Agenda — Pacifica City Council, May 9, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

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 May 09, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
May 09, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
One or more City Councilmembers will participate in this meeting at the teleconference site listed below. The teleconference location is accessible to the public. The public teleconference site for this meeting is as follows:

NH Collection Brussels Grand Sablon
Rue Bodenbroek – Bodenbroekstraat, 2, B-1000 Brussels
Meeting Room: “Louise”
(Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer)
AT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEETING LOCATION:

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 City Council Regular Meeting 2 May 09, 2022
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 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 CLOSED SESSION.
00a. 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. 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
Closed Session Report
City Council Regular Meeting 3 May 09, 2022

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Life Saving Award Medal - Officer Sheedy
B. Proclamation - Emergency Medical Services Week: May 15-21, 2022 C. Proclamation - National Public Works Week: May 15-21, 2022 D. Proclamation - Mental Health Month: May 2022

CONSENT CALENDAR
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. 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 3/16/22 through 3/31/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 3/16/22 through 3/31/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on April 25, 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. Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Structure Replacement 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 a new playground structure at the Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park in the amount of $97,624.23; and approve budget authority in the amount of $107,386.65, which includes a 10% contingency.

City Council Regular Meeting 4 May 09, 2022

7. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 funded by SB 1: Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 funded by SB 1: Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

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

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.

City Council Regular Meeting 5 May 09, 2022

PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. Public Hearing on Proposed Ordinance Amending Sections 6-6.403, 6-6.404 and 6-

6.406 of Chapter 6 (Sewer Charges) and Section 6-11.102 through Section 6-11.105 of Chapter 11 (Sewer Connection Charges), Title 6 (Sanitation and Health) of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

PROPOSED ACTION: If the City does not receive written protests against the proposed sewer charges from a majority of the parcels receiving wastewater service, staff recommends that the City Council adopt proposed charges for Sewer Services for Fiscal Years 2022/23 through 2026/27 and adopt the revised wastewater capacity fees.

Move:
1) Introduce the Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Chapter 6, “Sewer Charges” and Chapter 11, “Sewer Connection Charges” of Title 6, “Sanitation and Health” of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Revise and Increase the City’s Sewer Charges” be read by title only and that further reading be waived; and
2) Adoption of the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the New Wastewater (Sewer) Service Charges and Wastewater (Sewer) Capacity Fees for Pacifica Municipal Wastewater (Attachment 1).

10. Introduction of an Ordinance to approve Text Amendment TA-121-22, initiated by the City of Pacifica, to extend the Growth Management Ordinance codified in Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which has a current termination date of June 30, 2022. The Ordinance to be considered would affect property citywide in the A (Agricultural) zoning district and HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay zoning district. Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance by a vote of 5-0 (with two absences) on April 18, 2022.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to introduce, waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Text Amendment TA-121-22 to amend Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to extend certain provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance.”

11. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, and Recommendation for City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21, filed by Brendan and Eamon Murphy, for construction of a three-building mixed-use project with 3,165-square feet (sf) of commercial floor area and 19 residential units, and associated condominimum subdivision, at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (File No. 2016-004).

PROPOSED ACTION: Open the public hearing, take any public comment, and move to continue the public hearing to a date specific of June 13, 2022.

City Council Regular Meeting 6 May 09, 2022

CONSIDERATION

12. Introduction of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Base Budget, Position Recommendations, and FY 2022-27 Capital Improvement Plan.

PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the report, and provide feedback and direction on the proposed FY 2022-23 General Fund Base Budget report, position recommendations, and the FY2022-27 Capital Improvement Plan.

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
City Council Regular Meeting 7 May 09, 2022
• Senator Dianne Feinstein, #1 Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco CA 94104 (415) 393-0707
• President Joseph R. Biden, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500

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

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/9/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for 3/16/22 through 3/31/22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 3/16/22 through 3/31/22.

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 3/16/22 through 3/31/22 in the amount of $977,807.59 as written on regular checks numbered 59508-59692 & 59769 (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 59508-59692 & 59769 -3-16 to 3-31-22 (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 8
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: MONDAY APR0422 16:32 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: MONDAY APR0422 16:32 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 59508 - 59692
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 59508 $676.25 03/18/22 00009 8 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 59509 $47048.40 03/18/22 03874 0 4LEAF INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59510 $477.03 03/18/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 59511 $553.65 03/18/22 00122 0 AIRGAS USA, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 59512 $575.00 03/18/22 03946 0 ALL BAY ENVIRONMENTAL S OUTSTANDING 1 59513 $1763.12 03/18/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59514 $97.91 03/18/22 00001 167 ARANDA, JESUS S OUTSTANDING 1 59515 $678.00 03/18/22 00009 9 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 59516 $602.25 03/18/22 05476 0 BACKYARD BUILDERS S OUTSTANDING 1 59517 $630.02 03/18/22 00128 3 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP S OUTSTANDING 1 59518 $95.00 03/18/22 05127 0 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59519 $315.66 03/18/22 00335 0 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 59520 $490.89 03/18/22 00454 1 CAL-STEAM INC.#2504 S OUTSTANDING 1 59521 $290.00 03/18/22 00014 5 CALIFORNIA STATE OF S OUTSTANDING 1 59522 $3463.20 03/18/22 00507 0 CHILDCARE CAREERS S OUTSTANDING 1 59523 $252.39 03/18/22 00510 1 CINTAS S OUTSTANDING
1 59524 $170.77 03/18/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 59525 $107.93 03/18/22 02822 0 CITY AUTO SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 59526 $339.09 03/18/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 59527 $169.02 03/18/22 02168 2 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 59528 $63.02 03/18/22 04677 0 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59529 $3000.00 03/18/22 04866 0 CRAIG MEINZER S OUTSTANDING 1 59530 $5805.00 03/18/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59531 $2925.00 03/18/22 05141 1 DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59532 $242.00 03/18/22 00014 11 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59533 $31.04 03/18/22 00676 0 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 59534 $97.91 03/18/22 00001 222 DONG, ALAN S OUTSTANDING 1 59535 $150.00 03/18/22 02338 0 DUNLAP, LARRY S OUTSTANDING 1 59536 $86.00 03/18/22 05477 0 ENID ANSGARIUS S OUTSTANDING 1 59537 $260040.68 03/18/22 02199 0 EPS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59538 $77.48 03/18/22 00758 0 EXPERIAN S OUTSTANDING
1 59539 $22.00 03/18/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 59540 $100.00 03/18/22 05394 0 GAIL EDWARDS S OUTSTANDING 1 59541 $39.67 03/18/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING
1 59542 $105.50 03/18/22 04842 0 HEMRAJ SINGH S OUTSTANDING 1 59543 $1393.51 03/18/22 04859 1 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59544 $1000.00 03/18/22 05480 0 KARI TOTAH S OUTSTANDING 1 59545 $95.00 03/18/22 05333 1 KASEYA US LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 59546 $51.16 03/18/22 01812 4 KBA DOCUSYS S OUTSTANDING 1 59547 $264.74 03/18/22 03700 0 KIMBALL MIDWEST S OUTSTANDING 1 59548 $97.91 03/18/22 00001 329 LECHLEITNER, RICHARD S OUTSTANDING 1 59549 $600.00 03/18/22 05478 0 LIDIYA DEMICHEVA S OUTSTANDING 1 59550 $980.84 03/18/22 01095 0 LINDA MAR HARDWARE S OUTSTANDING 1 59551 $204.49 03/18/22 03779 0 MAXX METALS S OUTSTANDING 1 59552 $226.18 03/18/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 59553 $200.00 03/18/22 01165 0 MILLER & O'BRIEN S OUTSTANDING 1 59554 $84.24 03/18/22 00001 341 MOORE, JANELLE S OUTSTANDING 1 59555 $600.00 03/18/22 01378 0 MUSCIO SECURITY S OUTSTANDING 1 59556 $1514.96 03/18/22 04549 0 NAF SERVICES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59557 $11450.00 03/18/22 04632 0 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD S OUTSTANDING 1 59558 $7612.70 03/18/22 01206 0 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: MONDAY APR0422 16:32 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 1 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 4/4/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 59508-59692 & 59769 -3-16 to 3-31-22 (4959 : Disbursements - Dated 3/16/22 through 3/31/22) 1 59564 $1151.85 03/18/22 05350 0 PRODIGY PRESS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59565 $3934.00 03/18/22 05474 0 QUARTZ LAMPS, LNC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59566 $489.94 03/18/22 01337 0 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59567 $10006.83 03/18/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 59568 $423.20 03/18/22 01402 1 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. S OUTSTANDING 1 59569 $4114.10 03/18/22 00022 8 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLER S OUTSTANDING 1 59570 $1896.30 03/18/22 00055 0 SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 59571 $121.06 03/18/22 01461 0 SERRAMONTE FORD INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59572 $128.33 03/18/22 00001 223 SHEEDY, MATTHEW S OUTSTANDING 1 59573 $40000.00 03/18/22 04893 0 SMC FLOOD & SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCY DIST S OUTSTANDING 1 59574 $97.91 03/18/22 00001 273 SMITH, WILLIAM S OUTSTANDING 1 59575 $70.42 03/18/22 01513 0 SOUTH CITY LUMBER S OUTSTANDING 1 59576 $720.00 03/18/22 01531 1 ST. FRANCIS ELECTRIC, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59577 $140.07 03/18/22 01534 1 STANDARD PLUMBING SUPPLY CO. S OUTSTANDING 1 59578 $20485.00 03/18/22 05108 0 TEN OVER STUDIO, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59579 $1000.00 03/18/22 05479 0 TERESA TAYLOR S OUTSTANDING 1 59580 $868.08 03/18/22 01636 0 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59581 $60.00 03/18/22 05135 0 TYGARJAS BIGSTYCK S OUTSTANDING 1 59582 $15.94 03/18/22 01647 0 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS S OUTSTANDING 1 59583 $1082.81 03/18/22 04576 1 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59584 $2803.00 03/18/22 02527 0 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59585 $262.18 03/18/22 01812 3 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 59586 $6884.91 03/18/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59587 $146.63 03/18/22 03980 0 VERITIV OPERATING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 59588 $99.00 03/18/22 05163 1 WEX HEALTH, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59589 $17420.52 03/18/22 04832 1 WOODARD & CURRAN, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59590 $6227.40 03/21/22 03531 0 PRECISE MAILING S OUTSTANDING 1 59591 $242.76 03/18/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 59592 $173.50 03/18/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 59593 $240.00 03/18/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 59594 $50.00 03/18/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 59595 $350.00 03/18/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 59596 $100.00 03/18/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 59597 $110.00 03/18/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 59598 $4.00 03/18/22 01764 3 NATIONAL D.R.I.V.E S OUTSTANDING 1 59599 $246.00 03/18/22 01767 0 NPFBA S OUTSTANDING
1 59600 $923.92 03/18/22 01758 1 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION S OUTSTANDING 1 59601 $439.00 03/18/22 01758 0 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS-LTD S OUTSTANDING 1 59602 $800.00 03/18/22 01759 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 59603 $200.00 03/18/22 01760 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS S OUTSTANDING 1 59604 $420.00 03/18/22 01769 0 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 59605 $1401.16 03/18/22 01758 5 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 S OUTSTANDING 1 59606 $2747.50 03/18/22 01764 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 S OUTSTANDING 1 59607 $17123.21 03/18/22 03349 0 PREFERRED BENEFIT INSURANCE ADMINISTRATORS S OUTSTANDING 1 59608 $314.60 03/24/22 05469 0 BCC BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 59609 $9241.57 03/25/22 00009 8 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: MONDAY APR0422 16:32 Page: 4

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 59508 - 59692
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 59610 $55.32 03/25/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 59611 $104.24 03/25/22 00136 0 ALHAMBRA S OUTSTANDING 1 59612 $1400.71 03/25/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59613 $551.48 03/25/22 04459 0 ARROWHEAD FORENSICS S OUTSTANDING 1 59614 $5779.28 03/25/22 00217 3 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS S OUTSTANDING 1 59615 $544.69 03/25/22 00009 0 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 59616 $685.79 03/25/22 00009 2 AT&T MOBILITY S OUTSTANDING 1 59617 $3000.00 03/25/22 03188 0 ATLAS PLUMBING & ROOTER INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59618 $93.95 03/25/22 04666 0 B & D DONOR RECOGNITION S OUTSTANDING 1 59619 $458.60 03/25/22 00293 0 BEARING AGENCIES INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59620 $590.00 03/25/22 05481 0 BLEYLE, JAYNE S OUTSTANDING 1 59621 $1135.91 03/25/22 00335 0 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 59622 $182.00 03/25/22 00343 0 BOLANDER & SONS, L. PH. S OUTSTANDING 1 59623 $204.00 03/25/22 00011 0 C.W.E.A. S OUTSTANDING 1 59624 $512.00 03/25/22 01690 0 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 59625 $129.95 03/25/22 00001 359 CAMARENA, IRENE S OUTSTANDING 1 59626 $250.00 03/25/22 03706 0 CAMOZZI, JEFF S OUTSTANDING 1 59627 $2848.20 03/25/22 00507 0 CHILDCARE CAREERS S OUTSTANDING 1 59628 $1159.24 03/25/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 59629 $1834.92 03/25/22 02822 0 CITY AUTO SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 59630 $1237.50 03/25/22 05082 1 COLUMN, PBC S OUTSTANDING 1 59631 $78.65 03/25/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 59632 $50.00 03/25/22 03295 1 COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING S OUTSTANDING 1 59633 $6379.00 03/25/22 00567 2 COMMUNITY OVERCOMING RELATIONSHIP ABUSE S OUTSTANDING 1 59634 $9154.08 03/25/22 04253 0 CONEXWEST S OUTSTANDING 1 59635 $2575.95 03/25/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59636 $38475.03 03/25/22 00025 0 DALY CITY/CITY OF S OUTSTANDING 1 59637 $13500.00 03/25/22 00645 0 DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 59638 $3509.00 03/25/22 00014 11 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59639 $724.87 03/25/22 00002 51 DIETERLE, DANA (PETTY CASH) S OUTSTANDING 1 59640 $18078.00 03/25/22 02201 0 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59641 $118.15 03/25/22 05440 0 DONNA NEWLAND S OUTSTANDING 1 59642 $105.00 03/25/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 59643 $13204.16 03/25/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 59644 $1094.34 03/25/22 00001 292 GLASGO, WILLIAM S OUTSTANDING 1 59645 $29763.00 03/25/22 03616 0 GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH PLANNING INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59646 $1231.65 03/25/22 00927 0 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC S OUTSTANDING 1 59647 $499.99 03/25/22 02511 0 IDEXX LABORATORIES S OUTSTANDING 1 59648 $959.72 03/25/22 04999 2 IMAGE SOURCE S OUTSTANDING

