,000 from the Wavecrest Road Water Line Project (CIP 9004) to the City Hall Plaza Project (CIP 1049) to provide sufficient funding to complete design and related activities for the project.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City Hall Plaza Project has a current fund balance of approximately $40,000. The recommended transfer would increase the total budget for design and related services to $120,000, covering both the above professional services agreement and a small contingency for additional costs leading up to project advertisement and construction.

Uncommitted funds from the Wavecrest Road Water Line Project (CIP 9004) would be utilized for the proposed transfer. Construction on the water line is complete and only small final punchlist items are anticipated prior to project closeout. The proposed transfer to the City Hall Plaza project would leave additional approximately $680,000 in uncommitted reserves in the CIP 9004 fund.

Construction of the project is currently unfunded. Staff will explore both potential grant and donor financial support while the project progresses through coastal development permit approval and construction document development.
99

Page 2 of 3 ends

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This action authorizes professional services to develop plans and pursue project approvals, including applicable environmental review and discretionary entitlements.

BACKGROUND:

The City Hall Plaza Project grew from a community effort to create a permanent public setting for The Spirit of Life Bell, a sculpture made by local artist and Navy veteran Silvio Modena. The Bell was intended to recognize service to country and community.

The Parks and Recreation Commission considered the Bell and the possibility of creating a public space within a portion of the City Hall parking lot in August and September 2022. In October 2022, the City Council authorized temporary placement of the Bell at City Hall and supported development of concepts for use of the space as a community park or plaza. KCRH (formerly Kikuchi + Kankel Design Group) subsequently worked with community members to prepare three parklet concepts. Those concepts were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission in February 2023, and Council received an update on the concepts and parklet planning in May 2023.

At that meeting, Council formally accepted the Bell as a donation and authorized it to remain temporarily at City Hall until Council established a permanent location.

The City Hall public-space concept was later included in the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan as a planned pocket park. The City subsequently established the City Hall Plaza project as CIP 1049 in June 2026.

The project has also gained a new cultural element through Half Moon Bay’s developing sistercity relationship with Nazaré, Portugal. Following discussion of a Portuguese navigational compass rose as a symbol of that relationship, staff has been working to incorporate the rose into the City Hall Plaza design. The plaza offers an opportunity to bring the Bell, the compass rose, and the space adjoining City Hall and the historic Old Jail together in a cohesive civic setting.

DISCUSSION:

Kankel Conroy Rose & Hill Landscape Architecture (KCRH) prepared the preliminary landscape plan for City Hall Plaza dated September 23, 2026. The proposed agreement would advance the project through a coastal development permit application and final construction documents.

Key deliverables include a refined design and construction cost estimate, permit drawings with up to three rendered visualizations, and 65 percent, 90 percent, and 100 percent construction document packages.
100

Page 3 of 3 ends

The scope includes presentations at one meeting each of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Architectural Advisory Committee, and a Planning Commission hearing on the coastal development permit, as well as additional coordination with the design team.

The agreement includes an estimated $20,000 for design of a relocated trash enclosure. Its location and requirements are still being developed and will require additional coordination with Republic Services and structural engineering services.

The project schedule anticipated having preliminary coastal development permit design package ready for review by the Planning Commission in December, 2026, with final construction documents expected to be completed and ready for bidding/advertisement in the spring of 2027.

KCRH is uniquely qualified to complete the design on the City’s desired expedited schedule.

Having been involved in the project since its inception in 2022 and continuing their work through preparation of the current preliminary plan, the firm is familiar with the project’s stakeholders, community input, past feedback from City councils and commissions, design constraints, and work completed to date. This knowledge will allow KCRH to proceed directly into permitting and final design.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Kankel Conroy Rose & Hill – Design Proposal

