Pacifica City Council
March 14, 2022

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 March 14, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
March 14, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Off-street parking is allowed by permit for attendance at official public meetings.

Vehicles parked without permits are subject to citation. You should obtain a permit from the rack in the lobby and place it on the dashboard of your vehicle in such a manner as is visible to law enforcement personnel.

PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES DURING MEETING
Alternative Ways to Observe and Participate in the Meeting:

The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is in-person at the meeting location published in the meeting agenda. However, there are alternative ways to observe and participate in 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
• Call-In Public Comments (offered on a pilot basis):
• When the Mayor announces the Agenda Item on which you would like to comment, dial-in to the number and enter the Conference ID listed below. You will be placed on hold in a call-queue.

Please mute any background sound and listen through your phone to be called upon by the last 4-digits of your phone number. State your full name at the start of your public comment. • Dial-in: 1-650-898-6965 | Conference ID: 383 609 442 # o Press * 5 to raise your hand in the call queue.
o Press * 6 to unmute when called upon to speak by the last 4-digits of your phone number.
o If you are not able to join the call-queue due to maximum capacity limit, please attempt to call back until you are able to be placed in the queue.

Please note that Alternative platforms for participation are subject to underlying technology functionality and may be modified or interrupted at any time without notice. • Written Public Comments:

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 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 City Council Regular Meeting 2 March 14, 2022
read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments will be posted to the City’s website for review prior to the meeting.

AT THE MEETING: Materials in writing provided at the meeting should provide seven (7) copies to provide for each Councilmember, City Clerk and City staff. 6:00 PM STUDY SESSION
A. Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee Studies
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive Report on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee Studies
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 Mayor Bier

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. Those wishing to address the Council on any item listed on the agenda should submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.

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 1/16/22 through 1/31/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 1/16/22 through 1/31/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on February 28, 2022.

City Council Regular Meeting 3 March 14, 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. Notice of Completion for the Emergency Sewer Repairs - SF RV Park PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Emergency Sewer Repairs - SF RV Park Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

7. North Pacifica Pedestrian Improvement Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for North Pacifica Pedestrian Improvement Project:

A. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a Construction Services Agreement with DRYCO Construction, Inc. (Attachment "A") in an amount not to exceed $305,500.00 and authorize a budget authority for construction in the amount of $351,325.00, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Construction Contract amount; and
B. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 1 with 4Leaf, Inc. (Attachment "B") to provide Construction Management Services in the amount not exceed of $50,534 and authorize a budget authority for construction management in an amount not to exceed $55,389, which includes contingencies in the amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of Task Order No. 1; and C. Authorize staff to execute future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount.

8. Approval of the Final Map for 580 Crespi Drive
PROPOSED ACTION:

Approval of the Final Map to subdivide the airspace of an existing 100,846 square foot (2.3151 acres) parcel into twenty-five (25) commercial condominiums on the project site located south of the intersection of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road.

9. 2021 Annual Progress Reports on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element of the General Plan, and the City of Pacifica General Plan PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution approving the City’s 2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element and the 2021 General Plan Annual Progress Report on Implementation of Other City Council Regular Meeting 4 March 14, 2022
Elements of the General Plan, and directing the City Manager to transmit the reports to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).

10. Adoption 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 PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica 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 find the ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

11. Adoption of 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: Move to Adopt an Ordinance titled “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 find the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.
7:15 PM - PUBLIC HEARINGS

12. Redistricting - Public Hearing #4 to Receive Input Regarding Proposed Draft District Maps, Composition of Council District Boundaries; Affirm Selection of Map 505b 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 Composition of Council District Boundaries and Affirm Selection of Map 505b; and

2. 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”).

13. Adoption of a Resolution to approve General Plan Amendment GPA-100-21 to change the General Plan land use designation from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential, and introduction of an Ordinance to approve Rezoning RZ-201-18 and Development Plan DP-79-18 to rezone from the R-1/B-4/HPD zoning district to the P-D/HPD zoning district and to authorize a single-family residential use, filed by Matthew and Margaret Murphy, at the eastern terminus of Talbot Avenue (APN 016-270-110) in City Council Regular Meeting 5 March 14, 2022
Pacifica (File No. 2018-057). Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Class 3 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Resolution and Ordinance, and approved Specific Plan SP-169-18, Variance PV-526-18, and Parking Exception PE191-21 for construction of a 2,406-square foot (sf) single-family residence with a two-car garage on the 24,149-sf undeveloped parcel, by a vote of 7-0 on January 18, 2022.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to continue the public hearing to the City Council meeting of March 28, 2022.

14. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval with conditions of Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization for construction of a single-family residence on an undeveloped lot known as TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030); and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (File No. 2021-018)
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD Planning Commission approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution.

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.

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

15. Fiscal Year 2021-22 Mid-Year Budget Update
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the adjustments to the FY 2021- 22 Operating and Capital Budget.

City Council Regular Meeting 6 March 14, 2022

16. Follow-up Information about Council Chambers Improvements or Relocation of Meetings to an Alternate Location
PROPOSED ACTION: 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:

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 Regular Meeting 7 March 14, 2022

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
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee Studies
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive Report on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee Studies
STAFF CONTACT:

Lisa Petersen, Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
Ryan Marquez, Associate Engineer
(650) 738-3769
[email protected]

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City of Pacifica is responsible for maintaining over 90 centerline miles of street pavement.

In order to fund street maintenance work, the City adopts a budget every year for an annual street maintenance project as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). At the October 12, 2020 City Council meeting, staff provided Council an update on the overall condition of the City’s pavements based on the City’s 2019 Pavement Condition Index Report (also known as the Budget Options Report). At this meeting, Council approved the City’s 5-year Street Maintenance Program. Additionally, Council approved an agreement with NCE Consulting Engineers to provide a study that reviewed the impact of utility cuts and construction/waste trucks on the City’s street network to develop a proposed fee related to these impacts. The purpose of this study session is to present the results of this study and collect feedback from Council members on the proposed fees.

The City’s funding for streets since FY18/19 included one-time funding of $900,000 from the City’s General Fund and One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding and ongoing funding from Senate Bill 1 (SB1) and Measure W funding with yearly allocations of approximately $600K and $440K, respectively. Additionally, rollover Measure A money in Street Construction Fund (Fund 9) of approximately $350K/year was provided for the City’s adopted 5-year Street Maintenance program that concludes in FY 2024/25. These limited funding sources will not be sufficient to prevent some of the City’s streets from deteriorating and requiring expensive maintenance treatments or prevent the City’s overall pavement condition from continuing to drop. The October 12, 2020 Council report noted that the City would need to identify other funding strategies to prevent further degradation of the City’s street network and to address the accumulating deferred pavement maintenance backlog that continues to grow. 2021 Budget Options Report
Packet Pg. 8
Pacifica City Council 2
March 14, 2022
Since discussion of the 2019 Budget Options Report in October of 2020, a new Budget Options Report (BOR) has been received by the City from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) consultant (Fugro) that was completed in March of 2021 as part of the MTC Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP). Like the 2019 BOR, the 2021 BOR shows the City’s pavements continuing to degrade under current funding levels, highlighting the City’s need to find alternative funding strategies for City streets. Pavement condition is expressed in terms of a number called Pavement Condition Index (PCI) that rates pavements between 0 and 100, with 0 used for failed pavement and 100 used for new pavement. MTC’s most recent report on Bay Area cities pavement conditions shows that the City of Pacifica has the lowest Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of all 101 Bay Area cities. The 2021 BOR report projects Pacifica’s overall PCI to drop from 42 to 38 (both considered Poor Condition Category) by 2025 at current funding levels and continue a downward trend. Separating streets into low traffic and high traffic streets, the report shows the City’s low traffic residential streets have an average PCI in the low 30’s and the City’s higher traffic arterial/collector streets have an average PCI of around 50. The below table provides a breakdown of pavement condition category related to PCI:

The 2021 BOR report can be found on the City’s website at www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/pw/engr/city_streets_maintenance_program/default.

The 2021 BOR report shows that to stop the PCI decline, the City would need to identify at least $900,000 of additional pavement funding per year beyond the current pavement funding level of $1.35 M per year. It is also important to note that the City is using reserve Measure A funds of $350,000 per year towards the current pavement funding level that will run out in the next several years. Consequently, to maintain the current PCI in these out years, they City would need to increase funding by $1.25 M to stop the City’s overall PCI decline. Additional funds beyond this would be needed to increase the City’s overall pavement condition.

Utility Pavement Cut Fee and Construction and Waste Truck Pavement Impact Fee Studies
Following Council’s approval of the NCE agreement to perform this study, and in-line with Council’s goals of Stewardship of City Infrastructure that includes improving street conditions, staff has been working with NCE on pavement funding strategies related to utility pavement cuts and construction/waste truck impact fees. Implementation of these fees would allow for increased pavement funding that could help halt the continued downward trend of the City’s pavement condition and allow for additional streets to be added to the City’s current 5-year Street Maintenance Program. These funding strategies are based on scientific data that Packet Pg. 9
Pacifica City Council 3
March 14, 2022
correlates pavement damage to pavement trenching and construction and waste truck street use.

Although California law does not allow cities to charge general road use fees to companies that are using a jurisdiction’s roadways, State laws do allow for collection of one-time fees related to construction impacts by developments to roads or caused by utility trench cutter’s use of City property. Additionally, costs related to pavement impacts from waste trucks could be included as part of a franchise fee, if agreed to by the City’s franchise solid waste hauler, in recognition of the impacts that waste vehicles have to a City’s roads. The following paragraphs will discuss the findings of these studies and data that supports fees to be charged to offset damages being caused to Pacifica’s streets by these activities. Fee recommendations related to waste truck impacts will be discussed with Council during upcoming discussions with Recology of the Coast on their franchise agreement. Fees related to construction vehicle impacts and utility cuts will be discussed with Council during the upcoming end of the fiscal year budget meetings related to annual Fee Schedule adoption.

Fees can be reduced for all developments or for a certain type of development for a justifiable reason associated with a Council adopted policy. The policy does not need to be adopted before reducing fees. At the Fee Schedule adoption meeting, staff will recommend fee changes related to City development/construction activities as noted below:
· Construction Vehicle Pavement Impact Fees and Utility Cut Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) - Any ADU that is under 750 square feet shall not be charged a pavement impact fee or utility cut fee. Staff is recommending that both fees shall not be charged for an ADU of any size when the ADU is being constructed at the same time, under the same permit, as a new main residential unit or an expansion of the main unit that make payment of the fees as required. The Council has also directed staff to evaluate policies to incentivize affordable housing production by reducing fees during the Housing Element development and implementation.
· Partially or Fully Credit Utility Cut Impact Fees for Developments with Pavement Improvements - As a condition of approval, many new developments are required to pave the roadway in front of the development as a nexus for improving infrastructure adjacent to the development as well as impacts the development’s utility cuts may have on the road. Staff will recommend providing these developments a credit against their Utility Cut Impact fees for completing frontage roadway paving as this will mitigate the impacts of the cut.
· Reduced Utility Cut Impact Fees Related to Sewer Lateral Repairs Not Requiring a Lateral Compliance Certificate - Staff will recommend charging a minimal fee ($500) for pavement cuts related to fixing a sewer lateral not requiring a Sewer Lateral Compliance Certificate. Lowering the fee for these types of repairs will prevent the fee from becoming an obstacle to needed sewer lateral replacement for cracked/broken laterals.

Waste and Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study
Cities can collect fees for pavements related to waste vehicles through a franchise fee or separate fee as part of a negotiated requirement in the franchise agreement. They can also collect one-time fees from developers for heavy construction vehicle roadway impacts. The City recently completed a study (Attachment 1) related to the impacts of waste and heavy vehicle (construction) impacts on pavement longevity to determine what a correlated fee would be. The purpose of the study was to estimate the structural and therefore financial impact to the roadway from waste and construction vehicles.

Packet Pg. 10
Pacifica City Council 4
March 14, 2022
Waste Vehicles
Over the past 15 years, the number of waste vehicles has increased on local roads and streets throughout California. Historically, one waste vehicle provided services once a week. More recently, three vehicles (e.g., garbage, recycling, organics) provide weekly or biweekly services.

The impact of waste truck trips has been studied by many cities and was recently studied by NCE Consulting Engineers for the City of Pacifica with the goal of answering two questions:
1) What impact do waste vehicles have on the pavement life of Pacifica streets? 2) What is the corresponding financial impact to the City of Pacifica? Using a technical approach through Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the American Association of State and Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), reviewing weight of vehicles and frequency of trips and condition of Pacifica’s pavement, NCE was able to determine the impact waste vehicles have on the life of Pacifica’s pavements. Staff projected that the City’s ultimate goals would be in the next 15 years to raise the City’s residential streets up from a PCI in the low 30’s to a PCI of 60 and the combined arterial and collector street PCI from a 50 to a 70. This would provide for all the City’s streets to be in the “Good” condition category range and lower the overall cost of maintaining the City’s roadways.

With the above information, NCE was able to provide answers to the questions related to pavement life and financial impact. It is important to note that these impacts are directly related to the existing condition of a jurisdiction’s roadways, consequently, fees between cities do not provide an “apples to apples” comparison. Based on the NCE study, in Pacifica waste vehicles consume 10% of residential street pavement life and 6% of arterial/collector street pavement life each year. This translates into a yearly cost to the City of $511,000 damage to residential pavements and $184,000 damage to arterial/collector streets. Cities that collect fees related to waste truck pavement impacts typically do this through the waste company franchise fee that is sometimes included as a separate fee line.

Heavy Construction Vehicles
The study also looked at the damage that is caused to City streets during construction of development projects by heavy construction vehicles traversing City streets to get back and forth from development projects. The impact of heavy construction vehicles to pavements from these trips has been studied by many cities and was included in the recent NCE pavement impact study for the City of Pacifica. Pacifica requested NCE review the impacts to city streets caused by heavy vehicle construction activity on City streets related to developments.

The study noted that damage to pavement caused by heavy construction vehicles during construction of development projects is similar to the damage caused by waste vehicles, however, heavy construction vehicles do not traverse City streets in the same manner (i.e., weekly route through all neighborhoods). Estimating this damage cost for the study of heavy construction vehicles was completed by the following:
- Calculating the average cost per vehicle-mile traveled through conversion of yearly waste vehicle damage.
- Estimating the conservative number of vehicle trips/miles travelled to development sites. - Developing costs associated with square foot of construction with other options.

Using this information, NCE’s report recommendation includes a per square foot price for residential, multi-family, and commercial developments of $1.19/square foot of new structure.

This would translate to a one-time fee of $2,126 for a new 1800 sf single family home or $952 Packet Pg. 11
Pacifica City Council 5
March 14, 2022
for a new 800 sf multi-family unit.

Utility Cut Fees
Study and quantification of the impact of utility cuts on road and street performance has been occurring for over 30 years. Public agencies, as well as utility companies, have sponsored engineering investigations and studies to quantify the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance and estimate the financial cost. NCE Consulting completed a study of the impact of utility cuts to Pacifica’s pavements (Attachment 2). The purpose of this study was to compare pavement performance for the street sections with and without cuts, quantify damage caused by utility cuts to the pavements within the City and develop a fee schedule for the City to recover any costs associated with such damage.

To accomplish this, NCE looked at both the structural and functional deterioration of pavements due to utility cuts. The field evaluation included selecting sixteen sites on city streets of different ages. Deflection testing using a falling weight deflectometer (FWD) was conducted to assess loss of structural capacity due to cuts. In addition, the City’s StreetSaver® database, which contains 15 years of pavement distress data and thousands of data points with a wide range of pavement age and conditions, was analyzed to assess the impact of utility cuts. The findings from the study included:
· Pavements with cuts of any size deteriorate more than pavements without cuts across all pavement age groups (0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years and >15years). The exception is residential streets older than 10 years with small cuts (cut area <10% of section area). However, the cumulative effect of multiple small cuts is equivalent to a section with large cuts.
· On average, the PCI drops by 30% if the cut area is greater than 10% of the section area.
· Cuts do more damage to new (< 10 years) pavements than older (≥10years) pavements.

This results in an average percent reduction of the remaining service life of approximately 33% for new pavements and 17% for old pavements.

These findings were used to develop a fee schedule for the City of Pacifica that is shown in the table below:

As noted above and will be discussed more during the Study Session presentation, although individual small cuts show less significant difference, there is a cumulative impact from multiple small cuts. Over time, this impact will be equivalent to a section with large cuts (10% or greater).

The fee calculation (as shown in the Study) accounts for this by having the small cuts pay a “fair share” for this cumulative effect by dividing the small cut fee total by 10%. Additionally, because pavement cuts cause “slumping” of the soil 2 feet beyond the cut area, this area also needs to be accounted for to assess the correct impact to the pavement. For example, a 4’x4’ cut has the impact of an 8’x8’ cut due to this slumping. The following is an example of a 4’x’4 pavement cut fee for a residential pavement 10 years old or older:

Packet Pg. 12
Pacifica City Council 6
March 14, 2022
$1 x (4+4) x (4+4)/0.1 = $640
Next Steps Related to Pavement Fees
- Waste Truck Fees - Staff will discuss costs related to waste vehicles and City pavements with Recology and the City Attorney’s Office as part of current Franchise Agreement discussions with Recology. Staff will return to Council following these discussions with fee options for consideration at a future meeting.
- Construction Vehicle Impact Fees and Utility Cut Fees - Recommended fees related to Construction Vehicle Impact Fee and Utility Cut Fees will be brought to Council for recommendation of adoption at the upcoming yearly budget discussion on Fee Schedule adoption. Recommendations for reducing fees will also be provided, as noted earlier in this report.

Other Cities’ Fees Related to Utility Cuts and Waste/Construction Vehicles:

As discussed earlier in this report, utility cut and vehicle impact fees can only be assessed following a study based on scientific data that correlates pavement damage to pavement trenching and construction and waste truck street use, pursuant to State law. Due to differences in pavement conditions, number of streets and other jurisdiction specific data, an “apples to apples” comparison of these fees is not possible and would not be a justification for charging the fee as fees must be based on scientific data as related to a particular city. Many cities do charge these fees and information related to other cities’ fees can be found in Attachments 3,4 and 5. For Council’s information, the fees developed through the recent NCE pavement Studies are on the lower to mid end of the available fee information shown on these Attachments. Approximate fees on the lowest and highest end of the other jurisdiction’s available information are noted below:
· Waste Truck Impact Fee - Belmont $200,000/year, Walnut Creek $1,800,000/year · Heavy Construction Truck Fee - Citrus Heights $0.72/sf, San Francisco $9.95/sf · Utility Cut Fee (upper end) - Modesto $2.50/sf, Los Angles $19.50/sf RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of these actions 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 sea level rise.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact from this action. The completed Studies provide justification for the City to implement these fees as noted in the report. If the City and Recology of the Coast agree to include a payment to the City to cover the costs associated with waste truck impacts in an amended Franchise Agreement, then the City could receive an additional $695,000 yearly for the City’s pavement program. Data has not been compiled related to past yearly numbers of utility trench cuts or total amount of building square footage related to heavy construction truck impact fees. However, staff has estimated heavy construction impact fees could range from Packet Pg. 13
Pacifica City Council 7
March 14, 2022
$10,000 to $60,000 per year depending on development levels. Utility cut fees could generate $100,000 to $200,000 per year depending on if large PG&E or telecom projects are completed.

For example, the large PG&E project recently completed on Oddstad and Terra Nova would have resulted in approximately $100,000 worth of pavement fees due to the extensive pavement cutting during the project. Should the City decide to charge these fees, the fees cannot exceed the amounts set forth in the Studies and the fees must be charged equally unless the Council has a justifiable policy basis for lowering the fee for certain types of fee payers, as noted earlier in the report.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (PDF) Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (PDF)
Attachment 3 – Other Cities' Waste Vehicle Impact Fees (PDF) Attachment 4 – Other Cities' Heavy (Construction) Vehicles (PDF) Attachment 5 - Other Cities' Utility Cut Fees (PDF)
Packet Pg. 14
City of Pacifica
Department of Public Works
155 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Impacts of Waste and Heavy Vehicles on Pavement Life
Final Report
NCE Project No. 1004.05.55
Mar 2022
Richmond, CA
501 Canal Blvd., Suite I
Richmond, CA 94804
Attachment 1 a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Final Report
Impacts of Waste and Heavy Construction Vehicles on
Pavement Life
City of Pacifica
March 2021
Prepared for:

Pacifica Department of Public Works
Department of Public Works
155 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Prepared by:

Sharlan Montgomery Dunn, Ph.D., P.E.

Project Engineer

Debaroti Ghosh, Ph.D.

Project Engineer

Mei-Hui Lee, Ph.D., P.E.

Senior Engineer
NCE
501 Canal Blvd Suite I
Point Richmond, CA 94804
(510) 215-3620
NCE Project No. 1004.05.55
a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
ES-1
Executive Summary
The purpose of this study was to estimate the structural and financial impact of waste and heavy construction vehicles on streets in the City of Pacifica. To accomplish this, NCE performed a vehicle impact analysis that combined methods from both the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official’s Guide for Design of Pavement Structures and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.

The analysis compared the estimated traffic demand associated with waste and heavy construction vehicles to the average remaining structural capacity of streets.

The resulting impact was then integrated with a financial analysis.

The results of the study (shown below) indicate that approximately 10.1 percent of a residential street’s pavement life is consumed each year by waste vehicles. This damage corresponds to an average cost of $510,906 per year. Similarly, approximately 6.2 percent of an arterial or collector street’s pavement life is consumed each year by waste vehicles. This damage corresponds to an average cost of $183,963 per year. The City can use these results to recoup pavement damage costs associated with waste collection by implementing a flat fee, a costper-vehicle fee, or other payment structure.

Vehicle Type
Residentials Arterials/Collectors
Avg % Pvmt
Life Used/Yr
Avg Damage
Cost/Yr
Avg % Pvmt
Life Used/Yr
Avg Damage
Cost/Yr
Garbage 3.1% $157,202 2.2% $65,349
Green Waste 3.1% $157,202 1.7% $49,011
Recycling 3.1% $157,202 2.2% $65,349
Bulk Waste 0.8% $39,300 0.1% $4,084
Total 10.1% $510,906 6.2% $183,793
A proposed heavy-vehicle impact fee was estimated based on the assumption that the damage caused to pavement structures by heavy construction vehicles is similar to that caused by a typical waste vehicle. The proposed fee (shown below in 2021 dollars) represents the transportation costs associated with the construction of new developments and can be collected as part of a development impact fee for residential and non-residential units. Any implemented waste or heavy vehicle fee structure should include an inflation factor since pavement maintenance costs increase over time.

Option Residential Unit Fee* Non-Residential Unit Fee* Unit 1 $2,126 NA per unit
2 $1.19 $1.19 per square foot
3 $0.17 NA per $100 valuation
*Fee in 2021 Dollars
a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 2 Technical Approach ............................................................................ 2

2.1 Pavement Condition ......................................................................... 2

2.2 Structural Capacity .......................................................................... 4

2.3 Traffic Demand ............................................................................... 5

2.3.1 Waste Vehicles .......................................................................... 5

2.3.2 Heavy Construction Vehicles ........................................................ 8

2.4 Financial Analysis ............................................................................ 9

2.5 Vehicle Impact Analysis .................................................................. 10

2.5.1 Waste Vehicles ........................................................................ 10

2.5.2 Heavy Construction Vehicles ...................................................... 11 3 Results ............................................................................................. 12

3.1 Waste Vehicles ............................................................................. 12

3.2 Heavy Construction Vehicles ........................................................... 13 4 Summary ......................................................................................... 16 5 References ....................................................................................... 17 a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
ii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Family Deterioration Curves by Functional Class .................................. 3 Figure 2. Typical Waste-Vehicle Loading .......................................................... 6 Figure 3. Annual Pavement Condition Breakdown for Residential Streets .............. 9 Figure 4. Annual Pavement Condition Breakdown for Arterial/Collector Streets .... 10 Figure 5. Average Percent of Life Consumed per Year by Waste Vehicle Type ...... 12 Figure 6. Average Cost per Year Due to Waste Vehicle Damage ........................ 13 List of Tables
Table 1. Pavement Condition Breakdown by Functional Class .............................. 3 Table 2. Remaining Service Life by Functional Class .......................................... 4 Table 3. ESALs Remaining by Functional Class ................................................. 5 Table 4. Waste-Vehicle Collection Frequency .................................................... 5 Table 5. Structural Number by Functional Class ................................................ 7 Table 6. Traffic Demand on City Streets by Condition Category ........................... 8 Table 7. Proposed Heavy Vehicle Impact Fees for Pacifica ................................ 13 Table 8. Summary of Other Agencies’ Heavy Construction Vehicle Impact Fees ... 14 a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

INTRODUCTION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
1 1 Introduction
Over the past 10 to 15 years, the number of waste-vehicle repetitions has increased on local roads and streets throughout California. Historically, one waste vehicle provided services once a week. More recently, three or four different waste vehicles (e.g., garbage, recycling, organics) provide weekly or biweekly services. In addition to waste vehicles, private development can have a significant impact on pavement condition. When new development construction occurs, heavy equipment and material delivery vehicles cause more rapid deterioration and worse pavement condition. This separation of waste categories, increase in waste collection frequency, as well as new construction due to land development, has caused many local agencies to question:

1. What impact do waste and heavy construction vehicles have on pavement deterioration?

2. What is the corresponding financial impact of waste and heavy construction vehicles on pavement life?
Similar questions have been studied for over 60 years by many state highway agencies, universities, the U.S. Department of Transportation, industry groups, and consulting/research firms. While the research completed and continued by these entities has significantly improved the understanding of pavement deterioration and the impacts of various treatments and loads on pavement performance, the bulk of this research has not focused on local or low-volume roads. Additionally, the impact and quantification of waste and heavy construction vehicles on local roads and streets varies significantly based on site- and agency-specific information. Such variables include pavement condition and structure, vehicle type and frequency, and maintenance costs. Therefore, to really understand the impact of waste vehicles on roads and streets within a particular agency, a custom study and analysis must be performed.

Customized studies estimating the impact of waste and heavy construction vehicles on pavement life and the corresponding costs for a particular agency can be used to develop impact fees. Such fees help agencies recapture costs associated with accelerated pavement deterioration due to frequent waste-vehicle trips and continued land development.

The City of Pacifica (City) wants to identify the vehicle impacts and develop fees to recoup damage sustained on City streets due to waste vehicles and heavy construction vehicles. Consequently, Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. (NCE), performed this study to estimate that impact and to quantify it in financial terms.

The following sections describe the technical approach used and present the results of the study.
a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
2 2 Technical Approach
For this project, NCE employed a sophisticated analysis combining methods from both the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual (HDM) (Caltrans 2019) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (AASHTO 1993). City streets in California are typically designed according to the Caltrans HDM; whereas the AASHTO pavement design guide is widely used throughout the United States. Both methods were employed to more accurately represent traffic demands and incorporate the effect of pavement condition.

Ultimately, this analysis compared the estimated traffic demand associated with waste and heavy construction vehicles to the average remaining structural capacity of streets. The resulting impact was then integrated with a financial analysis.

The following subsections describe the assumptions made and the analysis procedure used to estimate and quantify the impact of waste and heavy construction vehicles on pavement life and maintenance costs for the City. Note that the analysis differentiates between two functional class groups: 1) residentials, and 2) arterials and collectors. This differentiation accounts for differences in pavement structures and traffic demands.

2.1 PAVEMENT CONDITION
Pavement condition is typically quantified using the pavement condition index (PCI), which ranges from 0 to 100. Pavements in excellent condition have a PCI above 85, pavements in very good condition have a PCI between 70 and 85, pavements in good condition have a PCI between 50 and 70, pavements in poor condition have a PCI between 25 and 50, and pavements in very poor condition have a PCI below 25. Note that these condition categories are consistent with those presented in the City’s Budget Options Report (City of Pacifica 2021) with one modification—the excellent condition category was added to provide an additional data point, and therefore additional accuracy, during the analysis portion of this study.

The City’s street network is in poor condition with an average PCI of 39 as of March 2021. Table 1 summarizes the portion of the City’s street network in each condition category by functional class. As shown, nearly half the 62.6 centerline miles of residential streets, and a quarter of the 27.6 centerline miles of arterials/collectors, are in failed condition.
a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
3 Table 1. Pavement Condition Breakdown by Functional Class Condition
Category PCI Range
Pavement Condition Breakdown (% Area)*
Residentials Arterials/Collectors
Excellent 85-100 1.4 14.5
Very Good 70-85 9.1 11.4
Good 50-70 13.7 22.6
Poor 25-50 28.7 27.8
Very Poor 0-25 47.1 23.7
Total - 100.0 100.0
*Condition data obtained from StreetSaver® on March 15, 2021 For each condition category, the percent of remaining service life (RSL) was estimated using the StreetSaver® family deterioration curves for asphalt concrete (AC) streets. The AC curves were selected since City streets are predominantly AC pavement (99.4 percent). The deterioration curves, illustrated in Figure 1, are customized (using historical condition surveys) within StreetSaver® to match the typical performance of streets within the City.

A pavement’s RSL reaches zero when a pavement falls into failed condition, meaning it has a PCI less than 25. Consequently, residential streets have a total service life of approximately 34 years, while arterials/collectors have a total service life of approximately 29 years. Table 2 shows the estimated percent RSL for each condition category and functional class.

Figure 1. Family Deterioration Curves by Functional Class a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
4 Table 2. Remaining Service Life by Functional Class
Condition
Category PCI Range
Remaining Service Life (%)
Residentials Arterials/Collectors
Excellent 85-100 97.1 96.6
Very Good 70-84 70.6 69.0
Good 50-69 41.2 37.9
Poor 25-49 11.8 10.3
Very Poor 0-24 0 0

2.2 STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
A pavement’s capacity to carry traffic loads depends on pavement structure and condition. The pavement structure of City streets were assumed to meet the City’s typical design traffic index (TI) values of 5 for residential streets and 7 for arterials and collectors. Based on these design TI values and a subgrade R-value of 9, which was observed during the City’s 2020-2021 Resurfacing Program, typical pavement structures were calculated following the Caltrans HDM. Consequently, residential streets were assumed to have structure consisting of 4 inches of AC over 8 inches of aggregate base (AB). Similarly, arterials and collectors were assumed to have 6 inches of AC over 10 inches of AB.

The structural impact of a vehicle on a pavement depends on the vehicle’s load and axle configuration. An 18,000 lb load on a single axle is commonly used as the standard to which all other axle configurations and loads can be compared. Thus an Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) describes the damage to a pavement caused by an 18,000 lb load on a single axle (Huang 2003). As an axle load increases, the damage caused increases exponentially. Additionally, as pavement condition worsens, the damage caused by a given load also increases. Since damage to a pavement is often quantified in terms of ESALs, it is fitting then to also describe a pavement’s structural capacity in terms of ESALs.

The corresponding ESALs for the design TI values were estimated according to the Caltrans HDM. For a TI of 5, the design ESALs are 7,161; for a TI of 7, the design ESALs are 121,021. These design values represent the capacity, in ESALs, that a pavement structure has at the time of construction. The number of ESALs remaining based on condition category were estimated for each functional class by multiplying the design ESALs by the percent RSL (See Table 3). a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
5 Table 3. ESALs Remaining by Functional Class
Condition
Category PCI Range
ESALs Remaining
Residentials (TI=5) Arterials/Collectors (TI=7)
Design 7,161 121,021
Excellent 85-100 6,950 116,847
Very Good 70-84 5,054 83,462
Good 50-69 2,948 45,904
Poor 25-49 842 12,519
Very Poor 0-24 0 0

2.3 TRAFFIC DEMAND
After calculating the structural capacity of the pavement network, the traffic demand was estimated for waste vehicles and heavy construction vehicles.

2.3.1 Waste Vehicles
Currently, there are several waste vehicles servicing the City, including weekly garbage, weekly green waste, weekly recycling, and as-needed bulky waste pickup.

Based on discussions with the City and the waste collection companies, it was assumed that on a given weekday there are four garbage routes, three green waste routes, four recycling routes, and one bulky waste route. Additionally, it was assumed and that all waste collection routes drop off their loads twice daily.

While all residential streets will be driven by a waste vehicle during collection, the route a driver takes to access a particular residential route depends on driver discretion. Consequently, it was assumed that only 40 percent of arterial and collector streets would be used by waste vehicles to access residential routes and drop-off sites. Table 4 lists the assumed frequency of each waste vehicle for each functional class. These frequencies are expected to remain consistent throughout the analysis period.

Table 4. Waste-Vehicle Collection Frequency
Vehicle Type
Vehicles per Week
Residentials Arterials/Collectors
Garbage 1 40
Green Waste 1 30
Recycling 1 40
Bulky Waste 0.25 2.5
Total 3.25 112.5
a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
6 The waste vehicles used in the City are typically single-trailer trucks with a single front axle and a tandem rear axle. The gross vehicle weight is approximately 55,000 lbs, while the tare weight is approximately 37,000 lbs. Figure 2 details the assumed axle loading of both full and empty waste vehicles. As shown, a full vehicle would have a 36,850 lb load on the rear tandem axle and 18,150 lbs on the front single axle. An empty vehicle would have a 24,790 lb load on the rear tandem axle and 12,210 lbs on the front single axle.

Figure 2. Typical Waste-Vehicle Loading
NCE used AASHTO’s load equivalency factor (LEF) approach to estimate the traffic demand of the waste vehicles. LEFs describe the equivalent damage caused by various axle loads and configurations while also considering the existing condition of the pavement. LEFs are a function of axle load and configuration, structural number (SN), and terminal serviceability. The sum of all LEFs for a given vehicle is the ESAL value for that vehicle.

A SN expresses the existing structural strength of a pavement and depends on pavement layer types and thicknesses, drainage, and condition. SN values range from 1 to 7, where 7 represents the greatest structural capacity. The SN values for the residential and arterial/collector pavement structures were calculated per the AASHTO pavement design guide according to Equation 1.

𝑆𝑁 = 𝑎ଵ𝐷ଵ + 𝑎ଶ𝐷ଶ𝑚ଶ + 𝑎ଷ𝐷ଷ𝑚ଷ + ⋯ + 𝑎௡𝐷௡𝑚௡ (Eq. 1)
where:
an: nth layer coefficient
Dn: nth layer thickness
mn: nth layer drainage coefficient
Tandem Axle
24,790 lbs
Single Axle
12,210 lbs

EMPTY VEHICLE
Tandem Axle
36,850 lbs

FULL VEHICLE
Single Axle
18,150 lbs
a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
7 Representative layer coefficients were selected based on pavement condition from AASHTO Tables 2.4 and 5.2 (AASHTO 1993) and a drainage coefficient of 1 was assumed. Table 5 summarizes the calculated SNs based on condition category and functional class.

Table 5. Structural Number by Functional Class
Condition
Category PCI Range
Structural Number
Residentials Arterials/Collectors
Excellent 85-100 3.0 4.1
Very Good 70-84 2.2 3.0
Good 50-69 2.0 2.7
Poor 25-49 1.4 1.8
Very Poor 0-24 1.0 1.3
For each waste-vehicle axle configuration (single or tandem) and loading (empty or full) an LEF was estimated using the SNs and an assumed terminal serviceability of

2.5. The LEFs for each waste-vehicle axle loading were then summed to estimate the total ESALs for an empty and a full waste vehicle.

A full waste vehicle was estimated to have an ESAL value ranging from 2.532 to

2.555 based on condition and functional class. An empty waste vehicle was estimated to have an ESAL value of 0.520 to 0.597 also based on condition and functional class. Note that in general, a waste vehicle will do a little more damage to a pavement in worse condition than to a pavement in better condition. Similarly, a waste vehicle will typically do more damage to a residential street than to an arterial or collector street.

The empty and full waste-vehicle ESAL values were combined in a weighted average according to Equation 2. This weighting was performed to account for variability in loading throughout a route. The weighted average ESALs ranged from

1.871 to 1.889.

𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑉𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿 =
ଶ
ଷ
∗ 𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿ி௨௟௟ +
ଵ
ଷ
∗ 𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿ா௠௣௧௬ (Eq. 2)
The weighted average ESALs values were then multiplied by the vehicle frequencies (previously provided in Table 4) to estimate the ESAL demand per year based on pavement condition and functional class. Table 6 lists the estimated waste-vehicle traffic demands.
a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
8 Table 6. Traffic Demand on City Streets by Condition Category Func.

Class
Condition
Category
ESALs/Yr
Garbage Truck Green Waste Recycling Bulky Waste Residential Excellent 98.2 98.2 98.2 24.6
Very Good 97.7 97.7 97.7 24.4
Good 97.6 97.6 97.6 24.4
Poor 97.6 97.6 97.6 24.4
Very Poor 97.6 97.6 97.6 24.4 Arterial/ Collector
Excellent 3,891 2,918 3,891 243
Very Good 3,929 2,947 3,929 246
Good 3,924 2,943 3,924 245
Poor 3,903 2,927 3,903 244
Very Poor 3,903 2,927 3,903 244

2.3.2 Heavy Construction Vehicles
Other heavy vehicles, such as construction vehicles, also provide services within the City, and also have impacts on pavement life. After consultations with City staff, the following assumptions were made to estimate their impact:
 Heavy construction vehicles cause approximately the same amount of damage, in ESALs, as typical waste vehicles.
 The construction of residential/non-residential units require 20 heavy construction vehicles traveling 2.5 miles round trip to the project site (half the mileage on residential streets, half on arterial or collector streets).  The average size of a residential unit in the City is 1,800 square feet (sf).

To arrive at the assumption that construction of a new unit would produce approximately 20 heavy vehicle trips, the City of Pacifica Engineering Department estimated construction equipment, building material, and home appliance vehicle trips needed. If the given lot is undeveloped, and therefore requires grading and placement of a concrete slab, the large construction equipment traveling to the site would include an excavator, mini excavator, and skid steer/forklift totaling 3 truck roundtrips. Material delivery was estimated at 27 truck roundtrips including, off haul/infill material, foundation concrete pouring, lumber deliveries, drywall delivery, plumbing fixtures, HVAC fixtures and venting, roofing materials, landscaping materials, flooring materials, windows, counters, doors, street utility materials, driveway installation (concrete/asphalt truck or paver delivery), conditioned street improvement materials (asphalt and concrete), and general home appliances. As construction varies and to be conservative, the 30 trips were rounded down by 33% to 20 heavy vehicle trips.
a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
9 2.4 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
As previously mentioned, the City’s street network is currently in poor condition with an average network PCI of 39. This is a result of minimal maintenance historically, coupled with years of increased frequencies of waste and heavy construction vehicles. Consequently, the City’s goals are to, over the next 15 years, improve the residential street network from a PCI of 33 to 60. Similarly, the City intends to improve the arterial and collector street network from a PCI of 50 to 70.

These goals will bring the overall network into fair condition.

To estimate the financial commitment required to accomplish these goals, a budget analyses was performed in StreetSaver® using the City’s existing decision tree with an inflation rate of 3 percent and an analysis period of 15 years. The 15-year total funding needed to accomplish these goals is $120.7 million, which is an average of $8.05 million per year. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the resulting pavement condition breakdown for residential and arterial/collector streets, respectively, for each year in the analysis period.

Figure 3. Annual Pavement Condition Breakdown for Residential Streets a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
10 Figure 4. Annual Pavement Condition Breakdown for Arterial/Collector Streets

2.5 VEHICLE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following sections describe the vehicle impact analysis performed for waste vehicles and heavy construction vehicles.

2.5.1 Waste Vehicles
The process to determine the impact of waste-vehicle damage to City streets is described by the following steps:

1. Calculate the weighted average structural capacity, in ESALs, remaining per year. This was performed by multiplying the ESALs remaining in a given condition category (Table 3) by the pavement condition breakdown for each year resulting from the StreetSaver® analysis (Figures 3 and 4) and summing the resulting products. This value represents the average annual structural capacity, in ESALs, remaining on any given street in the City.

2. Calculate the weighted average traffic demand, in ESALs, per year for each waste-vehicle type. This was performed by multiplying the traffic demand for each waste vehicle type (Table 6) by the pavement condition breakdown for each year resulting from the StreetSaver® analysis (Figures 3 and 4) and summing the resulting products. These values represent the average annual waste-vehicle traffic demand on any given street in the City. a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
11 3. Calculate the percent of life used each year by each waste vehicle type. This was performed by dividing the annual demand for a given waste vehicle (from Step 2) by the weighted average structural capacity remaining per year (from Step 1).

4. Calculate the associated damage cost each year for each waste vehicle type.

This was done by multiplying the percent of life used per year for each waste vehicle type (Step 3) by the financial commitment per year ($8.05 million).

5. Calculate the average percent of life used per year by each waste vehicle type (average of Step 3).

6. Calculate the average damage cost per year for each waste vehicle type (average of Step 4).

2.5.2 Heavy Construction Vehicles
The financial impact of heavy construction vehicles is based on the assumption that they cause approximately an equal amount of damage as typical waste vehicles.

However, heavy construction vehicles do not traverse streets in the same manner as waste vehicles (i.e., a weekly route through all neighborhoods). Therefore, the damage cost for heavy construction vehicles was estimated according to the following steps:

1. Calculate the average damage cost per waste vehicle per year (Section 2.5.1 Step 6) and convert to a cost per vehicle-mile traveled.

2. Calculate the damage cost associated with the construction of residential and non-residential units based on the estimated conservative number of vehicle trips and miles traveled (Section 2.3.2).

3. Convert the damage cost to the following units for comparison with neighboring agencies:
 Per unit - residential
 Per square foot of construction - residential/non-residential  Per $100 valuation – residential (assumed average residential unit value is $1.25 million (Zillow 2021).
a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

RESULTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
12 3 Results
The following sections present the results of the vehicle impact analysis performed for waste vehicles and heavy construction vehicles.

3.1 WASTE VEHICLES
Figure 5 illustrates the average percent of pavement life consumed each year by each waste vehicle type and functional class. On average, garbage, green waste, and recycling waste vehicles each consume 3.1 percent of a residential pavement’s capacity, or life each year. Combined with the occasional bulky waste pickup, approximately 10.1 percent of a residential pavement’s life is consumed each year by waste vehicles.

The average damage done to arterial and collector streets is lower because the thicker pavement structure and better network condition result in increased structural capacity. On average, garbage, green waste, and recycling waste vehicles each consume 2.2, 1.7, and 2.2 percent, respectively of an arterial or collector pavement’s life. Combined with the bulky waste pickup, approximately 6.2 percent of an arterial or collector pavement’s life is consumed each year by waste vehicles.

Figure 5. Average Percent of Life Consumed per Year by Waste Vehicle Type
Figure 6 shows the average cost of damage per year due to each waste vehicle type on residential streets as well as on arterial and collector streets. On average, a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

RESULTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
13 garbage, green waste, recycling, and bulky waste together cause $510,906 worth of damage to residential streets each year. The average damage value caused by waste vehicles each year on arterial and collector streets is $183,793.

Figure 6. Average Cost per Year Due to Waste Vehicle Damage Since the impact of waste vehicles on local roads and streets is dependent on siteand agency-specific information (pavement network condition and mileage, pavement structure, vehicle type and frequency, maintenance costs, network goals, etc.), it is difficult to compare waste vehicle impact fees between agencies.

Consequently, comparison impact fees are not provided in this report.

3.2 HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES
Table 7 Below shows the resulting proposed heavy construction vehicle impact fee options for the City of Pacifica.

Table 7. Proposed Heavy Vehicle Impact Fees for Pacifica Option Residential Unit Fee* Non-Residential Unit Fee* Unit 1 $2,126 NA per unit
2 $1.18 $1.18 per square foot
3 $0.17 NA per $100 valuation
*Fee in 2021 Dollars
a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

RESULTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
14 For comparison, Table 8 summarizes heavy vehicle impact fees for several cities throughout California. These fees typically represent transportation costs associated with construction of new developments and are collected by agencies as part of a development impact fee. As shown, many of the agencies have different fees based on the type of construction (residential vs. non-residential). The residential fees are predominantly a flat fee, but some are also based on square footage, vehicle mileage, or building value. The non-residential fees are based on the square footage of the building being constructed.

Table 8. Summary of Other Agencies’ Heavy Construction Vehicle Impact Fees
Agency Criteria Fee Reference
Anaheim
Single Family Unit $2,029 per unit
Multi-Family $1,297 per unit City of Anaheim 2020
Commercial/Industrial -
Citrus Heights
Single Family Unit $1,434.12 per unit
City of Citrus Heights
2021 Multi-Family $1,312.74 per unit
Commercial/Industrial $4.45 per sf
San Bruno
Single Family Unit $4,615 per unit
Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc., 2019 Multi-Family $2610 per unit
Commercial/Industrial $6.95 per sf
San Francisco
Single Family Unit -
City of San Francisco
2021 Multi-Family $9.95 per sf
Commercial/Industrial $19.48 per sf
San Mateo
Single Family Unit $5003.76 per unit
City of San Mateo
2021 Multi-Family $3,071.42 per unit
Commercial/Industrial $5.40 per sf
Santa Cruz County
Single Family Unit
$697 per mile
Multi-Family NCE 2015
Commercial/Industrial -
Saratoga
Single Family Unit $0.77 per $100
Multi-Family valuation CSG Consultants 2007
Commercial/Industrial -
The estimated per-unit fee for residential construction in Pacifica is in the same ballpark as many of the other agencies listed in Table 7. However, in terms of square footage and per $100 valuation, the proposed impact fees are lower than most of the other agencies.
a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

RESULTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
15 Since the proposed fees were derived based on construction trips for an average size, single-family unit, NCE recommends application of the fee in dollars per square foot to allow for a scaling to multi-family units as well. For example, smaller or larger multi-family units may require less or more heavy construction vehicle trips per unit, respectively, than the average single-family unit. This would allow multi-family unit fees to be adjusted proportionally based on size. a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

SUMMARY CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
16 4 Summary
The City of Pacifica is interested in implementing vehicle impact fees to recoup damage to City streets caused by waste-collection and heavy construction vehicles.

Currently, the City has several waste vehicles servicing residential streets, including a weekly garbage pickup, weekly green waste pickup, weekly recycling pickup, and an as-needed bulky waste pickup. In addition, construction vehicles provide ongoing but less predictable services. The purpose of this study was to estimate the structural and financial impacts of waste and heavy construction vehicles on City streets in Pacifica.

The damage a particular vehicle imposes on a pavement depends on the load and axle configuration, the pavement structure, and the pavement condition. In general, the damage to a pavement structure increases exponentially as the load increases. Additionally, the damage caused by a given load is less for a thicker pavement structure than it is for a thinner pavement structure. And finally, as pavement condition worsens, the damage caused by a given load increases. With these factors in mind, NCE performed an analysis based on City-specific data, which combined analysis methods from both the AASHTO and Caltrans design standards.

Overall, this analysis compared the estimated traffic demand associated with waste and heavy construction vehicles to the average remaining structural capacity of streets. The resulting impact was then integrated with a financial analysis.

The results of this study indicate that under existing traffic conditions, approximately 10.1 percent of a residential pavement’s life is consumed each year by waste vehicles. This corresponds to an average damage cost of $510,906 per year. Similarly, approximately 6.2 percent of an arterial or collector pavement’s life is consumed each year by waste vehicles. This corresponds to an average damage cost of $183,963 per year. The City can use this information to recoup pavement damage costs associated with waste collection by implementing a flat fee, a costper-vehicle fee, or other payment structure.

Assuming heavy construction vehicles cause damage similar to typical waste vehicles, a proposed heavy vehicle impact fee was estimated for the City and converted into several units for comparison with other California agencies.