Page 2 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 4/4/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 59508-59692 & 59769 -3-16 to 3-31-22 (4959 : Disbursements - Dated 3/16/22 through 3/31/22) 1 59649 $900.00 03/25/22 02544 1 IN & OUT PLUMBING S OUTSTANDING 1 59650 $129.68 03/25/22 04085 0 JAMES FORD, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59651 $394.95 03/25/22 01027 0 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA S OUTSTANDING 1 59652 $645.15 03/25/22 03700 0 KIMBALL MIDWEST S OUTSTANDING 1 59653 $1334.38 03/25/22 01070 0 LAURETTA PRINTING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 59654 $36.09 03/25/22 03529 0 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59655 $225.25 03/25/22 01090 0 LIFELOC TECHNOLGIES S OUTSTANDING 1 59656 $233.45 03/25/22 05482 1 LINDE GAS & EQUIPMENT INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59657 $223.72 03/25/22 01120 0 MALLORY COMPANY/THE S OUTSTANDING 1 59658 $3499.89 03/25/22 01007 0 MATCO TOOLS S OUTSTANDING 1 59659 $223.91 03/25/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 59660 $11448.25 03/25/22 04077 0 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: MONDAY APR0422 16:32 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 59508 - 59692
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 59661 $766.37 03/25/22 03399 1 MISSION VALLEY FORD TRUCK SALES INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59662 $902.34 03/25/22 05374 0 MORENO & ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59663 $1099.39 03/25/22 01183 0 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59664 $1200.88 03/25/22 04549 0 NAF SERVICES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59665 $7224.99 03/25/22 01206 0 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. S OUTSTANDING 1 59666 $434.87 03/25/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 59667 $423.06 03/25/22 01239 0 PACIFIC FIRE SAFE S OUTSTANDING 1 59668 $159410.64 03/25/22 01240 0 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. S OUTSTANDING 1 59669 $7139.50 03/25/22 02494 0 PACIFIC TRENCHLESS INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59670 $2200.00 03/25/22 01300 0 PEPPER BROS BUILDING MAINTENANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 59671 $18595.50 03/25/22 01309 0 POLYDYNE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59672 $1987.47 03/25/22 05188 0 PUBLIC RISK, INNOVATION, SOLUTIONS & MGMT S OUTSTANDING 1 59673 $637.76 03/25/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 59674 $6755.00 03/25/22 03281 0 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59675 $112.70 03/25/22 05041 0 ROSA MACK S OUTSTANDING 1 59676 $70.51 03/25/22 05197 0 SAN MATEO COUNTY MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL S OUTSTANDING 1 59677 $2274.25 03/25/22 00022 47 SAN MATEO COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS S OUTSTANDING 1 59678 $5462.69 03/25/22 04860 0 SERRA YELLOW CAB S OUTSTANDING 1 59679 $600.00 03/25/22 01501 1 SMELLY MEL'S PLUMBING S OUTSTANDING 1 59680 $17600.00 03/25/22 02681 0 SUN RIDGE SYSTEMS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59681 $1579.14 03/25/22 01587 0 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 59682 $165.20 03/25/22 01599 0 THOMAS FISH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 59683 $504.20 03/25/22 04418 1 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59684 $31.24 03/25/22 01652 0 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 59685 $402.63 03/25/22 01812 3 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 59686 $3787.19 03/25/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59687 $250.12 03/25/22 02899 1 UTILITY TELECOM GROUP, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 59688 $60.00 03/25/22 03980 0 VERITIV OPERATING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 59689 $980.25 03/25/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 59690 $184.50 03/25/22 01707 0 WEST COAST CONTRACTORS SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59691 $1990.00 03/25/22 01182 0 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59692 $7114.10 03/25/22 01722 0 WILSEY & HAM S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 185 TOTAL AMOUNT: 957,608.34
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: MONDAY APR0422 16:32 Page: 6

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 273,921.22 0.00
005 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 206.65 0.00
007 S.L.E.S. FUND 17,600.00 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 11,663.24 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 6,972.41 0.00
012 HIGHWAY 1 IMPROVEMENT FUND 7,190.12 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 184,131.84 0.00
019 PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE FUND 64,468.92 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 62,973.25 0.00
026 PARK IN-LIEU - CAP IMPROVMNT 1,990.00 0.00
028 PB&R SPECIAL REVENUE 5,472.69 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 272,180.18 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 1,234.38 0.00
065 SELF-FUNDED DENTAL PLAN FUND 17,437.81 0.00
067 SELF-INSURANCE FUND (LIAB) 7,094.84 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 23,070.79 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 957,608.34 0.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: MONDAY APR0422 16:32 Page: 7

Page 3 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 4/4/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 59508-59692 & 59769 -3-16 to 3-31-22 (4959 : Disbursements - Dated 3/16/22 through 3/31/22)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 59769 - 59769
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 59769 $20199.25 03/31/22 04608 0 TRI COUNTIES BANK S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 1 TOTAL AMOUNT: 20,199.25
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: MONDAY APR0422 16:32 Page: 8

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 11,960.88 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,879.25 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 2,867.12 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 1,122.00 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 1,370.00 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 20,199.25 0.00

Page 4 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 4/4/2022 NO FY 2021-2022 CHECKS ISSUED ON 3/16/22-3/17/22.

TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS= $957,608.34 + $20,199.25 = $977,807.59

1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 59508-59692 & 59769 -3-16 to 3-31-22 (4959 : Disbursements - Dated 3/16/22 through 3/31/22)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/9/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on April 25, 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 April 25, 2022 (Attachment A).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 13

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
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 April 25, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
April 25, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on April 25, 2022 at 5:30 PM 5:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 5:30 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 – Anticipated Litigation- Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (One potential case) 6:00 PM - STUDY SESSION
Pacifica Police Department Annual Report
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive the Pacifica Police Department Annual Report Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting to open study session at 6:02 p.m.

Chief Steidle stated that, for the annual report, he brought his command staff, Capt. Chris Clements and Capt. Bill Glasgo, as they felt it was important enough to address Council as a command staff. He started with a background on the last annual report on April 12, 2021, when staff presented the Police Department’s annual report, and this annual report will have updates on the long term goals discussed previously with new information and then began the presentation.

Capt. Glasgo continued the staff report.

Chief Steidle continued the staff report.

Capt. Clements completed the staff report.

Mayor Bier thanked them for the presentation, and asked if there were any questions by Councilmembers. Seeing none, she opened public comment and asked if there were any callins.

2.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 April 25, 2022
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that there were no callers.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Mayor Bier stated that they answered every question she had, such as concern about the perceived bias and they explained it so she understood it. She referred to their digging deeper into the data and she appreciated it and looked forward to it. She thought the Social Unity Project should be inspirational for everyone and everyone, including other groups, should be looking to that model for an example to talk together, etc.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked them for being present. He thought this was everything he wants to hear. He had hoped there would be more audience participation as a lot of what they discussed was in response to a robust outpouring in the past. He knows they haven’t evaporated and still have interests and concerns, and this was an opportunity for that conversation. He referred to a similar discussion previously and he thought it might be his personal bias as he thought that was a false start in discussing some of the bits of community interaction with law enforcement and he looked forward to this opportunity. He felt they presented them with all the opportunities the community will have going forward to get into those discussions. He thanked them for all the work they did to get the city to this point. He thought the awareness in and of itself was about learning about bias and focusing on how police in our community are working on that awareness to remind ourselves of what and why we are doing it and he thought it lends itself to actually making a difference in someone’s life who is being affected by these conversations.

Councilmember O’Neill thanked them for the report and moving forward with recent state laws to get things done. He asked how they will communicate this, such as twice a year in a Council meeting or statistics put on the web and updated regularly.

Chief Steidle stated that they envision putting the statistics up and building them into the charts quarterly on the police department website, and when they do that, they will use social media to advertise that. He thought he could ask the City Manager to bring it up during Staff Communications as well as Connect with Pacifica, etc. He stated that, if you don’t remind people, it will just sit there and they want the community to know they are being transparent.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if there will be any coordination by the Sheriff, as he knows he has to report to someone, i.e., the sheriff or state in comparing our statistics with other statistics.

Chief Steidle stated that they won’t find that at the county level as this data will be reported to the Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General. He stated that, if it works like it usually has, it will be some time before the data is put up there. They won’t be looking at our data in terms of putting the data on the website and reporting on us until after April 2023 when it is due. He stated that, while we are submitting now, it is just to make sure they have the information and we have our systems down and not making errors in the submissions. He didn’t have an exact date when it will occur but probably well after the first reporting date before they see that out there at the state level.

Councilmember O’Neill understood, adding that he was just curious about how we report, etc. He thought it would be interesting if they added a column to the one with the 2020 census has a breakdown so people could compare that and know they aren’t picking on one particular group.

He stated that he was trying to figure out how to phrase his question, and he referred to an armed robbery, and the suspect is described by the victim as Hispanic. Then, an officer pulls someone over and sees a gun, and he is black, could that be used differently in the prosecution of the case.

2.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 April 25, 2022
Chief Steidle asked if he was saying that, if a witness misidentifies the race, will that affect the prosecution.

Councilmember O’Neill responded affirmatively.

Chief Steidle stated that it is extremely common and usually won’t affect the prosecution, as they find cases in crimes where there some adrenalin going by a violent crime or robbery and people are scared, they can have 3-4 people witness the crime and you will get 3-4 different descriptions, and if they see the car drive away, they will all have a different description of the car. He stated that is taken into account as part of the human factor.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked them for doing this and she wished that there were members of the public present or calling in because this was a huge issue and there is no one present to witness, but maybe they are watching on TV as it is important, and she thanked them for doing it.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, since they have gone along quickly, they have the option to reopen public comment as he thought they might have a caller and they don’t know if they want to raise their hand to speak on this issue, but they have the discretion to reopen both in the chambers and on the phone call.

Mayor Bier agreed, and reopened public comment.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that they have one person on the line but their hand isn’t raised and he will give them a brief moment if they are listening.

Carolyn Jaramillo, Pacifica, stated that she wanted to speak to Chief Steidle’s report.

Mayor Bier stated that she will have to turn off one of her devices as she was getting a bad echo.

Ms. Jaramillo asked if it was better.

Mayor Bier agreed it was.

Ms. Jaramillo asked several questions about the long-term goals mentioned, what organization is providing the anti-bias training, a project that involved the police department and the community with a facilitator, if there will be public access to the curriculum for the police academy and the chief’s upcoming advisory panel selection and their authority. She referred to the Stanford University project and questioned how citizens can participate.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated there were no more callers.

Mayor Bier stated that it is the Social Unity Project. She stated that she had some questions and she asked if the Chief can comment.

Chief Steidle stated that he can speak to a few of them, and if he misses anything, they can speak up. Regarding curriculum for the Community Academy, that is something they will advertise and they are wavering between an 8-9 week program, and that will be part of the information they put out on their website to solicit applicants for that and they will see the type of material. He stated that it won’t be outlined in depth, but the type of topics they will discuss. In terms of a facilitator, they are still working on that, and they aren’t to the point to identify that and the criteria. They are

2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 April 25, 2022
looking for a professional with the background and ability to facilitate and expertise on the subject.

He stated that the chief’s advisory panel will not have any authority, just an advisory panel to help the command staff with decision in terms of giving them community feedback and input in terms of important topics where they want input. He stated there was one more question.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was about ten people.

Chief Steidle stated that they are looking at ten people once a month and in terms of their public presentations, the police envision that, at some point, once a year, the chief and/or command staff, along with at least a representative from that panel, if willing, and he thought they will be people who will stand up for this and they will be willing to talk together with community and Council about what they have been discussing, accomplished, etc.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that if they didn’t answer any of Ms. Jaramillo’s questions, he asked that she email them and he was interested in the answers to those questions, even those he didn’t hear well enough that he can ask in follow up. He stated that, of all those participating, he was hopeful that they will be participating in the various programs and can establish relationships with law enforcement and make this a culture created by our community through that engagement.

Mayor thanked them for everything. She then called a break before the regular meeting.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Bier reconvened the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.

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

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director; Dan Steidle, Police Chief; Bill Glasgo, Police Capt.; Christopher Clements, Police Capt.; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Tommy Yu, IT Manager; Josh Montemayor, Management Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment

2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 April 25, 2022
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Vaterlaus
Closed Session Report
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that there was no reportable action.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
00a. Open Space Preservation Award 2022
Mayor Bier stated that they have the presentation of the 2022 Open Space Preservation Award by Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee (OSPAC) Chair Arlene Patton.

OSPAC Chair Patton read the presentation to the winner for this year’s Preservation Award, Kathy Kellerman.

Ms. Kellerman thanked OSPAC and Council and stated she was thrilled and honored to receive the award, and join past recipients, many who have been guiding lights and friends over the past decades. She stated that Pacifica has preserved its open space beauty in the middle of the Bay Area and a testimony to the far-sighted people in the city with an active community of environmentalists. She also appreciated that Council recognized the first people who cared for this land as well as those following in their footsteps. She accepted the award for the many people with whom she has enjoyed working together and she thanked the city for implementing projects and keeping things running. She also thanked the Pacifica Land Trust program that made Pedro Point Headlands restoration project a success and all the volunteers and going native for fostering habitat restoration and plant propagation. She stated that, as a biologist, she will also thank the red-legged frog, steelhead, etc, that make Pacifica the most biologically diverse and beautiful place. She thanked them and hoped to see them on the trails.

Mayor Bier thanked her for being here, and stated that OSPAC was excited about this because there are so many present. They then took a picture.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if any Councilmembers wanted to pull anything from the consent calendar and, seeing no one, she opened public comment, and seeing no one, asked if they had any call-ins for public comment.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that they didn’t have any callers.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

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

1. Approval of Disbursements for 3/01/22 through 3/15/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 3/01/22 through 3/15/22.

2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 April 25, 2022

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on April 11, 2022.

3. Agreement with TPx for Managed Internet Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the Amendment to the Agreement for Managed Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN) Internet Services between the City of Pacifica and TPx Communications., to extend the term of the agreement by three years to September 10, 2025, for and to authorize compensation not to exceed $141,228 in Fiscal Year 2022-2023, 2023-2024, and through March 2025 in Fiscal Year 2024-2025, as reflected in the adopted City-wide budget, and to authorize the City Manager to execute the Amendment.

4. Approval of Second Amendment with Bartle Wells Associates for the City of Pacifica Sewer Rate Study FY2022-2027
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the Following Actions for the City of Pacifica Sewer Rate Study FY 2022-2027 (“Study”):

1. Approve Second Amendment (Attachment 1) in an Amount Not to Exceed $27,786 and Increase the Total Compensation to $93,151 to the Consultant Original Agreement for Bartle Wells Associates; and

2. Establish a new Budget Authority of $98,000, which includes 5% contingency, for the Sewer Rate Study FY2022-2027; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to this project.

5. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 4-7.1901, “Removal or towing of vehicles” of Article 19 within Chapter 7, “Traffic” of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code Related to the Removal of Vehicles Illegally Parked on City Streets in Spaces Designated for Preferential Parking (Status: CEQA Exempt)
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Section 4-7.1901, “Removal or towing of vehicles” of Article 19 within Chapter 7, “Traffic” of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code Related to the Removal of Vehicles Illegally Parked on City Streets in Spaces Designated for Preferential Parking and finding the ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

6. Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 19, “Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment” of Title 4 “Public Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City Of Pacifica Adding Chapter 19, “Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment” of Title 4 “Public Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code, Approving the Pacifica Police Department Military Equipment Policy; and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jennifer Bates, Pacifica, stated that her daughter attends the Boys & Girls Club on Yosemite.

She stated that her autistic daughter was thriving on the programs and she expressed her concerns if the club closes.

2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 April 25, 2022
Tom O’Toole, Pacifica, stated he was Ms. Bates’ father and expressed his thoughts on this issue of possible closure of the Boys & Girls Club, referring to it as a corporate takeover.

Judith Besburk, Pacifica, stated she grew up in Pacifica and attended the facility that Boys & Girls Club is in currently in and her son currently attends the Boys & Girls Club. She stated that she understood Council’s position, and expressed her thoughts on the issue as well as how Council could help them communicate with the Boys & Girls Club.

Erin Pickett, Pacifica, stated that she has two sons at the Boys & Girls Club and she expressed her concerns about the closure and lack of communication as well as possible help from Council.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the callers.

Carolyn Jaramillo, Pacifica, stated the system is difficult to call in and, by the time she gets the number in, they had closed public comments, and she was grateful that it was reopened, and mentioned some of her concerns about the process.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared her background which included a period of homelessness, and shared her thoughts on this problem as well as what she has heard about the impacts of homelessness on others.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that there were no more callers.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that there was a card from the audience.

Marvin Artobern, Pacifica, expressed his concerns about health endangerment regarding harmful transmissions and victims of violence.

Mayor Bier closed Oral Communications.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember O’Neill referred to the Boys & Girls Club issue, and was on the board previously and knows all about the programs and how beneficial they are. He stated that he has personally been talking to the board members on both sides of the aisle. He stated that things are moving along and there are non-disclosure agreements which is why the board has not been talking to the parents as they are legally bound not to be able to talk to them. He has been told that there are things in the works and there should be something settled by the end of the week. He stated that, if someone wishes more information, he suggested they send an email to the city website and when the press release comes out, he will be happy to forward the press release to them.