3. Preliminary Site Plan 2026.09.25

4. Preliminary Cost Estimate 2026.09.25
101
RESOLUTION NO. C-2026-

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

A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KANKEL CONROY ROSE AND HILL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE CITY HALL PLAZA PROJECT (CIP 1049) IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $108,530, AND APPROVING A RELATED BUDGET ADJUSTMENT WHEREAS, the City has established the City Hall Plaza Project as Capital Improvement Project No. 1049 to develop a public space adjacent to City Hall; and WHEREAS, CIP 1049 has an existing fund balance of $40,000, and an additional $80,000 is proposed to be reallocated from unspent funds in the Wavecrest Road Water Main Project (CIP 9004); and
WHEREAS, Kankel Conroy Rose & Hill Landscape Architecture (KCRH) has been involved with the development of park or plaza at City Hall since the project’s original inception in 2022; and
WHEREAS, City staff determined that KCRH was the best-qualified consultant to provide landscape architecture and related services based on its qualifications, extensive history working on the project, familiarity with its stakeholders, past community input, and site constraints, and will support the City’s desired expedited design schedule; and WHERAS, KCRH has prepared the project’s preliminary landscape plan and cost estimate, and has submitted a proposal dated September 25, 2026, to prepare coastal development permit drawings and final construction documents, including design of a relocated trash enclosure; and
WHEREAS, KCRH proposes to provide these services on a time-and-materials (hourly) basis, for a total amount not to exceed $108,530.

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

1. Authorizes the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Kankel Conroy Rose & Hill Landscape Architecture (KCRH) for Planning and Construction Documents for the City Hall Plaza Project, in an amount not to exceed $108,530

2. Authorizes the City Manager to transfer $80,000 from the Wavecrest Road Water Line Project (CIP 9004) to the City Hall Plaza Project (CIP 1049) to provide sufficient funding to complete design and related activities for the project. ******************************************************************** 102
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 6th of October 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
103
September 25, 2026
Dale Leda
Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Half Moon Bay
501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
RE: City of Half Moon Bay — City Hall Plaza
Landscape Architectural Services:

Coastal Development Permit & Construction Documents (100% Design) Dear Dale:

We appreciate the opportunity to provide the City of Half Moon Bay with ongoing landscape architectural services to bring the City Hall Plaza project through development of the Coastal Development Permit and construction documents (100% Design).

We recognize that the project remains dynamic, with aspects of the project potentially moving on a different track.

Furthermore, the needs and demands of the City may change the approach to the project over time. As a result, services ultimately provided may vary from this initial summary in order to meet the project’s current needs.

Per our discussion(s), we understand the basis of design to be the Preliminary Landscape Plan, prepared by our office and dated September 23, 2026, and the Boundary and Topography survey, prepared by BGT Land Surveying, dated May 2025. Please note that the numbering of the proposed tasks below continues from our previously approved agreement for conceptual design refinement services.

I. SCOPE OF BASIC SERVICES
Task 2: Coastal Development Permit Drawings & Administration (±35% Construction Documents) Upon receipt of a Notice to Proceed from the City, KCRH shall complete schematic design development of all plaza areas, including determination on site layout, furnishings, finishes, and amenities for City review and comment. Work plan shall include the following tasks and deliverables:

1. Coordinate one (1) project kickoff meeting with City staff to confirm goals and objectives; review the proposed project work plan and schedule; and confirm project management and communication preferences.

2. Refine conceptual plans based on City input and direction, including accessible path of travel, parking, trash enclosure structure, and utilities.

3. KCRH shall develop an estimate of probable costs of construction based on refined conceptual plans.

4. Prepare preliminary cut sheets and material schedule for project, including paving finishes, site furnishings, and small structures.

