Agenda — Pacifica City Council, February 28, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/92690013329
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 926 9001 3329
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Cable Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 February 28, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
February 28, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
CORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID-19) NOTICE

THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 (AS AMENDED BY AB 361) WHICH AUTHORIZES

TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS UNDER THE BROWN ACT DURING CERTAIN PROCLAIMED STATES OF EMERGENCY. THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PROCLAIMED A STATE OF EMERGENCY RELATED TO COVID-19 ON MARCH 4, 2020.

THIS TELECONFERENCED MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT

ESSENTIAL BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 IN ORDER TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ATTENDEES.

Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this City Council Meeting will be held via teleconference only and will not be physically open to the public. City Councilmembers and staff will teleconference into the meeting by audio and/or video. The meeting will be conducted via Zoom.

Below is information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting.

To Observe the Meeting:
• To access the meeting by computer / smartphone, go to:
https://zoom.us/j/92690013329
• To dial-in via phone:

Dial: 1-669-900-6833 And enter Webinar ID: 926 9001 3329 To Participate in the Meeting by Providing Public Comment:
• During the Meeting: Live verbal public comments may be made by members of the public joining the meeting via Zoom. Zoom access information is provided above. Use the “raise hand” feature (for those joining by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”) during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address. The City Clerk will call on people to speak by name provided or last 4 digits of phone number for dial-in attendees.

Please clearly state your full name for the record at the start of your public comment. • Before the Meeting: Written public comments for the record may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date by email to: [email protected] and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public City Council Regular Meeting 2 February 28, 2022
comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Oral Communications” in the Subject Line for items not on the agenda
• Include the submitter’s full name
Written public comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date will be provided in their entirety to the City Council prior to the meeting and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments will be posted to the City’s website for review prior to the meeting.

Alternative Ways to Watch the Meeting:

The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is via the zoom link or phone number listed above, however, there are alternative ways to watch the meeting:
• Watch on TV on local cable channel 26
• Watch a Live Stream of the meeting by following
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream or www.pacificcoast.tv Note: The methods of observing the meeting or providing public comments may be altered or the meeting may be cancelled, if needed. You may check on the status of the meeting by visiting the City’s website at www.cityofpacifica.org for any updates or changes, should they occur.
6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION- Existing Litigation.

Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9 : Geary et al. v. City of Pacifica, United States District Court, Northern District of California(San Francisco), Case No.3:21-cv01780VC. 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 28, 2022

CONSENT CALENDAR
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes.

Items on the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion unless a Councilmember requests, before the vote on the motion, to have an item discussed. Time limit on comments is three minutes or less.

1. Approval of Disbursements for 1/01/22 through 1/15/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 1/01/22 through 1/15/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the regular City Council Meeting held on February 14, 2022 and the special City Council meeting held on February 15, 2022.

3. Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2021.

PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2021.

4. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending December 31, 2021.

PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending December 31, 2021.

5. Pacifica Public Works New Office Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for Public Works Department Office Improvements (New Office Project):

A. Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $132,664.00; and B. Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $150,000.00, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed thirteen percent (13%) of the Construction Services Agreement amount; and
C. Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount.

6. Fairmont Park Play Structure Replacement Parts
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Miracle Recreation Equipment Company (dba Miracle Playsystems, Inc.) for the purchase and installation of replacement parts for the preschool age play structure and the school age play structure at Fairmont Park in the amount of $77,842.66; and approve budget authority in the amount of $85,626.66, which includes a 10% contingency.

City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 28, 2022

7. Consideration of a resolution adopting interim guidance, rules and regulations to implement Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) and directing the preparation of an SB 9 implementing ordinance.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the attached resolution adopting the interim guidance, rules, and regulations to implement SB 9 and directing the preparation of an SB 9 implementing ordinance.

8. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica adding Chapter 32, “Sale or Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes” and Chapter 33, “Sales of Flavored Tobacco Products and Pharmacy Sales of Tobacco Products Prohibited” and amending Section 5-31.03, “Limits on Tobacco Retailer Licenses” within Chapter 31 of Title 5, “Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct” of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Ban the Sale and Distribution of Flavored Tobacco Products, the Sale and Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes and to Prohibit the Sale of Tobacco Products at Pharmacies in the City of Pacifica
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica adding Chapter 32, “Sale or Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes” and Chapter 33, “Sales of Flavored Tobacco Products and Pharmacy Sales of Tobacco Products Prohibited” and amending Section 5-31.03, “Limits on Tobacco Retailer Licenses” within Chapter 31 of Title 5, “Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct” of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Ban the Sale and Distribution of Flavored Tobacco Products, the Sale and Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes and to Prohibit the Sale of Tobacco Products at Pharmacies in the City of Pacifica.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the Agenda is available for the public to address the City Council on any issue that is not on the Agenda. Any person wishing to address the Council shall be recognized by the Mayor during Oral Communications, provided, however, that during the Oral Communications portion of the agenda, only items not on the agenda for that meeting may be addressed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member thereof. Councilmembers shall not enter into debate with speakers under Oral Communications. A maximum time of three minutes will be allowed for any speaker. Pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 1, Section 2-1.118 any person making impertinent, slanderous, or profane remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the Council shall be called to order by the presiding officer and, if such conduct continues, may, at the direction of the presiding officer, be ordered barred from further audience before the Council during the meeting. 7:30PM - PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. Redistricting - Public Hearing #3 to Receive Input Regarding Proposed Draft District Maps, Composition of Council District Boundaries; Select Final Map and Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Title 2, Chapter 9, “District Elections” to Repeal and Replace Section 2-9.02 “City Council Districts Established” of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code to Adopt City Council District Boundaries Based on 2020 Census Data
PROPOSED ACTION:

1. Conduct the Public Hearing to Receive Input Regarding Proposed Draft District Maps and Composition of Council District Boundaries; and
City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 28, 2022

2. Select Final Map and Introduce by Title Only and Waive the First Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Title 2, Chapter 9, “District Elections” by Repealing and Replacing Section 2-9.02, “City Council Districts Established” of the City Of Pacifica Municipal Code to Adopt City Council District Boundaries Based on 2020 Census Data; and finding ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of Council Communications is for Councilmembers to inform each other of items of potential interest to other Councilmembers, such as interagency meetings.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of Staff Communications is for the City Manager to offer announcements as appropriate.

CONSIDERATION

10. Adoption of a Resolution approving the Temporary Safe Parking Program, Operations Agreement with the Pacifica Resource Center, and Funding for the Program; and Introduce an Ordinance amending sections of Titles 4 and 5 the Pacifica Municipal Code related to on-street parking regulations in order to allow participants of the Safe Parking Program to park on the street for more than 72 hours.

PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Move to adopt the Resolution approving the Temporary Safe Parking Program, the Operations Agreement with the Pacifica Resource Center, and Funding for the Program; and finding Approval of the Program Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.
2) Move to Introduce by Title Only and Waive further reading of “Ordinance of The City Council of The City of Pacifica To Amend Article 12 of Chapter 7 "Traffic" Within Title 4 of The Pacifica Municipal Code To Add Section Sec. 4-7.1207 and to Amend Section 5-

2.03, “Violations: Abatement” Within Chapter 2, "Vehicles Parked For Seventy-Two Hours Or More”, Within Title 5 Of The Pacifica Municipal Code Relating To Temporary Safe Parking Permit; and finding Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

11. Consider introduction of an ordinance repealing and replacing Article 4, “Sustainable Food Service Ware and Prohibited Plastic Products” within Chapter 5 of Title 6 of the Municipal Code to adopt new regulations regarding the use of disposable food service ware; and approve and authorize the City Manager to sign approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo to provide educational outreach and enforcement of the food service ware ordinance.

PROPOSED ACTION:

1. Move to introduce by title only and waive further reading, of Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Article 4, “Sustainable Food Service Ware and Prohibited Plastic Products” within Chapter 5 of Title 6 to add a New Article 4, “Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities” to Regulate the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware; and finding the ordinance exempt under the California City Council Regular Meeting 6 February 28, 2022
Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Move to approve the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the County of San Mateo to provide educational outreach and enforcement of the food service ware ordinance Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo to provide educational outreach and authorizing the City Manager to execute the MOU and finding the approval of the MOU exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

12. Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report and direct staff to proceed with conceptual design of preferred alternative.

13. Follow-up Information about Council Chambers Improvements or Relocation of Meetings to an Alternate Location and Update on Returning to In-Person City Council Meetings PROPOSED ACTION:

1. Hear an update about the status of the pandemic and confirm return to in-person City Council and Commission/Committee meetings beginning March 14, 2022; and

2. Receive follow-up information about Council Chambers’ improvements or relocation of City Council meetings to the Community Center or Oceana High School Theatre and provide direction to the City Manager about next steps.

ADJOURN
NOTICE: If you challenge a city's zoning, planning or other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Judicial review of any city administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period for litigation, in certain cases 30 days following the date of the final decision The City of Pacifica will provide assistance for disabled citizens upon at least 24 hours advance notice to the City Manager’s Office (650) 738-7301, or send request via email to:
[email protected] if you need sign language assistance or written material printed in a larger font or taped, advance notice is necessary. All meeting rooms are accessible to the disabled.

The Pacifica Municipal Code is available on line at the City’s website (www.cityofpacifica.org/municode);

HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:

Agendas are posted no later than Friday prior to the City Council meeting date, at the entrance to the City Hall location at the Pacifica Community Center, 540 Crespi Drive.

View on the Internet:

Follow the link to Council agenda, at www.cityofpacifica.org E-mail subscription:

Send a request to Sarah Coffey, at [email protected] City Clerk’s Office/City Manager’s Office
City Hall, 540 Crespi Drive
Council meetings:

City Council Regular Meeting 7 February 28, 2022
Agendas are available at the City Council meeting

HOW TO REACH YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
• Governor Gavin Newsom, State Capitol Building, Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 445-2841 • State Senator Josh Becker, 1528 So. El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 212-3313
• Assembly Member Kevin Mullin, 1528 South El Camino Real, Suite 302 San Mateo, CA 94402 (650) 349-2200
• Congresswoman Jackie Speier, 155 Bovet Road, Suite 780, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 342-0300
• Senator Alex Padilla, B03 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3553
• Senator Dianne Feinstein, #1 Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco CA 94104 (415) 393-0707
• President Joseph R. Biden, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500

CITY COUNCIL
• Mayor Mary Bier, [email protected]
• Mayor pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck, tbigstyck@ pacifica.gov • Councilmember Mike O’Neill, mo’[email protected]
• Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus, [email protected]
• Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer, [email protected]

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for 1/01/22 through 1/15/22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 1/01/22 through 1/15/22.

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer
(650) 738-7402
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Staff has submitted the following disbursements for Council approval:
• Disbursements dated 1/01/22 through 1/15/22 in the amount of $645,744.96 as written on regular checks numbered 58720-58876 (Attachment 1). These disbursements are for Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

FISCAL IMPACT:

These disbursements are within budgeted appropriations.

ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 58720-58876 -1-1 to 1-15-22 (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 8
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY JAN2522 8:15 Page: 1

REPORT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
ORGANIZATION : 001
BANK : 1
PRINT BY : CHECK #
SORT OPTION : CHECK #
PRINT DETAILS : N
ORG NAME FOR EXTRACT FILE : PACIFICA
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY JAN2522 8:15 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 58720 - 58876
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 58720 $439.07 01/05/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 58721 $138.69 01/05/22 00122 0 AIRGAS USA, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 58722 $92.24 01/05/22 00136 0 ALHAMBRA S OUTSTANDING
1 58723 $1612.07 01/05/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58724 $4299.28 01/05/22 00217 3 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS S OUTSTANDING 1 58725 $42.79 01/05/22 00009 1 AT&T LONG DISTANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 58726 $432.04 01/05/22 00234 0 AUTOMATIONDIRECT.COM, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58727 $200.00 01/05/22 04561 0 AVINA, ANGEL S OUTSTANDING 1 58728 $1600.00 01/05/22 05414 0 BEECHER ENGINEERING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58729 $1219.23 01/05/22 04880 0 BLADES GROUP, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 58730 $233.25 01/05/22 00343 0 BOLANDER & SONS, L. PH. S OUTSTANDING 1 58731 $692.96 01/05/22 04524 0 BRUECK, CYNTHIA S OUTSTANDING 1 58732 $856.85 01/05/22 00483 0 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58733 $1818.14 01/05/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 58734 $287.08 01/05/22 00001 346 COLES-BUSSE, MAX S OUTSTANDING 1 58735 $891.00 01/05/22 05082 1 COLUMN, PBC S OUTSTANDING 1 58736 $808.12 01/05/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 58737 $1500.00 01/05/22 05341 0 CREATIVE DIGITAL AGENCY INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58738 $80.00 01/05/22 04000 0 CRIME SCENE CLEANERS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58739 $472.50 01/05/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58740 $25.00 01/05/22 00001 182 CUNANAN, SUZANNE S OUTSTANDING 1 58741 $25025.00 01/05/22 00645 0 DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 58742 $2998.80 01/05/22 00653 0 DELL MARKETING L.P. S OUTSTANDING 1 58743 $14600.00 01/05/22 02201 0 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58744 $94.26 01/05/22 00001 222 DONG, ALAN S OUTSTANDING 1 58745 $937.65 01/05/22 00745 0 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58746 $2787.50 01/05/22 03469 0 EVANTEC CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 58747 $7996.02 01/05/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 58748 $812.34 01/05/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 58749 $750.00 01/05/22 03947 1 GRANICUS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58750 $495.47 01/05/22 00892 0 HACH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 58751 $1000.00 01/05/22 05433 0 HARRY BORG S OUTSTANDING 1 58752 $5545.16 01/05/22 00919 1 HERC RENTALS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58753 $1047.92 01/05/22 00927 0 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC S OUTSTANDING 1 58754 $1077.35 01/05/22 02511 0 IDEXX LABORATORIES S OUTSTANDING 1 58755 $2.00 01/05/22 05432 0 JEFFREY LAPUENTE S OUTSTANDING 1 58756 $1000.00 01/05/22 05434 0 JOHN PORTER S OUTSTANDING 1 58757 $3004.00 01/05/22 04088 0 LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 58758 $94.26 01/05/22 00001 329 LECHLEITNER, RICHARD S OUTSTANDING 1 58759 $6243.00 01/05/22 03790 0 MAZE & ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 58760 $2512.69 01/05/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 58761 $161.82 01/05/22 00001 341 MOORE, JANELLE S OUTSTANDING 1 58762 $600.33 01/05/22 00001 325 NANNI, DOMINIC S OUTSTANDING 1 58763 $178.20 01/05/22 01194 0 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58764 $125.00 01/05/22 05431 0 NOE VENABLE S OUTSTANDING 1 58765 $847.75 01/05/22 02486 0 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS S OUTSTANDING 1 58766 $12480.00 01/05/22 01261 0 PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT S OUTSTANDING 1 58767 $400.00 01/05/22 00001 82 PAUL LAVORINI S OUTSTANDING 1 58768 $2023.85 01/05/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 58769 $3315.00 01/05/22 05430 0 RIGHT-HAND CYBER SECURITY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58770 $1122.50 01/05/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY JAN2522 8:15 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 1 of 3 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 1/25/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 58720-58876 -1-1 to 1-15-22 (4874 : Disbursements - Dated 1/01/22 through 1/15/22) 1 58776 $4407.41 01/05/22 03949 0 SANTA CLARA SYSTEMS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58777 $473.00 01/05/22 02483 0 SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE S OUTSTANDING 1 58778 $7414.20 01/05/22 05124 0 SCAPES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58779 $28.00 01/05/22 01592 1 TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER S OUTSTANDING 1 58780 $28.42 01/05/22 01647 0 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS S OUTSTANDING 1 58781 $1082.81 01/05/22 04576 1 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58782 $262.18 01/05/22 01812 3 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 58783 $2826.10 01/05/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58784 $2677.36 01/05/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 58785 $1459.34 01/05/22 01673 0 VWR INTERNATIONAL S OUTSTANDING 1 58786 $8784.00 01/07/22 03741 0 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 58787 $29.50 01/07/22 01757 1 CALIFORNIA ASSN OF PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS S OUTSTANDING 1 58788 $242.76 01/07/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 58789 $240.00 01/07/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 58790 $9205.50 01/07/22 00493 0 CHALLENGER SPORTS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 58791 $686.00 01/07/22 01757 0 CLEA S OUTSTANDING
1 58792 $50.00 01/07/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 58793 $350.00 01/07/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 58794 $100.00 01/07/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 58795 $4.00 01/07/22 01764 3 NATIONAL D.R.I.V.E S OUTSTANDING 1 58796 $831.92 01/07/22 01758 1 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION S OUTSTANDING 1 58797 $840.00 01/07/22 01759 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 58798 $210.00 01/07/22 01760 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS S OUTSTANDING 1 58799 $420.00 01/07/22 01769 0 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 58800 $4033.92 01/07/22 05376 0 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION INC. S VOIDED 1 58801 $1401.16 01/07/22 01758 5 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 S OUTSTANDING 1 58802 $92.00 01/07/22 01758 4 SMC FIREFIGHTERS PAC S OUTSTANDING 1 58803 $1116.00 01/07/22 01768 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #350 S OUTSTANDING 1 58804 $2675.00 01/07/22 01764 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 S OUTSTANDING 1 58805 $59249.00 01/07/22 01771 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856 S OUTSTANDING 1 58806 $2994.95 01/07/22 01766 0 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA S OUTSTANDING 1 58807 $4291.02 01/12/22 00009 8 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 58808 $216.49 01/12/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 58809 $2210.98 01/12/22 02609 0 ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS S OUTSTANDING 1 58810 $16.00 01/12/22 00115 0 AHEARN JANE S OUTSTANDING 1 58811 $128.49 01/12/22 00136 0 ALHAMBRA S OUTSTANDING 1 58812 $440.93 01/12/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58813 $33973.00 01/12/22 05352 0 ANKAR CYCLES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58814 $7.50 01/12/22 04666 0 B & D DONOR RECOGNITION S OUTSTANDING 1 58815 $37.54 01/12/22 04464 1 BADGE FRAME, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58816 $1868.72 01/12/22 00335 0 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 58817 $5240.16 01/12/22 04524 0 BRUECK, CYNTHIA S OUTSTANDING 1 58818 $216859.39 01/12/22 02502 0 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP S OUTSTANDING 1 58819 $298.00 01/12/22 00011 0 C.W.E.A. S OUTSTANDING 1 58820 $1380.00 01/12/22 01690 0 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 58821 $2441.00 01/12/22 03814 1 CAPPSTONE, INC. S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY JAN2522 8:15 Page: 4

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 58720 - 58876
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 58822 $1620.00 01/12/22 02655 0 CAROLLO S OUTSTANDING 1 58823 $1431.24 01/12/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 58824 $663.73 01/12/22 02822 0 CITY AUTO SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 58825 $1090.00 01/12/22 03756 0 CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO S OUTSTANDING 1 58826 $237.00 01/12/22 05296 0 CLAIRE BREES S OUTSTANDING 1 58827 $334.28 01/12/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 58828 $2872.14 01/12/22 00628 1 D C LOCK & SECURITY SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 58829 $1250.00 01/12/22 05141 1 DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58830 $4913.27 01/12/22 00653 0 DELL MARKETING L.P. S OUTSTANDING 1 58831 $109.95 01/12/22 00489 0 ENTERSECT S OUTSTANDING 1 58832 $569.76 01/12/22 03458 0 EOA INC S OUTSTANDING
1 58833 $698.41 01/12/22 03469 0 EVANTEC CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 58834 $6.00 01/12/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 58835 $3440.24 01/12/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 58836 $30.00 01/12/22 03804 0 GODSOE, LIZ S OUTSTANDING 1 58837 $1600.55 01/12/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 58838 $440.83 01/12/22 00892 0 HACH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 58839 $52.91 01/12/22 04842 0 HEMRAJ SINGH S OUTSTANDING 1 58840 $729.61 01/12/22 00929 0 HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58841 $653.83 01/12/22 04999 2 IMAGE SOURCE S OUTSTANDING 1 58842 $172.00 01/12/22 04494 0 ISIDRO, ALLEN S OUTSTANDING 1 58843 $212.80 01/12/22 05009 0 JOHN-THOMAS HANSON S OUTSTANDING 1 58844 $62.37 01/12/22 01812 2 KBA DOCUSYS S OUTSTANDING 1 58845 $376.78 01/12/22 03700 0 KIMBALL MIDWEST S OUTSTANDING 1 58846 $563.48 01/12/22 01055 2 KONE INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58847 $486.51 01/12/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 58848 $62.34 01/12/22 01154 0 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS S OUTSTANDING 1 58849 $200.00 01/12/22 03801 0 NAPIER, NORA S OUTSTANDING 1 58850 $187.23 01/12/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 58851 $30.00 01/12/22 03803 0 ORTEGA, SHIRLEY S OUTSTANDING 1 58852 $439.93 01/12/22 01239 0 PACIFIC FIRE SAFE S OUTSTANDING 1 58853 $20.00 01/12/22 05437 0 PACIFIC PUBLISHERS, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 58854 $403.45 01/12/22 00054 2 PAPE MACHINERY S OUTSTANDING 1 58855 $114.00 01/12/22 03802 0 PATINO, JOE S OUTSTANDING 1 58856 $500.00 01/12/22 03370 0 PEERY & ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED S OUTSTANDING 1 58857 $36.00 01/12/22 02539 0 PITTSINGER, R JANE S OUTSTANDING 1 58858 $19935.00 01/12/22 00320 4 PLAN JPA S OUTSTANDING 1 58859 $10008.46 01/12/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 58860 $34.72 01/12/22 01795 0 ROSS, LAURIE S OUTSTANDING

Page 2 of 3 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 1/25/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 58720-58876 -1-1 to 1-15-22 (4874 : Disbursements - Dated 1/01/22 through 1/15/22) 1 58861 $5476.00 01/12/22 05422 0 SACTOWN CONTRACTORS CORP S OUTSTANDING 1 58862 $318.00 01/12/22 00022 20 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH S OUTSTANDING 1 58863 $3.47 01/12/22 01422 0 SAN MATEO ELECTRONIC SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 58864 $250.47 01/12/22 01874 0 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58865 $42716.00 01/12/22 02681 0 SUN RIDGE SYSTEMS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58866 $17666.00 01/12/22 00044 1 SWRCB S OUTSTANDING
1 58867 $610.54 01/12/22 02642 2 T-MOBILE CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 58868 $6849.82 01/12/22 03785 1 THATCHER COMPANY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58869 $770.17 01/12/22 04418 1 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58870 $28.00 01/12/22 02663 0 UNDERWOOD, EILEEN S OUTSTANDING 1 58871 $2616.00 01/12/22 02527 0 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 58872 $283.08 01/12/22 01812 3 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY JAN2522 8:15 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA

FUND TOTALS
-----------

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 462,219.33 0.00
005 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 7.50 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 1,421.11 0.00
016 NPDES STORMWATER FUND 25,649.96 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 48,889.60 4,033.92
019 PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE FUND 1,620.00 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 6,518.12 0.00
027 PB&R - R DAVIES TRUST 5,476.00 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 12,578.19 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 2,845.06 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 178.20 0.00
065 SELF-FUNDED DENTAL PLAN FUND 4,238.00 0.00
067 SELF-INSURANCE FUND (LIAB) 19,935.00 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 16,161.97 0.00
072 MOTOR POOL REPLACEMENT FUND 33,973.00 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 641,711.04 4,033.92

Page 3 of 3 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 1/25/2022 NO FY 2021-2022 CHECKS ISSUED ON 1/1 - 1/4/22.

1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 58720-58876 -1-1 to 1-15-22 (4874 : Disbursements - Dated 1/01/22 through 1/15/22)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes of the regular City Council Meeting held on February 14, 2022 and the special City Council meeting held on February 15, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Move to approve the minutes of the regular City Council Meeting held on February 14, 2022 (Attachment A) and the special City Council Meeting held on February 15, 2022 (Attachment B).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (PDF) Attachment B: Minutes of February 15, 2022 Special City Council Meeting(PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 12

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/99091160676
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 990 9116 0676
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Cable Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 February 14, 2022
February 14, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on February 14, 2022 at 7:00 PM 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Present
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Present
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Tina Wehrmeister, Asst. City Manager/Planning Director; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Dep. Planning Director; Dan Steidle, Police Chief; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief:

Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer; Irene Camarena, HR Manager; Beth Phipps, Food/Sr. Services Supervisor; Tommy Yu, IT Manager; Josh Montemayor, Management Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

City Clerk Coffey explained the conditions for having Council meetings pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 54953 (as amended by AB 361) which authorizes teleconferenced meetings under the Brown Act during certain proclaimed states of emergency. She also explained that the public can observe and participate in the meeting via the Zoom link provided in the Agenda or by phone to the dial-in number and Webinar ID provided in the Agenda. This meeting can also be viewed live via local TV Channel 26 or online at www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream.

City Clerk Coffey also gave information on how to present public comments via email or live if participating by Zoom or phone.

2.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 February 14, 2022
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier explained that the Redistricting Item #11 must be presented at 7:30 so they will be having that item before Oral Communications to make sure they have enough time for public comments.

Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember O'Neill

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation – Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame Week and 2022 Inductees Mayor Bier read a proclamation honoring Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame Week and the 2022 inductees, reading each of the inductees' accomplishments.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if any Councilmembers wanted to pull any items from the consent calendar, and seeing no one, she opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speaker.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that he was asking them to pull Item #4, and he urged Council to do a physical inventory of all contents of the Anza pump station as he believes that items paid with Federal and state emergency funds and allocated by Council were never installed and asked that they preserve all documents related to physical expenditures and allocations at the Anza pump station.

City Attorney Kenyon thought they should make it clear to the commenter that this is the opportunity to discuss anything that is related to the consent calendar.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember O'Neill.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

1. Approval of Disbursements for 12/16/21 through 12/31/21.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 12/16/21 through 12/31/21.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the regular City Council Meeting

2.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 14, 2022
held on January 24, 2022.

3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.

PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.

4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.

PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.

5. Continuation of Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).

PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).

6. Consideration of a Resolution Making Findings as Required by AB 361 to Continue to Permit the City Council and the City’s Committees and Commissions to Conduct Teleconferenced Meetings Due to Health and Safety Concerns Relating to COVID-19 PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution making findings pursuant to AB 361 to authorize the City Council and the City’s Committees and Commissions to continue to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to health and safety concerns relating to COVID19.

7. 2021 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report PROPOSED ACTION: Receive 2021 mandated fire and life safety inspections compliance report and move to adoptresolution acknowledging receipt of the North County Fire Authority’s mandated fire and life safety inspections performed within the City of Pacifica pursuant to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the Health and Safety Code.

8. Reclassify Child Care Technician to Recreation Specialist in the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and update the related job description.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to reclassify Child Care Technician position to Recreation Specialist within the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and adopt a Resolution approving updated Recreation Specialist job description.

9. Approval of Purchase Agreement with Polydyne Inc., via sole source, for the supply of Clarifloc WE-2123, the cationic polymer used at the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant for wastewater treatment.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Approve the Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Polydyne Inc., via Sole Source, for the supply of Clarifloc WE-2123, Cationic Polymer used at the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant for Wastewater Treatment in the Amount Not to Exceed $85,000 from February 2022 to June 2022; and Authorize the City Manager Execute all Necessary Documents.

2.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 14, 2022

10. Authorize Agreement with Creative Digital Agency for Marketing Services PROPOSED ACTION: Authorize City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Creative Digital Agency for Economic Development Marketing Services City Attorney Kenyon stated that it was 7:15, and the public hearing on the redistricting is not supposed to start until 7:30 so Council can move to oral communcations at this point and they will conclude oral communications and move directly into the public hearing on redistricting.

Mayor Bier stated that the last time they didn’t give the community enough time, and she asked if there was anything else they can do.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they could do Council communications at this point.

City Attorney Kenyon explained that they can hear all of oral communications, stating that whatever item they have begun they can conclude. If they begin oral communications and conclude them, they can do that, or if they want to begin and conclude Council communications, they can do that. She stated that they cannot start the public hearing until 7:30, but it is okay to start the public hearing later than 7:30, just not before 7:30.

Mayor Bier was fine with that as long as they can conclude.

City Attorney Kenyon confirmed that they can conclude all oral communications.

Mayor Bier stated that they will open oral communications but added that, because of the huge agenda, she is going to keep comments at two minutes and confirmed Council was okay with that.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that, in the last 30-day rolling Covid count in Pacifica, 1,380 Pacificans have contracted Covid and mentioned additional Covid case statistics in Pacifica. He then referred to the October 2018 Planning Commission meeting discussion on marijuana regarding consumables in forms that appeal to children, mentioning that much of the decisions passed by Planning Commission were subsequently overruled by Council and asked that they include all the Planning Commission October 2018 recommendations for marijuana with this meeting’s tobacco recommendations.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that they were looking toward a spring of transitions where the economic recovery in the pandemic has not been equitable, and now the state eviction moratorium ending March 31. She mentioned her concerns and put forth suggestions to help Pacifica’s community members in need.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, referred to the need for a well-written General Plan, mentioning some specific important issues to be addressed to complete the update and her concerns regarding need for input from the city on the various issues.