He knows that it is 10% of the enrollment of the Pacifica School District and this community, as a whole, they have a major stake in the success of the Boys & Girls Club to continue to be operating.

He attended the Pacifica Democrats and listened to the candidate debates for the Third District supervisor promotion. He attended the Senior Volunteer dinner and was supposed to be a server, but could not serve because he got there too late because he was at a meeting for LAFCO. He stated that the LAFCO meeting was an interesting meeting, with issues regarding the independent water district and East Palo Alto which was having issues. He attended the Commute.org Board meeting and it looks like that board is supporting the application for a grant for the employee housing at Serramonte Del Rey which will be called 705 Serramonte. He stated that, depending on the size of vans, it could eliminate up to 15 cars driving to Terra Nova and Oceana for the foreseeable future. He stated that it was a pilot project, and about 4-5 school districts in the

2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 April 25, 2022
county exploring teacher/staff housing and will use this project as the site to do a pilot and, if adjustments are needed, that will happen. He stated that the ribbon cutting for the staff housing, paid by a taxpayer bond in Pacifica, is on May 13 and they will have tours of the building and will be moving employees of the school district into the building on Saturday morning, which is about 100 staff members of the high school district that have a big incentive to stay here.

Councilmember Vaterlaus attended a meeting on Friday called Smart Coast California and they talked about the different cities working on their local coastal plans with sea level rise and some are pushing back with the Coastal Commission and with some the Coastal Commission is pushing back. She stated that she is on a statewide electrification task force to look into benefits or not of electrification, either in new housing or in existing homes. She attended the CCAG Legislative meeting. She stated that CCAG’s Regular meeting is progressing along with the Highway 1 managed lanes. She heard the debate at the Democrats and went to Councilmember O’Neill’s home to listen to one of the people running, Ray Mueller. She served at the Senior Services Volunteer Dinner which was nice to see everyone in person and delivered dinners to people. She attended the San Mateo County Emergency Services Council and encourages people to do the SMC alert, and they are going through a new company soon and it will be an advanced San Mateo County alert. They will target certain areas by Zone Haven, which is another county program.

She stated that there was a fire on San Bruno mountain and Zone Haven alerts people where they should go. She mentioned an example of a fire in Rockaway and the fire hoses went across Fassler. The people who live here were upset as they weren’t allowed to drive down Fassler, but when you drive over a fire hose, there is no water. She stated this program would direct people to drive around and go down Crespi and go out at Linda Mar instead of trying to go down Fassler.

She stated that it was a great program for evacuations. She stated that, if everyone looked into it, they can find out what your zone is. She stated that they sent each individual person on the committee an SMC Alert to them individually. She stated that it was very fine tuned now. She stated she went to the Redwood City Council of Cities and went into a senior housing project, which is a senior citizen very low income housing project with a child care center below. She stated that it was beautiful and wonderful to see the combination between the senior and child care facility. She stated that they discussed Habitat for Humanity, 5000 square foot lot with 20 units on it. She wants to see that as she can’t imagine that in her head. She stated that it was an informative meeting, and when she goes to those meetings, she is jealous.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the first event he attended after the last meeting was the Friday night informational session with a bunch of parents at the Boys & Girls Club on Yosemite and CBS News showed up to do some interviews and ran a short news story that night. He stated that he has been reaching out to anyone he knows on that Board and he has the same story of the non-disclosure agreements, due to the discussions going on between North San Mateo County and Peninsula and can’t say anything for legal reasons while still interacting. He felt it was frustrating for him as a representative and thought it would be frustrating for those on the Board themselves who would love to give information one way or the other. He agreed with Councilmember O’Neill that information will be coming this week as they will hopefully have information on that. He attended the Democrat forum where the various supervisor candidates were on display and he enjoyed Ray Mueller’s event afterward and found it interesting. He stated that most of his week was spent doing an Infocast master class on protecting your city from wildfire. He stated that it was a deep dive on wildfire preparedness. He has a long list of things, such as defensible space, fuel brakes, land use planning, evacuation route, etc. He stated that May 7 is California’s wildfire preparedness day, and Pacifica has an event coming up in June that he will tell them shortly. He stated that fuel treatments, environmental justice, climate change, regional strategies, community, wildfire preparedness plans, power shutoff, safety procedures, micro-grids, aligning insurance with home community hardening efforts, state laws, land use

2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 April 25, 2022
planning, forest management, aircraft and flight fire, air quality management, landslides, rebuilding and other post fire concerns, and he had two days of this from 8:00 in the morning to 5:00 at night. He stated that some takeaways are that, prior to now, they spoke about defensible space in terms of 30 and 100 feet. Buffer zones around the house are starting to speak of it in terms of a 5-foot ember zone as when the winds bring embers to your home, the amber will bounce off of the side of the house approximately five feet away and, if you have anything flammable in that 5-foot radius that will catch fire and spread back to the house. He stated that they hammered home that regional strategies rather than necessarily local strategies which are the best way to get funding to make our community safer. He stated that they stressed the importance of explaining maps and what they mean and that what sometimes happens when the maps are released to the community, they will mistake hazards for imminent threats versus various other designations and how important it is that when a map gets rolled out, they spend time explaining to the community what that means. There was a bit about aligning insurance with home and community hardening efforts. He stated that there are companies working with insurance companies in that, for certain homes, of you harden the home in certain ways, vis a vis one of these programs, then insurance companies that are disinclined to insure at a good rate or might drop your insurance altogether, they will look at the hardening efforts and say that, in that case they can keep the insurance going for them. He stated that this was a program that looks like they are just about to start rolling out and that was very interesting. He stated that there was one organization called United Policy Holders, uphelp.com, and they were there if it looks like they’re going to drop your coverage or shifting your rates and you call them and they will help you navigate and avoid that or how to get insured somewhere else. He stated that another helpful website was readyforwildfire.org which was a website that gives you a list of various ways to harden your home. He stated that, after that, he went to the emergency preparedness meeting in Pacifica. They had a representative from North County Fire to tell them about the Ready-SetGo program which is about being prepared if a wildfire should happen and they reminded them about Zone Haven and how it is tied into the SMC Alerts as they don’t alert you directly but the SMC alerts do, and it was a good idea to have the SMC Alerts to get those alerts about your zone if there is a wildfire risk or a tsunami risk, a new feature of Zone Haven. On June 11, they are having a wildfire preparedness at the community center and that is a great time to find out more about wildfire risk prevention and meet some of the heroes keeping us safe. He stated that the chipper program has been extended through mid-May where you bring your flammable materials growing around your house to the chipper that they bring in front, and mentioned the neighborhoods being addressed on April 27, April 29, May 4 and May 6. He asked them to reach out to the city website to find out more specifics. He stated that they have Covid testing on 1900 Francisco Blvd and have expanded the service from Sundays as well as Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, as the new variants are causing us to test more frequently. He was in the audience of the Emergency Services Council which Councilmember Vaterlaus mentioned and the Council of Cities meeting on the 22nd which was great to see the setup of the child care underneath with senior housing on top and make Pacificans be envious. He stated that Safeway is voting on their new contract by the beginning of May and he was hoping that he will report that they have a new contract.

Mayor Bier stated that she wanted to touch on the Boys & Girls Club as well, as stated by other Councilmembers, they have all been speaking to the community and working hard to do what they can. She stated that she had children who went to the Boys & Girls Club and it is an important part of our community. She attended the Skyline College President’s Breakfast where they learned all about the Promised Scholars Program and she suggested that the community look into that if they have young people that are going to go to Skyline College as it is a beautiful program. She attended the Joint Articulation Committee meeting between the City, Jefferson Union High School District, Pacifica School District and the water district. She referred to

2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 April 25, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill talking about the ribbon cutting for the JUHSD staff housing. She stated that it was great and some of her friends and colleagues are moving in this weekend and they are excited. She thought it was a great model and she was proud of them. She attended the Pacifica School Volunteers and they were still looking for a coordinator for the volunteers and will be having Think Bridge Camp this summer and they will need more volunteers with the group and she asked that anyone interested reach out. She attended the Democrats meeting and listened to Supervisor candidates’ panel. She attended Easter Sunrise service with Pastor Tom Nibbe and a lot of different people from Pacifica were there at the top of Sweeney Ridge and it was beautiful as they saw the moon set and the sunrise with singing, etc. She stated that everyone lined up at Eureka Square with their cars and everyone drove up together. She thanked the pastor. She attended the League of Women Voters general meeting where they spoke about the intersection of homeless and mental health and social equity. She attended the Senior Services Volunteer Appreciation meal which was great and it was always good to appreciate all the volunteers that make everything work in our community. She attended the Open Space meeting, with all of them present at this meeting. She also attended Don Horsley’s event with San Mateo County working to end homelessness, referring to Ms. Moore talking about that in her oral communication, adding that it was to educate everyone on all the different programs out there for homeless services. She stated that they will be talking about collaboration between agencies and the community at the next meeting. She attended Earth Day and thanked the Pacific Beach Coalition for that event every year. She thought it was 2006 when she first participated it. She stated she was working with mayors across the county to bring awareness to mental health services and resources, and in May, as mental health month, they will be having training. She stated that she didn’t have her flyer and if PB&R Perez could talk about the training, it would be helpful. She stated that they will be having training in the Community Center, the library and they will be lighting up the building in green. She stated that there will be a press conference, and stated the County got the funding to have the training for free and asked Director Perez to share the information.

PB&R Director Perez stated that they have the mental health coming up at the Community Center and a lot of the information was sent with Connect with Pacifica and they can sign up online as they have room for up to 30 people on Saturday, May 14, and snacks and lunch will be provided.

He stated that they can always call Sophia Mahoney-Rohrl of PB&R Department if they have any questions
Mayor Bier stated that they can look at the library’s calendar as they will also be having a free training at the library.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the mayor reminded her that he attended Earth Day and he referred to her mentioning that there was going to be a follow up meeting from Don Horsley’s homeless meeting, and he asked if she knew when it was going to be.

Mayor Bier stated that she didn’t have the date.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he was working for this one, and he would love advance notice.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse confirmed that Director Perez was correct that May 14 is the Saturday when the mental health first aid event will be at the Community Center. He stated that, under the leadership of City Clerk Coffey and the PW Department and County Elections office, they will notice that the ballot drop box has been moved to the front of the Council Chambers from the previous location at City Hall on Santa Maria while it undergoes its renovation. He stated that

2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 April 25, 2022
they were pleased to release the Heritage Tree ordinance benchmarking and community input report on Friday, a month in advance of Council’s study session which will occur on May 23, and will lay out the work and input and recommendations related to the Heritage Tree update. They will get direction from Council and come back with the ordinance recommendations. He stated that the city with the mayor’s signature did send a support letter for the Pacifica Land Trust application for maintenance dollars at the headlands, and they will keep their fingers crossed that they will get the money to continue their stewardship at the Pedro Point Headlands. He had the honor to act as a server for the senior volunteers dinner which he thought was a fantastic event as the senior services group and Director Perez put on a great event. He stated that the Council Ad Hoc subcommittee related to improvements to the Council Chamber met last week and discussed some of the improvements and PW is going to get some bids and they will bring it back to Council for further direction and approval to move ahead with the cosmetic improvement to the Chamber.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

7. Update to the Park Development Impact Fee
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to:

1. Adopt resolution to update the Park Facilities Impact Fee and the Quimby Act Parkland In Lieu Fee within the City of Pacifica; and

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

PW Dep. Director Bautista began the staff report.

Willdan Financial Services Consultant Carlos Villarreal continued the staff report.

PW Dep. Director Bautista completed the staff report.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to the slide on deed restrictions, and asked, if the deed restriction was for ten years, 20 years or in perpetuity, asking how is it structured.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he would point him to the existing Municipal Code provisions related to deed restricted affordable housing in Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 47 and the term of affordability required by the Municipal Code differs by whether it is for sale or for rent below market rate housing unit. He stated that for sale units are obligated to have a minimal affordability period of 45 years whereas rental units are required to have a minimum affordability period of 55 years.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that they are 45 and 55 years.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that was what the Municipal Code provides now for required inclusionary housing units, but Council could consider a different period with minimum required under the fee if there was some desire to have a different date.

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 April 25, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill asked, in other cities for deed restricted houses, if the fees were charged the same or are deed restrictions there regarding the number of bedrooms.

Consultant Villarreal stated that, to get a discount, the home would have to be deed restricted, but different cities assess the fees in different ways. He stated that Pacifica is fairly unique in charging the fees for bedroom, which is a more recent approach to charging impact fees; however, he thought more cities will be adopting fees by bedroom or for square foot residential based on some of the new requirements from AB 602. He stated that most of the jurisdictions he is aware of in California charge fees by dwelling unit type, such as single family or multi-family, with single family being single family homes, including townhomes and multi-family being condos and apartments and that is how most cities assess fees at this time.

Councilmember O’Neill thought Palo Alto was 100%. He asked the City Manager, if we don’t hit the RHNA numbers, if he has heard of any concrete penalties from the state as they have been kicking stuff around.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he hasn’t heard of concrete penalties, but he has heard that they are threatening more concrete penalties and he would ask Acting Planning Director Murdock if he has heard anything specifically.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he has not heard of any adopted penalties.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that it was something they keep kicking around, but have not adopted any rules.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed that he was not aware of any.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he hadn’t and was double-checking to be sure he understood.

He referred to city-owned and non-city-owned land and a slide on how it was handled, and he asked for an explanation of how in lieu park and fields are handled on non-city-owned land.

Consultant Villarreal thought city-owned land was in reference to making trail improvements and the city could use the park impact fee revenue to make trail improvements on land it doesn’t own, but it would have to ensure that there would be an easement for the use in perpetuity so the use of the fee revenue would be available for those who paid the fee in the foreseeable future.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that he was talking about an easement such as they have in the Quarry for Calera Creek.

Consultant Villarreal responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speaker.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, thought they should approve the item and shared his thoughts on higher fee costs such as for affordable housing, etc.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano wanted to clarify Councilmember O’Neill’s question about penalties

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 April 25, 2022
for non-compliance, stating that HPD does have authority given to them recently to ensure compliance with some of the state’s housing laws to enforce the penalties and could seek other authority to enforce a city to comply with the state housing laws related to either the housing element or RHNA obligations.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, in the scenario of the budget discussed, if we don’t hit it, the penalties will be less, but he was trying to figure out what the penalty is if we don’t hit the RHNA numbers, and wanted to know which penalty was worse, not hitting the numbers or the hit we take on not building affordable housing.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we don’t have a specific number that can be imposed in terms of a penalty from HCD but she thought it could be up to $100,000 for penalties.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if that was per unit not created.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, on looking at her cheat sheet from ABAG, it looks like it could be incremental charges until the jurisdiction comes into compliance.

Acting Planning Director Murdock asked her to clarify that it is for a jurisdiction through no fault of its own applications were not submitted or is it a consequence of failing to plan for the required RHNA.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it could be for both, as the penalty authority is broad and doesn’t specify exactly what the issue is, but she just wanted to clarify that there are methods where HCD can impose penalties for non-compliance with state laws.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if she means that HCD is the Housing Community Development state.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated he was correct.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have a choice, and they all want to hit their RHNA numbers which he thought was a 5-0 vote as they don’t have any choice, but they are facing the choice of a penalty if they don’t hit it through possibly no fault of their own if they don’t get applications or authorize the fees as stated. He thought they should look at the fees presented to them and accept them as stated, but they review it in two years to see what is the budgetary impact of the fees.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought, from his perspective, the reason they were talking about the lowered fees for various income levels was to incentivize the development of those. He asked if he was talking about the incentivized schedule or without the incentives.