5. KCRH shall present project for feedback at one (1) meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission. 730 Mill Street, Half Moon Bay | 61 East Main Street, Suite C, Los Gatos Christopher Kankel, PLA, ASLA Principal Thomas W. Conroy, Partner Nathan Rose, PLA Partner Jeanette T. Hill, PLA, ASLA Partner 104
Half Moon Bay City Hall Plaza
Landscape Architectural Services

Page 2 ends

6. KCRH shall present project for feedback at one (1) meeting of the Architectural Advisory Committee.

7. KCRH shall present project for feedback at one (1) City Council meeting.

8. KCRH shall develop the documents necessary to provide a complete Coastal Development Permit application package for City review, including:
a. Existing Conditions Plan documenting current site features to be retained and/or removed. b. Landscape Site Plan delineating the limits of landscape, hardscape, and structure areas of the proposed project; calculations quantifying landscape areas on site; and general finish, character, and quality of the landscape and hardscape areas.
c. Renderings & 3D Visualizations: Development of up to three (3) rendered 3D visualizations from vantage points selected by the City to illustrate the visual impact and benefits of proposed development. KCRH has budgeted for one (1) meeting with City staff to review preliminary model design and to confirm vantage points for final renderings.
d. Conceptual Lighting Plan identifying typical fixture locations and style. e. Schematic Planting Plan identifying general lists of shrub and ground cover plantings. This plan will include typical plant species, mature sizes, spacing, and water-use designations per WUCOLS. f. Schematic Irrigation Plan indicating proposed irrigation distribution methods (drip/spray/bubbler); connections to domestic water service; mainline routing; anticipated annual irrigation volume; and a preliminary irrigation schedule.

9. KCRH shall present project at one (1) Planning Commission hearing for approval of the Coastal Development Permit.

Deliverables: Coastal Development Permit Application, including drawings as outlined above 3D Renderings
Estimate of probable costs of construction
Meetings: Project Kickoff Meeting (1)
Renderings & visualizations staff coordination (1)
Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting (1)
Architectural Advisory Committee (1)
City Council Meeting (1)
Planning Commission Hearing (1)
Task 3: City Hall Plaza Final Design (100% Construction Documents)

1. KCRH shall develop the Construction Documents required for building permits, bidding, and project construction. Documents shall include, at a minimum:
a. Demolition and Tree Protection Plans and specifications indicating existing features to remain, to be removed, and/or to be relocated.
b. Landscape Layout Plans and enlargement of all site amenities providing the horizontal dimensional controls for all site elements, including paving, walls, structures, and all other proposed site items. c. Materials and Finishes Plans identifying qualities and specifications of all surfacing and finishes. d. Grading and Drainage Plans identifying detailed elevation controls for all paving, walls, structures, and other site elements necessary for construction. This plan will also indicate the controls and direction for stormwater flow and piping across the site, connections to the existing drainage system, as well as all infrastructure required to conform to City engineering requirements.

KANKEL CONROY ROSE & HILL
105
Half Moon Bay City Hall Plaza
Landscape Architectural Services

Page 3 ends

e. Construction Details for all site elements, including paving and surfacing, seat walls, curbs and gutters, site furnishings, including bike racks and trash facilities, and other items required of construction. f. Lighting and Site Electrical Plans identifying fixture types, outlets, switches and controls, schematic circuitry diagrams, utility routing, and photometry.
g. Irrigation Plans indicating distribution methods (drip/spray/bubbler); point-of-connection to domestic water service; mainline routing; anticipated annual irrigation volume; preliminary irrigation schedule and total square footage of irrigated area; and irrigation details. h. Landscape Water-Use Calculations to illustrate the annual water budget and expected demand for the proposed irrigation system for compliance with City landscape water-use ordinances (§13.04). i. Planting Plans and enlargements identifying typical plant species, sizes, spacing, quantities, water-use designations per WUCOLS, and planting details.
j. Construction Specifications identifying the means, methods, and materials for construction.

2. KCRH shall prepare and submit 65% (Design Development) and 90% Construction Documents packages for City review and comment, and shall meet with City staff to review comments and prepare revisions as necessary.

3. KCRH shall prepare and submit 100% construction documents package for City building permit review, and shall revise drawings and respond to one round comments as required.

4. KKDG shall update the construction cost budget information provided during the Coastal Development Permit phase based on the final Construction Documents.