2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 14, 2022
Cherie Chan, Pacifica, referred to the mayor pushing for a 15-day extension on citizen input on the General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan.

Mayor Bier stated that it is going to be on the agenda and speakers cannot comment on that now.

Paul Chervatin, Pacifica, referred to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s question on need for Reach codes and he clarified what Reach codes are and made a statement on their purpose and government decisions, as well as expressing his thoughts on the subject.

Brooke Leonardi, Pacifica, urged Council to extend the comment period for the General Plan.

Mayor Bier stated that it was an agenda item, and she can comment on that at that time. She then closed oral communications. As they can’t start the public hearing until 7:30, she called a short break, then reconvened the meeting to begin Agenda Item #11.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

11. Redistricting - Public Hearing #2 to Receive Input Regarding Proposed Draft District Map, Composition of Council District Boundaries, and Communities of Interest.

PROPOSED ACTION: Receive report, conduct the second public hearing in the redistricting process, and:
(A) Consider and discuss the draft Council District Map published as Map 505b and other draft map submitted by member of the public;
(B) Receive public input on composition of Council District boundaries, communities of interest, and draft maps;
(C) Provide direction on any revisions to draft maps; and (D) Confirm the date of the third public hearing in the redistricting process.

City Clerk Coffey began the staff report then turned the presentation over to Robert McEntire, consultant with National Demographics Corporation (NDC).

Robert McEntire, consultant - NDC, completed the presentation.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted clarification that he was saying that District 3's population was understated on the order of 900.

Mr. McEntire responded affirmatively, clarifying that, when adding up the population units on the map, the person who submitted the map left out one of the sections on the corner of District 3 with a population of 905 and the total population numbers they accounted for didn’t account for everything. He tracked it down to District 3 which would be the largest district at 8,183 population and would be the highest over-populated district. He stated that the total map has a total population deviation of only 2%, which was very slight marginally more than the existing map and both well within the 10% limit. He stated that he wouldn’t use population deviation as a criteria to choose one over the other now, but consider how one meets or does not meet governance consideration that they might have locally.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought her understanding was that the corrected population amount for District 3 should have been 8,183.

2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 February 14, 2022
Mr. McEntire responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if he could state the population amounts for each of the districts.

Mr. McEntire responded that he could, and as drawn by the public submitter, District 1 of 7,996, District 2 of 7,456, District 3 of 8,183, District 4 of 7,411 and District 5 of 7,628.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked, if people wanted to draw additional maps, if this is the final time that they could have drawn additional maps or can other maps be submitted before their next meeting.

Mr. McIntire stated that it wouldn’t give them much time to process additional maps. If they were going to get them, they would need them in the next 3-4 days to get them processed and published, as they need to be published at least seven days for Council to be able to adopt an ordinance with a map that they choose, if not one of the two already published.

Councilmember Vaterlaus concluded that they are going to draw lines, as she thought it was difficult for her to see the map without street names on it. She thought they would be doing one similar to their existing colorful map.

Mr. McEntire agreed, stating that he will be putting this in the GIS software and will look exactly like the map they have now, but moving the lines to match what the author did. He added that they will have all the demographic data as well.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, if they were to choose a different map or move boundaries, if that would affect this November’s Council elections or the next election in two years.

Mr. McEntire stated that the very next election in place would use the new map.

Councilmember O’Neill asked confirmation that he means this November.

Mr. McEntire responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill wanted to clarify that as they moved congressional and state assembly seats and he wanted to be sure they followed the same pattern.

Mayor Bier asked whether there was still time for someone to submit a map and she asked that they be very clear about that.

Mr. McEntire stated that it would make sense to set a deadline of February 18 at 5 pm to City Clerk to give them time to process it for the third public hearing as the goal is that Council will deliberate after the next public hearing, whittle it down to one and introduce the ordinance.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.

Peter Loeb, Pacifica, thought there were some serious flaws in the citizen’s submitted map and they shouldn’t waste any time processing it any further. He stated it was difficult to read the map because it doesn’t have street names as already discussed, but it looks like it puts the

2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 February 14, 2022
neighborhood of West Rock away in District 5, and separates it from East Rockway, which is a community of interest. He stated that it also separates West Rockaway by putting it in District 5 from the Quarry and Mori Point, which are in District 4. He stated that District 4 is Vallemar, East Rockaway, and the back of the valley which is not a community of interest. He expressed concern that it separates Vallemar and West Rockaway from Sharp Park, which is much more the community of interest - Rockaway, Vallemar and Sharp Park. He concluded that it looks like it is breaking up some natural communities of interest in Pacifica and he doesn’t like this map.

Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, supported the concerns and comments expressed by Mr. Loeb, adding that this additional drawing does not add that much benefit for us and maybe we lose something where our existing boundaries are. He asked Council to favor the existing map.

Margaret Goodale, Pacifica, stated she was concerned because the hand drawn map has separated all the coastal communities. She stated that the majority of voters in each area up in the hills, far away from the coast, have often very little interest in coastal issues. She expressed that it is much more effective to allow someone to represent coastal issues for all the coastal communities as a group rather than splitting them up into smaller sections that will be subsumed into the further east residences.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Councilmember O’Neill thought they weren’t taking a vote at this meeting as it was a public hearing and asked if they were just giving direction.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they were just provided direction for the next steps toward selecting a map and introducing an ordinance. They were taking in the draft map submitted and the existing map under consideration and providing Council direction toward making selection of a map.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that City Clerk Coffey was correct. She reiterated that Council is going to give direction to the demographer, Mr. McEntire, to bring back the map Council wants to consider and possibly adopt. She stated she and the city clerk just gave general directions, and asked Mr. McEntire if he wants to elaborate more on what he needs, such as what maps he wants to consider for the next hearing when they will hopefully be selecting the map Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Mr. McEntire if he wanted to elaborate on what the City Attorney and City Clerk said before he comments.

Mr. McEntire stated that at this time, Council has two maps for discussion and to potentially move forward with, but he wouldn’t advise that they disqualify any maps, but if there was a consensus around drawing a new map or a variation of one of those two maps that Council might find more perfect from a policy perspective, now would be the time for that kind of guidance.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked the maker of map 506 and Council are used to hearing public feedback, and he hoped that anyone engaging in the process would not be discouraged by hearing the discussion as it goes on. He favored honoring the maker of the map by seeing what the demographics look like that are a result from that map. He stated that he is probably likely to agree with some of the community’s points and bring a couple of others to the table that would bear on map 505b being the one he is likely to favor, but as he doesn’t have that demographic in front of him and he can’t see where the streets are, so he is not 100% sure that the comments were accurate and has difficulty reading the map. He would like to take a full look at what that map is before dismissing it.

2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 February 14, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she would also like to see that map as she cannot really read it without the street names. With the street names on the map, she can see it in a more clear fashion and as such, she didn’t think they should discount it. She agrees with Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck that this person went to a lot of effort to make the map. She stated that they had a lot of reasons for why they did the initial map. She concluded that it should be considered.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked Mr. McEntire for indulging her questions. She asked how does census tract bear on map drawings for purposes of districting. She can see it clearly in the hand drawn map that doesn’t show streets. She saw where the census tracts were and she thought that was what it was or asked if they were voting districts.

Mr. McEntire stated that, in creating user friendly maps for non-professional demographers, they cluster voting blocks and census tracts together into larger units. He stated that, when National Demographics worked with them to modify and come to a conclusion of map 505b, they were looking at the census block level and there may have been a couple of census blocks they broke.

They try to avoid breaking census blocks where possible, but occasionally, if it becomes a necessity for various reasons, but it is a very infrequent thing. He stated that what they are seeing is that they traded the clusters for an ease of map drawing, and while not a perfect method, it is the one they find is the best when dealing with people who don’t do the work professionally. They aren’t dumbing it down, but just that the task can be so monumentally overwhelming for people new to the task. He stated that, once they get experience on the GIS software, they tend to draw dozens of maps because it becomes so much easier once you know what you are doing.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if she understood, they cluster together voting precincts and census blocks into larger areas or clusters which is what they saw with the dotted lines. She stated that those are created by his firm.

Mr. McEntire responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that there is a code that they can be looked up that all demographers use.

Mr. McEntire agreed, adding that when he processes map 506, Council will be able to see all of them at the census block level and at the street address level they will be able to zoom in and out on the interactive viewer for both maps. He thought the ability to have a truly fair analysis will exist, not only for Council, but for the public, at the next meeting as they didn’t have enough time between receiving the submitted map and this meeting to provide that detail.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they will have the same for 505b.

Mr. McEntire responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill agreed that as citizens have asked to see this, he thought they should flush it out. He stated that there were a couple of changes he would like, referring to the right hand corner where it says 905, as somebody in Park Pacifica is in the same grouping as the District 3 which he thought was by Fairway, Rockaway or West Manor. He didn’t like the little tags, 905 and the one at the top, which he thought was 1316, as they were like islands of a neighborhood in another district. He asked if he followed what he meant.

Mr. McEntire stated, for clarity, he was suggesting they draw a third map moving the 905 currently

2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 February 14, 2022
in the bottom of District 3 into District 4 and the 1316 in the west part of District 3 moved into District 2.

Councilmember O’Neill agreed.

Mr. McEntire stated that they would be moving 2,200 people out of that district and that might create an imbalanced map. He asked, if he could only do one of them and keep a legally compliant map, which he would select, just in case he finds himself there.

Councilmember O’Neill understood it was the population he was looking at. He stated that he was concerned about one guy in a block and across the street is a different district than the other one. He thought the 1 and 2 issues in that neighborhood would probably be fairly similar but the issues in 905 would be different than the rest of No. 3, so he thought keep 1316, if he could only do one.

Mr. McEntire thought that was clear to him. He then pointed out the proposed change on the map. He then stated that they were talking about moving the section labeled 905 from District 3 into District 4 and that would maintain the population balance of the two districts or at least very close. He will check on that as it would bring District 4 up to 8,800 and that will be real close to hitting the top end of what they can do, so he will check if that meets the population balancing requirements. He stated that was the exact voter area that was left out of the population count in the map, and why they restated the population for District 3 at 8,183 when they added this in. He then asked if there was a consensus of Council to have a third map moving this one area.

Mayor Bier asked Councilmember Beckmeyer if she had something to say before they answered that question.

Councilmember Beckmeyer didn’t think so. She was just trying to put it all together.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the idea of West Rockaway and those changes, she thought it was difficult to see it, and if they make a third map, she asked if they can change that. She stated that, once they see this in a different format, there may be things that would be good to change.

City Attorney Kenyon thought they need Mr. McEntire to respond to that question, asking him to keep in mind timing and talk about the reality. She stated that one question was that he did not have time to process this map appropriately and the reason they have so many questions. She suggested that they let him respond to that question in terms of timing, but she wants to help Council understand that they are not making a decision on the map tonight, but just deciding what direction they want to give the demographer in terms of what she anticipates will be the final maps they consider at the next hearing. She stated that, in order to bring back more than just these two maps submitted at this time, they need a consensus from the majority of Council that they would like the demographer to tweak the public map slightly to create a third map that will reflect the comments that Councilmember O’Neill made. She asked them to keep in mind that is the direction they need to know, presently two maps they will be bringing back and have direction from one councilmember regarding additional input for a new map and she asked if there is any other input from other councilmembers that would agree with Councilmember O’Neill or have different directions for maybe a 4th map. That is the kind of direction they are looking for, and she asked Mr. McEntire to address the timing.

Mr. McEntire stated that they need to complete the process before the middle of April and anything

2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 February 14, 2022
they do that pushes out the Council’s ability to introduce and adopt an ordinance pushes them up against that deadline and why staff was very cautious and careful in trying to get as far in front of this as possible from a date perspective. He stated that they definitely don’t want to throw the gates open more than they need to in order to effectuate this process. He wished they had more time to follow a more exploratory path as he thought it felt more satisfying when all voices are thoroughly vetted but, if it is curiosity, he suggested that they don’t pursue additional maps, but if there is a policy discussion driving a variance on one of the two maps then that tends to be worthwhile because it is driven by policy conversations. When it comes to community interest, they do the best they can to keep them together but population balancing was always going to cause them to break up several throughout the city regarding how much and where.

Mayor Bier needs the map fleshed out. She didn’t like to see any of the neighborhoods split and it bothers her, but she doesn’t know if she can see that for sure and as such, would like to see that map come back. She stated that the 905 does seem out of place and she agreed with Councilmember O’Neill.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was happy to agree with the Mayor Bier and Councilmember O’Neill to see that third map, and he asked Mr. McEntire if that third map push them past February 28 and how much work does it take on his end to do another map. He thought his point is well taken that a curiosity itself doesn’t warrant a map but when doing one, what does it look like on his end.

Mr. McEntire stated that processing the existing map and making the other one with that minor change is not overly laborious from a GIS perspective. He stated that his comment was more that, if the requested change wasn’t back by some policy criteria that they would use to substantiate that map choice, given the amount of time, he wanted to be sure they are anchoring the pursuit of any changes around policy that would be used in justification for supporting the selection of a map.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he heard a community of interest idea put forth by Councilmember O’Neill and he agrees to a third map as well.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had something else to say. She tried very hard to be respectful of former councils that did work because she wasn’t sitting in the chair and didn’t have the issues before her. She recalls hearing, as part of the audience, a policy discussion about including a portion of the coast in each of the districts, and she deferred to Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck as he has been at every Council meeting for at least six or more years and also deferred to the councilmembers who were on the Council at the time that this was done and stated that, if staff can recall and enlighten them about that, as they heard public comments that said the opposite of that. She referred to Councilmember O’Neill’s comments with a nervous stomach as she thought it opens pandora’s box, and she has to agree that she has a really hard time with the line being down the middle of the street. She stated that they saw that in the last election as people became aware of where the lines were, she stated that, to the degree that they can tweak that without throwing it off the entire process, this affords them the chance to do that. She asked that they speak to the issues of how the first lines were drawn and the need when they first do this. She stated that, when you first go from a general election situation to districts, one factor that has to be taken into account, if she recalls correctly, is where are the current councilmembers living and that is not on the slide they saw earlier as they are not in that situation now, but they were in that situation when this began. She raises the question of whether there have been decisions made that were somewhat forced by the fact of where a certain councilmember lives and they may not have that constraint. She thought there may be an opportunity to fix a few of those and take care of that in this process.

2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 February 14, 2022
Mr. McEntire stated that the consideration of incumbents is the traditional criteria and not federal or state law, but like the comment he made where they try to respect the will of the voters in the last election. He stated that, if the voters put you in office, they should decide if you stay or go rather than the demographer’s pen. He stated that, sometimes that is impossible to do, depending on where the incumbents live when they are drawing maps. He states, if a councilmember buys a house in a different part of town and we have no choice because of population balancing to move some lines and that pushed two of them into the same council district. He stated that, occasionally, that is unavoidable and that usually is far more prevalent when they make the first move from at large elections to district elections, as once they go by district elections, they are electing people in a council district and geographically they have already been identified and then they only find people out of their district when they live right on the edge and they have to realign for population balancing after the census. He stated that those are the times when they find councilmembers getting put together. He stated that there is no prohibition against it, but just for National Demographics maps, he does his best to avoid it. He stated that the voters chose to put you in office and they should choose whether you stay or go. He stated that, to the extent that he can draw them a legally compliant map and keep the councilmembers separated, he does that but occasionally it is not possible. He stated that there are also people who want to use the process for other political reasons, such as to intentionally put as many councilmembers in one district as they can. He stated that they have worked in jurisdictions where that was the case. He referred to her question about the line down the middle of the street, and stated that it used to be that the line for breaking up census blocks went down the back of property lines, but that changes several decades ago, and moved the census blocks to the middle of the street and there is no way to avoid throughout the city where they draw the lines between council districts to force the lines to the back of the property. He understands that it is unsatisfying that it is no longer that way, typically on a major thoroughfare, usually not in the middle of cul-de-sac. He acknowledged that it is very unsatisfying.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he and Councilmember Vaterlaus were the two on Council when this was first started. He stated that they had unusual circumstances because he was going to be termed out. The election following the decision of districts was not going to be a district election but still a general election, and Councilmember Digre was termed out because of term limits and he is going to be termed out this year. He stated that Councilmember Martin would have been the only one in District 4 because he was going to be termed out. He stated that he was correct that it was brought up about having every district have a piece of the ocean or beach on there, but given the propensity of the population in Park Pacifica and Linda Mar, that couldn’t be accommodated but they still have a stake in beach management and water and sea rise management because that is the only way to get to their house and where they came up with District 4 being landlocked. He thought it was a good goal for everybody to have a piece of the beach, but practicality, given the population demographics, he didn’t know. He stated that the 905 thing he brought up was like an appendage off District 3 that is an intrusion in District 4 and he thought it would be best to avoid that. He stated that, if you look at Districts 1 and 2 appendage, they will probably have the same issues but District 5 would have different issues than Vallemar and Rockaway.

Mayor Bier asked if they had a consensus and if Mr. McEntire has the direction he needed.

Mr. McIntire stated that he did.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the issue of streets and divided one side of the street from another is going to continue to happen as those are census track divisions, and they will still have

2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 February 14, 2022
that same issue that they had in the other map.

Mayor Bier thanked Mr. McEntire and stated that they will see him again next time.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

12. Resolution to Update the Park Development Impact Fee and Ordinance Establishing Updated Impact Fees and Quimby Act Dedication Requirements and In Lieu Fees PROPOSED ACTION: Move to:

1. Adopt resolution to update the Park Development Impact Fee within the City of Pacifica; and

2. Move to Introduce by title only and waive first reading of an “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California repealing Chapter 19 of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Chapter 19 (Park Facilities Impact Fee); repealing Section 10-1.803 (Park Land Dedication) of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Section 10-1.803 (Park Land Dedication) to establish updated Impact Fees and Quimby Act dedication requirements and in lieu fees imposed on New Development in the City of Pacifica”; and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

PW Dep. Director Bautista introduced the staff report then turned the presentation to Carlos Villarreal, consultant from Willdan Financial Services.

Carlos Villarreal, consultant, continued the presentation.

PW Dep. Director Bautista completed the presentation.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to a slide regarding mostly single family, and asked, if someone wanted to build a ten-unit apartment building, whether they would be paying for ten bedrooms and whether the fee was subject to multi-unit housing.

PW Dep. Director Bautista responded that he was correct.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, if he understood the slide and calculations correctly, whether the school district property in the back would be over $1 million in fees as the last number he heard was 70 units and there was probably a mix of 1 and 2-bedroom units. He stated that, if everyone has a bedroom, that would be almost $1.5 million in fees, and he asked if he understood that correctly.

City Attorney Kenyon asked City Clerk Coffey if there was a way to put the slide that Councilmember O’Neill is referring to back up.

Mr. Villarreal stated that, if there were 70 1-bedroom units at $24,066 per unit, the total fee revenue would be roughly $16.8 million.

Councilmember O’Neill questioned $16 million.

Mr. Villarreal corrected the figures, which are $1,684,000.

Councilmember O’Neill didn’t think it was that bad. He was concerned about that project as the

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 February 14, 2022
school district has been working on this for quite a few years, and they mentioned something about dedication of land. He understood that in the latest plans, the fields at Oddstad soccer would still be there. He thought there needs to be some sort of consideration that they are leaving soccer fields which are parkland recreation for the kids as an offset to a fee. He asked if this was bordering on deliberation.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that Council should adopt an appropriate fee to mitigate for park impacts from development, whatever fee they feel is appropriate, and referring to Councilmember O’Neill’s point, on a case by case basis, which was not something they would decide now, there would be some consideration if there is some land dedication or public use allowed. She thought this would be determined during the project review.

Councilmember O’Neill wanted to be clear and stated that the way the school district was financing and building this, it will be a major fee for them, and he didn’t want Pacifica to be those who are killing 70 affordable units.

Mayor Bier suggested he stop.

City Attorney Kenyon thanked the mayor, and stated that Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister said what she was going to say and she would elaborate on that. She stated that it was important to remember that this item they are undertaking now is for the entire city and as she made clear, this is not the appropriate time to talk about specific projects or specific fees for particular areas. Based on the study done by the consultants, this is about determining what is the impact fees for the universal development that they are anticipating will occur in Pacifica. She stated that the discussion about particular projects is not necessarily appropriate here if they are talking about trying to amend a facilities fee for a particular project. If they want to talk about amending the fees in general for every project, that is the appropriate discussion now, but not that a fee is okay for one project and not okay for another project. She stated that this study was done for a general understanding of what the city should be charging to its community for development that is anticipated.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that a discussion on whether they want to have lower or mitigation fees.

City Attorney Kenyon clarified that they are talking about waivers and this is not the appropriate time to talk about that.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if in general for affordable housing projects.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that, in general, that is a question for the consultants in terms of when that is an appropriate discussion to have. She stated that she would defer to the consultant on that question.

Councilmember O’Neill then asked Mr. Villarreal for a response.

Mr. Villarreal stated that different jurisdictions deal with affordable housing in different ways. He stated that it was a policy discussion that is outside of the technical analysis and he has some clients who have decided fees completely for affordable housing projects, given the housing affordability crisis and, as a policy decision, the city wants to encourage that type of development and they would waive those fees and that was an option that Council has at their disposal.

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 February 14, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked how this applies to existing applications that are already in the city as well as accessory dwelling units.

Mr. Villarreal stated he would start and staff can chime in. He stated that, with regard to existing applications, the fees would go into effect 60 days after they would be adopted and he deferred to the City Attorney in the interpretation of where in the pipeline an application needs to be to implement the new fees. He stated, regarding accessory dwelling units, he didn’t recall that the city has a policy already, adding that state law does dictate how fees for ADUs are calculated in general. Impact fees for accessory dwelling units are prohibited for dwelling units less than 750 square feet by the state and dwelling units above 750 square feet, the state requires that they be charged proportional to the size of the unit and they would calculate the fees for a single family dwelling unit and then the fees for the accessory dwelling unit will be based on the relative amount of square feet. He stated that, if the single family dwelling unit was twice the size of the ADU, the ADU fee would be half of what the impact fee would be for a single family dwelling unit of that size.

City Attorney Kenyon didn’t know if the Planning Director wanted to respond to that last question about vested rights or she can answer it.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that the City Attorney may need to correct her, but she thought it would depend on the project. If there is a vesting tentative map that would freeze all new fees that would be approved and some of the housing laws, such as SB330 application, that may have an impact, but those are very new to her and she may not have that exactly down right. She said that, for our ADU regulations, it is consistent with state law that over 750 square feet, if Council decides that a proportional fee is appropriate, it can be charged.

City Attorney Kenyon concurred and added that, in terms of an application being submitted, that is not enough to warrant essentially being tied to full fee. She stated that they have to accrue a vested right in some fashion with different ways to get vested rights, but the most common is for them to file a vested tentative map application and another way is to have spent a significant amount of money in processing their application. She stated that, if they are talking about adopting it within 60 days of Council’s action, the implication of applying the fees to projects is not a big concern because there are not a lot of projects that will be coming in the pipeline that quickly that will not be subject to the new fee. It is just those existing projects that have vested rights, and she and the city manager didn’t know exactly what those projects are but that is how it would work.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that her questions are along the same lines as Councilmember O’Neill’s, and with regard to affordable housing, she asked how or whether it was in our ordinance as Attachment C on packet page 213, in a section that speaks to separate arrangements for specific kinds of projects which is a clause that is used to address projects such as affordable housing.

City Attorney Kenyon thought it was a question for the consultant.

Mr. Villarreal stated that he could defer to the city’s legal counsel, but the ordinance would be the place to put in any considerations with regard to exempts or discounts for affordable housing which is how it is typically done.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had another question but she will wait until after public comment.

2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 February 14, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer asked his question and he was interested in what it will look like to put that into the ordinance, but he thought he was starting to tread on deliberation questioning and will wait.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, thanked Public Works for doing this work. She commented on how low our current fees are and haven’t been looked at since 2012, as well as other development fees. She agreed that there should be exceptions or reductions for types of projects, and mentioned her thoughts on affordable housing.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thanked staff for bringing this forward as it is an important topic. She addressed her thoughts on the subject of various situations for fees related to visitors to the city, and not just residential.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Mayor Bier stated that the numbers were shocking to her because she wasn’t used to seeing this.

She doesn’t own property, has never built a home and she doesn’t know what it means, but has been learning about it. She was concerned about too many development fees, as they need developers to come in as we have our RHNA numbers. She is concerned about affordable housing and was curious about Ms. Abbott talked about, i.e., commercial fees. She asked Mr.

Villarreal if he knows anything about that.

Mr. Villarreal stated that typically park impact fees aren’t charged to commercial development because the relationship between that development and the use of parks is not as well established as it is between residential units. He wasn’t saying they couldn’t calculate a fee for non-residential uses if Council desires. They discussed it with Planning and Public Works staff when they were putting the study together and they felt the contribution from visitors for demand for parks was fairly low so they didn’t pursue that further, but if Council wishes, it was certainly something they could look into.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that, as Mr. Villarreal mentioned, they considered the expansion of this fee to cover commercial development, and it wasn’t just a small portion of development in land area in Pacifica, but Planning staff has done prior work assessing the potential for various development impact fees on commercial development. He stated that, due to the weak commercial development environment in Pacifica, the numbers don’t add up when you look at the ability for commercial development and the rents that they are able to charge to support significant additional development impact fees. He stated that they could explore it, but it had the potential to chill further commercial development in Pacifica and make it financially infeasible based on prior work they did on a different type of development fee, but they could undertake that analysis as Mr. Villarreal mentions and see if it yields a different conclusion.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked him for his comments. She stated that one type of commercial development she was thinking about that was of interest in a visitor serving economy is a hotel, and she thought hotel visitors may have more of an impact in terms of parks and use of parks such as mentioned by Ms. Abbott about using the beaches, etc. She didn’t know if it is their analysis and that would be carved out separately but she would be interested in knowing.

2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 February 14, 2022
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he didn’t recall at the moment the development prototypes they used, but it was a handful of likely types of commercial development on the smaller scale as they can imagine more typical of what they actually have seen come in recent years and they have not seen medium to large size hotels pursuing applications in Pacifica as other communities have. He stated that using different prototypes with different economic assumptions could yield different economic ability for development to cover those types of fees, but it would be a separate endeavor and wouldn’t necessarily have to be part of this particular fee adoption and it could come as a subsequent update if Council wanted to move forward with this fee.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that her earlier question had to do with the table, mentioning packet page 153, that shows the amount for different amounts of bedrooms, what a remodel and add on fee per bedroom would be. She sees a relatively straight line on the table, but when she looks at the difference between one bedroom and two bedrooms and she correspondingly looks at the difference between two bedrooms and three bedrooms, she is not sure she is reading the chart correctly. She asked for an explanation about how a two-bedroom remodel addition is $12,000 but a three-bedroom is $7,000.

Mr. Villarreal stated that the fee schedule is driven by the number of people per dwelling unit. He referred to the prior slide.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they didn’t have that in their packet.

Mr. Villarreal stated that table is in the impact fee study which in the packet but not a separate item. It is the density and number of people per dwelling unit which drives the fee, and the difference between the density from one dwelling unit to the next drives the incremental fees. He stated that, when they look at the average number of people per dwelling unit, when they go from 1-2, it is a much bigger jump than 0-1 which is what is driving the difference in the fee per dwelling unit. He realizes the $12,698 sticks out in going from 1 to 2 bedrooms. The idea when they look at the numbers, the 2-bedroom units house the most number of people per bedroom compared to the other types of units, based on the data which is what is driving the differences between the fee schedule.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has an interest in figuring out where they are putting their ordinance and sending back to staff, and some kind of way of putting something in their ordinance around affordable housing, whether it be tiered, related to the ABAG below market, far below market ratings, but that is what she would like to see.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to the use of the funds, and stated that they had purchasing new parkland and he didn’t see them doing that in the future as there is not a lot of land available to purchase and using this for capital replacing the play structures and putting in a field. He asked if these funds are restricted to capital, stating that he thought remembered that they cannot use it for operating funds in terms of paying for the guy to mow the lawn, pay for water to water the lawn, etc.

Mr. Villarreal stated that there are three fees, one fee for the in lieu of land dedication that they will charge to subdivision and it can be used to acquire parkland and can use to rehabilitate parkland but not for ongoing maintenance or services. He stated that one of the other two fees would be a mitigation fee for park acquisition to acquire parkland to serve new development and cannot be used for maintenance for operations. The third fee, payable by everyone, is the fee for

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 February 14, 2022
park improvement and that cannot be used for maintenance and operations and can be used to fund the expansion or intensification of use of park facilities, either on new acquired land or on existing land in the city’s inventory but you are expanding the capacity to serve new developments and adding amenities and enhancing its carrying capacity.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if you have someone buys an old school site, wants to buy 50 houses and the city requires them to dedicate a certain portion of the land in the school site to be a top lot or a park and he asked if that would be included as part of their mitigation fee.