Councilmember O’Neill explained that they adopt the incentivized schedule and, in two years, they look to revise the fees if they need to up the market rate schedule to make up the budget shortfall in the park fund.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he followed him and would restated it and he can let him know if it aligns with what he was saying. He thought that there were 538 very low units that they need and should they hit that number they take away that incentive, and asked if that was what he was saying.

2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 April 25, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated it was not, and he asked if the acres per resident they have are only city parks or does it include Pedro Valley Park, GGNRA, etc.

Consultant Villarreal thought it was all city-owned parkland, and in Table 3 the fee study report, it includes district parks, neighborhood parks, pocket parks, and joint use facilities, such as the Terra Nova High School where the city has a joint use agreement, which is owned by the school not the city, and beyond all that, all special use facilities, including open space and various other facilities.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it was packet page 165.

Councilmember O’Neill was proposing that they adopt the fees which include the incentivization and they know they will hopefully take a loss, as if they take a loss, they are building lower income housing and in two years they review it. He thought that they said the city could raise those fees anytime they want or revise them up or down.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought they need to clarify what the Council’s policy options are with respect to adjusting the fee. Staff was indicating that, if significant amount of affordable housing ultimately was constructed and the loss revenue was higher than they think is likely, Council could revisit and reduce the amount of reduction by increasing the fee for the affordable housing to say they need more revenue as they are losing too much revenue to accomplish the park improvements required under the fee study. He stated that an alternative would be to conduct a new fee study and determine if there is a different per bedroom rate. He stated that, what is not readily in Council’s policy tool box is to simply increase the above market rate fee to subsidize the fee for the reductions that were granted, concluding that they can’t just ratchet one up because they ratcheted one down and you can’t have them freeload. He stated that the fee loss revenue that may occur needs to be backfilled with some other non-park fee revenue such as grants, general fund or other funding sources as you can’t subsidize the reduction by the above market rate units.

Mayor Bier thought they would have to have a fee study in order to do that.

Consultant Villarreal agreed, adding that the fee study they have now justifies the maximum justified fees based on the facts on the ground, and two years from now those facts on the ground may be different, as the city could have acquired more parkland, and there is chance that the cost of the land and improvements will have increased at that time and they can then revisit the fees and look at a fee study, as the fees are likely to have increased at that time, but they can’t say it for certain. He stated that they could do that, and there is no minimum time period that has to elapse before they can conduct another fee study. He stated what you cannot do is increase the rate above the maximum affordable rate to subsidize the lowering of the rates for some other particular land use.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he thought they were all in agreement to go with scenarios 1 or 2 so we have subsidized lower income fee schedule, and he was suggesting that they give direction that staff monitor it and if the low income bracket of the 310 units they are looking for get filled, then they could put that to the maximum justified while they leave the very low as exempt so hopefully the very low starts getting filled. He stated that they can come back in two years, but he thought they can leave it to staff to monitor and let Council know when they get close to meeting that bracket.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating that in reality housing development occurs

2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 April 25, 2022
slowly and there are very few low income units in the pipeline currently and they aren’t likely to see them get from nothing to building permit in a year or two in most cases, and the deluge that might cause a significant loss of fee revenue probably won’t materialize for several more years in a best case scenario for housing production.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, if a miracle happens, that staff alerts Council, but he feels like the discussion is more around whether they want to go with scenario 1 or 2. He personally favored scenario 1, with the same justification previously as he favors incentivizing the very low bracket, under 50%, as much as possible, and why he favors leaving it at 50% for the 310 units. He shared his notes, i.e., the moderate had 300 and 291 in the low, and the very low units had the lion’s share of the need from this angle.

Mayor Bier understood that the very low needs to be fully exempt. She stated that they were in a building on Friday that had very low and extremely low, and while she stated they don’t have that language in the document, she thought it was assumed that it was very low and below. She thought, if they could add that, it might put an idea in someone’s head that they should do extremely low which is 30% and under, she would appreciate that.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she was going to say scenario 2 because it is 25% for the low income units which she thought was a good incentive.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed, and the only reason he likes the 50% is because his bias is for the very low units, the under 50% income bracket.

Councilmember O’Neill thought the building they visited on Friday was on city-owned land and in Pacifica there is not a lot of city-owned land that could justify the reduction. He stated that they don’t have any land to donate for affordable housing and he thought 50% was a greater incentive if someone is actually doing inclusions. He asked if this would include inclusionary ordinance housing as well.

Acting Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, adding that it is whether it is required or not in terms of inclusionary or beyond the minimum requirements of the inclusionary ordinance.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if a developer is building ten units and one and a half units is inclusionary because of 15%, that one and a half units would get this scenario.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed, clarifying that it would likely round to two units and they would be eligible for the fee reductions. He stated that they could see, given the incentive for the reduced fees, is maybe more of those developers will be inclined to make both of the units lower income, but currently our ordinance only requires that half of the units to be affordable to low income or lower, and the other half can be affordable to moderate income or lower. He stated that they can hope the fee reduction may incentivize both units to be lower income or lower.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that based on the fact that most of the projects they saw on Friday were on city-owned land, donated by the city, and Pacifica doesn’t have that option, and he thinks scenario 1 is probably the better choice.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that was fine, as she thought 25% for the lower one.

Mayor Bier stated that was her thought as well and she likes scenario 2 better.

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 April 25, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are in a 2-2 impact.

Mayor Bier stated that she thinks they need to incentivize scenario 2 as they need all of those things.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, regarding that point, he wanted to reiterate that annually they report out on the housing element progress and RHNA numbers and what is being built. He stated, whether Council chooses scenario 1 or 2, in any given future year, this ordinance could be revisited and look at the structure of the fee to adjust. He stated that, when they report on the units built, they could add in the data points on what that gap of the park in lieu they are looking at, and it is probably not a complicated calculation. They can keep that in mind and, whatever Council decides now, in four years, if there is a dramatic gap or the incentive isn’t there sufficiently, i.e., if they chose scenario 1, the less incentive to go for affordable housing and a lot of the very low and extremely low is being built, then maybe the incentive is not necessary or, if not being built, maybe more of an incentive will help and Council could decide at that point and move into scenario 2.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Acting Planning Director Murdock, since the last Housing Element, if they have built any very low income housing.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they have not issued any building permits as of the preparation of the estimates in this study and, as of 2021, they have two low income units and two moderate income units that were permitted, and no very low income.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that was her point.

Mayor Bier agreed.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thought, if there is no very low income, let them incentivize people and make it 25% so people are building.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the very low for both of them is exempt.

Councilmember Vaterlaus clarified that it was the low income units.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated his is exactly the opposite, suggesting that they make the low income higher so that they will be more inclined to do the very low.

Mayor Bier thought they would be inclined anyway if there is a full exemption for very low but if there isn’t an exemption for low income, they are not going to get any of those either.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that this was a scenario where more is less. He stated that 25% of maximum justified for low income units is a higher incentive than 50%. He agreed that he was for scenario 2. He liked the City Manager’s idea that, when they do the report, they will have a running total of those fees and the gap that would be there. He asked if he was clear.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed that he was looking for a total of the incentive provided to these or the loss of revenue that has occurred for the production of those units.

Mayor Bier asked if they have a motion.

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 April 25, 2022
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano recommended that they take the resolutions separately from the ordinance.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to adopt the resolution to update the Park Facilities Impact Fee and the Quimby Act Parkland In Lieu Fee within the City of Pacifica using Scenario 2; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, for clarification, there is a proposed resolution in the package for Scenario 2.

Item 7-1: Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Beckmeyer)
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to introduce by title only and waive first reading of an “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California repealing Chapter 19 of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Chapter 19 (Park Facilities Impact Fee); repealing Section 10-1.803 (Park Land Dedication) of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Section 10-1.803 (Park Land Dedication) to establish updated Impact Fees and Quimby Act dedication requirements and in lieu fees imposed on New Development in the City of Pacifica”; and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

Item 7-2: Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Beckmeyer)
Mayor Bier called a break, then reconvened the meeting.

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

CONSIDERATION

8. Vision 2025 & Beyond – Economic Opportunities Study – Award Contract, Appropriate Funds, Appoint Council Ad Hoc Committee on Public Engagement PROPOSED ACTION: (1) Authorize the City Manager to Award a Contract to Kosmont Companies to conduct an Economic Opportunities Study for the City of Pacifica as part of the Vision 2025 & Beyond Strategic Financial Sustainability Study; (2) Appropriate an additional $50,000 for the study; and (3) Appoint a two-member City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Public Engagement for the Economic Opportunities Study.

City Manager Woodhouse introduced the staff report.

RGS Consultant Brian Moura continued the staff report.

Kosmont Consultant Ken Hira continued the staff report.

RGS Consultant Moura completed the staff report.

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 April 25, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he attended some of their seminars with League of Cities, and he attended one by his competitor that had an interesting item with cell phones that they could tell where people driving through where they are from and he asked if they have that capability.

Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that they do, and it is listed as one of their technology, a platform called Placer AI which does use mobile data analytics and have presently used it in the majority of their assignments as they tell them the patterns of the consumer, where they shop, how often they shop, background demographics, community patterns and staying in location for seven minutes is considered a trip and if you are at home and you don’t go to a place of work, or if you go to shopping center, those trips get logged in so they can check their patterns to understand where people are going or coming from which is through mobile data analytics. He stated that the broader description would be artificial intelligence which is real time information and data that helps them understand those patterns.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he could say that he leaves his house, drives to San Bruno to see a movie and they would see that.

Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that they couldn’t track him specifically but those exact patterns he mentioned.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that they track that someone in Pacifica went there.

Kosmont Consultant Hira responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if someone comes to Pacifica and goes to Frontierland Park, would they be able to say that someone from Daly City went to Frontierland Park.

Kosmont Consultant Hira responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill asked how available that information is, such as 24/7, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that it was real time.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they can track where someone went for everyday everywhere in Pacifica.

Kosmont Consultant Hira stated not a particular person but the broad trend of the travel patterns that are collected through the mobile analytics can track those patterns.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that that we have some proposals coming into town and asked if they will be able to track how many different trips there are to that different site no matter where it is in Pacifica.

Kosmont Consultant Hira responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill asks with that data, if someone drives from their office in San Francisco, stops at Linda Mar Safeway and go down to El Granada, will they will be able to see that they stopped in El Granada and are part of that.

Kosmont Consultant Hira responded affirmatively.

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 April 25, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill asked his definition of the market area of Pacifica.

Kosmont Consultant Hira stated they define it and his example of an exercise they did was that there was a vacant grocery building in a city in Southern California and, through Placer, they analyzed the potential of another specific grocer potentially occupying that vacant space and they said there is one of those grocers but it was about four or five miles away. Through Placer, they analyzed the way they tracked the customers or visitors to that particular grocer and defined the trade area. He stated that it identified where they were coming from through census tracks and they found there wasn’t a lot of overlap where the vacant building was and the argument should be that their patrons aren’t coming from a place that, if you located in that vacant building and had two stores in that market, you potentially wouldn’t cannibalize your store that is 4-5 miles away in a different city. He stated there was more to the analysis, but that true trade area definition resulted in a positive decision by that grocer to then revisit the data analytics on their own and affirmatively approved the location. He stated that they are not open yet, but because of data analytics and revisiting the information that is real and in real time, it allowed them to understand the opportunity and lack of cannibalization and a good example that one might argue as a success story.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that the reason he is asking that is that retailers used an old compass, i.e., put the thing down and do a circle of a two mile radius. He stated that, when the slide was closed because of the landslide, the Linda Mar Safeway lost 30% of their sales and he concluded 30% of the market is south of the slide so is our market area. He asked if he will be able to produce a report that demonstrates the 10,000 down there, their per capita income, family size, etc., to prove that they should look at Pacifica. He stated that our population isn’t 40,000 but 47,000.

Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that the answer is yes, adding that the notion of a radius of 1, 3 or 5 mile is fine, but if you draw a circle around Pacifica, half of the occupants are fish, and they dealt with that in Redondo Beach, and he has been in the retail real estate business during his earlier career. He stated that circles are fine and the reality of a trade area is what is called a polygon, a shape that isn’t just a circle, but might be a circle in a very dense 360-degree trade area but the odds are that there are barriers to travel patterns, such as water, freeways, mountains, storm drains that people don’t generally cross over even if there is a road, and the way retailers generally look at their worlds is through polygons.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he almost sounded like the guy who talked about district elections, i.e., there is natural constituencies.

Kosmont Consultant Hira stated he knows less about that. He appreciated the questions as his point is well taken about how patterns work. He stated in a community like Pacifica, that is exactly how they work. He stated that it is the same as he mentioned in that other circumstance, even though it wasn’t a coastal community, but was in the middle of two very strong concentrations of retail and that tells you what you are losing in the middle of what he called a bar bell and where they were pulling from. He stated that the competitor was at one end of it, and could they locate in the middle of that barbell and not cannibalize but still get enough market share. He stated that there are similarities to what he is saying based on patterns.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that is what he is getting at. He stated that the competitor whose seminar he attended also offered the ability, once they sell the sizzle pamphlet to the retailers, to help the city to find someone to come in. He stated that he didn’t see that in the scope this work.

He asked if that was an addition to the contract they make with him.

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 April 25, 2022
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that it would be additional, but clarified that their objective when they do analyses, if that is what they are tasked to do, is for that analysis to be implementable, specifically it could lead to form a district, create an economic development tool, a zoning strategy, help with a specific plan, with business attraction, with marketing of opportunity sites. He stated that, by virtue of how long they work for certain cities, it is pretty clear that they haven’t just written reports for them but implementable strategies and they said it made sense. He stated that they don’t have to hire his company to do that, but it tends to be an area that they can assist communities, called execution or implementation. He stated that there are conferences where there is a big business attraction opportunity and they will be going to that next month and working with a lot of cities to do exactly what he just described.

Councilmember O’Neill asked how they decide to push Pacifica over Daly City.

Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that, if there is a conflict circumstance in which they find themselves, it is either disclose, clear or avoid it, as they are not going to get themselves into a conflict.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he noticed he had Manor, Eureka, Rockaway, Linda Mar and Pedro Point, but they didn’t have Fairmont which is the shopping center that could draw most from Daly City, South San Francisco and San Bruno, and they didn’t have Park Mall which is probably more of a mixed use potential but we have a lot of empty space as the city owns the lot where the library is. He asked why they didn’t include Fairmont or Park Mall.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the economic districts, adding that Mr. Moura can speak specifically to it, were designed earlier and recommended and discussed with Council. He stated that they used to have 12 or 17 economic districts, and the HDL sales tax data is now also reporting down on those districts, and they refined them to the five major ones.

RGS Consultant Moura thought the reason they reduced the number, which he thought was 27 or so, was that usually, when designing the business districts, is that you want them to be large enough to provide data to the public and to firms like Kosmont to analyze. He stated that the state has specific rules about confidentiality of sales tax data, as you can’t say how much each of the businesses generate publicly, even though the city has the data, but if there are four or more businesses in a certain segment, such as grocery, and none of those businesses generate 80% or more of the total revenue, you can present a summarized version of that data and that is why they use these five districts and they didn’t use some of the others he mentioned because they didn’t meet the criteria of being able to publicly report the sales.

City Manager Woodhouse added that, regarding his specific mention of Fairmont and Park Mall, he believed those are considered as Fairmont is part of Pacific Manor and Park Mall is part of Linda Mar.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, when they say Linda Mar, they are not talking about Linda Mar Shopping Center but Linda Mar, Adobe Plaza and Park Mall.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that Crespi would be part of Linda Mar as well.

Councilmember O’Neill thought Fairmont would include Ramallah Plaza and Fairmont.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought Pacifica often works more implicitly than explicitly when it comes

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 April 25, 2022
to diversity, equity, access and inclusion work and was delighted to see that Kosmont is a certified minority business enterprise. He asked if he could give more information as to what that means.

Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that the chairman/CEO/founder Larry Kosmont has a background that is an ethnicity that allows their company to be considered as a certified minority business owner as he is the sole owner of the company. He stated that they have a diverse crew and many have worked for the company for a long time.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if he had any further information.