The estimated per-unit fee for residential construction is similar to other California agencies. However, in terms of square footage and per $100 valuation, the estimated impact fees are lower than most of the comparison agencies. These proposed fees represent the transportation costs associated with the construction of new developments and can be collected as part of a development impact fee.

Any implemented waste or heavy vehicle fee structure should include an inflation factor since pavement maintenance costs increase over time. a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

REFERENCES CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
17 5 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1993. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. Washington, DC.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Highway Design Manual.

Sacramento, CA.

City of Anaheim. 2020. “Impact Fees.”
http://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/527/Developer-Impact-Fees?bidId=.

Accessed June 25, 2021.

City of Citrus Heights. 2021. “Development Impact Fees.” http://www.citrusheights.net/DocumentCenter/View/105/Development-ImpactFees-Brochure-PDF?bidId=. Accessed June 25, 2021.

City of Pacifica. 2021. “MTC P-TAP Round 21 Final Report for City of Pacifica, California.”
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=18671.

Accessed Aug 15, 2021.

City of San Francisco. 2021. “San Francisco Citywide Development Impact Fee Register.”
https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/forms/Impact_Fee_Schedule.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2021.

City of San Mateo. 2021. “Adopted Comprehensive Fee Schedule, July 1 20201 – June 30, 2022.” Accessed June 25, 2021.
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/83552/AdoptedComprehensive-Fee-Schedule-FY-2021-22?bidId=. Accessed June 25, 2021.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2019. San Bruno Development Impact Fee Nexus Study.

CSG Consultants, Inc. 2007. City of Saratoga Road Maintenance Fees Analysis.

Huang, Y. H. Pavement Analysis and Design 2nd Edition. 2003. Pearson, Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.

NCE. 2015. Santa Cruz County Impact of Garbage Trucks.

Zillow. n.d. “Pacifica Home Values.” https://www.zillow.com/pacifica-ca/homevalues/. Accessed June 25, 2021. a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Waste & Construction (Heavy) Vehicle Impact Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and City of Pacifica
Department of Public Works
155 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Utility Cut Impact Assessment and Fee Development
Final Report
NCE Project No. 1004.05.55
Jan 2022
Richmond, CA
501 Canal Blvd., Suite I
Richmond, CA 94804
Attachment 2
b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee Final Report
Utility Cut Impact Assessment and Fee Development
City of Pacifica
January 2022
Prepared for:

City of Pacifica
Department of Public Works
155 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Prepared by:

Debaroti Ghosh, PhD
Project Engineer
Sharlan Montgomery Dunn, PhD
Project Engineer
Mei-Hui Lee, PhD, PE
Senior Engineer
NCE
501 Canal Blvd Suite I
Point Richmond, CA 94804
(510) 215-3620
NCE Project No. 1004.05.55
b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee This Page Intentionally Left Blank
b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
ES-1
Executive Summary
Interest in studying and quantifying the impact of utility cuts on road and street performance has been high for over 30 years. Public agencies, as well as utility companies, have sponsored engineering investigations and studies to quantify the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance and estimate the corresponding financial impacts.

The purpose of this study was to conduct a literature review on utility cut impacts in other agencies, estimate any damage caused by utility cuts to the pavements, and develop a fee schedule to recover the costs associated with such damage.

To accomplish this, NCE looked at both the structural and functional deterioration of pavements due to utility cuts. The field evaluation included selecting sixteen sites on city streets of different ages. Deflection testing using a falling weight deflectometer (FWD) was conducted to assess loss of structural capacity due to cuts. In addition, the City’s StreetSaver® database, which contains 15 years of pavement distress data and thousands of data points with a wide range of pavement age and conditions, was analyzed to assess the impact of utility cuts.

The findings from this study include:
• Pavements with cuts of any size deteriorate more than pavements without cuts across all age groups (0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years and >15 years). The exception is residentials older than 10 years with small cuts (cut area <10% of section area)
• On average, the PCI drops by 30% if the cut area is greater than 10% of the section area.
• Cuts do more damage to new (< 10 years) pavements than older (≥10 years) pavements. This results in an average percent reduction of the remaining service life of approximately 33% for new pavements and 17% for old pavements.

All these findings were used to develop fee schedule for the City of Pacifica which is shown in the table below.

Fee, $/SF
Functional
Class Age Group
Cut Area
(Percent of Section Area)
<10% of Section
Area
≥10% of Section
Area
Arterials/
Collectors
<10 years $ 2.50 $ 4.00
≥10 years $ 1.50 $ 2.50
Residential <10 years $ 1.50 $ 3.00
≥10 years $ 1.00 $ 2.50
b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction....................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ..................................................................................... 1

1.2 Literature Review ............................................................................. 2 2 Technical Approach ............................................................................ 4

2.1 Structural evaluation ........................................................................ 5

2.2 Functional Evaluation........................................................................ 5 3 Structural Evaluation ......................................................................... 7

3.1 Site Selection .................................................................................. 7

3.2 Structural Deterioration..................................................................... 7 4 Functional Evaluation......................................................................... 9

4.1 Development of Performance Model .................................................... 9

4.2 PCI difference by Age Group and Cut Size.......................................... 10

4.3 Reduction in PCI............................................................................. 12

4.4 Percent Reduction in Pavement Life................................................... 13

4.5 Statistical Analysis.......................................................................... 17 5 Fee Development .............................................................................19

5.1 Approach for Tiered Fee .................................................................. 19

5.2 Fee Implementation........................................................................ 19

5.2.1 Large Pavement Cuts ................................................................ 19

5.2.2 Small Pavement Cuts ................................................................ 20

5.2.3 Examples of Fee Implementation ................................................ 21

5.3 Fee Comparison with other agencies ................................................. 23 6 Summary .........................................................................................25 7 References.......................................................................................26 Appendix A (Summary of Utility Cut Studies and Policies) ........................27 b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
ii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Utility Cut Damage Mechanism .......................................................... 2 Figure 2. Technical Approach.......................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Examples of Site Selection................................................................ 7 Figure 4. FWD Testing Layout......................................................................... 8 Figure 5. Pavement Deterioration Curve for Cut and No-Cut Sections – Arterials and Collectors..................................................................................... 10 Figure 6. Pavement Deterioration Curve for Cut and No-Cut Sections - Residentials .................................................................................................. 10 Figure 7. PCI Comparison by Functional Class, Age Group and Cut Size – Arterials/Collectors ........................................................................ 11 Figure 8. PCI Comparison by Functional Class, Age Group and Cut Size – Residentials .................................................................................. 12 Figure 9 Pavement Deterioration Family Curves for Streets in the City of Pacifica . 14 Figure 10. Example of Percent Reduction in Life .............................................. 15 Figure 11. Percent Reduction in Pavement Service Life -Arterials/Collectors ........ 15 Figure 12. Percent Reduction in Pavement Service Life -Residentials .................. 16 Figure 13. Multiple Small Cuts ...................................................................... 20 Figure 14. One Large Cut............................................................................. 20 Figure 15. Examples of Fee Implementation for Typical 700'x30' Residential Street .................................................................................................. 22 Figure 16 Typical Full Block Trench Cut in Pacifica ........................................... 22 b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
iii
List of Tables
Table 1. Experimental Design for Site Selection................................................. 7 Table 2. Reduction in PCI by Age Groups and Cut Size ..................................... 12 Table 3. Impact of PCI Reduction on Pavement Condition Category.................... 13 Table 4. Percent Reduction in Pavement Life by Functional Class, Pavement Age and Cut-Size....................................................................................... 17 Table 5. Statistical Analysis of StreetSaver® Data Grouped by Age and Cut-Size .. 18 Table 6. Tiered Fee Schedule ($/SF) (Option 1)............................................... 19 Table 7 Utility Cut Fee Schedule Range Comparison......................................... 24 b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
1 1 Introduction
Utility companies often need to cut existing pavements to access and service their underground equipment. Ideally, all underground utility maintenance would be performed prior to pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction so that cuts are never made in new pavement structures. However, despite the best coordination, utility cuts cannot always be avoided because unanticipated work is often required to maintain essential public services.

Over the last 30 years, local agencies have been interested in understanding and quantifying the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance as well as the corresponding financial impacts. To obtain this information, public agencies, as well as utility companies, have sponsored engineering investigations and studies (Todres and Baker 1996). Many such studies are performed in-house or by consulting companies and are therefore unpublished or difficult to access. In addition, the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance can vary significantly based on site-and agency-specific information.

Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare pavement performance for the street sections with and without cuts, quantify damage caused by utility cuts to the pavements within the City of Pacifica (City) and develop a fee schedule for the City to recover any costs associated with such damage.

1.1 BACKGROUND
Studies of utility cut impacts often use deflection testing, condition surveys, and statistical analyses to quantify reduced pavement performance as a loss in structural capacity and a decrease in pavement condition. To manage the identified impacts, many studies have recommended restoring additional areas surrounding the cut, increasing the overlay thickness, or imposing a restoration fee on utility companies.

These studies and recommendations have led to an increase in public policies that 1) compensate local agencies for the loss of pavement life caused by utility cuts through a utility cut fee, and 2) achieve more acceptable performance of repair work following underground utility access and maintenance through rigorous utility cut restoration standards and moratoria, or “no-cut” periods.

The impact of utility cuts varies depending on a variety of factors, such as:
• Existing pavement condition, structure, and age
• Location, orientation, and extent of the utility cut
• Environmental factors
• Traffic loads
• Restoration practices and standards
b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
2 Further, quantifying utility cut impacts also depends on local maintenance treatments and costs. Therefore, to really understand the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, a site-specific study and analysis must be performed.

Underground utility work can damage pavements in three general ways, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Utility Cut Damage Mechanism
First, the act of cutting a pavement structure creates an easy-entry point for water that can damage the underlying pavement layers. Second, the removal of the pavement layers creates a plane of weakness where the pavement structure may not be adequately supported laterally – particularly during underground utility maintenance, but also after restoration. Third, the quality of the repair may not match the adjacent pavement structure, thus introducing roughness into the pavement.

Rough pavements can cause vehicles to bounce, which creates greater loads on the pavement and leads to more rapid deterioration (Tarakji 1995; Wilde et al. 2002).

These deterioration mechanisms reduce the condition and structural capacity of a pavement, which reduces the life of the pavement within and adjacent to the utility cut (Stevens et al. 2010). Multiple utility cuts on the same street or within a small area can magnify this impact (San Francisco Department of Public Works 1998, Tarakji 1995).

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Research has shown that utility cuts can reduce pavement life by 15% to 55%, which consequently costs local agencies millions of dollars in premature street repair and remediation expenses. Studies have also shown that underground utility work affects not only the excavated area, but often weakens the adjacent pavement. The affected b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
3 pavement varies based on agency and location but is typically 4 to 5 feet from the edge of the trench.

To help restore some of the lost structural capacity and performance due to cutting the pavement, many agencies have set restoration standards. Restoration standards in California typically include a T-Cut along with a restoration treatment that may be as extensive as replacing the full lane for the entire affected block.

To recover the cost of pavement damage associated with performing underground utility work, many agencies impose utility cut fees. In California, these fees are typically based on factors including functional classification, pavement age, Pavement Condition Index (PCI), and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse).

As evidenced by the variety of studies, standards, policies, and fees presented in Appendix A, the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance can vary significantly based on site-and agency-specific information. Therefore, to really understand and quantify the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, a site-specific study and analysis must be performed. In addition, utility cut fees should be updated regularly to reflect accurate and current damage costs.

Appendix A discusses the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance, details the importance of adequate utility cut restoration, and summarizes the policies in place by various California agencies to address pavement degradation caused by utility cuts.
b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
4 2 Technical Approach
Based on the relevant studies reviewed, it is clear that utility cuts have an overall negative impact on pavement performance. These impacts can take two forms:
• Structural – Reduced pavement strength
• Functional – Shortened pavement service life
Impact fees can be developed using either of the two approaches to compensate for shortened pavement service life or reduced pavement strength. Consequently, City streets both with and without cuts were evaluated in terms of both structural and functional deterioration in this study.

The structural deterioration is evaluated by measuring the overlay thickness needed to reach an acceptable structural capacity under a specified traffic load, usually expressed through the Traffic Index (TI). If the cut weakens the pavement structure, then the sections with cuts will require a higher overlay thickness than the sections with no cuts. The overlay thickness is calculated using deflection data obtained through falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing following Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Deflection data can be used as measures to establish the relative loss of structural capacity resulting from the presence of utility cuts, where higher deflections represent weaker pavements. This loss of structural capacity necessitates thicker overlays, thus increasing the cost of rehabilitation for a street with utility cuts over the cost for a street without cuts.

The functional deterioration is evaluated in terms of “Pavement Condition Index (PCI),” which ranges from 0 to 100. Pavement in excellent condition have a PCI above 85, pavement in good condition have a PCI between 70 and 84, pavements in fair condition have a PCI between 50 and 69, pavement in poor condition have a PCI between 25 and 49, and pavements in failed condition have a PCI below 25. Note that these condition categories are consistent with those presented in the City’s Budget Options Report with one modification—the excellent condition category was added to provide an additional data point during the analysis portion of this study.

The PCI is calculated from pavement distress data collected through visual inspection surveys. The degree of pavement deterioration is affected by the types of distresses found as well as the severity and quantity of those distresses. It is expected that the PCI of the sections with cuts will be lower than the PCI of sections without cuts.

The flowchart shown in Figure 2 presents the methodology for this study where both structural and functional deterioration approaches were used to evaluate the pavement damage due to the cuts. As shown, the functional deterioration approach was conducted using distress data from the StreetSaver® database and field testing was used to estimate loss in structural capacity due to cuts (structural deterioration approach).
b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
5 Figure 2. Technical Approach

2.1 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION
The following tasks were performed for the field evaluation:
• Selected 16 sites with and without cuts.
• Conducted deflection testing and coring.
• Calculated and compared overlay thicknesses for the sections with and without cuts.

2.2 FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION
To perform a rigorous analysis using this approach, a pavement management system (PMS) database that contains sufficient historical data to allow comparison of streets with and without utility cuts is required. The city has a robust PMS (StreetSaver®) containing pavement distress data from the last 15 years with thousands of data points.

The following tasks were completed as part of this evaluation:
• Exported PCI inspection history.
• Sorted PCI by distress type (with and without utility cuts). • Extracted last rehabilitation dates or construction dates for the sections to derive age of the pavement.
• Compared the PCIs of the sections with and without cuts by functional class and age group.
b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
6 • Developed pavement deterioration curves based on inspection history for sections with and without utility cuts.
• Calculated and compared the percent reduction in life by functional class, age group and size of the cut from the pavement deterioration curves. b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
7 3 Structural Evaluation

3.1 SITE SELECTION
Sixteen sites were selected; each site had a section with a cut and one without a cut (Figure 3 has examples of test sites). The variables in the experiment design were functional class and age group. Table 1 below shows the planned versus actual site selection in each age group. Ideally, approximately four sites would have been identified in each age group.

Figure 3. Examples of Site Selection
Table 1. Experimental Design for Site Selection
Functional
Class
Pavement Age at Time of Cut,
years
No. of Sites in Each
Age Group
Plan Actual
Arterials/
Collectors or
Residentials
0-5 4 3
5-10 4 2
10-15 4 0
>15 4 11
However, as can be seen from Table 1, the sites were not well-distributed among different age groups as 69% of the sections were older than 15 years at the time of the cut. This is due to the lack of testing sites that met the age criteria and cut-size criteria to conduct the deflection testing and consequently, the analysis is skewed towards older pavements.

3.2 STRUCTURAL DETERIORATION
Deflection testing was performed using an FWD, which delivers a transient impulse load to the pavement surface and measures the resultant pavement response in terms of deflection. Testing was conducted along the cut, 2 feet away from the cut as well as on sections with no cuts (see Figure 4).
b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
8 Figure 4. FWD Testing Layout
Since the selected sites were not well-distributed among different age groups, it was not possible to develop performance trends based on pavement age. Therefore, the results were not incorporated in the remainder of this assessment.

It is important to mention that the lack of the structural analysis results does not impact the development of a fee; again, as was noted in Chapter 2, fees can be developed using either structural or functional approaches. For this study, the functional deterioration approach was utilized and is further discussed in the subsequent chapters.
b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
9 4 Functional Evaluation
The City maintains a StreetSaver® PMS, which contains inspection data dating back to 2001. The StreetSaver® database contains an inventory of all the City’s streets, which are divided into management sections. For each management section, one or more sample units were surveyed for pavement condition based on a 10% sampling rate. Using the surveyed distresses, the PCI for each sample unit was calculated according to ASTM D6433.

Since the condition of the sample units is representative of the overall condition of the management section, the average PCI for all sample units within a management section is the PCI for that management section. The database contains 15 years of inspection history with approximately 1,500 sample units that include a recorded rehabilitation date for the corresponding management sections. Only sample units for sections with known rehabilitation dates were used for this study because pavement age is a crucial variable for this analysis and the rehabilitation date provides an estimate of pavement age. The observations based on the analysis of sample units could be used for management sections.

This study analyzed the following relationships between utility cuts and pavement performance based on three variables:

1. Different functional class (arterials/collectors versus residentials)

2. Different pavement age groups (0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years and >15 years)

3. Different sizes of cuts (small, medium and large)

4.1 DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE MODEL
Pavement deterioration curves of cut and no-cut sections for arterials/collectors and residentials were developed using the historical data from the City’s database. These curves are shown in Figures 5 and 6.

These curves indicate the following:
• For arterials/collectors, overall sections with cuts deteriorate more rapidly than sections without cuts within all age groups.
• For residentials, the above observation is true for pavements less than 15 years old. Some streets more than 15 years did not exhibit this trend due to the existing distresses present.
b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
10 Figure 5. Pavement Deterioration Curve for Cut and No-Cut Sections – Arterials and Collectors
Figure 6. Pavement Deterioration Curve for Cut and No-Cut Sections - Residentials

4.2 PCI DIFFERENCE BY AGE GROUP AND CUT SIZE
Next, the sample units of different functional classes were grouped by cut size within different age groups (0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years and >15 years) for further evaluation. Different cut sizes ranging between 0.2% to 77.3% of the sample unit area were analyzed and finally categorized into two groups; cut area <10% (small cuts) and cut area ≥10% (large cuts) of sample unit area. The selection of this threshold is discussed in the next section.
b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
11 However, very few data points were available for streets older than 15 years and a small sample size (N<5) can affect the reliability of analysis because it leads to a higher variability, which may lead to bias. Consequently, data points for all streets older than 10 years were grouped together to ensure avoid the bias. The PCI of cut and no-cut sections in each group were then compared.

Figures 7 and 8 show the PCI comparison for arterials/collectors and residentials, respectively. These figures indicate the following:
• Overall PCI decreases with pavement age.
• The PCI decreases as the cut size increases.

Note that data points for newer residential streets with large cuts were not available.

Figure 7. PCI Comparison by Functional Class, Age Group and Cut Size – Arterials/Collectors
b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
12 Figure 8. PCI Comparison by Functional Class, Age Group and Cut Size – Residentials

4.3 REDUCTION IN PCI
Table 2 below presents reduction in PCI within each age group based on cut-size.

Table 2. Reduction in PCI by Age Groups and Cut Size
Functional
Class Age Group Percent Reduction in PCI by Cut Size*
Small Cut Large Cut
Arterials/
Collectors
0-5 years 13% 36%
6-10 years 14% 34%
>10 years 11% 32%
Residential
0-5 years 6% -
6-10 years 8% 16%
>10 years 1% 30%
*Represents the amount the PCI of the section would be reduced compared to a no-cut section
Small cut =Cut Area <10% of Section Area
Large cut =Cut Area ≥10% of Section Area
Table 2 indicates the following:
• Overall, an average PCI reduction of approximately 10% was observed if the cut area was less than 10% of the section area.
• If the cut area was equal to or greater than 10% of the sample unit area, overall, an average PCI reduction of 30% was observed (34% for arterials/collectors and 23% for residentials). Note that residentials within the0-5 year age group and with large cuts were not included in the average. b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
13 Based on the PCI range, pavements are assigned one of five condition categories (Table 3). A 30% reduction in PCI means that the pavement condition drops an entire condition category. An example is shown below in Table 3, where large cuts made to the pavements result in PCI drops that bring the pavement to a lower condition category. This means that a street requiring a slurry seal would now need a thin overlay because of the presence of a large cut and this further triggers a higher treatment unit cost for maintenance.

This analysis indicates cut sizes equal to or above 10% of the section area have a critical impact on pavement performance and more expensive restoration measures need to be considered on bigger cuts.

Table 3. Impact of PCI Reduction on Pavement Condition Category Condition Category PCI Range
Examples
No-Cut
Section PCI
Cut Section PCI after
30% Reduction
(Cut Area≥10%)
I- Excellent 85-100 90 -
I- Very Good/Good 70-85 80 -
II/III- Fair 50-70 60 63, 56
IV- Poor 25-50 35 42
V- Failed 0-25 24

4.4 PERCENT REDUCTION IN PAVEMENT LIFE
The percent reduction in pavement service life was next estimated using the StreetSaver® family deterioration curves for asphalt concrete (AC) streets. Those family deterioration curves are illustrated in Figure 9.

Based on the standard Remaining Service Life (RSL) definition, a pavement’s RSL reaches zero when a pavement falls into failed condition, meaning it has a PCI of 24 or less. Consequently, residentials have a total service life of approximately 34 years, while arterials/collectors have a total service life of approximately 29.5 years. b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
14 Figure 9 Pavement Deterioration Family Curves for Streets in the City of Pacifica For example (see Figure 10), an arterial/collector (aged 0-to-5 years) with no cut has a PCI of 89. Based on the analysis in the previous section, a cut area greater than 10% of the section area would drop the PCI to 57. A PCI of 89 for arterials/collectors corresponds to an equivalent service life of approximately 2 years, whereas a PCI of 57 corresponds to an equivalent service life of 19 years. Consequently, the cut in this example reduces the pavement service life by 17 years, or 58% of its 29.5-year service life.

The above calculation was performed for both functional classes in all age groups and for all cut sizes to estimate the percent reduction in pavement service life and illustrated in the Figures 11 and 12.

RSL=0 at

29.5 yrs
RSL=0
at 34 yrs
b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
15 Figure 10. Example of Percent Reduction in Life
Figure 11. Percent Reduction in Pavement Service Life -Arterials/Collectors 2 18 29
b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
16 Figure 12. Percent Reduction in Pavement Service Life -Residentials Figures 11 and 12 indicate the following:
• The reduction in pavement life decreases as pavements get older; this means that cuts have a greater impact on new pavements than old pavements. • Larger cut sizes result in greater reductions in pavement service life. An average pavement life is reduced by approximately 38% if the cut area is equal to or greater than 10% of the section area.

Also, multiple small cuts on one street combined that when add up to more than 10% of the section area would be more detrimental than small- or medium-sized cuts on streets that total less than 10% of the section area.

Table 4 summarizes the percent reduction in pavement life based on functional class, pavement age, and cut size following the analysis in the previous sections. Since data was not available for residential streets within age group of 0-5 years with large cuts, streets newer than 10 years were grouped together which resulted in two final age groups (Age < 10 years and Age ≥ 10 years) for both functional classes. b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
17 Table 4. Percent Reduction in Pavement Life by Functional Class, Pavement Age and Cut-Size
Percent Reduction in Pavement Service Life*
Functional Class Age Group Small Cut Large Cut
Arterials/ Collectors <10 years 25% 55%
≥10 years 10% 25%
Residentials <10 years 15% 40%
≥10 years 2% 35%
*Represents the amount the service life of the section would be reduced compared to a nocut section Small cut =Cut Area <10% of Section Area
Large cut =Cut Area ≥10% of Section Area

4.5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
A statistical analysis was next conducted on the data from StreetSaver® to determine whether significant differences in the PCI exist between pavements with cuts and those without cuts within the groups specified in Table 4. The t-test was performed within each pavement age group to compare the cut and no-cut sample units. The ttest provides a “P-value” that indicates the probability of a statement being true or how likely a particular set of observations would occur. In this case, the goal is to determine if the probability of two groups of data (PCI of cut and no-cut sample units) are significantly different.
• A P-value less than 0.05 (at a 95% confidence level) indicates that the PCI of the cut sample units are significantly lower than PCI of no-cut sample units. Thus, it is expected that cuts would have an adverse impact on the pavement. • A P-value above 0.05 indicates that the PCI of cut and no-cut sample units are not statistically significant.

As can be seen from Table 5, residential streets older than 10 years do not have a significant difference if the cuts are small (less than 10% of the section area). A Pvalue of 0.32 in Table 5 indicates that the probability of not finding any adverse impact due to small cuts on residential streets older than 10 years is 32%.

However, if multiple small cuts are made over time (as is the case for most streets), their individual impacts will add up and have an equivalent impact of a large cut, thus resulting in an adverse impact on pavement performance. b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
18 Table 5. Statistical Analysis of StreetSaver® Data Grouped by Age and Cut-Size Category Age
Group
PCI
No-Cut
Section
PCI
Cut-Section P-Value Significant Difference
FC Small
Cut
Large
Cut
Small
Cut
Large
Cut
Small
Cut
Large
Cut
Arterials/
Collectors
<10 years 83 72 53 0.00 0.00 Yes Yes
≥10 years 61 56 42 0.02 0.04 Yes Yes
Residentials <10 years 89 82 73 0.00 0.00 Yes Yes
≥10 years 67 66 47 0.32 0.00 No* Yes
*Although individual small cuts do not show a significant difference, there is a cumulative impact from multiple small cuts. Over time, this impact will be equivalent to a section with large cuts.
b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FEE DEVELOPMENT CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
19 5 Fee Development

5.1 APPROACH FOR TIERED FEE
To calculate a cost value equivalent to pavement life reduction, the StreetSaver® decision tree was used to extract unit costs for overlays (including milling) for each functional class. These unit costs were estimated using the City’s construction bid tabs. The costs were $6.25 per square foot (SF) for arterials/collectors and $5.25/SF for residentials.

These unit costs were multiplied by the percent reductions in service life in Table 4 and a slurry seal cost ($0.50/SF) was then added to derive a fee per square foot based on pavement age and cut size (the slurry seal is part of the restoration requirements after the cut have been made). Table 6 presents the fees rounded to the nearest 50 cents based on functional class, pavement age and cut size.

Table 6. Tiered Fee Schedule ($/SF) (Option 1)
Fee, $/SF
Functional
Class Age Group
Cut Area
(% of Section Area)
Small Cut Large Cut
Arterials/
Collectors
<10 years $ 2.50 $ 4.00
≥10 years $ 1.50 $ 2.50
Residential <10 years $ 1.50 $ 3.00
≥10 years $ 1.00 $ 2.50

5.2 FEE IMPLEMENTATION
Table 6 can be used to charge the full recovery costs for the damage caused by the cuts. Note that “section area” for fee implementation is defined here as City’s individual management section area from StreetSaver®. The typical management section area obtained from the StreetSaver® database for residential streets (700 feet x 30 feet) or arterials/collectors streets (1,274 feet x 40 feet) could be used as representative average section area. However, actual street areas or block areas can be utilized with similar implementation strategy if desired.

5.2.1 Large Pavement Cuts
The analysis in Chapter 4 showed that large cuts have (cut area equal to or greater than 10% of the section area) critical impact on pavement performance and results in the pavement condition dropping by an entire condition category. In addition, it also results in a 30% reduction in the pavement service life. Therefore, large cuts equal to or greater than 10% of the section area would trigger a more aggressive restoration measure e.g., overlay of the entire section.

The following fee equation was developed for large cuts:
b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FEE DEVELOPMENT CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
20 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐹𝐹 , $ = 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶 𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 6 ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀 𝑆𝑆 𝐴𝐴 𝑂𝑂 Eqn 1
If the utility cut area is large enough (either singly or in combination) to require an overlay, then the responsible party(ies) will pay the full amount of the overlay cost.

5.2.2 Small Pavement Cuts
For small cuts, the fees in Table 6 need to be pro-rated so that their individual impacts are captured (see Figures 13 and 14). Over time, as multiple small cuts are made, their impacts will be cumulative and eventually be equivalent to the impact of a large cut.

For example, the fee for a large cut (10% of section area) would be the total overlay cost (100%) as mentioned in Section 5.2.1 while the fee for a small cut (2% of section area) would be (2/10)%= 20% of the total overlay cost.
(Multiple small cuts can add up to 10% of the section area, and their impacts are pro-rated accordingly)
Figure 13. Multiple Small Cuts
(A 3-foot side trench cut that is the length of the section will be = 10% of section area) Figure 14. One Large Cut
This is illustrated in the steps below.

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑂𝑂 𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶 , $ = 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶 ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀 𝑆𝑆 𝐴𝐴 𝑂𝑂 Eqn 2 b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FEE DEVELOPMENT CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
21 Eq 2 with the unit costs from Table 6 is applicable for the sections with cuts equal to or greater than 10% of the total section area.

If Area of Cut ≥10% Area of Section:

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐹𝐹 , $ = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑂𝑂 𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶 Eq 3 If Area of Cut < 10% Area of Section:

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐹𝐹 , $ = � 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 10% 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀 𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆 � ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑂𝑂 𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶 Eq 4 Incorporating Unit Costs:

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐹𝐹 , $ = � 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 10% 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀 𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆 � ∗ (𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶 ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀 𝑆𝑆 𝐴𝐴 ) Eq 5
Simplifying, by eliminating Area of Section:

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐹𝐹 , $ = �
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
10% � ∗ 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶 (𝐹𝐹 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 6) Eq 6
An additional 2-feet in each direction is included in the fee calculation to incorporate 2-foot zone of influence surrounding the cut area because a slumping effect is usually predominant. Thus, the following fee equation for small cuts would be:

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐹𝐹 , $ = 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶 (𝐹𝐹 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 6) ∗ (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐿𝐿 ℎ + 2′ + 2′ ) ∗ (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑊𝑊 𝑊𝑊 ℎ + 2′ +
2′
)/10% = 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶 (𝐹𝐹 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 6) ∗ (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐿𝐿 ℎ + 4′
) ∗ (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑊𝑊 𝑊𝑊 ℎ + 4′
)/10% Eq 7

5.2.3 Examples of Fee Implementation
Figure 15 presents three examples of cuts of different sizes on residential streets.

Based on the StreetSaver® database, the typical length and width of a residential management section in the City is 700 feet by 30 feet. Thus, if a cut of 4 feet x 4 feet is made to a residential street that is less than 10 years old, it would be only

0.1% of the section area and the fee charged would be $1.50/SF (Table 6).

A similar fee would be applied for a cut of 30 feet x 6 feet, where the cut area is 1% of the section area.

For large cuts, we observed many full-block longitudinal trench cuts (Figure 16). A cut of this type would be equal to or greater than 10% of the section area and thus $3.00/SF would be charged for the full recovery.
b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FEE DEVELOPMENT CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
22 Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Figure 15. Examples of Fee Implementation for Typical 700'x30' Residential Street Figure 16 Typical Full Block Trench Cut in Pacifica
b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FEE DEVELOPMENT CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
23 5.3 FEE COMPARISON WITH OTHER AGENCIES
Utility cut fees are prevalent as a way for local agencies to recoup the cost of pavement damage associated with underground utility work. Table 7 summarizes various utility cut fees for agencies throughout California. These fees are based on factors including functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse). The fees, in dollars per area, are multiplied by the utility cut area to obtain a dollar value that represents the damage done to the pavement.

As can be seen from Table 7, the proposed fee range in Pacifica aligns very closely with the fee in the City and County of San Francisco where the range is $1.00/SF to $3.50/SF. When compared with longitudinal cut fees from other agencies, the proposed utility cut fee for Pacifica is in the same ballpark as many of the other agencies. The transverse cut fees for other agencies are higher than the fees proposed for Pacifica. When comparing fees among different agencies, it is important to consider that the overall pavement condition varies among different agencies and thus the performance of pavements with cuts are critical to existing condition. b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FEE DEVELOPMENT CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
24 Table 7 Utility Cut Fee Schedule Range Comparison
Agency Criteria Range, $/SF
Pacifica Type of Street, Size of Cut, Age of
Pavement $1.00-$4.00
City and County of
San Francisco Age of Pavement $1.00-$3.50
Sacramento
County, Elk Grove,
Santa Cruz
Trench Depth, Type of Streets,
PCI, Type of Cut
$1.80-$3.90
(Longitudinal Cut and Trench Depth <4ft)
$2.36-$7.80
(Transverse Cut and Trench Depth <4ft)
$1.80-$5.91
(Longitudinal Cut and Trench Depth >4ft)
$3.60-$11.82
(Transverse Cut and Trench Depth >4ft)
Sacramento Type of Cut, Pavement Age
$1.00-$3.50
(Longitudinal Cut)
$2.00-$7.00
(Transverse Cut)
Modesto PCI $0-$2.50
Patterson PCI $0-$7.30
Santa Ana Type of Streets and Age of
Pavement $6.21-$13.68
Los Angeles Type of Street $8.24-$19.44
b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

SUMMARY CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
25 6 Summary
The purpose of this study was to conduct a detailed literature review of existing studies, determine the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance in Pacifica, quantify the damage and develop a fee to recover the costs associated with such damage.

Two approaches were utilized in this study based on both the functional and structural deterioration of the pavement. Due to the limited number of sites available among different age groups for the latter, the fee was developed using the functional approach.

The following conclusions were determined:
• Pavements with cuts of any size deteriorate more than pavements without cuts across all age groups (0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years and >15 years). The exception is residentials older than 10 years with small cuts (cut area <10% of section area)
• On average, the PCI drops by 30% if the cut area is greater than 10% of the section area.
• Cuts do more damage to new (< 10 years) pavements than older (>10 years) pavements. This results in an average percent reduction of the remaining service life of approximately 33% for new pavements and 17% for old pavements.

Finally, a fee schedule was developed to recover the full costs of repair for the damage caused by the cuts. The information required to implement this fee includes the functional class, age of the pavement, size of the management section area and size of the cut (see Tables 6).
b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

REFERENCES CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
26 7 References
Department of Public Works. 1998. The Impact of Excavation on San Francisco Streets. Department of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco and BlueRibbon Panel on Pavement Damage.

Tarakji, G. 1995. The Effects of Utility Cuts on the Service Life of Pavements in San Francisco. Volume I, Department of Public Works, San Francisco State University.

Todres, H.A. and Baker, P.E., 1996. Utilities Conduct Research in Pavement Restoration. APWA Reporter, 63(10).

Wilde, W.J., Grant, C.A., and Nelson, P.K. 2002. Manual for Controlling and Reducing the Frequency of Pavement Utility Cuts. FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-02- %%%
b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

APPENDIX CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2022
Appendix A (Summary of Utility Cut Studies and Policies) b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee

MEMORANDUM
Date:

To:

From:

Subject:

Job Number:

July 31, 2021
City of Pacifica
Debaroti Ghosh, Sharlan Montgomery Dunn, Margot Yapp
Summary of Utility Cut Studies and Policies
1004.05.55

INTRODUCTION
Utility companies often need to cut existing pavements to access and service their underground equipment. Ideally, all underground utility maintenance would be performed prior to pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction so that cuts are never made in new pavement structures. However, despite the best coordination, utility cuts cannot always be avoided because unanticipated work is often required to maintain essential public services.

Over the last 30 years, local agencies have been interested in understanding and quantifying the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance as well as the corresponding financial impacts. To obtain this information, public agencies, as well as utility companies, have sponsored engineering investigations and studies (Todres and Baker 1996). Many such studies are performed in-house or by consulting companies and are therefore unpublished or difficult to access. These studies often use deflection testing, condition surveys, and statistical analyses to quantify reduced pavement performance as a loss in structural capacity and a decrease in pavement condition. To manage the identified impacts, many studies have recommended restoring additional area surrounding the cut, increasing the overlay thickness, or imposing a restoration fee on utility companies.

These studies and recommendations have led to an increase in public policies that 1) compensate local agencies for the loss of pavement life caused by utility cuts through a utility cut fee, and 2) achieve more acceptable performance of repair work following underground utility access and maintenance through rigorous utility cut restoration standards and moratoria, or “no cut”, periods.

This technical memorandum discusses the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance, details the importance of adequate utility cut restoration, and summarizes the policies in place by various California agencies to address pavement degradation caused by utility cuts.
b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

IMPACT OF UTILITY CUTS
The impact of utility cuts on pavement performance can vary significantly based on siteand agency-specific information. Such variables can include the existing pavement condition, structure, and age; location, orientation, and extent of the utility cut; environmental factors; traffic loads; and restoration practices and standards.

Quantification of utility cut impacts further depend on local maintenance treatments and costs. Therefore, to really understand the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, a site-specific study and analysis must be performed.

That said, underground utility work can damage pavements in three general ways as illustrated in Figure 1. First, the act of cutting a pavement structure creates an easyaccess point for water to enter the pavement structure and damage the underlying pavement layers. Second, the removal of the pavement layers creates a plane of weakness where the pavement structure may not be adequately supported laterally – particularly during underground utility maintenance, but also after restoration. Third, the quality of the repair may not match the adjacent pavement structure, thus introducing roughness into the pavement. Rough pavements can cause vehicles to bounce, which creates greater loads on the pavement and leads to more rapid deterioration (Tarakji 1995; Wilde et al. 2002).

Figure 1. Utility Cut Damage Mechanisms
These deterioration mechanisms reduce the condition and structural capacity of a pavement, which reduces the life of the pavement within and adjacent to the utility cut (Stevens et al. 2010). Multiple utility cuts on the same street or within a small area can magnify this impact (Department of Public Works 1998, Tarakji 1995).

Reduction in Pavement Life
In the mid-1990s, San Francisco completed a study on the effect of utility cuts on the life of pavement (Tarakji 1995) and confirmed that additional damage was caused. Other b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

cities, including Austin, Cincinnati, Salt Lake City, Philadelphia, and Phoenix, conducted similar foundational studies and found that utility cuts not only reduced the expected life of the streets but consequently cost local agencies millions of dollars in premature street repair and remediation expenses (Arudi et al. 2000; Bodocsi et al. 1995; ERES 1990; NCE 2003; Peters 2002; Wilde et al. 1996).

For example, Bodocsi et al. (1995) reported that new asphalt pavements, which are typically designed to last between 15 and 20 years, once cut can lose as much as 8 years of pavement life. Other studies performed in Austin, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Phoenix estimated between 15 and 20 percent reductions in pavement life due to utility cuts (AMEC 2002; CHEC 1997; IMS 1994; Shahin and Associates 2017; Wilde et al. 1996). For a typical pavement design life of 20 years, this represents a loss of 3-4 years of pavement life.

Additional factors such as cold climates and multiple excavations can increase the impact of utility cuts. For example, utility cuts in areas subject to freeze-thaw conditions were estimated to reduce pavement life by 20 percent (AMEC 2002; Stevens et al. 2010).

Streets with multiple excavations for utility work were estimated to reduce a pavement’s life by 30 to 55 percent (Shahin and Associates 2017; Tarakji 1995; Tiewater 1997).

Statistical data reported by the Department of Public Works in San Francisco (1998) showed that the pavement condition rating decreases as the number of utility cuts increases. For example, the pavement condition index (PCI) for a newer pavement was reduced from 85 to 64 as the number of utility cuts increased to 10 or more.

Zone of Influence
As previously mentioned, a utility cut can result in a loss of lateral support to the existing pavement structure surrounding the perimeter of the trench. This can cause the trench sidewalls to bulge into the trench and weaken the material under the existing pavement.

This weakened area is termed the zone of influence, is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Zone of Influence
b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

Various studies have used deflection testing to investigate the loss of pavement strength near utility cuts, estimate the zone of influence, and provide recommendations on restoration (Bodosci et al 1995; Shahin 1999; CHEC 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; NCE 2000, 2003). Such studies showed a substantial loss of strength in the zone of influence around the utility cut area (Stevens et al. 2010). For example, studies performed in Union City and Los Angeles showed that the deflection values within the zone of influence were 41- 74 percent higher than in uninfluenced pavement (CHEC 1998; Shahin and Associates 2017).

These studies also indicated that the zone of influence varies by agency and location but is most often 4 to 5 feet from the edge of the trench. Table 1 summarizes research estimating the zone of influence.

Table 1. Summary of Zone of Influence Research
Agency Investigator Publication
Year
Zone of Influence
from Trench Edge
(feet)
Alameda Co, CA CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2000 5.5 Calgary, Canada Karim et al. 2014 3.3
Cincinnati, OH Bodosci et al. 1995 3
Iowa
Department of
Transportation
Stevens et al. 2010 4
Los Angeles, CA Shahin and Associates 2017 2.5 to 10
(average of 5.2)
San Mateo Co,
CA CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1999 5
Seattle, WA Nichols Consulting Engineers 2000 At least 2 Springville, UT Guthrie et al. 2015 4
Union City CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998 4 to 7
An extensive field and laboratory study by Iowa State University researchers concluded that the loss of lateral support in the zone of influence is a critical factor in the restoration of utility trenches (Jensen et al. 2005).
b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

IMPORTANCE OF UTILITY CUT RESTORATION
As discussed previously, utility cuts can affect pavement performance in and adjacent to the cut area. The excavation equipment and process can also damage the pavement adjacent to the cut (Stevens et al. 2010). Simply backfilling the excavated area will not restore and match the strength and performance of the original material. Therefore, for long-term pavement performance within and adjacent to utility cuts, adequate repair and restoration is necessary.

It is difficult to restore cut pavement to a condition and performance level matching the surrounding pavement. When the repaired pavement condition varies from the existing pavement condition, the result can be a rough surface. Even if the pavement surface is smooth and consistent at the time of the repair, the materials may settle and deteriorate differentially over time. This leads to surface roughness, which then leads to more rapid deterioration (Noel and Tevlin 2012; PEI 1996; Stevens et al. 2010; Wilde et al. 1996).

Utility cut restoration involves performing a treatment, in addition to adequate filling and compaction of the excavated area, to restore the pavement life and maintain the pavement’s structural capacity and performance. Restoration often includes a T-Cut as well as another treatment, such as an overlay or surface seal, that extends beyond the length of the T-Cut arm. This restoration combination is illustrated in Figure 3.

T-Cuts involve cutting back a portion of the pavement surface beyond the edge of the trench to better protect the zone of influence and bridge the plane of weakness. Such repairs have been found advantageous in the restoration of utility cut trenches by alleviating the effects of the lateral support loss due to the excavation (Peters 2002; Stevens et al. 2010). Research has shown that the thickness of the restoration, the quality of materials used, and the placement and compaction methods of fill materials are key factors in ensuring strong pavement performance in future years (Jensen et al. 2005; Stevens et al. 2010 Todres and Baker 1996).
b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

Figure 3. Example Restoration Plan.

Restoration Standards in California
Table 2 summarizes the restoration standards held by several city and county agencies throughout California. The specific restoration requirements vary depending on the length of the utility cut, existing PCI, functional classification, and age of the pavement.

Although the use of the T-Cut is widespread among these standards, the additional surface restoration requirements range from no additional treatment beyond the T-Cut to full lane replacements for the entire affected block. For example, the cities of Oakland and San Francisco require a full block restoration depending on the length of the utility cut. Other agencies require only 6 to 24 inches of restoration beyond the edge of the TCut. The most common restoration treatment in California is a mill and overlay to a minimum specified depth.

The final required restored pavement thickness also varies among agencies. These final thickness standards are included in Table 2 as the final asphalt thickness over the trench and provide insight into how standards vary throughout California. The typical requirement is for the new restored pavement to conform to the existing pavement thickness over the trench, but additional thickness is sometimes required. b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

Table 2. Summary of Restoration Standards in California Agencies Agency T-Cut
Required
T-Cut Arm
Width
(in.)
Surface Restoration
Requirement Beyond
T-Cut
Restoration
Treatment
Final Asphalt
Thickness Over
Trench (in.)
Alameda Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness
Anaheim Yes 12
For local streets with cut
length >651 ft, restore
all affected lanes for the
entire block
PCI ≥ 60: Slurry
Seal from gutter to
gutter
PCI<60: 2-in. Mill
and Overlay from
gutter to trench
limit
Existing thickness +

1.25 or
Match existing
thickness if ≥ 16 in.

Contra Costa
Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness + 1.25
Davis Yes 10
Restoration shall extend
10’ before first patch and
10’ beyond last patch and
be the full width of the
affected lanes
Slurry Seal Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Fremont
If Trench
Width
>24 in.
12 None NA
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
If no T-Cut, 12-15
Fresno Co Yes 6
Minimum of 12 in.
beyond the edge of the
T-Cut

1.25-in. Mill and
Overlay Existing thickness
Long Beach Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Los Angeles Yes 12
If pavement age<8 Yrs,
restore 24 in. beyond the
edge of the T-Cut

1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
(or half the existing
asphalt thickness,
whichever is less)
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
Los Angeles
Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness(min of 4)
b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and July 31, 2021

Table 2 Cont. Summary of Restoration Standards for California Agencies Agency T-Cut
Required
T-Cut Arm
Width
(in.)
Surface Restoration
Requirement Beyond TCut
Restoration
Treatment
Final Asphalt
Thickness Over
Trench (in.)
Oakland Yes 12
If cut length >0.25*block
length, restore all affected
lanes for the entire block
PCI >65: Slurry
Seal
PCI ≤ 65: Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
Pacifica Yes 6 None NA Existing Thickness
(min of 4)
Sacramento Yes 6 None NA Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Sacramento
Co Yes 8
If pavement age<5 Yrs,
restore a minimum of 12
in. beyond the edge of
the T-Cut

1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 6 on major
streets)
(min of 4 on minor
streets)
San
Francisco Yes 12
Minimum of 12 in. beyond
the edge of the T-Cut
or
If cut length >0.25*block
length, restore all affected
lanes for the entire block
2-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 2)
San Diego Co Yes
6-12
(Based on
Trench
Width)
6 in. beyond the edge of
the T-Cut

1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness +1
(min of 4)
San Jose Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness +3
Santa Clara Yes 6 None NA Existing thickness (8-
10)
b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and July 31, 2021

UTILITY CUT POLICIES
A detailed 2002 report prepared for the Federal Highway Administration provided methods that agencies can use to reduce and minimize the damage to streets due to the ever-increasing installation and maintenance activities of utility companies (Wilde et al. 2002). Specifically, the report presents three types of policies local agencies can use to improve the quality of utility cut repairs and promote coordination of facilities. These strategies are 1) incentive-based policies, 2) fee-based policies, and 3) regulation-based policies.

Incentive-based policies provide financial or other incentives for using trenchless technology where technically suitable, performing higher-quality pavement cut repairs, making smaller or less-damaging cuts, and coordinating with other utility companies to share trenches or underground resources.

Examples of fee-based policies include requiring a deposit prior to beginning work to protect against poor repairs, assessing financial penalties for non-compliance with restoration standards or for failed repairs within a specified period, implementing a timebased lane rental fee to encourage utility companies to restore traffic access as quickly as possible, and collecting flat-rate or area-based fees to compensate for increased degradation associated with cutting and excavating pavement.

Regulation-based policies do not require fees or provide incentives, but place requirements on the contractor regarding quality of work, and/or restrictions on when and where trenching can be done. Examples include establishing moratorium periods that restrict utility cuts in newly resurfaced pavements for a specified time, requiring pavement restorations to encompass an area larger than the trench area, enhancing inspections, and enforcing restoration specifications.