Mr. Villarreal responded affirmatively, stating that they would get a credit against the land component, depending on how much they dedicate relative to what their requirement is but conceivably they could get it as credit against land component and only have to pay the improvement portion or, if they dedicate and improve the parkland, perhaps they could get a credit against the entirely of the fee. He stated that would be in the details.

Councilmember O’Neill thought he would be safe in saying that this could be used for the expansion and improvement of parks but not for the ongoing maintenance of water, cutting grass, replacing plants that die, etc.

Mr. Villarreal responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to the previous comments about charging for businesses, and stated he agreed with the concept, but if you have a hotel, this would be a fee that people would not want to see in a hotel. He added that they would more than make up for it because of the transit occupancy tax which would fund the ongoing operations to maintain the parks that the visitors in the hotel would be seeing. He would be reluctant to look at these type of fees for hotels as it is visitor serving but they are paying a transit occupancy tax that would fund the ongoing maintenance of those parks. He asked confirmation that the five acres is not including state, county or federal parks in Pacifica, only city-owned parks.

Mr. Villarreal responded affirmatively.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck echoed Councilmember Beckmeyer’s comments about affordable housing discounts and exemptions and the idea of figuring out the best approach in terms of tiered models.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, with affordable housing, he agreed with what everyone said that we need to do something about these fees for affordable housing, but he thought they have to look at the subsets too. He asked if the fee will be the same for senior housing or only on family units and does it include the inclusionary required by zone for a for-profit developer that 15% is being held back because of our inclusionary ordinance. He would like to turn this back to staff, asking if someone can answer his question of whether they can have the first reading so they start the clock ticking on this and when staff comes back with suggestions for putting it in an affordable housing component for the second reading.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they cannot.

Councilmember O’Neill knew she was going to say no. He stated that he fully supported some sort of mitigation for affordable housing, but he wants to start this so, if any developers do put in an application, they have the clock ticking.

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 February 14, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that she feels very strongly about the tiered approach for affordable housing and she would like to see what that will look like and have a larger conversation around that the next time they talk about this. She thought they were in the middle of all these different cities, and she asked if they were able to talk about making it lower or higher.

Mr. Villarreal stated that the fees that are identified in the study are the maximum justified and you wouldn’t be able to charge higher than what the report says, but as a policy decision, they could always adopt something less. If they want to implement 50% or whatever it is to be, that was up to Council’s discretion.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they went back and worked on the affordable housing and the topic of ADUs also came up so he wanted to receive clarification from Council if that should be looked at as well.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was going to ask Planning to have that included but it then gets into another branch and is hard to address because is it an ADU policy or park policy related to ADUs. They know ADUs are not all used for housing. She asked, in terms of tiering, whether there was a way of tiering around the intended use. She knows they cannot control that, but she asked if there was a way they can require a certain amount of time that the unit be used for housing. She spoke to the City Manager earlier that she wouldn’t be opposed to having a lower fee if the ADU is being used for housing and she holds the principle that ADUs are naturally affordable because they are smaller versus someone who is renting an AirBnb. She stated that the dilemma is whether it is an ADU question or a park policy question.

City Attorney Kenyon thought Mr. Villarreal needs to answer that question on how he approached this issue in other communities and they are relying on him to get them some guidance on how to address it.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, before he answers the question, he has a clarifying question. He stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer was talking about ADUs being used as affordable housing, not just housing, and he believed Dep. Planning Director Murdock could correct him, but our ordinances don’t allow ADUs to be used for short term rentals.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, and he wanted to clarify that our current ADU zoning regulations require that ADUs be used for rentals of 30 days or longer which would prohibit short term rentals by the city’s municipal code.

Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that it would be affordable.

Mr. Villarreal stated that he has seen some jurisdictions waive impact fees altogether for ADUs regardless of size, and that is their policy decision which Council can consider. With regard to the AirBnb, it doesn’t seem to be relevant since they don’t allow AirBnb’s in ADUs, but he hasn’t seen any impact fee program make a distinction between short term and long term rentals in terms of implemented impact fees and that would be unusual for impact fee programs in California.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Mr. Villarreal if he mentioned earlier that an ADU under 750 square feet would be exempt from a fee.

Mr. Villarreal responded it would, based on state law.

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 February 14, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought Councilmember Vaterlaus would have a better capacity to visualize what size this looks like, and he asked how much bigger than 750 square feet to ADUs get or is that a regular size.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that, in most cases, you are going to see a maximum of ADU size of 1,200 square feet, which is the maximum floor area that a detached ADU can be and likely based on the ADU applications he reviewed where the larger of the ADUs are being constructed. He stated that it is possible under zoning that an attached ADU could be larger than 1,200 square feet but that would require the primary residence to be more than 2,400 square feet which is relatively large for Pacifica. He stated that those homes are out there, but we don’t see many of them, given the typical housing stock.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, within the context of the fee structure they are discussing, if they could help him on what the fee structure would be the fee schedule for ADUs.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that they would first calculate the fee based on what the associated primary unit is, such as a 3-bedroom Linda Mar rancher, and that fee would be what is stated in the report of whatever is adopted by Council and they would have to divide the number of square feet for the primary unit and multiple that by the size of the ADU so that the fee is proportionate by square footage in relation to the primary unit. He stated that requires a conversion of the bedroom fee that they will ask Council to adopt into a per square foot fee but a conversion of the state law requires them to do that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, as he tries to figure out what he wants to do, he needs to know what those numbers look like. It might be a small enough fee that it doesn’t bother him, but he doesn’t have that table so he has no idea. He thought it might be high enough that he will want to ask for a smaller fee for ADUs, but he needs the information to be able to compare them.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he doesn’t have the data, but anecdotally from his observation, very few ADUs are over that 750-square foot threshold. He stated that they can explore that, but he thinks they are affecting a relatively small subset of ADUs as compared to those he has seen coming through.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that is very helpful.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that a 3-bedroom, one bath Linda Mar rancher is 1,040 square feet and 2-car garage is 440, which is an average number.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck appreciated that information.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked, since they are having something brought back and they are not going to be able to take action on this at this meeting, in light of the Mayor’s comment about where we fall relatively fall to other cities, if it is not too much trouble, if they can know what their standards are. We know Pacifica is five acres and she thought she read in the staff report in excess of five acres, so she asked what is it in Belmont, Millbrae, etc., as those are areas that relatively mirror Pacifica in terms of the residential portion.

Mr. Villarreal stated that he will try to see what he can dig up, as they have to find the nexus studies. They aren’t always published, but they can make phone calls.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated if it is possible at least in the ballpark area would be helpful.

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 February 14, 2022
Mayor Bier asked if they could see what 75% of that total fee would look like, questioning if they could go lower.

Councilmember Vaterlaus agrees with Mayor Bier as these fees took a huge jump and they seem almost exorbitant as this is two fees added on to sewer fees, etc., and it just makes it so people won’t build. She stated that they have to meet our numbers or at least closer to our numbers than

64. She stated that, if they make the fees high, they won’t build at all and our goal is to have more housing which is also the goal of the whole state. She just thinks they are very high.

Mayor Bier agreed with her. She suggested that they see what 50% looks like.

Councilmember O’Neill also thought they have to be respectful of the new realities that there are a lot of generational here in Pacifica. He stated that, in 2000 when the kids were losing their houses because of foreclosure in the financial crises, they moved back in with mom and dad and brought their kids in and they had three generation households and maybe they are adding a bedroom. He thought they need to look at the realities that a lot of parents still have their adult children living at home. He stated that a one bath house for 5-6 adults doesn’t work very good, and he felt they needed to be respectful. He agreed that the fees should be higher, but he wants to look at some mitigation for affordable housing and he thinks they have to be mindful, as the Mayor mentioned, of the generational lifestyle now in the Bay Area.

Mayor Bier asked if they have enough direction.

PW Dep. Director Bautista responded affirmatively, adding that they won’t be looking at the affordable housing reduction tiers and ADU options in terms of lowering those fees and taking into consideration what the standards of other cities are, as well as looking at what specific tiers 75% reduction, 50% reduction, and they have direction.

Councilmember O’Neill asked him if these were fees that could be used for the bike park.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they can be used for trails, but if it is expansion of the park, and they will sell the park, he agreed that part of it could be used in that respect.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that he triggered another question when he referred to trails.

She stated that so many properties within our city’s jurisdiction, such as a recommendation from OSPAC on trail maintenance, but the land of the trails they are referring to are not owned by Pacifica but part of GGNRA. She thought it was a legal question, but if there were to be a partnership between the city, would they be able to use it for trail maintenance. She thought it was getting a little esoteric but as long as they are looking at all this stuff, and knowing the percentages of our land mass and dedicated to permanent open space that isn’t owned by Pacifica, she thought it was a valid question.

City Manager Woodhouse thought she might be referring to the trails out of the Jean Fassler parking lot, the Ahni Trail, and that is city land.

Councilmember Beckmeyer didn’t think it was that one, but and felt the OSPAC thing went broader than that, but that is one of the areas.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the Council doesn’t have to discuss or decide this at this meeting and can do it when they bring this back, but while the fees seem high or might strike

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 February 14, 2022
them as high, they are a reflection of the increased cost. He stated that, to do a simple trail rehabilitation project like that can be several hundred thousands of dollars if not more depending on the rent and the cost of land, doing improvements to the land and playground equipment are all costs that are very high and what developers sell housings for is way more than they used to be. He wanted to keep a respective on what seems like a high cost may not be in the context of those expenses. He stated that, if they are going to be able to have revenue enhancements to afford these types of capital projects, which they can discuss later on as part of the vision 2020- 2025 and beyond discussion.

Mayor Bier thanked PW Dep. Director Bautista and Mr. Villarreal for being them with Council at this meeting.

No action taken.

Mayor Bier stated that they will take a five-minute break, then reconvened the meeting.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Vaterlaus attended the Council of Cities in San Mateo as a Zoom meeting and their next meeting in Millbrae will be in person and is looking forward to meeting them in person.

She stated that they had staff appreciation and she stated that they are all so thankful for everything staff does. She stated that they work harder than any people she has ever seen and they sometimes get no respect from the public. She thought that was unfortunate and she would like to ask the public to be more respectful of our staff as they are important to us and they don’t want to lose any of them. She attended the Fairmont Subdivision meeting and they talked about local issues affecting Fairmont streets. She attended the Covid Recovery Coordination Council and there are new grants coming up for small businesses. She recommended going to SAMCEDA if they are interested in any small business grants as they have people during this crisis. They talked about child care, food issues, housing issues, etc. She attended the LUNA ribbon cutting on Palmetto. It was one of the largest ribbon cuttings she has ever attended, probably 40 or 50 people, and it was nice to see so many people come out to celebrate two small businesses on Palmetto and it was a great family event.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they had Council meeting and staff appreciation day. He had the police department and went to Guerrero’s and got lunch that would work for a 24-hour shift because there is no place for the midnight shift to go eat except 7 Eleven and those hot dogs get old quick. He echoed Councilmember Vaterlaus’ comments regarding staff. He thought some of the letters and emails the public has been sending regarding our draft EIR are totally inappropriate. He stated that it shows a lack of professionalism or common respect from some of our citizens to our staff. He thought beating people up all the time does not make them receptive to hearing what you are saying. They are keeping track of all the comments but he thought they could be delivered in a more personal, professional manner with some respect for the intelligence and professionalism and education of our staff. He stated that they had a special meeting of the Airport Roundtable and the NIITE HUSSH flight plan was passed unanimously despite the objections of several people from San Francisco. He stated that they also added an amendment that they are going to look at the feasibility of extending the NIITE HUSSH starting a little earlier and ending later in the morning, about 5:00 or 6:00 in the morning. He stated that it is going to take them a while as they are trying to get the FAA and there is pushback from the FAA about coming to a public meeting and talking to the public. He had the liberty with last month’s Economic Development Committee meeting John Hutar, Executive Director of San Mateo County Convention of Visitors Bureau came and spoke to the committee about the services they offer and how we might be able to leverage them to try to increase visitors to Pacifica. They

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 February 14, 2022
said one of the problems was that there was not a lot of places for groups to meet in Pacifica. He stated that one of the hotels doesn’t even have a conference room. He put together a tour of different facilities in Pacifica that he has gone to for group conferences and he gave a tour with 9-10 people with several Yulia Carter and Daisy Fong of Economic Development Committee part of the tour, at the gym and multipurpose room at IBL, Little Brown Church, the archery range and they didn’t even know that place existed. They were impressed with the restaurant at Sharp Park Golf Course where they went for a conference meeting and they went to Terra Nova High School’s theater and they were impressed with that, adding that taxpayers of Pacifica should be very proud as that was the most professional high school theater in the entire Bay Area, mentioning lighting, sound system, etc. was impressive. They went to Pedro Valley Park and showed them the group picnic areas and did a drive by of Sea Bowl as they have a private room at Pacifica Brewery. They went to Sanchez Art Center and the Sanchez Adobe to see the interpretation center for the Ohlone. They went to the Pedro Point Fire House. He stated that he has a commitment from the Ohlone Café that they will cater the Council of Cities event for Pacifica. When they host different city councils from the peninsula this August, they will be eating Ohlone Indian food. He stated there was a Library JPA meeting also and they voted on a lot of issues.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that our staff was amazing and they are so professional and so respectful. She stated that, while they are encouraging the community to be professional and respectful, she was amazed at such an even temper and so thorough our staff is in responding to inquiries from the public and she commended them. She had such a great time with staff appreciation. She was working with Public Works and Engineering and it was great and fun. She reported on her two liaison commitments, Beautification Advisory Committee and the Economic Development Committee. She stated that Beautification’s work is continuing on the bioswale on Crespi and was personally involved in that. She stated it was very important to get the plant started and, with the heat last week, that was dramatic and lots of watering needed to occur but there is partnership with Cabrillo School, community and it has been great. She stated that there is an upcoming work day scheduled for the Beautification Advisory Committee in March for the Palmetto bump out. She stated that all the groups that have adopted are being approached by the Beautification Advisory Committee volunteers on whether they are renewing and if not and are relinquishing the space as there is a waiting list. She stated that from Economic Development, it was so refreshing to see the volunteers to have all of the seats filled. She stated that Councilmember O’Neill’s work continues to bear fruit, as one of the subcommittees is working on reaching out to Half Moon Bay, talking about strategies and social media and contacts, etc., which are a lot of things he brought forward, including work with some of the business support agencies.

She stated that the new people are picking it up even though they weren’t there when those presentations were made but they are working in their subcommittees with people who were until the work continues. She thanked him on his leadership on that. She stated that they had the mayor at the meeting for the first time, and was a great meeting. She was looking forward to Pacifica’s Sports Hall of Fame upcoming dinner and she will be reporting on resource management and climate protection committee meeting as well as Coastal Cities group meeting coming up before the next Council meeting. She clarified that one of the callers earlier in the meeting made a statement that she wasn’t sure what a Reach code was and she clarified her comment that she switched to minutes to remember what exactly that she said as she was very clear on what Reach codes are. She stated that she was asking Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck for clarification because he had mentioned either that night or the previous meeting an item from Peninsula Clean Energy about refreshing our Reach codes. She wanted to get detail on what way are they looking to refresh the Reach codes, along the same lines as the caller was referring to. She mentioned interest in energy being put forward in that regard in many communities, and Pacifica was a leader in adopting Reach codes. This is not about a new test but more how they make it work best for our community.

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 February 14, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he met with PCE staff the past week to discuss Reach codes.

He stated that there are two different ways to approach Reach codes but one of them was essentially to refresh them every three years or so. He thought all of the communities are going through the refresher and some are passing them as municipal codes and they won’t need to refresh them every three years. He stated that will be a decision they make in a few months when they discuss Reach codes as a body. He stated that the conversation he had with staff, when they refresh them, a lot of them will be essentially what they already have, especially pertaining to new construction. He was interested in the conversation they will have around the burn out codes, replacing gas appliances with electric appliances. He stated that Half Moon Bay had a very robust discussion when it came time for them to discuss burn out codes. He favored having a discussion rather than an argument when the items are brought to Council as he felt it was more productive. He was trying to wrap his head around what burn out codes would mean for Pacifica and what would make a discussion that would actually bear fruit. He thought they would have a presentation somewhere between June and August, when they are through the General Plan updates as that would be the appropriate time to break PCE staff and start hearing about Reach codes. He attended the Complete Streets seminar and he walked away with methodology behind setting speed limits and productive approaches to that. He attended a meeting of a Silicon Valley leadership group about housing. The last Peninsula Clean Energy meeting was between the last meetings, and he stated that one thing that stood out from the meeting the success of the e-bike rebate program and they renewed the rebate incentives for getting e-bikes which was a great way to get cars off the street, especially riding to the grocery store, bringing kids to school and they discussed the cargo bikes a lot. The rest was mostly administrative. He stated that their next meeting will be on the 24th for anyone from the public interested in attending. He enjoyed the Council of Cities meeting with Councilmember Beckmeyer. They were discussing the 101 express lanes and how they are trying to approach it from an equity standpoint and they are often referred to as “Tesla lanes,” implying that it is only the wealthier who will be able to afford them.

He stated that, what was unique about our areas is that we are trying to approach it from an equity lens to make sure that those who can’t afford a Tesla but have large families to ride with and can’t afford the express lane will be able to afford it as it is not just for the super-rich. He had his employee appreciation day with Wastewater. He echoed what his fellow councilmembers have said. He stated that the word that occurred to him as he was hearing them speak was abuse and he would also like to implore the community that there was absolutely no intention of it coming off this way. A lot of the messages they are receiving towards staff are frankly abusive, and as somebody who knocked on every door he possibly could to earn their votes to do this job, he did it knowing full well that the tenor of what some comments could be after sitting in that chair in the front row for the better part of a decade, he has heard quite a choice word being uttered toward Councilmembers and he was happy to put himself in the position to hear those choice words to sit through for the words that are the most helpful toward our community and go from there. He expects the abuse and with every kindness intended to his cohorts, he expect them to be abused as well as it is what they signed up for whether or not they knew it. He stated that the staff was extraordinary and he thought he will start talking about Planning staff at their next agenda item but he got to hang out with the staff of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and he brought them some pizza and they would have a slice of pizza, say thanks and take off. He was struck by how excited everybody was to talk about their job. He stated that he has a day job and he has become cynical in his job to a point. He expressed that the people who work for us love what they do and are extraordinarily knowledgeable about what they do and passionate about what they do. He stated that you don’t see Wastewater Treatment staff unless it gets bad, but you usually don’t see them because it doesn’t get that bad. He stated that they are dealing with some of the messiest on a technical level that is extraordinarily mindboggling to someone who doesn’t deal with that kind of engineering on a daily basis. He stated that it is impossible to describe how extraordinarily

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 February 14, 2022
heart rendering it is to spend time with those who take time to put so much heart into the job they do. He attended the JPA Library San Mateo County meeting and attended in the audience as Councilmember O’Neill was the liaison. He stated that Sarah McDowell of San Carlos talked about possibly bringing some funds to speak on mental health issues. He spoke about finding ways to pro-actively include efforts supporting mental health initiatives and specifically referenced the Mayor’s mental health initiative. He thought of her and made a public remark to the effect of supporting it. He was hoping to see that in the budget when it comes through. He watched the short film, Chosen, about human trafficking and he was inspired by the presenter. He stated that there is a movie series that they are doing, with the next couple about males and human trafficking and this one was about grooming young women for sex trafficking. He stated that, if anyone wants information about the forthcoming movies, he will be happy to supply it. He got to attend a dinner in which Jackie Speier was speaking at the Rotary Club meeting, which was a joint meeting between Millbrae, Pacifica and Half Moon Bay that took place in Half Moon Bay. He stated that it was always extraordinary to listen to her speak, as she strikes him as a rather extraordinary individual. He stated that it looks like our state level mask mandate will be closing out shortly in a few days and he encouraged everyone to be mindful. He stated that we wear masks to protect others and that, whether or not you decide to wear a mask, respecting people’s space and understanding we are in the middle of a pandemic and how easy it is to pass this thing on. He stated that, if you get vaccinated, that would probably help a nurse to not have that much more stress than they are already having when they are dealing with patients who have chosen otherwise. He asked that everyone to proceed with whatever precaution they are able to for the sake of those around you. He mentioned his place of business as Safeway is in the middle of a collective bargaining process with UFCW 5 union. He stated that the union is saying now that, if they aren’t having a happier conversation with Safeway by the end of the month, they will likely be talking about taking a strike vote and that affects the third largest provider of jobs in Pacifica and that might affect Pacifica in general. He wanted to make sure everyone was aware that there are serious rumblings going on that a strike vote might be imminent.

Mayor Bier stated that she did sign up to get abused, but to serve her community. She stated that she was present to talk to them but she will not take any abuse. She thanked her colleagues for staff appreciation as they took it and ran with it. She stated she was at the Community Center when Councilmember Vaterlaus’ pizzas were delivered and everyone was so happy. She stated that they deserved Council’s attention and respect. She knew everyone was hearing it a lot during this meeting but she didn’t care if she is saying it over again. She stated that the city staff works so hard. She stated that they all know there are other places that pay more money and we have to take care of staff every way we can as we do not want to lose them. She stated that she got to feed the firemen except she probably bought out Mazzetti’s and they probably weren’t happy about that, and next time she will place an order. She stated it was fun and she thanked everyone for participating. She referred to Mayor pro Tem mentioning the Mayor’s Mental Health Initiative, and she stated that there will be some money coming from our county and they will be bringing mental health first aid into our community. She stated that there were four of them in the planning team, Pacifica, South San Francisco, San Carlos and one other. She stated that they will be bringing Mental Health First Aid into those communities first and they already have funding approved by San Mateo County and they will be paying for all the training in all those communities.

She thought it was exciting to be able to come together and get something done. She stated that they will also be advocating for mental health bills on the legislative agenda to see what is out there and how we can promote all the things that are coming at the state level and they will be discussing that as well. She stated that they did commission presentations and she went to the Mental Health Commission and did a presentation and all those commissioners want to jump in and do training also. She stated that bringing people in from the county was fun and May is mental health awareness month and they will be rolling all this out in May. She felt it was gratifying

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 February 14, 2022
to work with people across the county, and she was proud of it. She attended the CCAG Bike and Pedestrian meeting where they saw presentations for 12 capital and planning projects, including Ryan Marquez talking about our Palmetto project, and she will have City Manager Woodhouse talk about it during his communications. She stated that it was good to hear Ryan Marquez and other councilmembers support him and Pacifica. She mentioned that they have to score the applications and she was in the process of reading the applications and score them before they are chosen. She thought having Councilmembers support it before they are scored was nice. She went to Council of Cities, attended a climate action plan 101 which was a follow up from a previous session “Code Red”, and she had an opportunity to talk to other cities about their climate action plan and committees. She went to her first Economic Development meeting which was great to hear about all the different work groups and they seem excited for the work they are doing and she felt that excitement. She attended Housing Our People Effectively meeting which had updates on the Home Key project - Shores Landing, Pacific Inn and Coast House, and how they are succeeding. She stated there is a lot of good work going on in our county and communities.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, on behalf of staff, he sincerely thanks each and every Councilmember for the staff appreciation actions that they took. He has heard a lot of positive feedback as they observed when they were doing their appreciation activities. He stated that it means more than they could imagine to each staff member in the city’s organization. He stated that there is an immense workload happening with a pandemic going on and on, and it has been tough and that kind of recognition goes a long way. He stated that he wasn’t around for it, as he had the opportunity to go to a 2.5 day meeting, Cal Cities City Managers Department meeting.

He stated that it was an exceptional 2.5 days of sessions and seeing colleagues from around the state that covered the gamut of issues that are relevant to all of us, on the state level for financing, federal level, ARPA funding, etc., diversity equity inclusion issues that they are all working on, organizational culture and innovation and a lot of discussion about decorum of civic discourse which is a statewide issue. He stated that housing and homeless solutions are always discussed.

He thought it was a great productive 2.5 days meeting. He stated that he was reminded by the city clerk to mention that we have committee and commission recruitments out now, with a deadline of February 18 and positions for the Beautification Advisory Committee, Planning Commission and Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission. He stated that the information is available in the electronic newsletter and on the city’s website. He encouraged applications for those committees. He wanted to turn it over to PW Director Petersen who will talk about the Palmetto Esplanade Pedestrian and Bike Improvement project that the Mayor mentioned.

PW Director Petersen stated that Ryan Marquez did an excellent job in presenting the Palmetto Esplanade Bike/Ped project to the CCAG BPAC. She is letting everyone know what the project is about. It will be starting on the north of Palmetto at Westline Drive and they will be putting in a class 2 striped bike lane going down to Esplanade and take a detour to the coast, then comes back at Avalon. Within that location, they will have the bike boulevard and a class 2 bike lane.

Once it comes back to Palmetto, it will continue down with the class 2 bike lane to Paloma. She stated that, within the proposed project, there is a couple of intersection improvements, one at Manor and Esplanade and one at the crossing of the Highway 1 ramp next to the San Francisco RV Park. They are looking at putting in signs and striping and maybe some flashing beacons at that location, but has not been finalized yet as it is at a 35% design at this point. She stated that Ryan Marquez has done a great job.

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 February 14, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated that completes his report.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she wanted to follow up as she had the date wrong for the Planting day, which was not in March, for the Palmetto bump outs is February 26, 9:30 to 11:30 am. She stated that information will be going out through Connect with Pacifica. As it is coming up quickly, she wanted to mention that. She also forgot to mention about the Yiftee Gift Card promotion going on now which is a Shop Local Project of the Economic Development Committee and the city. She stated that, if you purchase a card for $50, you receive a card for yourself for $25. She stated that they can be used at 14 different businesses in town. The information is on the city’s website. She stated that this promotion ends February 20 or while supplies last.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he and City Manager Woodhouse attended the Pacifica School Board meeting last week and the Board indicated their willingness to support the city in their feasibility study for the affordable housing at the corporation yard. He hasn’t heard anything officially from the Superintendent but, by counting the Board, it seemed to pass. He stated that everyone should be getting their property tax bills soon, and he wanted to let them know that the bond hat was passed to build employee housing for the Jefferson High School District and they will be having a grand opening in May and the first faculty and staff should be moving into that building in Daly City in May. He mentioned that they are finishing the curbs, play structures, etc.

Mayor Bier thanked the taxpayers for that as the staff that are applying for the housing are so excited. She stated that it was beautiful.

CONSIDERATION

13. Extension of Public Comment Period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan.

PROPOSED ACTION: Extend the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan by 15 days beyond the current 45 day comment period.

City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report.

Mayor Bier asked, if there are no questions, she would go to public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer has her hand up.

Mayor Bier stated that she didn’t mean it, and she opened public comments, reminding the public that this is only about the extension of the public comment period and she will stop anyone if they talk about the contents in the document.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that he was an environmental advocate and thanked the City Manager about talking about the requirements of the quarry site specific plan and the extension time, mentioning the various specifics involved that not everyone is aware of and asked that they extend the comment period on that site plan.

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 February 14, 2022
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, thanked the Mayor and Council for having this item on the agenda as he strongly supports the 15-day extension, mentioning some of his thoughts on these long and complex documents.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, thanked Council for considering this extension, hoping they do extend the comment period as the document deserves additional time for public consideration, mentioning some citizens who were not aware of this item or redistricting and expressing her concerns.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, appreciated our overworked city staff, beginning to mention her thoughts on the issue.

Mayor Bier stated that the public comment is about extending the comment period.

Ms. Boles referred to the difficulties regarding the process and concern for the public notification, as well as the work by Mr. Shoemaker who modified the documents, etc, and everyone needs more time and she requested that they approve extending the deadline to fix the documents.

Cassie Leonardi, Pacifica, echoed concerns about the brief comment period for the General Plan update, mentioning some of her concerns and urged Council to extend the comment period.

Brooke, Pacifica, mentioned her concerns about the complex document and urged Council to extend the comment period for the general plan to allow the public more time to provide input and echoed all the concerns mentioned from speakers.

Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, hoped they decide to extend the comment period as it will help with all that is going on.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to clarify a statement Ms. Boles made about the city denying an extension request to Fish and Wildlife, and he stated that was not what happened. He stated that there was a phone call between city staff and Fish and Wildlife staff and Fish and Wildlife staff expressed that they were overworked as well and requested an extension for their agency.