Kosmont Consultant Hira stated he didn’t unless he had another question.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he didn’t but just wanted to fully understand what it means while he had the opportunity.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are familiar with the tax incremental districts and he saw he was municipal finance and some of the same licenses as Mr. Moura has. He asked if he will be producing a report that recommends they need to do a special assessment district for incremental financing for specific areas.

Kosmont Consultant Hira stated, if warranted, and added that part of the point is that tax incremental financing (TIF) districts, or what they are called today and is enhanced infrastructure financing districts (EIFD). He stated that they were a very powerful tool to help capture tax increment like redevelopment did to pay for infrastructure and the other part of that strategy is to be a TIF district based on the city’s proportion of tax increment which is a certain layer. He stated that that layer may or may not be enough, “scale”, to create a district that makes sense to capture enough over time. He stated that they often look at what the county’s share is and whether there is an opportunity to do a partnering or co-investing. They worked on those in LA County with several cities, Orange County with a city and, as they are working on these up and down the state, each analysis of a EIFD is going to be unique. He stated that, if it makes sense here, they will have it as a potential tool that they will identify, and while it is a tool for a lot of communities, it just has to make sense.

Councilmember O’Neill assumed that those will be from the businesses in the community not homeowners.

Kosmont Consultant Hira stated it was a property tax increment tool and it may or may not have a land use that is residential or commercial underneath it, but is about growth and new assessed value and that is how they capture tax increments.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if it could be a way for the city to address some of the infrastructure issues they have in different areas of town.

Kosmont Consultant Hira responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speakers.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, echoed a previous speaker commenting on the difficulty of calling in, adding that the slides on the video are very blurry and hard to follow. She thanked them and was

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 April 25, 2022
excited about the tools they are bringing to help our city to understand our financial challenges and opportunities, expressed her concerns on some areas of this issue and asked several questions for clarification.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, commented on the pie chart on transit occupancy taxes, expressing his thoughts and options to the city to increase transit occupancy tax and general sales tax related to visitor-serving businesses.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to data they can collect from mobile phones, and he thought they will be using that for the term of their contract. He then referred to the dog surfing contest in Linda Mar Beach and Fog Fest, and he asked if the city can request and they can pull of the data of where people came for those events.

Kosmont Consultant Hira thought they should be able to do that, as it will just be a function of where they are in the process to make sure they get the deliverable that they are obligated to get, but the Placer information isn’t as if every time they evaluate an event, pattern, trip, it doesn’t cost them more money. He stated that there is probably an opportunity to look at some of those things, and he thought it was probably smart for the city to look at those on an annual basis where they can monitor the patterns even as a dashboard. He stated that they are doing a little bit of that for other cities where they get a feel for one of those patterns on a monthly or quarterly basis, and that may be something that is a recommendation for the city to continue checking those special events or ongoing events.

Councilmember O’Neill thought, when the city starts their partnership with CDA to increase hotel revenue, they can contract or find out where the people staying in the hotels are coming from, such as if coming from Fresno, they can advertise there.

Kosmont Consultant Hira agreed with that concept.

Mayor Bier stated that she didn’t know if they were able to hear the questions from the caller but one was asking if their firm would be reviewing any of our planning documents.

Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that the answer was yes, as they will look at the General Plan and if there are existing specific plans relevant to those districts, he thought they needed to look at those as well.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to chime in on the timeline.

Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that the analyst who made all the commitments to Placer is probably rolling over in his office at home if he is listening.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to be clear, stating that the caller was requesting review and comment on the General Plan update and the Sharp Park Specific Plan before those are going to be adopted, and the answer to that is no because Kosmont will just be beginning in May and those final documents and response to comments on the DEIR, as Mr. Hira is not fully in tune with the timeline for the General Plan update and Sharp Park Specific Plan. He stated that the results of those plans will inform the work that Kosmont is doing, as well as looking at what are recommendations that might relate to the zoning ordinance updates, housing element update and that data will inform those future significant planning endeavors.

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 April 25, 2022
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that the second question is the notion of rezoning certain commercial districts, and he found it interesting that, while the sales tax is on the lower end on a relative scale, he would argue that the good news is that much of the retail in the city is community serving with basic necessities, such as Safeway, pharmacies, restaurants, and the city doesn’t have a big mall. He stated that every community that has a mall should be worried. If they are oversubscribed, it is not disparaging to that city but the reality of where department stores are trending, but that is not what Pacifica has and, while it is low at 10% of sales tax, it should be grateful that it isn’t 45%. He stated that the zoning and the review of whether it makes sense to put residential on certain sites, to a degree, it is partly market driven as we have an incredible housing shortage and it creates higher residual land values for residential development which is why the developers of the world want to build housing because there is a financial feasibility to it but not a financial feasibility, generally speaking, to building new retail. He stated that the trick to that is what they are giving up when you potentially rezone the property. He thought it was a fair debate and question and, as to an analysis as to whether you should put retail on the bottom of every residential project, he would say the answer is no, but there might be a demand for that retail on the bottom floor. Then, they will want a right size and design that is appropriate for that retail in a way that they can survive and sustainable. He stated that they are in a middle of many of those analyses where specific plans required that. He stated that they had to discern, debate and analyze how much of it makes sense, if it makes sense, if it doesn’t make sense, based on the market.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked about the opposite, i.e., they take the existing retail and add housing on top of that.

Kosmont Consultant Hira agreed that there was much of that which gets analyzed as well as to how you create the overlay to add residential on top of certain commercial. He stated that, if the market is there for it from a pure supply and demand perspective, there will be more demand or lack of housing and there should be a feasibility to it. He questioned if it will always work and how many stories and how much density and what is the community, Council leadership willing to accept from a design and land use perspective and from a zoning perspective.

Mayor Bier appreciated the detailed conversations they had, as well as the presentation where she learned a lot more than by just reading the report, as well as getting answers to questions.

She stated that they have some decisions to make.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if he should make a motion.

Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to authorize the City Manager to Award a Contract to Kosmont Companies to conduct an Economic Opportunities Study for the City of Pacifica as part of the Vision 2025 & Beyond Strategic Financial Sustainability Study; and appropriate an additional $50,000 for the study. He stated that they haven’t discussed the subcommittee.

Seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

Item 8-1 and 8-2: Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Beckmeyer)
Mayor Bier asked them to talk about the subcommittee.

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 April 25, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought Councilmember Beckmeyer should be on it.

Mayor Bier agreed. She asked if they can do that as she thought she should.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that she and Councilmember Beckmeyer were on the Sharp Park Specific Plan.

Mayor Bier added also the Economic Development.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was thinking more that they are already on a subcommittee and he didn’t know if that was winding down now or finished.

City Manager Woodhouse asked which one he was asking about.

Councilmember O’Neill stated whatever one Mayor Bier and Councilmember Beckmeyer are on.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if there was an ad hoc subcommittee for Sharp Park as well as Beach Blvd. Infrastructure.

Mayor Bier stated it was just Beach Blvd.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the Beach Blvd. Infrastructure Resiliency Project is continuing, but that project is in its second phase and not intense right now. He stated that there wasn’t one for Sharp Park and the Council Chambers one which will continue for a bit.

Councilmember O’Neill wanted to clarify that they only have a couple of subcommittees and they were on one, and if it is winding down, they are open game again.

City Manager Woodhouse thought it was true that, if one of them motions to have Councilmember Beckmeyer on the ad hoc subcommittee and it is voted in, she is not here to say no.

Mayor Bier asked about Mayor pro Tem.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the public engagement part fits with him well, but the economic opportunity component is not as intuitive but if it is merely a discussion about ultimately community engagement, he was happy to oblige.

City Manager Woodhouse clarified that the scope of the ad hoc subcommittee is really focused on identification of stakeholders and the public engagement process and typically how it is structured, and not the substantive economic opportunities as that was for the whole Council.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, when it comes to stakeholders, he thought Councilmember O’Neill is the one who immediately comes to his mind because of the time he spent with the Economic Development Committee and he thought Councilmember O’Neill could rattle off stakeholders quicker than he can.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if he was nominating him for the subcommittee.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, unless there is robust disagreement, with that one caveat, he would be happy to do it.

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 April 25, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was okay either way.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he is nominating Councilmember O’Neill.

Mayor Bier stated that they need to make a motion.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to appoint Councilmembers Beckmeyer and O’Neill to the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on public engagement for the Economic Opportunities Study; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

Item 8-3: Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Beckmeyer)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus
ABSENT: Beckmeyer

9. Award Civic Center Campus Facilities Project Construction Services Agreement PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for Civic Center Campus Facilities Improvement Project (Project Number PW#2021-23):

A. Adopt Resolution next in order for a Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 the total project budget to $11,651,397 by appropriating additional Returned ERAF revenues (Disaster Accounting Fund) of $900,000 and appropriating General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance (Fund 1) of $751,397 to the project budget; and B. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a Construction Services Agreement with W.E. Lyons Construction Company (Attachment "A") in an amount not to exceed $9,222,972.00 and authorize a budget authority for construction in the amount of $9,960,810.00, which includes alternates A2, A4, A5a ($747,665), and contingencies in an amount not to exceed eight percent (8%) of the Construction Contract amount; and C. Authorize staff to execute future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount.

PW Dep. Director Bautista introduced all the team members for this project, and turned it over to Carolyn Carlberg of Group 4 to begin the staff report.

Carolyn Carlberg presented the staff report.

City Manager Woodhouse completed the staff report.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked what the cost was to have the photovoltaic structure set up, not the panels themselves, while building it.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that it would be alternative A8 which is the PV infrastructure and it would install the stanchions on the P&P roof and the cost is $68,290.

Councilmember Vaterlaus assumed it does not include the photovoltaics.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that it would not include the panels, just the stanchions.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if there was an alternatives cost slide.

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 April 25, 2022
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that there is.

City Manager Woodhouse thought it might be a hidden slide. He asked, with just the stanchions versus the panels, whether they can do that, i.e., industry standard as opposed to having to know what panels they are going to install.

Carolyn Carlberg stated that they haven’t done it both ways where they have installed the stanchions first at regular intervals. The best strategy is to have the stanchions ready as they also know the manufacturer and they have it placed exactly on top at generally regular interval and there is a standard that they can use.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that there were two callers but they haven’t raised their hands yet.

Mayor Bier stated that they can wait for a few minutes.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor then introduced the call-in speakers.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, began her comments; however, there was audio interference on the line.

Mayor Bier stated that they can’t hear her very well and she didn’t want her to waste her minutes.

She stated that they can try to fix it and start over.

Ms. Boles stated that she can wait but she was talking with her microphone.

Mayor Bier suggested she hang up and call back and they will wait for her.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated it was exciting to see this project coming, commenting that he suggested putting in the PV infrastructure as it would be more expensive to add in later, look for less expensive ways to do the accents, that EV charging stations may not have additional costs if working with one of the providers as well as for the solar panels through power purchase agreements.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated she sent a letter over the weekend regarding solar panels and EV chargers into the project, and she expressed her thoughts and suggestions on this project, including suggestions regarding the exterior finishes.

Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated that he was worried that they have a blind spot for strategies for reach codes and electrification, and expressed his thoughts and suggestions on this project.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, with the process they have had, it was refreshing that the commenters want them to add to the cost. He stated that they heard quite a few comments about electrification and he thought everyone was in favor of that, but it comes down to cost and they are trying to manage those costs. He thought it has been presented in such a way that, if they want to put it on, the three added alternatives are more essential for getting it done now because

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 April 25, 2022
doing it later would be a major pain. He stated that, to add the electrification and PV charging stations and stanchions for the photovoltaics was easy to do after the fact and then they can discuss costs. He thought it was nice to hear the public coming out for it now and he suggested that they talk about it a little, such as pros and cons, now or later, especially the stanchions as it sounds like some are of the mind that it will be easier if they do it now rather than later, and he questions if it would cost more if they do it later.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that, putting in the PV infrastructure, since they are ready, as part of the project will be on the roof and when they install the stanchion, they have to install it onto the roof and the TPO vehicles on top of the feet of the stanchion and doing it at a later time would mean that they would have to cut holes in the roof membrane, attach it to the roof, then create a waterproof sock around the base so water doesn’t infiltrate into the building.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if it was if they do it later.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that it was if they do it later, and if now, it goes right on and the roofer will put the new roof around the feet.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked what additional costs are accrued if they do it later, even though it sounds more painful to do it later.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that there was an added cost with the added labor of having to cut through the roof membrane and attach it and make it a socket that fits the hole and you have to have an inspector to make sure that the welds are water tight so the water does not infiltrate physically.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, for those listening at home, he wasn’t quite as concerned about the EV charging stations, specifically because he definitely wants to talk to Peninsula Clean Energy about it before bringing it as an add alternative now. He didn’t think they have done that yet.

PW Dep. Director Bautista asked if he means having talked to PCE.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they have talked to PCE specifically about bringing the electrical vehicle charging stations to this project.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they have had initial discussions with PCE regarding that, especially as they are always looking for grants.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked what they are telling staff so far.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they are telling him that grants are probably possible but they have one project with them now for installation of EV stations down in the Rockaway area.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they were talking about the Civic Center project, then realized he was talking about EV charging stations. He stated that he also has that project in mind as, when it comes time to actually put the PVs on this roof, hopefully there is a second round and they can talk to PCE then. He referred to a question asked about making the roof of the current town hall building ready for photovoltaics.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that he and Ms. Carlberg discussed this issue earlier. He

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 April 25, 2022
explained that although it has south facing roof, there is not enough surface area to put panels up there and the return of investment becomes very long as, if they were generating a lot of energy, the return of investment would be lower but, because there is not enough surface area on the roof, the return on investment for that would be very low.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to discussion of the budget regarding $69,000 for the stanchions to make it ready, stating it sounds like it will be less of a concern down the road if they incorporated add alternative A8 into this at this meeting. He stated that, based on the numbers staff has given so far, it doesn’t sound like it’s too painful to add that add alternative, but he would like professional advice on this.

City Manager Woodhouse thought they can afford that, and he would ask that Council make a decision about whether it comes out of Fund 38, i.e., the returned ERAF or out of the General Fund Unassigned Balance.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he would favor adding A8 at this time, as he has faith that PCE will have our back when it’s time to revisit for the EV charging stations.

Mayor Bier stated that her initial thought was, if they are going to do it, they should do it all now as later it will cost more. She stated that having the EV charging stations and the PV infrastructure is super important, and the generator was very important for our community and she asks why they don’t do it all now instead of piecemealing it.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it was a question of spending the money and, when this project was put out to bid and the add alternates were structured, they had not done the mid-year budget analysis at that time. He stated that all of the extra add alternates that are not part of the basis of award add up to about $837,000 and it is a question of that one-time funding that can be applied to other capital projects and he stated that it was a tradeoff.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to that number, asking if they were incorporating add alternative A5B into that number, as he wasn’t sure of 5B and 5A was an either/or or both.

PW Dep. Director Bautista clarified that, regarding 5B, if during construction they find rotten redwood siding, 5B is the allowance they will be taking advantage of, and is not included in that $837,000.

City Manager Woodhouse added that $837,000 does not include the duplicative 5B which is duplicative to 5A, and 5A is in the basis of award. He concluded that it comes down to priority use of funds and what does $800,000 in one-time capital funding provide towards Council’s priorities.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck apologized, stating that, as he did some calculations now, it came closer to $0.5 million than $800,000, and he asked if he was adding the other alternative as well.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they will double-check the numbers, as they may have calculated it incorrectly.

Mayor Bier stated there were some questions on why they were using redwood instead of stucco and she wasn’t clear on that and asked if they could share any thoughts on that.