Utility Cut Fees in California
Fee-based policies have been growing in popularity throughout California as way for local agencies to recoup the cost of pavement damage associated with poor performing underground utility work. Table 3 summarizes several utility-cut fee schedules for various agencies throughout California. These fees are based on factors including functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse). The fees, in dollars per area, are multiplied by the utility cut area to obtain a dollar value that represents the damage done to the pavement. In contrast to having a utility cut fee by area, the city of Santa Barbara has utility cut fee by linear foot. This fee is multiplied by the length of linear feet cut rather than the affected area to obtain a dollar value.
b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

Table 3. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Year Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Anaheim* 1994 Age < 1 Year 16.48
Elk Grove 2020
Trench Depth < 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 100 and 70

3.90 (long.)

7.80 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

2.20 (long.)

4.40 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other
PCI 100 and 70

2.41 (long.)

4.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

1.18 (long.)

2.36 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Trench Depth
> 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 100 and 70

5.91 (long.)

11.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

3.34 (long.)

6.68 (trans)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other
PCI 100 and 70

3.66 (long.)

7.32 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

1.80 (long.)

3.60 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Los
Angeles 2018
Select Streets 19.44
Local Streets 8.24
Modesto 2020 All Streets
PCI 70-100 2.5
PCI 26-69 1.25
PCI 0-25 -
Patterson 2020 All Streets
PCI 70-100 7.3
PCI 50-69 5.25
PCI 0-49 -
*Standard is currently under revision. Fee update anticipated in 2021. b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

Table 3 Cont. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Year Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Sacramento* 1997
Longitudinal Cut
Age <5 3.50
Age 5 to 10 3.00
Age 10 to 15 2.00
Age Over 15 1.00
Transverse Cut
Age <5 7.00
Age 5 to 10 6.00
Age 10 to 15 4.00
Age Over 15 2.00
Sacramento
Co 1999
Trench Depth < 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 100 and 70

3.90 (long.)

7.80 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

2.20 (long.)

4.4 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other
PCI 100 and 70

2.41 (long.)

4.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

1.18 (long.)

2.36 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Trench Depth
> 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay.

PCI 100 and 70

5.91 (long.)

11.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

3.34 (long.)

6.68 (trans)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other
PCI 100 and 70

3.66 (long.)

7.32 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

1.80 (long.)

3.60 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
City and
County of
San
Francisco
1998 All streets
Age 0-5 3.50
Age 6-10 3.00
Age 11-15 2.00
Age 16-20 1.00
*Standard is currently under revision. Fee update anticipated in 2021. b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

Table 3 Cont. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Year Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Santa Ana 1999
Arterials Streets
Age of street since last repaving
Age 0-5 Years 13.68
Age 6-10 Years 12.11
Age 11-15 Years 11.39
Age 16-20 Years 9.11
Local Streets
Age of street since last repaving
Age 0-5 Years 9.27
Age 6-10 Years 8.24
Age 11-15 Years 7.74
Age 16-20 Years 6.98
Age 21-25 Years 6.21
Santa
Barbara Co Flat fee $0.75 per LF
Santa Cruz 2003
Trench Depth < 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of Construction
or Structural overlay
PCI 100 and 70

3.9 (long.)

7.8 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

2.2 (long.)

4.4 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other Streets
PCI 100 and 70

2.41 (long.)

4.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

1.18 (long.)

2.36 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Trench Depth
> 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay.

PCI 100 and 70

5.91 (long.)

11.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

3.34 (long.)

6.68 (trans)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other Streets
PCI 100 and 70

3.66 (long.)

7.32 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

1.80 (long.)

3.60 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Union City 1998 Flat fee 17.3
Some agencies allow fee exemptions if the utility work is performed on older pavement or if the work is performed before an upcoming rehabilitation. For example, the City and County of San Francisco waive the fee for utility work performed on pavements with PCIs less than 53 or a pavement age of at least 20 years. The City of Los Angeles does not require utility cut fees on pavements with rehabilitation scheduled within the next year. b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

Moratorium Standards in California
Regulation-based policies, particularly moratoria, have been passed by cities and counties to protect public infrastructure and preserve the life of streets (Wilde et al. 2002).

Moratoria impose a time period after treatment during which utility or other companies may not perform trenching activities. Table 4 summarizes several California agencies with slurry and rehabilitation moratorium standards. If for some reason utility work during a moratorium period is deemed necessary, agencies often impose higher restoration standards and limits than those required after the moratorium period has expired.

For example, Los Angeles County only requires a surface restoration of 24 inches beyond the edge of the T-Cut for non-moratorium streets but requires that the whole block be repaved for moratorium streets. Such strict moratorium restoration standards encourage utility companies to perform underground utility maintenance prior to pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction and discourages utility work in new pavement structures. b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

Table 4. Summary of Moratorium Standards for California Agencies Agency
Slurry
Moratorium
(years)
Rehabilitation
Moratorium
(years)
Restoration Details if Moratorium Work
Approved
Anaheim 1 3
Extensive pavement restoration according to
the utility cut standard
Limits shall be determined by the City Engineer
Commerce 2 5
Pavement restoration shall be a length of not
less than 50 ft either side of the trench edge
lines, either perpendicular or parallel to the
curb line
Encinitas 3 5
Resurface at least the length of excavation
from curb to curb or from curb line to the
raised median
Longitudinal trenches – Extend T-Cut, grind and
overlay over the entire affected lane or lanes
(from curb to curb or from curb to median
curb)
Transverse trenches - Extend T-Cut, grind and
overlay to 10 feet beyond each side of the
trench and over the entire affected lane
Los Angeles None 1 Repave the whole block
Los Angeles Co 2 2 Resurface the entire lane width
Oakland 5 5
Pavement restoration shall match or exceed
the most recent resurfacing pavement section
depth and material or as directed by the
Engineer
Sacramento Co 3 3
Slurry seal half of the roadway at locations
affected by the excavation for a minimum total
length of 1,000 feet
San Diego 3 5
Resurface the entire lane width from street
intersection to intersection and from curb to
curb
San Diego Co 3 3
Resurface the entire width of the affected road
and the method of resurfacing shall be the
same as adjacent pavement
San Francisco 5 5
Resurface all affected lanes for entire width of
affected property frontages
b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Interest in studying and quantifying the impact of utility cuts on road and street performance has increased over the last 30 years. Consequently, public agencies, as well as utility companies, have sponsored engineering investigations and studies to quantify the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance and estimate the corresponding financial impacts.

Research has shown that utility cuts can reduce pavement life by 15 to 55 percent, which consequently costs local agencies millions of dollars in premature street repair and remediation expenses. Studies have also shown that underground utility work affects not only the excavated area, but often weakens the adjacent pavement. The affected pavement varies based on agency and location but is typically 4 to 5 feet from the edge of the trench.

To help restore some of the lost structural capacity and performance due to cutting the pavement, many agencies have set restoration standards. Restoration standards in California typically include a T-Cut along with a restoration treatment that may be as extensive as replacing the full lane for the entire affected block.

To recover the cost of pavement damage associated with performing underground utility work, many agencies impose utility cut fees. In California, these fees are typically based on factors including functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse).

As evidenced by the variety of studies, standards, policies, and fees, the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance can vary significantly based on site-and agency-specific information. Therefore, to really understand and quantify the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, a site-specific study and analysis must be performed. In addition, utility cut fees should be updated regularly to reflect accurate and current damage costs.
b
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

REFERENCES
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 2002. Evaluation of Pavement Cut Impacts. League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and Association of Public-Private Utility Service Providers.

Arudi, R., Pickering, B., and Flading, J. 2000. Planning and Implementing a Management System for Street Pavements with Utility Cuts. Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, University of Cincinnati.

Bodocsi, A., Pant, P.D., Aktan, A.E., and Arudi, R.S. 1995. Impact of Utility Cuts on Performance of Street Pavements. The Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati.

CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1997. Utility Cut Damage Assessment for the City of Sacramento. City of Sacramento Department of Public Works.

CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998. Trench Cut Fee Evaluation Study for the City of Union City. City of Union City, Department of Public Works CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1999. Trench Cut Evaluation Study for San Mateo County. San Mateo County.

CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2000. Alameda County Trench Cut Study Final Report.

Alameda County.

Department of Public Works. 1998. The Impact of Excavation on San Francisco Streets.

Department of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco and Blue-Ribbon Panel on Pavement Damage.

ERES International, Inc. 1990. The Effect of Utility Cut Patching on Pavement Performance in Phoenix, AZ.

Guthrie, W.S, Jackson, K.D., and Montgomery, S.R., and Eggett, D.L. 2015. Quantifying the Effect of Utility Cuts on the Remaining Service Life of Flexible Pavements in Northern Utah. City of Springville and Brigham Young University.

Infrastructure Management Systems (IMS), Inc. 1994. Estimated Pavement Cut Surcharge for the City of Anaheim California, Arterial Highway and Local Streets.

Jensen, K. A., Schaefer, V. R., Suleiman, M. T., White, D. J. 2005. Characterization of Utility Cut Pavement Settlement and Repair Techniques. Proceedings of the 2005 MidContinent Transportation Research Symposium, Ames, Iowa.

Karim, M., Rizvi, R., Henderson, V., Uzarowski, L., and Chyc-Cies, J. 2014. Effect ofUtility Cuts on Serviceability of Pavement Assets – A Case Study from the City of Calgary. City of Calgary and Golder Associates.

Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. 2000. Impact of Utility Cuts on Performance of Seattle Streets. City of Seattle.
b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. 2003. Utility Trench Cut Study Final Report. City of Philadelphia Department of Streets.

Noel, E. and Tevlin, A. 2012. Street Preservation Ordinance and Damage Fee. City of San Diego Office of the Independent Budget Analyst.

Pavement Engineering Inc, (PEI). 1996. Utility Cut Impact Study for City of Oxnard.

Peters, T. 2002. City Combats Damage to City Streets Caused by Utility Cuts. Public Works Journal Corporation 133 (4).

Shahin, M.Y. 1999. Report Analyzing Proposed Trench Cut Fee Ordinance. Department of Public Works, Santa Ana.

Shahin and Associates. 2017. Street Damage Restoration Fee Study. City of Los Angeles, Department of General Services, Bureau of Street Services.

Stevens, L., Suleiman, M.T., Schafer, B.R., Ceylan, H., and Videkovich, K.A. 2010.

Investigation of Improved Utility Cut Repair Techniques to Reduce Settlement in Repaired Areas, Phase II. Iowa Department of Transportation and Transportation Research Board.

Tarakji, G. 1995. The Effects of Utility Cuts on the Service Life of Pavements in San Francisco. Volume I, Department of Public Works, San Francisco State University.

Tiewater, P. 1997. “How to Reduce Utility Trenching Costs.” Better Roads. April 1997, pp 18–20.

Todres, H.A. and Baker, P.E., 1996. Utilities Conduct Research in Pavement Restoration.

APWA Reporter, 63(10).

Wilde, W.J., R. O. Rasmussen, and R. Harrison. 1996. City of Austin Guide for a Comparative Cost Assessment of Utility Work Alternatives. Austin, TX.

Wilde, W.J., Grant, C.A., and Nelson, P.K. 2002. Manual for Controlling and Reducing the Frequency of Pavement Utility Cuts. FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-02-%%% b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

Table R.1 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Alameda Co
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57573edf37013b15f0435124/t/5b2 434326d2a734942eb80b7/1529099326535/Design+Guidelines+SD2018Jun06.pdf3/10/2021 Anaheim https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/22954/132 3/10/2021 Contra Costa
Co
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29792/CU01- PDF?bidId= 3/10/2021
Davis https://www.cityofdavis.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=8217 3/10/2021 Fremont https://www.fremont.gov/DocumentCenter/View/307/sd28_LongitudinalTrenchTransverseTrench?bidId= 3/10/2021 Fresno Co
(Page 293)
http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/StdSpecifications-April-1-2011-approved-amended-1-1-12.pdf 3/10/2021 Long Beach
http://longbeach.gov/globalassets/pw/medialibrary/documents/resources/engineering/standard-plans/100-generalroadwork/section-127---trench-requirements-in-street-right-of-way--as-of11-13-17- 3/10/2021
Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/techdocs/stdplans/s-400/S-477-2_B4778_%20_.pdf 3/10/2021 Los Angeles
Co
(Page 129)
https://pw.lacounty.gov/des/design_manuals/StandardPlan.pdf 3/10/2021 Oakland
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/government/o/PWA/o/EC/s/DGP/index.htm 3/10/2021 (See City of Oakland Guidelines and Standards: Street Excavation Rules) Sacramento
(Page 42)
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/DOU/SpecsDrawings/Addendum%202_Final_042412.pdf 3/10/2021 Sacramento
Co
(Page 17)
https://saccountyspecs.saccounty.net/Documents/PDF%20Documents%20 2008/Drawings/Drawings.pdf 3/10/2021
San Francisco
(Page 27)
https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/PW-Order-187005-Signed.pdf 3/10/2021 San Diego Co
(Page 38)
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/sdcfa/documents/pre vention/design-standards.pdf 3/10/2021
San Jose
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=37037
3/10/2021
(Cross Section data from personal correspondence with Lorina Popescu, City of San Jose)
Santa Clara
(Page 31)
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=70118 3/10/2021 b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

Table R.2 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Oakland https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Master-Fee-ScheduleCombined-FY-19-20-MFS_Final.pdf 3/11/2021 San Diego https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/cip/pdf/2015-05- 01_memo.pdf 3/11/2021
Anaheim
Infrastructure Management Systems (IMS), Inc. 1994. Estimated Pavement Cut Surcharge for the City of Anaheim California, Arterial Highway and Local Streets.
-
Elk Grove https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/ElkGrove/html/ElkGrove12/ElkGrove 1209.html 3/11/2021
Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/StdFeeList/StdFeeList.pdf 3/11/2021 Modesto https://www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/View/4817/Development -Fee-Schedule---Engineering_Encroachment 3/11/2021
Patterson https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruzCounty/html/SantaCruzCo unty09/SantaCruzCounty0980.html 3/11/2021
Sacramento
Co
http://qcode.us/codes/sacramentocounty/view.php?topic=12-12_09- 12_09_030&frames=on 3/11/2021
City and
County of San
Francisco
https://www.sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Excavation_Code.pdf 3/11/2021 Santa Ana https://www.cacities.org/uploadedfiles/leagueinternet/19/192268aa-511f4046-99c7-b14dae47cc11.pdf 3/11/2021 Santa Barbara https://countyofsb.org/pwd/asset.c/224 3/11/2021 Santa Cruz
http://sccounty01.co.santacruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/agendas/2003/200 30401-211/PDF/035.pdf
3/11/2021
Union City CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998. Trench Cut Fee Evaluation Study for the City of Union City. City of Union City, Department of Public Works - b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee July 31, 2021

Table R.3 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Anaheim https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/22954/132 3/11/2021 Commerce Personal correspondence with Daniel Hernandez, City of Commerce 3/11/2021 Encinitas https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment2-Resolution-Exhibit-A_clean.pdf 3/11/2021 Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/techdocs/permits/7_3.pdf 3/11/2021 Los Angeles
Co
https://pw.lacounty.gov/general/faq/index.cfm?Action=getAnswers&FaqI D=JCMtOzVTUCAgCg%3D%3D&Theme=default&ShowTemplate=#:~:text=T he%20County%20has%20a%20two,date%20of%20the%20resurfacing%20p roject.
3/11/2021
Oakland https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nod eId=TIT12STSIPUPL_CH12.12EX 3/11/2021
Sacramento
Co https://sacdot.saccounty.net/Pages/Trenchingandroadcutmoratorium.aspx 3/11/2021 San Diego https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment1-San-Diego-County-and-City-Trenching-Moratorium-Information.pdf 3/11/2021 San Diego Co https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment1-San-Diego-County-and-City-Trenching-Moratorium-Information.pdf 3/11/2021 San Francisco https://www.sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Moratorium%20Streets. pdf 3/11/2021

b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Utility Cut Study (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee Other City’s Waste Vehicle Impact Fees
2021 Refuse Vehicle
Jurisdiction Impact Charge
Walnut Creek $1,771,168
San Ramon $1,500,000
Orinda $1,180,157
Lafayette $1,058,157
Alameda (City) $875,895
Los Gatos $871,800
Danville $846,851
Moraga $841,957
Campbell $477,600
Saratoga $420,951
Belmont $192,000
Attachment 3
c
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment 3 – Other Cities' Waste Vehicle Impact Fees (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Other Ci
ty’s Heavy (Construction) Vehicles
Attachment 4
d
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment 4 – Other Cities' Heavy (Construction) Vehicles (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Other City's Utility Cu
t Fees
Attachment 5
e
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment 5 - Other Cities' Utility Cut Fees (4909 : Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for 1/16/22 through 1/31/22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 1/16/22 through 1/31/22.

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 1/16/22 through 1/31/22 in the amount of $792,516.14 as written on regular checks numbered 58877-59019 & 59071 (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 58877-59019 & 59071 -1-16 to 1-31-22 (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 95
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY FEB0822 11:58 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 FEB0822 11:58 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 58877 - 59019
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 58877 $835.45 01/20/22 00009 8 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 58878 $132.75 01/20/22 04066 0 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58879 $278.30 01/20/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58880 $963.50 01/20/22 00179 0 AMERICAN TEXTILE & SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58881 $245.00 01/20/22 00001 356 BARRANTI, ALYSSA S OUTSTANDING 1 58882 $766.94 01/20/22 03634 0 BAY POWER LLC GENERATOR SYSTEM DESIGN AND SER S OUTSTANDING 1 58883 $2152.20 01/20/22 00293 0 BEARING AGENCIES INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58884 $311.72 01/20/22 00335 0 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 58885 $130.00 01/20/22 00014 5 CALIFORNIA STATE OF S OUTSTANDING 1 58886 $94.37 01/20/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 58887 $169.02 01/20/22 02168 2 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 58888 $32810.04 01/20/22 00595 0 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58889 $415.33 01/20/22 00622 0 CURTIS & SONS, L.N. S OUTSTANDING 1 58890 $266.52 01/20/22 00628 1 D C LOCK & SECURITY SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 58891 $2695.75 01/20/22 00025 0 DALY CITY/CITY OF S OUTSTANDING 1 58892 $385.90 01/20/22 05439 0 DEBRA COLEMAN S OUTSTANDING 1 58893 $1800.00 01/20/22 02201 0 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58894 $100.30 01/20/22 05440 0 DONNA NEWLAND S OUTSTANDING 1 58895 $7000.00 01/20/22 05436 0 EIDE BAILLY LLP S OUTSTANDING 1 58896 $1400.00 01/20/22 04274 0 EMCOR SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 58897 $77.24 01/20/22 00758 0 EXPERIAN S OUTSTANDING
1 58898 $100.00 01/20/22 05394 0 GAIL EDWARDS S OUTSTANDING 1 58899 $328.13 01/20/22 02213 0 GARRATT CALLAHAN S OUTSTANDING 1 58900 $581.60 01/20/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 58901 $136.75 01/20/22 05406 0 GRANITE ELECTRIC S OUTSTANDING 1 58902 $752.77 01/20/22 04859 1 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 58903 $332.45 01/20/22 04850 2 HOME DEPOT USA, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58904 $173.72 01/20/22 01027 0 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA S OUTSTANDING 1 58905 $1558.25 01/20/22 01095 0 LINDA MAR HARDWARE S OUTSTANDING 1 58906 $20815.76 01/20/22 03955 0 MOFFATT & NICHOL S OUTSTANDING 1 58907 $5760.00 01/20/22 04632 0 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD S OUTSTANDING 1 58908 $451.43 01/20/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 58909 $297.31 01/20/22 01239 0 PACIFIC FIRE SAFE S OUTSTANDING 1 58910 $219.95 01/20/22 01758 3 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 58911 $132.77 01/20/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 58912 $3232.00 01/20/22 00042 1 R & S ERECTION NORTH PENINSULA INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58913 $825.00 01/20/22 05438 0 RAINS LUCIA STERN ST. PHALLE & SILVER, PC S OUTSTANDING 1 58914 $4050.00 01/20/22 03281 0 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 58915 $6177.56 01/20/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 58916 $2954.50 01/20/22 00022 8 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLER S OUTSTANDING 1 58917 $837.00 01/20/22 00022 20 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH S OUTSTANDING 1 58918 $164.51 01/20/22 00022 9 SAN MATEO COUNTY INFORMATION SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 58919 $50.00 01/20/22 05441 0 SENECAL, MOLLY F S OUTSTANDING 1 58920 $104.95 01/20/22 01540 0 STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE S OUTSTANDING 1 58921 $25398.00 01/20/22 00044 1 SWRCB S OUTSTANDING
1 58922 $1579.14 01/20/22 01587 0 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 58923 $635.70 01/20/22 01615 0 TOM'S AUTO BODY & PAINT S OUTSTANDING 1 58924 $660.42 01/20/22 01636 0 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58925 $17.11 01/20/22 01652 0 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 58926 $884.30 01/20/22 04576 1 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58927 $402.63 01/20/22 01812 3 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY FEB0822 11:58 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 58877 - 59019
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 58928 $3707.36 01/20/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58929 $85.50 01/20/22 05163 1 WEX HEALTH, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58930 $60574.69 01/20/22 04832 1 WOODARD & CURRAN, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58931 $242.76 01/21/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 58932 $240.00 01/21/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 2/8/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 58877-59019 & 59071 -1-16 to 1-31-22 (4907 : Disbursements - Dated 1/16/22 through 1/31/22) 1 58933 $50.00 01/21/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 58934 $350.00 01/21/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 58935 $100.00 01/21/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 58936 $4.00 01/21/22 01764 3 NATIONAL D.R.I.V.E S OUTSTANDING 1 58937 $246.00 01/21/22 01767 0 NPFBA S OUTSTANDING
1 58938 $923.92 01/21/22 01758 1 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION S OUTSTANDING 1 58939 $439.00 01/21/22 01758 0 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS-LTD S OUTSTANDING 1 58940 $840.00 01/21/22 01759 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 58941 $210.00 01/21/22 01760 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS S OUTSTANDING 1 58942 $420.00 01/21/22 01769 0 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 58943 $40.00 01/21/22 00001 124 ROSE/SHIRLEY S OUTSTANDING 1 58944 $1401.16 01/21/22 01758 5 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 S OUTSTANDING 1 58945 $2675.00 01/21/22 01764 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 S OUTSTANDING 1 58946 $1645.00 01/28/22 00009 8 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 58947 $10500.00 01/28/22 05304 0 AGC - A GOOD COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 58948 $951.29 01/28/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58949 $2168.00 01/28/22 00175 1 AMERICAN RED CROSS S OUTSTANDING 1 58950 $610.23 01/28/22 00009 0 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 58951 $1200.00 01/28/22 03188 0 ATLAS PLUMBING & ROOTER INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58952 $5301.00 01/28/22 05415 0 BAY AREA PAVING CO, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58953 $707.00 01/28/22 05127 0 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58954 $2047.46 01/28/22 00335 0 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 58955 $450.00 01/28/22 02118 0 BOOTZIN/ALEX S OUTSTANDING 1 58956 $33915.00 01/28/22 04524 0 BRUECK, CYNTHIA S OUTSTANDING 1 58957 $2410.00 01/28/22 05443 0 CALIFORNIA SEWER ENGINEERING, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58958 $132.00 01/28/22 01690 0 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 58959 $25200.00 01/28/22 03814 1 CAPPSTONE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58960 $37353.05 01/28/22 04936 0 CHARLES POMICPIC S OUTSTANDING 1 58961 $9794.40 01/28/22 00507 0 CHILDCARE CAREERS S OUTSTANDING 1 58962 $1262.89 01/28/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 58963 $3660.00 01/28/22 05058 0 CLIENTFIRST CONSULTING GROUP, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 58964 $938.85 01/28/22 03246 0 COAST COUNTIES PETERBILT & COAST COUNTIES PAC S OUTSTANDING 1 58965 $720.00 01/28/22 05082 0 COASTSIDE NEWS GROUP, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58966 $377.35 01/28/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 58967 $191.70 01/28/22 00586 0 COOKE COMPANY, J.P. S OUTSTANDING 1 58968 $571.21 01/28/22 04677 0 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58969 $920.00 01/28/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58970 $1620.00 01/28/22 00645 0 DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 58971 $8095.28 01/28/22 00653 0 DELL MARKETING L.P. S OUTSTANDING 1 58972 $600.00 01/28/22 02201 0 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58973 $101.82 01/28/22 02614 0 DISH S OUTSTANDING
1 58974 $1200.00 01/28/22 04321 0 DUBOCE JANITORIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 58975 $1000.00 01/28/22 02062 0 FERRETTI/ANTHONY S OUTSTANDING 1 58976 $11395.17 01/28/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 58977 $1308.75 01/28/22 04369 0 GHD INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58978 $361.27 01/28/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY FEB0822 11:58 Page: 4

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 58877 - 59019
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 58979 $1539.35 01/28/22 00875 0 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26577 S OUTSTANDING 1 58980 $157799.10 01/28/22 03616 0 GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH PLANNING INC S OUTSTANDING 1 58981 $401.36 01/28/22 00028 2 HARRIS FORMS S OUTSTANDING 1 58982 $208.46 01/28/22 04842 0 HEMRAJ SINGH S OUTSTANDING 1 58983 $183.36 01/28/22 04850 1 HOME DEPOT USA, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58984 $60.42 01/28/22 01027 0 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA S OUTSTANDING 1 58985 $998.25 01/28/22 01067 0 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS S OUTSTANDING 1 58986 $1000.00 01/28/22 05444 0 LAURIE LOWE S OUTSTANDING 1 58987 $100.00 01/28/22 00032 12 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES S OUTSTANDING 1 58988 $16055.00 01/28/22 05366 0 MARTIN CASTILLO DBA S OUTSTANDING 1 58989 $72.57 01/28/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 58990 $3792.60 01/28/22 04549 0 NAF SERVICES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58991 $570.75 01/28/22 04632 0 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD S OUTSTANDING 1 58992 $135.84 01/28/22 01206 0 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. S OUTSTANDING 1 58993 $206.91 01/28/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 58994 $2302.48 01/28/22 02027 0 OLIVER PACKAGING AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 58995 $155470.32 01/28/22 01240 0 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. S OUTSTANDING 1 58996 $315.21 01/28/22 01243 0 PACIFIC MANOR HARDWARE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 58997 $738.00 01/28/22 01249 0 PACIFICA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE S OUTSTANDING 1 58998 $295.00 01/28/22 01249 0 PACIFICA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE S OUTSTANDING 1 58999 $325.00 01/28/22 00001 314 PANOFSKY, PETER S OUTSTANDING 1 59000 $1757.90 01/28/22 01289 0 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59001 $2399.00 01/28/22 01300 0 PEPPER BROS BUILDING MAINTENANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 59002 $542.68 01/28/22 04139 0 PET FOOD EXPRESS S OUTSTANDING 1 59003 $275.54 01/28/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 59004 $6552.30 01/28/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 59005 $918.00 01/28/22 00022 20 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH S OUTSTANDING 1 59006 $556.39 01/28/22 01450 0 SEAVIEW TIRE & BRAKE CENTER S OUTSTANDING 1 59007 $197.77 01/28/22 01461 0 SERRAMONTE FORD INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59008 $2955.00 01/28/22 01531 1 ST. FRANCIS ELECTRIC, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59009 $11629.61 01/28/22 01570 0 SYNAGRO WEST, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 59010 $3224.84 01/28/22 01597 1 THERMAL PROCESS SYSTEMS S OUTSTANDING 1 59011 $937.70 01/28/22 01637 0 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO S OUTSTANDING 1 59012 $3398.69 01/28/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59013 $1449.41 01/28/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 59014 $1665.00 01/28/22 01182 0 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59015 $11225.60 01/28/22 01722 0 WILSEY & HAM S OUTSTANDING 1 59016 $1209.60 01/28/22 01725 0 WINTZELL YLVA S OUTSTANDING 1 59017 $2200.00 01/28/22 01729 0 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 2/8/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 58877-59019 & 59071 -1-16 to 1-31-22 (4907 : Disbursements - Dated 1/16/22 through 1/31/22) 1 59018 $1037.97 01/28/22 04999 1 XEROX FINANCIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59019 $150.00 01/28/22 00001 242 XUEREB, MARIO S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 143 TOTAL AMOUNT: 770,755.13
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 0
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY FEB0822 11:58 Page: 5

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 235,939.88 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 5,760.00 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 10,707.81 0.00
012 HIGHWAY 1 IMPROVEMENT FUND 11,301.62 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 190,877.13 0.00
019 PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE FUND 76,629.69 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 159,016.02 0.00
026 PARK IN-LIEU - CAP IMPROVMNT 1,665.00 0.00
027 PB&R - R DAVIES TRUST 33,915.00 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 1,000.00 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 1,146.91 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 26,967.51 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 15,828.56 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 770,755.13 0.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY FEB0822 11:58 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 59071 - 59071
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 59071 $21761.01 01/31/22 04608 0 TRI COUNTIES BANK S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 1 TOTAL AMOUNT: 21,761.01
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 0
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY FEB0822 11:58 Page: 7

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 17,298.55 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 990.00 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 24.42 0.00
016 NPDES STORMWATER FUND 180.47 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 2,235.29 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 578.00 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 454.28 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 21,761.01 0.00

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 2/8/2022 NO FY 2021-2022 CHECKS ISSUED ON 1/16/22-1/19/22.

TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS= $770,755.13 + $21,761.01= $792,516.14

1.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 58877-59019 & 59071 -1-16 to 1-31-22 (4907 : Disbursements - Dated 1/16/22 through 1/31/22)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on February 28, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on February 28, 2022 (Attachment A).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 99

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
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
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on February 28, 2022 at 6:00 PM 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present and announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session. Mayor Bier announced the business to be discussed.

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-cv-01780VC.

Mayor Bier asked City Clerk Coffey if there were any speakers for public comment.

City Clerk Coffey introduced the speakers.

Joanne Rokosky, Pacifica, asked that her only comment was that, during closed session, Council consider the safe parking issue with an open heart and stated that they can speak to the item when appropriate.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, acknowledged that Pacifica was standing with the county, state and country to reduce homelessness, expressing her thoughts and thanked them all for their hard work..

Deeg Gold, Pacifica, stated that she acknowledged appreciation for Council’s efforts to help the homeless and looked forward to moving on with this item.

Paul Chervatin, Pacifica, referred to the safe parking program and expressed his thoughts on the program and on moving forward for the good of all.

Victoria Becker, Pacifica, urged Council to immediately implement the safe parking program and expressed her thoughts on the urgency of this issue.

Mayor Bier closed public comment and recessed to closed session.

2.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 February 28, 2022
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting at 7:05 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; Leah Castella, Asst. City Attorney; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Ryan Marquez, Assoc. Civil Engineer; Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Bonny O’Connor, Sr. Planner; Josh Montemayor, Management Analyst; Alyssa Barranti, Management Analyst; Ken Fong, IT Support; 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.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier commented on the need for Public Hearing #9 being held at 7:30 or shortly after, and they would decide whether they will have time for oral communciations before that hearing.

Mayor Bier asked to pull Item #7.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer had raised her hand.

2.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 28, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she was checking to see if that was the item she had a question on, and concluded it was. She asked if the mayor was pulling it as an item for another agenda or as a separate item at this meeting.

Mayor Bier thought they should have it on another agenda.

City Clerk Coffey explained that, if they are pulling an item from the consent calendar, it would be a consideration item.

City Manager Woodhouse added that it would be on this meeting’s agenda.

Mayor Bier opened up public comments on consent items only, and asked the public to mention their name and the item on which they are commenting, with two minutes allowed for each speaker.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.

Jaime Rojas, Pacifica, stated that he represented an association that represents tobacco retailers in Pacifica.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it was an item on the agenda.

Mr. Rojas stated that it was not, but was Item #8 on the consent calendar. He explained why he was asking if they could pull the item for consideration of the enforcement date.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, asked for clarification that, as Item #7 was pulled, they wait for comments until that time.

Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.

Alejandra Warren, Pacifica, stated she wanted to speak on Item #11.

Mayor Bier stated that she must wait until that item comes up to comment. She then asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck if he had his hand up.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he did, but he will save his comments for after public comments.

Trisha Barr, San Mateo Tobacco Education Coalition co-chair, and expressed her reasons for asking that Council move the date up or going forward as is.

Claudia Martinez, Pacifica, expressed her thoughts on the process for tobacco retailers to make changes and asked that they consider giving them more time.

Shawneece Stevenson, Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council member, expressed her thoughts on asking Council to consider moving the date up to help tobacco retailers make the necessary changes for their businesses while protecting children’s health.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, had comments on several items, first thanking them for pulling Item #7 and suggested adding it to another agenda to give more time to study it. On Item #2, she pointed out an error on PW Dep. Director Bautista’s comments about fee reduction tiers for

2.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 28, 2022
affordable housing. On Item #4, she thanked Chief Fin. Sustainability Officer Carter for the new forms she prepared to help the report more understandable. On item #5, she mentioned her thoughts on the PW improvement project.

Joseph Smith, Pacifica, asked if this was the time to talk about Item #7.

Mayor Bier confirmed that they pulled Item #7 and he will be able to speak on the item later.

Rich Campbell, Pacifica, stated that he will speak on Item #7 later.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wondered if staff would like to address the concern about the ADA upgrades on Item #5, i.e., the costs. He would favor hearing the particulars. He then mentioned PW Dep. Director Bautista’s comment on previous meeting’s minutes, and he couldn’t find it and he wasn’t sure if they want to address it. He was inclined to vote regarding Item # 8, but wanted to follow up with the question asked about permits for expanding refrigeration. He asked Asst.

City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister if it takes a long time to get a permit for expanding refrigeration if you are a small business.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that she will assume it is all tenant improvement within their space and it shouldn’t take long to get their permit. She did think it was fair to say it is unknown how long the actual project will take and how long it takes to get materials, but she didn’t see the permit taking any longer than a few weeks to a month.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked what the ballpark limit was of how long the improvement could take as it was expressed as a small improvement.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated she didn’t have the expertise and a contractor in that area would be able to answer that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck acknowledged that she said it was up to a month for the permit itself.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the comment about packet page 20 which she thought it was packet page 32, regarding PW Dep. Director Bautista’s statement. She would prefer if he could look at the language and clarify if it is accurate and, if not, they can fix it.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he just read the quote and he believes that what staff indicated when they bring the park fees back is that they will be looking at those different tiers and it would be a simple minute change. He stated that he can confirm.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that there was direction from Council to look at those different tiers.

Mayor Bier stated that they can make that correction.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to approve the consent calendar with Item #7 removed and Item #2 amended regarding PW Director Bautista’s comments; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

2.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 28, 2022
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

CONSENT CALENDAR (EXCLUDING #7):

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] (Item #2 AS AMENDED)
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

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.

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.

2.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 February 28, 2022
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.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they were at 7:25 p.m. and questioned whether they would have time for oral communications. She suggested that they proceed with the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. after a short break.

Mayor Bier agreed, calling for a break then reconvened the meeting.

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

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”).

2.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 February 28, 2022
City Clerk Coffey presented the staff report, then turned it over to Robert McEntire, consultant from National Demographics Corporation (NDC).

Robert McEntire, consultant - NDC, completed the presentation.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.

Dinah Verby, Pacifica, thought they should stick with the current map, mentioning that she had previously sent comments on the flaws of map 506 and specifically pointed out some of those concerns.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, added to Ms. Verby’s comments to share her thoughts on those issues and supported re-adoption of the 505, current district boundaries.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, agreed with the two previous comments, adding her thoughts in support of keeping the existing map, adding her thoughts on a discrepancy in the report and what is on the city website and suggested staff carefully compare the existing map and the one shown in the report.

Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated he wanted to make the same points already made, and pointed out map 506's significant problems and that they should not waste any more time on it.

Jim Kremer, Pacifica, hoped Council will retain the current map, then mentioned his concerns about the general process.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, echoed Mr. Kremer’s comments, and shared his thoughts on the Council having difficult decisions but stating that this should be an easy one.

Patricia Kremer, Pacifica, expressed her comments that the history should be kept except if there is a compelling reason, and then shared a brief historical perspective, concluding that map 506 makes no sense.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that Jim Kremer’s hand was raised but he already spoke.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck commented that sometimes someone else in the family wants to speak, and asked if Mr. Kremer lowered his hand or did staff.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that he lowered his hand himself.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked the author of 506, as he thought it was important that people were engaged and giving feedback about what they are looking for, but he felt was 505b is his preferred map. While they are going through the required process required by the census, he respected that someone is putting their opinion out there to be analyzed and he honored them for taking the time to do it and their participation. He asked Mr. McEntire about a couple of speakers’ comments on conflict of interest by Council and he asked how it was not a conflict of interest that Council can decide their own map.

2.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 February 28, 2022
Mr. McEntire stated that the comments were interesting, and he understood why they made their comments. He stated that the city was obligated to go through the process and they have to hold at least four public hearings to solicit community input whether you love or hate your map. He stated that the goal is to obtain public input so Council will consider before making their choice.

He stated that, as written by law, the Council makes the final decision as city residents voted them in to do that on every issue, including this one. He understood it may not feel copacetic to some people as the way it was presented, but it is presented as in law and City Counsel can probably speak at length on this topic.

City Attorney Kenyon added that Mr. McEntire is correct that they are legally obligated to adopt a new map. She stated that this is not the first redistricting hearing she has been through this year, and every Councilmember, Board of Supervisor, is voting on a map that involves their particular area or potential district.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck acknowledged that they are obligated to do it, but he didn’t think it was a waste of time to take the opportunity to hear the community and he favors map 505b and is the way to go.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked the demographer to take a look at the city’s website, as she did, to take a quick glance at Birch Lane and double-check to make sure that what she is seeing is accurate and regarding the current 505b in packet page 211, she thought what may be happening is the version of the map on the city’s website has a slightly different background color to it and they have the different color layers on top of each other. She thought it was clearer in their packet where the green and blue are, and on the city’s website, it looks like a third color that is bluish greenish, but more blue than green and that skinny part of District 2 that extends to Birch Lane is the southernmost portion of District 2, the little finger that sticks out along the coast. She believes that has been there all along, including the last time they used these districts, even though they didn’t vote in District 2 the last time. She thought it was consistent, and wanted to raise that question because it was asked by the public.

Mr. McEntire stated that, in processing the map with the new census data, they pulled the shape file that was created during the last process and sent to the County Clerk for processing a fair election and they pulled the same shape file down to reprocess the new census data and she was correct that it does hold the same boundaries.

Mayor Bier stated that she would not want to split Vallemar, which she considered a bad idea, thus, she would go for the other map.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they are voting on this at this meeting or hearing it.

Mayor Bier stated that it calls for a motion.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that it calls for a motion. They have conducted the public hearing and they must select the final map, introduce by title only and waive the first reading of the ordinance. She stated that, if they select the map, they would identify the map and say that they would like to collect the numbered map and move to introduce by title only and waive the first reading of the ordinance.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to select Map 505b 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

2.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 February 28, 2022
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”); seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (Item #9)
AGENDA ITEM #9:

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Mayor Bier stated that they were ready to move on to Oral Communications and she knows there are a lot of people wanting to speak on Item 10, and it is only talking about the safe parking program. She stated that, if they are going to speak in Oral Communications, stick to other things as she knows there are a lot of people who want to talk about it so be careful so they don’t have to stop them.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they have to do discuss No. 7 which was pulled from the consent calendar.

AGENDA ITEM #7 DISCUSSION (pulled from CONSENT; considered following Agenda Item #9):

Dep. Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has a question, but she thought she should wait until after public comments.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if the mayor said they would have two minutes.

Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated she is trying to gather further understanding of this issue. She knows that SB9 is being challenged in other California cities, and she expressed her understanding and thoughts on standards and the next process.

Dinah Verby, Pacifica, discovered this item was on the agenda an hour before the meeting and she joins in request of others to postpone this item, expressing her specific concerns and thoughts.

Rich Campbell, Pacifica, stated that he was joining in the suggestion to agendize this issue and give the citizens more time to look at it, expressing his surprise that it didn’t go before the Planning Commission first, and gave his specific thoughts on the possible process.

2.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 February 28, 2022
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that he has been looking through SB9 during his requests from clients, and expressed his thoughts on the issue and process.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she sent staff an email earlier referring to a loophole in SB9, and expressed her thoughts and suggestions regarding the process and city implications.

Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated that Pacificans have a history of wanting to be engaged in dialogue in the decision making process, and she shared her thoughts on hazards, insurance, etc., and citizen involvement in this process.

Joseph Smith, Pacifica, applauded staff, as state housing laws have been extreme, and commented on SB9 and his only request was to remove the garage requirements, which he addressed and explained in a letter to staff. He also addressed his thoughts on the process.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, questions who is in control, and expressed his thoughts on that and the process. He asked Council to explore this deeper, understanding that the city needs it but they don’t need to relinquish our responsibility.

Jordan McWherter, Pacifica, thanked Council for bringing this up and being in compliance with state law as they move forward on SB9. He expressed his thoughts and concerns about SB9 and the big issues in Pacifica regarding housing. He also echoed Mr. Smith's thoughts.

Daniel Smith, Pacifica, stated he was a real estate agent and expressed the fact that many people cannot compete in the housing market and he expressed his thoughts on this issue.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to clarify what this process is, and Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister or Dep. Planning Director Murdock can answer any questions. He stated that it was a two-stage process. He mentioned that Council voted to oppose SB9 when it was being considered, as well as a lot of cities, but it passed. He stated that it is a state law they are trying to abide by, and the first step in the process are the guidelines to bring clarity to the criteria of evaluation of projects for city staff and applicant’s support of the community. He stated that the second phase was staff having to do a lot of work for community engagement to develop an ordinance to implement SB9. He stated that the interim steps they are trying to achieve, based on a lot of public comment and different standards changing across the state, are things that can be factored into the permanent ordinance, once that is adopted. He stated that, if they don’t adopt a guideline, there is no clarity to staff in evaluation of projects or to the applicants which doesn’t benefit anyone. He stated that they need to follow up when they have staff time available to develop the permanent ordinance which is months of work. He stated that they don’t have the planning resources, given all the other priorities, to work on that now.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had a hard time hearing all the comments at this meeting, as those were the same things going through her mind and which Council discussed at length when they brought this item forward last year regarding their opposition to SB9. She stated that it wasn’t a popular position to take with local elected officials but they took that position as it was in the best interests of Pacifica. She wanted to say that as Council is often criticized and they did everything they could do to push back on SB9 at that time. She had a request for clarification which she thought may need to be addressed in a larger statement from the City Attorney. She stated that, in regard to public comments at this meeting and in writing regarding

2.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 February 28, 2022
the garage issue, she needs to understand the nuance of that issue as she is not clear on what the city can and can’t do or must or must not do around that. She stated that anything City Attorney, Planning Director or Dep. Planning Director have to say on that would be helpful to her.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that she will start, knowing that Dep. Planning Director Murdock will have a much more articulate response, specifically regarding the garage issue. She wanted to note is that there are definite concerns with SB9 and the legislation. She heard comments about legality and vagueness, ambiguity, and lack of clear direction for cities on how to implement. She stated wholeheartedly that the reason her office recommended that they adopt these objective guidelines is specifically to provide more regulatory authority to the city to interpret what is currently a vague, ambiguous potentially legally suspect on legislation. She then let Dep.

Planning Director Murdock address the garage issues.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that, with respect to the interim regulations at this time, they are seeking to clarify the application of existing zoning regulations. He stated that the existing regulations in Pacifica’s Municipal Code related to off-street parking for one and two-family dwelling units, which are the subject of SB9, they are required to have a two-car garage for their off-street parking requirements. He stated staff has clarified the application to the maximum extent they can of the existing zoning regulation, which is complying with the maximum one parking space requirement that SB9 allows while retaining the other objective aspects which is to locate that one space within a garage. He stated that Council has the discretion to apply a different off-street parking standard for projects subject to SB9, and would appropriately be done during the ordinance development process. He stated that, in his opinion, to do that at this meeting would be to apply a new standard which would be subjective of different legislative process rather than clarifying the application of existing zoning standards.

Mayor Bier stated that everything that has been said showed where her confusion was, and that was why she wanted to pull it. She feels she has better clarification now as they gave her a wellrounded view.

Councilmember Vaterlaus referred to an item in Section 3, i.e., you cannot take an existing rental and split it into two rental properties. She asked if that was what it was saying.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that Section 3 contains standards based on provisions on SB9 related to rental housing. He stated that it reflects the fact that they cannot affect those units subject to rent control or where an owner took control of a rental unit through an Ellis act eviction.

With respect to the 3.D, you can’t convert a unit that already has a tenant in it in order to displace them to create the additional unit.

Councilmember Vaterlaus concluded that you could take a property that has a tenant in it, subdivide it and put another building with another tenant in it, just not short term.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that SB9 prohibits the use of the new dwelling units for short term rentals and the intent is to minimize displacement of existing renters, i.e., you don’t want to solve one problem, which is creating more housing units but displace people currently in housing units in the process. He stated that it was not the legal answer, but that is the theme in the intent of the legislation.

Councilmember Vaterlaus appreciated the explanation.

2.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 February 28, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill had a question for the City Attorney. He asked if he misunderstood this, but there is an ambiguity in SB9, and our Municipal Code is saying something different, and does our Municipal Code conflict with SB9 at this point.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that was not the issue. If our current code has essentially objective standards, staff has not done that analysis yet but will do it. She reiterated that this step is for the protection of the city and our regulatory authority, and this is giving the city more regulatory authority with regard to inconsistencies between our code and SB9 to the extent there is any, and the city will be resolving that, as alluded to by the City Manager, in the second phase and will address all of those issues.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that, if they pass this as an in term, emphasizing “in term”, that means that the four applications that are appending plus any other applications that are received up to whenever a new ordinance is done will all be handled the same way and give the city a legal defense from someone suing the city saying that they are not implementing SB9. He asked if that was correct.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that the purpose is to provide more clarification on how they are going to be implementing SB9 because, as she mentioned earlier, there is very little, if any, direction in SB9 and for the city to apply it objectively, a legal requirement at this point imposed by SB9, they need to understand what those objective requirements are so they have put them into the partial attempt to make that clarification, but the city is not done, just doing the best that they can, given the time constraints, and the fact that we have applications we are going to have to process before we go through the full scale process of addressing all of the zoning changes they are going to need to fully implement SB9.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock suggested saying it a different way. As the City Attorney mentions, there is quite a bit of vagueness in SB9, with a lot of “the city may do this and the city may do that, etc.” and the interim regulations do what they can within the guidelines of our existing zoning to say not only may we, but the city is choosing to impose those standards that are already on the books to these projects, so they aren’t challenged to say the city may but it hasn’t applied a particular zoning standard to an SB9 project. He stated that there may be many other types of objective standards that Council wants to impose on SB9 projects in the future, but those will have to be part of the development of a new ordinance. In the interim, the city is pointing to specific existing zoning regulations that will apply to SB9 projects to give the city more control and delaying may inadvertently give the city less control.

Councilmember O’Neill stated, by the nature of what they are discussing, these will all be infill projects and no huge new developments. He asked if this will all be considered infill.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he didn’t know if he would go that far. SB9 is limited to existing legal lots so there are existing legal lots in places where you may not consider them to be infill locations. If those sites are subject to single family residential zoning, as defined and identified in these interim regulations, and meets all the other criteria of SB9, the city may be obligated to approve a project in one of those locations. He thought, practically, most of them will occur in infill locations but they are not strictly limited to infill locations pursuant to SB9.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that we are behind the eight-ball either way, including the 1900 units mandated, and he concluded that each one of these units would count towards the RHNA number.