City staff’s reply was that, if the comment period was extended for their agency, it would need to be extended for everyone and they would let them know immediately if Council granted an extension to the comment period.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck supported extending the period for 15 days. He heard some comments asking for forums to address concerns about the General Plan update and he didn’t know how long the speakers have been following but a part of the issue of having a 12-year long process to extend a 40-year-old document. He stated that he only tuned in about eight years ago and there are various degrees of awareness as to where they are in a very long process. He thought the majority of staff is new compared to when this started. He wanted to be clear that there were many forums developing the General Plan updates over many years. He stated that, after they get past the draft environmental impact report phase, they will move into Planning Commission meetings where there will be a public forum to discuss all the documents, at least one meeting depending on how things go, and then there will be at least one Council meeting depending on how it goes. He stated that, because of Covid, it seems like they have had a desert of public interaction. He stated that it is a very long process and the forums will be available as they go along. He reminded everyone that, if they extend this comment period at this time, after that 15- day period, they will review the documents before the Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the public comment period on the draft environmental impact report has a set date, but as

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 February 14, 2022
they are discussing the extension, the public has between now and the Planning Commission meeting that he thought will be in May or possibly June. He stated that, in terms of the whole General Plan update, Sharp Park Specific Plan update, there are many more months and the public can continue studying it and send Council comments on it. He stated that, the more time they give Council on their comments, they will give them a more robust answer as they will have time to ask questions in advance. He referred to Suzanne Moore mentioning a survey at Mazzetti’s, and he thought the city has done a fine job informing people as many ways as possible, and he thought it might be a good idea to send a postcard to everyone before the first Planning Commission meeting to give everyone an opportunity to be more aware even though it is costly but it may be a good approach.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that people pushed for Council to get this General Plan and Council pushed to get it out, and then people didn’t want it out. Now, they want extra time. She thought it was fine to give them extra time, but she believes this is the end of the extra time because it takes them out further to get it accomplished which is the goal of everyone to get it done. She referred to the questions at Mazzetti’s, and if you asked those people to name one person who sits on Council, they likely couldn’t answer that either. She stated that people choose to get involved or choose to not get involved. She didn’t think they can drag them to the General Plan, and they can try their best and send out the information but they can’t make them read it.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan by 15 days beyond the current 45-day comment period; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

14. Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica adding Chapter 32, “Sale or Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes” and Chapter 33, “Sales of Flavored Tobacco Products and Pharmacy Sales of Tobacco Products Prohibited” and amending Section 5-

31.03, “Limits on Tobacco Retailer Licenses” within Chapter 31 of Title 5, “Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct” of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Ban the Sale and Distribution of Flavored Tobacco Products, the Sale and Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes and to Prohibit the Sale of Tobacco Products at Pharmacies in the City of Pacifica PROPOSED ACTION: Move to waive the first reading of and introduce by title an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica adding Chapter 32, “Sale or Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes” and Chapter 33, “Sales of Flavored Tobacco Products and Pharmacy Sales of Tobacco Products Prohibited” and amending Section 5-31.03, “Limits on Tobacco Retailer Licenses” within Chapter 31 of Title 5, “Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct” of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Ban the Sale and Distribution of Flavored Tobacco Products, the Sale and Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes and to Prohibit the Sale of Tobacco Products at Pharmacies in the City of Pacifica.

Police Chief Steidle presented the staff report.

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 February 14, 2022
Mayor Bier referred to exemptions on stores that sell Hookah products or that they can only sell Hookah products.

Police Chief Steidle stated that it was those who sell Hookah products. If you have a 21 and over store, and they sell tobacco, but they also sell flavored tobacco that are Hookah products, they would be allowed to continue those as long as they continue to hold that 21 and over only stats.

Mayor Bier concluded only flavored Hookah products.

Police Chief Steidle responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.

Shawneece Stevenson with Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council, thanked them for bringing this topic back due to their unusual issue last time. She stated that she leads the flavored tobacco education policy initiative, detailing work with Ingrid B. Lacey Middle School Peer Program in 2019 and other groups and programs.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, referred to California’s bipartisan landmark law, giving details on the ups and downs of the results by organizations.

Jen Grand-Lejano with American Cancer Society, stated that she is the government relation director and is part of the Cancer Action Network. She thanked Council for addressing the issue and she urged them to adopt the policy to end the sale of all flavored tobacco products, expressing concerns about specific issues.

Bob Gordon with San Mateo County Tobacco Education Coalition, mentioned the issues of concern regarding the products negatively impacting children and put forward some positive suggestions and thanked Council for this next step.

Mayra Diaz with San Mateo County Tobacco Prevention Program, highlighted some data that she thought might be helpful for the Council’s decision, giving some specific concerns and suggestions and offering support.

Tricia Barr with San Mateo County Tobacco Education Coalition, stated that she is also on the high school site council with teachers, administrators, staff and students, and shared their thoughts and recommendations and commended Pacifica on taking steps to bring this ordinance forward.

Claudia _____, Pacifica, referred to problems at this time with the pandemic, etc., and she was pushing for the enforcement of the ordinance while giving retailers time to make adjustments.

Jaime Rojas stated that he represented many retailers of the national organizations of tobacco outlets, sharing his thoughts on updates of statistics, and asked that, if Council moves forward, they combine the enforcement date to January 1, 2023, and they would appreciate making that change
Mayor Bier closed public comments.

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 February 14, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that she works for Jefferson Union High School District and implements surveys, and she stated that 19% of 11th graders reported using vape products in the last 30 days.

She stated that our transitional age people are also using these products and becoming addicted to them and she wanted to verbalize that data.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it is a hard issue as she doesn’t want to see children doing any of this. She stated that she also talked to the retailers and asked if they will have to go out of business. She talked to people who said they use the vape products to quit smoking but she hasn’t heard that at this meeting but has heard it in the past. She questioned that we have liquor stores, marijuana stores, and those are the choice of people 21 and older. She stated that she knew that kids did alcohol and it was a hard situation and she asked if they are limiting choice for people who may be using it to quit smoking cigarettes and are awful things. She referred to studies on vaping, and certain products are bad, but they are better than cigarettes. She stated that it was hard for her and she wasn’t sure how she will vote.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that this is hard for him as well. He stated that, when it comes to prohibition, he has a specific internal hard politic on it. He stated that to vote to limit a substance goes against how he looks at the world. He supported keeping the Hookah sale at the last meeting. He stated that his grandfather was a pharmacist and he didn’t think a cigarette should be near a pharmacy, and he has respect for the fact that children should not have access to especially E-cigarettes but any cigarette. He stated that a part of him wants to ban tobacco throughout the world and the other part of him is fundamentally anti-prohibition. He was happy to vote along with what he agreed to at the last meeting, but if more than that were to be entertained by Council, he would favor taking all these products, sticking them in stores for 21 and over, if there could be a mechanism for greater enforcement of making sure that people under the age of 21 are not all allowed in those businesses. He likes the idea of extending the period of getting rid of their stock, if they pass it, to January 1, 2023, respecting the economic fact that the entire state is about to take this vote and allowing those businesses extra time to build revenue during these times when money is harder to come by in terms of business. He stated that it is hard for him, as someone who doesn’t like tobacco and used tobacco. He would make it illegal, but he doesn’t like making substances illegal so that is where he is now.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed with what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck as she tends to not be restrictive. She stated that she works in a school with kids and she knows when eighth graders are vaping and it is disturbing. She stated that the first time this was brought to her attention was by Councilmember O’Neill a long time ago, as he was pushing for a healthy kid survey and he wanted more education at a younger age as they have to catch them before they are engaged in it. She was disturbed and uncertain about the pharmacy piece, but when she read in their packet that American Pharmacy Association, California Pharmacy Association and the California Medical Association called for the adoption of state and local prohibitions of tobacco sales in drug stores and pharmacies, she thought it was not the pharmacists that wanted it but the large retailers. She stated that she has decided to support this ordinance as written. She asked Police Chief Steidle of we have any limitation on the number of 21 and over businesses that sell tobacco products.

Police Chief Steidle stated that we do not as we do not classify them as 21 and over tobacco product businesses and there is nothing in our code or retail permits that does that nor does the state. He stated that this is something that the businesses put on themselves. He stated that, for the purposes of this report, we have 21 and over only businesses and they would have to .call and talk to them to find that information. He stated that they don’t have a cap and they don’t permit them in that fashion.

2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 February 14, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the marijuana stores were 21 and over or is it 18.

Police Chief Steidle stated that it was 21.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that the only business entities the city has that are 21 or over are bars where they serve liquor and marijuana.

Police Chief Steidle stated that he was correct.

Councilmember O’Neill would like to keep things simple for the staff. He stated that, if all licenses are renewed on October 31, he would go for that date. He didn’t think they needed to create a third entity of 21 and over but just ban it from the pharmacies and from all places of retail. That is his thought.

Mayor Bier agreed with everything Councilmember O’Neill just said, but she was okay with going forward with the ordinance as it is written.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to waive the first reading of and introduce by title an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica adding Chapter 32, “Sale or Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes” and Chapter 33, “Sales of Flavored Tobacco Products and Pharmacy Sales of Tobacco Products Prohibited” and amending Section 5-31.03, “Limits on Tobacco Retailer Licenses” within Chapter 31 of Title 5, “Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct” of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Ban the Sale and Distribution of Flavored Tobacco Products, the Sale and Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes and to Prohibit the Sale of Tobacco Products at Pharmacies in the City of Pacifica.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they can change it to any licensed pharmacies by the State of California in Pacifica.

Police Chief Steidle stated that they have language in the definition that covers that.

Councilmember O’Neill then moves as stated in the staff report.

Seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
City Clerk Coffey stated that it was 11:00 PM and they need to make a motion to extend the meeting.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the meeting to midnight; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 February 14, 2022
Vote: 5-0 (to extend the meeting to midnight)

15. Vision 2025 & Beyond – Fiscal Sustainability Analysis, Potential Revenue Options, and Ballot Measure Analysis & Communications Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive, discuss, and provide direction to the City Manager on the updated 10 Year Financial Forecast and Options to Maintain the Current Level of City Services.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they have Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter and Brian Moura of RGS to help with the presentation. He began the staff report, then turned the presentation over to Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter.

Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter continued the presentation.

Consultant Moura completed the presentation.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to their projected budget for 2021-2022 and, were it not for their fund money, it was already in deficit, and she thought part of their challenge at that time was the uncertainty around vehicle license fees and they didn’t include them in the base budget. She asked for an update on whether the issue was resolved or substantially resolved. She had another question regarding the special tax that Belmont is doing, and if she understood the presentation, Belmont’s concern is that they are applying the tax to new residential development only, and their ability to service the new development exceeds the revenue they would generate by that development. She asked if that was correct and that they need to have the tax to even that out.

Mr. Moura stated that he would defer to Ms. Carter and the City Manager to talk about the VLF and he will answer the Belmont question.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the VLF in lieu has two parts to it, first that they had over $2 million short fall that the state is due to cover and there is language in the governor’s budget bill to do that for the next year for Pacifica and all cities in San Mateo County, and the other part of the issue is looking for a permanent solution to the vehicle license fee in lieu short fall issue and that is continuing to be worked on and the most recent language they saw was not going to solve that problem for them and they have to work more on that. He stated that, if the current budget trailer designation happens, they should be funded that short fall for this year. He added that the funding won’t come in until the next fiscal year.

Mr. Moura then referred to her question on Belmont and the community facilities district. He stated that she was correct. He stated that Belmont has looked at potential development in the city over the next couple of years. They have done a study called MBS which works on revenue studies, and things like community facility districts. He stated that Belmont’s study says that, when they get projected business development, the revenue from those businesses will more than cover their cost of serving their businesses. He stated that the cost of providing services to the residential development they are anticipating will create a deficit that they project over the next several years of up to $2 million a year and they are proposing to create a community facilities district, known as a CFD or Mello-Roos and essentially what would happen is, initially, the properties in this district would be new residential development only because of the phenomena she described which doesn’t cover its cost. He stated that they also designed the district to allow for annexations or expansions of the district in the future to cover other parts of the city and other

2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 February 14, 2022
types of development. He stated that an interesting thing of these special taxes, i.e., CFDs, is when they were first allowed under California law, they were primarily done in Southern California to create infrastructure for new development and would fund things like sidewalks, traffic lights, sewered water, a one-time capital. He stated that, over the years, cities have been using them now for things like maintaining and replacing those infrastructure improvements and, in some cases, if the residential, in some cases commercial, but Belmont’s is residential, new development also results in increased operating budget costs. There are certain categories under the state law that also can be covered. He stated that state law allows you to cover things like a lease, fire and under certain circumstances, even library, park and rec services under a CFD but not other city services and is somewhat restricted. He stated that Belmont is also exploring those options.

They are putting in infrastructure, maintaining infrastructure, replacing it over time and providing a higher level of operating services, initially would identify a handful of areas where there would be new development and leaving their options open to further expand the district as additional development may come online. He stated that it was a tool that started out as infrastructure only but it has been used a lot in Southern California and they are seeing a lot more in the Bay Area now, such as Stockton, and San Francisco, etc., and it was an interesting tool and, if it is something of interest to Council, it could be explored for Pacifica.

Councilmember O’Neill asked what the difference between the CFD and Mello-Roos district.

Mr. Moura stated that they are one and the same.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have the same horse but are changing the spots on the zebra.

Mr. Moura agreed, explaining that the law that implements this type of special taxes is called the Mello-Roos community facilities act of 1983, but the more common terms these days is community facilities district or CFD but they are the same thing.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, since it is an assessment on the property owners and paid through their property tax bill, if it is going to require a vote of the people and what would be the difference between that and forming an assessment district.

Mr. Moura stated that there are a couple of differences between a facilities district and assessment district. He is right that they are similar, and one thing that happens is, if you set up a CFD in an area where it is commercial property rather than residential, it requires a two-thirds approval of the commercial property owners but doesn’t require a vote of the people. If it is residential, then it can trigger a vote of the registered voters. He stated that the other thing that the community facility district has in its favor is that, unlike the assessment district which has requirements for an engineer’s report and for determining special benefits and general benefits, etc., the community facilities district formulas and fundings are much more flexible. One of the things that is attractive to some cities in using the CFD is that, when you use an assessment district and determine general benefit, which are things that, if you put an improvement like landscaping or sidewalks, it is deemed to be beneficial for everyone who lives in the community and the city has to pay for those. In a CFD, if you put an improvement, the entire cost of the improvements can be borne by the property owners and the city contribution may not be required at all. That is one of the reasons these days they see more and more cities using this community facilities district tool rather than an assessment district. He stated that a lot depends on the infrastructure needed and the type of project as both financing tools are used. They see more and more people using these MelloRoos CFDs and that is the path that Belmont is looking at. He stated that it wouldn’t surprise him if, when Burlingame does more research on their special tax for infrastructure, they might go down

2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 February 14, 2022
the same path.

Councilmember O’Neill thought they would need to look to see if a CFD is possible for the quarry.

Mr. Moura stated that is a great example. When you have a piece of land that is currently undeveloped, you could do that. The other tool that they might use for something like the quarry is the so-called EIFD, enhanced infrastructure district which works sort of like redevelopment used to in that you initially set up the district, borrow money to put in the improvements and then the growth of the property tax over time repays the debt and also funds other improvements in that area. He stated that, in some cases, some cities use those two tools together because, in a CFD, you can raise the money in the early years of a project whereas an enhanced infrastructure district, and EIFD, it takes a while for the tax increment to increase in value to start generating some money. If you want to put in the infrastructures in years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, you won’t have it yet if you are using the EIFD. He stated that, in some cases, they use the expression stacking both of them together, and that is another option the city would have for something like the quarry.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, since Pacifica has to have 1,900 units they have to hit with RHNA and they have some land that is one story commercial, such as Linda Mar Shopping Center and they rezone the air space above for residential, whether they could do a CFD for residential above the existing development.

Mr. Moura stated that they could work with the property owner in that scenario and could set up a CFD.

Councilmember O’Neill thought you were basically subdividing the air space above the property by doing a condo, townhouse or apartment and you zone the air space for housing and you could do a CFD to pay for the infrastructure for that increased use.

Mr. Moura stated that he was correct, adding that they could do the same thing for a commercial development if someone was redeveloping a shopping center or any other commercial space, as it is not limited to residential but, in the case of Belmont, they decided to do theirs that way, but there is no requirement in the law to do that way if Pacifica wanted to go forward with something like that.

Mayor Bier asked if they might want to consider extending the meeting longer, possibly 12:30 if they need that much time.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.)
Councilmember O’Neill asked the mayor if they could get public comments.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speaker.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, suggested that, if they want a transparent process with robust public

2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 35 February 14, 2022
input, they schedule the rest of this meeting for some time other than 12:00 AM, and he made several suggestions that they ask Mr. Moura.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the City Manager stating that rarely is there a pleasant conversation about any revenue measures to be put before voters. She stated that, if anyone is sitting in the audience in the first row for ten years, they know the history of the voters appetite for revenue measures. She recalls their appetite for a revenue measure for the library project. She stated that having this conversation is difficult, especially with the recent measures and their outcome, but they have to have this conversation, not because they asked for it. She stated that they didn’t want it scheduled at midnight, but that is just how it worked out. She knows it sometimes happens, and as the City Manager said, this is the beginning stage of this and they have to explore all options. She is concerned about the timing and she wanted to have a thorough, robust and transparent process because this is like many issues that many former Councils have deferred on, and a few tried but failed tax measures and another was a UUT that failed. She stated that she has already heard from some of the community that they are revving up their mimeograph machines to get ready if they choose to pass such a measure. She stated that they aren’t doing that at this time, just having a conversation so they can look at all of the options. She stated that they heard something at this meeting that she had not realized were options, and she felt it was the beginning. She asked Mr. Moura, with Mello-Roos, is this the case where you have the ability to exempt certain demographics from the measure, whether by age or income level.

Mr. Moura knows they can exempt certain types of properties, but he would defer to the City Attorney or do additional research on whether they could exempt by income levels or age.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they can look into that as there are some restrictions on that.

Mayor Bier asked Mr. Moura if he sees any TOT tax above 15%.

Mr. Moura stated he has not yet, but he thought the 15.5% in Palo Alto is the highest one in the Bay Area and he could look but he thought there might be one that is at 16% in Southern California. He can get that information, but he hasn’t seen anything significantly above that.

Councilmember Vaterlaus likes the TOT tax because it is borne by the people who are staying in the rooms. She has never called anywhere on a vacation and asked what their TOT tax was to determine whether she was going to stay there or somewhere else. She thought TOT at 15% sounds good to her. She stated that there are so many options to go through and it is a lot. She stated that would be her first choice for one item.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was doing some searching and he saw that San Mateo County’s current sales tax is 9.625% and the highest in the state is in Hayward and San Leandro which is over 10.75%. He didn’t know if that would be a detriment, as we don’t have any big ticket retailers in Pacifica. He would be concerned about making our small merchants more competitive as you are putting 10% more onto the tax bill. He would also like the Transit Occupancy Tax but he liked when they were at the League of Cities conference, and the city of Sacramento called it the city infrastructure tax. He thought it would be good to do that to support tree maintenance and sports fields for the kids because our sports teams would be able to have tournaments that would increase our Transit Occupancy Tax because the teams would be staying in Pacifica. He stated that there was a lady who is working on trying to bring sports to San Mateo County as she

2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 36 February 14, 2022
thinks that is an under-utilized youth sports. He stated that, when Oceana has a swim meet, you cannot find parking up there and every hotel room is booked. He would push for city infrastructure tax with a provision for some tree maintenance and youth sports in combination with the school district as the school district’s fields are the majority of sports fields in Pacifica. He stated that, in terms of modernization, the utility users tax, they have done that and we lost so we need to move on.

Mayor Bier asked about sales tax. She asked if that has to go to the voters.

Mr. Moura stated that it does.

Mayor Bier asked if that has ever been tried before in Pacifica.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she also prefers sales tax as it is spread around the people who are using it. She stated that a lot of the tax with Mello-Roos is based only on homeowners and they have to pass it on to the renters and the rents are very high already.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that sales tax is the most regressive forms of tax because those who can afford to go over the hill to buy it will do that. He stated that, even at a quarter of a cent, our sales tax would be over 10% in Pacifica.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought sales tax was the last one tried and thought it was a resounding failure.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that the last one tried was the modernization of the utility users’ tax and lowering it down to 5% and spreading it out over Cable TV, cell phones, etc. He stated that we do have a maximum in our utility users’ tax of $500 a year. He didn’t know how many businesses would actually be paying more than $500, but he imagines that Safeway’s electric bill is more than $500. He stated that the utility users’ tax would be more than $500 for Safeway.

He stated that the issue with that is that it is like the gas tax, as you go more toward solar power and you’re losing that utility users’ tax just like cars go electric or increase their gas mileage, and they use gas tax revenue.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, if we want to incentivize them going solar, he didn’t have a problem with that.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that there are unintended consequences with everything.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he would like to throw out a couple of points for consideration, Mr. Moura covered a slide on it, which is the difference between a special tax and a general tax. If you are designating a use for the tax, then it is a two-thirds majority vote, but if it is a general tax, it is a majority of 50%. He stated that the other point is the discomfort about the conversation is that every community has had many tax measures attempted and failed but that doesn’t prevent them from trying out of necessity to do that again and voter populations change over the years and the tax evaluation process includes researching all that and surveying and polling about what would be feasible. He would suggest that, rather than think of the measures based on what happened in the past, they think of them about what could be the possibility in the future so they can do the research and exploration about whether that is feasible or not and see if things have changed.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck appreciated how Pacifica politics on this issue historically falls, but he is

2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 37 February 14, 2022
also very curious on what the urgency of their current predicament might bear and it doesn’t strike him as a bad idea to begin that investigation to see if they are likely to fall into the historical trap they usually do or perhaps it will be well taken by the community that there is a greater urgency now than what we have seen historically.

City Manager Woodhouse added that, to that point, part of the financial analysis that they have done and the budget struggles that he has worked with over the last four years, based on that information, his professional judgment is that the can has been kicked down the road as far as it can be kicked down the road. He stated that the option in coming years is going to be more and more dramatic expenditure containment by cutting programs and services to balance our annual budget. He added that they are working on every strategy possible, and that is why it is important that they are talking about non-taxing strategies, economic development and pursuing grant funding left and right, OES funding for capital projects, etc. They must do everything they can, but looking at an operational deficit of between $1 and $2 million one year from now is a daunting vision just to maintain our current struggling level of services and that is why they are having this conversation.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they can talk about the VLF again. She asked if she heard that they are going to get this year’s VLF but not until next year.

City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked what rate they anticipate that to be.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it should refund the short fall from this current year which is $2 million or $2.1 million.

Chief Fin. Sustainability Officer Carter confirmed it is $2.1 million.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it will be received in 2022-2023.

Chief Fin. Sustainability Officer Carter confirmed it would be 2022-2023.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that short fall or back fill will be critical to attempt to balance the budget for next year in addition to the ARPA funding that we have and the other innovative programs they are trying to use ARPA funding for as well.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that the problem is that Pacifica has become addicted to one-time monies. He stated that ERAF could disappear with the stroke of a pen, mentioning that there are five counties in the state that get that money.

City Manager Woodhouse thought it was four.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that four counties get that money and 54 counties do not, and it would be very easy for the governor to balance his budget by taking that. He stated that you get the VLF which has been a constant thing that has been raised every year by the state. We continue going from one time expenditure and ARPA funds are now the drug of choice this year to get us balanced. He stated that, eventually at some point it will stop. He stated that every time we have had a tax measure fail in Pacifica, the average person has never seen any repercussions because of that failing. He stated that we have cut staff, don’t fill positions and less cops on duty on the midnight shift. He stated that they kept covering it with band-aids.

2.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 38 February 14, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, while they work hard to keep that operational stuff invisible to the public, it is not as invisible as it used to be and to him, it was not sustainable at all to continue that way. He stated that the organization is going to implode under that pressure.

Councilmember Vaterlaus was on the financing city services committee years ago and they cut every little detail and went over paper and every detail of every department and cut what they could. She stated that her issue is that they are always in the same boat, barely making it. She stated that, if there was some way they could make enough money so they weren’t always scratching the surface and trying to get by, that would be the best solution of any of it so they were not always struggling and they could provide the services that people want. She has heard people get up at Council meetings and say you need to do things, but they would never pay another cent in tax. She heard someone say that in one sentence and she found that discouraging. She stated that they want things and have additional staff but they don’t want to pay for it. She stated that they need to convince people that it is important to pay this for the city and for their enjoyment of the city.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the point she just made is really what the spine of vision 2025 study is to hear what is the vision for services five years from now. He asked if the vision for the city to be an entirely contract city with minimal services or to have robust great services that are thriving, what are they, and what kind of infrastructure projects. The financing strategy gets built from what is necessary to achieve that vision and, unfortunately, some of those financial strategies require a vote of the people. If the voters turn down measures, then the vision gets revised. He stated that is what this process is all about and that is why this conversation is so difficult. They have to talk and think about what the possibilities are. He has heard a couple of comments to try to coalesce, comments of openness regarding looking at TOT as a starting point.

Mayor Bier thought they should look at sales tax.

Councilmember O’Neill thought they should try sales tax.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that one of the points about sales tax, and Brian Moura can correct him if he is wrong, but there is a cap so what happens with sales tax is that, if we don’t do the local add on, but the county does the local add on and it is not exempt from that cap calculation, you could lose out with your own bandwidth for your local add on and there is a time game. He asked if he is correct.

Mr. Moura stated that he is correct. He stated that the other thing that is interesting about Pacifica is that one of the reasons that the revenue estimates are so high for Pacifica for their quarter cent and half sent add-ons is because so many of the residents shop in other communities and they are actually going to benefit more from a half cent or quarter cent add-on than other cities would.

He stated that the City Manager is correct as there is a limit, countywide, as to how much add on you can do and things like Measure A and other countywide taxes eat into that and, if you stand by and the county jumps ahead, and eventually uses up all the cap space in the future, if you decide later on you want to do one of these, it may be too late.

Councilmember O’Neill recalls meeting Kevin Mullin had where they passed legislation to raise the limit because of the county taxes, managed lanes and Measure A, etc., He thought it would be interesting to know what is the county limit.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that was what he referred to, not that it raised the limit, but that

2.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 39 February 14, 2022
the tax doesn’t count towards the limit and above the limit, which is the way to think of it.

Councilmember O’Neill read that Hayward is at 10.75% and we are at 9.625% in Pacifica. He didn’t know what the limit is, but he thought it would be interesting to find out. He stated that a lot of those are special, 3% of the sales tax we pay is county special taxes for highways, buses, CalTrain, etc, and a lot of which we don’t get service for in Pacifica. He stated that he has never ridden a train in Pacifica and isn’t old enough for Ocean Shore.

Mayor Bier stated that the county does a millionaire’s tax. She asked what the fund is for the Mental Health ServiceAact (MHSA), which she thought was a half cent tax.

Councilmember O’Neill never heard of that.

Mayor Bier stated that it is funds MHSA.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, as mayor, he will take her word for it.

Mayor Bier didn’t know how many millionaires we have.

Councilmember O’Neill asked the City Manager if he has the wisdom from Council.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he is hearing partial interest in exploring TOT and sales tax feasibility, but only from a couple of councilmembers.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, since they are asking Council if they want to authorize staff to do an RFP to do polling data to see what tax would fly, then he didn’t think they charge per question. He stated that, if they hire the research people to aske, utility users, transit occupancy tax, or sales tax to see which one would fly, he thought that would help frame the discussion at a later date.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they would move on that and be needing to come back to Council in April time frame.

Councilmember Beckmeyer didn’t think the time was right for this. She thought they are just coming out of the pandemic and it is not good timing. She didn’t know how they would stretch it another year but it is not really a year but two years because some of these taxes, if not all of them, have to be on a ballot where Council members are being elected. She stated that they can’t put it on a mid-year.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it is a primary.

Mr. Moura stated that the only way they can put one of these on is in some circumstances you can have a 4/5 vote of Council and declare a state of financial emergency which is rarely done.

He thought their challenge, in terms of timing, and the City Manager is right that there is never a good time to have this discussion, it is if you don’t put one or more of the revenue measures on this November, you are going to hit your $900,000 deficit before they get to the next general election in November 2024 and you will have about a year and a half where you are going to be in deficit without revenue, and that is the challenge. He stated that, with the VLF and the ARPA money, the next budget you adopt this summer is probably going to be okay, but your problem is the following July 1, you will be in serious trouble and, if you haven’t taken action this November,

2.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 40 February 14, 2022
you will have to wait another 1 1/2 years to get to the next election and, in the meantime, as the City Manager suggested, they are probably looking at some significant cuts.

Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested that, before they go to a poll, they have community conversation regarding do you want to pay taxes. She knows it sounds like she is being pessimistic but she thinks she is being realistic and the idea of tabletop discussions need to happen before they put something on a ballet. She didn’t think they can decide to put something on a ballot and then back into it, but work with the community to have people understand the scenario that they are facing.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, stating that the engagement component to Vision 2025 is part of the scope of the economic opportunities study and there are traps that are moving in parallel out of time necessity, but through the economic opportunities study, there is tabletop conversation about vision and opportunities and what that looks like, and then information about the financials as well and he envisions sessions where there would be updated information about feasibility of different types of measures, refine cost estimates, what it would look like.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it is 12:23 AM and he personally didn’t want to go past 12:30 AM.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck didn’t want to go past 12:30 AM either. He asked if TOT goes to a voter of the people?
Mr. Moura stated that it does.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, if the question is that you are going to lose your police in a year, and what kind of tax would you like to pay to be able to keep them, that might garner a slightly different response than merely whether you want to be taxed.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that she has heard these discussions from many councils, and it is always a difficulty discussion. She stated that they are all working through this phenomenally.