Ms. Carlberg stated that, for the existing City Hall building, they have a historical architect on

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 April 25, 2022
board and one of the priorities that was identified early on in the feasibility study was that, if they were to renovate the exterior of City Hall, it would be advantageous and ideal to do it the secretary of engineer’s standards for rehabilitation and it could go onto the historic register for the state or perhaps nationally. She stated that, in doing so, they need to rehabilitate the exterior as close as they can to its original state and they have photographs of the original structure which included the redwood siding and, in order to comply with the main historic features of the building, the character defining features which include the windows, doors and most notably, the look of the exterior and they would remove the stucco and either rehabilitate the existing redwood underneath or, if not feasible, they would employ option 5A, 5B which is replacing the redwood with new material.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked for an explanation, as she thought, if they use the existing, it is more expensive than putting new redwood.

Ms. Carlberg stated that they aren’t sure what the condition of it and often times, their historic architect has seen is that, when you take off the existing stucco, the redwood is preserved pretty well, but it does need to be rehabilitated as it has holes in it from the nails of the stucco, there might be parts where it is damaged and they need to patch and repair with existing redwood you’re taking off other parts of the building into it and it is a very careful process of rehabilitating the existing redwood. She stated that, because of that careful nature of the rehabilitation, maybe one reason why that may be more costly than the new siding would be. From the historical perspective, she stated they must try to preserve as much of the original material as possible before they say it is not feasible to do so, and then do all new. She stated that it is an order of how you must do it with the historical standards.

Mayor Bier stated that they needed a time check, 10:45, and she asked for a motion.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Beckmeyer) (extending meeting to 11:30 p.m.) Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked her for the explanation.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they have the recalculation.

PW Dep. Director Bautista apologized, stating that it was actually $527,000.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there was also a question about plastic resin material being used, specifically a concern that it was made from fossil fuels, which was the finish proposed on the P&P building phenolic composite panels.

Ms. Carlberg stated that one of the accent materials for the P&P building as well as the addition to the City Hall building’s new entrance and elevator where they are proposing accenting with phenolic composite panel and, while there is resin that makes it adhere together, this panel is actually composed of 70% of natural wood fibers sourced from sustainable forest as FSC certified forest in accordance with the PE FSC program for endorsement of board certification. She stated that the companies they have used for this have performed a life cycle cost analysis to map their overall environmental footprint and are one of the first companies to do so back in 1994 and they have integrated all their sustainable priorities into their rolling business planning, and in the future, while there are some fossil fuels used to create the material embedded in the panels themselves,

2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 April 25, 2022
one of their goals is to reduce this by 20% in the next 5-10 years. She stated that one other component of it is that this composite panel is extremely durable and hardwearing and resistant to corrosion and is very durable and long-lasting, very good for a civic center project like this where they may not want to replace it for a long time.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there was a concern about metal components of the building that may not stand up well to the ocean air, and he asked if she could speak to that.

Ms. Carlberg stated that was one of the other accent materials for the P&P building, the vertical elements that are at the corner of Francisco and Santa Maria and also on the south side near the entrance. She stated that this accent material is not a raw metal finish but has a factory finish, powder coat paint to it that is extremely hardwearing, long-lasting, scratch resistant, and in addition, they are proposing putting a graffiti coating on top of it for additional durability and longevity. Because of the measures taken, she stated that it is appropriate for the Pacifica memory environment.

Mayor Bier stated that we have a lot of problem of rust and that is a concern and we have a history of it, so it would be good to be sure that it’s not going to rust.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was on the school board and they did IBL and he thought their architect read the same brochure she did on the metal, and it was a challenge for the maintenance of the school district to keep the metal up, and tried every paint known to keep that metal going at IBL, and it is probably about the same distance from the beach as City Hall. He would be reluctant to have metal there, as it will be a constant drain on maintenance.

Mayor Bier asked what would be an option if they don’t have the metal.

Ms. Carlberg stated that they spoke with the product manufacturer, in addition to the literature, and if it is proposed and the metal is not something that the city would prefer, they could go with a composite resin panel in those locations with a different color or finish to it.

Councilmember O’Neill asked what kind of guarantee would the manufacturer give for this metal, such as come out and replace it every three years.

Ms. Carlberg stated that there is a warrantee period, but they would have to look at the literature as to what is in the specifications.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that was her question, as to whether they would warrantee the material.

Mayor Bier thought they might want to think about changing that material if that is an option for them, adding that she would not know how to go about that such as would they ask for a new bid.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he would turn it over to the Public Works experts, Ms. Carlberg, but he didn’t know if Dawn Merkes with Group 4 is on the line but if she is, he would ask if she has anything to offer in addition to what Ms. Carlberg offered, and PW Director Petersen could chime in, as it might be an item they have to discuss and negotiate with the contractor if they were to change it.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they have the contractors here.

2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 April 25, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, if the contractors are here and they have some insight to offer on that. He stated that, in our marine environment, metal is going to rust. If it is well-sealed and protected metal, that will obviously be better than non-wood and pain as everything gets harshly impacted and there will be maintenance requirements on every aspect of the building.

Dawn Merkes stated that maybe she could join.

Mayor Bier welcomed her.

Ms. Merkes of Group 4 stated that there are a couple of things they can do, such as metal panels are baked enamel panels, similar to your car finish. She stated that, with panels like this, they can check the warrantee and make sure the manufacturer is going to back and they can also look at alternative materials and come back and present that to Council to make sure it is consistent with what the Planning Commission has approved and make sure it is a similar budget to the metal panel so there will hopefully not be any implications on the cost with the contractor. She stated that they will definitely work with him to find an alternative material that is within a comfortable budget. She reiterated that there were things they could do without having to take the whole shift and go back and rebid anything at this time.

Mayor Bier welcomed the contractor.

Contractor Vinson Heine of W. E. Lyons thanked Council for considering them for the general contractor for the project. He stated that he is the Senior Vice President and partner within the company which has been in business for 96 years. He stated that he has done a lot of projects like this and a lot of renovation projects. He stated that the city has done some really good things thus far, such as they hired an amazing design team and he has heard a lot of good things about Group 4 and was excited to work with them on the project. He thought that doing the prequalification was a very smart move to get a qualified contractor to do the work. He stated that there are a lot of general contractors trying to find work and quite a few of them wouldn’t be qualified for this specific job. He stated that they want to compete with those people who know how to do the job. He stated that there are a lot of good alternates there and pricing is not going to get any cheaper as mentioned earlier. He stated that material availability continue to get worse and more and more difficult before it gets better. He was present because he wants to hear Council agree to go forward and he has subcontracts ready and he will have to lock in those subcontractors right away and get them to procure that material now as tomorrow it will be a different price as the pricing is continuing to go up. He referred to the alternates they mentioned to be able to do the infrastructure for the photovoltaic on the roof. He stated that the stations are one thing, and something they need to consider as well is the conduit from the electrical room up to the roof which is a big deal as it gets hidden in the walls when they do that work now versus later when it has to be in a separate chaise and they have to do it and drilling holes in creating a space for that, whereas now they can put that in the wall and get it up into the infrastructure. He stated that it makes sense to do that now. He thought about adding photovoltaic panels in the bid now, and they might have some other different grants and opportunities to get that infrastructure installed with a different procurement process. He stated that they might look into that as there are a lot of different grants coming up for that. He stated that, if they included it, he didn’t know if they would necessarily be able to apply for that type of grant and that might be something they can install at a later date but get funding for a different way. He stated that the EV charging stations is another one that they can do later on, as the infrastructure would be there and they would just need to install them. He didn’t know if later on will be more or less expensive than doing it now, as they don’t know where things are going with the materials. He thought they figured out the calculation, as 5B and 5A is an either/or option. He stated that they are excited to

2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 April 25, 2022
get started and move forward in providing them with a beautiful building.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked about the metal.

Mr. Heine stated that there were options as they could go to aluminum, a baked enamel of an aluminum panel that doesn’t rust and get the same kind of look. He stated that there are other materials, as the design team mentioned, that they can use. He stated that the baked on enamel that is on the metal panels is like their car and it does last a long time. He understood that they are close to the salt and things rust and they don’t want that either to come back with a warrantee issue and have to deal with that down the road. He was glad they are thinking outside the box in looking at that and helping them prevent that warrantee issue and that cost.

Mayor Bier thanked him for stepping up to speak.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to the statement that the finish is as good as a car, and he remembered that they had a guy win a contest for the rustiest in California who lived on Esplanade. He drove it in the Fog Fest parade and when the CHP finally condemned the car, as he had holes the size of his fist on the side of the car, so he thought saying it is as good as a car finish doesn’t cut it. He suggested they look at the vehicles in our corporation yard.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano wanted to confirm they closed public comment but she reopened it to allow the general contractor, but at this point she suggested she close it.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought Ms. Merkes’ point was well taken that they can figure out what the material is going to be, and he thought it doesn’t have to be this exact time as they will incorporate an option that is not going to rust on the city. He was also intrigued by the notion of adding the alternates in.

Mayor Bier asked what Councilmember Vaterlaus thought about adding them now instead of doing them later.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if she meant all the alternates. She didn’t think so, and thought regarding the PV infrastructure that they can add the generator later. She didn’t know about window coverings, as it is an office, and she felt there were certain things they didn’t need to spend the money on now, but obviously not the EV charging stations, and for split cooling, open a window. She thought they should add the PV infrastructure now for sure.

Mayor Bier thought, if they end up doing them later, it will cost more, and that is the only reason why she thinks they should add them in, the EV charging station and add the PV infrastructure, add in the generator, and the rest can wait.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that, for the charging stations, we will have the infrastructure there to add them. She can see the PCE is going to want to do those for us and she didn’t want to pay for them now or add them in now when she thinks they will pay for it later.

Mayor Bier heard her on that.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated she wants them, but she thinks they can add them later.

2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 April 25, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was hearing yes on 8, no on 1, and that leaves 3, 6, 7 and

9. He stated that, when they were discussing it, No. 9 seemed really important to the community specifically because of the noise issue and he didn’t know the effect it has on the building itself.

He favors guidance there.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he appreciated that the generator is in a neighborhood but, if he remembers correctly, it is turned on once a month to test. He asked how often they have actually used the generator.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it does have to periodically be tested, which he believes that means running it for an hour or so, and it used to be on Friday afternoon when he was alone in the office and it was outside his window and it worked out okay and was very loud. He referred to the question of how they used it, and he stated that there was a time when one of the feeds from PG&E had been shut off for some work on Salada and they learned something about the outdated electrical system at the civic center and that accidentally shut off the power to the civic center and they had to run the generator power at that time.

Councilmember O’Neill thought the generator is something that can be added on later.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that he didn’t know about the wiring infrastructure piece to that but they were saying it could be added on later. He stated that another component which Ms. Merkes mentioned is that technology for back up battery storage from solar has not advanced yet to the stage of powering the civic center for a couple of days in an emergency but in coming years, that could be the case.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if this would be another gas generator.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed that they would be talking about a gas generator but in future years, if there was battery technology, then that would make the gas generator investment obsolete.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated the end game is electrification and presumably it would be a slightly cleaner burning gas generator.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if this estimate was for a gas generator.

PW Dep. Director Bautista agreed that it was.

Mayor Bier thought they could knock that one out.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it leaves 3, 6 and 7.

Mayor Bier asked, with 6, can they just let staff have everything in place and get them all the things they need.

Councilmember O’Neill thought, if you want a modern office, you have to have equipment and technology.

Mayor Bier agreed that was the point, so they have everything they need.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they don’t want the first principal of the school to recognize the

2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 April 25, 2022
building.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they were okay with 6.

Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed.

Mayor Bier stated that they have 6 and 8.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they have 3 and 7 to go.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he had no idea what a split cooling system was.

Ms. Carlberg stated that the split cooling system would provide cooling to the larger conference rooms in the P& P building that have a higher occupancy and might get warmer than the other spaces of the building, and this is something that was pulled out as an added alternate as it is something that could be easily added in the future and that is why it is broken out for the flexibility of either doing it now or in the future.

Mayor Bier stated that they know how hot it gets at the community center so she thought they might want to have this in place if they are going to be having community meetings in those rooms.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck suggested they leave the windows open.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to ask a clarifying question.

Mayor Bier agreed.

City Manager Woodhouse asked, when they say split cooling system, does that also mean heat, and in the winter, if they had a heating problem in rooms.

Ms. Carlberg stated that there is heating in all of the P&P building and the City Hall and part of the basis that there is heating everywhere.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that often, in office buildings, when you set the heat for the open air office space, then the conference room gets too hot, and he asked if this add alternate is a system that addresses that flexibility or is the heating system built into the base bid supposed to be flexible per room.

Ms. Carlberg stated that the heating system that is built in will have some control over the zones of the building and purely to add cooling to the conference rooms.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Councilmember O’Neill what his thoughts are.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he is thinking he won’t vote yes for 11:30.

Mayor Bier thought it was logical that, if there is heating, there should be cooling.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Councilmember O’Neill because it sounds like Councilmember Vaterlaus is a no vote on No. 3 and he was trying to get consensus at this point.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was okay with it.

2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 35 April 25, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that they can do No. 7 later.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded that consensus is that they would like to add Items 3, 6 and

8. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she would make a motion.

Mayor Bier thought the city attorney was saying something.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought City Manager Woodhouse had indicated at the beginning that he would ask Council to make a decision on where the add alternates are going to come from in terms of funding, and whether there needs to be a distinction between 3 and 6 as to whether it comes from the General Fund unassigned fund balance or the returned ERAF revenues.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, if they were talking about $183,000, he was thinking unassigned General Fund.

Councilmember O’Neill stated or disaster fund as it is the one-time money ERAF goes into for one time expenditure.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed.

Councilmember Vaterlaus made a motion that they award the Civic Center Campus Facilities Project Construction Services Agreement and approve the following actions for the Civic Center Campus Facilities Improvement Project, PW2021-23, adopt the resolution next in order for a budget amendment for Fiscal Year 2021-22 with the total project budget of $11,651,397 plus Items 3, 6 and 8 for a total of...

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated $182,425.

Councilmember Vaterlaus added what he said and using by appropriating additional returned ERAF revenues (Disaster Fund Accounting) of ...

City Manager Woodhouse asked what PW Dep. Director Bautista said.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated A3, A6 and A8 is $182,425.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was $1,082,485 and appropriating General Fund Unassigned Fund balance of $751,397 to the project budget and authorizing the City Manager to award and execute a Construction Services Agreement with W. E. Lyons Construction Company (Attachment “A”) in the amount not to exceed $9,222,972, adding additional items and authorize a budget authority for construction in the amount of $9,960,810 which includes alternates A2, A4, A5a, A3, A6 and A8 and contingencies in an amount not to exceed eight percent of the Construction Contract amount; and Authorize staff to execute future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

City Manager Woodhouse clarified that the $9,960,810 will need to increase by the additional add alternates that they added.

Mayor Bier asked Councilmember O’Neill if he had a question.

2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 36 April 25, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated he had a question for discussion.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that the W. E. Lyons Construction Service Agreement would be in an amount not to exceed $9,405,397 and with contingency it would be $10,157,828.

Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed to that amendment.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if he said the contingencies are $10 million.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that, with the contingency, it is $10,157,829. He stated that the first figure is $9,405,397.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if the motion include Item C.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that she did say Item C.

Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill asked that they explain Item C, authorize staff to execute future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount. He asked how much they said the contingency amount was.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that the contingency would be approximately $750,000.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that roughly $750,000, and he asked if they basically did their first change orders for this contract, as they put out a bid, they are looking at a contract and now they have changed the parameters of that contract and they have done their first change orders. He asked if the stuff they authorize or vote on at this meeting is not part of the $720,000 but an additional $720,00 change order.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the definition of change order is that they just expanded the scope of the alternates and he was not sure what the engineers would say, but those aren’t actual change orders as the way he views change orders is there are things that happen in the field during the project and they negotiate about the additional costs that the materials costs, but there are always going to be those and the authority would be that 8% amount and they are able to negotiate those through their construction management and keep them down as much as possible but they have the authority to keep things moving because those are like weekly decisions that need to be made during construction.