2.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 February 28, 2022
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that it would count as housing units and different standards would have to be met for those units to count towards our low, moderate and extremely low income categories.

Councilmember O’Neill assumed that was another agenda item. He thought, for the four units pending, they have taken out loans or could be applying for loans and rates are rising and it will make it even less affordable for them to do this. He stated that, as this is interim, and they will come back with a regular ordinance at a future date, hopefully ASAP. He supports moving forward and passing this item.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock wanted to touch on one of the points related to the garage standard. He clarified that it was staff’s assessment that the garage area would not count as floor area against the 800 square foot size required by SB9. Under the Municipal Code, the garage area is exempt from the calculation of floor area so it is staff’s assessment that it would not apply to the 800 square feet allowed in SB9. He stated that, while there may be pros and cons for requiring the garage, to do so would be consistent with the existing zoning regulations and would not limit someone from getting the full 800 square feet allowed under SB9.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to clarify that she agrees with Councilmember O’Neill that this is interim, and her question is that, as called for by several commenters, when we have a more specific ordinance and have the opportunity to go beyond interim, will this be something that is brought before the Planning Commission and will it be something where they will have that opportunity that some of the commenters were asking for at this time.

Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that she was correct and all zoning ordinances are required to go to the Planning Commission first for review and a recommendation to Council and that would involve at least one public hearing and then they come to Council for at least one more public hearing for introduction of an ordinance and potentially multiple public hearings but at a minimum, a second consideration for adoption of the ordinance. He added that, for areas within the coastal zone, that ordinance would then need to be certified by the Coastal Commission before it would take effect in the coastal zone. He stated that there are multiple opportunities for in depth public involvement on the ordinance that will ultimately be adopted and that is the time for that detailed public participation that many people have asked for.

Mayor Bier stated that was one of her questions, adding that she thought all her questions are answered.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they were ready for a motion.

Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve the attached resolution adopting the interim guidance, rules and regulations to implement SB9 and directing the preparation of an SB9 implementing ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (Agenda Item #7)

2.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 February 28, 2022
AGENDA ITEM #7:

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

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.

Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, stated that he was speaking on the RVs on Francisco Boulevard, specifically explaining about an RV that has an expired license and other vehicular problems, as well as other vehicles, and questioned that they are not strictly being addressed by the police as the police have told him that they are not violating the required law.

Delia McGrath, Pacifica, was informing and inviting Pacificans to the Pacifica Peace People that will be starting a series of conversations called Pacifica Talks Race, giving the specific first event date.

Timothy Cotter, Pacifica, stated that Mr. Guillet said everything he was going to say, adding his thoughts on the RVs regarding safety of his children and neighborhood and would like to see them go.

Lynn Adams, Pacifica, stated that they have been doing beach cleanups all year and the tsunami delayed the Martin Luther King Day in January. She give the detailed statistics, and she invited Pacificans to their 15th annual surf movie on March 12, giving details about the agenda. She stated that they will be going forward on Earth Day on April 23 but will not hold an Eco-Fest but will hold a mini-Eco-Fest and they hope to broadcast it live and people can join and hear about the various subjects, and mentioned various other events.

Cara Brown, Pacifica, stated she lives in the Fairway neighborhood, a few doors down from where the RVs have taken up residence, and voiced she and her husband’s many concerns regarding their neighborhood and its safety.

Amy Guillet, Pacifica, voiced her safety concerns about the RVs parking by the golf course parking lot and the police favoring them over residents.

Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center Director, stated that their fire repairs are complete and they are reopened with regular office hours and available for appointments. She stated that they are also making appointments for tax return preparations, as well as grocery distribution details.

She stated that they did the homeless count on February 24, and reached out to help them and the report will be completed in May or June, and mentioned help for housing issues.

Linda Acosta, Pacifica, stated she works for the San Francisco Public Health Department and, regarding the RVs, wants to know is why we aren’t following other cities’ services, mentioning details, and as a tax payer, she would like to have input on how that is done for her to feel safe and they will have a safe place..

2.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 February 28, 2022
Sharon Lindsey, Pacifica, referred to Ridgeway where they have three little league fields with lots of kids traveling to the fields and she thinks they need a bike lane on Ridgeway for safety due to not addressing the RV 72-hour situation which are not vetted and should not be on Ridgeway.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated he was embarrassed at the lack of compassion in this community. He agreed some work needs to be done with people talking to the homeless and some work talking with the people in the neighborhood.

Mayor Bier stated that, if he wants to talk about the permit parking program, he can do that during that item.

Mr. Lawrence apologized, saying he lost contact on Zoom and thought they were on that item.

He then asked why the Mussel Rock landfill omitted from the hazards that face our community when it is across the street.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that the conversation with the RVs indicates that the city has a serious housing problem and we have to build a lot more housing. He was glad SB9 was coming with the ADUs. He then mentioned his disappointment on the housing count and expressed his thoughts and concerns on housing costs and on rewriting the General Plan to address the RHNA numbers.

Phil Lindsey, Pacifica, expressed his concern of the absence of a bike lane on Ridgeway Drive, mentioning it being designated for a class 3 bike pathway several years ago. He urged Council to develop that plan, mentioning that a lot of kids rode bikes to the fields.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Vaterlaus congratulated Planning Commissioner Nibbelin who was appointed to County Counsel. She served with him on Planning and he is a great person for this position. She attended the Democratic meeting and Anna Eshoo, the upcoming congresswoman, was the speaker who is looking forward to working with Pacifica. She also attended the Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame, and thanked everyone who attended.

Councilmember O’Neill apologized to Councilmember Vaterlaus because he was out of town and could not make her awards ceremony at the Sports Hall of Fame but he did congratulate her. He also congratulated John Nibbelin who is named the Chief County Counsel for the top lawyer for San Mateo County. He stated that the only drawback is possibly losing him as a Planning Commissioner and he is the lawyer for Pacifica School District and Jefferson Union High School District, as well as County Planning Department. He is sure he will do a very good job.

Councilmember Beckmeyer acknowledged Councilmember Vaterlaus who was one of the honorees on Sunday for the Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame, adding that she can’t even begin to enumerate her many accomplishments in weightlifting and many world records. She was honored to be at that event and congratulated her. She also echoed congratulations to John Nibbelin.

She attended a ton of meetings but none of them are having immediate import, but one she is excited to learn more about is the possibility of a library construction grant program in terms of Pacifica fit for that. She will share more information at the next meeting when they have more time for Council communications.

2.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 February 28, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck congratulated John Nibbelin. He stated that he wanted to acknowledge that there is a lot of heavy stuff happening on the other part of the world and he thanked Cub Scout Pack 216, 5th Grade Arrow of Light scouts, Jack, Mateo, Nathan, Gemma and Cooper, and appreciated zooming in with them with information about Council. He attended the City Democrat meeting with Anna Eshoo and he later got to sign his name to her nomination paperwork and was excited that she will be our next representative. He attended the one-day homeless count on Thursday which was eye opening to wake up at 5 am, get there and he was paired with a housing specialist who took him to certain places where there are encampments and they did a bit of hiking. It was eye opening to see the needs in our community that we don’t always see from just strolling down the sidewalk, adding that they have work to do. He echoed Councilmember Beckmeyer’s sentiment about the library grant opportunities coming down the pike and thought it was good to see a potential funding source to get library needs addressed and hopefully starting the Library Advisory Committee up again. He attended Council of Cities and the Sports Hall of Fame dinner. He referred to Councilmember Vaterlaus who apparently has 30 world records. He stated that, before Council’s meeting, he attended a UFCW, United Food and Commercial Workers Union 5 rally in Menlo Park at a Safeway and one was going on in Pleasant Hill at the same time. He stated that a Councilmember from Menlo Park, Ray Mueller, was there marching with them as was State Senator Josh Becker. He stated that they are at a point where they feel the need to rally to send a message to Safeway that they don’t want a strike but want them to pay them what they owe them as they need a reasonable pay rate. He hoped they won’t have to call for a strike vote, but they are starting rallies.

Mayor Bier congratulated Councilmember Vaterlaus and thanked a co-Council for jarring news on Saturday and everyone pulled together and showed up for her event. She thought she was amazing and apologized for not being able to be there. She spent a lot of time the past few weeks meeting with constituent groups, mentions several of them, and also met with the Firefighters at Station 72. She stated that we have the best firefighters as they are a part of our community. Even though the JPA administration is in Daly City, they are our firefighters and they want to feel like they are part of our community. She acknowledged it and looked forward to keeping that relationship. She stated that they will be trying to attend meetings to recognize them and treat them like they treat everyone else. She also attended the Pacifica Democrat’s meeting and Anna Eshoo was amazing. On looking at her notes, she realized that she had tried to call Susan Wallace who asked her to call Ms. Wallace but she probably wrote her phone number incorrectly and she asked her to email her and give her the phone number, she will call her.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated he was honored to attend Councilmember Vaterlaus’ celebration of her great achievements. He stated that it was a pleasure to be there and meet her family. He stated that the city is putting together a Vision 2025 and beyond financial sustainability study webpage that can serve as a repository of documents related to the study that can serve as information about the process, public engagement, financial forecast and other financial related information, etc., as they do for most of their major projects and they hope to have it up in the next week or so. He stated that Council’s annual goal setting session is set for the afternoon of Friday, March 25, and all day Saturday, March 26. He stated that Friday afternoon will be more of a communications and team building exercise with Saturday as the major goal setting piece.

He stated that many have heard that the mask guidelines continue to evolve related to Covid-19 and they are tracking the different changes. They are evolving rapidly, so he wasn’t going to dive into what those changes are, but they will be putting out information related to those as they take place.

2.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 February 28, 2022
Mayor Bier called for a break, then reconvened the meeting.

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.

Mayor Bier stated that, when they are talking about the temporary safe parking program, she realizes how contentious this could be and there is a lot of fear out there, as well as a lot of rhetoric going on and things that are not true. She stated that what she is going to do is share truth with the public at this time and they can make their decision based on that truth. She stated that, if they listen to all the rhetoric, they are not getting the truth. She asked that they move into the item together.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck mentioned to the City Attorney that Council received a letter from a constituent and may not be representative of others, and it was suggested that, because of his involvement with Pacifica Resource Center and spent several years on the Board of Directors and the former Vice President, there might be some conflict of interest as he deliberate with his colleagues, and he wanted to verify through the City Attorney that there is no conflict of interest for him in deliberating with his colleagues.

City Attorney Kenyon thanked him for the comment, adding that she saw that communication concerning his potential conflict. She looked into that as there is no conflict as he is no longer a PRC board member and, even if he was a PRC board member, the fact that he were a non-paid member of that board, there is no potential financial interest in his involvement in PRC and there is no legal conflict. He has every right and legal ability to hear and rule on this item.

Mayor Bier stated that they had City Manager Woodhouse and Asst. City Attorney Castella doing the presentation, and PRC Director Rees, San Mateo Dep. County Manager Jensen and Chris Hunter on call.

City Manager Woodhouse introduced the staff report.

Asst. City Attorney Castella gave the presentation.

2.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 February 28, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse continued the presentation.

Asst. City Attorney Castella completed the presentation.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to provide a clarification about the coastal development permit process for the program and stated that Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister was present.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister clarified that the spaces in the coastal zone as part of this program are within the city’s Coastal Development Permit jurisdiction, and she stated that it sounds a bit funny but the city is both the applicant and the regulator in this case so she clarified that this wouldn’t be an application to the Coastal Commission.

City Manager Woodhouse requested that City Clerk Coffey bring Ms. Jensen’s phone number as she is calling in on her phone.

City Clerk Coffey stated that she could not promote her in as a panelist, but she has allowed her to talk and she can unmute.

Mayor Bier thanked Ms. Jensen for being present and they would love to hear from the county on this.

San Mateo Dep. County Manager Jensen stated that the Board of Supervisors, in allocating their recent round of ARPA funds considered $400,000 for Pacifica’s safe parking program. She stated that the Board approved that in concept at their February 8 meeting but asked that they return with details when available. She stated that once Council considers this matter and decide to go forward with it, they will return to the Board to get confirmation of the County’s contribution of $400,000. She stated that they see this as a great opportunity to pilot a program. She stated that there is a safe parking program in Redwood City, but Pacifica’s approach is a bit different and they want to be sure that cities in San Mateo County are able to test as many ways as possible to address our homeless problems. She was happy to answer any other questions.

Mayor Bier stated that they also have PRC Manager Rees and she was sure they want to hear from her. She asked Council if they had any questions before they ask her to come up.

Councilmember O’Neill wanted clarification regarding our settlement agreement. He stated that the settlement agreement is for three years and the funding they will be using is from ARPA funds which have to be spent within three years. He asked if that was accurate.

City Manager Woodside responded affirmatively, clarifying that the ARPA funding needs to be obligated by December 31, 2024 and extended by December 31, 2026.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that they have a fully funded program and a three-year commitment from ARPA funds and a three-year commitment for the settlement agreement. He stated that streets will be better maintained in terms of parking regulations, etc., as once this is settled they can start enforcing it.

PRC Manager Rees thanked the city for being willing to move forward with this project. She acknowledged that it has been a long time in terms of the process several years ago as well as lawsuits. She stated that there were good reasons to move forward to do this. She stated that PRC is committed to making sure that the program is a success for many reasons, not because of helping on the lawsuit, but also helping people moving towards long-term permanent housing.

2.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 February 28, 2022
She stated that giving them a safe place to park alleviates a lot of the stress and anxiety that often comes along with being homeless and allows them to work toward goals of returning to housing which may be living in an RV park. She stated that meeting them where they are and providing them a safe place is the starting point. They are looking forward to moving forward on this with the city and seeing what great things they can accomplish together.

Mayor Bier wanted to open public comments but wanted to give them time to raise hands and get the number of speakers and can decide how much time. If there are 40 people who want to speak, they will have to consider that.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that there were about 10 hands raised.

Mayor Bier asked Council for thoughts on this.

Councilmember O’Neill suggests two minutes.

Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested two minutes and, as in the past, if individuals have heard the same comment they wanted to make, they can acknowledge that is the case and don’t need to repeat the same thing.

Mayor Bier confirmed that Council was in agreement. She then opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.

Chaya Gordon, Pacifica, urged Council to vote yes on the resolution before them, the safe parking program operations agreement between the city and PRC, adding her thoughts on the program, PRC and staff. She considered it a critical step.

Ellen Hage, Pacifica, stated that she is a 40-year home owner and member of Faith in Action Bay Area and fully supports this RV permit program, mentioning her thoughts on this issue.

Deni Asnis, Pacifica, expressed support for the operations agreement for the safe parking program and recommends that Council adopt the resolution, expressing her thoughts on this program.

Delia McGrath, Pacifica, read thoughts from someone who lives in an RV and asked that a member of Pacifica Housing of All read it. She is a member and was grateful for sharing his thoughts.

Timothy Cotter, Pacifica, stated that he was opposed to the program. He shared his personal family member’s situation and felt it was a lifestyle choice, sharing his thoughts and suggestions.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that she lives four blocks from the proposed parking sites for the Pacifica safe parking program. She was in support of the operating agreement and safe parking program as presented, sharing her thoughts on the homeless situation.

Andrew Witt, Pacifica, stated his thoughts that this program will reduce all the concerns that many residents have voiced and drastically reduce the number of RVs parked on the streets, sharing his thoughts on previous bans and alternate options.

2.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 February 28, 2022
Gloria Stofan, Pacifica, stated 56-year home owner and member of Faith in Action Bay Area and Pacifica Housing For All. She supports the operation agreement and recommends that Council adopts the resolution for safe parking program in Pacifica, sharing her thoughts on this problem and the support by PRC and Pacifica.

Carolyn Jaramillo, Pacifica, stated she is a member of Pacifica Housing For All and was speaking in praise of the safe parking program by PRC and was grateful for PRC and the city’s support and urged Council to adopt this program.

Joanne Rokosky, Pacifica, stated she is a member of Faith in Action Bay Area and was in full support of the temporary safe parking program, expressing her thoughts on the problems and solutions. She urged Council to approve the proposed plan and operating agreement.

Linda Acosta, Pacifica, supports the idea of safe parking program, and added her thoughts on the process and various options.

Amy Guillet, Pacifica, agreed with Ms. Acosta, and expressed her concerns on the issue and shared thoughts on alternate processes.

Ken Chan, San Mateo County, stated he is an organizer of Housing Leadership Council (HLC) of San Mateo County, and was voicing their support for the adoption of the resolution of the safe parking program and operations agreement and fund the program, expressing thoughts on the situation of the homeless.

Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, echoed Ms. Acosta and Ms. Guillet’s comments, and covered a lot of his points. He voiced questions with concerns regarding the process and follow up options.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, was supportive of the safe parking program and ending the financial drain of the lawsuit which was unnecessary if we had such a program in place. She then put forth several questions on some specific issues and possibly some options concluding that this was a good first step.

Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated she was in support of this item, mentioning that several of the concerns mentioned were brought up in the lawsuit, and spoke in support of PRC.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, supported this measure as it was a step in the right direction, adding his thoughts on some caveats he felt were needed.

Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, supports the safe parking program, stating that he knows people living in the RVs and shared his thoughts on their problems and why we should help them.

Victoria Sanchez DeAlba, Pacifica, stated she is a Pacifica homeowner and vice chair of the San Mateo County Health Care for the Homeless and Farmworkers Program, but is speaking on her behalf. She shared her thoughts on the solutions and programs in other cities for a pathway to permanent housing. She fully supports Pacifica’s safe parking program and hopes Council adopts the resolution.

Marj Davis, Pacifica, stated she is the president of the PRC Board, but is speaking as an individual. She thanked Pacifica and PRC, etc., for working to put together this safe parking program and operations agreement, stating her thoughts on the program and the report and her support of the program.

2.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 February 28, 2022
Dan Evenhouse, Pacifica, stated he is a 20-year home owner and member of Pacifica Social Justice as well as other organizations, and a professional social worker. He supports the safe parking program and thanked Pacifica and PRC Manager Rees for their efforts to help those unhoused and living in vehicles, adding that we can all help in what is going on locally.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Mayor Bier stated that she heard a lot of concerns about enforcement and asked City Attorney to address that.

Asst. City Attorney Castella stated that one reason for settling the lawsuit and implementing the parking program is to increase enforcement of over-sized vehicles in Pacifica and parked outside the safe parking program. She stated that, as in the presentation, because the city’s ordinance was challenged, to manage the risk associated with the potential that the ordinance was struck down as unconstitutional, the city pulled back on enforcing it, but not entirely. They pulled back, specifically on towing. She stated that, once they resolved the litigation, that was part of the reason for implementation of this program, and they will be able to use all of the enforcement tools that are built into the ordinance to address OSVs that stay for more than 72 hours, have expired registrations, are consistently and clearly violating Municipal Code provisions that preclude blocking the sidewalk and impermissibly encroach on the public right-of-way. She stated that, before they can engage in the kind of enforcement that really has teeth, they need to resolve the lawsuit and make available to people a safe alternative for parking their OSVs which is part of what the safe parking program does. She stated that program itself will assist the city in ensuring that OSVs become good members of the community as part of the code of conduct and included in the program. She stated that, once they are in the program, they get a safe place to park for 29 days at a time and possibly for a few months, repeating that 29 days up to 3-5 times while they work with PRC to get permanent housing. She stated that, to get that benefit, they agree to a code of conduct that gives the city and CSO officer, who is going be a part of the program, the primary responsibility to monitor compliance of OSVs not in the program and in the program. She stated that all these elements will allow the city to improve enforcements to address the problem and commit to the notion that OSVs can be members of the community that don’t pose the problems that people are identifying and Pacifica can help with that once they get on the other side of this lawsuit and can enforce against some of the bad actors.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there was a lot of feedback about why they are not putting this program in a lot in a centralized location, and the Linda Mar Park and Ride was specifically mentioned. He thought the Park and Ride is actually a Caltrans lot. He asked staff to talk about the various locations they have considered and why they came to this conclusion.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, as mentioned in the comments, there has been a long history to the evolution of this program, part of that was exploring the feasibility of different lots that exist and the city doesn’t own very many lots and none were determined to be feasible for this type of program. He stated that there was a community task force, the Unhoused In Pacifica Task Force that explored this in detail and came to the same conclusion. He stated that many of the lots are not owned by the city and those that are, as at the Community Center, are very heavily and actively used by seniors and the community. He stated that other lots are too small to serve any reasonable number of motorhomes and the 2212 Beach Blvd. site is due to be marketed for hotel development and currently serves as a Municipal corporation yard for storage of supplies related to storm response. He stated that there are a variety of sites explored and the infeasibility of any one of them is what led to the realization of Pacifica’s land for that kind of capacity unlike

2.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 February 28, 2022
in Redwood City or Mountain View, and coming up with this innovative idea for safe permit parking on streets.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to trash being addressed in the staff report, and the concern voiced by the community was, if they have to go to a location to bring their stuff, why is that a good idea and will it lead to more waste being put out on the streets. He apologized if he “butchered’ their question.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, if he understands the question, the black water collection aspect of the program, as well as any other refuse or recycling components are part of the program and part of the code of conduct for proper disposal and sets up a compliance structure where proper disposals need to be met which is the expense of twice per month collection program for the black water and locations to be able to dispose of other garbage or recyclables which will assist with the problem the city has been having in recent years of public trash cans being stuffed and over-filled from too much material and material from participants in the program will be provided for proper disposal in other ways.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck mentioned his editorializing, and stated that, for someone taking the time to put themselves into this program and say to our community that we need help to find stable housing, he thought there should be a spot that is open behind them where RV parks is not a part of the program and they wind up being a bad actor. He thought that, if he were trying to get himself out of that situation and the person on either side of him who is not a part of that program was not doing things the way he was doing things, he might say that they might think that he is doing that and ask them to stop and tell them where they can dump their stuff and connect them to the PRC, as he didn’t want them screwing up his deal. He thought this is what they would be compelled to do if they sign up.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s use of the term “editorialized” and she would try not to editorialize now. She asked staff to address the question raised regarding finances of the project in year 3.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he can begin and perhaps Ms. Jensen can chime in. He stated that, as the currently identified finances indicate in the fiscal impact section, there is a short fall of $146,000 projected for year three; however, the county is that all will be working towards grant funding in the interim which will help fill that. He stated that the county has identified that, depending on the success of the program, the Board of Supervisors may consider additional ARPA funding, but he didn’t want to put words in Ms. Jensen’s mouth and will turn it to her. He stated that, no doubt, with the success of the program, the innovation of it between grant funding or other sources of funding, year three will be funded.

San Mateo County Dep. Manager Jensen added that he is correct. She can’t commit to more than $400,000 as that is the direction they received from the Board, but she can tell them that, with all the work they have been doing around getting community input into their ARPA funding plan, they have much better connections with many of their philanthropic organizations and beyond potential grant programs the county has, possibility of additional funding through the County's second tranche of ARPA funds and there is also great potential, if the program is successful, for philanthropic funds to continue as this is an issue that exists throughout the county.

She referred to those who say we need to have a variety of solutions because there is no one size fits all for all of our homeless challenges.

2.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 February 28, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they often hear from members of the community that we should do what is done in other communities or why is Pacifica different or how come other cities don’t have this problem and we have it and we have to address it. She stated that there is a lot of answers to those questions but we really wouldn’t be here at this time had there not been a lawsuit. She thinks we have to bear in mind that, when there is a challenge that faces the community as this has faced us, as well as several Councils, we have to come to a resolution that is the best solution for as many people as it can be. She stated that not everyone is happy about the way this is being resolved, but she echoed former Mayor and longtime Councilmember Digre who used the term “torturous route”. She agreed that it has been torturous for everyone involved.

She is proud that they have been able to come through this intact as a community and has not torn us apart, but they have had to work hard and invest funds to come to a resolution that they can live with. She stated that they suggested that 13 isn’t enough, and there should be vastly more spots than that, and she referred to consultation with our partners at PRC, with homeless and housing advocates and input from all of staff who are trained and professional, including our law enforcement staff. She stated that they have come up with a solution that is the right number, given the provisions of the agreement, i.e., the right number for people who want to work within the confines of the program. She stated that is not every single vehicular housed person they see in Pacifica, and she knows this with confidence because our former mayor, Councilmember Vaterlaus, showed strength and leadership in bringing this issue forward with what eventually became our over-sized vehicle ordinance and it wasn’t popular, but necessary. They worked hard and together to get it done. She knows if they think about the past, they know the impact that had, as when implemented, it had a significant impact and changed the nature of how things were in Pacifica and brought us to this place. She stated that this lawsuit was filed because not everyone was happy with the implementation or felt it was fair and just. She stated that they have taken that input, worked further on it, invested in more dollars, sweat and thoughts, and she agreed with the City Manager that Pacifica is land poor, financially challenged and populated by a high proportion of environmental stewards. She stated that you put everything together and ultimately, as Ms. Davis stated, above all else, Pacifica was a caring community. While we don’t always get what we want, but together they forged this agreement and she believes in it and having the opportunity to work through the process, accepting it, and moving forward with the resolution will take them to the next step toward resuming enforcement of an ordinance that worked very well for Pacifica but not now because we aren’t enforcing it, adding that you can’t do that when in the middle of a lawsuit. She stated that it is another step in the process, torturous but we’re coming through it intact.

Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed with everything Councilmember Beckmeyer just said. She stated that they have worked hard on it for years, studied all the places and said we should let it happen. She stated that people are quick to judge what is going to happen, but they don’t know.

She stated that we should let it happen and try to help these 13 people to try to get into housing.

She stated that they may find it works a lot faster than they had anticipated, and they must at least try and not be negative to start with. She stated that it happens a lot, i.e., don’t want Panda Express, don’t want Grocery Outlet and they see the same people who complained shopping in those locations. She thought, if they would just let it take its course and let them do their jobs and see that this is for safety. She stated that there were a lot of reasons why it worked out this way, and then just give it a chance.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are where they are, and they can look at it as Winston Churchill said, “we are at the end of the beginning” and he thought it was an opportunity for us to move forward to try an experiment. He stated that it is easy to ask why we can’t do what Redwood City does, but Redwood City put their RV parking across the street from the women’s jail in a county-owned block, but Pacifica doesn’t have that resource. He stated that every place where

2.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 February 28, 2022
they would have a parking lot is in somebody’s back yard and the person who said that is complaining because there is an RV in her back yard. He thinks this is just the start of an experiment to see if it will work. He stated that they don’t have the resources. He saw on Nextdoor people saying why don’t they put it out to bid. He stated that, according to the City Attorney, we have contractual government codes that say this does not have to be put out to bid. He mentioned, in addition, the program they are talking about that they hired LifeMoves is an entirely different program where the county purchased a hotel and you are having on site staff. He stated don’t always believe what you read in Nextdoor, as he said 80-85% of that is not true, just conjecture, fantasies or wish lists for some people. He stated that this is the end of the beginning, mentioning a major problem 2 or 3 years ago and they attempted to fix it and they have now gotten to the point where they are going to be handling it and will move forward.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck echoed everything his fellow councilmembers have just said. He had a question for PRC Manager Rees. He thanked her for being present and the PRC for helping form this program and being in partnership with the city. He referred to the three year program and he asked what kind of help they might be able to offer people, possibly a “snapshot” of a year or so, and the number of people PRC helped who are living in a home without this program in place.

PRC Manager Rees stated that, since 2021, for those who have been theoretically eligible for this program , they have helped house eight of them. She stated that it may not seem like a huge number but, given that at the time, they may have had 25 unhoused, that is a third of everyone who had been unhoused in an over-sized vehicle. She stated that five of them are RV and two are campers and one was a converted bus and all of them are currently housed now.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, at the end of the day, part and parcel with this conversation about a larger goal that he keeps hearing, and having those hanging around in their vehicles, this is a way to help some of them to no longer be on our streets in vehicles. He stated that was the work PRC was able to do without a specific program in place. He is looking forward to seeing what can be done when this specific program is in place as it is a compassionate means by which to assist people off the streets and the extra benefit that, once in place, it is a mechanism toward enforcement as mentioned earlier. He stated that they have heard a lot of concerns from the neighborhood around a lot of these spaces and he was sorry that they are experiencing that, and he thinks this is a part of the solution, even though he understands why, from their perspective, it probably doesn’t look like it now. He again thanked the Resource Center, and that we are tortured is a wonderful word. He stated that the process began when he was on the Board and speaking from the other side of the podium, and it was heart wrenching then and is still not an easy conversation to have. He referred to Councilmember O’Neill’s mention of Nextdoor where it is amazing some of the things he reads and he hopes this program sheds some light where otherwise lacking. He stated that, as a former Board member, he has an idea of what the Board must have gone through to come to the conclusion that it would be wise to recommend implementation of this from the side of the PRC and he thanked Ms. Rees for working with the board and Pacifica to come to a place where they can put this through and start helping people and enforcing. He stated that, when he was not on Council and gave a speech in which he said something about what it means to help people. He reiterated it as it is as close as he can come to what he truly believes in regard to this program and why it is an asset to our community. He stated that he has had experience trying to help people and some wanted it and some didn’t, and when he put that kind of energy into play to try to help someone, one of two things happen pretty quickly. One thing is that the person he tries to help takes the opportunity given and do everything they can with it to make it happen. He stated earlier that someone who winds up in this program who really wants to be housed will take their own steps to address their bad neighbors. He stated that he uses the term “neighbor” loosely so as not to upset actual neighborhoods and apologized

2.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 February 28, 2022
if it comes out otherwise, but he believes that someone who is trying to help themselves is going to go out of their way to address bad actors. He also stated that, when you are trying to help someone who really doesn’t want help, which he personally had from his perspective, they run away as quick as they possibly can, as someone who doesn’t want help but who claims they want help will claim it and you try to help them and they run away quickly. He thanked Ms. Rees and the PRC Board as he hopes the city is grateful that she is here to help them pass this.

Mayor Bier wanted to piggyback on talking about the Resource Center because this program is outside of all of the other work they are doing and she knows there were comments on Nextdoor about money, budgets, etc., and she assured them that they are asking a lot of the Resource Center and it is up to the city to make sure they can support them. She stated that the money the city is already giving to the PRC is already in their budget working on other things and this is all extra work and she appreciated it. She referred to the Fairway Park people, stating that there are a lot of spots in Fairway and they had to go back and forth a lot. She stated it was really hard to choose the places where they thought it would be safe, out of the way a little bit and they will see how it works. She stated that people were talking about lifestyle choices, and those who are living their lifestyle choice are not going to want to be around those who are in the program and there is going to be attention on those spots. She hoped what will happen is that, by having the secured spots in our neighborhood that have people who know who they are, know they want housing, know they want help from us and are complying, it will make it safer. She stated that is the whole point, i.e., to help these people sleep at night, be working toward housing and get housed so they are not on the street anymore. She stated that we all deserve a place to live. She stated, going back to the Fairway people, she asked that they reach out to her and they have to see how this works. If there are problems, she asked them to come to us as she knows there are issues happening now and after all this is done and they start the program, they will be able to enforce more and that is an important part of all of this. She questioned what will happen after three years, and asked if someone can quickly address that.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it is 10:55 p.m.

Mayor Bier asked for a motion to extend the meeting.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the meeting to midnight; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (extend meeting to midnight)
Mayor Bier stated that she thinks she has said what she needed to say, adding that she is super concerned about her Fairway residents and she has faith that this is going to be helpful, just like the ordinance was helpful. She thanked Ms. Rees and Ms. Jensen for being here, and appreciated all the work they do.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck: 1) moved to adopt the Resolution approving the Temporary Safe Parking Program, 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 4-7.1207 and to amend Section 5-2.03, Violations: Abatement”

2.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 February 28, 2022
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; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (Item #10)
AGENDA ITEM #10:

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

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 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.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister introduced new Management Analyst Barranti in the City Manager’s office and focusing on economic development and environmental policies, who is presenting her first staff report and she will be there for support.

Management Analyst Barranti presented the staff report.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if he is correct that enforcements above and beyond the county would be subject to our code enforcement which are the same people who look at building violations, code violations due to zoning issues, etc.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that it would defer to code enforcement and they mainly focus on property maintenance and provisions of our code. She stated that it is something that is not typical for Pacifica and perhaps most cities with their code enforcement division to go in and look at operations of a restaurant but that would be the folks who would do that if we did need to enforce the regulations themselves.

2.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 February 28, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill asked if, when she says “folks”, that is being a colloquial way of saying the one person who would be looking at all code violations of zoning as well as this code.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer has a question about the grant programs available through the office of sustainability. She understands that there is a possibility of applying for a food ware mini-grant and she asked if Council should adopt this. She read in the staff report that there is some kind of grant program available and she wanted to clarify whether Pacifica is eligible for this food ware mini-grant in our zip code of 94044.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti asked if she was referring the question to Eun-Soo Lim, County Office of Sustainability Sr. Sustainability Analyst.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought so.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that they could not hear Ms. Lim.

Mayor Bier stated that they will come back to her for the answer to that question. Mayor Bier opened public comments, limiting comments to two-minutes.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.

Sally Liu, Hillsborough, stated that she is a member of Reusable San Mateo County and they are a coalition of community members and organizations working to reduce plastic pollution in our county. She stated that they are very supportive of the proposed disposable food ware ordinance, and mentioned their concerns regarding this problem and recommended other possible options to consider adding.

Alejandra Warren, Pacifica, stated she is co-founder of the non-profit, Plastic Free Future and they strongly support the provisions of the proposed ordinance and recommend amending the draft policy, giving the specifics, as well as details in SB1383.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated he is an architect and sustainability consultant in Pacific Manor and he urges Council to adopt the ordinance. He appreciated the presentation and agreed with the prior speakers regarding the amendment, commenting on specifics.

Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, gave his thoughts on the dining situation, etc., prior to plastic use and stated that everything was great then.

Daisy Fong, Pacifica, shared her concerns regarding the amount of plastic waste generated, and supports the city adopting the ordinance as a good first step, but mentioned her concerns regarding disposables and how Recology will work with businesses.

Matt Warren, Pacifica, stated he is co-founder and science advisor to the local non-profit, Plastic Free Future, and strongly supports this agenda item, and commented on the planetary plastic crisis and steps being taken by UN Environment Assembly, as well as the positive impact by Pacifica’s steps to do our part by adopting this ordinance including the amendment suggested..

2.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 February 28, 2022
Kimberly Williams stated she is a member of the San Mateo County Chapter of Surf Rider Foundation, and agrees with what everyone else has said and supports the adoption of this ordinance as well as the reusable ware for onsite dining.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she fully supports this ordinance as well as the amendment for the reusable utensils as plastics are made from petroleum products and we need to get off reliance on fossil fuels.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated there were no speakers, but Eun-Soo Lim, Sr Sustainability Analyst of San Mateo County’s Office of Sustainability, has joined by telephone.

Mayor Bier asked if they can repeat the question for her to answer.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she was wondering about Pacifica’s eligibility for the Food Ware Mini-Grant program, as she looked at the survey instrument on the Office of Sustainability website and it called specific cities and jurisdictions by zip code and she didn’t see Pacifica’s listed there and she wasn’t sure if that would be amended, we would be eligible or not eligible for some other reason, and asked for clarification.

Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim stated that they have a small amount of money set aside to give out to food facilities in vulnerable communities to help them make the transition from plastic to compliant disposable food ware and they selected 12 zip codes and they are based off of our County’s Covid recovery initiative, and identify specific zip codes in the county that are deemed especially vulnerable and they decided to stick to the same standards, same eligibility criteria.

She stated that, on looking at the list, there are no zip codes on Pacifica that are within the list, adding that it was just for the grant to support the switch from plastic to fiber-based compliant food ware. She stated that they have a second, bigger pot of money available to help food facilities switch from single use food ware to reusable food ware that goes beyond the county’s ordinance and voluntarily switch to reasonable food ware, and that is available for Pacifica food facilities to take advantage of.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck welcomed Mgmt. Analyst Barranti to the Pacifica family and team. He asked the City Manager, if they wanted to go with the mandatory reusables for dine in, whether they were prepared for that language at this time.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that they can assist with the motion by simply adding a couple of lines she can read when appropriate and they can incorporate the changes into the second reading which will come back to Council on the consent agenda.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he wished to put forth to his fellow Councilmembers that he is absolutely interested in the mandatory dine in reusables amendment, explaining that the first time he attended a Council meeting was that plastics were causing some of his loved ones to be afflicted by cancer and anything they can do to get rid of plastics and reduce waste in general was an opportunity he wants to jump on it.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if there will be any assistance or funding available from the County for Pacifica to have additional cans for compostables only at places such as the beaches, etc. so they can put them in a different bin to get collected.

Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim stated that they currently don’t have any specific funding set aside to provide cities for purchasing bins for sorting. She stated that it would be tied to a different

2.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 February 28, 2022
program, possibly another new state regulation, SB1383, that mandates residents and commercial properties to sort their waste into landfill, compost as well as recyclable. She stated that they currently don’t have any funding available but they have, in a separate program of the Office of Sustainability, a grant called the Four R's grant program which is an annual program where they distribute grant money to eligible organizations, including local government and Pacifica can apply each year to request funding for sorting bins that can be placed in the public.

She stated that they have funded different cities in the county to do very similar projects. She stated that they have this Four R's grant program open now and call for applications open until March 21 with information available on their website. She will be happy to talk to city staff to share that information as there is still a few weeks for the city to read through the application and take advantage.

Councilmember O’Neill thought that Mgmt. Analyst Barranti is the analyst for environmental and she can get her number. He then asked, if they were to do the amendment for reusable dinner ware in a restaurant, would that jeopardize any connection with the county program for advertising marketing support, etc.

Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim was glad he asked that, and stated that, if the city decides to pursue requirements that go beyond the county’s ordinance, including reusables for dine in, it will be the responsibility of city staff to do both education as well as enforcement around those specific requirements that go beyond the county’s ordinance. She stated that, if there is an opportunity for collaborating on specific education and outreach, they would be happy to do it, but if it does require additional funding for the county if they have to adjust their collateral, they would be looking towards the city to provide that additional difference.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if she thought the county may be adjusting their ordinance, as she mentioned that Daly City and Redwood City already have that additional ordinance, and they are two of the largest cities in the county. He asked if she sees the county adjusting their ordinance to require that.

Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim stated that, at this time, no, but added that they haven’t taken off considering these requirements in the future. She stated that the timing for them is not quite right because it has been a very challenging last few years because of Covid and other more recent challenges such as the supply chain issue they are having, pace with inflation and yields higher food costs for restaurants and there has already been a shortage of labor and the restaurant and food industry have been hit hard the last few years. The County is looking to focus on the existing requirements and the roll out. The successful implementation of existing requirements for both local as well as the new state requirements that just came out before adding on additional requirements on top of that. She reiterated that they haven’t taken that off the table but when things get better in the future, which she thinks they will, that will be a better time for the city to reevaluate and consider and explore other options, including potentially a reasonable requirement.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to ask a clarifying question for either Mgmt. Analyst Barranti or Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim. He referred to the dine in at Half Moon Bay and Daly City, and asked if it was a mandatory part of their ordinance or is it optional.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti stated that it was optional, adding that Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim could chime in if she wanted to.

2.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 February 28, 2022
Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim stated that, for Half Moon Bay and Daly City, they did adopt a reasonable requirement but if they look at the language inserted into the ordinance, the city staff left it very open to interpretation to give food facilities a little bit more flexibility. She stated that both cities were very strategic, and the specific phrase they used in their ordinance was “where practicable, food facilities shall use reusable instead of disposable food ware”. She stated that they have it as a requirement because they use the word shall, but the phrase where practicable leaves it very flexible and open to interpretation.

Councilmember Vaterlaus also likes to eat her meals on plates with silverware but she thinks that they could make it voluntary for the time being since we won’t have any grant money to support it or enforce it. She thinks that later on, if the county changes and decides to help us out in that matter, we could make it mandatory. She also thinks that restaurants have suffered through Covid and some are barely hanging on. If they have to do the additional expense of going out and buying additional serve ware, she thought it could be an issue now. She knows we are supposed to be over but we are not over the Covid crisis yet and she would support the mandatory use in restaurants until things get a little bit better.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she would like to see them add the reusable amendment that Daly City and Half Moon Bay included in theirs at a minimum. She stated that, for all the reasons stated by Ms. Lim, she thinks putting burdens on our restaurants now isn’t a good idea, but she wondered if there was a way to have a different deadline or some other kind of process so it is clear that is where they are going, and she didn’t like the idea in a way that it was phrased as being optional. She stated that legally, wherever practicable, probably has some legal definition but it does mean optional and she knows the City Manager was expressing concerns in the staff report about cost for the city to enforce as we don’t have staff for that. She wants to see them do this, but she wasn’t sure that now is the right time. She was looking for guidance from staff on how they can get to that. She asked if that is a goal setting issue, and didn’t know what the right answer is, but she was not comfortable leaving it as they are not going to do it, but didn’t see it at all where practicable to add some language at this time and have a deadline or implementation date of October 1, 2022 as it doesn’t make sense to her. She was looking for help from staff and the city attorney on how they can move forward.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that, since it is an optional item, it is over and above the county’s model, as well as the state requiring it, and the city attorney can correct her if she is wrong, but she believes Council would also have the flexibility to select a reasonable enforcement date of when they need to have their reusables purchased and being used, and if October is too soon, she thought a date in 2023, if Council feels it is appropriate to be selected.

Mayor Bier appreciated that language as she thought we need to do everything we can for our climate, and they need to get plastics out and help the restaurants to be able to do the reusable food service and she thought they mentioned that there is some money available for that.

Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim stated that they have a small pot of money set aside to help impacted food facilities switch to reusables and voluntary to go beyond the county’s ordinance.

She also wants to be transparent in that it is not a bucket list of money and they have a set amount of money and have to allocate a specific percent to each of partner jurisdictions so that every jurisdiction has an allocation and can tap that bucket. She stated that, if a city chooses to supplement their allocation for that bucket, they could work with the city partners to augment to increase that amount specifically for their food facilities.

2.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 February 28, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that she would be in favor of doing exactly what Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister just described and having the language for the reusable food service and then giving it a later date for implementation.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wanted clarification, asking if they are saying it would be a later date and would be mandatory. He then asked Councilmembers what later date would seem appropriate.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated June 2023.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was in favor of that.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are looking at asking restaurants if they want to spend money to do parklets, etc. and he was for the reusables but, as someone said, staffing is going to be harder because they have to wash the dishes instead of throwing them out. He thinks June 2023 looks good, and if the world is in the chaos it is now then, they can always amend it and change it but he won’t be there.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he can ask them from down there.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he won’t be there at midnight asking them.

Mayor Bier asked if they can have a motion or is there more.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that she can read a revised recommended action 1 for consideration.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that it would be most helpful before they get a motion. She stated that, in the event they do want to include that additional language, what would that language look like.

Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that she did not have the specific language for the ordinance written but she was going to say is amend recommended action 1 to state “ move to introduce by title only and waive the first 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, with the addition of including a provision to require reusables for dine in customers within an effective date of June 2023 and finding the ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they need to amend that motion slightly, as the motion is to move by title only and waive further reading of Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Article 4, reading the title with the following amendment to be prepared by staff and then the language that Asst.

City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister just stated. She stated that Council is not making the amendment to the title but introducing and waiving the first reading of the ordinance identified in Section 1 of the recommended action as amended by Council in accordance with statements made by staff. She stated that will give them authority to go ahead and make the changes that they will see in the second reading.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated so moved; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

2.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 February 28, 2022
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that the motion they want to include is Item 2 as well regarding the memorandum of understanding.

City Attorney Kenyon asked if she was saying she wants to make it one motion. She thought it was easier to make it two separate motions, dealing with Motion1 first and then Motion 2.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (Item #11-1, as AMENDED)
AGENDA ITEM #11-1:

RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved 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; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (Item #11-2)
AGENDA ITEM #11-2:

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Mike O’Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Councilmember O’Neill stated that it was 11:50 p.m. and they have two more items on the agenda.

He asked if they want to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.

Mayor Bier asked if that will give them enough time for both items, and suggested pushing Item 12 or is it time sensitive.

City Manager stated he would bring Director Petersen or Assoc. Civil Engineer Marquez on to speak to the time sensitivity of that. He thought it was slightly time sensitive, but he has an alternative recommendation that Item 13 which includes two parts, and one is just to confirm their return to in person in March and the other it to talk about the Council Chambers versus Community Center, etc., and they can choose to have the second part of that item at the next meeting to speed up the situation, but they want to get a confirmation about the first part of item 13.

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.

2.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 February 28, 2022
Vote: 4-1 (No: Vaterlaus) (extend meeting to 12:30 a.m.)

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.

Assoc. Civil Engineer Marquez began the staff report, then turned it over to Neil Nichols of Moffatt & Nichols to continue the presentation.

Neil Nichols of Moffatt & Nichols continued the presentation.

Assoc. Civil Engineer Marquez completed the presentation.

Mayor Bier opened public comments, limiting comments to two minutes.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that he often walks on the beach in Pacific Manor and he mentioned the ramp erosion and rock revetment disappearing and asked question regarding how long Option 2 would last.

Kimberly Williams stated she is with the San Mateo County Chapter of Surf Rider. She stated that they will be submitting written comments, but she expressed her concerns about rock revetment, etc., and mentioned Coastal Commission recommendations regarding the coastal trails, and her group was encouraging Pacifica to do longer term planning, mentioning some specifics..

Christine Boles, Pacifica, objected to this item being on the agenda, and voiced her concerns about the process for public engagement, as well as damages that may be Coastal Act violations, and asked several questions of concern.

Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated that this was a complicated issue, and expressed her concerns on the issue and impacts on residents, as well as need for moving infrastructure in their plan.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated she was also disappointed to have an important item on late at night. She recognized there are a lot of things that need to take place, and agreed with Mr.

Williams’ comments as this is an important issue needing long term solutions.

Mayor Bier closed public comments. She then agreed that it was too late in the evening to talk about this as there is so much information that has to go out to the public.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked Assoc. Civil Engr. Marquez if he can clarify the timeline and the urgency on this item so they have a better understanding why it is before them at this time.

Assoc. Civil Engr. Marquez stated that the schedule was laid out for them to come back at this time with the report and the urgency was to keep on their timeline for grant funding and they expect us to move things forward with progress and, if they don’t, there is the possibility of losing the grant funding.

2.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 February 28, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that he gave a rough timeline earlier on work that could begin in April and she asked if they had any idea on the timing of the work in terms of cycles wave action, etc., and whether there is a window where they are trying to get work done and what would the impacts be of delaying this item.

Assoc. Civil Engr. Marquez stated that he apologized for not touching on the schedule of construction. He stated that, with most of the coastal work, they want to avoid winter if possible.

He stated that, if they move forward with alternative 2, the proposed work at the bottom of the bluff would be minimal compared to some other alternatives. He stated that, if they are delayed and a subsequent selection of a different alternative happens down the line, he could push it out, and if they miss a season, it could be a full year.

Mr. Nichols stated that he didn’t have anything to add. He stated that the revetment is performing now. He stated that the urgency of doing something that is potentially already there to a good degree, the actual construction work will be minimal.

Dilip Trivedi of Moffatt & Nichol added that the rock is there and is providing protection and work has to be done in the summer if it was a different alternative. He stated that the minimal amount of work being considered, and as mentioned by the public speakers, there is a natural winnowing of the smaller rock away from the revetment and there is some amount of patchwork of re-orienting and reconfiguring the rock itself. He stated that much of the work would have to happen next summer in 2023, given the timing of the CEQA document. He stated that this was an emergency temporary permission granted by the Coastal Commission. He stated that this process is trying to make that construction permanent, and is not new construction. If the Commission were to agree to the recommended alternative, it would be to make previous emergency work permanent. He stated that, if a different alternative, the timing is associated with the CEQA document. He heard the comment about public engagement, and he stated that it will begin after the CEQA document starts, and there would public comment, notification and lots of opportunity for Pacificans to chime in.