She stated that this is usually an hours long discussion because it does have so many implications. She stated that the one thing she wanted to point out that she has seen works successfully is, as referenced by Councilmember O’Neill, hiring a polling consultant. What happens in that process is that is community engagement. There are surveys that go out, and the whole purpose of that is to figure out if your community is ready for this measure. She stated that the issue is they want to get that moving quickly so that you can start that engagement and have those questions that they all have answered, and that is what you use the polling consultant for.

Councilmember O’Neill thought to paraphrase the City Attorney, you also get the main issues that are a concern to the public, is it police, fire, open space.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated is it the roads.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed, is it pot holes, etc., all those questions. She stated that there are many consultants who do this type of work and it is a science for them and they are amazing.

She has also seen cities hire those consultants, go through some polling and some surveying and, based on those results, have decided not to place something on the ballot. She stated that, because Council is making steps, this is step one, and they are not committed to any certain path, but just giving staff direction now to continue to move forward and they can take it one step at a

2.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 41 February 14, 2022
time.

Mayor Bier thought they should have an ad hoc committee to work on the outreach as they will need some kind of outreach. They don’t have to talk about it at this meeting, but they will need to be a part of the outreach.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed. He stated that he had earlier mentioned that option when they were talking about the economic opportunities study that Council may want to put together an ad hoc committee related to that outreach component.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if the City Manager had his direction.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he heard what Councilmember O’Neill voiced was interest in just looking at feasibility of the three types of measures UUT, sales tax and TOT as a starting point and gather that information for a more informed conversation.

Mayor Bier thought it sounds good.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they spent some time talking about community facilities district and she didn’t know if it is premature as it strikes her that the nature of this conversation is to drive them towards November and it seems like they are not prepared to talk about a community facilities district at this juncture. She asked if she was correct.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, since they are very similar, he suggested that they throw assessment districts into the mix and come up with verbiage for the pollster to survey for that. He has talked to people in Vallemar who are interested in an assessment district, with the many issues there with trees and undergrounding, condition of roads, etc.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:45 am.

Councilmember O’Neill feels that deterioration of decisions goes bad after midnight. He said his piece.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he heard a lot and he thought they had direction. He agreed that, with CFDs, maybe a little further out when they are looking as they have talked about EIF fees for West Sharp Park, CFD for quarry site, Rockaway but that may be more in alignment with evolution of those development areas. For immediate terms, it is really type of measures.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked would Bradley-Burns be part of what they are going to hear back on from the sales tax point of view.

Mr. Moura thought, if they do polling on the three items the City Manager indicated, the UUT, the TOT and sales tax, they would hear about the add-on sales tax, and the way they do it when they hire a pollster and an outreach firm is that they will typically do three different surveys and will ask one group of people about the UUT, one group about the sales tax and one group about the TOT.

He was familiar with this.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that the Council either needs to move to extend or they must shut down.

Councilmember O’Neill seconded the motion made by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to extend

2.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 42 February 14, 2022
the meeting to 12:45 a.m.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (to extend meeting to 12:45 a.m.)
Mr. Moura stated that, what will happen is that the pollster will ask people in one of the three taxes, they don’t ask each person about all three. He stated that the other thing he would mention, and one Councilmember touched on this, was that, in San Carlos, there was a brief discussion about UUT from the environmental community for exactly the reason he believes one of them raised, which was, from their perspective, it was an incentive for people to use less utilities, and he had never heard that point of view until they did the public outreach, but he thought it was a very interesting observation.

City Attorney Kenyon wanted clarity from Council. She heard Councilmember O’Neill suggest that there be some polling done and that the City Manager engage, under his authority, a consultant. She stated that they need confirmation from the majority of Council if that is the direction that they all want the manager to take prior to their next discussion on these issues.

Councilmember Vaterlaus and Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck responded affirmatively.

City Attorney Kenyon concluded that was an affirmation by three councilmembers.

Mayor Bier and Councilmember Beckmeyer also responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill asked the City Manager if he has everything he needs.

City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively, and he thanked them all for the conversation.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 12:32 a.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor

2.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 14, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82021878578
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 820 2187 8578
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Cable Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Special Meeting 1 February 15, 2022

SPECIAL MEETING
February 15, 2022 (TUESDAY)
6:00 PM
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on February 15, 2022 at 6:02 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Present
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Present
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Megan Burke, Asst. City Attorney; Tina Wehrmeister, Asst. City Manager/Planning Director; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer; Maria Aguilar, Wastewater Plant Manager; Brian Martinez, Collection System Manager-Wastewater; Nelson Schlater, Senior Engineer; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
City Clerk Coffey explained the conditions for having Council meetings pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 54953 (as amended by AB 361) which authorizes teleconferenced meetings under the Brown Act during certain proclaimed states of emergency. She also explained that the public can observe and participate in the meeting via the Zoom link provided in the Agenda or by phone to the dial-in number and Webinar ID provided in the Agenda. This meeting can also be viewed live via local TV Channel 26 or online at www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream.

2.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of February 15, 2022 Special City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 2 February 15, 2022
City Clerk Coffey also gave information on how to present public comments via email or live if participating by Zoom or phone.

Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Vaterlaus
Mayor Bier asked for confirmation that they will not have Oral or Council communications because it is a special meeting.

City Clerk Coffey confirmed that is correct.

CONSIDERATION

1. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Stating Its Intention to Hold a Public Hearing and Consider Updating the City’s Sewer Service Charges Beginning Tax Year 2022-2023 for a 5-year period from FY 2022/23 to FY 2026/27 and Provide Direction on Sewer Capacity Fees Related to Accessory Dwelling Units.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Stating Its Intention to Hold a Public Hearing and Consider Updating the City’s Sewer Service Charges Beginning Tax Year 2022-2023 for a 5-year period from FY 2022/23 to FY 2026/27 and Provide Direction on Sewer Capacity Fees Related to Accessory Dwelling Units.

PW Director Petersen introduced the city team, and consultants from Bartle Wells. She began the staff report, then turned to the consultant to continue the presentation.

Michael DeGroot, consultant of Bartle Wells, continued the presentation.

PW Director Petersen completed the presentation.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, if they waive lower fees for an ADU that is below market rent, how that would be enforced and are held accountable for following through with that.

PW Director Petersen asked if they can get Asst. City Attorney Burke to respond to that question.

Asst. City Attorney Burke stated that they have put some thought in how they would structure the program to ensure that they are in compliance with the law and not triggering prevailing wage for the project while ensuring that the units would be restricted in terms of the rent moving forward.

She stated that a lot of cities have programs where they don’t charge for ADUs at all because they see ADUs as naturally more affordable type of residential unit or they don’t charge fees for those ADUs that agree to be rent restricted moving forward. She stated that they can have them enter into an agreement, but they need to create a resolution that lays out that the fee is not due for any rent restricted unit and that it is a choice by the developer / applicant and how the agreement would be set forth.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that the state used to have a program for seniors where they could waive their property taxes by having a lien put on the property and, at some point when the house changed owners, the property taxes would be paid back, and asked if it would be possible for an

2.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of February 15, 2022 Special City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 3 February 15, 2022
ADU to put a lien on the property for the amount of the fees and, at some point, if they refinanced or sold, the city would get the fees for the ADU.

Asst. City Attorney Burke stated that she would have to look into that to figure it out as she was not aware of any cities doing it that way. She thought there may be practical issues with administering that kind of program, depending on how many and whether or not it was worth it.

She stated that they can look into that if Council is interested.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she never heard of a program like that, and stated that she would look it up. She stated that the thing about what is affordable today versus what was affordable tomorrow is that the rates for rents are increasing and she didn’t know how you determine that. She thought there were standards on what income is for affordable housing, but they are also very high now. She wasn’t sure how they would determine that.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

There were no public comments.

Councilmember O’Neill didn’t know how popular ADUs would be in Pacifica because of the parking situation, mentioning Fairmont, etc., where they get chronic complaints for parking and vehicle traffic. He understood why people want to do ADUs, but he hasn’t thought through waiving the fees for the sewers as that was a major capital expense. He stated that the park fees they discussed at the previous night’s meeting, those are more of a soft cost but this is a hard cost to the city. He was interested in other people’s thoughts.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the thought he had when they had the meeting in advance sticks to him even though it is overly simplistic. It occurred to him that an ADU would probably be $7,800 in fees and at the meeting he thought about what it would look like if it was only $5,000 instead of $8,000. He thought his concern about lowering it was that somehow the fee would be prohibitive in someone’s mind for constructing an ADU that would be helpful to the city. He didn’t know of lowering it would make a difference one way or the other, and that was a thought he wanted to explore in any appropriate way.

Mayor Bier thought the ADUs were important to Pacifica because we don’t have a lot of multifamily buildings and no one is coming in to build them. She stated that, if we are going to create housing for our community, this is one way we can, and for her, incentivizing that is really important. She referred to Councilmember Vaterlaus’ question, stating there was a formula that they use.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to the thought that they are not allowed to make a profit on something and are only allowed to recoup our costs for doing this, and for the city to waive the fees on an ADU would be an actual cost to the enterprise fund, and he asked if that subsidy would have to be made up somewhere else in rates or do ADUs count towards our RHNA numbers.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that they do.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, based on the theory that they are not allowed to make a profit on something, if there was another rate that would have to increase in order to subsidize waiving fees or reducing fees for ADUs.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that she wasn’t sure if she was

2.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of February 15, 2022 Special City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 4 February 15, 2022
answering his question, but she has a suggestion as ADUs are important and they came up at the previous meeting as well as this meeting. She suggested that, during our housing element process, we dive into and look at whether or not our fees are in a more scientific way cost prohibitive to construction, as now we are looking at them fee by fee and worrying about whether or not we’re impacting that type of development. She thought it was better to have a more scientific way of looking at it and, if they have fees that could be impactful, at that point, they can do that through a housing program and figure now they can mitigate that rather than sell themselves short on each fee as it comes along.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if this fee is waived and it has to be made up somewhere else in order to keep this in the enterprise fund, then a woman who got a $500 social security check but no loan on their house is going to be subsidizing it. He stated that the minimum sewage fee would have to go up. He stated that seniors can waive parcel taxes but not bonds. He stated that there is no way they could waive a minimum sewage fee because they are pertaining to a service.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to follow up on what Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister was saying about looking at this when they work on the housing element and looking at all of our fees across the board. She thought that was already on their docket and in other conversations they have had, the answer has been that they will look at that when they look at the overall fees. She asked how postponing would bear on what was before them at this time, i.e., if they make a decision or direction to staff and in a year they look at their fees and how would they change it or what catch up would they do. She asked what the process would be.

PW Director Petersen asked to clarify that she was talking about the capacity fee if they postpone implementing that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if they say they are not going to charge and ADU, but they then look at it later and say that they should be or they should charge them half or something like that. She was trying to understand the difference between what they were being asked to look at during this meeting and how it could be impacted by looking at their fees as a separate project.

Mayor Bier thought it was interesting that she saw it the other way around, as when Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister described it, she thought they were going to go ahead with it at this meeting and then look at the housing element and then see if they have to reduce things.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that is how he was looking at it.

Mayor Bier thought it was interesting that they look at it differently.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought it was because they are not charging it presently, and all jurisdictions that have ADUs charge it.

PW Director Petersen stated that they are probably not charging the fee for ADUs. She would ask the question to consultants Doug Dove or Michael DeGroot. It is a good question that, if people aren’t paying these fees, then who is absorbing that cost. She thought the answer would probably be the people who currently are paying the fees and paying through the capital improvement program.

2.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of February 15, 2022 Special City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 5 February 15, 2022
Asst. City Attorney Burke thought she could address that question and some of the other ones that have come up. She stated that, if you don’t charge the full amount for ADUs, your sewer utility is an enterprise fund and it doesn’t receive additional funds from other sources so if you don’t charge, you always have the discretion to not charge a full capacity fee, but if not charging a full capacity fee, there is some amount of money that needs to be picked up from other sources.

She stated that, for an ADU, if you’re not having a ton of ADUs, and you look at your overall budget for the utility, it is probably not a significant amount of money that is being distributed elsewhere but, if you are not recouping funds from capacity of new developments, you do have to get those funds from somewhere else. She stated that, as far as the timing in terms of what you would do in this process, your capacity fees have not been updated since 1974. She stated that it has been a long time and they are in desperate need of an update aside from the ADU issue and it is usually good practice, since they are moving forward with updating sewer service charges and sewer rates, that they do it at the same time as it is involving the same CIP plans and the same financial projections and you’re having your Proposition 218 public hearing for the sewer rates anyway. It is a good practice to try to update the sewer capacity fees and the sewer rates at the same time. She stated that, if they are uncertain and they feel like the ADU fees themselves may need some additional study or thought, she agreed with Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister’s thoughts that it might be a good idea to move forward with adopting the capacity fees which apply to all types of development, not just ADUs, and also maybe adopt a specific amount that would apply to ADUs because you have to calculate those fees a little bit differently as you do it by drainage fixture unit or square footage in your case drainage fixture unit. She stated that they can have the ADUs fees not go into effect for another year or it could go into effect immediately and, as they study it, it was probably not going to be that many ADUs between the adoption of the fees and when they put in a potential program in the future. She stated that she would have them deal with it by adopting the capacity fees now, including an ADU fee and then either keeping the ADUs fees from going into effect immediately or adjusting it with some program in the future.

Wastewater Collection System Manager Martinez added that it has been said that they haven’t charged anything for ADUs and that is not exactly correct. He stated that they currently have a municipal code on the books for second units, and the ADU term is new and there are a lot of laws regarding ADUs that have happened in the past couple of years. He stated that, historically, Pacifica always did charge for second units and it was exactly 50% of the cost of your first unit, which is in the municipal code on the books presently. He stated that, with all the ADU laws that came along a couple of years ago, they said you have to charge proportionately, not just have a flat rate for an ADU. He stated that, when those laws came out, that was the point where they stopped charging for ADUs, but they did charge for ADUs, before they were referred to as ADUs but also in the beginning when they were referred to as ADUs, they were charging 50% of the cost of a single family resident.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought this was not a public hearing and they were not adopting fees until the public hearing. He thought with a tremendous lack of public presence to get feedback, when they have a public hearing after this meeting’s direction to go ahead with the fee, that is an opportunity for the public to tell them whether or not their inclination that this might be cost prohibitive and bear out in public thought or not, and as they take the steps to conclude whether they want to mitigate some of the fees for the sake of affordable housing, he thought they have plenty of time to gather data from staff and the public to draw those conclusions as they go forward with the fee decision.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if it would be possible to have four affordable ADUs, not regular ADUs, with a monitoring program that there be an additional charge on new connections that go

2.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of February 15, 2022 Special City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 6 February 15, 2022
into a fund that would be used to subsidize the affordable housing ADUs. He thought the sewer lateral issue is kind of structured as it was a fine to either the water agency or put it in to help fix sewer laterals, and they are fixing sewer laterals every year from some fund. He asked if they could do something like that or ADUs and build it into the rate structure or new connections, i.e., ADU fee.

PW Director Petersen thought that was probably something they would have to look into.

Asst. City Attorney Burke wasn’t sure she understood 100% how the program would work as he conceptualized it, but they can only charge as part of the rate what the actual cost of service is, and even though they don’t have an obligation as an agency to charge a capacity fee at a certain amount and it will obviously have other impacts. She stated that, if they want to use the funds for other things, like affordable housing, they could not use the service rate revenue and they would have to look into other revenue sources and they would need to make sure the sewer rates are not funding programs beyond what the sewer service costs are.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, if the RHNA numbers are a state mandate, whether that was a cost of doing business for the city since they are required to provide affordable housing and the fees they would be charging would be going into a specific fund for ADUs and affordable housing.

Asst. City Attorney Burke stated that it would be like separate fee, apart from sewer service and apart from sewer capacity for funding affordable housing.

Councilmember O’Neill thought it would stay only for sewer charges for affordable housing.

Asst. City Attorney Burke stated that it would be assessed.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that she was the lawyer and would have to figure it out, adding that he tells City Attorney Kenyon that Council says what they want to do and she finds a legal way to do it. He stated that the state has mandated that we need 1.900 housing units and that is set in stone. He concluded that it is a cost of doing business, just like being told to put up stop signs, street lights, etc., and he asked, to subsidize affordable housing to reach the state mandate, if they can charge full fee sewer connections on affordable housing fee or affordable connection fee for ADUs, or possible affordable housing. He didn’t know how far they can stretch that.

Mayor Bier asked Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister if she wanted to comment.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that, if she understands Councilmember O’Neill’s suggestion correctly, she thought the answer is yes, but it may be different from how he stated it. She thought cities regularly do charge impact fees for affordable housing to development but not tied to sewer fees at all. She stated that it would be a policy decision for Council, but perhaps they would not penalize ADUs with that fee but attach that to market rate housing rather than the ADUs as you would just make it more expensive to construct the ADUs. She concluded that, yes, they can as it is a program that many cities have and she thought he suggested that it be on their work plan in association with construction commercial square footage as well. She reiterated that it is yes, but not in conjunction with this particular fee program.

Asst. City Attorney Burke agreed with her. She stated that, to charge fees on new development, you have to charge them based on their impact. Since the sewer impacts are separate from any impact on affordable housing, it would not be part of the sewer fees, but there are impact fees

2.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of February 15, 2022 Special City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 7 February 15, 2022
that are charged to fund affordable housing and are more common on commercial developments, but there are impact fees that some cities have for essential development as well.

Councilmember O’Neill thanked Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister for reinterpreting it for him.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, in regard to the upgrade to wastewater treatment plant photovoltaic system and UV different section system upgrades, if she is doing her math correctly, she stated that it will cost the city $1.5 million to upgrade the solar and they will save $200,000, and they have a 7 1/2 year payback on that. She stated that our UV disinfection system is $11.5 million and the city will save about $400,000 a year, so a 27.5 year pay back. She asked how long a UV disinfection system lasts, such as how long has the current one lasted, as she is not sure if it was 20 years or so.

PW Director Petersen stated that it is a great but complicated question because their current UV system could probably keep it going for a few more years if they could get the manufacture to provide them with those parts, but they are discontinuing parts so they can’t keep it going. She stated that one of the things they will be doing as they move forward with this project, they will be talking with these manufacturers and one of the conversations will be how long they will be supporting this fix-up. Staff feels that a lot of it is going to be related to how long they will be willing to support this system and they will be digging into once they get into this project and talking with potential vendors.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they will make it a part of the contract.

PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to them saying 20 years support. In regard to staffing, he stated that Western Cities had an article about what Hayward did, which was that with their sewer treatment plant they put in enough solar power where they were actually doing their street lights and saved $400,000 a year on the street lights, but Pacifica doesn’t have enough land to put that out. He stated that they opened up a dialogue and brought in high school students to learn the chemistry that they have in sewer treatment plants to try to start teaching locals when went on and jobs for them later on in life. He stated that former Asst. City Manager Hines talked to the City Manager about this and he thought this was one of the best things he has ever seen. He asked if it was possible for them to open up a dialogue with the high school to look at for chemistry students.

PW Director Petersen knows that they are trying to do more outreach to students generally and that is one of the jobs they have for one employee. She stated that part of the problem they have been having is the whole Covid issue. She thought Wastewater Collection System Manager Martinez can probably talk about what kind of outreach he has done with them previously.

Regarding bringing them in, she knows that Wastewater Plant Manager Aguilar does a lot of plant tours and she wasn’t sure if she brought in and taught local high school students but they were having a recent conversation with a group.

Wastewater Plant Manager Aguilar stated it was BayWorks.

PR Director Petersen stated that they were having a conversation with BayWorks and are local community college students studying wastewater and they are trying to bring them in for internship program. She stated that they were having conversations with BayWorks now and they are

2.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of February 15, 2022 Special City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 8 February 15, 2022
sending staff information. She thought they could have staff look into having some sort of conversations with high school students as well.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he will email her the article about Hayward, and if they get in touch with former Asst. Manager Hines, he can talk to her about it, as he loved that program.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if Jefferson High School still has a CTE person, stating that it was Karen Gnusti at one point, but she asked if there was still a position for that in the administration.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if it was the CTE person, he didn’t think there was that he knows.

He added that the unions would be happy if they were recruiting girls for this, as they have a whole program just to recruit women for these kind of jobs.

PW Director Petersen stated that BayWorks program is broad, serving under-privileged students, and that was who they were specifically talking about for interns for wastewater. She thought that sounded interesting and she would love to read that article.

Councilmember Beckmeyer loved that idea. She referred to Councilmember O’Neill’s excellent point on that potential tie-in with workforce development. She had a general thought on this topic, i.e., in light of the fact that fees haven’t been looked at since 1974 and it harkens to her about so many things that have been on hold or not addressed over decades. She wanted to commend staff now as she feels like part of what is bringing this forward is the professional level of our staff and the recognition of how a city stays solvent and how fees all play into those aspects. She appreciates and understands, from a rational standpoint and from a dollars and cents standpoint, why this is so important, but unless and until it is brought forward and put before Council to make a decision on it and give direction, it doesn’t happen and it clearly hasn’t happened for a very long time in Pacifica. She referred to the theme from the previous night’s meeting, stating that this is another aspect of the quality of staff and she thanked them and appreciated them bringing Council into the current century on this and she thought it will help serve our community going forward as this is the kind of thing where they are recouping costs and addressing the actual capacity needs so we have money to keep building our system out and improving the service in our community.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, when this comes to Council for public decision and public meeting, etc., he thought Wastewater Collection System Manager Martinez might have this; i.e., mentioning that, when he first got on Council, he did a whole infrastructure PowerPoint and went to groups and gave the presentation about 10-12 times. He stated that there was a video of the infiltration, ILI, that looked like it was a waterfall, and someone from the sewer treatment plant sent it to him, and he thought that would be a great visual to show why the city needs to do what they are doing. He didn’t know if he knows where it is or if it might possibly still be on his own computer.

PW Director Petersen stated it was a great idea. She stated that they will look for it.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was picking on Wastewater Collection System Manager Martinez as he thought he was the longest term person there.

Wastewater Collection System Manager Martinez thought, if they don’t have it, they can make another one easily.

Councilmember O’Neill thought that would be a great visual.

2.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of February 15, 2022 Special City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 9 February 15, 2022
Mayor Bier thought they can bring the conversation back to the item specifically, and she asked Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister if could explain one more time that, if they move forward at this meeting to hold the public hearing, including the ADU fees, then when they do the housing element they can look at that again as she thought she needs a little clarity.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister suggests what she thinks is already part of what housing elements will study, and they will look at what our processes are for constructing housing and whether or not there is any barriers to housing, including the fees that the city charges. They would not only look at this fee as it relates to ADUs or other affordable housing, but also other fees. She stated that there is a potential that our fees may not be cost prohibitive and even at an affordable level, that is something that is doable for the financing of an ADU and then, in that case, it would be good for Council to know that instead of deciding to reduce or eliminate fees before that factor is even known.

Mayor Bier thanked her for repeating the options again, as she sometimes needs to hear things more than once.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she sees the need for all of these projects, and thought she should speak up on them. She thought the ADU fees are too high but she can wait until they do the housing element and they can look into that. She wants people to build affordable housing and she didn’t see, if they start adding all the fees, park fees, sewer fees, impact fees, etc., then people won’t build anything. She stated that we obviously have to have things built. She wouldn’t mind lowering it now or making it half, but she can wait.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to adjourn the meeting.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they need a motion to adopt the resolution before they adjourn.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica stating its intention to hold a Public Hearing and Consider Updating the City’s Sewer Service Charges Beginning Tax Year 2022-2023 for a 5-year period from FY 2022/23 to FY 2026/2027 and Provide Direction on Sewer Capacity Fees Related to Accessory Dwelling Units; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 7:09 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk

2.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of February 15, 2022 Special City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 10 February 15, 2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor

2.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of February 15, 2022 Special City Council Meeting (4897 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2021.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2021.

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer
(650) 738-7402
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Fiscal Sustainability remains one of the City Council Strategic Goals, which includes planning for and implementing long-term financial health and stability. A key component of this goal includes preparing a quarterly financial report that would provide readers with an executive summary of the City’s current economic conditions related to the annual operating budget.

Staff is pleased to implement the new financial reporting practice on a quarterly basis that started last quarter to ensure accountability and transparency in managing public funds. This work is especially meaningful as we are monitoring the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the local economy and the City’s financial health.

On June 28, 2021, the City Council adopted the structurally balanced FY 2021-22 Budget that included the revenue assumptions going into the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, as the COVID situation is still uncertain, it is particularly critical to continue monitoring the City’s financial position at the end of each quarter.

Finance staff has completed the second quarter of the Fiscal Year 2021-22. The Second Quarter Financial Report summarizes the City’s General Fund and is not meant to be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions. This report intends to provide the Council and the public with a broad overview of the City’s fiscal condition, as the General Fund is the primary operating fund of the City and is used to account for most operational activities.

This report provides an update on the financial status of the City’s General Fund by outlining the revenues and expenditures for the quarter ending December 31, 2021.

The General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund and is used to account for day-to-day activities. It receives unrestricted revenues and provides the City’s general administrative services, law enforcement, fire, public works, parks, beaches and recreation, and community development-related activities such as planning, building, and engineering. Revenue sources include but are not limited to property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax (TOT), business registration, and current fees for services such as parking charges, engineering, planning, and 3 Packet Pg. 65
Pacifica City Council 2
February 28, 2022
building permit fees, and recreation services.

The Second Quarter Financial Report for the City of Pacifica provides the financial status update of the City’s General Fund by outlining the revenues and expenditures for the Second Quarter of the fiscal year, ending December 31, 2021. The Financial Report is prepared on a cash basis; therefore, only the revenue received by December 31, 2021, is reflected in the analysis. Likewise, expenditures are recorded when paid using the cash basis method of accounting.

With the completion of the Second Quarter, General Fund Revenues were at $21.0 million (53% of budget), and Expenditures were $19.6 million (51% of budget).

General Fund Operating expenditures, including outstanding purchase orders and encumbrances, are on target at the end of the Second Quarter, although total expenditures increased over the Second Quarter of the prior year. This is primarily due to higher salaries and benefits related to implementation of new MOU provisions and timing of filling vacancies. Some City department expenditures are slightly lower than prior year Second Quarter, mainly due to the timing of payments for goods and services and lower salaries and benefits due to the timing of filling vacancies in those departments.

Overall, the FY2021-22 Budget appears to be on track with revenues and expenditures performing as expected. The City’s operating expenditures are at 51% of the budget at the end of the second quarter. The slight increase in expenditures from prior year quarter is mainly attributable to salaries and benefits, including public safety staff overtime. These are only preliminary numbers as additional booking entries may occur throughout the year and during the fiscal year-end that may modify some figures presented in this report. However, overall it is encouraging that the budget appears to be on target at the end of the second quarter. Staff will use the data presented in this quarter for a more in-depth FY 2021-22 Mid-Year Budget review that is currently underway and will be presented to Council in a subsequent meeting.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There is no reasonable alternative to this informational item, as not accepting the 2nd Quarter Financial Report will not change the City’s financial condition as of the end of the quarter ending December 31, 2021.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

This item furthers the City’s efforts toward Fiscal Sustainability.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the Council’s acceptance of this report.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
3 Packet Pg. 66
Pacifica City Council 3
February 28, 2022
Attachment 1 - Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2021 (DOCX)
3 Packet Pg. 67
City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2021‐22
SecondQuarter Financial Report
1 OVERVIEW
This Second Quarter Financial Report is an analysis of the unaudited financial status of the City’s General Fund from July 2021 through December 2021. The City of Pacifica has completed the second quarter of the Fiscal Year 2021‐22.

The Second Quarter Financial Report will summarize the
City’s General Fund, and is not meant to be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions. The intent of this report is to provide the Council and the public a broad overview of the City’s fiscal condition, as the General Fund is the primary operating fund of the City and is used to account for most operational activities. The information presented in this report is unaudited and additional
adjustments may occur during the year-end process.

GENERAL FUND
General Fund Financial Condition: With half of the year complete, General Fund Expenditures are at 51% of
projections, and revenues are at 53%. These figures exclude budgeted once-a-year operating and capital transfers.

Revenue exceeded expenditures for the second quarter as revenues are typically more during the second quarter due to the timing of certain key revenues such as property tax, franchise fees, and sales tax. This year’s outlook is more optimistic compared to the prior year when the City
collected 25.35% of budgeted revenues at the end of the Q2.

Both expenditures and revenues are explained in more
detail below. The 25% increase in revenues over the second quarter from the prior year is due to the receipt of ARPA funds in July, 2021.
*Excludes operating and capital transfers
The General Fund Balance as of December 31, 2021 is
$17.7 million. This is based on the unaudited fund balance as of the end of fiscal year 2020-21, excluding transfers and factoring in year‐to‐date revenue, expenditure, and
encumbrance activity.