Deliverables: 65% Design Development and 90% Construction Documents packages 100% Building Permit package
Final estimate of probable costs of construction
Meetings: City staff coordination meetings (4)
II. OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Task 4: Trash Enclosure Relocation (100% Construction Documents)

1. KCRH shall develop complete design development and construction document package for new trash enclosure. Structure will be developed from the City’s standard trash enclosure detail, but expanded to reflect the currently anticipated size (±10’ x 24’). Structure shall include six foot (6’-0”) high concrete walls, double metal doors, solid roofing, and will include required utility connections (water, sanitary sewer/grease trap, electrical). KCRH will retain the services of a structural engineer to provide safe design parameters for construction. If made necessary due to the selected location, KCRH will assist City staff in the development of a exemption application for approval by the Planning Commission.

III. EXCLUDED SERVICES
Unless specifically noted or contradicted by this proposal or other elsewhere, Excluded Services identified in all previously approved proposals for this project shall remain excluded from our scope of work.

1. Bid administration and construction support.

KANKEL CONROY ROSE & HILL
106
Half Moon Bay City Hall Plaza
Landscape Architectural Services

Page 4 ends

2. Meeting attendance unless specifically noted above; meeting minutes, agenda, or summaries. If additional meetings are requested they shall be billed as “Additional Services” per the Rate Schedule below.

3. Sub-consultant services, such as architects; civil, structural, or electrical engineers; construction traffic plans; surveyors; or environmental consultants.

4. The preparation of any reports, such as geotechnical investigations, biological reports, utility undergrounding, or environmental studies, including documentation related to conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

5. Submittals and City or regulatory agency coordination unless specifically identified above.

6. Significant revisions to the project design required in order to conform to comments received from City departments or commissions may result in Additional Services to be billed at hourly rates. KCRH will not proceed without specific approval from the District.

IV. FEES & COMPENSATION

1. Rate Schedule: KCRH’s services for shall be provided at the following rates:

Principal $235 / hr
Senior Associate $215 / hr
Arborist $175 / hr
Project Manager $165 / hr
Draftsperson $135 / hr
Clerical $110 / hr

2. Basic Services: KCRH shall provide the following services on an hourly basis to the listed maximum amounts.

Task 2: Coastal Development Permit Drawings & Administration (35% CDs) Landscape Architectural Services $27,160
Task 3: City Hall Plaza Final Design (100% CDs)
Landscape Architectural Services $60,870
Subtotal Tasks 2-3 $88,030
Estimated Reimbursable Expenses $500
TOTAL FEES TASKS 2-3: $88,530

KANKEL CONROY ROSE & HILL
107
Half Moon Bay City Hall Plaza
Landscape Architectural Services

Page 5 ends

3. Optional Additional Services: As the scope of these services has not yet been fully defined, potential compensation is provided as an estimate only. KCRH will provide a detailed fee proposal for approval prior to commencing work.

Task 4: Trash Enclosure Relocation (100% CDs)
Landscape Architectural Services $11,000
Structural Engineering $9,000
ESTIMATED FEES TASK 4: $20,000

4. Reimbursable Expenses: All reimbursable expenses related to the project are billable at 1.1 times the direct cost. Reimbursable expenses include printing or plotting of graphics or other documents larger than 11” x 17” for other than in-house use; postage and delivery fees; presentation boards, meeting facilitation tools, signage, and other dedicated items for community events or workshops; travel expenses such as mileage and bridge tolls; and additional consultant services.

KCRH shall prepare and submit invoices on a monthly basis for the time expended, and are due within 25 days or shall be subject to a 1-1/2% interest charge. Kankel Conroy Rose & Hill Landscape Architecture currently maintains insurance limits of $2 million each in general and professional liability, $1 million in automobile liability, and Worker’s Compensation insurance as required by the State of California.

We thank you for the opportunity to continue to provide the City landscape architectural services for the future City Hall Plaza. If you have any questions about this proposed scope, fees, or potential future phases, please do not hesitate to let us know. If this proposal is acceptable to you, please provide a Notice to Proceed and amended Agreement upon approval.