Councilmember O’Neill understood, and he stated that the max after the change orders reach $750,000 approximately then he asked if they would have to come back to Council for authorization to go over those.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed that, if they started to exceed that 8% contingency allowed for the change orders, they would have to come back to Council.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, when they remodeled all the schools, they had a list of the change orders that were authorized so they actually kept track of the change orders.

Mayor Bier stated that they have a motion and a second.

2.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 37 April 25, 2022
Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Beckmeyer)
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus
ABSENT: Beckmeyer

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 11:21 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of April 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (4977 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/9/2022
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. 51
Pacifica City Council 2
May 09, 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 Summer 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 April 11, 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. 52
Pacifica City Council 3
May 09, 2022
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline From Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (PDF)
3 Packet Pg. 53
"ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline From Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (4974 :
"ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline From Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (4974 :

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/9/2022
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. 56
Pacifica City Council 2
May 09, 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. 57
Pacifica City Council 3
May 09, 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 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. To start the construction, the City Council approved Construction Services Agreements with DW Nicholson Corporation and Pump Repair Service Company; executed a Purchase Agreement with Peterson Power Systems Inc.; executed Task Order No. 2 with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc. for Engineering Services During Construction; and executed a Master Services Agreement with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. to provide Construction Management Services on March 28, 2022. City staff conducted a pre-construction meeting with the contractor and the project consultants on April 19, 2022.

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 April 11, 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. 58
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, ATTACHMENT 1

4.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (4973 : 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. 60
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (4973 : 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. 61
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (4973 : Continuance

4.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (4973 : Continuance

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/9/2022
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. 63
Pacifica City Council 2
May 09, 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. 64
Pacifica City Council 3
May 09, 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. As of March 11, 2022, the universal masking requirement for K12 and Childcare settings was terminated.

There have been no changes or updates to State or County Health Orders or mandates with respect to COVID-19 that have a material effect on the City’s operations since the last update brought to Council at the April 11, 2022 regular meeting.

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:
5 Packet Pg. 65
Pacifica City Council 4
May 09, 2022
City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 66

5.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4982 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4982 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4982 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4982 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4982 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4982 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/9/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Structure Replacement RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Miracle Recreation Equipment Company (dba Miracle Playsystems, Inc.) (Attachment "A") for the purchase and installation of a new playground structure at the Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park in the amount of $97,624.23; and approve budget authority in the amount of $107,386.65, which includes a 10% contingency.

STAFF CONTACT:

Gino Assereto, Parks Superintendent
(650) 738-3761
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E., DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City Council approved the FY 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in June of 2021. The CIP included the Playground Equipment Improvement Project meant to improve outdated citywide parks playground equipment. The City manages and maintains nineteen (19) total parks throughout the City of Pacifica and over the last several years Public Works (PW) and Parks, Beaches and Recreation (PB&R) staff have been working on assessment of the City parks needs due to aging infrastructure. This included a consultant playground equipment assessment study that was presented and discussed at a Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission study session in September of 2019. Based on the assessment study and discussions between PW and PB&R staff, a priority list was created. In March 2022, staff had another study session with the PB&R Commission to review the status of the parks. The assessment and inspection found that the play structure at the Pacifica Co-Op Nursery School/Pomo Park needs to be replaced as it has exceeded it's useful life. In addition, the large eucalyptus tree adjacent to the structure will need to be removed. The play structure can be used safely, however, staff recommends the replacement of the play structure this year.

Staff recommends executing a construction services agreement with Miracle Recreation Equipment Company (dba Miracle Playsystems) to order the equipment (5-7 month delivery; supply-chain delays). Staff has also worked with the Nursery to pick a suitable replacement play structure.

Procurement and pricing comply with the public purchasing process as Miracle Recreation Equipment Company (dba Miracle Playsystems) is a vendor of the State of California Multiple 6 Packet Pg. 73
Pacifica City Council 2
May 09, 2022
Award Schedule (CMAS Contract 4-17-78-0006B) and Sourcewell (Contract #010521-LTS), cooperative purchasing organizations dedicated to public sector procurement. CMAS and Sourcewell have completed the bidding process on products and services, which public agencies can utilize and receive competitive pricing. The City Manager recommends approval of the Construction Services Agreements with Miracle Recreation Equipment Company (dba Miracle Playsystems) for the purchase and installation of the play structure replacement equipment.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to approve the construction agreements. However, this will result in delays in obtaining the replacement play structure. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the construction contract is consistent with the following Council adopted Goal:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as playground equipment. This construction project will replace deteriorating play equipment, improving the condition of the play structures for children using the facilities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

City staff recommends including a 10% contingency to the Project Costs for any unforeseen conditions during construction. The following is the source and use of funds for the project:

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Construction Services Agreement $ 97,624.23
Contingency (10%) $ 9,762.42
Consultant Cost (with 10% Contingency) $ 107,386.65
Total Use of Funds $(107,386.65)
Total Source of Funds (Roy Davies Fund 27) $ 221,379.34 Estimated Project End Balance $ 113,992.69

The City Manager recommends approving a budget authority in the amount of $107,386.65.

The use of the contingency will be reviewed and approved by City staff. The remaining funds would allow City staff to evaluate other parks and replace other play structures in the City.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 74
Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 1

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20

CITY OF PACIFICA
170 Santa Maria Avenue, Pacifica, CA 94044

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT
DATE: 5/9/2022

1. IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR:

CONTRACTOR: Miracle Recreation Equipment Company (dba Miracle Playsystems, Inc.), 1276 S. Main Street, Salinas, CA. 93901

CALIFORNIA LICENSE NO: 981433 DIR #: 1000015853 CLASS: B

2. SCOPE OF THE WORK
Purchase and Installation of playground equipment for Pacifica Co-Op Nursery School. See cost proposals attached to Appendix A.

3. COMPENSATION FOR WORK. Contractor’s total compensation for the Work performed under this Agreement (Contract Sum) is $97,624.23, to be paid as (check one): (1)  lump sum; (2)  lump sum with progress payments; (3)  per attached schedule of rates and charges, up to a guaranteed not-to-exceed amount of $97,624.23. All payments (check one):  shall  shall not be subject to a five percent (5%) retention.

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

Commencement Date shall be on the date established in the Notice to Proceed. Owner reserves the right to modify or alter the Commencement Date of the Work, which is defined as the date all replacements parts have been received by the City.

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

Final Completion Date: Within 10 calendar days of Substantial Completion.

4.01 Liquidated Damage Amounts.

A. As liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay Owner Five Hundred dollars ($500.00) for each Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work, until achieved.

B. As liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay Owner Five Hundred dollars ($500.00) for each Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Final Completion of the entire Work, until achieved.

4.02 Scope of Liquidated Damages
Contractor and Owner agree that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix the amount of such actual damages incurred by Owner because of a delay in completion of all or any part of the Work. Contractor and Owner agree that specified measures of liquidated damages shall be presumed to be the amount of such damages actually sustained by Owner, and that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damages.

6.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 2

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
B. Liquidated damages for delay shall cover administrative, overhead, interest on bonds, and general loss of public use damages suffered by Owner as a result of delay. Liquidated damages shall not cover the cost of completion of the Work, damages resulting from Defective Work, lost revenues or costs of substitute facilities, or damages suffered by others who then seek to recover their damages from Owner (for example, delay claims of other contractors, subcontractors, tenants, or other third-parties), and defense costs thereof. Owner may deduct from any money due or to become due to Contractor subsequent to time for completion of entire Work and extensions of time allowed pursuant to provisions hereof, a sum representing then-accrued liquidated damages.

5. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

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

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

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

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

City of Pacifica, Department of Public Works,
170 Santa Maria Ave., Pacifica, CA 94044
CONTRACTOR: Miracle Recreation Equipment Company OWNER: City of Pacifica (dba Miracle Playsystems, Inc.)
_____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Signature Signature
_____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Kit Steven, President Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
_____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Date Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

_____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney Sarah Coffey, City Clerk

Addresses for Notices: Addresses for Notices:

Miracle Playsystems, Inc. City of Pacifica
1276 S. Main Street 170 Santa Maria Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901 Pacifica, CA 94044
4/18/2022
President
Miracle Playsystems

6.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205
-3
OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
Appendix A to Construction Services Agreement

SCOPE OF WORK

6.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities
Pacifica Co-Op Nursery School
Pacifica, CA
Prepared for: City of Pacifica
Prepared By
Jean Tyan
Sales Account Manager
Miracle Playsystems Inc
[email protected]
(650)930-0459

6.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities
MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities 11/03/2021 21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery_003

6.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Beige Sand Dark Brown Brownstone Brown Forest Green Panel-Miralene: Dark Brown-Sand MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities
MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities 11/03/2021 21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery_003
Colors Used In Rendering *Colors shown in rendering is for illustrative purposes only. Actual color and pattern may vary slightly.

6.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities
MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities 11/03/2021 21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery_003
*Colors shown in rendering is for illustrative purposes only. Actual color and pattern may vary slightly.

6.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities
MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities 11/03/2021 21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery_003
*Colors shown in rendering is for illustrative purposes only. Actual color and pattern may vary slightly.

6.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities
MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities 11/03/2021 21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery_003
*Colors shown in rendering is for illustrative purposes only. Actual color and pattern may vary slightly.

6.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities
MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities 11/03/2021 21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery_003
*Colors shown in rendering is for illustrative purposes only. Actual color and pattern may vary slightly.

6.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities
MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS. DESIGNING PLAY
Creating Fun Play Environments to Enrich Communities 11/03/2021 21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery_003
*Colors shown in rendering is for illustrative purposes only. Actual color and pattern may vary slightly.

UPC RACOON LOG

ALTERNATE ADD-ON OPTIONS

PIROUETTE

SPINNER

6.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play 4/14/2022
P21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery School
MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS, INC. – PO BOX 263, ALAMO, CA 94507 – (800) 879-7730 – (510) 893-2163 (FAX) CSL: 981433 (Exp Date 03/23) – DIR: 1000015853

Page 1 of 4 ends

Job Number:

Job: P21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery School
Quote Name: Quote--21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery School_003 Quote Number: Q-03144
Prepared by:

JeanTyan
[email protected]
Terms: Net 30
Remit to: Miracle Playsystems, Inc.
1276 S Main St., Salinas, CA 93901
Sub Total: $85,495.47
Freight: $6,726.00
Estimated Tax: $5,402.76
Total: $97,624.23
Miracle - Sourcewell Discount Applied
Product Code Description Qty Rate Total Estimated Tax ( if applicable)
MREC EQUIP Miracle Play Equipment Per
Plan_21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery
School_003_BOM_03092022
1 $65,409.00 $54,289.47 $5,089.63
Percussion Play
Product Code Description Qty Rate Total Estimated Tax ( if applicable)
EQUIP11 Akadinda - In Ground Install 1 $3,340.00 $3,340.00 $313.13 Installation Services
Product Code Description Qty Rate Total Estimated Tax ( if applicable)
B13 Offload & Storage. Provide labor and
storage to offload MREC shipment at
our Santa Clara Facility and deliver to
job site once ready for installation,
includes disposal of shipment
packaging.
1 $2,305.00 $2,305.00 $0.00
B24 Provide labor and equipment to meet
UPC Freight and offload (1) Bison Rock
and set-in-place onto sub grade, no
footing slab required.
1 $2,495.00 $2,495.00 $0.00

6.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play 4/14/2022
P21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery School
MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS, INC. – PO BOX 263, ALAMO, CA 94507 – (800) 879-7730 – (510) 893-2163 (FAX) CSL: 981433 (Exp Date 03/23) – DIR: 1000015853

Page 2 of 4 ends

B15 Installation only of MREC Custom 2-5
Play Structure per Drawing
21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery_003
to manufacturer recommendations
through soil. Footing spoils disposed
off site. Prevailing Wage.
1 $20,171.00 $20,171.00 $0.00
Performance Bond
Product Code Description Qty Rate Total Estimated Tax ( if applicable)
DESIGN1 Performance Bond 1 $2,895.00 $2,895.00 $0.00
Sub Total: $85,495.47
Total Freight: $6,726.00
Total Estimated Tax: $5,402.76
Grand Total: $97,624.23
Company: ________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Name: ___________________________________________
Date: ____________________________________________
OPTIONAL PRODUCT The below product(s) are optional and do not contribute to the quote totals, estimated taxes and freight amounts.

Miracle
Product Code Description Qty Rate Total Estimated Tax ( if applicable)
8027634 PIROUETTE, YELLOW (Estimated
freight $320 - Total weight 210 lbs.)
1 $853.00 $853.00
494122 RACCOON LOG (Estimated freight
$1740 - Total weight 2,932 lbs)
1 $8,330.00 $8,330.00

6.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play 4/14/2022
P21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery School
MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS, INC. – PO BOX 263, ALAMO, CA 94507 – (800) 879-7730 – (510) 893-2163 (FAX) CSL: 981433 (Exp Date 03/23) – DIR: 1000015853

Page 3 of 4 ends

Please confirm or edit order information below.

End User Company:

City of Pacifica
End User Contact:

End User Email:

Delivery Contact:

Delivery Email:

Delivery Phone:

Delivery Address:

Pacifica
Site Address:
548 Carmel Ave
Pacifica
Bill To Email:

Bill To:

City of Pacifica,
155 Milagro (Public Works),
Pacifica, CA,
94044
Customer Reference #:

INDEMNITY
Client/Owner shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Miracle Playsystems, Inc., its officers, directors, board of trustees, agents, or employees and each of them, from any and all claims, demands, causes of action in law or in equity, damages, penalties, costs, expenses, reasonable attorneys’ fees, reasonable experts’ fees, reasonable consultants’ fees, judgments, losses or liabilities, of every kind and nature whatsoever arising out of or in any way connected with or incidental to, the performance of the services under this Agreement or any of the obligations contained in this Agreement (“Claims”). Without limitation, “damages” include personal injury, including, but not limited to bodily injury, emotional injury, sickness or disease, or death to persons, including, but not limited to, any employees or agents of Miracle Playsystems, Inc., or any other person; or other damages of any kind to anyone including, without limitation, economic loss, property damage and loss of use thereof. It is expressly acknowledged and agreed that each of the foregoing indemnities is independent, that each shall be given effect, and that each shall apply despite any acts or omissions, misconduct or negligent conduct, whether active or passive, on the part of, or other contractor(s); provided, however, Miracle Playsystems, Inc. duty to indemnify shall be limited to the percentage or the degree Miracle Playsystems, Inc. comparative negligence caused any damages.

STANDARD NOTES
• Price quotation is good for 30 days. Accurate color selections must be made in writing prior to equipment going into production. Colors to be confirmed with your local sales representative.
• PLEASE MAKE PURCHASE ORDER TO MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS, INC at PO Box 263 Alamo, CA 94507 • PLEASE REMIT CHECKS TO: MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS INC., 1276 S MAIN ST, SALINAS, CA 93901 • Please email/fax quotation with your signature to accept this quote and place order. Fax 510-893-2163 or email [email protected] • Unless otherwise specified, Miracle Playsystems, Inc DOES NOT include the following in this proposal:
• Engineered drawings
• Installation of equipment or other site amenities
• Specialty trades, equipment, power supply required to install equipment • Any insurance requiring in excess of $1M/$2M per occurrence, special insurance coverage or wording, Prevailing/Certified wage rates, local permitting, bid/performance bonds, temp fencing, geo tech surveys, playground safety inspection, equipment offload, and testing services. • Inspect equipment upon delivery. Color discrepancy must be reported at time of delivery. Installation constitutes acceptance of colors. • Warranty does not cover labor for reinstallation.