Expenditures. Departmental operating expenditures are
on target at the end of the second quarter and include
outstanding purchase orders/encumbrances. The Planning
& Building department show slightly lower expenditures
compared to the budget in salaries and benefits category due to vacancies and timing of payments for contractual services. The General Government, Public Works, and
PB&R Departments are on target with their budget. Police and Fire Departments costs are slightly ahead of budget as a result of overtime costs exceeding budet. Nondepartmental is also slightly ahead of budget, due to certain costs being spend at the beginning of the year, but are expected to be under budget by the end of the year.

All departments have an increase from the same quarter
in prior year, which are mostly attributed to increases in salaries and benefits as per new MOU provisions and
timing of filling vacancies. The following chart summarizes year‐to‐date combined expenditures and encumbrances
by department as of the second quarter:

Revenues: The following is a summary of revenues as of
General Fund
the end of the second quarter:

Qtr 2
FY2020-21
Qtr 2
FY2021-22
FY2021-22
Budget
% Change
Q1 FY21
vs
Q1 FY22
Qtr 2
% Budget
Revenues 16,870,993 21,030,762 39,720,145 25% 53%
Expenditures 16,167,688 19,632,438 38,308,363 21% 51%
General Fund Expenditures
by Department
Qtr 2
FY2020-21
Qtr 2
FY2021-22
FY2021-22
Budget
% Change
Q2 FY21
vs
Q2 FY22
Qtr 2
% Budget
Expende
d
General Government 2,160,994 2,911,327 6,188,551 35% 47% Police Department 5,100,021 5,726,439 10,611,060 12% 54% Fire Department 3,425,278 4,421,139 7,101,477 29% 62%
Planning & Building 1,006,590 1,233,762 3,832,577 23% 32% Public Works 1,959,146 2,128,171 4,673,066 9% 46%
PB&R 2,042,248 2,437,409 4,861,545 19% 50%
Non-Departmental 473,411 774,191 1,040,087 64% 74%
Total General Fund
Expenditures 16,167,688 19,632,438 38,308,363 21% 51%
General Fund
Revenues by Type
Qtr 2
FY2020-21
Qtr 2
FY2021-22
FY2021-22
Budget
% Change
Q2 FY21
vs
Q2 FY22
Qtr 2
% Budget
Received
Property Tax 6,941,803 7,218,878 13,924,864 4% 52%
Sales Tax 884,213 896,647 2,559,413 1% 35%
Transient Occupancy Tax 543,990 565,075 1,750,423 4% 32% Other Taxes 2,062,842 2,068,359 5,454,306 0% 38%
Department/Program 4,160,175 4,909,002 10,179,827 18% 48% Grants 1,087,967 5,284,800 5,763,312 386% 92%
ERAF 1,190,004 88,000 88,000 -93% 100%
Total General Fund
Revenues 16,870,993 21,030,762 39,720,145 25% 53%

3.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2021 (4900 : Financial Report for the Second City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2021‐22
SecondQuarter Financial Report
Property Tax: Property Tax is the City’s largest revenue source. The first installment of the Property Tax payment was remitted to the City by the County of San Mateo in
December 2021. The City has received roughly 52% of the budgeted Property Tax revenue through December 31,
2022.

Sales Tax: As of December 31, 2021, the City has received about 35% of our budgeted Sales Tax revenues. There is a two month lag on the receipt of sales tax revenues and so the 35% only represents four months of allocation. The
Sales Tax revenue is only 1% higher than prior year second quarter showing the City’s slow recovery from the effects of COVID.

Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT): TOT revenues are
remitted approximately 30 days after the end of each
month, and revenues are not accrued at quarter‐end (as
they are at the end of the fiscal year), the second quarter reflects the months of July to November of TOT receipts.

The TOT revenues show a growth of 4% compared to the
second quarter of the prior year as hotels continue to
rebound from COVID pandemic but the overall decline in
occupancy rates of business and international travelers may still cause a lag in the hotel industry compared to the pre-COVID level.

Other Taxes: These include franchise tax, business license, utility users tax, ½ cent public safety sales tax and cannabis operations tax. Payments for most of these taxes are
remitted 30 days after the end of the month. As such, only 38% of the budget has been received as of December 31,
2021, representing only five months of the reporting
quarter. The total revenue received is the same as the
second quarter of prior year.

Department/Programs: These include building permits,
engineering and planning fees, charges related to Parks, Beaches & Recreation programs and rentals. The City
received 48% of budget at the end of the second quarter.

Permits and planning fees tend to fluctuate based on the timing of projects, but the overall budget appears to be on track.

Grants: These include Police and all COVID-19 related
grants. The increase in grant revenues represents the
$4.6 million American Rescue Plan Act allocation from
the State which was conservatively budgeted at $4.2
million based on the initial estimate. Last fiscal year’s second quarter revenue were from the CARES Act
funding.

Excess ERAF: Although, the overall projection for the
Excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)
revenue of $2.5 million is consistent with the prior
allocations, the FY 2021-22 General Fund Budget only
included $88,000 of it to fund the community grant
program to local non-profit organizations as previously directed by the Council. The $1.5 million were allocated towards the Civic Center CIP and the remainder of $0.9
million was budgeted in the Disaster Recovery Fund,
which explains the budget variance over the prior year.

Based on the second quarter’s distribution, the Excess
ERAF allocation exceeded the Budget, however all
additional funds in excess of the budget have been
allocated to the Disaster Recovery fund per City policy.

SUMMARY
Overall, staff is pleased to report that the FY2021-22
Budget appears to be on track with revenues and
expenditures performing as expected. The City’s
operating expenditures are at 51% of the budget at the
end of the second quarter. The slight increase in
expenditures from prior year quarter is mainly
attributable to salaries and benefits, including overtime.

These are only preliminary numbers as additional
booking entries may occur throughout the year and
during the fiscal year-end that may modify some figures presented in this report. However, overall it is
encouraging that the budget appears to be on target at
the end of the second quarter. Staff will use the data in this report for more in-depth FY2020-21 mid-year budget review analysis that is currently underway and is
scheduled to be presented to City Council in March.
2 3.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2021 (4900 : Financial Report for the Second

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending December 31, 2021.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending December 31, 2021.

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer
(650) 738-7402
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City Council adopted Administrative Policy 39 - Investment Policy to reflect current law and best practices in accordance with Government Code Section 53600 et seq. The policy provides guidelines for prudent investments and efficient cash management and requires the City to provide the governing body a report regarding the City’s investment activities on a quarterly basis to ensure “compliance” with the statement of investment policy.

The investment policies and practices of the City of Pacifica are strictly based on state law and prudent money management. The investment of funds for the City is directed to the goals of safety, liquidity, and yield, while meeting the cash flow needs of the City through a prudent investment of unexpended cash.

All funds are invested in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy and the authority governing investments set forth in the California Government Code, Sections 53601 through 53659. The investment policy for bond proceeds is contained in the relevant bond documents approved by the City Council at the time of the issuance of the debt.

As shown in the Treasurer’s Report (Attachment 1) the City’s investments are in external investment pools listed at cost, as well as its fair value, not amortized cost, in compliance with Governmental Accounting Standard Statement 31. The City’s cash and investment portfolio, at fair market value, as of December 31, 2021 is $51,025,759 of which $17,661,008 is placed with the State Controller’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), $9,016,430 is placed with US Bank, $401,674 is in the PARS Trust, $156,970 is placed in Bank of New York (BNY Mellon), $3,000,902 is in Roy Davies Trust, $20,771,915 in the Tri Counties Bank operating accounts, and $3,445 in Petty Cash held by various departments.

The City’s investment portfolio increased by $14,057,056, from $36,968,703, this reporting quarter ending December 31, 2021, compared to last quarter ending September 30, 2021. The increase is primarily attributable to the large property tax receipts in December 2021. This increase is net of normal operating payments to vendors, payroll and annual debt service payments.
4 Packet Pg. 70
Pacifica City Council 2
February 28, 2022
The Treasurer’s Report includes details of cash and investments which are held by institutions.

The report also summarizes the City’s cash position and distribution across funds for the quarter ending December 31, 2021. Historical cash flow trends are compared to current cash flow requirements on an ongoing basis to ensure the City’s investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all reasonable anticipated operating requirements.

As of December 31, 2021, the portfolio contains sufficient liquidity to meet at the next six months of expected expenditures by the City.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There is no reasonable alternative to this informational item, as not accepting the 2nd Quarter Treasurer’s Report will not change the City’s cash position as of the end of the quarter ending December 31, 2021.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

This item furthers the City’s efforts toward Fiscal Sustainability.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this report, but Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports detail some of the fiscal activities that directly affect the City’s financial standing.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Treasurer's Report as of 12-31-21 (PDF)
Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 71
City of Pacifica
Treasurer's Report
December 31, 2021
Portfolio Summary
Par Value
GASB 31 Fair
Market Value Book Value % of Portfolio
General Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank $ 18,637,899 $ 18,637,899 18,637,899 36.53% Payroll Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank 20,210 20,210 20,210 0.04% Workers Compensation Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank 769 769 769 0.00% Senior Services Account with Tri Counties Bank 2,113,036 2,113,036 2,113,036 4.14% Roy Davies Trust- Principal Account-Ladder Acct (Business) with City National Bank 2,972,966 2,972,966 2,972,966 5.83% Roy Davies Trust- Interest Account-Public Funds - Checking Acct with City National Bank 27,936 27,936 27,936 0.05% Petty Cash - Held by various Departments 3,445 3,445 3,445 0.01% Cash $ 23,776,262 $ 23,776,262 $ 23,776,262 46.60%
Investments
California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) $ 17,661,008 $ 17,661,008 17,661,008 34.61% Bank of New York Mellon-Fund 91 - Cash & Short Term 156,970 156,970 156,970 0.31% Deutsche Bank-Cash-Earmarked for debt service - Energy Retrofit Lease 13,415 13,415 13,415 0.03% US Bank - Money Market Fund* 9,016,430 9,016,430 9,016,430 17.67% PARS Post-Employment Benefit Trust** 401,674 401,674 401,674 0.79% Total Investments $ 27,249,497 $ 27,249,497 $ 27,249,497 53.40% Total Cash and Investments $ 51,025,759 $ 51,025,759 $ 51,025,759 100.00% Yulia Carter Date
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer
*Includes available cash from the City's issuance of the 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bonds totaling $25.929 million. The initial proceeds were shown in the Cash and Investment report as of September 30, 2017. ** PARS Trust - Public Agency Retirement Services - invests in Capital Appreciation funds for the City's OPEB trust and Moderate Index funds for Pension trust.

The above investments are consistent with the City's Investment Policy and are allowable under current legislation of the State of California. Investments are selected using safety, liquidity, and yield as the criteria. The City has sufficient cash flow to cover anticipated expenditures through the next six months. 2/28/2022

4.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Treasurer's Report as of 12-31-21 (4901 : Treasurer's Report for the quarter City of Pacifica
Treasurer's Report
December 31, 2021
Reconciliation to General Ledger
Description Bank Account # Amount
Tri Counties General Checking Account xx0541 $ 18,637,899 Tri Counties Payroll Account xx6915 $ 20,210
Tri Counties Workmens Comp Account xx1341 $ 769
Tri Counties Senior Services Account xx5996 $ 2,113,036 City National Bank Roy Davies Trust-Principal xx5367 $ 2,972,966 City National Bank Roy Davies Trust-Interest xx7033 $ 27,936 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) xx1614/xx1007 $ 17,661,008 Bank of New York Mellon xx0166/xx0167 $ 156,970
Deutsche Bank - Energy Retrofit Lease $ 13,415
US Bank - 2016 Refunding xx5000 $ 1,048,765
US Bank - 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bond-Project Fund xx2001 $ 4,029,096 US Bank - 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bond-Interest xx2003 $ 1 US Bank - 2019 Taxable Pension Obligation Bond Refunding-Debt Service xx4000 $ 0 US Bank - 2019 Taxable Pension Obligation Bond Refunding-Cost of Issuance xx4003 $ 3,066 US Bank - 2021 Civic Center Bonds xx9000 $ 3,935,502
Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) - Post Employment Benefit Trust $ 401,674 Petty Cash $ 3,445
Total Cash per Bank Statements $ 51,025,759
Description GL Account # Amount
xx.xxxxxx.11000.xxxx.xxx $ 30,279,941
xx.xxxxxx.11002.xxxx.xxx $ (507,578)
xx.xxxxxx.11100.xxxx.xxx $ 3,445

01.000000.11290.0000.000 $ 17,660,364

22.900000.11292.0000.000 $ 644

01.000000.11297.0000.000 $ 201,671

01.000000.11298.0000.000 $ 200,003

18.940000.11032.0000.000 $ 0

18.940000.11033.0000.000 $ 4,029,096

18.940000.11034.0000.000 $ 1

22.900000.11022.0000.000 $ 13,415

27.900000.11293.0000.000 $ 2,972,966

27.900000.11296.0000.000 $ 27,936

40.880000.11025.0000.000 $ 4,836

40.880000.11026.0000.000 $ 1,043,929

40.880000.11036.0000.000 $ 0

40.880000.11037.0000.000 $ 3,066
xx.xx0000.110xx.0000.000 $ 3,935,502

91.960000.11019.0000.000 $ 129,859

91.960000.11020.0000.000 $ 27,112
$ 60,026,207
$ (10,000,000)
$ 999,552
$ -
$ -
Cash in Bank
Cash in Bank - Payroll
Petty Cash
Investments - LAIF
Investments - LAIF
PARS Trusts-Pension
PARS Trusts-Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB)
Reserve Cash-2014 Wastewater Revenue Refunding
Reserve Cash-2017 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Project
Reserve Cash-2017 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Interest Cash with Fiscal Agent
R Davies Trust - Principal
R Davies Trust - Interest
Cash Reserve - 2016 Cost of Issuance
Cash Reserve - 2016 Lease Payment
Cash Reserve - 2019 POB Refunding
Cash Reserve - 2019 POB Cost of Issuance
City of Pacifica 2021 Project Fund
Debt Service Reserve Fund - 2004 TAB
Cash with Fiscal Agent
Total Cash per General Ledger
Wire Transfer on 12.31.2021 to LAIF and timing difference between TriCounty Bank reconciliation adjustments and timing difference Fiscal Agent reconciling adjustments
Other reconciling items
Total Reconciled GL Cash $ 51,025,759

4.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Treasurer's Report as of 12-31-21 (4901 : Treasurer's Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2021) City of Pacifica
Quarterly Treasurer's Report
December 31, 2021
Cash Balances By Fund
Fund No. - Fund Name Ending Balance
01 - GENERAL FUND 23,537,099.51
05 - TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 186,060.55
07 - S.L.E.S. FUND 252,253.67
09 - STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 222,911.82
10 - GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 368,873.19
12 - HIGHWAY 1 IMPROVEMENT FUND 598,552.94
14 - MANOR DRIVE IMPROVEMENT FUND 954,103.06
15 - AIRCRAFT NOISE PROJECT FUND 411.20
16 - NPDES STORMWATER FUND 324,938.41
18 - SEWER CHARGE FUND 7,404,252.90
19 - PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE FUND (232,065.81)
22 - GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 6,030,591.22
23 - FRONTIERLAND REMEDIATION 394,655.38
24 - HOUSING IN-LIEU FUND 243,222.97
25 - PARKING IN-LIEU FUND 116,142.37
26 - PARK IN-LIEU - CAP IMPROVMNT 631,303.95
27 - PB&R - R DAVIES TRUST 3,121,896.75
28 - PB&R SPECIAL REVENUE 2,139,391.76
31 - PACIFICA LIBRARY FUND 106,765.52
35 - BEACH PARKING FUND 234,879.20
38 - DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 4,710,762.82
40 - DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,486,829.20
xx - 2021 CIVIC CENTER BONDS DEBT SERVICE FUND 3,935,501.54 65 - SELF-FUNDED DENTAL PLAN FUND 202,830.59
66 - SELF-INSURANCE FUND (W/C) 433,755.12
67 - SELF-INSURANCE FUND (LIAB) 716,160.21
71 - MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 103,710.97
72 - MOTOR POOL REPLACEMENT FUND 783,049.47
90 - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND (1,311.50)
91 - REDEVELOPMENT-SUCCESSOR AGENCY 656,360.68
93 - REDVLPMNT HOUSNG SUCCESSOR AUT 362,317.16
Total 60,026,206.82

4.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Treasurer's Report as of 12-31-21 (4901 : Treasurer's Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2021) 1 | P a g e
City of Pacifica
Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms
Agency: Federal agency securities and /or Government-sponsored enterprises.

Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR): The official annual financial report for the City of Pacifica. It includes a combined set of statements for each individual fund and account group prepared with the accounting requirements established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). It also includes supporting schedules necessary to demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal and contractual provisions, extensive introductory material, and a detailed Statistical Section.

Bankers’ Acceptance (BA): A draft or bill or exchange accepted by a bank or trust company.

The accepting institution guarantees payment of the bill, as well as the issuer.

Book Value: The value at which a security or investment is carried on the financial records of its owner. This value may be the original cost of acquisition of the security or original cost adjusted by amortization of a premium or accretion of a discount. The book value may differ from the security’s current market value.

Broker: A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a commission.

California Local Government Debt: Is bonds, notes, warrants, or other evidences of indebtedness of any local agency within California. California local government debt is a permitted investment under the California Government Code. The Government Code does not specify minimum credit ratings for local government debt in which local agencies may invest.

Certificate of Deposit (CD): A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate.

Large-denomination CD’s are typically negotiable.

Collateral: Securities, evidence of deposit of other property which a borrower pledges to secure repayment of a loan. Also refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure deposits of public monies.

Coupon: (a) The annual rate of interest that a bond’s issuer promises to pay the bondholder on the bond’s face value. (b) A certificate attached to a bond evidencing interest due on a payment date.

Dealer: A dealer, as opposed to a broker, acts as a principal in all transactions, buying and selling for his own account.

Debenture: A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer.

Delivery versus Payment: There are two methods of delivery of securities: delivery versus payment and delivery versus receipt. Delivery versus payment is delivery of securities with an

4.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms [Revision 1] (4901 : Treasurer's Report for the quarter 2 | P a g e
exchange of money for the securities. Delivery versus receipt is delivery of securities with an exchange of a signed receipt for the securities.

Derivatives: (1) Financial instruments whose return profile is linked to, or derived from, the movement of one or more underlying index or security, and may include a leveraging factor, or (2) financial contracts based upon notional amounts whose value is derived from an underlying index or security (interest rates, foreign exchange rates, equities or commodities).

Discount: The difference between the cost price of a security and its maturity when quoted at lower than face value. A security selling below original offering price shortly after sale also is considered to be at a discount.

Diversification: Dividing investment funds among a variety of securities offering independent returns.

Federal Credit Agencies: Agencies of the Federal government set up to supply credit to various classes of institutions and individuals, e.g., S&L’s, small business firms, students, farmers, farm cooperatives, and exporters.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): A federal agency that insures bank deposits, currently up to $250,000 per deposit.

Federal Funds Rate: The rate of interest at which Fed funds are traded. This rate is currently pegged by the Federal Reserve through open-market operations.

Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLB): Government sponsored wholesale banks (currently 12 regional banks) which lend funds and provide correspondent banking services to member commercial banks, thrift institutions, credit unions and insurance companies. The mission of the FHLB is to liquefy the housing related assets of its members who must purchase stock in their district Bank.

Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA): FNMA, like GNMA was chartered under the Federal National Mortgage Association Act in 1938. FNMA is a federal corporation working under the auspices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is the largest single provider of residential mortgage funds in the United States. Fannie Mae, as the corporation is called, is a private stockholder-owned corporation. The corporation’s purchases include a variety of adjustable mortgages and second loans, in addition to fixed-rate mortgages.

FNMA’s securities are also highly liquid and are widely accepted. FNMA assumes and guarantees that all security holders will receive timely payment of principal and interest.

Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC): Consists of seven members of the Federal Reserve Board and five of the twelve Federal Reserve and Presidents. The President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is a permanent member, while the other Presidents serve on a rotating basis. The Committee periodically meets to set Federal Reserve guidelines regarding purchases and sales of Government Securities in the open market as a means of influencing the volume of bank credit and money.

4.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms [Revision 1] (4901 : Treasurer's Report for the quarter 3 | P a g e
Federal Reserve System: The central bank of the United States created by Congress and consisting of a seven-member Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., 12 regional banks and about 5,700 commercial banks that are members of the system.

Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae): Securities influencing the volume of bank credit guaranteed by GNMA and issued by mortgage bankers, commercial banks, savings and loan associations, and other institutions. Security holder is protected by full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Ginnie Mae securities are backed by the FHA, VA or FmHA mortgages. The term “pass-throughs” is often used to describe Ginnie Maes.

Issuer: Any corporation, government unit or financial institution which borrows money through the sale of securities.

Liquidity: A liquid asset is one that can be converted easily and rapidly into cash without a substantial loss of value. In the money market, a security is said to be liquid if the spread between bid and asked prices is narrow and reasonable size can be done at those quotes.

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): A special fund in the State Treasury which local agencies may use to deposit funds for investment. All interest is distributed to those agencies participating on a proportionate share determined by the amounts deposited and the length of time they are deposited. Interest is paid quarterly via direct deposit to the LAIF account. The State keeps an amount for reasonable costs of making the investments, not to exceed one-quarter of one per cent of the earnings.

Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP): The aggregate of all funds from political subdivisions that are pooled together for investment and reinvestment.

Market Value: The price at which a security is trading and could presumably be purchased or sold.

Master Repurchase Agreement: A written contract covering all future transactions between the parties to repurchase – reverse repurchase agreements that establishes each party’s rights in the transactions. A master agreement will often specify, among other things, the right of the buyerlender to liquidate the underlying securities in the event of default by the seller-borrower.

Maturity: The date upon which the principal or stated value of an investment becomes due and payable.

Money Market: The market in which short-term debt instruments (bills, commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, etc.) are issued and traded.

Mutual Funds: Referred to in the Government Code, Section 53601(l) as “shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies.” The Mutual Fund must be restricted by its by-laws to the same investments as the local agency by the Government Code. These investments are Treasury issues, Federal Agency issues, State of California and City (within California) debt obligations, Bankers Acceptances, Commercial Paper, Certificates of Deposit, Negotiable Certificates of Deposit, Repurchase Agreements, Reverse Repurchase Agreements,

4.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms [Revision 1] (4901 : Treasurer's Report for the quarter 4 | P a g e
and Medium Term Corporate Notes. The quality rating and percentage restrictions in each investment category applicable to the local agency also apply to the Mutual Fund.

Negotiable: Term used to designate a security, the title to which is transferable by delivery.

Offer: The price asked by a seller of securities. (When you are buying securities, you ask for an offer). See Asked and Bid.

Open Market Operations: Purchases and sales of government and certain other securities in the open market by the New York Federal Reserve Bank as directed by the FOMC in order to influence the volume of money and credit in the economy. Purchases inject reserves into the bank system and stimulate growth of money and credit; sales have the opposite effect. Open market operations are the Federal Reserve’s most important and most flexible monetary policy tool.

Par Value: The amount of principal of a security that must be paid at maturity. The par value may also be referred to as the “face amount” of a security.

Portfolio: Collection of securities held by an investor.

Primary Dealer: A group of government securities dealers who submit daily reports of market activity and positions and monthly financial statements to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and are subject to its informal oversight. Primary dealers included Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – registered securities broker-dealers, banks, and a few unregulated firms.

Principal: Describes the original cost of a security. It represents the amount of capital or money which the investor pays for the investment.

Prudent Person Rule: An investment standard. In some states the law requires that a fiduciary, such as a trustee, may invest money only in a list of securities selected by the custody state – the so-called legal list. In other states the trustee may invest in a security if it is one which would be bought by a prudent person of discretion and intelligence who is seeking a reasonable income and preservation of capital.

Qualified Public Depositories: A financial institution which does not claim exemption from the payment of any sales or compensating use or ad valorem taxes under the laws of this state, which has segregated for the benefit of the commission eligible collateral having a value of not less than its maximum liability and which has been approved by the State to hold public deposits.

Rate of Return: The yield obtainable on a security based on its purchase price or its current market price. This may be the amortized yield to maturity on a bond the current income return.

Repurchase Agreement (RP or Repo): A holder of securities sells these securities to an investor with an agreement to repurchase them at a fixed price on a fixed date. The security “buyer” in effect lends the “seller” money for the period of the agreement, and the terms of the agreement are structured to compensate him for this. Dealers use RP extensively to finance their positions. Exception: When the Fed is said to be doing RP, it is lending money, that is, increasing bank services.

4.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms [Revision 1] (4901 : Treasurer's Report for the quarter 5 | P a g e
Safekeeping: A service to customers rendered by banks for a fee whereby securities and valuables of all types and descriptions are held in the bank’s vaults for protection.

Secondary Market: A market made for the purchase and sale of outstanding issues following the initial distribution.

Security: An investment instrument, other than an insurance policy or fixed annuity, issued by a corporation, government, or other organization which offers evidence of debt or equity.

Securities & Exchange Commission: Agency created by Congress to protect investors in securities transactions by administering securities legislation.

SEC Rule 15C3-1: See Uniform Net Capital Rule.

Structured Notes: Notes issued by Government Sponsored Enterprises (FHLB, FNMA, SLMA, etc.) and Corporations which have imbedded options (e.g., call features, step-up coupons, floating rate coupons, derivative-based returns) into their debt structure. Their market performance is impacted by the fluctuation of interest rates, the volatility of the imbedded options and shifts in the shape of the yield curve.

Treasury Bills: A non-interest bearing discount security issued by the U.S. Treasury to finance the national debt. Most bills are issued to mature in three months, six months, or one year.

Treasury Notes: Medium-term coupon-bearing U.S. Treasury securities issued as direct obligations of the U.S. Government and having initial maturities from two to ten years.

Uniform Net Capital Rule: Securities and Exchange Commission requirement that member firms as well as nonmember broker-dealers in securities maintain a maximum ratio of indebtedness to liquid capital of 15 to 1; also called net capital rule and net capital ratio.

Indebtedness covers all money owed to a firm, including margin loans and commitments to purchase securities, one reason new public issues are spread among member of underwriting syndicates. Liquid capital includes cash and assets easily converted into cash.

Yield: The rate of annual income return on an investment, expressed as a percentage. (a) Income Yield is obtained by dividing the current dollar income by the current market price for the security. (b) Net Yield or Yield to Maturity is the current income yield minus any premium above par or plus any discount from par in purchase price, with the adjustment spread over the period from the date of purchase to the date of maturity of the bond.

4.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms [Revision 1] (4901 : Treasurer's Report for the quarter

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Pacifica Public Works New Office Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the following actions for Public Works Department Office Improvements (New Office Project):

A. Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (Attachment "A") in an amount not to exceed $132,664.00; and
B. Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $150,000.00, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed thirteen percent (13%) of the Construction Services Agreement amount; and
C. Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount.

STAFF CONTACT:

Raymund Donguines, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3768
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E., DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

In June 2021, the City Council approved the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget, which included the Public Works Department Office Improvements (New Office Project) at 151 Milagra Avenue. As discussed with Council during the June 1, 2021 CIP discussion, the goal of the project was to construct an office for the new Wastewater Senior Engineer position, as there is no available office space. Currently, the employee in this position has been working remotely or in unoccupied conference rooms, which is disruptive to the efficiency of the Public Works Department and the position. The plans were reviewed by the Building Department and in addition to the office space/electrical requirements, the project must also address Building Department mandated ADA upgrades, such as a new ADA-compliant public counter and updated ADA-complaint restrooms (replacement of deteriorated 30+ year old finishes/fixtures are included). Fire Code requirements must also be met including new code compliant front entry doors and ingress/egress doors at Milagra and Oceana. The project looked at 5 Packet Pg. 80
Pacifica City Council 2
February 28, 2022
opportunities to optimize open areas within the building to increase functionality and flexibility of the existing space. This allowed for an additional office to house the wastewater engineer position between the employee locker room and large back hallway area in the center of the building.

These improvements are especially important in light of the proposed changes to Wastewater Engineering as discussed with the City Council during the February 15, 2021 meeting on the Wastewater rate and CIP changes. As noted during this discussion, in addition to adding a position to Wastewater Engineering to deliver the increased proposed 5-year Capital Improvement Program, it was also noted that the previously proposed Wastewater Vehicle Storage and Office Improvement project has been moved into the out-years (FY 2030/31) of the proposed 10-year CIP to allow for more critical wastewater treatment plant projects to move forward. This will limit foreseeable office space for the Wastewater Division. It is projected that Wastewater Engineering would continue to occupy the new office space at Milagra even following other engineering staff’s move to a new Civic Center due to space constraints.

In addition to Wastewater Engineering continuing to operate in this space following any move, other office space that becomes available in the Engineering Building on Milagra would allow for Field Services management and Ranger staff to move into this space. As previously discussed with Council, these employees occupy an old temporary portable that is over 40 years old and in disrepair and the ability to move into improved unoccupied space in the Engineering Office would be of significant benefit to these staff members.