PW Director Petersen stated that this is related to an emergency maintenance repair, and this is just a process that they are moving the project forward to try to get to the permanent repairs. She stated that, at this point, they are trying to get to a point where they can complete all the environmental work to get it in front of the Coastal Commission and have the conversations. She stated that everyone knows this conversation often takes a long time and it was important for them to keep moving the projects forward because they can be so lengthy and they continue to have the storms and other coastal issues. She reiterated that they want to be sure they are moving their emergency maintenance repairs forward and this is a different project from the Beach Boulevard infrastructure resiliency project, but a maintenance project. She stated that they need to make sure they are providing and the goal for the city in this project is to be providing some support for the city infrastructure in that area, and it is an emergency repair and they want to move it forward so they can continue on their timeline and be sure they continue moving forward with the grant department to become grant funded for this project. She stated that it is important to show that movement.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:45 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

2.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 35 February 28, 2022
Vote: 4-1 (No: Vaterlaus) (extend meeting to 12:45 a.m.) Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve the 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report and direct staff to proceed with conceptual design of preferred alternative; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, before he casts his vote, he did not like doing it at this hour in this way without any opportunity to ask questions, adding that the point is well taken that they will have a robust public conversation later.

Vote: 4-1 (No: Bier) (Item #12)
AGENDA ITEM #12:

RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
NAYS: Bier

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.

City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report.

Councilmember O’Neill asked clarification that, by phone in, the chambers will be open for people to sit as well as phone in.

City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill also asked clarification that they would be live-streamed on Channel 26 but no Zoom for people to click on to talk.

City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speaker.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated he was disappointed that the Zoom option would not be available, as he didn’t think we will be completely out of the pandemic and thought it would be nice to have the in person, as well as the Zoom option.

2.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 36 February 28, 2022
Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked why we are not going to do the Zoom option.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that a video and phone hybrid model, such as the Zoom and in person combined, sometimes called room and Zoom would require significant technology improvements at the Council Chamber and ongoing cost and staffing necessary to implement that. He stated that we are not like other cities that have more contemporary technology and/or staffing available to run that kind of a system. He stated that months ago, Council directed the phone in hybrid instead of the room and Zoom based on that information.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they were to approve the improvements to Council Chambers as outlined in the staff report,
City Manager Woodhouse asked if they were discussing the whole thing.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he would rather not discuss that, and just decide person or no person phone on March 14.

Mayor Bier agreed.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was okay coming back on March 14 with phone in.

Mayor Bier asked where they are going to have the meeting.

City Manager Woodhouse stated the Council Chambers.

Councilmember O’Neill stated it’s the last hurrah.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked how the mayor feels about going to the Council Chambers to discuss making improvements without making improvements to Council Chambers before they do that.

Mayor Bier stated it was backwards.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck preferred to go back to in person if he doesn’t have to wear a mask. He wants to be audible and be able to hear everyone else. He asked how long it would take to get Council Chambers prepared if they were to do those minor renovations.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, depending on the renovations that they are directed, with the report talking about painting, removing wallpaper, carpeting, window replacement and designing and reconstructing the dais. He stated that there were different timelines for pieces of those as they didn’t know precisely. He thought some of those, such as carpeting and painting might be several months, but redesigning and reconstructing the dais would be longer as it involves electrical permitting and, depending on the cost, a percentage of associated ADA improvements to the Council Chambers. He stated that it is a many months timeline. He added that all of that work and the analysis of changing Council meeting locations is not something that staff has the bandwidth to make happen and they will need to re-prioritize in order to make changes. He stated what they don’t need to reprioritize is just going back to the Council Chambers now in terms of staff impact.

2.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 37 February 28, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that, if they go back in person on March 14, they will have to go back to Zoom for a month or so because of construction.

City Manager Woodhouse stated they would not, as most of that construction can be done like they did improvements to the Council Chambers before, in between Council meetings. Even construction of a new dais, if that is directed, would be designed and constructed off site and they could set up a temporary type of dais.

Councilmember O’Neill thought that was fine for Council, but he asked about Planning Commission on the Monday nights when Council is not meeting.

City Manager Woodhouse thought the same thing can happen, as that was what they did before.

They will work the schedule to fit it in. He stated that the windows would be an important thing, but some of the walls would be painted but the whole thing would not be painted and they would have a Council or Planning Commission meeting. He stated that they will work to figure it out. If there was a critical conflict, they could do one meeting down at the Community Center or some alternative location. He stated that, once they are back in person, he would recommend not bouncing back and forth between remote and in person. He stated that it also depends on the state guidelines related to Brown Act that could potentially change or other legislation that might be considered that they will have to track.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he isn’t voting for another extension and it is 12:36 a.m.

Mayor Bier asked if they have a motion.

Councilmember O’Neill moved that they go back to Council Chambers as is for in person and phone in on March 14; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 3-2 (Noes: Beckmeyer, Bier) (Item #13-1)
AGENDA ITEM #13-1:

RESULT: ADOPTED [3 TO 2]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus
NAYS: Bier, Beckmeyer
City Manager Woodhouse asked if they need a motion for continuing the second part of the conversation.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to continue the second part of this, the improvements to the Council Chambers; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (continue Item #13-2)

2.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 38 February 28, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if he could ask Councilmember Beckmeyer a question before they adjourn.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that the action is concluded, and she asked if he was asking a question on this particular item, because the action was taken and, if you want to make more statements, you can make clarifying statements on your vote, but in terms of questions, she believes that period has passed.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if he can ask her a clarifying question about her vote.

City Attorney Kenyon stated he could not.

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 12:39 a.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of February 28, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (4915 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED 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.

STAFF CONTACT:

Sam Bautista, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works
650-738-3767
[email protected]
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On January 22, 2016, the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency along the Pacifica coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard due to El Nino storm activity. Extreme wave heights for extended periods of time caused top-of-bluff retreat at several locations along the Pacifica coast and damage to City infrastructure. Since this date, the Director of Emergency Services has proclaimed the existence of other local emergencies along this same stretch of coastline. These emergencies are described below:
• Failure of the sea wall and promenade on Beach Blvd. (in the vicinity of Santa Maria Avenue), which have been repaired, from the January 22, 2016, storm. • The 300 & 400 block of Esplanade experience episodic bluff erosion. In recent years (2016-2018), the bluff erosion has progressed to a point where the erosion is now threatening public infrastructure and utilities.
• Undermining of a seven-foot diameter storm drain outfall and concrete headwall for the discharge of Milagra Creek into the Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of 700 Palmetto Avenue from the January 22, 2016, storm. Construction is scheduled to restart in February of 2021 due to project delays.
• A failure of the seawall and promenade on Beach Blvd. in the vicinity of Santa Rosa Avenue and the Pier was discovered on December 16, 2020. Ocean waves, king tides, and high swells undermined a portion of the sea wall and created a large void (25’x25”) between the pier abutment seawall connection, affecting the sidewalk and promenade.

City staff and contractors stabilized and repaired the large void on January 22, 2021.

The sidewalk and promenade restoration were completed on February 22, 2021.

Monitoring of the repaired area is on-going.
3 Packet Pg. 138
Pacifica City Council 2
March 14, 2022
• On December 29, 2020, another failure of the seawall occurred approximately 150-200 feet north of the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Santa Rosa Avenue. A void, approximately 10’ deep by 15’ long, was found behind the seawall and was repaired with geotextiles and concrete slurry on January 5, 2021. Full restoration of this section was complete in February 2021. Monitoring of the repaired area is on-going. • On January 14, 2021, a combination of high tides and large waves damaged a forty-foot section of the Pacifica Municipal Pier’s west facing deck and concrete railing. Following this event, the Pier was closed due to safety concerns. City staff requested a structural engineering assessment of the above deck pier elements and a proposed repair and associated cost from a local engineering consultant. This information was provided to the City by the end of March 2021. The pier was reopened on April 2, 2021, but the damaged portion was fenced off for safety reasons. The City is currently moving forward with a repair project and is designing the repair. Construction will be funded by grant money provided through a Senate Bill 129. The City Council approved a resolution on December 13, 2021, to approve the application of the state grant funds for the repair of the pier and the application has been sent to the State Department of Parks and Recreation for processing. The repair project is anticipated to be released for bidding in the summmer of 2022.

The City Council first ratified this proclamation (Attachment 1) at its regular meeting of January 25, 2016. Since that date, additional damage had occurred along Beach Boulevard and Esplanade Avenue as noted above.

Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on January 25, 2016, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency exists within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard every 30 days with February 14, 2022, being the most recent.

The City is using a combination of city staff, contractors, and consultants to manage the discussed emergency work. Staff will bring recommendations to the Council to end the emergency designation for projects on the list once conditions stabilize and the projects are no longer in need of the emergency designation.

The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
City Clerk
3 Packet Pg. 139
Pacifica City Council 3
March 14, 2022
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline From Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (PDF)
3 Packet Pg. 140
"ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline From Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (4903 :
"ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline From Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (4903 :

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED 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.

STAFF CONTACT:

Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works / City Engineer (650) 738-3771
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a report regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at Pacifica State Beach. After Public Works staff investigated the report, it was determined that the storm drain pumping system and roof/bathrooms were damaged during the fire. The engines were destroyed, and the pumps needed to be replaced.

The damage to the pump station threatened and continues to threaten the safety of persons and properties within the watershed due to the risk of flooding without an operational pump station.

The City of Pacifica’s Emergency Plan and Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empower the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, to proclaim the existence of a local emergency when there is an actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and properties within this City.

The proclamation is subject to ratification by the City Council within 7 days, pursuant to the Pacifica Municipal Code. The proclamation of the existence of a local emergency further designates the City Manager or designated representative to act on behalf of the City for public assistance and for individual assistance for purpose of receipt, processing and coordination of all inquiries and requirements necessary to obtain available State and Federal assistance.

Additionally, pursuant to Section 3-15.09 (A) of the Pacifica Municipal Code, in cases of an emergency the City Manager is authorized to proceed at once to replace or repair any public facility without adopting plans, specifications, or working details, or giving notice for bids to let contracts. The City must comply with Public Contract Code Section 22050, which provides a process for City Council’s review of the emergency action if notice of bids to let contracts for public projects will not be given because of the emergency.

In this case, the City Manager has determined that the damaged pump station threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure, which 4 Packet Pg. 143
Pacifica City Council 2
March 14, 2022
requires immediate attention and constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code Section 1102.

Such conditions are, or are likely to be, beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency design and repair pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-15.09 without giving notice for bids to let contracts. Immediate action is, and continues to be necessary, due to the clear and imminent danger presented by any storm event that could occur during the time the storm water pump station is non-functional. Flooding could occur to areas upstream of the pump station, causing health and safety issues, as well as extensive property damage. As such, on April 8, 2020, the City Manager did proclaim the existence of a local emergency within the City and the need to continue the emergency action continues as the repair will take approximately 8-14 months or longer. The Proclamation of Local Emergency is attached to this staff report as Attachment 1.

City staff has contracted with the civil engineering firm of Schaaf & Wheeler of San Jose, California to assist the City with the rehabilitation of the pump station. In addition, the pump station has been cleared of any fire damaged debris and the damaged pumps/engines have been removed. On July 13, 2020, the City Council approved construction services agreement for rebuild and re-installation of a pump and gear drive, the renovation of bathrooms, purchase and installation of new stainless-steel doors, and repair pump station wet-well grates. As part of the on-going maintenance for the pump station, staff purchased a new pump which was approved by the Council at the August 9, 2020 City Council meeting. An emergency purchase agreement with Herc Rental for a temporary rental engine was also approved on September 1, 2020 and will remain in place until the pump station is operational. On October 12, 2020, temporary measures were completed to allow for a non-standard system of pumping at the Anza Pump Station until final repairs are completed. This work included a new pump, transfer switch, temporary roof, portable generator connections, and exterior double doors have been installed. Staff is continuing to evaluate and monitor storm water flows and purchased two new sump pumps to accommodate flows.

On May 10, 2021, City Council approved the purchase of two new Caterpillar engines utilizing the City’s established Sourcewell Cooperative Purchase Agreement. The rehabilitation plan is currently 100% completed, and staff has completed the engineering review. The roofing plan was approved by the Building Department. Staff has also completed selection of the Construction Management firm which was from the established On-Call Construction Management list. Staff is in the process of discussing permitting requirements for the overall project with the California Coastal Commission.

Staff completed the field portion of a topographic survey to support a PG&E application to reestablish natural gas service at the Anza Pump Station to supply the natural gas to run the prepurchased natural gas engines to drive the pumps. The City entered into an agreement with PG&E to tap the gas main and install a new gas meter. The City has also engaged a gas pipeline contractor for a quotation on installing the gas service line from the gas main to the gas meter. In addition, the City has submitted the Caltrans Encroachment Permit application required for gas service line construction on Highway 1 and has obtained a separate emergency Coastal Development Permit request with the California Coastal Commission for installation of the new gas line and a redundant pump/engine that was approved.

During a storm event on the morning of December 16, 2021, the City experienced some flooding in the lower Linda Mar area due to the temporary nonstandard pumping system that has been in use at Anza pump station due to the fire damaged pump station engines in March of 2020. This temporary system has been in place because the City has been working to reach 4 Packet Pg. 144
Pacifica City Council 3
March 14, 2022
agreement with the California Coastal Commission on the remaining permitting requirements for the permanent pumping system. The City faced several significant stormwater related events from October 2021 through December 2021 and will face more with the continuing storm season. Replacement of this temporary system is considered an emergency and staff is moving forward with construction of the permanent system. To further improve operations between now and when the Anza Pump Station Repair Project is completed, the City recently purchased a small diesel engine that will be used to drive one of the existing smaller stormwater pumps, thereby improving pump station resiliency in the interim. Staff issued a public request to prequalify bidders for the Anza Pump Station project in December 2021. Ultimately, two contractors submitted pre-qualification submissions and both contractors were deemed qualified to bid on the project. Both contactors submitted bids for the project in February of 2022. The contractors specialize in pump stations and can perform the station repairs to roof. Staff has reviewed the bids, along with the City’s insurance adjustor and staff plans to bring forward to the Council on March 28, 2022 an item to award a contract for the repair to the lowest responsive bidder, DW Nicholson, for $2,326,000.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on April 13, 2020, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency at the Anza Pump Station every 30 days with February 14, 2022, being the most recent.

The City is using a combination of city staff, consultants, and contractors to manage the emergency work related to the Anza Pump Station repair project. The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach. Staff will continue to update the Council on the progress of this emergency work monthly through the emergency declaration Council reports
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to continue this local emergency.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (PDF)
4 Packet Pg. 145
RESOLUTION NO. 19-2020

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY AT THE

ANZA PUMP STATION AT THE PACIFICA STATE BEACH
______________________________________________________
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.05 of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) designate the City Manager as the Director of Emergency Services; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 4-2.05(a) empower the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when said city is affected or likely to be affected by an emergency, subject to ratification by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.02 of the PMC defines "emergency" as the “actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within this City caused by such conditions as earthquake, hazardous materials, plane crash, landslide, tsunami, epidemic, flood, riot, fire, or other conditions, including conditions resulting from a labor controversy, which conditions are or are likely to be beyond the capability of control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of this City, requiring the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat”; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to confirmation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, on Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a report regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach; and WHEREAS, after Public Works staff investigated the report, it was determined that the storm drain pumping system was damaged during the fire and that the engine and the motors would need to be replaced; and
WHEREAS, the damage to this pump station threatens the safety of persons and properties within the watershed due to the risk of flooding that can occur without an operational pump station; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that the damaged pump station threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure due to the risk of flooding and requires immediate attention and repair and as such constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code section 1102; and WHEREAS, such conditions are beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency repair pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-15.09 without giving notice for bids to let contract,

4.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (4905 : Continuance pursuant to Public Contract Code 22050; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2020, the City Manager, in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of local emergency in the City of Pacifica, after determining that the damaged condition of the Anza Pump Station is likely to create conditions of disaster or extreme peril which will be beyond the services, personnel and equipment and facilities of the City; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 4-2.05(a) the City Council must take action to confirm the proclamation within 7 and in accordance with Public Contract Code section 22050 which requires confirmation by 2/3 of Council within 14 days of the emergency action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said Proclamation of Existence of Local Emergency, as issued by said City Manager in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, which is attached hereto as Attachment “A”, is hereby ratified and approved by the City of Pacifica City Council.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said local emergency is confirmed to exist and shall be deemed to continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Pacifica.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during the existence of this local emergency, the powers, functions and duties of the Director of Emergency Services, and the emergency organization of the City of Pacifica shall be those prescribed by state law, by the existing ordinances and resolutions of the City of Pacifica, as well as this resolution and any subsequent emergency orders of the City Council. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of April 2020, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers: Martin, Beckmeyer, Vaterlaus, Bier, O’Neill NOES, Councilmembers: None.

ABSENT, Councilmembers: None.

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers: None.

CITY OF PACIFICA
Deirdre Martin, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

4.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (4905 : Continuance

PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to confirmation by the City Council at the earliest possible time; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, on Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a call regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach; and WHEREAS, after Public Works staff investigated, and determined that the storm drain pumping system was damaged during the fire; and
WHEREAS, the damage to the pump system threatens the safety of persons and property, including critical public infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, such conditions are or are likely to be beyond the handling capabilities of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency repair; and
WHEREAS, the City provides this written notification to the San Mateo County and State CalEMA’s Regional and Headquarter offices of a proclamation of local emergency; and WHEREAS, such proclamation shall be subject to confirmation by the Pacifica City Council at the earliest possible time.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that, in accordance with State Law and the City of Pacifica Municipal Code, the Director of Emergency Services proclaims the existence of a local emergency for the Anza Pump Station.

DATED: April 8, 2020
By:_____________________________
Kevin Woodhouse
Director of Emergency Services
Attachment 1

4.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (4905 : Continuance

4.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (4905 : Continuance

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On March 16, 2020, the City Manager, acting in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to PMC 4-2.05(a) and executed the "Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19")" ("Proclamation"). On March 18, 2020, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 18-2020 to ratify the Proclamation of local emergency due to COVID-19 (Attachment 1). The City’s Proclamation was sent to San Mateo County Offices of Emergency Services and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) and allows the City to seek state and federal funds relating to the emergency.

This proclamation of local emergency was based on the following findings.

BACKGROUND:

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. On January 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a Public Health Emergency for the United States of America. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) determined the virus presents a serious public health threat, requiring coordination among state and local health departments to ensure readiness for potential health threats associated with the virus.

On March 3, 2020 both the Director of Emergency Services of the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Health Officer issued proclamations of local emergencies based on the imminent and proximate threat to public health from the introduction of COVID-19 in San Mateo County. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors ratified both proclamations on March 10, 2020.
5 Packet Pg. 150
Pacifica City Council 2
March 14, 2022
On March 4, 2020 Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for broader spread of COVID-19.

On March 11, 2020 the WHO declared a global pandemic due to the significant spread of the virus and the increased numbers of confirmed cases worldwide.

On March 13, 2020, then President Donald J. Trump issued a Proclamation Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak finding that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constituted a national emergency, beginning as of March 1, 2020.

As of June 15, 2021, the California Governor terminated the Executive Orders that put into place the Stay Home Order and the Blueprint for a Safer Economy, and also phased out the majority of executive actions put in place since March 2020 as part of the pandemic response, leaving a subset of provisions in place that facilitate the ongoing recovery. Governor’s Orders currently in effect are N-07-21 and N-08-21, both adopted on June 11, 2021.

The California State Public Health Officer issued a new Order on June 11, 2021 to be effective June 15, 2021, which supercedes all prior State health orders. Restrictions that ended on June 15, 2021 include: physical distancing, capacity limits on businesses and the County tier system.

Starting on June 15, 2021, California reopened the economy and the state moved beyond the Blueprint for a Safer Economy system. All sectors listed in the current Blueprint returned to usual operations based on general public health recommendations. Starting on June 15, capacity and distancing restrictions were lifted for most businesses and activities.

In March 2020, the City closed public access to many City facilities, consistent with the State and County health orders in effect at that time. City operations continued with adjusted programs and services, staffing levels and modified operations to support a predominantly remote work model in order to protect public safety and to limit the potential for exposure to the COVID-19 virus. The City has further modified its operations and guidelines based on the orders and guidelines that went into effect on June 15, 2021.

Governor’s Executive Order N-08-21 continues modifications of the Brown Act to allow for local legislative bodies to hold meetings via teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, and supersedes the provisions previously set forth in Executive Order N-29-20, paragraph 3. These provisions of Executive Order N-08-21, subsection 42 shall apply though September 30, 2021.

On August 2, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo issued Order No. C19-12 mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, with limited exceptions. This Order was issued due to evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant circulating in San Mateo County. This variant is highly transmissible in indoor settings. San Mateo County Health Order No. C19-12 was ordered effective at 12:01 am on August 3, 2021 and will continue to be in effect until extended, rescinded, superseded, or amended in writing by the Health Officer.

On September 16, 2021, Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) was signed by the Governor and went into effect immediately upon signature as urgency legislation (codified under Government Code § 54953). AB 361 amends the Brown Act to provide additional provisions that allow meetings of 5 Packet Pg. 151
Pacifica City Council 3
March 14, 2022
legislative bodies to be conducted via teleconference.

Order No. C19-12 issued on August 2, 2021 by the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings remains in effect. The City's current practices at City facilities conform to the Health Order currently in effect.

In late November 2021, a new concerning COVID-19 variant was discovered and identified as the Omicron variant. The Omicron variant spreads rapidly even amongst some vaccinated individuals.

In December 2021, in response to the rapid spread of the Omicron variant, the California Department of Public Health issued guidance requiring masking indoors through January 15, 2022. This requirement was subsequently extended to February 15, 2022.

On January 8, 2002, the California Department of Public Health issued Updated Guidance for Local Health Jurisdictions on Isolation and Quarantine of the General Public (Link). This guidance updates isolation and quarantine recommendations in alignment with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recommends additional mitigation measures to exit isolation and quarantine, and clarifies that fully-vaccinated persons who are booster-eligible, but have not yet received their booster dose are now recommended to quarantine per updated CDC recommendations. The San Mateo County Health Department may adopt stricter guidance but has not done so as of the date of this report.

With COVID-19 case rates subsiding in early February 2022, on February 9, 2022, the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that San Mateo County would align with the state in lifting its indoor mask mandate for vaccinated persons beginning February 16, 2022.

CURRENT ANALYSIS:

Effective March 1, 2022, the State revised its mask mandate requirement such that unvaccinated individuals are no longer required to mask in indoor public settings; however, it is strongly recommended that all persons, regardless of vaccine status, continue indoor masking.

Universal masking shall remain required in specified high-risk settings such as public transportation; health care settings; congregate settings; long term care facilities; and in K-12 schools and childcare settings. After March 11, 2022, the universal masking requirement for K12 and Childcare settings will terminate.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None by this action; however, continuation of the local emergency will facilitate the ability for the City to request resources including financial support and reimbursement from the State Office of Emergency Services (OES) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for costs incurred in preparation and/or response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
5 Packet Pg. 152
Pacifica City Council 4
March 14, 2022
Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 153

5.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4922 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4922 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4922 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4922 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4922 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4922 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Notice of Completion for the Emergency Sewer Repairs - SF RV Park RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Emergency Sewer Repairs - SF RV Park Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

STAFF CONTACT:

Nelson Schlater, P.E., Senior Wastewater Engineer
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E., DPW Deputy Director/City Engineer
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On Thursday, August 5, 2021, Public Works Wastewater Division was conducting routine maintenance on the 12-inch sewer main near 700 Palmetto Avenue. During the routine maintenance, the Public Works Wastewater Division staff discovered approximately an eightyfoot section of the 12-inch sewer main to be sagging and corroded. Upon further investigation, it was determined that the damage to the 12-inch sewer main was in danger of collapsing which would have created a hazardous condition, including the potential for sanitary sewer overflows and the potential to threaten the safety of persons and property, including critical public infrastructure. Such conditions were beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities. Therefore, an outside contractor was engaged to conduct an emergency repair; and a Proclamation of Local Emergency was declared on August 12, 2021. The local emergency proclamation was ratified by the City Council on the 23rd day of August, 2021.

To address this local emergency, the City entered into an agreement with Pacific Trenchless Inc. on September 8, 2021. The Project included: open trench installation of 98 LF of 12” PVC SDR 26 open trench sewer replacement of existing line; pipe-bursting installation of 180 LF of existing 12” sanitary sewer employing 12” HDPE DR; and installation of a new 5-ft diameter manhole. The award amount was $144,740. The final contractor construction cost for the project was $142,790. The local emergency proclamation was terminated by the City Council on the 27th day of September, 2021.

As the project is now complete and staff is satisfied with the contractor’s work on the project, it 6 Packet Pg. 160
Pacifica City Council 2
March 14, 2022
is appropriate to record the formal Notice of Completion with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office. This recorded document is the legal notice that the City considers the project complete and that we intend to pay the contractor for the full and complete contract price. This also puts all subcontractors and suppliers on notice that if they have any claims for payment from the contractor, they have 30 days to file claims for payment against the City. This provision of contract law protects subcontractors from contractors who may not pay them properly. It also protects the City from claims regarding any nonpayment on the behalf of the contractor. The City withheld 5% of the contract amount, $7,139.50, as retention to make sure that all subcontractors and suppliers have been paid. The City will release the retention if no claims are received.

The City Manager is recommending the adoption of the attached resolution accepting completion of the project and the filing of the Notice of Completion (Attachment “A”) with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to adopt the resolution accepting completion of the project, but as the work has been satisfactorily completed, the contractor may file a claim against the City for nonpayment of retention if there are no claims.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Adoption of the resolution accepting completion of the project is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes improving the sewer collection system and would help eliminate Sanitary Sewer Overflows.
• Maintaining a Safe Community: includes protecting people, property, businesses, and our wastewater infrastructure
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the filing of the Notice of Completion. Project funding was available from the Wastewater Enterprise Capital Fund 34. The final total construction cost amounted to $142,790.00, which is within Council’s approved project budget of $144,740.00.

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Wastewater Enterprise Capital Fund 34 (Construction) $ 144,740.00 Total Source of Funds $ 144,740.00
Actual Construction Cost $ ( 142,790.00)
Total Use of Funds $ ( 142,790.00)
Estimated Project End Balance $ 1,950.00
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A_Emergency Sewer Repair - SF RV Park NOC (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 161
Pacifica City Council 3
March 14, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

ACCEPTING COMPLETION AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE

NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE EMERGENCY SEWER REPAIRS - SF RV PARK PROJECT (C005J)
_____________________________________________________________________ RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that WHEREAS, the City Engineer of the said City has filed with the City Clerk of said City, his Certificate as to the completion of all of the work provided to be done under and pursuant to the contract between said City and Pacific Trenchless Inc. on September 8, 2021, and
WHEREAS, it appears to the satisfaction of this Council that said work under said contract has been fully completed as provided in said contract and the plans and specifications therein referred to,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered as follows:

1. That acceptance of completion of said work be, and it is hereby, made and ordered.

2. That the City Manager is directed to file for record with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo, Notice of Completion thereof, pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 14th day of March 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
____________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ __________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 6 Packet Pg. 162

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

CITY OF PACIFICA

EMERGENCY SEWER REPAIRS- SF RV PARK PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California, by Segundo S. Bautista, City Engineer of the City of Pacifica, California, that the contract awarded to Pacific Trenchless, Inc. on September 8, 2021, has been completed in accordance with the bid documents for said work filed with the City Clerk, and approved by the City Council of said City.

That said work and improvements were actually completed on the 22 th day of
November 2021 and that acceptance of completion of said work was ordered by the City Council of said City, adopted on the 14
th day of March 2022, and that the name of
the surety on the contractor's bond for labor and materials on said project is Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland.

That said work consisted of the construction of open cut replacement and pipebursting of 12-inch diameter sanitary sewer, new manhole, and supporting work.

Name and address of Owner: City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, California 94044
Segundo S. Bautista, P.E.

City Engineer

VERIFICATION
The undersigned states that he is the City Engineer of the City of Pacifica and that he makes this verification on behalf of said entity; that he has read the foregoing, and knows the contents thereof, and that the facts stated therein are true.

Segundo S. Bautista, P.E.

City Engineer
Executed at Pacifica, California, on________________ 2022.

ATTACHMENT "A" 6.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment A_Emergency Sewer Repair - SF RV Park NOC (4912 : Resolution - NOC Emergency Sewer Repairs - SF RV Park)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

North Pacifica Pedestrian Improvement Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the following actions for North Pacifica Pedestrian Improvement Project:

A. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a Construction Services Agreement with DRYCO Construction, Inc. (Attachment "A") in an amount not to exceed $305,500.00 and authorize a budget authority for construction in the amount of $351,325.00, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Construction Contract amount; and
B. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 1 with 4Leaf, Inc. (Attachment "B") to provide Construction Management Services in the amount not exceed of $50,534.00 and authorize a budget authority for construction management in an amount not to exceed $55,389.00, which includes contingencies in the amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of Task Order No. 1; 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:

On October 25, 2021, the City Council approved the Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services related to the FY 2022-23 Pavement Resurfacing Project. The project will resurface streets generally in the northern part of Pacifica. As part of the FY 2022-23 Pavement Resurfacing Project, new ADA curb ramps must be installed within the limits of the project as specified in the City’s ADA Transition Plan and by federal ADA law
The North Pacifica Pedestrian Improvement Project will install 37 new ADA-compliant curb 7 Packet Pg. 164
Pacifica City Council 2
March 14, 2022
ramps, sidewalks, and other miscellaneous related work within the limits of the pavement resurfacing work. The project will be funded by Measure W and the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant.

Engineering Staff applied for and was awarded a HSIP Cycle 10 grant in the amount of $249,200 for the construction phase. The focal point of the submitted HSIP grant application was the northern area of Pacifica, namely installing pedestrian safety features such as ADAcompliant curb ramps and high-visibility crosswalk striping. The Highway Safety Improvement Program is one of the core federal-aid programs. The purpose of the HSIP program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal land. The HSIP funds are eligible for work on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail. It is the intent of the HSIP program that the HSIP funds be expended on safety projects that can be designed and constructed expeditiously.

The Project was advertised on February 9, 2022, and February 16, 2022, in accordance with the formal bid process. Twenty-seven (27) companies requested plans and specifications and seven (7) companies submitted bids. On March 3, 2022, the bid opening was held via Zoom by the City Clerk and the result is as follows:

Company Base Bid
DRYCO Construction, Inc. $ 305,500.00
Rosas Brothers Construction $ 317,200.00
JJR Construction, Inc. $ 317,961.00
Golden Bay Construction, Inc. $ 398,513.00
Kerex Engineering $ 424,900.00
Ray's Electric $ 508,450.00
MG & JC Concrete $ 602,910.00
The apparent low bidder is DRYCO Construction, Inc. with a base bid amount of $305,500.00.

All required documentation was submitted with their bid. DRYCO Construction, Inc. has performed several of the City’s projects in the past and their work has been satisfactory. 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, DRYCO Construction, Inc. In addition, a 15% contingency is recommended to allow enough funding to handle any additional improvements that are identified during construction. Staff recommends authorizing a budget authority for construction in the amount of $351,325.00, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Construction Contract amount for any unforeseen conditions.
4 Leaf, Inc. is a full-service engineering firm that specializes in local agency staff augmentation work, including construction management and inspection work. As this project is funded with HSIP federal funds and administered by Caltrans, there are special reporting requirements imposed on this project. Not only does 4 Leaf, Inc. have the expertise in construction inspection and management for this type of project, they are also familiar with the special Caltrans procedures and reporting requirements. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and 4 Leaf, Inc. for the construction management, inspections and material testing of this project in the amount of $50,534.00. Staff recommends authorizing a budget authority for construction management in an amount not to exceed $55,389.00, which includes contingencies in the amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of Task Order No. 1 for any unforeseen conditions. 7 Packet Pg. 165
Pacifica City Council 3
March 14, 2022
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to approve the construction contract and master agreement. However, this will result in project delays and possible increase in construction cost. Staff does not recommend this alternative action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

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 pedestrian network by installing ADA-compliant curb ramps.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The following is the source and use of funds for the project:

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Measure W $ 450,000.00
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant $ 249,200.00 Total Source of Funds $ 699,200.00
North Pacifica Pedestrian Improvement Project
Construction and Construction Management
$ 406,714.00
Total Use of Funds $ 406,714.00
Project End Balance $ 292,486.00
The remaining funds will go back to Street Construction Fund 09 to fund the FY 22/23 Pavement Resurfacing Project, which is scheduled to be awarded on March 28, 2022.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment "A" - Construction Contract with DRYCO Construction, Inc. (PDF) Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. (PDF)
7 Packet Pg. 166

CITY OF PACIFICA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

CONTRACT
CONTRACT NO. __________________________
THIS AGREEMENT, made and concluded, in duplicate, March 14, 2022, between the City of Pacifica thereof, party of the first part, and
DRYCO Construction, Inc.

Contractor, party of the second part.

ARTICLE I.--WITNESSETH, That for and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made and performed by the said party of the first part, and under the conditions expressed in the 2 bonds, bearing even date with these presents, and hereunto annexed, the said party of the second part agrees with the said party of the first part, at his own proper cost and expense, to do all the work and furnish all the materials, except such as are mentioned in the specifications to be furnished by said party of the first part, necessary to construct and complete in a good, workmanlike and substantial manner and to the satisfaction of the City of Pacifica , the work described in the special provisions and the project plans described below, including any addenda thereto. and also in conformance with current California Department of Transportation Standard Plans, the Standard Specifications, and the Labor Surcharge and Equipment Rental Rates in effect on the date the work is accomplished, which said special provisions, project plans, Standard Plans, Standard Specifications, and Labor Surcharge and Equipment Rental Rates are hereby specially referred to and by such reference made a part hereof.

The special provisions for the work to be done are dated February 4, 2022 and are entitled:

CITY OF PACIFICA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR

NORTH PACIFICA PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
IN

PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
The project plans for the work to be done were approved February 4, 2022 and are entitled:

CITY OF PACIFICA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

PROJECT PLANS FOR

NORTH PACIFICA PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
IN

PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT "A" 7.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Contract with DRYCO Construction, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North Pacifica Pedestrian ARTICLE II.--The said party of the first part hereby promises and agrees with the said Contractor to employ, and does hereby employ, the said Contractor to provide the materials and to do the work according to the terms and conditions herein contained and referred to, for the prices hereinafter set forth, and hereby contracts to pay the same at the time, in the manner and upon the conditions herein set forth; and the said parties for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained.

ARTICLE III.--The State general prevailing wage rates determined by the Director of Industrial Relations are hereby made a part of this contract. It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the bid or proposal of said Contractor, then this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said proposal conflicting herewith. When the project is subject to both State and Federal hourly minimum rates for wages and fringe benefits and when the two rates differ for similar kinds of labor, the Contractor shall not pay less than the higher rate. Federal wage rates can be found in Exhibit B.

ARTICLE IV.--By my signature hereunder, as Contractor, I certify that I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self insurance in conformance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.

ARTICLE V. --And the said Contractor agrees to receive and accept the following prices as full compensation for furnishing all materials and for doing all the work contemplated and embraced in this agreement; also for all loss or damage, arising out of the nature of the work aforesaid, or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the work until its acceptance by the CITY OF PACIFICA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, and for all risks of every description connected with the work; also for all expenses incurred by or in consequence of the suspension or discontinuance of work and for well and faithfully completing the work, and the whole thereof, in the manner and according to the plans and specifications, and the requirements of the Engineer under them, to wit:

ARTICLE VI. --The provisions of Form FHWA 1273 is hereby physically attached, unmodified as a part of this contract (Exhibit A). This provision applies to federal-aid contracts and all work performed by subcontracts and subsequent lower-tier subcontracts and required be physically included in each executed contract.

ARTICLE VII. -- The Minimum Federal Wage Rates Determination is hereby physically attached, in conformance with federal 10-day rule as a part of this contract (Exhibit B). This wage rate determination applies to federal-aid contracts and all work performed exceeding $2000 by subcontracts and subsequent lower-tier subcontracts and required be physically included in each executed contract.

7.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Contract with DRYCO Construction, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North Pacifica Pedestrian

BID ITEM LIST

ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT

PRICE ITEM TOTAL
1 Mobilization and Demobilization LS 1 $18,500.00 $18,500.00 2 Clearing, Grubbing and
Environmental Protection LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
3 Traffic Control and Construction
Area Signs LS 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00
4 Public Posting and Notification LS 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 5 Standard Curb and Gutter LF 323 $150.00 $48,450.00
6 PCC Curb Ramp EA 37 $4,550.00 $168,350.00
7 Additional Minor Concrete for PCC
Curb Ramps (Revocable Item) SF 1,400 $28.00 $39,200.00
TOTAL $305,500.00
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The parties to these presents have here-unto set their hands the year and date first above written

CITY OF PACIFICA
By _______________________________________
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Contractor: DRYCO Construction, Inc.

By _______________________________________
Licensed in accordance with
an act providing for the
registration of contractors,
License No. _______________________
Federal Employer Identification
Number __________________________
Approved and certified as being in conformance with the requirements of the State Contract Act. __________________________________________
Attorney, City of Pacifica
Approved Effective _______________________

7.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Contract with DRYCO Construction, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North Pacifica Pedestrian

CITY OF PACIFICA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

PAYMENT BOND
(Section 3247, Civil Code)
WHEREAS, The City of Pacifica, acting by and through the Department of Public Works, hereafter referred to as “Obligee”, has awarded to Contractor DRYCO Construction, Inc., hereafter designated as the “Principal”, a contract for the work described as follows:

AND WHEREAS, said Principal is required to furnish a bond in connection with said contract, to secure the payment of claims of laborers, mechanics, materialmen and other persons as provided by law.

NOW, THEREFORE, we the undersigned Principal and Surety are bound unto the Obligee in the sum of ______________________________________________________________________ dollars ($ ___________________), for which payment, we bind ourselves, jointly and severally.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH,
That if said Principal or its subcontractors shall fail to pay any of the persons named in Civil Code Section 3181, or amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed by such claimant, or any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Franchise Tax Board for the wages of employees of the Principal and his subcontractors pursuant to Section 18806 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, with respect to such work and labor, that the surety herein will pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, otherwise the above obligation shall be void. In case suit is brought upon this bond, the surety will pay a reasonable attorney’s fee to be fixed by the court.

This bond shall inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in Civil Code Section 3181 as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond.

Dated: ______________________________________, 20 ____
Correspondence or claims relating to this bond
should be sent to the surety at the following
address:

Principal
Surety (SEAL)
By : Attorney-in-Fact
NOTE: Signatures of those executing for the surety must be properly acknowledged.

CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
State of California
City / County of ________________________________________ SS On this _______ day of ___________________ in the year 20 ___ before me _________________________________, personally appeared
________________________________________________, personally known to me (or proved to me Attorney-in-fact
on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to this instrument as the attorney-in-fact of ________________________________________________________ and acknowledged to me that he/she subscribed the name of the said company thereto as surety, and his/her own name as attorney-in-fact.

7.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Contract with DRYCO Construction, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North Pacifica Pedestrian (SEAL) Notary Public

7.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Contract with DRYCO Construction, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North Pacifica Pedestrian

CITY OF PACIFICA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

PERFORMANCE BOND
(To Accompany Contract)
Bond No. _________________
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica, acting by and through the Department of Public Works, has awarded to Contractor DRYCO Construction, Inc., hereafter designated as the “Contractor”, a contract for the work described as follows:

AND WHEREAS, the Contractor is required to furnish a bond in connection with said contract, guaranteeing the faithful performance thereof:

NOW, THEREFORE, we the undersigned Contractor and Surety are held firmly bound to the City of Pacifica in the sum of $ _________________________________________________ dollars ($ ___________________), to be paid to said City its certain attorney, its successors and assigns: for which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors or assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH,
That if the above bound Contractor, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and agreements in the foregoing contract and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his or their part to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the City of Pacifica, its officers and agents, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become and be null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and virtue.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have hereunto set our hands and seals on this ___________ day of ________________, 20___.

Correspondence or claims relating to this bond
should be sent to the surety at the following
address:

Contractor
Name of Surety (SEAL)
By: Attorney-in-Fact
NOTE: Signatures of those executing for the surety must be properly acknowledged.

CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
State of California, City / County of ________________________________________ SS On this _______ day of ___________________ in the year 20 ___ before me _________________________________, a notary public in and for the City / County of _____________________________________________, personally appeared ________________________________________________, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to this
Attorney-in-fact
instrument and known to me to be the attorney-in-fact of _______________________________________________ and acknowledged to me that he/she subscribed the name of the said company thereto as surety, and his/her own name as attorney-in-fact.

7.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Contract with DRYCO Construction, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North Pacifica Pedestrian (SEAL)

NOTARY PUB

7.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Contract with DRYCO Construction, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North Pacifica Pedestrian OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1

MASTER AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Master Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 14th day of March, 2022, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and 4LEAF, Inc. [a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability partnership, corporation, limited liability corporation] (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY requires Construction Management, Inspections and Material Testing services in connection with the North Pacifica Pedestrian Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified to perform such services; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has agreed to provide CITY with such services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, CONSULTANT and CITY agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.1. Scope of Services. CONSULTANT agrees to furnish services pursuant to a Task Order in the form set forth in Exhibit A, Task Order, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Services").

1.2. Compliance with Law. The Services shall be performed in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders.

1.3. Time is of the Essence. CONSULTANT agrees to diligently prosecute the Services. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence.

1.4. Professional Competence. CONSULTANT represents that it has the professional skills necessary to perform the Services and that it will perform the Services in a skillful and professional manner. CONSULTANT represents that it has all the necessary licenses to perform the Services and shall maintain them throughout the term of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees that the Services shall be performed in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which CONSULTANT is engaged, in the same or similar geographical area in which CONSULTANT practices its profession, and will prepare all work products required by this Agreement in accordance with such standards. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT is in responsible charge of the Services. Acceptance by CITY of the Services does not operate as a release of CONSULTANT from professional responsibility for the Services performed.

ATTACHMENT "B"

7.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North

1.5. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an employee of CITY. CONSULTANT expressly warrants that it will not represent that it is an employee of CITY. Persons employed or utilized by CONSULTANT in the performance of the Services will not be employees or agents of CITY. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.

1.6. Confidentiality. CONSULTANT agrees to maintain in confidence and not disclose to any person, firm, governmental entity, or corporation, without CITY's prior written consent, any trade secret or confidential information, knowledge or data relating to the products, process, or operation of CITY. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain in confidence and not to disclose to any person, firm, governmental entity, or corporation any data, information, technology, or material developed or obtained by CONSULTANT during the performance of the Services. The covenants contained in this Section 1.6 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause.

1.7. Ownership of Material. Any reports and other material prepared by or on behalf of CONSULTANT under this Agreement (collectively, the "Documents") shall be and remain the property of CITY. All Documents not already provided to CITY shall be delivered to CITY on the date of termination of this Agreement for any reason. The Documents may be used by CITY and its agents, employees, representatives, and assigns, in whole or in part, or in modified form, for all purposes CITY may deem appropriate without further employment of or payment of any compensation to CONSULTANT.

1.8. Documentation. CONSULTANT shall keep and maintain full and complete documentation and accounting records, employee time sheets, and correspondence pertaining to the performance of the Services, and CONSULTANT shall make such documents available for review and/or audit by CITY and CITY's representatives at all reasonable times for at least four years after the termination of this Agreement or completion of the Services.

1.9. Testimony. CONSULTANT agrees to testify at CITY's request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with the Services. Unless the action is brought by CONSULTANT or is based upon CONSULTANT's negligence, CITY will compensate CONSULTANT for the preparation and the testimony at CONSULTANT's standard hourly rates.

ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION

2.1. Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with the rate and schedules specified in a Task Order. However, in no event shall the amount the CITY pays to CONSULTANT for work done under a Task Order exceed the total compensation specified in the Task Order (“Cost Ceiling”).

2.2. Invoices. CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices in a form satisfactory to CITY on or before the tenth day of each month for Services provided during the preceding month. CONSULTANT shall submit time and cost records as necessary to substantiate

7.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North performance of the Services. Within 35 days after receipt of each such invoice, CITY shall verify the accuracy of the invoice, correct the charges where appropriate and as discussed and mutually agreed with CONSULTANT, and make payment to CONSULTANT in an amount equal to the amount of such invoice, as verified or corrected by CITY. No payment hereunder shall be construed as evidence of acceptance of any of CONSULTANT's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONSULTANT on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in CONSULTANT's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder. CONSULTANT shall not stop or delay performance of the Services under this Agreement on account of payment disputes with CITY.

2.3. Status Reports. Together with each monthly invoice, CONSULTANT shall submit a status report detailing the amount expended on the Services to that date and the remaining amount to be expended before the Cost Ceiling is reached. CONSULTANT shall notify CITY in writing when payments have reached 90 percent of the Cost Ceiling.

2.4. Withholding. In lieu of holding retention, CITY shall withhold CONSULTANT's final payment under a Task Order until the Services provided under that Task Order are complete and CITY has received all Documents. CONSULTANT shall diligently continue and complete performance of the Services if the Services are not complete at the time CONSULTANT has performed services up to the Cost Ceiling.

ARTICLE 3 - TIME OF PERFORMANCE

3.1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the second signature and shall remain in full force and effect until December 31, 2022 (the "Term").

Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be extended for successive one-year term(s) upon mutual, written approval by the City Manager or his/her designee and CONSULTANT. Work authorized by a Task Order shall be performed in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Task Order.

3.2. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by CITY upon written notice to CONSULTANT.

3.3. Final Payment. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation for Services performed up to the time of such termination, it being understood that any payments are full compensation for the Services rendered under this Agreement.

3.4. Other Remedies. Nothing in this Article 3 shall be deemed to limit the respective rights of the parties to terminate this Agreement for cause or otherwise to exercise any rights or pursue any remedies which may accrue to them.

ARTICLE 4 - DESIGNATED CONTACTS

4.1. CITY Contact. CITY designates Sam Bautista, its Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, as its contact who shall be responsible for administering and interpreting the terms and conditions of this Agreement, for matters relating to CONSULTANT's performance under this Agreement, and for liaison and coordination between CITY and

7.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North CONSULTANT. In the event CITY wishes to make a change in CITY 's representative, CITY will notify CONSULTANT of the change in writing.

4.2. CONSULTANT Contact. CONSULTANT designates Gene Barry as its contact, who shall have immediate responsibility for the performance of the Services and for all matters relating to performance under this Agreement. Any change in CONSULTANT's designated contact shall be subject to written approval by CITY.

ARTICLE 5 - INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

5.1. Indemnification. CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to claims, liability, loss, damage, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees, awards, fines, penalties, or judgments, arising out of or relating to the Services (collectively "Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its Officials, officers, employees and agents (the "CITY Parties"), except to the extent the Claims are attributable to CITY Parties' gross negligence or willful misconduct. CONSULTANT shall defend the CITY Parties as required by California Civil Code Section 2778, and with counsel reasonably acceptable to those parties. CONSULTANT shall have no right to seek reimbursement from the CITY Parties for the costs of defense.