Sincerely,
Tom Conroy
Vice President, CFO

KANKEL CONROY ROSE & HILL
108
109

ESTIMATE DETAIL
Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Comments
1 2 Site Preparation
3 Site Clearing & Grading
4 Demo existing asphalt 6,400 SF $6 $38,400
5 Demo existing concrete 600 SF $10 $6,000
6 Demo existing concrete pavers 275 SF $5 $1,375
7 Demo existing curbs/gutters 275 LF $15 $4,125
8 Miscellaneous clear/grub 6,400 SF $1 $6,400
9 Demo existing generator fence 35 LF $25 $875
10 Temporary Construction
11 Site preparation & fencing 7,400 SF $2.00 $14,800
12 13 SITE PREPARATION $71,975
14 15 Site Improvements
16 Pedestrian Paving
17 Concrete Paving: Type 1 with base 1,250 SF $40 $50,000 18 Concrete Paving: Type 2 with base 2,250 SF $35 $78,750 19 Tile Mosaic on concrete base 350 SF $225 $78,750
20 Truncated dome paving 25 SF $75 $1,875
21 22 Parking Lot Paving
23 Parking lot asphalt patching & conform 800 SF $22 $17,600 24 Miscellaneous parking lot striping & graphics 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 includes Main St. striping

SUMMARY
SECTION % Cost
10 SITE PREPARATION 9.7% $71,975
20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 76.9% $572,130
30 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES 5.9% $43,750
40 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 7.5% $55,700
DIRECT COSTS SUBTOTAL 100% $743,555
SITE REQUIREMENTS 5% $37,178
ESTIMATE SUBTOTAL $780,733
INSURANCE & BONDING 2.5% $19,518
GC FEE 5% $39,037
ESTIMATE TOTAL $839,288
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 10% $83,929
ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION $923,216

AREA TABULATION
AREA Gross SF
Total Site Area (approximate) 7,400

CITY HALL PLAZA
Site Work Estimate
September 25, 2026

Page 1 of 2110 ends

25 Trash enclosure 1 LS $135,000 $135,000 Allowance
26 27 Curbs & Gutters
28 Curb & gutter (Main St & against. bldgs where req’d) 125 LF $175 $21,875 29 Patch roadway at new curbs/gutters 65 LF $22 $1,430
30 Curb only (Interior - No Gutter) 65 LF $90 $5,850
31 32 Walls
33 Walls (<12” high - colored concrete) 60 LF $200 $12,000 34 Seat walls (colored concrete, shaped) 110 LF $750 $82,500 35 36 Site Accessories
37 Bike racks 5 EA $2,500 $12,500
38 Trash Cans (Big Belly) 3 EA $2,000 $6,000
39 Dog Station 1 EA $1,500 $1,500
40 Spirit of Life Bell installation 1 EA $500 $500
41 42 Landscaping and Irrigation
43 Planting & irrigation 1,800 SF $24 $43,200
44 Planting: trees (48”box) 2 EA $3,500 $7,000
45 Soil preparation/fine grading/mulch 1,800 EA $6 $10,800 46 47 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $572,130
48 49 Site Mechanical Utilities
50 Storm Drainage
51 New catch basin 1 EA $7,500 $7,500
52 Storm drain piping (6”ø) 90 LF $75 $6,750
53 Modification of existing CB grate 1 EA $1,500 $1,500 54 55 Miscellaneous
56 Existing utility boxes-leveling/resetting 8 EA $500 $4,000 57 Trench grate & curb 30 LF $300 $9,000
58 Relocate existing generator, reconfigure electrical routing 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Allowance 59 60 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES $43,750
61 62 Site Electrical Utilities
63 Electrical Distribution
64 Electrical connections to City Hall 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Allowance 65 Electrical outlets 6 EA $750 $4,500
66 Misc. electrical requirements 1 EA $5,000 $5,000
67 68 Site Utility
69 Lighting 6,400 SF $8 $51,200
70 71 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES $55,700

ESTIMATE DETAIL
Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Comments

Page 2 of 2111 ends

Half Moon Bay City CouncilOctober 6, 2026

Half Moon Bay City Council
October 6, 2026