The Project was advertised on January 12, 2022, and January 19, 2022, in accordance with the formal bid process. Twenty-five (25) companies requested plans and specifications, eleven (11) attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting and two (2) submitted bids. On February 10, 2022, the bid opening was held via Zoom by the City Clerk and the result is as follows:

Company Base Bid
BEAM Construction, Inc. $132,664.00
MTW Builders, Inc. $160,000.00
The apparent low bidder is BEAM Construction, Inc. with a base bid amount of $132,664.00. All required documentation was submitted with their bid. This is BEAM Construction, Inc.’s first project with the City of Pacifica. Staff checked their references and received positive feedback.

As there are sufficient project funds approved as part of the FY 2021-2022 budget, the City Manager recommends the award of contract to the apparent low bidder, BEAM Construction, Inc. In addition, a 13% contingency is recommended to allow enough funding to handle any additional improvements that are identified during construction.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to approve the construction agreement. However, this will result in project delays, possible increase in construction cost and continued inefficient operations at Public Works and the Wastewater Division and the project is part of the approved CIP. Staff does not recommend this alternative action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
5 Packet Pg. 81
Pacifica City Council 3
February 28, 2022
Approval of the construction contract is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise. This construction project will improve the existing Public Works office efficiency allowing for an office for the current wastewater engineer.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact with this action as the project cost is within the anticipated approved budget. The following is the source and use of funds for the project:

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Public Works Department Office Improvements $150,000.00 Total Source of Funds $150,000.00
Construction Cost $132,664.00
Contingency (13%) $ 17,336.00
Total Use of Funds $150,000.00
Project End Balance $0.00
Any remaining funds will go back to General Fund 01.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 82
BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 1

CITY OF PACIFICA
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT

PACIFICA PUBLIC WORKS TI PROJECT
DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2022

1. IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR:

CONTRACTOR: BEAM Construction, Inc.

CALIFORNIA LICENSE NO: 1079434 CLASS: B – General Building Contractor

2. SCOPE OF THE WORK
See Scope of Work attached as Appendix A.

COMPENSATION FOR WORK. Contractor’s total compensation for the Work performed under this Agreement (Contract Sum) is $132,664.00, to be paid as (check one): (1)  lump sum; (2)  lump sum with progress payments; (3)  per attached schedule of rates and charges, up to a guaranteed not-to-exceed amount of $__________. All payments (check one): shall  shall not be subject to a five percent (5%) retention.

3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE FOR THE WORK. Contractor shall commence and complete the Work by the following dates:

Commencement Date shall be on the date established in the Notice to Proceed. Owner reserves the right to modify or alter the Commencement Date of the Work.

Substantial Completion Date: Within 30 working days of Commencement Date.

Final Completion Date: Within 30 working days of Substantial Completion.

3.01 Liquidated Damage Amounts.

A. As liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay Owner Two Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($2,900.00) for each Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work, until achieved.

B. As liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay Owner Two Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($2,900.00) for each Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Final Completion of the entire Work, until achieved.

3.02 Scope of Liquidated Damages
Contractor and Owner agree that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix the amount of such actual damages incurred by Owner because of a delay in completion of all or any part of the Work. Contractor and Owner agree that specified measures ATTACHMENT "A" 5.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 2
of liquidated damages shall be presumed to be the amount of such damages actually sustained by Owner, and that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damages.

B. Liquidated damages for delay shall cover administrative, overhead, interest on bonds, and general loss of public use damages suffered by Owner as a result of delay. Liquidated damages shall not cover the cost of completion of the Work, damages resulting from Defective Work, lost revenues or costs of substitute facilities, or damages suffered by others who then seek to recover their damages from Owner (for example, delay claims of other contractors, subcontractors, tenants, or other third-parties), and defense costs thereof. Owner may deduct from any money due or to become due to Contractor subsequent to time for completion of entire Work and extensions of time allowed pursuant to provisions hereof, a sum representing then-accrued liquidated damages.

4. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

4.01 Contractor shall perform the Work in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the following attachments (together, Contract Documents):

Appendix A – Scope of Work
Appendix B – General Conditions
Appendix C – Insurance
Appendix D – Construction Labor and Materials Payment Bond Appendix E – Construction Performance Bond
Appendix F – Supplemental Conditions

4.02 The Contract Documents are the sole and exclusive provisions that govern the Work. Any provision contained in any Owner purchase order issued in connection with this Agreement or any Work shall be null and void and shall have no force or effect.

4.03 Agreement number must appear on all invoices and correspondence. Send invoices in duplicate immediately upon performance of Work ordered hereon or as otherwise provided in the Contract Documents to:

City of Pacifica, Department of Public Works,
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
CONTRACTOR: BEAM Construction, Inc. OWNER: City of Pacifica _______________________________ __________________________________ Signature Signature
_______________________________ Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager Print Name & Title
______________________________ __________________________________ Date Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_______________________________ __________________________________ Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney Sarah Coffey, City Clerk

5.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I
– Page 3
Addresses for Notices: Addresses for Notices:

BEAM Construction, Inc. City of Pacifica
2127 25TH AVE 540 Crespi Drive
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94116 Pacifica, CA 94044

5.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 4
Appendix A to Construction Services Agreement

SCOPE OF WORK
New office at 151 Milagra Drive, in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and City standards and as directed by the City Engineer.

5.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 5
Appendix B to Construction Services Agreement

GENERAL CONDITIONS
ARTICLE 1 TERMS OF PERFORMANCE
Construction Services Agreement (Agreement) Force and Effect. The provisions of the Agreement and other Contract Documents constitute the entire agreement between the Contractor and Owner regarding the Work described herein. No representation, term or covenant not expressly specified in the Contract Documents shall be a part of the parties’ agreement. The Agreement and other Contract Documents shall govern the Work (whenever performed), and shall supersede all other purchase orders and agreements between Contractor and Owner, and any proposal, with respect to the Work.

Construction Performance Bond; Construction Labor and Materials Payment Bond; Securities in Lieu of Retention Escrow Account.

If Contract Sum under the Agreement exceeds (or is expected to exceed) $25,000, Contractor shall provide (i) a construction labor and material payment bond, in accordance with Civil Code Section 9550 and in form attached hereto Appendix D – Construction Labor and Materials Payment Bond, and (ii) a construction performance bond in form attached hereto as Appendix E – Construction Performance Bond. Contractor may not substitute cash in lieu of the required bond(s).

If the Agreement specifies performance retention, Contractor may elect to substitute securities or direct payment to an escrow account, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22300 (incorporated herein by this reference).

Records and Payment Requests. Contractor shall submit all billings with all necessary invoices or other appropriate evidence of proper performance, after which Owner shall make payment within 30 days. Upon Owner’s written request, Contractor shall make available to Owner, its authorized agents, officers, or employees, any and all ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, cancelled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to the Work or the expenditures and disbursement charged to Owner, and all correspondence, internal memoranda, calculations, books and accounts, records documenting its Work under the Contract Documents, and invoices, payrolls, timecards, records and all other data related to matters covered by the Contract Documents.

Contractor shall furnish to Owner, its authorized agents, officers, or employees, such other evidence or information as Owner may require with regard to the Work or any such expenditure or disbursement charged by Contractor. Contractor shall maintain all such documents and records prepared by or furnished to Contractor during the course of performing the Work for at least five years following completion of the Work, except that all such items pertaining to hazardous materials shall be maintained for at least 30 years. Contractor shall permit Owner to audit, examine and make copies, excerpts and transcripts from such records. The State of California or any federal agency having an interest in the subject of the Contract Documents shall have the same rights conferred to Owner by this section. Such rights shall be specifically enforceable.

Use of Contract Documents and Other Information. Drawings, Specifications, and other Contract Documents are made available to Contractor solely for Contractor’s use under the Contract Documents. Further, all tangible and intangible property developed, produced and/or provided by Contractor under the Contract Documents, and all such items (other than Contract Documents) provided by Owner to Contractor in connection with the Contract Documents including, without limitation, drawings, specifications, sketches, models, samples, tools, computer programs, technical information, confidential business information, scripts, customer or personnel information and data, whether written, oral or otherwise (all hereinafter referred to as Information) shall be Owner’s sole property. Contractor may not use Contract Documents or Information for

5.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 6
any purpose unrelated to Contract Documents without Owner’s prior written consent. All copies of Information in written, graphic or other tangible form shall be delivered to Owner upon completion of Work, or earlier if otherwise provided in Contract Documents.

Performance of Work/No Assignment. Time is of the essence in the performance of the Work.

Contractor will perform the Work in a skillful and workmanlike manner; comply fully with criteria established by Owner, and with applicable laws, codes, and all applicable industry standards.

Contractor shall maintain its work area in a clean and sanitary condition, clear debris and trash at the end of each work day, and shall not damage or disrupt any property unless specifically part of the scope of the Contract Documents. Contractor shall not contract any portion of the Work or otherwise assign the Contract Documents without prior written approval of Owner. (Contractor shall remain responsible for compliance with all terms of the Contract Documents, regardless of the terms of any such assignment.) Contractor shall permit Owner (or its designees) access to the work area, Contractor’s shop, or any other facility, to permit inspection of the Work at all times during construction and/or manufacture and fabrication. The granting of any progress payment, and any inspections, reviews, approvals or oral statements by any Owner representative, or certification by any governmental entity, shall in no way limit or relieve Contractor from its obligations under the Contract Documents. Either party’s waiver of any breach, or the omission or failure of either party, at any time, to enforce any right reserved to it, or to require strict performance of any provision of the Contract Documents, shall not be a waiver of any other right to which any party is entitled, and shall not in any way affect, limit, modify or waive that party’s right thereafter to enforce or compel strict compliance with every provision hereof. Owner shall have, at all times, set-off rights with respect to any payment and Contractor’s failure to perform the terms of the Contract Documents.

Defective Work; Warranties. Contractor warrants that all construction services shall be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional standards of good and sound construction practices, all Contract Documents requirements, and all laws, codes, standards, licenses, and permits. Contractor warrants that all materials and equipment shall be new, of suitable grade of their respective kinds for their intended uses, and free from defects. Contractor hereby grants to Owner for a period of one year following the date of completion its unconditional warranty of the quality and adequacy of all of the Work including, without limitation, all labor, materials and equipment provided by Contractor and its Subcontractors of all tiers. If either prior to completion of the Work, or within one year after completion, any Work (completed or incomplete) is found to violate any of the foregoing warranties (Defective Work), Contractor shall promptly, without cost to Owner and in accordance with Owner’s written instructions, correct, remove and replace the Defective Work with conforming Work, and correct, remove and replace any damage to other Work or other property resulting therefrom. If Contractor fails to do so within five days of Owner’s written notice (or other time period specified in the notice), Contractor shall pay all of the Owner’s resulting claims, costs, losses and damages. Where Contractor fails to timely correct Defective Work, or defects are discovered outside the correction period, Owner shall have all rights and remedies granted by law.

Earthwork and Underground Facilities. If the Work involves digging trenches or other excavations that extend deeper than four feet below the surface, Contractor shall notify Owner in writing of any material that Contractor believes may be hazardous waste that is required to be removed in accordance law, subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated by information about the site made available to bidders prior to the deadline for submitting bids, or unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in the Contract Documents, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 7104. For any Work involving trench shoring that costs in excess of $25,000, Contractor shall submit and Owner (or a

5.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 7
registered civil or structural engineer employed by Owner) must accept, in advance of excavation, a detailed plan showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection from the hazard of caving ground during the excavation of such trench or trenches, pursuant to Labor Code Section 6705. If such plan varies from the shoring system standards, the plan shall be prepared by a registered civil or structural engineer. Consistent with Government Code Section 4215, as between Owner and Contractor, Owner will be responsible for the timely removal, relocation, or protection of existing main or trunk line utility facilities located on the Site only if such utilities are not identified in the Contract Documents or information made available for bidding.

LEGAL
Compliance with Laws; Conflict of Interests. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws, regulations and policies, as amended, including those regarding discrimination, unfair labor practices, anti-kick-back, collusion, prevailing wages, labor compliance, and the provisions of the Americans with Disability Act. Contractor, its officer, partners, associates, agents, and employees, shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use the position afforded them by the Contract Documents to influence any governmental decision in which he or she knows or has reason to know that he or she has a financial interest under applicable state, federal and local conflict of interest regulations. Contractor warrants that no person or agency has been employed or retained, or will be employed or retained, to solicit or obtain any contract with Owner, upon an agreement or understanding for a contingent fee, except a bona fide employee or agency.

Licenses, Patents, Permits. Before commencing Work, Contractor shall apply for, obtain and maintain in current status, at its own expense, any license, permit or approval required from any agency for the performance of Work. To the greatest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall not be entitled to any compensation for any Work performed while not properly licensed, etc.

Employee Wages; Records; Apprentices. This Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. Contractor shall post job site notices as prescribed by regulation. Contractor shall pay prevailing wages to its employees on any Order in excess of $1,000.00. Copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at Owner’s principal office. Contractor shall comply with the 8-hours per day/40 hours per week/overtime/working hours restrictions for all employees, pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Contractor and all subcontractors shall keep and maintain accurate employee payroll records for Work performed. The payroll records shall be certified and submitted as required by law, including Labor Code Section 1771.4 and 1776, including (if the Agreement is awarded on or after April 1, 2015 or continues on or after January 1, 2016) to the Labor Commissioner no less frequently than monthly. Contractor shall comply fully with Labor Code Section 1777.5 in the hiring of apprentices for work relating to the Agreement. If Contract Sum exceeds $2,000 and is funded with federal funds, then Contractor shall pay federal Davis Bacon wages and comply with applicable federal requirements.

Mandatory Contractor and Subcontractor Registration. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771(a), Contractor represents that it and all of its Subcontractors are currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5. Contractor covenants that any additional or substitute Subcontractors will be similarly registered and qualified.

Indemnity/Liability. Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Owner and each of its officers, directors, representatives, agents and employees, against all claims, suits, actions, loss, cost, damage, expense, and liability arising from or related to bodily injury to or death of any person or damage to any property, or resulting from any breach and/or Contractor’s negligence in performing the Work pursuant to the Contract Documents.

Notwithstanding any provision of the Contract Documents, Owner shall not be liable to Contractor

5.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 8
or anyone claiming under it, in contract or tort, for any special, consequential, indirect or incidental damages arising out of or in connection with the Contract Documents or the Work. Owner’s rights and remedies, whether under the Contract Documents or other applicable law, shall be cumulative and not subject to limitation.

Worker’s Compensation. Pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1860 and 1861, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, every contractor will be required to secure the payment of compensation to his employees. Contractor represents that it is aware of the provisions of Labor Code Section 3700 that require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Contractor shall comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work.

MISCELLANEOUS
No Modification or Waiver; Severability. The Contract Documents may not be modified, nor may compliance with any of its terms be waived, except by written instrument executed and approved by fully authorized representatives of Owner and Contractor. Contract Documents headings are for convenience only and do not affect the construction of the Contract Documents. Should any part of the Contract Documents be declared invalid, void or unenforceable, all remaining parts, terms and provisions of the Contract Documents shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be invalidated, impaired or affected thereby.

Independent Contractor. Contractor is an independent Contractor and does not act as Owner’s agent in any capacity, whatsoever. Contractor is not entitled to any benefits that Owner provides to Owner employees including, without limitation, insurance, worker’s compensation benefits or payments, pension benefits, health benefits or insurance benefits. Terms within the Contract Documents regarding directives apply to and concern the result of the Contractor’s provision of Work not the means, methods, or scheduling of the Contractor’s Work. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures with respect to its provision of Work under the Contract Documents. Contractor shall pay all payroll taxes imposed by any governmental entity and will pay all other taxes not specifically identified in the Contract Documents as Owner’s responsibility.

Termination; Suspension; Disputes. Owner may direct Contractor to terminate, suspend, delay, interrupt or accelerate Work, in whole or in part, for such periods of time as Owner may determine in its sole discretion. Owner will issue such directives in writing, and may do so, in whole or in part, for its convenience or due to Contractor’s fault. Owner will compensate Contractor for extra costs resulting from such directives only to the extent that Owner issues such directives for its convenience and not due to Contractor’s fault (but Owner shall not compensate Contractor for costs, profit or overhead anticipated to be earned or incurred on Work terminated for Owner’s convenience.) Contractor shall continue its Work throughout the course of any dispute, and Contractor’s failure to continue Work during a dispute shall be a material breach of the Contract Documents. All claims by Contractor against Owner shall be submitted in writing to Owner, and shall be governed by Public Contract Code Sections 20104 – 20104.6, after which time the one year time period in Government Code Section 911.2 shall be, pursuant to Government Code Section 930.2, reduced to 90 days. Should Contractor be terminated for default, and such termination is subsequently determined to be wrongful, such termination will be converted to a termination for convenience as provided herein.

Notices. All notices between the parties hereto shall be in writing and may be served by commercial express/overnight courier service or by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid and certified receipt requested, and addressed as indicated beneath each party’s signature in the Master Agreement, or as either party may otherwise provide to the other.

5.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 9
Dispute Resolution. All Contractor claims not otherwise subject to Public Contract Code Sections 20104 et seq shall, as a condition precedent to litigation thereon, first be mediated. Mediation shall be confidential, non-binding, pursuant to the construction mediation procedures of JAMS in San Francisco, California, and utilize the services of a mediator mutually acceptable to the parties. If the parties are unable to agree, the mediator will be selected by JAMS from its panel of approved construction industry mediators, having a minimum of 10 years’ experience in the construction industry. The cost of mediation shall be equally shared by all parties to the mediation. The parties shall, prior to the commencement of a mediation pursuant to this Paragraph, upon notice of the other party, exchange relevant, non-privileged project documents in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2031.010 et seq. Additionally, the parties may agree mutually to engage in additional discovery prior to mediation. Should the parties proceed with additional discovery, they shall, unless mutually agreed otherwise, comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2019, et. seq. The Mediator will undertake to resolve any discovery disputes relating to the Mediation.

Execution; Venue; Limitations. The Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed in San Mateo County, California. Enforcement of the Contract Documents shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflict of laws rules. Except as expressly provided in the Contract Documents, nothing in the Contract Documents shall operate to confer rights or benefits on persons or entities other than Owner and Contractor. As between the parties to the Agreement, any applicable statute of limitations for any act or failure to act shall commence to run on the date of Owner’s issuance of the final Certificate for Payment, or termination of the Contract Documents, whichever is earlier, except for latent defects, for which the statute of limitation shall begin running upon discovery of the defect and its cause.

5.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 10
Appendix C to Construction Services Agreement

INSURANCE

1. Commercial General Liability Insurance, written on an “occurrence” basis, which shall provide coverage for bodily injury, death and property damage resulting from operations, liability for slander, false arrest and invasion of privacy, blanket contractual liability, broad form endorsement, and completed operations, personal and advertising liability, with limits of not less than [$1,000,000] general aggregate and [$1,000,000] each occurrence, subject to a deductible of not more than [$1,000] payable by Contractor.

2. Business Automobile Liability Insurance with limits not less than [$1,000,000] each occurrence including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, subject to a deductible of not more than [$1,000] payable by Contractor.

3. Workers’ Compensation Employers’ Liability limits not less than [$1,000,000] each accident, [$1,000,000] per disease and [$1,000,000] aggregate. Contractor’s Workers’ Compensation Insurance policy shall contain a Waiver of Subrogation against the City of Pacifica, its officers, directors, officials, agents, employees and volunteers. In the event Contractor is self-insured, it shall furnish Certificate of Permission to Self-Insure signed by Department of Industrial Relations Administration of SelfInsurance, State of California.

4. [If applicable] Builder’s Risk Insurance including, without limitation, coverage against loss or damage to the Work by fire, lightening, wind, hail, aircraft, riot, vehicle damage, explosion, smoke, falling objects, vandalism, malicious mischief, collapse, and other such hazards as are normally covered by such coverage. Such insurance shall be in amount equal to the replacement cost (without deduction for depreciation and subject to stipulated value in lieu of average clause) of all construction constituting any part of the Work, excluding the cost of excavations, of grading and filling of the land. [Alternatively, if applicable] An Installation Floater including, without limitation, coverage against loss or damage to the Work by fire, lightening, wind, hail, vandalism, malicious mischief, and other such hazards as are normally covered by such coverage. Such insurance shall be in amount equal to the replacement cost (without deduction for depreciation and subject to stipulated value in lieu of average clause) of the Work. [If either Builder’s Risk or an Installation Floater is required, continue] Such insurance may be subject to deductible clauses not to exceed [$10,000] for any one loss. Such insurance will not cover loss or damage to Contractor’s equipment, scaffolding or other materials not to be consumed in the performance of the Work. The insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation against Owner.

5. Insurance policies in Appendix C shall contain an endorsement containing the following terms:

5.01 City of Pacifica, its officers, directors, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers, shall be named as additional insureds, but only with respect to liability arising out of the activities of the named insured, and there shall be a waiver of subrogation as to each named and additional insured.

5.02 The policies shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the company’s liability.

5.03 Written notice of cancellation, non-renewal or of any material change in the policies shall be mailed to Owner thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date thereof.

5.04 Insurance shall be primary insurance and no other insurance or self-insured retention carried or held by any named or additional insureds other than Contractor shall be called upon to contribute to a loss covered by insurance for the named insured.

5.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 11

6. Certificates of Insurance and Endorsements shall have clearly typed thereon the Project Name, shall clearly describe the coverage and shall contain a provision requiring the mailing of written notices of cancellation described in clause 5.03 above.

7. All policies of insurance shall be placed with insurers acceptable to Owner. The insurance underwriter(s) must be duly licensed to do business in the State of California and (other than for workers’ compensation) must have an A. M. Best Company rating of [A-,VII] or better. Required minimum amounts of insurance may be increased should conditions of Work, in the opinion of Owner, warrant such increase. Contractor shall increase required insurance amounts upon direction by Owner.

5.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 12
Appendix D to Construction Services Agreement

CONSTRUCTION LABOR AND MATERIAL PAYMENT BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:

1. THAT WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica, a general law city and municipal corporation of the State of California (Owner) has awarded to BEAM Construction, Inc. as Principal a Construction Services Agreement, dated the 28
th day of February, 2022 (Agreement), titled PACIFICA PUBLIC WORKS TI PROJECT located at the City of Pacifica in the amount of $132,664.00 (Contract Sum), which Agreement is by this reference made a part hereof, for the work described as follows:

New office at 151 Milagra Drive, in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and City standards and as directed by the City Engineer.

2. AND WHEREAS, Principal is required to furnish a bond in connection with the Agreement to secure the payment of claims of laborers, mechanics, material suppliers, and other persons as provided by law;

3. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal and ______________________________ as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto Owner in the sum of 100% OF THE CONTRACT SUM ($_________________), for which payment well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

4. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if Principal, or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns approved by Owner, or its subcontractors shall fail to pay any of the persons named in California Civil Code Section 9100, or amounts due under the State of California Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the Agreement, or for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the State of California Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of Principal and subcontractors pursuant to California Unemployment Insurance Code Section 13020 with respect to such work and labor, that Surety will pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees, otherwise the above obligation shall become and be null and void.

5. This bond shall inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in California Civil Code Section 9100, as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond. The intent of this bond is to comply with the California Mechanic’s Lien Law.

6. Surety, for value received, hereby expressly agrees that no extension of time, change, modification, alteration, or addition to the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and agreements of the Agreement, or to the work to be performed thereunder, shall in any way affect the obligation of this bond; and it does hereby waive notice of any such extension of time, change, modification, alteration, or addition to the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and agreements of the Agreement, or to the work to be performed thereunder.

7. Surety’s obligations hereunder are independent of the obligations of any other surety for the payment of claims of laborers, mechanics, material suppliers, and other persons in connection with Agreement; and suit may be brought against Surety and such other sureties, jointly and severally, or against any one or more of them, or against less than all of them without impairing Owner’s rights against the other.

5.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 13

8. Correspondence or claims relating to this bond shall be sent to Surety at the address set forth below.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this __________ day of ____________________, 20___.

CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY
Company: (Corp. Seal) Company: (Corp. Seal)
Signature Signature
Name Name
Title Title
Street Address Street Address
City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code

END OF DOCUMENT

5.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 14
Appendix E to Construction Services Agreement

CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:

1. THAT WHEREAS, City of Pacifica, a general law city and municipal corporation of the State of California (Owner) has awarded to BEAM Construction, Inc. as Principal a Construction Services Agreement, dated the 28
th day of February, 2022 (Agreement), titled PACIFICA PUBLIC WORKS TI PROJECT in the amount of $132,664.00 (Contract Sum), which Agreement is by this reference made a part hereof, for the work described as follows:

New office at 151 Milagra Drive, in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and City standards and as directed by the City Engineer.

2. AND WHEREAS, Principal is required to furnish a bond in connection with the Agreement, guaranteeing the faithful performance thereof;

3. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal and _________________________ as Surety are held and firmly bound unto Owner in the sum of 100% OF THE CONTRACT SUM to be paid to Owner or its successors and assigns; for which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

4. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if Principal, or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns approved by Owner, shall promptly and faithfully perform the covenants, conditions, and agreements of the Agreement during the original term and any extensions thereof as may be granted by Owner, with or without notice to Surety, and during the period of any guarantees or warranties required under the Agreement, and shall also promptly and faithfully perform all the covenants, conditions, and agreements of any alteration of the Agreement made as therein provided, notice of which alterations to Surety being hereby waived, on Principal’s part to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify, defend, protect, and hold harmless Owner as stipulated in the Agreement, then this obligation shall become and be null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect.

5. No extension of time, change, alteration, modification, or addition to the Agreement, or of the work required thereunder, shall release or exonerate Surety on this bond or in any way affect the obligation of this bond; and Surety does hereby waive notice of any such extension of time, change, alteration, modification, or addition.

6. Whenever Principal shall be and declared by Owner in default under the Agreement, Surety shall promptly remedy the default, or shall promptly:

6.01 Undertake through its agents or independent contractors, reasonably acceptable to Owner, to complete the Agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions and to pay and perform all obligations of Principal under the Agreement including, without limitation, all obligations with respect to warranties, guarantees, indemnities, and the payment of liquidated damages; or

6.02 Obtain a bid or bids for completing the Agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions, and, upon determination by Owner of the lowest responsible bidder, reasonably acceptable to Owner, arrange for a contract between such bidder and Owner and make available as work progresses (even though there should be a default or a succession of defaults under the contract or contracts of completion arranged under this paragraph) sufficient funds to pay the cost of completion less the balance of the Contract Sum, and to pay and perform all obligations of

5.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 15
Principal under the Agreement including, without limitation, all obligations with respect to warranties, guarantees, and the payment of liquidated damages; but, in any event, Surety’s total obligations hereunder shall not exceed the amount set forth in the third paragraph hereof. The term “balance of the Contract Sum,” as used in this paragraph, shall mean the total amount payable by Owner to the Principal under the Agreement and any amendments thereto, less the amount Owner paid to Principal.

7. Surety’s obligations hereunder are independent of the obligations of any other surety for the performance of the Agreement, and suit may be brought against Surety and such other sureties, jointly and severally, or against any one or more of them, or against less than all of them without impairing Owner’s rights against the others. Surety may not use Contractor to complete the Agreement absent Owner’s written consent.

8. No right of action shall accrue on this bond to or for the use of any person or corporation other than Owner or its successors or assigns.

9. Surety may join in any proceedings brought under the Agreement and shall be bound by any judgment.

10. Correspondence or claims relating to this bond shall be sent to Surety at the address set forth below.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this _________ day of ________________, 20___.

CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY
Company: (Corp. Seal) Company: (Corp. Seal)
Signature Signature
Name Name
Title Title
Street Address Street Address
City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code

END OF DOCUMENT

5.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 16
Appendix F to Construction Services Agreement

SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS

1. Plans
See Plans, Specifications and Estimates.

2. Shop Drawings
Shop drawings maybe required on this project.

3. Dust Control and Cleanup
During the construction period, the dust level shall be kept at a minimum. The premises shall also be kept free from the accumulation of waste material or rubbish. Failure to meet this requirement may result in project shutdown.

The final cleaning shall leave the facilities ready for use with no additional cleanup. Use no cleaning materials which will contaminate the ocean. At the completion of the contract, the Contractor shall remove all remaining litter, debris, materials, temporary structures and equipment from the site.

The premises shall be left in a clean and orderly condition acceptable to the City Engineer.

In the event Contractor leaves the job overnight in an unclean condition, City may take action to provide necessary requirements and will deduct the cost of doing so from subsequent Contractor payments.

4. Public Safety
Contractor shall be responsible during all phases of work to provide for public safety and convenience. It shall be the Contractor’s responsibility to provide adequate provisions to assure the safety of the general public throughout the duration of the project, including periods when no work is being performed. The site shall be thoroughly fenced-off when work is not actively in progress, and lighted barricades shall be placed around any obstructions not encompassed by this fence.

In the event Contractor leaves the job overnight in an unsafe condition, or fails to provide for public safety and convenience, City may take action to provide necessary requirements and will deduct the cost of doing so from subsequent Contractor payments.