If CONSULTANT is a “design professional,” as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(c), CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Indemnitees harmless against Liability only to the extent such Liability arises out of, pertains to, or relates to CONSULTANT’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. In such an event, the cost to defend charged to CONSULTANT shall not exceed CONSULTANT’s proportionate percentage of fault.

The obligations contained in this Section 5.1 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause for the full period of time allowed by law and shall not in any way be limited by the insurance requirements of this Agreement.

5.2. Health and Safety. CONSULTANT may perform part of the Services at sites which contain unknown working conditions and contaminated materials. CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for the health and safety of CONSULTANT's employees during the performance of the Services.

5.3. Insurance. CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants and other agency shall procure, provide and maintain at all times during the performance of this Agreement, and for such additional periods as described herein, the insurance listed below with insurers licensed to do business in the State of California and with a Best's rating of no less than A:VII.

A. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance providing bodily injury liability and property damage, to protect against all liability arising out of the use of any owned, leased, passenger or commercial

7.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North automobile at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit and $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall apply to hired and non-owned autos.

B. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial General Liability Insurance, with limits providing a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage for each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products/completed operations aggregate. The insurance shall cover all operations including but not limited to the following: (1) premises, operations and mobile equipment liability; (2) completed operations and products liability; (3) contractual liability insuring the obligations assumed by CONSULTANT in this Agreement; (4) broad form property damage liability; (5) personal injury liability endorsement, including death; and (6) automobile bodily injury and property damage insurance, including all owned, hired and non-owned equipment.

C. Professional Liability Insurance. Professional Liability Insurance protecting against liabilities arising out of or in connection with negligent acts, errors, or omissions of CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants and other agency in connection with this Agreement, at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage and $1,000,000 aggregate, on a "claims made basis" with a continuation of coverage extension for liabilities for two years from the date the Services are substantially complete. Such professional liability policies shall include coverage for liability assumed by the CONSULTANT under this Agreement.

D. Workers Compensation Insurance. Workers Compensation insurance, occupational disease insurance and employer’s liability insurance shall be required with minimum limits as required by law, covering all workplaces involved in this Agreement.

E. Policy Terms. Concurrently with execution of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with Certificates of Insurance evidencing that CONSULTANT has obtained or maintains the insurance required by this Section

5.3. The Certificates shall be on forms acceptable to CITY. CONSULTANT shall also furnish CITY with original endorsements with the following documentation:
 Precluding cancellation or reduction in coverage before the expiration of thirty (30) days after CITY shall have received written notification thereof from CONSULTANT by United States mail;
 Providing that CONSULTANT's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, and include a “separation of insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability (cross-liability endorsement);
 Excepting CONSULTANT’S professional liability insurance, naming CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds (“Additional Insureds”); and

7.b
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North  Providing that for any claims relating to CONSULTANT's services hereunder, CONSULTANT's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents, and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY for itself, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents shall be in excess of CONSULTANT's insurance and shall not be contributory with it.
 It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverages requirements and/or limits shall be available to the Additional Insured, including but not limited to any umbrella or excess insurance.

Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be the greater of:
(a) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (b) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured.

F. Material Breach. If CONSULTANT fails to maintain insurance coverage or provided insurance documentation which is required pursuant to this Agreement, it shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. CITY, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from CONSULTANT resulting from said breach. Alternatively, CITY may purchase the required insurance coverage, and without further notice to CONSULTANT, may deduct from sums due to CONSULTANT any premium costs advanced by CITY for such insurance. These remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies available to CITY.

ARTICLE 6 - NOTICES
All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered or sent by facsimile or reputable overnight courier and shall be deemed received upon the earlier of: (1) if personally delivered, the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice; (2) if delivered by Federal Express or other overnight courier for next business day delivery, the next business day; (3) if sent by facsimile, with the original sent on the same day by overnight courier, the date on which the facsimile is received, provided it is before 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time; or (4) if sent electronically, the date of delivery on the confirmed read receipt. Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner described in this Article 6. Rejection or other refusal to accept or the inability to deliver because of a change in address of which no notice was given shall be deemed to constitute receipt of the notice or communication sent. Unless changed in accordance herewith, the addresses for notices given pursuant to this Agreement shall be as follows:

If to CITY: City Manager
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 738-7409
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038
Email: [email protected]

7.b
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North If to CONSULTANT: Gene Barry, Vice President
4Leaf, Inc.
2126 Rheem Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone: (925) 462-5959
Facsimile: 925) 462-5958
ARTICLE 7 - MISCELLANEOUS

7.1. Conflict of Interest Prohibition. CITY and CONSULTANT will comply with the requirements of the CITY’s Conflict of Interest Code adopted pursuant to California Government Code §87300 et seq., the Political Reform Act (California Government Code §81000 et seq.), the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission (Title 2, §18110 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations), California Government Code §1090 et seq., and any other ethics laws applicable to the performance of the Services and/or this Agreement. CONSULTANT may be required to file with the CITY Clerk a completed Form 700 before commencing performance of the Services unless the CITY Clerk determines that completion of a Form 700 is not required, pursuant to CITY’s Conflict of Interest Code. Form 700 forms are available from the CITY Clerk.

CONSULTANT may not perform Services for any other person or entity that, pursuant to any applicable law or regulation, would result in a conflict of interest or would otherwise be prohibited with respect to CONSULTANT’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees to cooperate fully with CITY and to provide any necessary and appropriate information requested by CITY or any authorized representative concerning potential conflicts of interest or prohibitions concerning CONSULTANT’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement.

CONSULTANT may not employ any CITY official, officer or employee in the performance of the Services, nor may any official, officer or employee of CITY have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code §1090 et seq. CONSULTANT hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of CITY. If CONSULTANT was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of CITY in the previous twelve months, CONSULTANT warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. CONSULTANT understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et seq., the entire Agreement is void and CONSULTANT will not be entitled to any compensation for CONSULTANT’s performance of the Services, including reimbursement of expenses, and CONSULTANT will be required to reimburse CITY for any sums paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement. CONSULTANT understands that, in addition to the foregoing, penalties for violating Government Code §1090 may include criminal prosecution and disqualification from holding public office in the State of California.

Any violation by CONSULTANT of the requirements of this provision will constitute a

7.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North material breach of this Agreement, and the CITY reserves all its rights and remedies at law and equity concerning any such violations.

7.2. Subcontracting. CONSULTANT may subcontract portions of the Services upon the prior written approval of CITY. CONSULTANT will be solely responsible for payment of such subcontract Services. No contractual relationship will exist between any such subcontractors of CONSULTANT and CITY. CONSULTANT’s subcontractors agree to be bound to CONSULTANT and CITY in the same manner and to the same extent as CONSULTANT is bound to CITY under the Agreement. CONSULTANT’s subcontractors further agree to include the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, with any subsubcontractor to the extent they apply to the scope of the sub-subcontractor’s work. A copy of the CITY indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to CONSULTANT’s subcontractors upon request.

7.3. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of CITY and CONSULTANT as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. This Agreement may only be modified by an amendment in writing signed by each party.

7.4. No Assignment. The Services are deemed unique and neither party shall assign, transfer, subcontract or otherwise substitute its interest in this Agreement or any of its obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party. As limited by this Section

7.2, this Agreement is to be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.

7.5. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is determined to be unconstitutional, invalid or beyond the authority of either party, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement can be interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties.

7.6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and, when fully signed, such counterparts shall have the same effect as if signed in one document.

7.7. Choice of Law. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without reference to its choice of laws principles and venue shall be in the appropriate court in San Mateo County, California.

7.8. Waiver. No failure on the part of either Party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder. A waiver by either CITY or CONSULTANT of any breach of this Agreement shall not be binding upon the waiving party unless such waiver is in writing. In the event of a written waiver, such a waiver shall not affect the waiving party's rights with respect to any other further breach.

7.9. Mediation. In the event the parties are unable to resolve a dispute arising under this Agreement through good faith negotiations, the parties agree to submit the matter to

7.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North mediation with a mutually agreeable mediator. Prior to the mediation, the parties shall exchange any documents reasonably necessary to resolve the matter to be mediated.

7.10. Attorney’s Fees. If any action at law or in equity, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, which may be set by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled.

7.11. Interpretation. In the event this Agreement is ever construed in any dispute between the parties, it and each of its provisions shall be construed without regard to the party or parties responsible for its preparation and shall be deemed to have been prepared jointly by the parties. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement.

7.12. Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of one of the parties represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver the Agreement on behalf of such party and that this Agreement is binding on such party in accordance with its terms.

7.13. Third Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with, or cause of action in favor of, a third party against either the CITY or CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT’s Services hereunder are being performed solely for the benefit of CITY. CITY shall be an express third-party beneficiary of all contracts between CONSULTANT and any subcontractors or subconsultants in connection with any services performed in connection with, or in furtherance of, this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager

CONSULTANT
By: Date
Attest:

By: ___________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

7.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North

EXHIBIT A

TASK ORDER

7.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North

EXAMPLE OF
TASK ORDER NO. ________

CITY OF PACIFICA
AND
__________________________
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct _______________ to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below, in accordance with the provisions of the Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica (“CITY”) and _______________ (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated ________________ (“MASTER AGREEMENT”)
SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK
The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Attachment “A” – Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT. Compensation for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be as set forth in Attachment “B” – Compensation, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided under this Task Order shall not exceed ____________________ ($____________) (“Cost Ceiling”).

SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed by _________________ or as extended in writing by the City Manager.

SECTION 5 – ITEMS AND CONDITIONS
All terms and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT are incorporated by reference and remain in full force and effect.

Approved this _______ day of _____, _______.
[Signatures on Next Page]

7.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date
___________, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
_______________________________
By: Date
By: Date

7.b
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

7.b
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North ATTACHMENT “B”

COMPENSATION

7.b
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North TASK ORDER NO. 1

CITY OF PACIFICA AND
4LEAF, INC.

SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct 4Leaf, Inc. to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below, in accordance with the provisions of the Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica (“CITY”) and 4Leaf, Inc., (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated March 14, 2022 (“MASTER AGREEMENT”)
SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK
The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Attachment “A” – Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT. Compensation for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be as set forth in Attachment “B” – Compensation, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided under this Task Order shall not exceed Fifty-five thousand three hundred eighty-nine and zero /100 ($55,389.00) (“Cost Ceiling”).

SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed within 60 working days or as extended in writing by the City Engineer.

SECTION 5 – ITEMS AND CONDITIONS
All terms and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT are incorporated by reference and remain in full force and effect.

Approved this 14
th day of March 2022

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date: __________________
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Approved As To Form:

By: Date: __________________
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
CONSULTANT: 4LEAF, INC.

By: Date: __________________
Gene Barry, Vice President

7.b
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

7.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North Engineering  Construction Management  Inspection  Plan Check 2126 Rheem Drive  Pleasanton, CA 94588  Phone (925) 462-5959  Fax (925) 462-5958 8896 North Winding Way  Fair Oaks, CA 95628  Phone (916) 965-0010  Fax (916) 965-0013 City of Pacifica March 04, 2022
Ray Donguines, P.E.

Senior Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
151 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Submitted via E‐mail as Acrobat PDF Document to [email protected] RE: Cost Proposal to Provide Part‐Time Construction Management, Construction Inspection, and Materials Testing Services for the City of Pacifica North Pacifica Pedestrian Improvements Project.

Dear Mr. Donguines:
4LEAF, Inc. (4LEAF) appreciates the opportunity to submit our Cost Proposal to provide Part‐time Construction Management (CM), Construction Inspection, and Materials Testing services to the City of Pacifica (“City”) Engineering Division for the North Pacifica Pedestrian Improvements Project (“Project”).

The attached Cost Proposal provides a detailed breakdown of our estimated level of effort and includes the following general assumptions:
 Part‐time CM / Inspection services for an estimated construction duration of 40 working days.

We have assumed a level of effort of up to 6 hours per day for the Construction Inspector during the construction phase. We note that a contractor’s construction schedule was not available to 4LEAF at the time of preparation of our cost estimate.
 Special Inspection and Testing services by oursubconsultant, Construction Testing Services(CTS).

We have included a conservative budgetary line item for this scope in our cost proposal.  Labor Compliance Monitoring services will be performed by City staff.  Per your requests on previous proposals, our estimate includes a line item for a 10% contingency. 4LEAF appreciates the opportunity to provide this revised Cost Proposal to the City. If you have any questions, please contact me by phone at (925) 462‐5959 or via e‐mail at [email protected].

Respectfully Submitted,
4LEAF, Inc.

Gene Barry, P.E.

Vice President
Attachment:

Detailed Cost Estimate.

7.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North ATTACHMENT “B”

COMPENSATION

7.b
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North Cost Estimate to Provide Part‐Time Construction Management, Inspection, and Materials Testing Services  for the City of Pacifica, North Pacifica Pedestrian Improvements Project March 4, 2022
Task
Sub
Task Task Description
Principal‐In‐Charge(4LEAF)Construction Manager(4LEAF)Construction Inspector(4LEAF)Construction Manager / Inspector(4LEAF) ‐ OTPublic Works Inspector
ApprenticeTotal Hours Per Task
Cost Per Task
Notes
Hourly Rate $191 $158 $148 $200 $95
See Notes (a) through (e)
1 Preconstruction Phase Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours

1.1 Attend Video Conference Call Kickoff Meeting w/ Client. 1110 3 $339

1.2 Coordinate, Perform, and Document Pre‐Construction Project Site Condition Inspection. 0 2 12 0 14 $1,776

1.3 Review Conformed Set of Contract Documents. 1480 13 $1,375 See Note (f).

1.4 Prepare for and Chair Virtual Pre‐Construction Meeting. 1440 9 $783

1.5 Misc. Mtgs and Pre‐Construciton Project Coordination w/ the City and Other Stakeholders. 0 4 8 0 12 $1,184

1.6 Setup Project Filing System. 1400 5 $191 See Note (g).

1.7 Process Contractor Early Submittals. 0 8 4 0 12 $592 See Note (h).

Task 1 Subtotal:   4 27 37 0 68 $6,240
2 Construction Phase Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours

2.1 Perform Construction Management and Inspections. 0 50 240 0 290 $35,520 See Note (i).

2.2 Project Management. 8000 8 $1,528

2.4 Special Inspections and Materials Testing (CTS). $5,000 See Note (j).

2.5 Administrative Processing Fee on Subconsultants and Outside Services (10%). $500
Task 2 Subtotal:   8 50 240 0 298 $42,548
3 Post Construction Phase Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours

3.1 Final Inspections and Provide Red‐Lined Set of Drawings to Client. 0080 8 $1,184

3.2 Construction Management ‐ Project Closeout. 0 8 0 0 8 $0

3.3 Project Management. 2000 2 $382
Task 3 Subtotal:   2 8 8 0 18 $1,566
4 Project Contingency Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours
4a 10% Contingency. 5,035 See Note (k).

Task 4 Subtotal:   0000 0 5,035
Subtotal (4LEAF + CTS + Contingency):   14 85 285 0 384 $55,389 5 Public Works Inspection Apprenticeship (if Required) Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours

5.1 Provide Public Works Inspection Apprentice 0 0 0 0 48 48 $4,560 See Notes (a) and (b).

Task 4 Subtotal (Apprentice Only) 0 0 0 0 48 48 $4,560
TOTAL (4LEAF + Apprentice if required) 14 85 285 0 48 432 $59,949 Notes:
(k) Per City requests on previous proposals, includes a 10% Contingency. (d) Does not include scope for performing Labor Compliance Monitoring services or verification that the contractor and subcontractors are uploading payroll information to DIR's website.  Assumes these tasks will be performed by City staff.
(e) Assumes that any advance Public outreach (e.g. producing and distributing fliers, letters, signage, etc.) will be performed by the City.  During construction, 4LEAF's Part‐time Inspector will provide the City with daily verbal or e‐mail updates on construction progress.
(a) Assumes project will require compliance with California Prevailing Wage rate requirements under SB 854, and the City will be required to file a PWC‐100 Form to the California Department of Industrial Relations for the project. (j) Budgetary placeholder estimate only. If selected 4LEAF will request a written proposal from our subcontractor, CTS, to provide special inspection and materials testing services. (b) Per the new requirements being enforced under SB 854 and because it is assumed that a PWC‐100 Form will be filed by the City to the CA DIR, 4LEAF is required to notify an authorized Apprenticeship Committee through submittal of a DAS‐140 form.  We are then required to make an official request to an authorized Apprenticeship Committee for an apprentice by submitting a DAS‐142 form.  We are not assured the apprenticeship committee will be able to provide a suitable / qualified apprentice for the project. Per the apprenticeship requirements, the hours worked by the apprentice must be in a ratio of 1:5 for apprentice to journeyman hours.  Hours are included as a placeholder in the event that an apprenticeship for a public works inspector is required and dispatched by the apprenticeship committee. We have assumed the public works apprentice assigned to the project will be classified as a Period 1 Apprentice as defined by the DIR's Wage Determination dated 2/21.  In the event that a higher classification apprentice is assigned to the project, we will contact the City to request a change order for this line item. (f) Not intended as a Biddability and Constructability Review. Only includes a review of the conformed set of contract documents for 4LEAF staff to get up to speed with project prior to the Pre‐Construction meeting. (c) 4LEAF staff will be supplied with typical tools of the trade to perform their daily tasks (e.g. cell phone, laptop computer, and PPE).  Assumes no construction trailer for the Project. (i) Per information provided by the City via e‐mails on 2/09/22 and 3/4/22, the Project is expected to start construction in May 2022 and the City is requesting part‐time CM and Inspection services.  Per the project specifications, the allowable time in the contract for the contractor to perform the work is 40 working days.   No contractor schedule was made available to 4LEAF at the time of preparation of this cost estimate. For estimating purposes, we have assumed one, part‐time CM for performing construction administration tasks and one, part‐time Construction Inspector at up to 6 hours per day at regular time rate for 40 Working Days.  Does not include any hours for additional overtime or any weekend, holiday, or nighttime work.  If additional overtime or any weekend, holiday, or nighttime work are required or the construction duration exceeds 4LEAF's assumtion of 40 working days, 4LEAF will submit a written budget amendment request to the City.
(g) Assumes 4LEAF's Part‐time CM and Part‐time Inspector will utilize Microsoft SharePoint uploading/downloading/sharing daily reports, submittals, RFIs, change orders, etc. (h) Assumes the City will be responsible for reviewing and approving submittals (e.g. Traffic Control Plan, AC and concrete mix designs, engineered materials, striping, etc.) as the Project's Designer of Record. 1 of 1

7.b
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment "B" - Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between City of Pacifica and 4LEAF, Inc. [Revision 1] (4910 : North

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of the Final Map for 580 Crespi Drive
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the Final Map to subdivide the airspace of an existing 100,846 square foot (2.3151 acres) parcel into twenty-five (25) commercial condominiums on the project site located south of the intersection of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road.

STAFF CONTACT:

Lawrence Henriquez, Associate Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3772
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, Deputy Director of PW/City Engineer
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On October 18, 2021, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2021-013 (Attachment “A”) approving Subdivision Sub-250-21 for a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the airspace of an existing 100,846 square foot (2.3151 Acres) parcel into twenty-five (25) commercial condominiums, subject to conditions, on the project site located south of the intersection of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road (APN 022-162-390) within the C-3 (Service Commercial) Zoning District and commonly known as the Crespi Business Center (580 Crespi Drive), and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The project would include subdivision of two existing commercial/industrial buildings into 25 commercial condominiums with no physical change occurring to the project site or the buildings located thereon. Therefore, it would qualify for application of the categorical exemption.

Subdivision improvement requirements are not needed for the Final Map approval as all improvements are existing.

The project site is not located within the Coastal Zone or the boundaries of a specific plan area; therefore, the Local Coastal Program and any specific plan do not apply. The applicable considerations for the proposed subdivision pursuant to this finding include only consistency with the General Plan and the zoning provisions, including but not limited to the provisions of PMC Title 9 and Title 10.

The developer submitted the Final Map for review. Staff and CSG Consultants, Inc., acting as the City Surveyor, reviewed the Final Map for compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and recommend approval of the Final Map. Attachment “B” is a reduced copy of the Final Map consisting of two (2) sheets.
8 Packet Pg. 193
Pacifica City Council 2
March 14, 2022
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to approve the Final Map, but this will prevent the subdivision of the property into twenty-five (25) commercial condominiums from proceeding. Staff does not recommend this alternative action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Final Map is consistent with the following Council adopted Goal:
• Fiscal Sustainability: This project will invest in the economic development of the community by increasing revenues through property taxes.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of the Final Map.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment "A" - Resolution 2021-013 - 580 Crespi Condominium Subdivision (PDF) Attachment "B" - 580 Crespi Drive Final Map (PDF)
8 Packet Pg. 194
ATTACHMENT "A"

8.a
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Resolution 2021-013 - 580 Crespi Condominium Subdivision (4894 : 580 Crespi Drive Final Map)

8.a
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Resolution 2021-013 - 580 Crespi Condominium Subdivision (4894 : 580 Crespi Drive Final Map)

8.a
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Resolution 2021-013 - 580 Crespi Condominium Subdivision (4894 : 580 Crespi Drive Final Map)

8.a
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Resolution 2021-013 - 580 Crespi Condominium Subdivision (4894 : 580 Crespi Drive Final Map)

8.a
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Resolution 2021-013 - 580 Crespi Condominium Subdivision (4894 : 580 Crespi Drive Final Map)

8.a
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Resolution 2021-013 - 580 Crespi Condominium Subdivision (4894 : 580 Crespi Drive Final Map)

8.a
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Resolution 2021-013 - 580 Crespi Condominium Subdivision (4894 : 580 Crespi Drive Final Map)

8.a
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Resolution 2021-013 - 580 Crespi Condominium Subdivision (4894 : 580 Crespi Drive Final Map) ATTACHMENT "B"

8.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment "B" - 580 Crespi Drive Final Map (4894 : 580 Crespi Drive Final Map)

8.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment "B" - 580 Crespi Drive Final Map (4894 : 580 Crespi Drive Final Map)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:
2021 Annual Progress Reports on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element of the General Plan, and the City of Pacifica General Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt a Resolution approving the City’s 2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element and the 2021 General Plan Annual Progress Report on Implementation of Other Elements of the General Plan, and directing the City Manager to transmit the reports to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).

STAFF CONTACT:

Joshua Montemayor - Management Analyst II
[email protected]
Christian Murdock, AICP - Deputy Planning Director
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

State law requires the City to submit annual reports by April 1st of each year on the status and progress of implementation of its General Plan during the prior calendar year to the City Council, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (Government Code § 65400). The following discussion and the attached 2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report (Attachment B) comply with the state law requirements.

1. Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR)
The City Council adopted the 2015-2023 Housing Element of the General Plan on May 11, 2015. The current Housing Element covers what is known as the 5th Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), or RHNA 5. The APR is a routine item required by state law and is not a policy document guiding housing-related actions to be undertaken by the City.

Staff has prepared the Calendar Year 2021 APR in the format prescribed by HCD (Attachment B). This is the seventh APR associated with the 2015-2023 Housing Element. The City’s RHNA 5 allocation for the planning period 2015-2023 was 413 units (approximately 52 units per year).

The 2021 APR prepared by staff demonstrates the number of housing units for which the City granted Planning entitlements, building permits, and certificates of occupancy during the 2021 calendar year.

The APR must be considered by the Council at a public meeting where members of the public have an opportunity to provide oral testimony and written comments. Members of the public 9 Packet Pg. 205
Pacifica City Council 2
March 14, 2022
may comment on the APR during public comment as part of consideration of the item.

Acceptance of the APR is a routine matter and the report is informational only.

The APR also highlights other accomplishments and milestones achieved throughout the 2021 reporting period. Staff reports the following observations as compared to the 2020 APR reviewed by Council in terms of housing unit production:
• Overall housing unit production counted toward the City’s RHNA 5 goals, as measured by building permits issued, increased to 63 units in 2021 from 26 units in 2020, an increase of 142%. This increase was primarily driven by the development at 801 Fassler Avenue where 24 residential condominium units (12 duplex structures) will be constructed (including four below-market rate deed-restricted affordable housing units), and by the construction of 20 accessory dwelling units at the Villages at Pacifica apartment complex at Gateway Drive and Hickey Boulevard. • Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs, comprised nearly two-thirds of the share of new housing unit production in 2021: 63 percent of new housing units. Twenty-four ADUs were permitted for construction in 2020, whereas 40 ADUs were permitted for construction in 2021. The major jump in ADU construction was driven by the 20 ADUs under construction at the Villages at Pacifica apartment complex. The complex owner has utilized provisions in state law that allow construction of ADUs in multi-family housing projects. The Villages at Pacifica ADUs will be affordable to households with low incomes as a result of the Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement between the City of Pacifica and the apartment owner approved by the City Council in 2020. A second building permit application is pending for construction of an additional 22 ADUs at the Villages at Pacifica apartment complex and staff anticipates that building permit will be issued sometime in 2022.

Beyond the large multi-family ADU projects summarized above, the City has observed an uptick in interest in ADU construction more generally, likely in response to the City’s revised ADU regulations which make it easier to obtain a building permit for ADUs on single-family residential properties. The Planning Department continues to receive a steady stream of building permit applications to construct ADUs and expects the number to increase in subsequent years.

A. 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (RHNA 6)
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is charged with developing the methodology to allocate each local agency’s RHNA. ABAG adopted the Final Sixth Cycle RHNA (RHNA 6) for the 2023-2031 planning period on December 16, 2021. The City of Pacifica received an allocation of 1,892 housing units across various levels of affordability (Attachment C). This is an increase of 1,479 units, or an increase of 358 percent, compared to its RHNA 5 allocation of 413 units.

The deadline for Bay Area cities and counties to update their housing elements to reflect their RHNA 6 allocations is January 31, 2023. In light of the Housing Element requiring updates to cover the upcoming RHNA 6 cycle, the City began working together regionally with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County in an ongoing collaborative effort known as 21 Elements.

Staff has participated in the 21 Elements effort throughout the current reporting period and continues to do so in implementing RHNA 6 as explained above.

This collaborative effort allows the 21 local jurisdictions of San Mateo County to come together on a regular basis to collectively address the region’s housing needs through shared learning 9 Packet Pg. 206
Pacifica City Council 3
March 14, 2022
and coordinated action. The effort has been recognized statewide as a best practice for housing planning and policy and has been a successful forum for sharing resources, successful strategies, and best practices.

Planning Division staff frequently attends and participates at the 21 Elements meetings and has received significant technical assistance that has allowed the City to develop, adopt, and implement local housing policies and programs. Staff is working closely with 21 Elements to update the Housing Element and efforts throughout the current reporting period have included:
• Kicked-off the Housing Element Update with four county-wide community meetings to introduce to the public to what a housing element is and why the process to update it is important.
• Conducted Equity Advisory Group meetings with community-based organizations to understand who Pacifica’s stakeholders are, what languages are spoken throughout the community, and community engagement ideas.
• Launched of LetsTalkHousing.org to serve as a central site for countywide housing element update information.
• Completed four county-wide community meetings on the theme of “Creating an Affordable Future” to learn more about the housing problem and possible solutions. • Discussed Pacifica’s sites inventory, potential policies and programs, housing conditions, and countywide housing needs.

In 2022, staff will continue to work closely with 21 Elements to evaluate the City’s existing Housing Element and update needs, develop a work plan, facilitate HCD conversations, engage the community, conduct outreach efforts and community workshops, and develop the Draft Housing Element by the adoption deadline of January 31, 2023.

2. Other General Plan Elements
Staff has also conducted a review of the City’s General Plan and prepared the report below outlining notable items related to implementation of elements of the City’s General Plan, other than the Housing Element. The following discussion is intended to comply with the state law requirements for reporting on the status of the General Plan and progress in its implementation:

Circulation Element
• Policy No. 2: Encourage residents to use SamTrans.

Policy No. 7: Encourage SamTrans and other public transportation to provide improved transit and street maintenance of their routes.

City staff has engaged with SamTrans staff as part of the Reimagine SamTrans process to update bus routes to improve the level of service in Pacifica. The City Council also received a presentation from and provided input to SamTrans staff at the City Council meeting on May 10, 2021.
• Policy No. 13: Maintain and upgrade local streets.

The City paved 298,000 square yards of local streets in 2021, equivalent to approximately 46.5 football fields. This comprised approximately 11 miles of local streets and 12 percent of the City’s local street network. • Policy No. 15: Promote orderly growth in land uses and circulation. 9 Packet Pg. 207
Pacifica City Council 4
March 14, 2022
The Planning Commission held more than a dozen public hearings to review development projects and to review General Plan consistency of the City’s annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

Conservation Element
• Policy No. 1: Conserve trees and encourage native forestation.

Policy No. 3: Protect significant trees of neighborhood or area importance and encourage planting of appropriate trees and vegetation.

The City initiated an update to its Heritage Tree Protection Ordinance and conducted a joint study session with the Planning Commission, Parks, Beaches and Recreation (PB&R) Commission, and Beautification Advisory Committee (BAC) on September 28, 2021.
• Policy No. 5: Local year-round creeks and their riparian habitats shall be protected.

The Public Works Department conducted its annual creek maintenance program to remove debris from creeks in Pacifica prior to the rainy season.

Open Space Element
• The City’s Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee met monthly to consider and advise the City Council on matters related to open space areas in Pacifica.

Noise Element
• Policy No. 1: Work with other agencies, airports and jurisdictions to reduce noise levels in Pacifica created by their operations.

City Council representatives participated in the Airport Community Roundtable to engage with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and San Francisco International Airport representatives on airport noise issues affecting the City.

Historic Preservation Element
• Policy No. 1: Conserve historic and cultural sites and structures which define the past and present character of Pacifica.
• Policy No. 2: Consider creative alternatives, which may include uses other than the original use, to protect and preserve historic sites and structures. • Policy No. 4: Encourage all public agencies to continue and increase their support for local historic sites of County, State and National significance in Pacifica.

The Planning Commission granted a temporary use permit to allow the storage and restoration of Ocean Shore Railroad (OSRR) Car No. 1409, one of the only known remaining railcars from the Ocean Shore Railroad that operated in Pacifica in the early 20th Century.

Community Design Element
• Policy No. 5: Require underground utilities in all new development 9 Packet Pg. 208
Pacifica City Council 5
March 14, 2022
All developments approved by the Planning Commission included a standard condition of approval to require utilities be installed underground from their point of connection to the development served.

Community Facilities Element
• Policy No. 4: Meet basic social needs of City residents, such as transportation, housing, health, information and referral services, and safety, consistent with financial constraints.

The City’s Meals on Wheels program delivered 29,928 meals to program clients. In addition, the Community Center congregate meal (i.e., dine-in) and grab-and-go programs served 49,633 meals to program participants.

Land Use Element
• Policy No. 1: The Pacifica General Plan Map and text shall establish a land use classification for the entire City and its Sphere of Influence. • Policy No. 2: The Zoning Ordinance shall apply Zoned District status to all land within the City consistent with the General Plan policies.

The City maintained a General Plan that applied a land use designation for the entire City and its Sphere of Influence. The City also maintained a Zoning Ordinance including a zoning map that applied a zoning classification to all land within the City consistent with General Plan policies.

Safety and Seismic Safety Element
• Policy No. 2: Support continuing public awareness of hazards by providing citizens with hazard information, results of studies, emergency procedures and alternatives. When appropriate, buyers shall be notified of geotechnical uncertainties or potential risks and costs.

The City Council adopted an updated Multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHLHMP) on November 22, 2021. The MHLHMP identifies potential hazards affecting the City of Pacifica and serves as an informational tool for residents and City staff. • Policy No. 9: Provide and publicize a Citywide emergency communications system.

The Police Department webpage includes information on signing up for the SMC Alert system (www.smcalert.info).
• Policy No. 10: Emphasize fire prevention measures.

Policy No. 11: Code enforcement shall be an important City function.

Policy No. 12: Encourage commercial and residential code compliance.

The City’s code enforcement officer and building official perform investigative and enforcement services in relation to complaints of residential and commercial code violations. In 2021, the code enforcement officer initiated 293 formal code enforcement cases and many other informal contacts with property owners to address code compliance. Additionally, the Fire Department conducts annual inspections of commercial and multi-family residential properties for compliance with applicable Fire Code requirements.
9 Packet Pg. 209
Pacifica City Council 6
March 14, 2022
There was no reportable action on implementation of the Scenic Highways Element.

3. Next Steps
The City Council should consider the amount of progress made in the prior calendar year towards implementation of the City’s General Plan, including specifically progress towards achieving the City’s RHNA. The City Council may also consider how the relative progress made in implementation of the General Plan may guide its priority work plan items and other actions directed by the City Council.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The recommended action to adopt a Resolution approving the City’s 2021 Annual Progress Reports is consistent state law; therefore, no alternative action is identified.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

City Council Goals: “A Healthy and Compassionate Community” includes addressing affordable housing and mental health services, investigating strategies related to homelessness, and supporting youth services.

Work Plan, Council Priority No. 8: Affordable Housing
FISCAL IMPACT:

No direct fiscal impact. However, timely filing of the Housing Element APR is important to retain eligibility for Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) funding under the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) and Priority Development Area (PDA) grant programs for regional housing technical assistance. The City has two PDAs, the Sharp Park Specific Plan PDA and the Skyline Corridor PDA.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Resolution Approving Annual Progress Reports on General Plan Implementation (DOCX)
Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (PDF)
Attachment C - Final RHNA 6 Allocation for San Mateo County (PDF) 9 Packet Pg. 210
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING THE CITY’S 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE 2021

GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN; AND DIRECTING THE CITY

MANAGER TO TRANSMIT THE REPORTS TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) AND THE GOVERNOR’S

OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH (OPR)
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65400(a)(1) requires that after the legislative body has adopted all or part of a General Plan, an annual report on the status of the General Plan progress and its implementation be prepared to ensure that the General Plan will serve as an effective guide for orderly growth and development, preservation and conservation of open-space land and natural resources, and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to the subjects addressed in the general plan; and WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65400(a)(2) also provides that the annual report must also provide the progress in meeting the City’s share of regional housing needs and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583; and
WHEREAS, the housing element portion of the annual report must be prepared through the use of standards, forms, and definitions adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development and must be filed with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) annually by April 1st of each year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the annual reports required by Government Code sections 65400(a)(1) and 65400(a)(2) at a public meeting before the where members of the public were allowed to provide oral testimony and written comments; and
WHEREAS, the City has made significant progress in implementing the policies contained in the City’s General Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:

A. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

B. The City Council, acting as the planning agency and legislative body in accordance with Government Code sections 65100 and 65400, hereby approves the City’s 2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report regarding progress of implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, attached hereto and hereinafter incorporated as Exhibit A and the 2021 General Plan Annual Progress Report regarding progress of implementation of the other Elements of the General Plan, attached hereto and hereinafter incorporated as Exhibit B.

9.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution Approving Annual Progress Reports on General Plan Implementation (4904 : Annual Progress Report 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby directed to transmit the Reports to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the form attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, with minor non-substantive revisions that may be approved by the City Attorney.

Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 14th day of March 2022.

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_____________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ _____________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

9.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution Approving Annual Progress Reports on General Plan Implementation (4904 : Annual Progress Report

EXHIBIT A
2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR)

9.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution Approving Annual Progress Reports on General Plan Implementation (4904 : Annual Progress Report

EXHIBIT B
2021 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (APR)

9.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution Approving Annual Progress Reports on General Plan Implementation (4904 : Annual Progress Report Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Date
Application
Submitted
Total
Approved
Units by
Project
Total
Disapproved
Units by
Project
Streamlining
Application
Status
Notes
2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Date
Application
Submitted+
(see
instructions)
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total PROPOSED
Units by Project
Total

APPROVED
Units by project
Total

DISAPPROVED
Units by Project
Was APPLICATION

SUBMITTED
Pursuant to GC
65913.4(b)?
(SB 35
Streamlining)
Was a Density
Bonus requested
for this housing
development?
Was a Density
Bonus approved
for this housing
development?
Please indicate
the status of the
application.

Notes
+
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 22 0 0 3 25 0 0 016-304-140 Buckingham Way Buckingham Way SFR 1/1/2019 SFD O 1/15/2019 1 1 1 No No N/A 023-341-080 1693 Higgins Way Higgins Way SFR 11/1/2019 SFD O 4/10/2019 1 1 1 No No N/A 022-162-310 570 Crespi 570 Crespi Project 2016-004 5+ O 5/13/2019 1 1 13 15 No No N/A 016-211-210 2205 Palmetto 2205 Palmetto MixedUse Condominium2019-017 SFA O 7/16/2019 1 1 No No N/A 023-361-160 Higgins Way Hillside Meadows 2019-022 5+ O 8/27/2019 3 2 31 36 No No N/A 023-017-230 1343 Livingston Livingston ADU 2019-024 ADU R 8/30/2019 1 1 No No N/A 023-013-010 1300 Danmann Danmann Mixed-Use
Apartments
2019-025 5+ R
9/13/2019
6 6 No No N/A
009-402-250 4000 Palmetto The Bowl Duplexes and
Triplexes
2019-028 5+ O 10/1/2019 2 2 25 29 No Yes N/A Pending
023-013-030 277 Kent Kent Road SFR 2019-030 SFD O 10/16/2019 1 1 No No N/A 009-402-270 4009 Palmetto Palmetto 4-unit
Apartment
2019-032 2 to 4 R 11/27/2019 4 4 No No N/A
016-400-010 2500 Francisco Legalize two apartments 2019-035 2 to 4 R 12/12/2019 2 2 No No N/A 009-037-450 323 Beaumont Beaumont SFD 2019-037 SFD O 12/20/2019 1 1 No No N/A 018-160-090 TBD Amapola TBD Amapola 2020-021 SFD O 12/28/2020 1 1 No No N/A 022-330-150 TBD Berendos TBD Barendos 2020-018 SFD O 12/7/2020 1 1 No No N/A 000-000-000 10 Gypsy Hill 10 Gypsy Hill 2020-015 SFD O 10/29/2020 1 1 No No N/A 023-032-210 110 Blackburn Terrace Blackburn ADU ADU R 1/13/2021 1 1 No No No Pending 023-672600 930 Oddstad Workforce housing 9/1/2020 MH R 4/15/2020 70 70 No Yes N/A Pending 023-038-350 211 Olympian 211 Olympian 4/1/2020 SFD O 1/24/2020 2 2 No No N/A Pending 022-052-170 501 Santa Cruz 501 Santa Cruz 3/1/2020 SFD O 1/21/2020 1 1 No No N/A Pending 009-058-040 340 Waterford 340 Waterford 2/1/2020 5+ O 1/13/2020 5 5 No No N/A Pending 023-037-030 TBD Olympian (100-Block) TBD Olympian SFR with ADU
SFD O 7/8/2021 2 2 No No No Pending
SFD with ADU in Coastal Zone
016-270-110 TBD Talbot TBD Talbot SFR SFD O 11/19/2018 1 1 No No No Pending 022-150-470 Harmony at One Lot 3 Harmony SFD 2021-005 SFD O 7/14/2017 1 1 No No No Pending 016-192-320 2107 Palmetto 2107 Palmetto Mixed
Use
2015-007 5+ R 7/6/2016 7 7 No No No Pending
009-540-210 467, 455, 451 Gateway Villages at Pacifica B2021-01204 ADU R 8/12/2021 22 22 No No No Pending ADU in multi-family 009-540-190
407 GATEWAY DR (405 Gateway
& 423 Gateway)
Villages at Pacifica 54579-21 ADU R 2/4/2022 20 20
ADU in multi-family
0 Table A
Housing Development Applications Submitted
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
1 5
Project Identifier Unit Types Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes (CCR Title 25 §6202)
Density Bonus Applications
10 9.b
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Table A2
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Streamlining Infill
Housing without Financial
Assistance or Deed
Restrictions
Term of Affordability
or Deed Restriction
Notes
2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Entitlement
Date Approved # of Units issued
Entitlements
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Building Permits
Date Issued
# of Units Issued
Building Permits
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Certificates of
Occupancy or other
forms of readiness
(see instructions)
Date Issued
# of Units
issued
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness
How many of the
units were
Extremely Low
Income?+
Was Project
APPROVED using
GC 65913.4(b)?
(SB 35 Streamlining)
Y/N
Infill Units?
Y/N+
Assistance Programs
for Each Development
(may select multiple -
see instructions)
Deed Restriction
Type
(may select multiple -
see instructions)
For units affordable without
financial assistance or deed
restrictions, explain how the
locality determined the units
were affordable
(see instructions)
Term of Affordability or
Deed Restriction (years)
(if affordable in perpetuity
enter 1000)+
Number of
Demolished/Dest
royed Units
Demolished or
Destroyed Units
Demolished/Des
troyed Units
Owner or
Renter
Total Density Bonus Applied to
the Project (Percentage
Increase in Total Allowable
Units or Total Maximum
Allowable Residential Gross
Floor Area)
Number of Other
Incentives,
Concessions, Waivers,
or Other Modifications
Given to the Project
(Excluding Parking
Waivers or Parking
Reductions)
List the incentives,
concessions,
waivers, and
modifications
(Excluding Parking
Waivers or Parking
Modifications)
Did the project receive a
reduction or waiver of
parking standards? (Y/N)
Notes
+
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 20 2 0 39 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 1 0 016-182-010 2105 Beach Beach Blvd Condos RESO 2019-004 2 to 4 O 2 2/4/2019 2 0 0 N Y 009-037-470 327 Beaumont SFD RESO 2019-006 SFD O 1 3/4/2019 1 0 0 N Y 009-085-430 TBD Farallon SFD RESO 2019-014 SFD O 1 4/15/2019 1 0 0 N Y 11/16/1990 1567 Beach Beach Blvd Townhomes RESO 2019-016 5+ O 7 5/6/2019 7 0 0 N Y 016-182-370 2100 Palmetto Palmetto Mixed-Use Condos RESO 2019-017 2 to 4 O 3 5/6/2019 3 0 0 N Y 016-304-140 389 Buckingham Way SFD RESO 2019-021
BP 53530-21 SFD O 1 6/3/2019 1
1 3/5/2021 1 0 N Y
016-050-400 44 Salada Ave SFD RESO 2019-033
BP 53929-21 SFD O 1 10/7/2019 1
1 5/19/2021 1 0 N Y
023-341-080 1693 Higgins SFD RESO 2019-036 SFD O 1 12/16/2019 1 0 0 N Y 018-053-050 170 Winona SFD BP 51242-19 SFD O 0 1 8/13/2019 1 0 N Y 023-640-020 1120 Sheila SFD BP 51378-1120 SFD O 0 1 9/11/2019 1 0 N Y 022-150-030 21 Ohlone Ct SFD BP 51891-19 SFD O 1 10/1/2018 1 1 12/18/2019 1 0 N N 016-393-100 40 Eastlake ADU BP 50367-19 ADU R 0 0 1 3/23/2020 1 N Y 016-353-050 425 Brighton ADU BP 50528-19 ADU R 0 0 1 2/6/2020 1 N Y 023-281-230 1243 Galvez ADU BP 50766-19 ADU R 0 0 1 1/30/2020 1 N Y 023-603-300 25 Point Reyes ADU BP 51049-16 ADU R 0 1 7/2/2019 1 0 N Y 022-063-190 780 Rockaway Beach ADU BP 51073-19 ADU R 0 0 1 11/19/2020 1 N Y 006-152-200 407 Fremont ADU BP 51156-19 ADU R 0 1 7/26/2019 1 0 N Y 009-213-080 427 Manor ADU BP 51245-19 ADU R 0 1 8/14/2019 1 0 N Y 023-461-210 1165 Manzanita ADU BP 51330-19 ADU R 0 1 9/3/2019 1 0 N Y 009-069-210 340 Farallon ADU BP 51524-19 ADU R 0 0 1 10/22/2020 1 N Y 023-182-090 1340 Crespi ADU BP 51559-13 ADU R 0 1 10/10/2019 1 0 N Y 092-261-180 311 Milagra ADU BP 51553-19 ADU R 0 0 1 7/31/2020 1 N Y 009-373-070 524 Inverness ADU BP 51264-19 ADU R 0 1 8/16/2019 1 1 9/13/2019 1 N Y 016-355-150 340 Charing Cross SFD BP 48866-18 SFD O 0 0 1 11/12/2019 1 N Y 009-382-160 425 Norfolk Two-unit BP 47709-17 2 to 4 R 0 0 2 11/15/2019 2 N Y 022-395-170 1250 Oddstad ADU BP 49339-18 ADU R 0 0 1 7/30/2019 1 N Y 022-351-200 83 Kathleen ADU BP 49619-18 ADU R 0 0 1 2/25/2019 1 N Y 022-261-130 995 Serena ADU BP 49848-18 ADU R 0 0 1 4/1/2019 1 N Y 009-153-080 424 Vista Mar ADU BP 50010-18 ADU R 0 0 1 3/20/2019 1 N Y 009-510-030 451 Farallon ADU BP 50044-18 ADU R 0 0 1 2/6/2019 1 N Y 022-083-030 801 Fassler Duplexes RESO 19-2018
BP 53814-21 5+ O 2 2 20 3/19/2018 24 2 2 20 4/28/2021 24 0 N N INC 45 023-022-080 1335 Adobe Townhomes RESO 2019-007 5+ O 7 3/4/2019 7 0 0 N Y 023-072-010 505 San Pedro Mixed-use RESO 2018-011 2 to 4 R 2 11/5/2018 2 0 0 N N 016-021-300 106 Bella Vista Two-family dwelling group RESO 987 2 to 4 O 0 0 1 3/16/2020 1 N Y 009-360-200 531 Inverness Detached ADU BP 49836-18 ADU R 0 0 1 10/21/2020 1 N Y 023-073-200 510 San Pedro New SFD BP 49802-16 SFD O 0 1 9/6/2018 1 0 N Y 023-075-050 881 San Pedro Terrace New SFD BP 49945-18 SFD O 0 0 1 10/27/2020 1 N N 009-037-430 300 Coral Ridge New SFD BP 49113-18 SFD O 0 1 2/23/2018 1 0 N Y 009-124-050 478 Monterey New SFD BP 49130-18 SFD O 0 1 3/29/2018 1 0 N Y 023-075-050 883 San Pedro Terrace Rd New SFD BP 49943-18 SFD O 1 2/26/2018 11 10/3/2018 1 0 N N 023-076-050 889 San Pedro Terrace Rd New SFD BP 49946-18 SFA O 1 2/26/2018 10 1 11/16/2020 1 N N 023-075-050 885 San Pedro Terrace Rd New SFD BP 49944-18 SFD O 1 2/26/2018 11 10/3/2018 1 0 N N 023-075-050 887 San Pedro Terrace Rd New SFD BP 49958-18 SFD O 00 1 5/22/2020 1 N N 023-075-050 899 San Pedro Terrace Rd New SFD and ADU BP 49959-18 SFD O 1 2/26/2018 12 8/28/2018 2 2 5/22/2020 2 N N 023-072-110 535 San Pedro Ave Mixed-Use BP 49487-18 2 to 4 R 4 9/18/2017 4 1 7/16/2018 1 0 N Y 023-422-170 1512 Valdez ADU BP 50120-18 ADU R 0 1 11/6/2018 1 0 N Y 009-037-450 323 Beaumont New SFD RESO 2020-003 SFD O 1 2/18/2020 1 0 0 N Y 016-021-300 104 Bella Vista New SFD and duplex RESO 2020-004 2 to 4 O 3 3/2/2020 3 0 0 N Y 023-018-020 316 San Pedro SFD RESO 2020-005 SFD O 1 4/20/2020 1 0 0 N Y 023-013-030 277 Kent SFD - Demo Existing and Rebuild RESO 2020-007 SFD O 0 4/20/2020 0 0 5/7/2021 0 0 N Y 1 O 023-013-010 1300 Danmann Multi RESO 2020-009 5+ R 6 5/4/2020 6 0 0 N Y 022-056-080 Oddstad Way Lots 4-12 RESO 2020-012 SFD O 1 8/24/2020 1 0 0 N Y 023-022-040 1490 Grand SFD RESO 2020-013 SFD O 1 7/6/2020 1 0 0 N Y 016-022-080 184 Paloma Mixed-use RESO 2020-014 SFA O 1 7/6/2020 1 0 0 N Y 009-381-010 Vista Mar Townhomes RESO 2020-017 2 to 4 O 4 10/19/2020 4 0 0 N Y 009-058-040 340 Waterford Mixed-use RESO 2020-021 5+ R 5 11/2/2020 5 0 0 N Y 023-075-050 (889) 889 San Pedro Terrace
Road ADU 49946-18rev ADU R 0
1 10/22/2020 1 1 11/16/2020 1 N Y
023-064-010 1416 FLORES DR ADU 52437-20 ADU R 0 1 6/3/2020 1 0 N Y 009-221-120 475 MANOR DR ADU 52462-20 ADU R 0 1 6/10/2020 1 0 N Y 009-114-150 322 CHANNING WAY ADU 52586-20 ADU R 0 1 7/16/2020 1 0 N Y 009-482-600 11 BROOKHAVEN CT ADU 52604-20
53844-21 ADU R 0
1 5/4/2021 1 1 11/22/2021 1 N Y
022-370-220 710 PRAIRIE CREEK DR ADU 52767-20 ADU R 0 1 8/25/2020 1 0 N Y 009-360-090 575 INVERNESS DR ADU 52932-20 ADU R 0 1 10/1/2020 1 0 N Y 022-222-090 924 CORONA DR ADU 53135-20 ADU R 0 1 11/19/2020 1 0 N Y 016-112-020 428 San Pablo Terrace SFD 52269-20 SFD O 0 1 3/10/2020 1 0 N Y 023-530-430 3 CELIA CT ADU 52902-20 ADU R 0 1 9/28/2020 1 0 N Y 009-114-140 314 CHANNING WAY ADU 53218-20 ADU R 0 1 12/9/2020 1 0 N Y 023-282-080 1235 LINDA MAR BLVD ADU 52211-20 ADU R 0 1 2/28/2020 1 1 7/22/2020 1 N Y 009-211-100 564 MILLER AVE ADU 52274-20 ADU R 0 1 3/10/2020 1 1 10/20/2020 1 N Y 023-662-050 1022 GRAND TETON ADU 52414-20 ADU R 0 1 5/29/2020 1 1 12/2/2020 1 N Y 009-164-050 520 EDGEMAR AVE ADU 52436-20 ADU R 0 1 6/3/2020 1 0 N Y 009-332-020 251 KAVANAUGH WAY ADU 52543-20 ADU R 0 1 7/13/2020 1 0 N Y 022-241-230 652 ALTA VISTA DR ADU 52608-20 ADU R 0 1 7/24/2020 1 0 N Y 018-074-060 255 REICHLING AVE ADU 52605-20 ADU R 0 1 7/24/2020 1 0 N Y 016-351-030 333 BRIGHTON RD ADU 52645-20 ADU R 0 1 8/3/2020 1 0 N Y 022-244-060 1016 ESCALERO AVE ADU 52754-20 ADU R 0 1 8/21/2020 1 0 N Y 016-294-530 120 BIRCH LN ADU 52765-20 ADU R 0 1 8/28/2020 1 0 N Y 016-303-070 146 PACIFIC AVE ADU 52635-20 ADU R 0 1 9/15/2020 1 0 N Y 022-062-110 7 SPRING STREET ADU 53086-20 ADU R 0 1 11/10/2020 1 0 N Y 009-431-120 250 SUNSHINE DR ADU 53167-20 ADU R 0 1 12/1/2020 1 0 N Y 022-282-130 1439 CRESPI DR ADU 53216-20 ADU R 0 1 12/7/2020 1 0 N Y 016-022-040 134 PALOMA AVE ADU B2019-01092 ADU R 0 1 12/18/2020 1 1 3/12/2020 1 N Y 016-400-010 2500 Francisco Mixed-use ZA RESO 2020-1 2 to 4 R 1 2/12/2020 1 0 0 N Y 016-400-010 2530 Francisco Mixed-use ZA RESO 2020-1 2 to 4 R 1 2/12/2020 1 0 0 N Y 0 0 0
009-303-240 660 Heather Ct JADU 53945-21 ADU R 0 1 5/25/2021 1 0 N Y 023-341-210 1667 Higgins Way SFD - New House 54253-21 SFD O 0 1 7/28/2021 1 0 N Y 009-343-030 412 GLASGOW DR SFD - ADU Detached 53546-21 ADU R 0 1 3/11/2021 1 0 N Y 023-301-030 1683 TOLEDO CT SFD - ADU Detached 54005-21 ADU R 0 1 6/3/2021 1 0 N Y 023-333-110 1484 MADEIRA DR SFD - ADU Detached 53967-21 ADU R 0 1 5/27/2021 1 0 N Y 009-334-150 483 GLASGOW DR SFD - ADU Attached 54412-21 ADU R 0 1 9/8/2021 1 0 N Y 009-540-190
407 GATEWAY DR (405
Gateway & 423 Gateway) MFD - ADU 54579-21 5+ R 0
20 10/12/2021 20 0 N Y Regulatory Agreement
009-605-010 110 PARADISE DR SFD - ADU Detached 54692-21 ADU R 0 1 11/17/2021 1 0 N Y 0 0 0
009-124-200 430 MONTEREY RD SFD - ADU Existing Area 54762-21 ADU R 0 1 12/2/2021 1 0 N Y 023-123-100 884 MONTEZUMA DR SFD - ADU Detached 54425-21 ADU R 0 1 9/13/2021 1 0 N Y 009-143-080 432 FREMONT AVE SFD - ADU Existing Area 54719-21 ADU R 0 1 11/22/2021 1 0 N Y 023-332-380 1419 MADEIRA DR SFD - ADU Attached 54418-21 ADU R 0 1 9/8/2021 1 0 N Y 023-542-050 1231 REDWOOD WAY SFD - ADU Existing Area 54388-21 ADU R 0 1 9/2/2021 1 1 11/15/2021 1 N Y 023-461-180 1159 MANZANITA DR SFD - ADU Existing Area 53931-21 ADU R 0 1 5/19/2021 1 1 10/20/2021 1 N Y 009-554-130 478 FIRECREST AVE SFD - ADU Existing Area 53946-21 ADU R 0 1 5/25/2021 1 1 10/27/2021 1 N Y 009-272-240 376 MILAGRA DR SFD - ADU Existing Area 54514-21 ADU R 0 1 10/1/2021 1 1 1/10/2022 1 N Y 023-422-060 1528 VALDEZ WAY SFD - ADU Attached 53801-21 ADU R 0 1 4/26/2021 1 1 11/22/2021 1 N Y 0 0 0
Density Bonus
1 Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 4 7 10
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Housing with Financial Assistance
and/or Deed Restrictions Project Identifier Demolished/Destroyed Units (CCR Title 25 §6202)