All applicable safety regulations shall be complied with to protect the public and the Contractor’s employees. Strict compliance with Cal/OSHA safety requirements in doing the work is required.

5. Prevailing Wage Rates
The Contractor shall post, in a location on the job site, the prevailing wage rate Determination which is applicable to this project.

5.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 17

6. Discrimination
No discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons upon public works because of the race, sex, age, color, national origin, creed, sexual orientation or marital status of such persons and every contractor for public works violating this section is subject to all the penalties imposed for a violation of Section 1735 of the California Labor Code.

7. Employment of Apprentices
Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 (Chapter 1411, Statutes of 1967) and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him.

The Contractor and any subcontractor shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices.

Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices.

8. Materials and Supplies
All materials and supplies called for by contractor’s scope and proposal and shall be new unless otherwise specified.

9. Protection
The Contractor shall provide adequate protection for the site and surroundings throughout the work.

All damage done to existing property shall be neatly repaired or replaced at the Contractor’s expense. Work shall be executed in a careful and orderly manner with the least possible disturbance to public and occupants of the area.

The Contractor shall conduct his operations in such a manner as to avoid damage to existing improvements and adjacent property. The Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, repair or replace any damage occurring from his operations to pursue completion of the contract. The repairs and replacement shall be to the satisfaction of the Engineer and according to City standards and practices. The minimum repair or replacement shall be equal to surrounding existing conditions or better, and the Engineer’s decision as to acceptable repair or replacement shall be final. The burden of proof as to whether there was existing damage by the Contractor shall rest with the Contractor.

The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. All existing facilities shall be protected and, if they are damaged or destroyed by the Contractor, shall be restored or replaced in kind at his expense, to their original conditions, or better, as approved by the City or other owner thereof. The site shall be secured at the conclusion of each work day.

10. Inspections
Inspectors, employed by the City, shall be authorized to inspect all work done and all materials furnished. Such inspection may extend to all or any part of the work on the project and to the preparation, fabrication or manufacture of the materials to be used. An inspector is not authorized to revoke, alter or waive any requirements of the specifications. He is authorized to call the attention

5.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 18
of the Contractor to any failure of the work or materials to conform to the specifications and contract. He shall have the authority to reject materials or suspend the work until any question at issue can be referred to and decided by the Engineer.

An inspector will in no case act as foreman or perform other duties for the Contractor, nor interfere with the Contractor’s management of the work.

In case the Contractor refuses to suspend operations on verbal order, the inspector giving such verbal order will then issue the order in writing. After placing the order in the hands of the person in charge of the work for the Contractor, the inspector will immediately leave the job. Work done during the absence of the inspector will not be accepted or compensated.

The Contractor shall prosecute work only in the presence of an authorized inspector or authorized representative of the Engineer, and any work done without such inspection shall be at the Contractor’s risk and be subject to rejection.

The Contractor shall furnish the Engineer with every reasonable facility for ascertaining whether or not the work, as performed, is in accordance with the requirements and intent of the specifications and contract. The Contractor shall at all times and for any purpose permit the Engineer and any of his representatives and representatives of the City to have access to the work and the premises used by the Contractor.

11. Defective Materials
Any materials condemned or rejected by the Engineer as not meeting the requirements of these specifications may be branded or otherwise marked by the Engineer and shall, on demand, be at once removed by the Contractor to a satisfactory distance from the work.

If the Contractor does not remove such material within a reasonable time, fixed by written notice, the City may remove and store the materials at the expense of the Contractor. If the Contractor does not pay the expense of such removal and storage within ten days thereafter, the City may, upon ten days’ written notice, sell such materials at auction or at private sale. The City will account for the net proceeds thereof after deducting all the costs and expenses that should have been borne by the Contractor.

No partial payment, inspection, taking possession of, or other act made or done by the Engineer or the City with respect to the work prior to the final completion and acceptance thereof shall relieve Contractor from performing the Work in accordance with this contract, and shall not affect or prejudice the right of the Engineer or the City to reject any defective work or material or to require the Contractor complete fulfillment of all the provisions of the contract.

If the Engineer deems it expedient and not in the best interests of the City to correct work injured or done not in accordance with the contract, the defective work may be accepted subject to an equitable deduction from the contract price which may be made therefor by the City upon certificate from the Engineer.

12. Temporary Suspension of Work and Extension of Time for Performance When conditions at the site of the proposed work are unsatisfactory for the prosecution of a part or all of the work as adjudged by the Contractor and he is forced to suspend such work until reasonable conditions for its prosecution exist, he may request, in writing, that the Engineer authorize such

5.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 19
suspension of work. Without the Engineer’s approval, any suspensions violate this specification.

Unsatisfactory conditions may include, but not limited to: inclement weather, excessively high surf and/or tides, strikes, excessive high or low ambient temperature and inability of delivery of materials by suppliers for good reason.

When, in the opinion of the Engineer, suspensions of work are beyond the control of both the Contractor and the City (including, without limitation, adverse weather, conditions, earthquakes, force majeure events), the time of performance as set forth in the Agreement will be extended by the Engineer, in writing, by a period of time equal to that lost due to the delay occasioned by the allowed suspension, all at no additional cost to the City and without waiver of remedies for nonproliferation of the work. Such allowed suspension of work shall not relieve the Contractor of his contractual responsibilities.

13. Laws and Regulations
The Contractor shall comply with all local, regional, State and Federal laws and regulations at all times. In addition, the Contractor shall meet the standards set by the Air Quality Act for Noise and Pollution. If there is any conflict between these specifications and provisions and any laws or regulations, the matter shall be brought to the attention of the Engineer immediately.

14. Sound Control Requirements
The Contractor shall comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, regulations and ordinances which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract.

Each internal combustion engine, used for any purposes on the job or related to the job, shall be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine shall be operated on the project without said muffler.

15. Air Pollution Control
The Contractor shall comply with all air pollution control rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract, involving any air pollution control rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes specified in Section 11017 of the Government Code.

16. Water Pollution
General:

Contractor shall take all measures necessary to prevent debris or contamination from entering the ocean. Best Management Practice (BMP) shall be enforced at all times.

Correction of Inadequate Pollution and Erosion Control Measures:

If the measures being taken by the Contractor are inadequate to control water pollution effectively, the City Engineer may direct the Contractor to revise operations. The directions will be in writing and will specify the items of work for which the Contractor’s water pollution control measures are inadequate. No further work shall be performed on those items until the water pollution control measures are made adequate.

Abatement of Other Water Pollution:

5.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 20
The cleanup of water pollution by chemicals, petroleum products, cement or by the escape of any other material that is harmful or potentially harmful, from the work site as a result of the Contractor’s operations, into drainage systems or the ocean shall be the financial responsibility of the Contractor. The means of cleanup and the party or parties to be engaged to perform the cleanup work shall be determined by the Engineer in consultation with appropriate hazardous materials, pollution control, safety, health and wildlife authorities and officials. The Contractor shall immediately carry out cleanup orders issued to him through or by the Engineer and shall make the work site accessible to personnel and equipment from outside pollution control resources called in by the Engineer. The cost of cleanup action called for by the Engineer and performed by outside resources shall be deducted from any monies due or become due the Contractor.

Compensation:

Full compensation for conforming to the requirements of this section shall be considered as included in the Contract Sum paid for the various items of work and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.

17. Environmental Protection Requirements
Source Reduction and Recycling
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) mandates that 25 percent of the waste stream in the City of Pacifica be diverted from landfill by 1995 and that this diversion increase to 50 percent by 2000. AB 939 also required the City of Pacifica to prepare and adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) outlining recommended programs to meet the above noted diversion goals. One of the approved SRRE programs is to require the utilization of recycled construction materials for City projects. All work performed under this contract and all contractors and their associates and/or employees shall utilize recycled materials and recycle construction materials where feasible. Construction/Demolition Recycling Resources Lists are available from the Pacifica Planning Department and the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

Contractor shall reuse or recycle any useful construction materials generated during the project.

Disposal
At the end of each working day, the Contractor shall collect all scrap, debris and waste material and dispose of such materials properly.

Hazardous Material/Waste Management
A. Storage
The Contractor shall label and store all hazardous materials, such as pesticides, paints, thinners, solvents, and fuels; and all hazardous wastes, such as waste oil and antifreeze; in accordance with the City of Pacifica Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance and all applicable State and Federal regulations.

5.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 21
The Contractor shall store all hazardous materials and all hazardous wastes in accordance with secondary containment regulations, and it is recommended that these materials and wastes be covered, as needed, to avoid potential management of collected rain water as a hazardous waste.

The Contractor shall keep an accurate, up-to-date inventory, including Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes stored on-site, to assist emergency response personnel in the event of a hazardous materials incident.

B. Disposal
The Contractor shall use secondary containment, such as a drip pan, to catch leaks or spills any time that vehicle or equipment fluids are dispensed, changed or poured.

The Contractor shall keep a stockpile of spill cleanup materials, such as rags or absorbents, readily accessible on site.

The Contractor shall clean up leaks and spills of vehicle or equipment fluids immediately and dispose of the waste and cleanup materials as hazardous waste, as described in the section above.

The Contractor shall not wash any spilled material into streets, gutters, storm drains or creeks and shall not bury spilled hazardous materials.

The Contractor shall report any hazardous materials spill to the City of Pacifica Building Division at (650) 738-7344.

The Contractor shall inspect vehicles and equipment arriving on site for leaking fluids and shall promptly repair leaking vehicles and equipment. Drip pans shall be used to catch leaks until repairs are made.

C. Activity-Specific Requirements
The following requirements shall be met on all projects within the City of Pacifica that include the listed activities.

Concrete, Grout and Mortar Waste Management
Material Management:

The Contractor shall store concrete, grout, and mortar away from drainage areas and ensure that these materials do not enter the storm drain system or the ocean waters.

Concrete Truck/Equipment Wash Out:

The Contractor shall not wash out concrete trucks or equipment into streets or gutters.

5.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office BEAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT Part I – Page 22
The Contractor shall perform washout of concrete trucks or equipment off-site or in a designated area on-site where the water will flow onto dirt or into a temporary pit in a dirt area. The Contractor shall let the water percolate into the soil and dispose of the hardened concrete in a trash container. If a suitable dirt area is not available, then the Contractor shall collect the wash water and remove it off-site.

18. Layout of Work
Layout of work shall be done by the Contractor. Contractor shall mark the work area limits and facilities to be removed and replaced. All layout shall be approved by the City.

19. Substitutions
Substitutions in material or methods of construction, when necessary because of material shortages or in order to avoid serious delay may be made only after they are approved by the City Engineer in writing.

20. Traffic Control and Public Access
The Contractor shall be responsible for proper traffic control to assure public safety and convenience. Continuous safe public access shall be maintained to residential structures at all times.

21. Material and Workmanship
All materials and workmanship are to be the best of their respective kinds. The terms “or equal,” “approved,” “selected” and so forth shall mean as approved, etc. by the City Engineer. All materials and equipment used should be in accordance with the manufacturer’s printed directions.

Use adequate numbers of skilled workmen who are thoroughly trained and experienced in necessary crafts and who are completely familiar with the specified requirements and methods needed for proper performance of work specified. Use equipment adequate in terms of size, capacity and numbers to accomplish work in a timely manner.

22. Drug-Free Workplace
The Contractor is required to comply with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. The requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Policy are described in City of Pacifica Administrative Policy Number

46. 23. Harassment and Discrimination
The Contractor is required to comply with City of Pacifica Administrative Policy Number 33, Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace.

24. Payroll Records
Contractor and each Sub-Contractor shall keep an accurate payroll record, showing the name, address, social security number, work week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by him in connection with the public work. All payroll records shall be certified and maintained by the Contractor and be made available to auditors and managers from the City upon request.

5.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc. (4890 : Pacifica Public Works New Office

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Fairmont Park Play Structure Replacement Parts
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Miracle Recreation Equipment Company (dba Miracle Playsystems, Inc.) (Attachment "A") for the purchase and installation of replacement parts for the preschool age play structure and the school age play structure at Fairmont Park in the amount of $77,842.66; and approve budget authority in the amount of $85,626.66, which includes a 10% contingency.

STAFF CONTACT:

Michael Pham, Parks Maintenance Worker II
(650) 738-3760
[email protected]
Gino Assereto, Parks Superintendent
(650) 738-3761
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E., DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City Council approved the FY 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in June of 2021. The CIP included the Playground Equipment Improvement Project meant to improve outdated citywide parks playground equipment. The City manages and maintains nineteen (19) total parks throughout the City of Pacifica and over the last several years Public Works (PW) and Parks, Beaches and Recreation (PB&R) staff have been working on assessment of the City parks needs due to aging infrastructure. This included a consultant playground equipment assessment study that was presented and discussed at a Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission study session in September of 2019. Based on the assessment study and discussions between PW and PB&R staff, a priority list was created. The assessment and inspection found that the preschool-age play structure and the school-age play structure at Fairmont Park need replacement parts due to normal wear and tear and deterioration of the decks and panels. The play structures can be used safely, however, staff recommends the replacement of these parts as these repairs are needed. Staff recommends executing a construction services agreement with Miracle Recreation Equipment Company (dba Miracle Playsystems) to order (4-6 month delivery; supply-chain delays) and install the parts. The cost of replacement parts/installation for each play structure is itemized in the following table:
6 Packet Pg. 105
Pacifica City Council 2
February 28, 2022
Fairmont Park TOTAL
Preschool Age Play
Structure
$23,875.63
School Age Play Structure $53,967.03
TOTAL $77,842.66

Procurement and pricing comply with the public purchasing process as Miracle Recreation Equipment Company (dba Miracle Playsystems) is a vendor of the State of California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS Contract 4-17-78-0006B) and Sourcewell (Contract #010521-LTS), cooperative purchasing organizations dedicated to public sector procurement. CMAS and Sourcewell have completed the bidding process on products and services, which public agencies can utilize and receive competitive pricing. The City Manager recommends approval of the Construction Services Agreements with Miracle Recreation Equipment Company (dba Miracle Playsystems) for the purchase and installation of the play structure replacement equipment.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to approve the construction agreements. However, this will result in delays in obtaining replacement parts and repairing play structures. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the construction contract is consistent with the following Council adopted Goal:
· Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as playground equipment. This construction project will replace deteriorating play equipment, improving the condition of the play structures for children using the facilities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

City staff recommends including a 10% contingency to the Project Costs for any unforeseen conditions during construction. The following is the source and use of funds for the project:

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Construction Services Agreement $ 77,842.66
Contingency (10%) $ 7,784.00
Consultant Cost (with 10% Contingency) $ 85,626.66
Total Use of Funds $(85,626.66)
Total Source of Funds (Roy Davies Fund 27) $298,006.00
Estimated Project End Balance $212,379.34

The City Manager recommends approving a budget authority in the amount of $85,626.66. The use of the contingency will be reviewed and approved by City staff. The remaining funds would allow City staff to evaluate other parks and replace other play structures in the City.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
6 Packet Pg. 106
Pacifica City Council 3
February 28, 2022
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 107

%,8>, ,<4,@08?0#,.414.,

!&

&
"!""!&$&"$
%$)')%' 4<,.60$0.<0,>498;?4:708>97:,8C/-, 4<,.60#6,C=C=>07=

% ,48%><00>
%,648,=

"
%'$"$($%
'

"((

%"#"&
)"$

#?<.3,=0 ,8/
8=>,66,>498 91 <0:6,.0708> :,<>= 19< >30
C0,< 96/ :6,C =><?.>?<0 ,8/

C0,< 96/ :6,C
=><?.>?<0,>,4<798>#,<5
#,<5@40A4<.60%00.9=>:<9:9=,6=,>>,.30/>9::08/4B

" #!%&
"! "$)"$
?>DB13D?BNC D?D1< 3?=@5>C1D9?> 6?B D85,?B; @5B6?B=54 E>45B D89C 7B55=5>D 98><,.>%?79C

D?25@1941C.30.5980
<E=@CE=
<E=@CE=G9D8@B?7B5CC@1I=5>DC
@5B1DD13854C3854E<5?6B1D5C1>4381B75CE@D?17E1B1>D554>?DD?5H35541=?E>D?60000000000 << @1I=5>DC.30.5980C81<<C81<<>?D25CE2:53DD?169F5@5B35>DB5D5>D9?>

%
'"#$"$ !"$&
)"$
?>DB13D?BC81<<3?==5>351>43?=@<5D5D85,?B;2ID85 6?<<?G9>741D5C
?==5>35=5>D1D5C81<<25?>D8541D55CD12<9C8549>D85$?D935D?&B?3554 %G>5B B5C5BF5CD85 B978DD? =?496I?B1<D5BD85?==5>35=5>D1D5?6D85,?B;G89389C4569>541CD8541D51<<B5@<135=5>DC@1BDC81F5 255>B5359F542ID859DI
(E2CD1>D91<?=@<5D9?>1D5,9D89>
31<5>41B41IC?6?==5>35=5>D1D5

9>1<?=@<5D9?>1D5,9D89>

31<5>41B41IC?6(E2CD1>D91<?=@<5D9?>

"9AE941D541=175=?E>DC
C<9AE941D5441=175C6?B45<1I?>DB13D?BC81<<@1I%G>5B 9F5
E>4B544?<<1BC

6?B51381ID81D
5H@9B5C16D5BD85D9=5C@539695485B59>6?B?>DB13D?BD?13895F5(E2CD1>D91<?=@<5D9?>?6D855>D9B5,?B;E>D9< 13895F54
C<9AE941D5441=175C6?B45<1I?>DB13D?BC81<<@1I%G>5B 9F5
E>4B54 4?<<1BC

6?B51381ID81D
5H@9B5C 16D5B D85 D9=5 C@5396954 85B59> 6?B ?>DB13D?B D? 13895F5 9>1< ?=@<5D9?> ?6 D85 5>D9B5 ,?B; E>D9<
13895F54

(3?@5?6"9AE941D541=175C
?>DB13D?B1>4%G>5B17B55D81D2531EC5?6D85>1DEB5?6D85&B?:53D9DG?E<4259=@B13D931<?B5HDB5=5<I496693E<D D?69HD851=?E>D?6CE3813DE1<41=175C9>3EBB542I%G>5B2531EC5?6145<1I9>3?=@<5D9?>?61<<?B1>I@1BD ?6D85,?B; ?>DB13D?B1>4%G>5B17B55D81DC@5396954=51CEB5C?6<9AE941D5441=175CC81<<25@B5CE=54D? 25D851=?E>D?6CE3841=175C13DE1<<ICECD19>542I%G>5B1>4D81D2531EC5?6D85>1DEB5?6D85&B?:53D9D G?E<4259=@B13D9312<5?B5HDB5=5<I496693E<DD?69HD8513DE1<41=175C ATTACHMENT "A" 6.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. (4889 : Fairmont Park Play Structure

"9AE941D5441=175C6?B45<1IC81<<3?F5B14=9>9CDB1D9F5?F5B85149>D5B5CD?>2?>4C1>475>5B1<<?CC?6@E2<93 EC541=175CCE665B542I%G>5B1C1B5CE<D?645<1I "9AE941D5441=175CC81<<>?D3?F5BD853?CD?63?=@<5D9?> ?6D85,?B;41=175CB5CE<D9>76B?=5653D9F5,?B;<?CDB5F5>E5C?B3?CDC?6CE2CD9DED56139<9D95C?B41=175C CE665B54 2I ?D85BC G8?D85> C55;D? B53?F5BD859B 41=175C6B?=%G>5B 6?B 5H1=@<5 45<1I 3<19=C ?6 ?D85B 3?>DB13D?BCCE23?>DB13D?BCD5>1>DC?B?D85BD89B4@1BD95C1>44565>C53?CDCD85B5?6 %G>5B=1I454E3D6B?= 1>I=?>5I4E5?BD?253?=54E5D??>DB13D?BCE2C5AE5>DD?D9=56?B3?=@<5D9?>?65>D9B5,?B;1>45HD5>C9?>C ?6D9=51<<?G54@EBCE1>DD?@B?F9C9?>C85B5?61CE=B5@B5C5>D9>7D85>133BE54<9AE941D5441=175C &$ %!"!
&
"!%

?>DB13D?BC81<<@5B6?B=D85,?B;9>133?B41>35G9D8D85D5B=C1>43?>49D9?>C?6D89C7B55=5>D1>4D856?<<?G9>7 1DD138=5>DCD?75D85B98><,.>9.?708>=
@@5>49HK(3?@5?6,?B;
@@5>49HK
5>5B1<?>49D9?>C
@@5>49HK>CEB1>35
@@5>49HK?>CDBE3D9?>"12?B1>4#1D5B91<C&1I=5>D?>4 @@5>49HK?>CDBE3D9?>&5B6?B=1>35?>4

@@5>49H
K(E@@<5=5>D1<?>49D9?>C

)85?>DB13D?3E=5>DC1B5D85C?<51>45H3<EC9F5@B?F9C9?>CD81D7?F5B>D85,?B; >I@B?F9C9?>3?>D19>549> 1>I%G>5B@EB381C5?B45B9CCE549>3?>>53D9?>G9D8D89C7B55=5>D?B1>I,?B;C81<<25>E<<1>4F?941>4C81<< 81F5>?6?B35?B56653D

7B55=5>D>E=25B=ECD1@@51B?>1<<9>F?935C1>4 3?BB5C@?>45>35 (5>49>F?935C9>4E@<931D59==5491D5<I E@?>@5B6?B=1>35?6,?B;?B45B5485B5?>?B1C?D85BG9C5@B?F94549>D85?>DB13D?3E=5>DCD? 4>C91#,.414.,0:,<>708>91#?-64.)9<5=

%,8>, ,<4,@0#,.414.,

%$)')%' 4<,.60$0.<0,>498;?4:708>97:,8C %,$'4>C91#,.414., /-, 4<,.60#6,C=C=>07=

8.
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (97>1DEB5 (97>1DEB5
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 !9D(D5F5>&B5C945>D !5F9>,??48?EC59DI#1>175B 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 1D5 1D5
&&'%+()%
%'# ))()

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 #9385<<5#1B385DD1!5>I?>9DIDD?B>5I (1B18?665I9DI<5B;
44B5CC5C6?B$?D935C 44B5CC5C6?B$?D935C #9B13<5&<1ICICD5=C>3 9DI?6&1396931
B $?D93
31

( #19>(DB55D

(1>D1#1B91F5>E5
(1<9>1C

&1396931

00000000000000000000
(97>1DEB5
Tracey Lydon, Principal & Director of Ops
2/14/22

6.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. (4889 : Fairmont Park Play Structure

::08/4B>998=><?.>498%0<@4.0=2<00708> :: 2
%"#")"$

6.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. (4889 : Fairmont Park Play Structure A A

!
"#

$
%

#&
'

(

##)*'
+,

)-./ /

0)//'+

0) ,'

0)//'

0 ) +',

!

"

#$
%
1-1
2*

#13

45'
0+)/' 0+)/' 0)/'
1-."
/ /

6-
7

8)-
"4)
9
&7:;<'
0;,' 0;,' 0;'

*.-B1B.C
C"1
)*(-''545D, ).B.5)-./;+'E F +/++ 'EF / , E .DF
-
B:/ ; E1?
A F'*:

&>

6.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. (4889 : Fairmont Park Play Structure A A
*

!

"

#$
%
4 =
88
>
?

&8)<

8&)

)
8

>

'
*

8

@
7
@

=
88@8)
<

8&)

8
8

@
&

'>&

=
88

'
=

&@
&'
0 )' 0 )' 0'

>

48

!

"

#$
%
4;
>

48 0,/;'+ 0,/;'+ 0'

0)//'+

0) ,'

0)//'
&
"

0 ) +',
-
#:

&

:
(
:

:

*.-B1B.C
C"1
)*(-''545D, ).B.5)-./;+'E F +/++ 'EF / , E .DF
-
B:/ ; E1?
A F'*:

&>

6.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. (4889 : Fairmont Park Play Structure A A
"(

"$

" )*

"+
"

-
#>

G

"+
"

! ,
"

! ,

! ,

"

! ,
-

-

.

.

$
" /

0!
102
-
A5@
7
8>8)
8
>#
8787

##)*')
H
)8

8>
)
&)
#

8
7>7)>

#
8

)8
8)
>

@

3
#)8

&)

))?)

<

#I>)

<?
I>)

<
I>)$8&)

<

)>=
#
8
8

@7
=

&>

#@
#8@
7

8
)7
>

>7
=
8
7
.&

#>7<
&

8
7
.&
EJ-

KF'9
7

)J8

&K
8

$
#)
8
&)<

8<8
#
$
#)

$
#)

8

)
8
7
)
8
&)<

8)
##

&>

##)*')

#7

L
7
8

&>
#
8
#
8
&)@
7

)
)

#8

&
8>7
>'*

?
#
@8&8
8
&
87

7>7>
&
&
8

88)7

77
<&
=M)
87

77

#8

#

)
8
&
&8)@77

=

=)7

>)
7

EFL
=
88)
7@=
)

##)*'8#
8
>#7
<

87

&
78&

##)*'

=
&
&
8
#8

&'
-!-!3

N

3

&8>
8
#'.

<
8
@

3
&
&

8
'
-
<G
8@
7#

='
N B1.
1.O12-P.
151"5*.-B1B.C
C
"1
)*(-
54?, .
)-./;+
N B1.
11*"-P1-O
"5:*.-B1B.C
C
"1
*(-')+,
.*(
")
.B*(.
)-./ /
N

A>
?3

@
7#

&

7
3
8

8
'

? / ,

*>%

#Q
'
N 27
@

G8)

##)*!3
3
87>@
&
7

:
N 1&

88

@
&
N *

>3

7

N

8)3
)@
#
3

8

3

*.-B1B.C
C"1
)*(-''545D, ).B.5)-./;+'E F +/++ 'EF / , E .DF
-
B:/ ; E1?
A F'*:

& >

6.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. (4889 : Fairmont Park Play Structure A A
N .#

&
?>0A0

)

&
@
8 &)
=

&A-

G8@
&

)

&)<
8A
>

<8)>
&)&7
=#)
#&
8
>#

)3
R
8)

8
&
=
'
N *3
8
=
#'-
8

#<

8

>8
=
#'*

>

'
N 9

#8=

<
>

'

14 3!003
N
7

8

>
:"7
A
I

88

8
&>7

8

8
7

&8

=
88

>7

&
=
88<#
&
&>7

A3'
N
#
:

8

8
E

=8
8
F)7
@
8

S@
7
8

8<

7
3

E

F'
78
#7
&<
3

87
8
>

8

8)8
G

7
&@
<

A

?'

##)*

#
8

8

>

)
#
8

&'
78
#
8
<
8
>

8
7

8
S

&>@
<7

&8

'-
8

8=
>
'S@7
7@
<
888

8

&
N B
8
:1

8
8
>
7
7
8

8

8

8
=
8@
=

#'
N 5

"

"

" 6
" 6
)

370!89

*
N -
#>

8

8

8

<#
<

'
3+ 03
70
E
>

<F
27
@
8)@?8

<

#>

8
=
#
R
8 &3
)
=

8

>

&
&

8<#
3

&
&)
$

#)
8

7

<
8

)8
#

8
#T

8
#>7

8)
=
>
>
$<
)

&8
&
8:

)
)<

@

)8

>

8A

8
8

>

)

)&

&)

)-
*'-8

:Q

8L
<)
8
@

<
@
7/S

87
S&

8)
83

>

<
)

)
83
'1

&8>
/8
#>

3
' >

)@7
7=
G
'"
:2
'
&

-5
1
N "P*

25"1*
B**"1"5.(Q561(14C"P1"1
-5(".*(1P11*(:

##)*'<$
#7

8<#
)
@

&
7
@
)

)
8
7
8
7
<=
8'-

##)*'7
3

8
&

#7

G8'
7
&

547
>
7
=

'
N -

8@
A

&

8
>#
878

##)*'7

>

8
&

<

)
)

)8

&
8?)
8
&
8

#>)

&>

#
8

)
)8

&)

)
)$8&
)
$

&

&8

)
>

7
)

)
<

)

)#)
&
8

&
<)

)

8A

7
#3

8

<
<
&
>

&
>

@
7
7
>

8
>#
3

>7
#3
'
-
#:

&

:
(
:
'DWH
BB@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

*.-B1B.C
C"1
)*(-''545D, ).B.5)-./;+'E F +/++ 'EF / , E .DF
-
B:/ ; E1?
A F'*:

&;>

6.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. (4889 : Fairmont Park Play Structure 2/7/2022
M21_0209_Fairmont Park - 5-12 Replacement Decks & Tensile Toughs MIRACLE PLAYSYTEMS, INC. – PO BOX 263, ALAMO, CA 94507 – (800) 879-7730 – (510) 893-2163 (FAX) CSL: 981433 (Exp Date 03/23) – DIR: 1000015853

Page 1 of 6 ends

Pacifica City CouncilFebruary 28, 2022

Pacifica City Council
February 28, 2022