9.b
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 (CCR Title 25 §6202) 1 3 4
RHNA Allocation
by Income Level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Units to
Date (all years)
Total Remaining
RHNA by Income
Level
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - 2 - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - 20 - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - 2 - -
Non-Deed Restricted 1 1 4 - - - - - -
Above Moderate 154 7 12 5 26 14 26 39 - - 129 25
413
8 13 9 26 14 26 63 - - 159 254
Note: units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals and must be reported as very low-income units.

Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected]. 62 -
This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.
8 Moderate
121
68 70
Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here 22 2
Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
121
46 Please note: For the last year of the 5th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted during the portion of the year that was in the 5th cycle. For the first year of the 6th cycle, Table B will include units that were permitted since the start of the planning period.

Total RHNA
Total Units
Income Level
Very Low
Low

9.b
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Date of Rezone Rezone Type
2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11
APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Date of Rezone Very Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above ModerateIncome Rezone Type Parcel Size
(Acres)
General Plan
Designation Zoning Minimum Density Allowed
Maximum
Density Allowed
Realistic
Capacity
Vacant/Nonvacant
Description of Existing
Uses
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
3 8
Project Identifier RHNA Shortfall by Household Income Category Sites Description 1 Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need and No Net-Loss Law Table C
(CCR Title 25 §6202)

9.b
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica
Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
1 2 3 4
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status of Program Implementation Action Program No. 1:

Advertise available grant
and loan funding for lower
income property owners to
rehabilitate substandard
housing units.

The City will strive to refer enough
residents to ensure two residents will
successfully apply for the program each
year.

Annually
Advertising is ongoing. The City has observed little interest from residents to apply for housing rehabilitation loans. Additionally, County program staff has indicated that budget reductions have impacted its ability to administer the program, resulting in a lower program capacity to assist Pacifica residents. The City will, however, continue to market the County’s rehabilitation program to provide the opportunity to apply to any interested residents.

Action Program No. 2:

Reduce potential loss of
life and property damage
from earthquakes by
requiring seismic
upgrades (structural
strengthening and hazard
mitigation) to unsafe
buildings, which includes
unreinforced-masonry
buildings and soft-story
buildings (those with
ground floors having a
lateral stiffness
significantly less than that
of the stories above).
1) Continue to distribute program
literature.
2) Refer five households per year.
1) 12/31/2016: Determine whether
development of a mandatory
seismic upgrade ordinance and
sourcing of sufficient funding to
implement upgrades are feasible.
2) 12/31/2017: If feasible, complete
enactment of ordinance and
implementation of seismic
upgrade funding program(s).
1) Reported in 2016 APR.
2) The City has not pursued enactment of an ordinance.

Housing Programs Progress Report
Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.

Table D
Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
(CCR Title 25 §6202)

9.b
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 3:

Develop programs to help
preserve the "at risk" units
at Casa Pacifica senior
housing complex.

Monitor Casa Pacifica Apartments for
any indication of intent to cease
participation in the Section 8 program.

Formulate a comprehensive response
with affordable housing partners to any
notice of intent to cease Section 8
participation.
12/31/2018: Contact property
owner to inquire about long-term
intentions for the site. Due to the
length of the current participation
agreement (1/31/2015 through
1/31/2020), a single inquiry will
suffice during the planning period.

The current participation agreement was extended and shall preserve 102 affordable units through 2025.

Action Program No. 4:

Encourage preservation of
the existing mobile home
park as an important
source of low- and
moderate-income housing.

Monitor mobile home park operator’s
long-term intentions for the site,
encouraging maintenance of the mobile
home park use. Administer Ordinance
No. 550-C.S. if necessary. Unless
development of additional mobile home
parks occurs during the planning period,
the maximum performance related to
this policy would be one mobile home
park conversion.
12/31/2017 and 12/31/2020:

Contact property owner to inquire
about long-term intentions for the
site.

The mobilehome park operator intends to operate the site on a long-term basis and has resumed leasing units to residents after completing various site upgrades. The mobile home park is still in operation.

Action Program No. 5:

Ensure proper marketing
of housing affordability
programs and groups by
partner agencies,
including the Reverse
Annuity Mortgage (RAM)
program, Human
Investment Project (H.I.P.)
Homesharing Program,
Lease-Purchase Program,
emergency shelters,
Project Sentinel, and
Center for the
Independence of the
Disabled.

Pacifica will change the focus of this
goal to staff training and encouragement
of partner organizations. City staff will
train other staff on available housing
referral resources, and will contact
partner agencies to determine the level
of service they are providing to Pacifica
residents. The City has no control over
the quantity of persons served by the
referral programs, but can monitor the
level of service being provided to
residents.
1) Bi-annually by 12/31 in 2015,
2017, 2019, and 2021: Conduct
training of Planning Division,
Code Enforcement Division, and
Parks, Beaches, and Recreation
staff regarding available housing
referral programs, services, and
agencies.
2) Bi-annually by 12/31 in 2015,
2017, 2019, and 2021: Contact
partner agencies to verify whether
they continue to make referrals
and cross-referrals to other
assistance agencies.

Partner agencies such as Human Investment Project (H.I.P.) continues to market housing affordability programs via the Home Sharing Program where a home provider is matched with a home seeker who pays rent in exchange for performance of household duties for reduced rent.

Action Program No. 6:

Create a reasonable
accommodation program
and procedures to allow
deviations from zoning
standards for projects that
improve access for
persons with disabilities.

Adopt an ordinance by the end of 2016. 12/31/2016: Enact Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance.

COMPLETED
To promote housing opportunities for a person with disabilities, in late 2019 the City established a reasonable accommodation process consistent with Fair Housing Laws in land use, zoning, and building regulations by adopting Ordinance No. 851 in to ensure equal access to housing.

9.b
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 7:

Emphasize housing
rehabilitation to forestall
decline in the housing
stock. Utilize government
subsidies including
Section 8 or other rental
assistance programs to
enhance owner
affordability. Use the
Code Enforcement
process to refer owners to
apply for Community
Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds for housing
rehabilitation.

Distribute rehabilitation and housing
affordability program information to 300
property owners during building code or
property maintenance code interactions
with City inspectors.

Annually (3-5 referrals) City staff made one referral for Section 8 housing services during the reporting period.

Action Program No. 8:

Establish an incentive
program for voluntary
housing rehabilitation.

Continue implementation of Complete
Streets policies. Condition all
development approvals to require
improvements to infrastructure and
multi-modal connectivity. Pursue
funding to implement Phase I of the
Palmetto streetscape improvements and
planning for subsequent phases.
1) 1/31/2015 through 1/31/2023:

Condition 80 projects (10 per year)
requiring Complete Streets
improvements.
2) 12/31/2018: Secure sufficient
funding to initiate Phase I
improvements under the Palmetto
streetscape improvement plan.

Enhance the neighborhood quality
of the 92 housing units in the
vicinity of the streetscape
improvements.
1) The City completed two major street connections in the reporting period on Monterey Road to Hickey Boulevard closing a gap of about 100 feet; and 1,400 feet along Palmetto Avenue from Westline Drive.
2) The City completed Phase I improvements to Palmetto Avenue in 2018.

Action Program No. 9:

Promote Pacific Gas and
Electric (PG&E)
Company’s "Energy
Savings Assistance
Program."
1) Continue to distribute program
literature.
2) Successfully refer 35 households per
year.

Annually (32-38 referrals)
1) City staff maintains and distributes program information at the Planning Department counter and by promoting the BayREN "Home Energy Advisor" program, accessible online.
2) The City has not received a report from PG&E regarding the number of its residents participating in the program.

Action Program No. 10:

Prioritize in-fill mixed-use
and residential
development on
underutilized sites and
vacant sites interspersed
with developed areas.

Contact two property owners of
identified underutilized sites per year to
encourage redevelopment with higher
density, mixed-use projects.

Annually The majority of units receiving planning or building permit approvals in 2021 were infill housing developments (68%).

9.b
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 11:

Encourage and facilitate
construction of second
residential units on
properties zoned for singlefamily residential uses in
conformance with existing
zoning regulations.

Encourage construction of two second
residential units per year, or 16 second
units during the planning period.

Periodically evaluate the City’s second
unit zoning regulations and inquire with
residents and construction
professionals as to the perceived level
of difficulty and expense associated
with second unit construction. Where
perceptions suggest second unit
construction is difficult, develop
strategies to revise the City’s
regulations, such as by relaxing second
unit parking requirements.

By 12/31 in 2016, 2018, 2020, and
2022: Review and revise, as
necessary.

Forty (40) accessory dwelling units (i.e., second residential unit or ADUs) received either a building permit during the 2021 reporting period.

The City has observed a significant uptick in interest in accessory dwelling unit construction and in more recent years has received much more building permit applications for such units than earlier reporting periods. The City saw a substantial ADU project in a multi-family apartment complex in 2021.

Considering the new state regulations that were enacted in early 2020 and the success of the One-Stop-Shop ADU Program and implementation of the Symbium Building online tool, City staff expects to issue a greater number of building permits for accessory dwelling units in subsequent reporting periods.

Action Program No. 12:

Amend Second Unit
Ordinance to incorporate
updates in state law.

Amend Second Unit Ordinance to
comply with state law by the end of
2016.
12/31/2016: Enact amendments to
Second Unit Ordinance to conform
to state law.

COMPLETED
The City Council adopted a new accessory dwelling unit ordinance (Ord. No. 825- C.S.) in 2017 to amend its regulations governing accessory dwelling units to comply with state law.

The City Council made additional ADU ordinance amendments in 2021 to implement changes in state ADU law.

Action Program No. 13:

Amend Density Bonus
Ordinance to reflect
updates to state law.

Amend Density Bonus Ordinance to
comply with state law by the end of
2016.
12/31/2016: Enact amendments to
Density Bonus Ordinance to
conform to state law.

The City selected a Housing Element implementation consultant during 2017. The consultant has identified this action program as an item for near-term implementation.

Action Program No. 14:

Consider amending the
Zoning Ordinance to allow
Rooming Houses and
Boardinghouses for
farmworker housing as a
permitted use in the R-3
(Multiple-Family
Residential) District.

Consider the zoning amendment and
enact amendments if determined
desirable and feasible.
1) 12/31/2016: Complete
consideration of the amendment.
2) 12/31/2017: Enact amendments
to Zoning Code, if determined
desirable and feasible.

The City has not pursued enactment of an ordinance.

Action Program No. 15:

Amend A (Agricultural)
Zoning District to allow
farmworker housing.

Amend A zoning district to comply with
state law.
6/30/2016: Enact amendments to
Zoning Code.

The City selected a Housing Element implementation consultant during 2017. The consultant is currently working on implementation of other action program items.

Upon completion of those action programs, City staff will determine the relative priority of this action program compared to other remaining action programs.

9.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 16:

Amend Zoning Ordinance
to allow Emergency
Shelters, Transitional and
Supportive Housing.

Amend the Zoning Code to create new
definitions for emergency shelters,
transitional housing, and supportive
housing. Create new permitted uses for
these types of facilities to clarify their
treatment by the City. Create
development standards for the
establishment and ongoing operations
of these facilities.
1) 9/30/2015: Develop and discuss
at the Planning Commission
potential development standards
for emergency shelters,
transitional housing, and
supportive housing.
2) 1/31/2016: Amend the Zoning
Code to explicitly permit by-right
emergency shelters, transitional
housing, and supportive housing.

The City selected a Housing Element implementation consultant during 2017. The consultant has developed a draft zoning ordinance to allow emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing. City staff will schedule the ordinance for public hearings as soon as resources permit.

Action Program No. 17:

The City shall initiate
contact with developers
from the private and
nonprofit sectors
interested in development
opportunities in the City of
Pacifica for rental housing
affordable to persons with
extremely low, very low,
and low incomes.

Begin a bi-annual housing developer
roundtable hosted by the City to provide
factual information on development
sites and the City’s development
process, as well as to demonstrate a
strong City commitment to affordable
housing development.

By 12/31 in 2016, 2018, 2020, and
2022: Host developer roundtable.

City staff has participated in additional meetings with representatives of the Pacifica School District to discuss the permitting process for the development of affordable housing for school district employees at the former Oddstad School site. A development application was submitted in the 2020 reporting year to develop the site with workforce housing with 70 proposed units.

Action Program No. 18:

Encourage development of
housing for all income
levels, including lower
income individuals, in
suitable areas to meet
ABAG's projected housing
need.

Update available development site
inventory annually to encourage
development of housing units to satisfy
the City’s RHNA.

Annually by 12/31: Post updated
inventory on City’s website.

The development site inventory found in Table III-1 of the Housing Element remains representative of available development sites within Pacifica.

9.b
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 19:

Form a committee to
monitor housing trends
affecting needs and
development, as well as
implementation of action
programs. Devise
strategies to
accommodate housing
needs that arise during the
planning period that the
Housing Element does not
adequately address.

Form a committee to assert more active
oversight in Housing Element
implementation. Review the draft
Housing Element Status and Annual
Progress Report prior to the public
hearing and consideration by City
Council.
1) 8/31/2015: Establish a Housing
Element implementation
committee.
2) Annually by 6/30: Planning
Division staff conducts an internal
review of implementation during
first-half of year and projected
implementation during remaininghalf of year.
3) Annually between 1/1 and 2/28:

Hold a committee meeting to
discuss prior year Housing
Element implementation and to
review the draft Housing Element
Status and Annual Progress
Report.
4) Annually between 3/1 and 3/31:

Present the Housing Element
Status and Annual Progress
Report at a City Council public
hearing and seek Council approval
and transmittal of the Report to
the California Department of
Housing and Community
Development (HCD) by the April 1
deadline.
1) The City did not establish a Housing Element implementation committee.

However, in collaboration with San Mateo County's Home for All Network, the City hosted two community engagement efforts in Pacifica throughout 2019. These highlighted the community’s increasing support to allow ADUs, starting with the Home for All Engagement Program. Between February 2019 through May 2019, the City engaged with the public to introduce factual information about the current housing situation affecting the Bay Area region. The public was asked to identify potential solutions which reflect a community’s values. One of the potential housing solutions of greatest interest to those attending the Home for All conversations was the establishment of ADUs.
2) Planning Division staff conducted an internal review of implementation during the first-half of the reporting period and projected likely implementation activities during the remaining half of the reporting period. City staff focused efforts on assisting homeowners with obtaining permits to constructs ADUs pursuant to Action Program 11 in order to fully implement the City's revised ADU ordinance. 3) N/A
4) The City will consider the APR at the March 14, 2022 City Council meeting to seek City Council approval and transmittal of the Report by the April 1 deadline.

9.b
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Period 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Description of Commercial
Development Bonus
Commercial Development Bonus
Date Approved
3 4
APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income
Description of Commercial
Development Bonus
Commercial Development Bonus
Date Approved
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Units Constructed as Part of Agreement
Commercial Development Bonus Approved pursuant to GC Section 65915.7 Table E
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Project Identifier
1 2
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
(CCR Title 25 §6202)

9.b
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 (CCR Title 25 §6202) Extremely LowIncome+ Very Low-Income+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+Extremely LowIncome+Very LowIncome+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+ Rehabilitation Activity
Preservation of Units At-Risk
Acquisition of Units
Mobilehome Park Preservation
Total Units by Income
Table F
Please note this table is optional: The jurisdiction can use this table to report units that have been substantially rehabilitated, converted from non-affordable to affordable by acquisition, and preserved, including mobilehome park preservation, consistent with the standards set forth in Government Code section 65583.1, subdivision (c). Please note, motel, hotel, hostel rooms or other structures that are converted from non-residential to residential units pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c)(1)(D) are considered net-new housing units and must be reported in Table A2 and not reported in Table F.

Activity Type
Units that Do Not Count Towards RHNA+
Listed for Informational Purposes Only
Units that Count Towards RHNA +
Note - Because the statutory requirements severely limit what can be counted, please contact HCD to receive the password that will enable you to populate these fields. The description should adequately document how each unit complies with subsection (c) of Government
Code Section 65583.1
+
Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired for Alternative Adequate Sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c)

9.b
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica
Reporting Period 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation
2 3 4
APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Realistic Capacity
Identified in the
Housing Element
Entity to whom the site
transferred Intended Use for Site
1 Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Table G
Locally Owned Lands Included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of Project Identifier
NOTE: This table must only be filled out if the housing element sites inventory contains a site which is or was owned by the reporting jurisdiction, and has been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of during the reporting year.

9.b
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica
Note: "+" indicates
an optional field
Reporting Period 2021
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)
Cells in grey contain
auto-calculation
formulas
Designation Size Notes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
APN Street Address/Intersection Existing Use Number of
Units
Surplus
Designation
Parcel Size (in
acres) Notes
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Parcel Identifier

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Table H
Locally Owned Surplus Sites
For San Mateo County jurisdictions, please format the APN's as follows:999-999-999

9.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica
Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Current Year
Deed Restricted
0 Non-Deed Restricted
0 Deed Restricted
2 Non-Deed Restricted 20
Deed Restricted
2 Non-Deed Restricted
0 39
63 Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed SFA 0 0 0
SFD 0 3 0
2 to 4 0 0 0
5+ 0 44 0
ADU 0 16 5
MH000
Total 0 63 5 3
25000000
Above Moderate
Units Constructed - SB 35 Streamlining Permits
Number of Streamlining Applications Approved
Total Developments Approved with Streamlining
Total Units Constructed with Streamlining
Total Housing Applications Submitted:

Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received:

Total Housing Units Approved:

Total Housing Units Disapproved:

Total Units
Housing Applications Summary
Use of SB 35 Streamlining Provisions
Note: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals Number of Applications for Streamlining
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate

9.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Income Rental Ownership Total
Very Low 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0
Moderate 0 0 0
Above Moderate 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas

9.b
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Total Award Amount Total award amount is auto-populated based on amounts entered in rows 15-26.

Task $ Amount Awarded $ Cumulative Reimbursement
Requested
Other
Funding
Notes
Housing Element Update $54,500.00 $0.00 Other
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
Update $95,500.00 $0.00 Other
Summary of entitlements, building permits, and certificates of occupancy (auto-populated from Table A2) Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
0 0
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 2
Non-Deed Restricted 20
Deed Restricted 2
Non-Deed Restricted 0
39 63

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Reporting
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Please update the status of the proposed uses listed in the entity’s application for funding and the corresponding impact on housing within the region or jurisdiction, as applicable, categorized based on the eligible uses specified in Section 50515.02 or 50515.03, as applicable.
$ 150,000.00
Task Status
In Progress
In Progress
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Completed Entitlement Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low

9.b
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Current Year
Deed Restricted
0 Non-Deed Restricted
0 Deed Restricted
0 Non-Deed Restricted
0 Deed Restricted
0 Non-Deed Restricted
05 Total Units
5 Certificate of Occupancy Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate

9.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment B - 2021 Housing Element APR (4904 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 27 Jurisdiction

VERY LOW INCOME
(<50% of Area
Median Income)

LOW INCOME
(50-80% of Area
Median Income)

MODERATE INCOME
(80-120% of Area
Median Income)

ABOVE MODERATE
INCOME
(>120% of Area
Median Income) TOTAL

SAN MATEO COUNTY
Atherton 94 54 56 144 348
Belmont 488 281 283 733 1,785
Brisbane 317 183 303 785 1,588
Burlingame 863 497 529 1,368 3,257
Colma 44 25 37 96 202
Daly City 1,336 769 762 1,971 4,838
East Palo Alto 165 95 159 410 829
Foster City 520 299 300 777 1,896
Half Moon Bay 181 104 54 141 480
Hillsborough 155 89 87 223 554
Menlo Park 740 426 496 1,284 2,946
Millbrae 575 331 361 932 2,199
Pacifica 538 310 291 753 1,892
Portola Valley 73 42 39 99 253
Redwood City 1,115 643 789 2,041 4,588
San Bruno 704 405 573 1,483 3,165
San Carlos 739 425 438 1,133 2,735
San Mateo 1,777 1,023 1,175 3,040 7,015
South San Francisco 871 502 720 1,863 3,956
Unincorporated San Mateo 811 468 433 1,121 2,833
Woodside 90 52 52 134 328

FINAL ALLOCATION RHNA

9.c
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment C - Final RHNA 6 Allocation for San Mateo County (4904 : Annual Progress

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Adoption 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 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt the ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica 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 find the ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

STAFF CONTACT:

Alyssa Barranti, Management Analyst
650-501-6027
[email protected]
Tina Wehrmeister, Assistant City Manager
650-738-7440
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

This ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council held on February 28, 2022 and is now in order for adoption.

At the February 28, 2022 City Council meeting, staff presented to Council an ordinance for consideration related to the required use, distribution and recordkeeping of disposable food service ware in alignment with California State Law, and the San Mateo County Model Ordinance. The County of San Mateo has agreed to lead enforcement and education efforts for provisions in alignment with the San Mateo County model ordinance. On February 28, 2022, City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo to provide education and enforcement of this ordinance within the City of Pacifica.

Included in the staff report, and as discussed at the City Council Meeting on February 28, 2022, City staff provided Council an alternative action to add provisions above and beyond the requirements of the San Mateo County Model Ordinance to include a reusables requirement for dine-in food facilities. The Council included a reusable requirement for dine-in food facilities effective June 1, 2023. (See Section 6-5.404 of the attached ordinance for adoption) Attached to this report is the final ordinance for adoption (Attachment A) with amendments requested by the Council to include a reusable requirement for dine-in food facilities; and the staff report from February 28, 2022 (Attachment B).
10 Packet Pg. 234
Pacifica City Council 2
March 14, 2022
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Consideration of an ordinance to Regulate the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware in Pacifica resonates with the City Council Goal of “Environmental Sustainability.” FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact to the City upon adoption of this ordinance for the provisions in alignment with the County ordinance, as the County of San Mateo will be responsible for education, outreach and enforcement of those provisions. The fiscal impact related to enforcement of provisions beyond the County ordinance provisions, which go into effect June 1, 2023, is unknown at this time.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A- Copy of Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B- 2.28.22 Staff Report (PDF)
10 Packet Pg. 235
ORDINANCE NO. ___________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLE 4, “SUSTAINABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE AND PROHIBITED PLASTIC PRODUCTS” WITHIN CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 6 WITH A NEW ARTICLE 4, “REGULATING THE USE OF DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD FACILITIES”TO REGULATE THE USE OF DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance 838 in October, 2018, codified in Article 4 within Chapter 5 of Title 6 (Section 6-5.401 et seq.) of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which established certain standards relating to the use of disposable food service ware by Food Facilities within the City of Pacifica, including prohibiting the use of plastic cutlery, stirrers, and straws; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica ("City") is committed to sustainability, environmental preservation, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, although plastics are generally recyclable, plastics synthesized from petroleum and natural gas do not biodegrade. Even with the emergence of bioplastics, which are derived from renewable biomass sources, such as plants and microorganisms, there is no certified type of bioplastic that biodegrade in a marine environment; and WHEREAS, the production, management, and consumption associated with disposable food service ware, typically used for only a few minutes before being discarded, have significant environmental impacts, including environmental contamination; consumption of precious resources such as energy and water; emissions of greenhouse gases; air and water pollution; litter on streets; and plastic pollution in waterways and oceans; and WHEREAS, the most effective ways to reduce the negative environmental impacts of disposable food service ware include, in order of priority, using reusable food service ware; using natural -fiber based compostable materials, many made from renewable resources such as bamboo, wheat stalk/stem, and sugarcane that do not contain toxic chemicals; and recycling food service ware. When products are reused and recycled, natural resources are spared, less energy is used for the production of new products, and premium landfill space is preserved; when compostable products are turned into compost, they can reduce water use and lessen the need for fertilizer at the site where the compost is applied (e. g., gardens, yards, farm land, etc.), which can also lead to cost savings since less/no fertilizers need to be purchased; and WHEREAS, reduction of disposable food service ware in the environment will advance compliance with federal, state, and local clean water mandates; and WHEREAS, the City has an interest in preserving its beaches and the communty in general, litter-free to ensure the health and safety of its citizens and the preservation of the environment.

10.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment A- Copy of Ordinance [Revision 1] (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Repeal and Replacement.

Article 4, “Sustainable Food Service Ware and Prohibited Plastic Products” of Chapter 5, “Garbage, Collection and Recycling” within Title 6, “Health and Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced in its entirety to read as follows:
“Article 4, Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities Sec. 6-5.401. –Definitions.

The following terms, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
(a) “Aluminum Foil- based” means any Disposable Food Service Ware composed entirely of aluminum, including but not limited to aluminum tray liners, aluminum foil, and aluminum foil baskets.
(b) “Compostable” means that an item or material:

1. Meets standards for composability from a certified/approved independent third-party approved by the Enforcing Agent, in collaboration with local waste processors, haulers, and/or other entities, as needed; and/or

2. Is any variation of acceptable materials that will break down or otherwise become part of usable compost in a safe and timely manner as determined by the Enforcing Agent, in collaboration with local waste processors, haulers, and/or other entities, as needed; and

3. Is Natural Fiber-based. Compostable items may include those that are made entirely of Natural Fiber or Natural Fiber-based items that are coated or lined with biologically based polymer, such as, but not limited to corn or other plant sources (e.g., compostable plastics), if certified/approved by independent third parties approved by the Enforcing Agent.
“Compostable” does not include items made entirely/primarily of biologically based polymer (e.g., PLA, PHA, or other compostable plastic), even if labeled or certified as compostable.
(c) "Customer" means any person receiving goods from a Food Facility. (d) “Disposable” means designed to be discarded after a single or limited number of uses and not designed or manufactured for long-term multiple reuse (e) “Enforcing Agent” shall mean the Manager of the County of San Mateo or their designee as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated February 28, 2022 between the City of Pacifica and San Mateo County authorizing the County of San Mateo to provide education and enforcement services within the City of Pacifica. If the MOU is terminated by either party for any reason, an alternative Enforcing Agent may be designated by the City Manager or their designee.

10.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment A- Copy of Ordinance [Revision 1] (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) (f) “Food Service Ware” means food contact products used for serving, distributing, holding, packaging, and/or transporting Prepared Food including, but not limited to plates, cups, bowls, trays, clamshell containers, boxes, utensils, straws, lids, and food contact paper boxes, utensils, straws, lids, and food contact paper (e.g., wraps, bags, tray liners, etc.). The term "Food Service Ware" includes Food Service Ware Accessories.
(g) “Food Service Ware Accessories” include different types of Food Service Ware such as straws, stirrers, Utensils, condiment cups and packets, cocktail sticks/picks, toothpicks, napkins, cup spill plugs, cup sleeves, and other similar accessory or accompanying Food Service Ware used as part of food or beverage service or packaging. Detachable lids for beverage cups and food containers are not considered a Food Service Ware Accessory.
(h) “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)" means a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
(i) "Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Restrictions” mean either of the following:

1. PFAS has not been intentionally added to a product or product component.

2. The presence of PFAS in a product or product component is below 100 parts per million, as measured in total organic fluorine. (j) “Food Facility” means an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food to the public for human consumption, as defined by the California Health and Safety Code Section 113789 or successor. It includes both permanent and temporary food facilities. Public schools are exempt from the provisions of this article.
(k) “Food Scrap Composting Method” means (1) self-hauling of food scraps to a permitted composting facility or a transfer station that accepts food scraps that will be transferred to a permitted composting facility for on-site compost processing, (2) food scrap compost collection service provided by a curbside hauler, or (3) on-site food scrap composting.
(l) “Healthcare Facilities” mean places that provide healthcare to the public.

Healthcare Facilities includes, but is not limited to hospitals, clinics, outpatient care centers, nursing homes, psychiatric care centers, medical offices, hospice homes, mental health and addiction treatment centers, orthopedic and other rehabilitation centers, urgent care, birth centers, etc. (m) “Natural Fiber/Natural Fiber-based” means a plant or animal-based, nonsynthetic fiber, including but not limited to products made from paper, sugarcane, bamboo, wheat stems/stalk, hay, wood, etc.
(n) “Non-Compostable” means not meeting the definition of Compostable set forth in this article.
(o) “On-Premises Dining” means food prepared for consumption on the premises of the Food Facility either indoors or outdoors.
(p) “Off-Premises Dining” means food prepared for consumption off of the premises of the Food Facility. “Off-Premises Dining” includes, but is not limited to, Takeout Food Delivery Service, drive-through and catering off-site. (q) "Polystyrene based" means and includes expanded polystyrene, which is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, form molding, and extrusion-blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). The term “polystyrene” also

10.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment A- Copy of Ordinance [Revision 1] (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) includes polystyrene that has been expanded or blown using a gaseous blowing agent into a solid foam (expanded polystyrene [EPS]) and clear or solid polystyrene known as oriented polystyrene
(r) “Prepackaged Food” means any properly labeled processed food, prepackaged to prevent any direct human contact with the food product upon distribution from the manufacturer and prepared at an approved source.
(s) “Prepared Food” means food or beverages that undergo a cooking or food preparation technique on the Food Facility’s premises for consumption by the public. Cooking or food preparation technique includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. Cooking methods, utilizing the application of heat, such as steaming, microwaving, simmering, boiling, broiling, grilling, frying, or roasting.

2. Beverage preparation, such as blending, brewing, steeping, juicing, diluting, or pouring.

3. Food preparation techniques such as defrosting, rinsing, washing, diluting, cutting, portioning, mixing, blending, assembling, coating, dipping, garnishing, decorating or icing.

Prepared Food does not include raw eggs or raw, butchered meats, fish, and/or poultry sold from a butcher case, a refrigerator case, or similar retail appliance. (t) “Reusable” means Food Service Ware and Food Service Ware Accessories that are manufactured of durable materials and specifically designed and manufactured to be washed and sanitized and to be used repeatedly over an extended period of time, and are safe for washing and sanitizing according to applicable regulations.
(u) “Standard Condiment” means relishes, spices, sauces, confections, or seasonings that require no additional preparation and that are usually used on a food item after preparation, and includes different types such as ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, soy sauce, hot sauce, salsa, salt, pepper, and sugar/sugar substitutes.
(v) “Takeout Food” means Prepared Food requiring no further preparation, which is purchased to be consumed off a Prepared Food Facility’s premises. Takeout Food includes Prepared Food delivered by a Food Facility or by a third-party Takeout Food Delivery Service.
(w) “Takeout Food Delivery Service” is a service that delivers Takeout Food from a Food Facility to a customer for consumption off the premises. This service can be provided directly by the Food Facility or by a third-party (x) “Utensils” include different types of instruments used to assist the consumption of food, specifically, forks, knives, spoons, sporks, chopsticks, and tongs.

Sec. 6-5.402. -Distribution of Disposable Food Service Ware and Standard Condiment (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b) of this Section, Food Facilities for OffPremise Dining (e.g., Takeout Food Delivery Service, catering off-site, etc.), shall not provide any Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment in Disposable packaging to a consumer unless the specific type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (including different types of Utensils) or specific type of Standard Condiment is requested by the consumer. (b) Food Facilities may ask a drive-through consumer if the consumer wants a specific type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (including different

10.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment A- Copy of Ordinance [Revision 1] (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) types of Utensils), if the item is necessary for the consumer to consume Prepared Food or to prevent spills of or safely transport Prepared Food. (c) Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories and Standard Condiment in Disposable packaging provided by Food Facilities for use by consumers for OffPremise Dining shall not be bundled or packaged in a manner that prohibits a consumer from taking only the type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (including different types of Utensils) or type of Standard Condiment desired without also having to take a different type of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory or type of Standard Condiment. Food Facilities cannot distribute Disposable Utensils that are bundled or packaged together. Each type of Utensil (e.g., fork, spoon, knife, etc.) must be specifically requested by the consumer in order for a Food Facilities to provide the item(s).
(d) Nothing in this article shall prohibit a Food Facility from making unwrapped Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories available to a consumer using refillable self-service dispensers that dispense different types of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories one item at a time to allow for Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories to be obtained.
(e) Nothing in this article shall prohibit a Food Facility from making Standard Condiment available to a consumer using refillable self-service dispensers to allow for Standard Condiment to be obtained. Food Facilities that offer Standard Condiment are encouraged to use bulk dispensers for the condiments rather than condiments packaged for single-use.
(f) Takeout Food Delivery Services shall provide consumers with the option to proactively request the different types of available Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) and the different types of Standard Condiment from a Food Facility serving Prepared Food. The default option on the digital ordering/point-of-sale platforms of Takeout Food Delivery Services shall be that no Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment are requested.
(g) Takeout Food Delivery Services shall provide Food Facilities the ability to tailor the digital ordering/point-of-sale platforms so that Food Facilities can customize and itemize the different types of available Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) and the different types of available Standard Condiments for consumers to proactively select. (h) If a Food Facility uses any Takeout Food Delivery Service, the Food Facility shall customize its menu with an itemized list and/or provide options of the different types of available Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) and the different types of available Standard Condiments for consumers to proactively select. Only those specific types of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories (including different types of Utensils) or specific types

10.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment A- Copy of Ordinance [Revision 1] (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) of Standard Condiment proactively requested by the consumer shall be provided by the Food Facility. If a consumer does not request any Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment, no Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories or Standard Condiment shall be provided by the Food Facility for delivery of Takeout Food. Pursuant to Subsection (c), each type of Utensil (e.g., fork, spoon, knife, etc.) offered by the Food Facility shall also be listed individually, unbundled on the menu and provided by the Food Facility for delivery with the Takeout Food only if requested by the consumer.

Sec. 6-5.403. -Standards and Required Use of Disposable Food Service Ware (a) No Food Facility shall use Polystyrene- based Disposable Food Service Ware when providing Prepared Food.
(b) Food Facilities shall only provide Disposable straws, stirrers, utensils, and cocktail/toothpicks (and the packaging that these individual items are wrapped in, if any) that are Compostable.
(c) Nothing in this Ordinance shall conflict or be construed to conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act or any other applicable law concerning the rights of individuals with disabilities. In particular, nothing in this article shall restrict, or be construed to restrict, the provision by Food Facilities of Disposable NonCompostable straws to individuals who may request the use of Disposable NonCompostable straws to accommodate medical needs or disabilities. Healthcare Facilities may distribute Disposable Non-Compostable straws with or without request by a patient at the discretion of the Healthcare Facility staff based on the physical or medical needs of the patient.
(d) Food Facilities shall use Compostable items for the below Disposable Food Service Ware when providing Prepared Food for Off-Premises Dining:

1. Plates

2. Bowls (of all sizes including, but not limited to soup and salad bowls)

3. Cups (of all sizes including, but not limited to beverage and accessory cups for Standard Condiments

4. Food Trays and Food boats

5. Boxes

6. Hinged or lidded containers (e.g., clamshells), deli containers, and other containers used for the sale and/or distribution of Prepared Food (e) Commencing on the effective date of this article up until December 31, 2022, for the Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware listed in Subsection (d), Food Facilities shall use items that meet Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Restrictions. To verify the PFAS Restrictions, Food Facilities shall use items that are certified/approved by independent third parties approved by the Enforcing Agency or designee, in collaboration with local waste processors and haulers, as needed.
(f) For all other Disposable Food Service Ware not listed in subsection (b) and (d), Food Facilities shall use only Disposable Food Service Ware for Off-Premises

10.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment A- Copy of Ordinance [Revision 1] (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) Dining that can be composted by the Food Scrap Composting method utilized by the Food Facilities and/or accepted for recycling by the Food Facility’s recycling collection service, unless a feasible alternative does not exist, as determined by the Enforcing Agent.
(g) The Enforcing Agent shall maintain a list of approved Disposable Food Service Ware sources and/or references to organizations that maintain regularly updated lists of products that meet the requirements detailed in Subsections (a), (b), (d) and (e) of this Section. This information shall be made available on the Enforcing Agent’s website and in the Enforcing Agent’s Office. If a product is not included on the approved lists, the Food Facility wishing to use a product as Disposable Food Service Ware shall establish to the Enforcing Agent’s satisfaction that the product complies with the requirements detailed in Subsections (a), (b), (d) and (e) of this Section.

Sec. 6-5.404. – Reusable Service Ware Use for On-Premises Dining Food Facilities that have On-Premises Dining:
(a) Shall only serve Prepared Food for consumption On-Premises with Reusable Food Service Ware except as otherwise provided in section (b); (b) May provide the following non-Reusable Food Service Ware Accessories: straws, stirrers, cocktail sticks/picks, toothpicks, napkins, wrappers and liners so long as they are Compostable.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a Food Facility from offering, upon a customer’s request, non-Reusable Food Service Ware for Take Out Food or to take away leftover food after dining on the premises; and
(d) Provisions listed in Sec. 6-5.404 shall become effective June 1, 2023.

Sec. 6-5.405. -Record Keeping and Inspection
Food Facilities shall keep complete and accurate record or documents of the below items

1. Commencing on October 1, 2022, Food Facilities shall keep complete and accurate records or documents of the purchase of the acceptable Disposable Food Service Ware evidencing compliance with this Ordinance for a minimum period of three years from the date of purchase.

2. The records shall be made available for inspection at no cost to the Enforcing Agent during regular business hours. Unless an alternative location or method of review is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be made available at the Food Facilities address.

3. The provision of false or incomplete information, records, or documents to the Enforcing Agent shall be a violation of this article.

Sec. 6-5.406. – Exemptions
The following are exempt from the requirements of this article.

10.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment A- Copy of Ordinance [Revision 1] (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) (a) Prepackaged Food.
(b) Polystyrene coolers and ice chests intended for reuse. (c) Disposable Food Service Ware that is entirely Aluminum Foil-based or recyclable glass.
(d) If the Enforcing Agent determines that a reasonably feasible Disposable Food Service Ware that complies with Section 6-5.402 (a), (b), (d), and (e) does not exist, these items will be exempt from all or select requirements of the abovementioned provisions of this article until the Enforcing Agent determines that a reasonably feasible alternative is available on the market for purchase. The Enforcing Agent will have a current list of these temporarily exempted Disposable Food Service Ware made public.
(e) Temporary exemptions due to an emergency are automatic without the submission of a request for an exemption. An emergency is defined as a sudden, unexpected occurrence posing a clear and imminent danger that requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services. Examples of an emergency include, but are not limited to natural disasters, emergencies due to the release of hazardous materials, emergencies associated with loss of power and/or water, or emergency medical response.

Sec. 6-5.407. -Case-by-Case Consideration of Hardship Exemption (a) Grounds for an exemption.

An exemption from any of the provisions of this article may be granted by the Enforcing Agent upon demonstration by a Food Facility to the satisfaction of the Enforcing Agent that strict application of the requirements would cause undue hardship. An “undue hardship” includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. A situation unique to the Food Facility where a suitable alternative that conforms with the requirements detailed in the Section 6-5.402(a), (b), (d), and (e) does not exist for a specific application.

2. Imposing the provisions of this article would cause significant economic hardship. “Significant economic hardship” may be based on, but not limited to, demonstrating that suitable Disposable Food Service Ware is not available at a commercially reasonable price and the additional cost associated with providing the Disposable Food Service Ware is particularly burdensome to the Food Facility based on the type of operation(s) affected, the overall size of the business/operation, the number, type and location of its facilities, the impact on the overall financial resources of the Food Facility, and other factors. Reasonable added cost for a suitable item as compared to a similar item that the Food Facility can no longer use shall not by itself constitute adequate grounds to support an exemption for such item. In determining

10.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment A- Copy of Ordinance [Revision 1] (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) whether a significant economic hardship has been established, the Enforcing Agent may consider the following information: ability of the Food Facility to recover the additional expense by increasing its prices; the availability of tax credits and deductions; outside funding; and other options. (b) Request for an exemption. A request for an exemption from the requirements of this article shall include all information deemed necessary by the Enforcing Agent render a decision, including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the requested exemption. A request for an exemption may be approved by the Enforcing Agent, in whole or in part, with or without conditions. The duration of the exemption, if granted, shall also be determined by the Enforcing Agent. Information about the application process for requesting an exemption will be available on the Enforcing Agent’s website and in the Enforcing Agent’s Office.

Sec. 6-5.408. -Enforcement
(a) The Enforcing Agent may enforce this article.
(b) A violation of this article is an infraction and is also punishable by administrative fines as set forth in Chapter 1.40 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code. Violations of this article may also be subject to the remedies and penalties set forth in Title 1, Chapter 2 of the Pacifica Municipal Code.
(c) Compliance plan.

1. If requested by the Enforcing Agent, a Food Facility that is in violation of any of the provisions detailed in this article shall create and submit to the Enforcing Agent a compliance plan, which will include information on corrective action(s) that the Food Facility shall undertake to come into compliance. Other requested information may include, and are not limited to proposed timeline for corrective action(s), and identification of individuals responsible for ensuring compliance.

2. The Food Facility shall create and submit its completed compliance plan within fourteen calendar days (14) from the time of request by the Enforcing Agent. (d) This Section shall not be interpreted to limit any otherwise available civil or administrative remedies under law.”
Section 3. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,

10.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment A- Copy of Ordinance [Revision 1] (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective October 1, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
___________________________
Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

10.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment A- Copy of Ordinance [Revision 1] (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/28/2022
SUBJECT:

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.

RECOMMENDED 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 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.

STAFF CONTACT:

Alyssa Barranti, Management Analyst
650-501-6027
[email protected]
Tina Wehrmeister, Assistant City Manager
650-738-7440
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

In October 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 838, which established sustainable food service ware standards, including prohibiting the use of plastic cutlery, stirrers, straws and encouraging the use of paper cups. The City’s Municipal Code also prohibits the use of foam, or solid polystyrene containers for prepared food.

In 2018, California adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 1884 requiring that full-service restaurants only provide single-use plastic straws upon consumer request versus distributing them automatically

10.b
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment B- 2.28.22 Staff Report (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) without a specific request from the consumer. The State expanded on this law by passing AB 1276 on October 5, 2021. Under AB 1276, food facilities must go beyond just plastic straws and require consumers to request additional food service ware accessories such as utensils, stirrers, splash sticks, and condiment packets. The State also strengthened enforcement by directing local governments to authorize an enforcement agency to enforce these statutes by June 1, 2022. Furthermore, AB 1276 allows local governments to adopt more restrictive requirements at their discretion.

In February 2020, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors repealed and replaced their existing 2011 ordinance with Ordinance No. 04823, also known as the “Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance”. The San Mateo County 2020 model ordinance expands on their 2011 ordinance to further reduce plastic pollution and litter by limiting the use of single-use plastic and other food service ware waste, such as plastic straws, utensils, cups, and clamshells. It also restricts many single-use fiber-based food service ware from containing intentionally added PFAS.

The City’s existing Sustainable Food Service Ware Ordinance was well ahead of the of the County ordinance until the County’s ordinance amendment in 2020. While the City’s existing ordinance contains provisions that align with the County’s current model ordinance, some discrepancies do exist. The County’s current Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance goes beyond that of the City to include prohibition of all disposable single use plastic service ware including cups, bowls, plates, takeout, and delivery containers. The County ordinance requires accessories to be distributed by request only, unbundled as separate individual units.

Additionally, the County prohibits open bins/containers for distribution of accessories, and requires customers to request accessories from an employee, or have them available at a dispenser that only dispenses one item at a time with the exception of refillable bulk condiment dispensers.

The San Mateo County Ordinance went into effect in March 2020 for the unincorporated areas, with the mandatory provisions scheduled to become operative and subject to enforcement in March 2021. However, recognizing the hardship caused by COVID-19 on restaurants and other food facilities, the County amended its ordinance on February 23, 2021, which extended the operational and enforcement start date of the ordinance one year to March 25, 2022. On October 5th, 2021 Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 1276, and AB 1200 mandating restrictions on the distribution of single-use food service ware accessories, and the sale and distribution of food packaging containing regulated PFAS substances. The County ordinance was amended once again on February 8th, 2022 to align with both State bills, changing the enforcement date to October 1, 2022. In April 2021, the City Council approved the FY 2021- 2022 work plan which represents the City Council priorities for the fiscal year. Workplan item 15 states the following:

Evaluate the City’s plastic food service ware ordinance and consider potential updates to address plastic cups and lids
The City currently has an ordinance regulating single use plastics and utensils. The City Council is interested in reviewing the provisions of the current City ordinance, comparing provisions with the San Mateo County ordinance, and potentially considering expanding the ordinance to additional materials such as plastic cups and lids.

10.b
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment B- 2.28.22 Staff Report (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) Per Council’s direction under the work plan, the proposed ordinance incorporates the County’s model ordinance, recently updated to reflect the more recent statutory requirements including cups and lids, referred to as “food service ware” within the ordinance.

The proposed ordinance would repeal the existing Article 4 (Ordinance No. 838), within Chapter 5 of Title 6 and replace it with a new Article 4 entitled “Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities”, which will be based on the County’s model ordinance. The provisions of the proposed ordinance are summarized as follows:

1. The definitions in section 6-5.401 have been updated to add certain terms to conform to the County’s model ordinance.

2. The prohibition on the use of foam or solid polystyrene as containers for prepared food remains in section 6-5.402.

3. Accessories such as straws, stirrers, utensils, condiment cups and packets, napkins, stick/picks, toothpicks, cup spill plugs, cup sleeves etc. shall be provided only when requested by the consumer. Accessories will be available unbundled as separate individual units at refillable dispensers that dispense one item at a time. Take-out food delivery services that utilize digital ordering platforms shall provide clear options for customers to affirmatively request accessories.

4. Food facilities shall use non-plastic, compostable plates, bowls, cups (of all sizes), food trays, clamshells, boxes, deli containers, and other containers. These items may be lined with, but not made entirely of compostable plastic. Additionally, these items shall be certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) or by another 3rd party approved by the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability (OOS) to ensure that the items breakdown in an industrial composting facility and are free of or have minimal traces of harmful fluorinated chemicals.

5. Some notable exemptions that will be allowed are summarized below. a. Disposable food service ware made from aluminum.
b. Disposable plastic straws may be provided only upon request to consumers with medical needs.
c. Healthcare facilities may distribute disposable plastic straws without a request from the patient.
d. Drive-through areas of food facilities, may ask a drive through customer if the customer wants a specific type of disposable food service ware accessory if the item is necessary for the customer to consume the prepared food, or to prevent spills, or to safely transport prepared food.
e. If no reasonably feasible disposable food service ware alternative exists

COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND FEEDBACK
In November 2021, leaders of several environmental organizations based in Pacifica, wrote to City officials expressing strong support for the adoption of the San Mateo County model Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance with an additional requirement for reusable food ware when food is consumed on premises (dine-in) (see Attachment C). This request goes above and beyond provisions of the San Mateo County model ordinance. The suggested changes would exclude disposable paper food wrappers, sleeves, foil wrappers, paper napkins, and paper tray liners for dine-in customers. Should the City choose to include this provision, the City, and not the County, would be responsible to enforce a reusables requirement for dine-in food facilities as this is not a provision of the County model ordinance. Due to limited enforcement resources, the City Manager is not recommending adoption of the modified dine-in requirement as a

10.b
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment B- 2.28.22 Staff Report (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) mandatory regulation. Further, this would require operational changes to impacted restaurants; additional outreach and education is recommended prior to adoption of a mandatory reusable requirement for all dine-in establishments, if the Council were interested in this option. An alternative is also provided below under Alternative Action.

City staff sent notice to a Pacifica food facilities email list generated by business license records to provide information on the proposed ordinance amendment which included information on how to comment/and or join to participate in tonight’s meeting.

The recommended amendment satisfies Council’s desire to develop stronger regulations related to disposable food service ware in the City of Pacifica while participating in a regional, uniform approach to restricting the use and distribution of plastics countywide.

Benefits to adopting the County’s Ordinance
Adoption of an ordinance modeled after the San Mateo County ordinance regulating the use of disposable food service ware by food facilities creates a collaborative, regional streamlined approach to restricting the use of and distribution of plastics countywide. The benefits to adopting an ordinance modeled after the County’s Ordinance include:
• Outreach and Education: The County will be responsible for the education and outreach efforts to Pacifica food establishments when the ordinance is implemented at no cost to the City. This includes providing and maintaining its website with an available a list of approved disposable food service ware sources and/ or references to organizations that maintain regularly updated lists of products that meet the ordinance requirements. • Enforcement: The County will also provide enforcement for all cities that adopt the ordinance at no cost to the City. Enforcement is anticipated to be complaint based. • Regional Streamlining: Adoption of the San Mateo County model ordinance allows for a regional, uniform approach to the implementation policies of the ordinance.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
To promote consistency within jurisdictions throughout San Mateo County and leverage economies of scale, the County has offered to lead the education and enforcement efforts. The proposed Ordinance has been drafted to designate the County of San Mateo as the “Enforcing Agent”. To permit San Mateo County to provide these services, the City will be required to enter a Memorandum of Understanding (see Attachment B).

Should the City desire to go above and beyond provisions of the County and require reusable food service ware for dine-in as requested in Attachment C, the City will be held responsible to enforce this provision.

The enforcement date of the proposed ordinance amendment, enforced by San Mateo County is October 1, 2022.

CEQA
Adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that said actions may have a significant effect on the environment.

10.b
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment B- 2.28.22 Staff Report (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance) ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The proposed ordinance satisfies Council’s desire to develop stronger regulations related to disposable food service ware in the City of Pacifica while participating in a regional, uniform approach to restricting the use and distribution of plastics countywide. However, the following alternative actions have been identified for City Council consideration:
• Add a provision that food service facilities are highly encouraged to provide reusable food service ware in place of single-use disposable food service ware for dine-in customers. In this instance, San Mateo County will provide only education for this provision.
• The Council may decline to adopt proposed amendments or request modifications.

However, this option is not recommended as the proposed amendments have been identified to conform with California State Law AB 1200 and AB 1276 as well as increase City contribution to environmental preservation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Priority No. 15 –Evaluate the City’s plastic food service ware ordinance and consider potential updates to address plastic cups and lids.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact to the City upon adoption of this ordinance as the County of San Mateo will be responsible for education, outreach and enforcement of this ordinance.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A- Draft Ordinance Amendment (PDF)
Attachment B- Disposable Food Service Ware MOU (PDF)
Attachment C- Environmental Organization Letter (PDF)

10.b
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment B- 2.28.22 Staff Report (4923 : Food Service Ware Ordinance)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Adoption of 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.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to Adopt an Ordinance titled “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 find the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

STAFF CONTACT:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
(510) 273-8780
[email protected]
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7408
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

This ordinance (Attachment A) was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council held on February 28, 2022 and is now in order for adoption. Attached to this report, for reference, is the staff report from February 28, 2022 (Attachment B) which was presented to Council for the introduction of the ordinance.

At the City Council meeting held on February 28, 2022, in addition to introduction of the ordinance as proposed, the Council also adopted Resolution No. 12-2022, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Temporary Safe Parking Program, the Operations Agreement with the Pacifica Resource Center and Funding for the Program.” RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“A Healthy and Compassionate Community” includes addressing affordable housing and mental health services, investigating strategies related to homelessness, and supporting youth services.

CEQA:

Adoption of the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities exempts the operation, permitting, leasing, or licensing of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of the use beyond 11 Packet Pg. 251
Pacifica City Council 2
March 14, 2022
that existing at the time of determination of exemption. In this case the public facility, parking areas on existing streets, will continue to be used for that purpose. Section CEQA Guidelines 15304(e) – Minor Alterations to Land exempts minor temporary uses having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment. Further, since the parking areas in the ROW are being used for the purpose they are originally intended, it could be argued that adoption of the Ordinance is not a “project” that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment and is exempt under the “common sense” exception (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action to adopt the ordinance introduced on February 28, 2022 amending sections of Titles 4 and 5 the Pacifica Municipal Code related to on-street parking regulations would have a significant effect on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This program is proposed as a partnership between the City, the County of San Mateo, and the Pacifica Resource Center. In the Adopted Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget, the City Council allocated $150,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for assistance to the vehicularly housed and a mobile dumping station program. A mobile dumping station program, serving an average of 13 vehicles once every two weeks is estimated to cost $30,000 per year.

Therefore, $120,000 in FY2021-22 ARPA funding could be committed to the Safe Permit Parking Program. This amount is recommended for each year of the three-year program.

The County of San Mateo has allocated $400,000 in ARPA funding for this program, in part in response to PRC grant applications and the PRC’s working relationship with the County to fund assistance to the unhoused. And the Pacifica Resource Center additionally has applied for Homeless Outreach Funds, of which approximately $50,000, if received, could be applied to the program. In addition, other grant opportunities in the future may become available that could be applied to this program, and the program will generate a small but unknown amount from participant fees that could be applied to the program.

Year 1
(July 2022-
June, 2023)
Year 2
(July 2023-
June, 2024)
Year 3
(July 2024-
June, 2025)
City (ARPA or other) $120,000 $120,000 $120,000
County (ARPA) $160,000 $193,000 $47,000
PRC (Grants or other) $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Total Funding Available: $330,000 $363,000 $217,000
Est. Program Expense: $(330,000) $(363,000) $(363,000)
Balance: $0 $0 $(146,000)
ARPA funds are required to be obligated by December 31, 2024 and expended by December 31, 2026. Therefore, the $146,000 shortfall in Year 3 in the above table could be funded through an additional grant or if the program is successful and the Board of Supervisors approves, additional ARPA funding from the County and/or the City.

In the event the Council does not approve the Program, the Geary litigation will continue, and the City would incur significant additional costs in defending the lawsuit which could exceed $500,000. These additional costs would be in addition to the over $300,000 in legal defense costs already expended in this lawsuit. The Geary Plaintiffs will also seek recovery of the additional attorneys’ fees incurred for this further litigation, also estimated to potentially exceed $500,000.
11 Packet Pg. 252
Pacifica City Council 3
March 14, 2022
ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Sections of Titles 4 and 5 the Pacifica Municipal Code (DOCX)
Attachment B: Staff Report February 28, 2022 (PDF)
11 Packet Pg. 253
ORDINANCE NO.

AN 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
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2021, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 72-2021, approving execution of a settlement agreement between the City of Pacifica and Plaintiffs Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode and Stephen Sanders and approving a memorandum of understanding with Pacifica Resource Center for development and implementation of a safe parking permit program; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2022, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 12-2022, approving the adoption of a Temporary Safe Parking Program (“Program”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance would create a Regular, Provisional, or Short-Term Permit to allow Permit Holders of the Temporary Safe Parking Program to park their Designated Vehicles at their assigned Parking Sites; and
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 22507(b) authorizes the establishment of preferential parking permits for members of organizations, professions, or other designated groups to park on specified streets; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of the Program will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area given the very limited number of parking sites identified to participate in the Program.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Amended. Article 12, "Stopping, Standing and Parking Restricted or Prohibited," Chapter 7, "Traffic" within Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, is hereby amended to add a new Section 4-

7.1207, “Temporary safe parking permits” to read in its entirety as follows:
“Sec. 4-7.1207. Temporary safe parking permits.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the Temporary Safe Parking Program is to establish a temporary preferential parking program that allows admitted participants a dedicated parking space for parking their Designated Vehicles.

11.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Sections of Titles 4 and 5 the Pacifica Municipal Code (4919 : Ordinance Adoption - 2 (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall mean and include:
(1) Designated Vehicles shall mean those operational recreational vehicles, trailers or motorhomes with operating toilets that are owned or leased by Permit Holders or are being utilized by a Permit Holder with permission of the registered owner of the vehicle and identified in the application for the Program and authorized to park at the Parking Site. (2) Parking Site(s) shall mean those thirteen locations for parking identified in the Program.

The Parking Sites shall be identified by resolution of the city council and/or posted with signs indicating no parking except by permit.
(3) Permit shall mean either a valid Regular, Provisional, or Short-Term Permit issued pursuant to this Section. Regular Permit shall mean the permit issued to applicants accepted to the Program who meet all of the qualifications for the Program. Provisional Permit shall mean the permit issued to applicants to the Program who meet at least two of the qualifications for the Program at the time the application is filed, but who need additional time to comply with all of the qualifications for the Program. Short-Term Permit shall mean a Short-Term Permit that may be issued under the Program for oversized vehicle parking for not more than 72 hours at Parking Sites that are not assigned to Regular or Provisional Permit Holders.
(4) Permit Holder shall mean those individuals who are issued a Permit. (5) Program shall mean the Temporary Safe Parking Program established by the Council via Resolution No. 12-2022 and the Operations Agreement with the Pacifica Resource Center, as may be amended from time to time.
(6) Regular or Provisional Permit Holders shall mean those people that apply for and are admitted to the Program and are issued either a Regular Permit or a Provisional Permit. (7) Short-Term Permit Holders shall mean those people that are issued a Short-Term Permit.
(c) Permit required. No vehicle shall be parked in a Parking Site without displaying a valid Permit issued in accordance with the Program.
(d) Duration of Permit.
(i) A Regular Permit may be issued upon admittance to the Program, for a single term of 29 days, with the potential for issuance of subsequent Regular Permits for single terms of 29 days.

A Provisional Permit may be issued upon admittance to the Program for one single term of 29 days with no renewal period. A Short-Term Permit may be issued for a period no longer than 72 hours.
(ii) Regular or Provisional Permit Holders shall not be subject to the 72 hour parking limitations set forth in section 5-2.01 et seq.
(iv) Short-Term Permit Holders are subject to the 72 hour parking limitations set forth in section 5-2.01 et seq.
(e) Limitations.
(1) The Permit Holder must comply with all other laws and any rules or code of conduct adopted as part of the Program, as may be amended from time to time. (2) The Permit must be displayed in the front dashboard area of the Designated Vehicle.

11.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Sections of Titles 4 and 5 the Pacifica Municipal Code (4919 : Ordinance Adoption - 3 (f) Termination and Revocation. The Permit may be terminated and revoked in accordance with the Program standards.
(g) Violation. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of an infraction, and upon conviction, shall be punishable as set forth in Chapter 2 of Title 1 of this Code.” Section 3. Amended. 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, is hereby amended to read as follows with deletions in strikethrough and additions in underline:

Section 5-2.03. - Violations: Abatement.
(a) No person who owns or has the possession, custody, or control of any vehicle shall park such vehicle or leave the vehicle standing upon any highway for a period of more than seventy-two (72) consecutive hours.
(b) In the event a vehicle is in violation of subsection (a) of this section, any member of the Police Division of the Department of Public Safety authorized by the Director of Public Safety may remove such vehicle from the highway in the manner provided in, and subject to the requirements of, the Vehicle Code of the State and this chapter.
(c) This section shall not apply to those vehicles displaying a valid Regular Permit or Provisional Permit issued in accordance with the Temporary Safe Parking Program pursuant to section 4-

7.1207.

Section 4. Compliance with CEQA. This Ordinance is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities exempts the operation, permitting, leasing, or licensing of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of the use beyond that existing at the time of determination of exemption. In this case the public facility, parking areas on existing streets, will continue to be used for that purpose. Section CEQA Guidelines 15304(e) – Minor Alterations to Land exempts minor temporary uses having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment. Further, since the parking areas in the ROW are being used for the purpose they are originally intended, it could be argued that the Program and Ordinance are not a “project” that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment and are exempt under the “common sense” exception (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that introduction and adoption of the proposed ordinance would have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.

Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after adoption.

11.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Sections of Titles 4 and 5 the Pacifica Municipal Code (4919 : Ordinance Adoption - 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

11.a
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Sections of Titles 4 and 5 the Pacifica Municipal Code (4919 : Ordinance Adoption - 5 11.a
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Sections of Titles 4 and 5 the Pacifica Municipal Code (4919 : Ordinance Adoption -

CITY OF PACIFICA

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

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.

RECOMMENDED 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.

STAFF CONTACT:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney – (510) 273-8780 [email protected]
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager – (650) 738-7408
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Lawsuit and Settlement Agreement
On March 15, 2021, the ACLU, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and Disability Rights Advocates filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Pacifica on behalf of the Plaintiffs1 challenging the City’s Oversized Vehicle (OSV) Ordinance and its Vehicular Habitation Ordinance2. The lawsuit alleges that the OSV Ordinance (Pacifica Municipal Code Sections 4-

7.1204 and 4-7.1205) and the Vehicular Habitation Ordinance (Pacifica Municipal Code 4-

7.1114) are unconstitutional. It further alleges that the OSV Ordinance violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and California Government Code §11135. On November 8, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 72-2021 approving execution of a settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) for the lawsuit and approving a memorandum of understanding with Pacifica Resource Center (“PRC”) for development and implementation of a temporary safe parking program (“Program”) and identifying the 13 designated parking spots that would be used for the Program.
1 Named Plaintiffs identified in the Complaint are as follows: Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen Sanders
2 Geary, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780

11.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment B: Staff Report February 28, 2022 (4919 : Ordinance Adoption - Temporary Safe Parking Program) Pacifica City Council 2
February 28, 2022
As part of the Settlement Agreement, the City agreed to develop and adopt an on-street Program, to be jointly administered with PRC. If adopted, the attached Resolution would both approve the Program and the Operations Agreement with PRC which sets forth the obligations of the City and PRC which are discussed in more detail below.

Temporary Safe Parking Program
City staff worked with PRC to develop a three-year Program in the City of Pacifica which will provide participants living in an operational recreational vehicle, trailer or motorhome with operating restroom facilities a temporary parking space for a limited period of time as participants in the Program try to find permanent housing solutions. The Program would allow parking of oversized vehicles in 13 designated parking spaces for up to 29 days at a time. PRC would implement the Program, with assistance from the City, in accordance with the Operations Agreement between PRC and the City and other supporting documents developed by PRC to be used between PRC and the participants in the Program, such as a Participant Bill of Rights and Onsite Code of Conduct, as well as a Release of Liability.

The thirteen locations, which were approved by the Council on November 8, 2021, are as follows:
(1) 4 spaces on the west side of Oceana Boulevard, west of the City of Pacifica Public Works Department Building at 151 Milagra Avenue. (2) 3 spaces on Lundy Way. To accommodate these spaces, the City will widen Lundy Way sufficient to make OSV parking safe.
(3) 1 space on Milagra Drive, across the road from City of Pacifica Public Works Department Building at 151 Milagra Avenue.
(4) 1 space on the west side of Francisco Boulevard near the North Coast County Water District facility at 2400 Francisco Boulevard.
(6) 2 spaces on the west side of Bradford Way near the Sharp Park Golf Course. (7) 2 spaces on San Pedro in the dirt ROW in front of ACE Hardware.

Individuals who desire issuance of a parking permit associated with the Program will apply to PRC, which will screen the applicants. PRC’s screening process at a minimum, will consist of an application form and application review process. The purpose of PRC’s assessment is to ensure that applicants can meet the Program criteria. Among some of the requirements that participants in program must abide by are adherence to codes of conduct while they are seeking PRC services towards housing and will be required to sign a Release of Liability.

PRC will be responsible for issuing Permits to those individuals who meet the criteria for the Program (“Permit Holders”) either in the form of a “Regular Permit”, “Provisional Permit” or “Short-Term Permit.” Applicants to the Program who meet all of the criteria for the Program may be issued a “Regular Permit” upon admittance to the Program for a single term of 29 days, with the potential for renewal for additional 29-day terms at a different parking space. Renewal of the Regular Permit may be granted by PRC, in PRC’s sole discretion. Applicants who do not meet all of the criteria for the Program at the time the application is filed with the PRC and who may need additional time to comply with the Program may be issued a “Provisional Permit” upon admittance to the Program for one single term of 29 days with no renewal period. PRC may issue Provisional Permits, to Applicants who meet at least two of the Program criteria identified above, so long as the total number of Provisional Permits issued at any point does not exceed the maximum total of six Provisional Permits. Further, PRC, at its discretion, may issue Short-Term Permits, for oversized vehicle parking for not more than 72 hours at Parking Sites that are not assigned to Regular or Provisional Permit Holders. Permits may be terminated when Permit Holders no longer meet the criteria for the Program or are otherwise disqualified to participate in the Program.

11.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment B: Staff Report February 28, 2022 (4919 : Ordinance Adoption - Temporary Safe Parking Program) Pacifica City Council 3
February 28, 2022
PRC, at its discretion, will collect a fee for the Program at the time the Regular Permit or Provisional Permit is issued and upon reissuance of the Regular Permit every 29 days. There is no fee for Short-Term Permits. The fee shall be set on a sliding scale and will be paid to PRC.

The fee schedule is as follows:
• $29 for families with income at 30% or below median income; • $290 for families with income between 30% and 50% of median income; and • $725 for families with income between 50% and 80% of median income.

Of the 13 spaces in the Program, 5 are located in the Coastal Zone:
• 1 space on the west side of Francisco Boulevard near the North Coast County Water District facility at 2400 Francisco Boulevard.
• 2 spaces on the west side of Bradford Way near the Sharp Park Golf Course. • 2 spaces on San Pedro in the dirt ROW in front of ACE Hardware.

The designation of these five spaces assigned for oversized vehicle parking may be considered “development” as it is broadly defined in the Coastal Act and the City’s Local Coastal Plan and would require a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”). Staff will thus be proceeding with an application for a CDP if the Program is approved.

Operations Agreement with PRC
The Resolution, if adopted, will also approve an Operations Agreement (“OA”) between the Pacifica Resource Center which specifies the obligations of PRC and the City and provide details regarding the framework for the Program. Some of PRC’s obligations under the OA include: screening of applicants, issuance of Regular, Provisional and Short Term permits (as discussed above), assignment of parking spaces, requiring adherence to codes of conduct, written documentation provided to Permit Holders, assist in maintenance of parking spaces, cohosting of a mobile dumping station, and periodic reporting to City on status of Program.

The City’s funding obligations are set forth in the OA and include: striping of the 13 parking spaces as described in the OA, regular police patrol of the parking spaces, co-hosting of a mobile dumping station at a cost of up to $30,000 per year and payments to PRC in installments of $120,000 by June 30, 2022; $120,000 by June 30, 2023; and $120,000 by June 30, 2024, as well as the provision of dumpsters or drop off service for garbage disposal.

The OA also provides that the Code of Conduct for Regular and Provisional Permit Holders require at a minimum that all Permit Holders do the following: (i) properly dispose of gray and black water; (ii) properly dispose of trash and recyclables; (iii) keep all personal property within the Designated Vehicle and do not place any personal property or items around the exterior of the Designated Vehicle, including but not limited to chairs, tables, tarps, BBQs; (iv) do not cook outside the Designated Vehicle or light any fires; (v) do not store hazardous materials in or around the Designated Vehicle; (vi) do not participate in illegal drug use or sales, illegal activities or violence; (vii) properly control pets; (viii) do not block any access to the sidewalk; (ix) be considerate of neighbors and not loiter, trespass, publicly use drugs or alcohol, light fires, or use open flames or other burners in the Parking Site or surrounding area; and (x) comply with all laws during participation in the Program. The Code of Conduct for Short-Term Permit Holders shall require at a minimum that all Short-Term Permit Holders do the following: (i) properly dispose of gray and black water; (ii) properly dispose of trash and recyclables; (iii) keep all personal property within the Designated Vehicle and do not place any personal property or items around the exterior of the Designated Vehicle including but not limited to chairs, tables, tarps, BBQs; (iv) do not cook outside the Designated Vehicle or light any fires; (v) do not store hazardous materials in or around the Designated Vehicle; (vi) do not participate in illegal drug

11.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment B: Staff Report February 28, 2022 (4919 : Ordinance Adoption - Temporary Safe Parking Program) Pacifica City Council 4
February 28, 2022
use or sales, illegal activities or violence; (vii) properly control pets; (viii) do not block any access to the sidewalk; and (ix) be considerate of neighbors and not loiter, trespass, publicly use drugs or alcohol, light fires, or use open flames or other burners in the Parking Site or surrounding area.

Participants in the Program would also be required to sign a Release of Liability, which would specify that the participants assume all risks of participating in the Program and that PRC and the City of Pacifica shall not be held liable for any injury or damages. The Release also specifies that no tenancy rights are created through participation in the Program.

Temporary Safe Parking Permit Ordinance
In order for participants in the Safe Parking Program to park on the street for more than 72 hours, the City must also amend its parking regulations to establish a parking program to allow for Permit Holders to park legally for the duration of the Permit. The proposed Ordinance, if adopted, would add a new PMC Section 4-7.1207, which specifies various parameters for the use of Regular, Provisional, and Short-Term Permits under the Program. Section 4-7.1207 further provides that no vehicle shall be parked in a Parking Site without displaying a valid Permit issued in accordance with the Program, and that any person violating any provision of section 4-7.1207 is guilty of an infraction, and upon conviction, shall be punishable as set forth in Chapter 2 of Title 1 of the Code.

The proposed Ordinance would also amend PMC Section 5-2.03 to create an exemption from the City’s 72-hour parking limitation for vehicles displaying either a valid Regular Permit or Provisional Permit under the Program. No exemption is necessary for the Short-Term Permits since those permits only allow parking in the Safe Parking Sites for 72 hours.

Mobile Dumping Services Program
An important part of this program is the provision of a mobile dumping services program in order for participants to safely dispose of blackwater from their motorhomes, ensuring public health and environmental protection. It is envisioned that this service would be coordinated between the City and PRC, funded by the City, staffed on-site by the PRC, and would be operated by a licensed third-party contractor. City staff have evaluated potential locations on City property for the program to operate one day every two weeks and have determined that the most feasible location is at the 2212 Beach Boulevard location that is currently used as a Public Works storage yard. This site has sufficient ingress and egress capability for motorhomes, is visually protected, and is off-street. After initially conducting the program and gaining experience with the number of motorhomes being served and site logistics, should another location be identified that is more desirable, the program could be moved in the future. Based on quotes received by the PRC, a program servicing an average of 13 motorhomes once every two weeks is estimated to cost $30,000.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Although not recommended, the Council could choose not to approve the Resolution approving the Program and OA, which would cause the Geary litigation to continue.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“A Healthy and Compassionate Community” includes addressing affordable housing and mental health services, investigating strategies related to homelessness, and supporting youth services.

CEQA:

Adoption of the Resolution approving the Program and Operations Agreement and introduction

11.b
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment B: Staff Report February 28, 2022 (4919 : Ordinance Adoption - Temporary Safe Parking Program) Pacifica City Council 5
February 28, 2022
of the Temporary Safe Parking Permit Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities exempts the operation, permitting, leasing, or licensing of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of the use beyond that existing at the time of determination of exemption. In this case the public facility, parking areas on existing streets, will continue to be used for that purpose. Section CEQA Guidelines 15304(e) – Minor Alterations to Land exempts minor temporary uses having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment. Further, since the parking areas in the ROW are being used for the purpose they are originally intended, it could be argued that the Program and Ordinance are not a “project” that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment and are exempt under the “common sense” exception (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that these actions to approve the Safe Parking Program, the Operations Agreement and introduction of the proposed ordinance would have a significant effect on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This program is proposed as a partnership between the City, the County of San Mateo, and the Pacifica Resource Center. In the Adopted Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget, the City Council allocated $150,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for assistance to the vehicularly housed and a mobile dumping station program. A mobile dumping station program, serving an average of 13 vehicles once every two weeks is estimated to cost $30,000 per year.

Therefore, $120,000 in FY2021-22 ARPA funding could be committed to the Safe Permit Parking Program. This amount is recommended for each year of the three-year program.

The County of San Mateo has allocated $400,000 in ARPA funding for this program, in part in response to PRC grant applications and the PRC’s working relationship with the County to fund assistance to the unhoused. And the Pacifica Resource Center additionally has applied for Homeless Outreach Funds, of which approximately $50,000, if received, could be applied to the program. In addition, other grant opportunities in the future may become available that could be applied to this program, and the program will generate a small but unknown amount from participant fees that could be applied to the program.

Year 1
(July 2022-
June, 2023)
Year 2
(July 2023-
June, 2024)
Year 3
(July 2024-
June, 2025)
City (ARPA or other) $120,000 $120,000 $120,000
County (ARPA) $160,000 $193,000 $47,000
PRC (Grants or other) $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Total Funding Available: $330,000 $363,000 $217,000
Est. Program Expense: $(330,000) $(363,000) $(363,000)
Balance: $0 $0 $(146,000)
ARPA funds are required to be obligated by December 31, 2024 and expended by December 31, 2026. Therefore, the $146,000 shortfall in Year 3 in the above table could be funded through an additional grant or if the program is successful and the Board of Supervisors approves, additional ARPA funding from the County and/or the City.

In the event the Council does not approve the Program, the Geary litigation will continue, and the City would incur significant additional costs in defending the lawsuit which could exceed $500,000. These additional costs would be in addition to the over $300,000 in legal defense costs already expended in this lawsuit. The Geary Plaintiffs will also seek recovery of the additional attorneys’ fees incurred for this further litigation, also estimated to potentially exceed $500,000.

11.b
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment B: Staff Report February 28, 2022 (4919 : Ordinance Adoption - Temporary Safe Parking Program) Pacifica City Council 6
February 28, 2022
ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

A. Resolution Approving the Temporary Safe Parking Program, Operations Agreement with the Pacifica Resource Center, and Funding for the Program (DOC) B. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Operations Agreement with Code of Conduct Exhibits (PDF) C. Ordinance Amending Sections of Titles 4 and 5 the Pacifica Municipal Code (DOCX)

11.b
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment B: Staff Report February 28, 2022 (4919 : Ordinance Adoption - Temporary Safe Parking Program)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Redistricting - Public Hearing #4 to Receive Input Regarding Proposed Draft District Maps, Composition of Council District Boundaries; Affirm Selection of Map 505b 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
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. Conduct the Public Hearing to Receive Input Regarding Composition of Council District Boundaries and Affirm Selection of Map 505b; and

2. 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”).

STAFF CONTACT:

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

On December 17, 2018, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 839- C.S., establishing a district-based system for the election of members of the City Council by five districts, establishing the boundaries and identification number of each district and establishing the election order of each district. This ordinance added Chapter 9 “District Elections” to Title 2 of the Pacifica Municipal Code. By this action, the City of Pacifica changed from an at-large election system to a by district election system for the election of City Council members, established five voting districts to elect Councilmembers, adopted Map 505b defining City Council district boundaries and establishing the sequence of elections for each district with Districts 1 and 4 to be elected in November 2020 and Districts 2, 3 and 5 to be elected in November 2022.

Every ten years, after the federal census is complete, district lines must be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted to keep the boundaries as nearly equal in population as possible, allowing for certain variances due to geography, topography, communities of interest, etc., as required by federal and California law. This process of reviewing the census data and adjusting the district boundary lines is called redistricting. The City of Pacifica has engaged National Demographics Corporation (NDC) to provide demographer services to assist in the process of redistricting. The redistricting process for the City of Pacifica must be completed by April 17, 2022. 12 Packet Pg. 265
Pacifica City Council 2
March 14, 2022
In California, the process for redistricting is established by the Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities and Political Subdivisions Act (“Act”). Under the Act, cities and counties must conduct certain outreach, maintain websites with publicly available information about draft maps and hold at least four public hearings on the issue.

Under the Act, the council shall draw and adopt boundaries using the following criteria in the listed order of priority (Elections Code 21601(c) for general law cities):

1. Comply with the federal requirements of equal population and the federal Voting Rights Act

2. Geographically contiguous

3. Undivided neighborhoods and “communities of interest” (socio-economic geographic areas that should be kept together)

4. Easily identifiable boundaries

5. Compact (do not bypass one group of people to get to a more distant group of people)

6. Shall not favor or discriminate against a political party Once the above prioritized criteria are met, other traditional districting principles may be considered, such as:

1. Minimizing the number of voters delayed from voting due to a change of their district;

2. Respecting voters’ choices / continuity in office

3. Future population growth
By law, the City must hold at least four public hearings that enable community members to provide input on the redistricting process. The process involves the following requirements:
● At least one hearing must occur before the City draws draft maps ● At least two hearings must happen after the drawing of draft maps ● The fourth hearing can happen either before or after the drawing of draft maps ● City staff or consultants may hold a public workshop instead of one of the required public redistricting hearings
Previously, the first public hearing in the redistricting process was held on January 10, 2022. At the January 10, 2022 Public Hearing, the Council received a presentation from NDC providing a general overview of the redistricting process, information regarding the federal and state requirements regarding the criteria in order of priority to be used to establish district boundaries, review of the existing district boundary map 505b with 2020 census data and received public input on what factors should be taken into consideration while creating district boundaries.

The January 10, 2022 public hearing was held prior to the consideration of any draft maps.

The second public hearing to consider redistricting was held on February 14, 2022. The purpose of the second public hearing was to receive input from the community on what factors should be taken into consideration while evaluating district boundaries such as input on neighborhoods and communities of interest, and to consider any draft maps that have been submitted or prepared. At that public hearing, the existing map 505b and a draft map submitted by a member of the public, identified as map 506, was considered. The Council directed staff to bring further analysis of map 506 with additional information about demographics and street level detail and to consider an additional draft map based on map 506 with adjustments made to boundaries to move an identified population block from District 3 to District 4.

The third public hearing to consider redistricting and the second at which draft maps were 12 Packet Pg. 266
Pacifica City Council 3
March 14, 2022
considered was held on February 28, 2022. At the public hearing on February 28, 2022, Council received input from the community regarding the draft maps, district boundaries, and election sequencing.

The City has a webpage dedicated to the redistricting process which can be found here:
www.cityofpacifica.org/Redistricting <http://www.cityofpacifica.org/Redistricting> City staff has also made efforts to conduct outreach to the public to provide information on the City’s redistricting process including the following:
• Public Hearing Notice for the January 10, 2022 public hearing was posted at City Hall on January 4, 2022 and published in the Pacifica Tribune on January 5, 2022. • Following the January 10, 2022 public hearing, public mapping kits in English and Spanish were posted to the City website and available at City Hall. • Public Hearing Notice for the February 14, 2022 Public Hearing #2 was posted at City Hall on January 21, 2022 and published in the Pacifica Tribune on January 26, 2022 and February 2, 2022.
• Public Hearing Notice for the February 28, 2022 Public Hearing #3 was posted at City Hall on February 11, 2022 and published in the Pacifica Tribune on February 16, 2022 and February 23, 2022, published in Spanish in El Reportero on February 25, 2022 and published in Chinese in the World Journal on February 24, 2022. • Information on redistricting and soliciting public input and submission of draft maps for the redistricting process were published in the City of Pacifica’s “Connect With Pacifica” weekly e-newsletter and distributed by email on January 21, 2022, January 28, 2022 and February 4, 2022.
• Information on redistricting and soliciting public input and submission of draft maps in reference to the February 14, 2022 Public Hearing was also published to the City’s NextDoor and Facebook social media feeds on February 2, 2022. • Draft maps for consideration at the February 28, 2022 Public Hearing were published on the City’s Redistricting webpage (www.cityofpacifica.org/Redistricting <http://www.cityofpacifica.org/Redistricting>) on February 20, 2022. • Public Hearing Notice for the March 14, 2022 Public Hearing #4 was posted at City Hall on March 4, 2022 and published in the Pacifica Tribune on March 9, 2022.

Public comments and input regarding redistricting can be sent to the City via email to [email protected]; please indicate “Redistricting” in the subject line.

DISCUSSION:

Tonight’s March 14, 2022 meeting is the fourth public hearing to consider redistricting. At the previous public hearing on February 28, 2022, Council received information regarding three draft maps under consideration - Map 505b, Draft Map 506 and Draft Map 506b - including demographer consultant NDC’s analysis of each of the maps with respect to the 2020 census data; Council received input from the community regarding the draft maps, district boundaries, and election sequencing; and Council approved an introduction of a proposed ordinance with the final selected district map and election sequencing with the intent of re-adopting the current Council District Map 505b and retaining the existing election sequencing for the existing districts.
12 Packet Pg. 267
Pacifica City Council 4
March 14, 2022
Following introduction of the ordinance, it was discovered that there was a discrepancy in the depiction of the map included in the proposed ordinance. Map 505b referenced in the proposed ordinance introduced at the February 28, 2022 meeting depicted NDC’s version of Map 505b, which was based on the 2020 Census blocks. These Census blocks did deviate slightly from the original district boundaries adopted by the Council in 2018.

To honor the City Council’s and community’s intent to preserve the existing precise official District lines of Map 505b as adopted in 2018, Staff is recommending that the Council conduct another first reading of the ordinance using the current District Map 505b as adopted in 2018.

NDC’s analysis of the current District Map 505b as adopted in 2018, concludes that the overall population balance of the map is still well below the 10% “presumed constitutional” limit to meet the federal requirements of equal population under the federal Voting Rights Act, even considering where approximations must be made to consider where official district lines may split census blocks.

Ordinance
Staff has prepared the proposed ordinance which amends Pacifica Municipal Code section 2-

9.02 to repeal and replace the existing code provisions. The sequencing of the elections is found in Pacifica Municipal Code Section 2-9.04 and will remain unchanged. This provision provides for Districts 2, 3 and 5 to be elected in November 2022 and Districts 1 and 4 to be elected in November 2024.

It is recommended that Council introduce and waive the first reading and read by title only, the ordinance proposed as attached.

Next Steps
If the proposed Ordinance is introduced at tonight’s meeting, the Ordinance will be in order for adoption at the March 28, 2022 regular City Council meeting.

The revised timeline to complete the redistricting and map adoption process is summarized as follows:
• Public Hearing #1 January 10, 2022 - review process and laws, review 2020 census data, receive input on composition of districts
• Public Hearing #2 February 14, 2022 - review draft maps • Public Hearing #3 February 28, 2022 - selection of final map • Public Hearing #4 March 14, 2022 - Introduction of ordinance with selection of final map • March 28, 2022 - Adoption of ordinance
• April 17, 2022 - Deadline for City to transmit Ordinance and GIS shape files corresponding to adopted final district map to the County of San Mateo Registrar of Voters / Elections Division.

CEQA:

Introduction of this ordinance is exempt from environmental review as the adoption of this Ordinance does not qualify as a “project” pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15320, 15378 and 15061(b)(3) since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the Ordinance would cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the 12 Packet Pg. 268
Pacifica City Council 5
March 14, 2022
environment.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The process of evaluating City Council districts with respect to updated 2020 census data and consideration of redistricting is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
“A Connected Community” includes taking actions to restore trust in City government, expanding communication and building community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of engaging NDC as the consulting demographer ranges from $3,500 to a notto-exceed amount of $45,000 per the attached agreement, with the low-range cost being associated with concluding the redistricting process with a finding that the current districts are “still balanced.”
Additional costs for the redistricting process that are not reflected in the agreement not-toexceed cost include city attorney legal expenses, publication expenses related to notices of public hearings associated with the redistricting process, printing and publication expenses for additional informational community outreach and advertising, and translation costs for meetings or printed materials, if necessary. The primary expense related to redistricting would be the engagement of the demographer per the attached agreement. Expenses for redistricting would be budgeted under the general fund City Manager - Election Expenses fund

01.200210.52331.0000.000.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:
12 Packet Pg. 269
Pacifica City Council 6
March 14, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. (ID # 4918)
ORDINANCE NO. _______
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
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 839-C.S. on December 17, 2018, to provide for the election of members of the City Council of the City of Pacifica bydistrict in five single-member districts and establish district boundaries for five City Council districts as defined in the voting district map 505b and set forth the election sequence of the five districts; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code 21601, following each federal decennial census for a city whose council is already elected using district-based elections, the council shall, by ordinance or resolution, adopt boundaries for all of the council districts of the city so that the council districts shall be substantially equal in population as required by the United States Constitution; and
WHEREAS, California Elections Code section 21600 et seq., requires, among other things, that following each decennial federal census, and using that census as a basis, the city council by ordinance or resolution, adopt boundaries for any or all of the council districts of the city so that the council districts shall be substantially equal in population as required by the United States Constitution (“redistricting”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code 21607.1(a), at a regular meeting held on January 10, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing where the public was invited to provide input regarding the composition of the City’s voting districts before any draft maps were drawn; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, at regular meetings held on February 14, 2022 and February 28, 2022, the City Council held public hearings pursuant to California Elections Code 21607, where the public was invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps that had been released at least seven (7) days before each meeting, and the City Council considered and discussed the same; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on February 28, 2022, the City Council discussed the draft maps and selected the final voting district map; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on March 14, 2022, the City Council affirmed the final voting district map and set forth the introduction of this Ordinance for a first reading; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with Elections Code section 21607.1(b)(c) and (d), all of the public hearings were commenced at a fixed time after 5:30 p.m., on a weekday, and were accessible to persons with disabilities; and
12 Packet Pg. 270
Pacifica City Council 7
March 14, 2022
WHEREAS, in compliance with Elections Code section 21608(a), the Council took steps to encourage residents, including those in underrepresented communities and nonEnglish speaking communities, to participate in the redistricting public review process.

These steps include, but are not limited to the following:
• Public Hearing Notice for the January 10, 2022 public hearing was posted at City Hall on January 4, 2022 and published in the Pacifica Tribune on January 5, 2022.
• Following the January 10, 2022 public hearing, public mapping kits in English and Spanish were posted to the City website and available at City Hall. • Public Hearing Notice for the February 14, 2022 Public Hearing #2 was posted at City Hall on January 21, 2022 and published in the Pacifica Tribune on January 26, 2022 and February 2, 2022.
• Public Hearing Notice for the February 28, 2022 Public Hearing #3 was posted at City Hall on February 11, 2022 and published in the Pacifica Tribune on February 16, 2022 and February 23, 2022, published in Spanish in El Reportero on February 25, 2022 and published in Chinese in the World Journal on February 24, 2022.
• Information on redistricting and soliciting public input and submission of draft maps for the redistricting process were published in the City of Pacifica’s “Connect With Pacifica” weekly e-newsletter and distributed by email on January 21, 2022, January 28, 2022 and February 4, 2022. • Information on redistricting and soliciting public input and submission of draft maps in reference to the February 14, 2022 Public Hearing was also published to the City’s NextDoor and Facebook social media feeds on February 2, 2022.
• Draft maps for consideration at the February 28, 2022 Public Hearing were published on the City’s Redistricting webpage
(www.cityofpacifica.org/Redistricting) on February 20, 2022.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code section 21608(c), the City established a redistricting website which provided a schedule with the date, time, and location for any public hearing relating to redistricting on the internet at least five days before the hearing and also provided access to redistricting data and for the purposes of drawing draft maps and paper mapping tools; and
WHEREAS, a fourth public hearing is scheduled to be held at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 14, 2022, to review and consider additional public input related to the selection of final district map and the introduction of this proposed ordinance with adoption of the ordinance anticipated to take place at a regular meeting on March 28, 2022; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code section 21608(d)(1), all draft maps considered by the Council were published on the City’s redistricting website at least seven days before being considered for adoption as a final map by the Council. 12 Packet Pg. 271
Pacifica City Council 8
March 14, 2022

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are a true and accurate and are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Determination.

Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review as the adoption of this Ordinance does not qualify as a “project” pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15320, 15378 and 15061(b)(3) since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the Ordinance would cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Section 3. Code Amendment. Title 2, “Administration”, Chapter 9,“District Elections” is amended by repealing Section 2-9.02, “City Council Districts” in its entirety and replacing it to read as follows:
“2-9.02. - City Council Districts.

Five City Council districts are hereby adopted in the City of Pacifica. The boundaries and identifying number of each district for the City Council elections shall be as described on the Council District Map 505b included and incorporated below:
12 Packet Pg. 272
Pacifica City Council 9
March 14, 2022
Section 4. Authorization for Technical Adjustments. The City’s demographer, National Demographics Corporation (NDC), is hereby authorized to make non-substantive technical adjustments to Map 505b to finalize the Map as necessary and to prepare a GIS shapefile which identifies the Council district boundaries consistent with Map 505b as well as census 12 Packet Pg. 273
Pacifica City Council 10 March 14, 2022
blocks and tracts, as may be necessary, in a form approved by the City Clerk and City Attorney.

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The Council of the City of Pacifica hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.

Section 6. Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption as provided by Government Code section 36937.