6.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play 4/14/2022
P21_0210_Pacifica Co-Op Nursery School
MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS, INC. – PO BOX 263, ALAMO, CA 94507 – (800) 879-7730 – (510) 893-2163 (FAX) CSL: 981433 (Exp Date 03/23) – DIR: 1000015853

Page 4 of 4 ends

TERMS & CONDITIONS
• Purchase contract terms & conditions of sale: The client/customer’s acceptance and understanding of these terms & conditions and all other supporting documentation provided as part of this package is evidenced by signing of this estimate/quote. • Payment terms: Standard terms (on approved credit), unless otherwise noted are 50% with order and balance to ship equipment (no retention). Should any changes be required to the products after order is placed, modifications or changes will be at client/customers expense. Miracle Playsystems, Inc maintains a no return policy and asks all clients to determine feature, layout and color selection prior to ordering. Should any order be cancelled after production has started a 30% restocking fee will be charged to client. Credit card convenience fee is 3.5% which will be added to all credit card charges • Lead times: Estimated lead times for the time the order is released into production until it is delivered will vary. • Lead times may currently be extended due to reasons such as supply chain issues, shipping delays, raw material shortages, and other COVID-19 related impacts. • Custom play feature lead times are determined on a case by case basis.

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES (if applicable)
Unless otherwise noted, we exclude responsibility for material delivery & offloading equipment, removal & disposal of packaging accumulated by equipment packaging, project security, landscape & hardscape repair based on access route to site, delays or returns due to layout conflicts or delay of other trades, removal of spoils from job site, locating underground: utilities, pipes, obstructions in work area, conditions unforeseen and/or not disclosed at time of estimate, permits, engineering, material testing, soil samples, CPSI. Conditions: Grades; stable, compacted & workable with 95% compaction and less than 1% grade, adequate access to site for labor, materials, tools and equipment. Estimate good for 90 days from quote or Dec. 31 of current calendar year, whichever comes first. Terms: Upon completion.

GENERAL TERMS
• THIS QUOTE IS LIMITED TO AND GOVERNED BY THE TERMS CONTAINED HEREIN: Miracle Playsystems, Inc. objects to any other terms proposed by client, in writing or otherwise, as material alterations, and all such proposed terms shall be void. Client authorizes Miracle Playsystems, Inc. to ship equipment and agrees to pay the total specified. Shipping terms are FOB the place of shipment via common carrier. • Client and owner/operator agree to indemnify and hold Miracle Playsystems, Inc. harmless from and against all liabilities, losses, penalties, damages and expenses, including costs and attorney fees, resulting from any and all claims, liens, damages, actions, suits, judgments or settlements, injuries arising or alleged to arise out of their failure, or failure of architect, contractors, subcontractors, installers, employees, agents and assigns to assemble, install, inspect and/or maintain the play equipment and impact absorbing surfacing in full compliance with each manufacturers installation instructions and safety requirements and their misuse and/or alteration of the play equipment.

Company: ______________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Name: ______________________________________
Date: ______________________________________

6.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 4

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
Appendix B to Construction Services Agreement

GENERAL CONDITIONS
ARTICLE 1 TERMS OF PERFORMANCE

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

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

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

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

1.03 Records and Payment Requests. Contractor shall submit all billings with all necessary invoices or other appropriate evidence of proper performance, after which Owner shall make payment within 30 days. Upon Owner’s written request, Contractor shall make available to Owner, its authorized agents, officers, or employees, any and all ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, cancelled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to the Work or the expenditures and disbursement charged to Owner, and all correspondence, internal memoranda, calculations, books and accounts, records documenting its Work under the Contract Documents, and invoices, payrolls, timecards, records and all other data related to matters covered by the Contract Documents. Contractor shall furnish to Owner, its authorized agents, officers, or employees, such other evidence or information as Owner may require with regard to the Work or any such expenditure or disbursement charged by Contractor. Contractor shall maintain all such documents and records prepared by or furnished to Contractor during the course of performing the Work for at least five years following completion of the Work, except that all such items pertaining to hazardous materials shall be maintained for at least 30 years.

Contractor shall permit Owner to audit, examine and make copies, excerpts and transcripts from such records.

The State of California or any federal agency having an interest in the subject of the Contract Documents shall have the same rights conferred to Owner by this section. Such rights shall be specifically enforceable.

1.04 Use of Contract Documents and Other Information. Drawings, Specifications, and other Contract Documents are made available to Contractor solely for Contractor’s use under the Contract Documents. Further, all tangible and intangible property developed, produced and/or provided by Contractor under the Contract Documents, and all such items (other than Contract Documents) provided by Owner to Contractor in connection with the Contract Documents including, without limitation, drawings, specifications, sketches, models, samples, tools, computer programs, technical information, confidential business information, scripts, customer or personnel information and data, whether written, oral or otherwise (all hereinafter referred to as Information) shall be Owner’s sole property.

Contractor may not use Contract Documents or Information for any purpose unrelated to Contract Documents without Owner’s prior written consent. All copies of Information in written, graphic or other tangible form shall be delivered to Owner upon completion of Work, or earlier if otherwise provided in Contract Documents.

1.05 Performance of Work/No Assignment. Time is of the essence in the performance of the Work. Contractor will perform the Work in a skillful and workmanlike manner; comply fully with criteria established by Owner, and with applicable laws, codes, and all applicable industry standards. Contractor shall maintain its work area in a clean and sanitary condition, clear debris and trash at the end of each work day, and shall not damage or disrupt any property unless specifically part of the scope of the Contract Documents. Contractor shall not contract any portion of the Work or otherwise assign the Contract Documents without prior written approval of Owner. (Contractor shall remain responsible for compliance with all terms of the Contract Documents, regardless of the terms of any

6.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 5
OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
such assignment.) Contractor shall permit Owner (or its designees) access to the work area, Contractor’s shop, or any other facility, to permit inspection of the Work at all times during construction and/or manufacture and fabrication. The granting of any progress payment, and any inspections, reviews, approvals or oral statements by any Owner representative, or certification by any governmental entity, shall in no way limit or relieve Contractor from its obligations under the Contract Documents. Either party’s waiver of any breach, or the omission or failure of either party, at any time, to enforce any right reserved to it, or to require strict performance of any provision of the Contract Documents, shall not be a waiver of any other right to which any party is entitled, and shall not in any way affect, limit, modify or waive that party’s right thereafter to enforce or compel strict compliance with every provision hereof. Owner shall have, at all times, set-off rights with respect to any payment and Contractor’s failure to perform the terms of the Contract Documents.

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

1.07 Earthwork and Underground Facilities. If the Work involves digging trenches or other excavations that extend deeper than four feet below the surface, Contractor shall notify Owner in writing of any material that Contractor believes may be hazardous waste that is required to be removed in accordance law, subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated by information about the site made available to bidders prior to the deadline for submitting bids, or unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in the Contract Documents, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 7104. For any Work involving trench shoring that costs in excess of $25,000, Contractor shall submit and Owner (or a registered civil or structural engineer employed by Owner) must accept, in advance of excavation, a detailed plan showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection from the hazard of caving ground during the excavation of such trench or trenches, pursuant to Labor Code Section 6705. If such plan varies from the shoring system standards, the plan shall be prepared by a registered civil or structural engineer.

Consistent with Government Code Section 4215, as between Owner and Contractor, Owner will be responsible for the timely removal, relocation, or protection of existing main or trunk line utility facilities located on the Site only if such utilities are not identified in the Contract Documents or information made available for bidding.

ARTICLE 2 LEGAL

2.01 Compliance with Laws; Conflict of Interests. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws, regulations and policies, as amended, including those regarding discrimination, unfair labor practices, antikick-back, collusion, prevailing wages, labor compliance, and the provisions of the Americans with Disability Act.

Contractor, its officer, partners, associates, agents, and employees, shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use the position afforded them by the Contract Documents to influence any governmental decision in which he or she knows or has reason to know that he or she has a financial interest under applicable state, federal and local conflict of interest regulations. Contractor warrants that no person or agency has been employed or retained, or will be employed or retained, to solicit or obtain any contract with Owner, upon an agreement or understanding for a contingent fee, except a bona fide employee or agency.

2.02 Licenses, Patents, Permits. Before commencing Work, Contractor shall apply for, obtain and maintain in current status, at its own expense, any license, permit or approval required from any agency for the performance of Work.

To the greatest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall not be entitled to any compensation for any Work performed while not properly licensed, etc.

6.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 6
OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20

2.03 Employee Wages; Records; Apprentices. This Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. Contractor shall post job site notices as prescribed by regulation.

Contractor shall pay prevailing wages to its employees on any Order in excess of $1,000.00. Copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at Owner’s principal office. Contractor shall comply with the 8-hours per day/40 hours per week/overtime/working hours restrictions for all employees, pursuant to the California Labor Code. Contractor and all subcontractors shall keep and maintain accurate employee payroll records for Work performed. The payroll records shall be certified and submitted as required by law, including Labor Code Section 1771.4 and 1776, including (if the Agreement is awarded on or after April 1, 2015 or continues on or after January 1, 2016) to the Labor Commissioner no less frequently than monthly. Contractor shall comply fully with Labor Code Section 1777.5 in the hiring of apprentices for work relating to the Agreement. If Contract Sum exceeds $2,000 and is funded with federal funds, then Contractor shall pay federal Davis Bacon wages and comply with applicable federal requirements.

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

2.05 Indemnity/Liability. Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Owner and each of its officers, directors, representatives, agents and employees, against all claims, suits, actions, loss, cost, damage, expense, and liability arising from or related to bodily injury to or death of any person or damage to any property, or resulting from any breach and/or Contractor’s negligence in performing the Work pursuant to the Contract Documents. Notwithstanding any provision of the Contract Documents, Owner shall not be liable to Contractor or anyone claiming under it, in contract or tort, for any special, consequential, indirect or incidental damages arising out of or in connection with the Contract Documents or the Work. Owner’s rights and remedies, whether under the Contract Documents or other applicable law, shall be cumulative and not subject to limitation.

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

ARTICLE 3 MISCELLANEOUS

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

3.02 Independent Contractor. Contractor is an independent Contractor and does not act as Owner’s agent in any capacity, whatsoever. Contractor is not entitled to any benefits that Owner provides to Owner employees including, without limitation, insurance, worker’s compensation benefits or payments, pension benefits, health benefits or insurance benefits. Terms within the Contract Documents regarding directives apply to and concern the result of the Contractor’s provision of Work not the means, methods, or scheduling of the Contractor’s Work.

Contractor shall be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures with respect to its provision of Work under the Contract Documents. Contractor shall pay all payroll taxes imposed by any governmental entity and will pay all other taxes not specifically identified in the Contract Documents as Owner’s responsibility.

3.03 Termination; Suspension; Disputes. Owner may direct Contractor to terminate, suspend, delay, interrupt or accelerate Work, in whole or in part, for such periods of time as Owner may determine in its sole discretion.

Owner will issue such directives in writing, and may do so, in whole or in part, for its convenience or due to Contractor’s fault. Owner will compensate Contractor for extra costs resulting from such directives only to the extent that Owner issues such directives for its convenience and not due to Contractor’s fault (but Owner shall

6.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 7

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
not compensate Contractor for costs, profit or overhead anticipated to be earned or incurred on Work terminated for Owner’s convenience.) Contractor shall continue its Work throughout the course of any dispute, and Contractor’s failure to continue Work during a dispute shall be a material breach of the Contract Documents. All claims by Contractor against Owner shall be submitted in writing to Owner, and shall be governed by Public Contract Code Sections 20104 – 20104.6, after which time the one year time period in Government Code Section 911.2 shall be, pursuant to Government Code Section 930.2, reduced to 90 days. Should Contractor be terminated for default, and such termination is subsequently determined to be wrongful, such termination will be converted to a termination for convenience as provided herein.

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

3.05 Dispute Resolution. All Contractor claims not otherwise subject to Public Contract Code Sections 20104 et seq shall, as a condition precedent to litigation thereon, first be mediated. Mediation shall be confidential, non-binding, pursuant to the construction mediation procedures of JAMS in San Francisco, California, and utilize the services of a mediator mutually acceptable to the parties. If the parties are unable to agree, the mediator will be selected by JAMS from its panel of approved construction industry mediators, having a minimum of 10 years’ experience in the construction industry. The cost of mediation shall be equally shared by all parties to the mediation. The parties shall, prior to the commencement of a mediation pursuant to this Paragraph, upon notice of the other party, exchange relevant, non-privileged project documents in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2031.010 et seq. Additionally, the parties may agree mutually to engage in additional discovery prior to mediation.

Should the parties proceed with additional discovery, they shall, unless mutually agreed otherwise, comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2019, et. seq. The Mediator will undertake to resolve any discovery disputes relating to the Mediation.

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 8

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
Appendix C to Construction Services Agreement

INSURANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.03 above.

7. All policies of insurance shall be placed with insurers acceptable to Owner. The insurance underwriter(s) must be duly licensed to do business in the State of California and (other than for workers’ compensation) must have an A. M.

Best Company rating of A or better. Required minimum amounts of insurance may be increased should conditions of Work, in the opinion of Owner, warrant such increase. Contractor shall increase required insurance amounts upon direction by Owner.

6.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 9

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20

Appendix D to Construction Services Agreement

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

1. THAT WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica, a general law city and municipal corporation of the State of California (Owner) has awarded to Miracle Recreation Equipment Company (dba Miracle Playsystems, Inc.) as Principal a Construction Services Agreement, dated the 9th day of May, 2022. (Agreement), titled Playground Equipment for the Pacifica Co-Op Nursery School located at 548 Carmel Avenue, Pacifica in the amount of $_97,624.23 (Contract Sum), which Agreement is by this reference made a part hereof, for the work described as follows:

Playground Equipment for the Pacifica Co-Op Nursery School

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

3. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal and ______________________________ as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto Owner in the sum of 100% OF THE CONTRACT SUM ($ 97,624.23), for which payment well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

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

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

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

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

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 10

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this __________ day of ___________, 2022.

CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY
Company: (Corp. Seal) Company: (Corp. Seal)

Signature Signature

Name Name

Title Title

Street Address Street Address

City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code

END OF DOCUMENT

6.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 11

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
Appendix E to Construction Services Agreement

CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:

1. THAT WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica, a general law city and municipal corporation of the State of California (Owner) has awarded to Miracle Recreation Equipment Company (dba Miracle Playsystems, Inc.) as Principal a Construction Services Agreement, dated the 9th day of May, 2022. (Agreement), titled Playground Equipment for the Pacifica CoOp Nursery School located at 548 Carmel Avenue, Pacifica in the amount of $ 97,624.23 (Contract Sum), which Agreement is by this reference made a part hereof, for the work described as follows:

Playground Equipment for the Pacifica Co-Op Nursery School

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.02 Obtain a bid or bids for completing the Agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions, and, upon determination by Owner of the lowest responsible bidder, reasonably acceptable to Owner, arrange for a contract between such bidder and Owner and make available as work progresses (even though there should be a default or a succession of defaults under the contract or contracts of completion arranged under this paragraph) sufficient funds to pay the cost of completion less the balance of the Contract Sum, and to pay and perform all obligations of Principal under the Agreement including, without limitation, all obligations with respect to warranties, guarantees, and the payment of liquidated damages; but, in any event, Surety’s total obligations hereunder shall not exceed the amount set forth in the third paragraph hereof. The term “balance of the Contract Sum,” as used in this paragraph, shall mean the total amount payable by Owner to the Principal under the Agreement and any amendments thereto, less the amount Owner paid to Principal.

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 12

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20

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

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this _________ day of ________________, 2022.

CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY
Company: (Corp. Seal) Company: (Corp. Seal)

Signature Signature

Name Name

Title Title

Street Address Street Address

City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code

6.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 13

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
Appendix F to Construction Services Agreement

SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS

1. Plans
No project plans for this project.

2. Shop Drawings
Shop drawings shall not be required on this project.

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

The final cleaning shall leave the facilities ready for use with no additional cleanup. Use no cleaning materials which will contaminate the ocean. At the completion of the contract, the Contractor shall remove all remaining litter, debris, materials, temporary structures and equipment from the site. The premises shall be left in a clean and orderly condition acceptable to the City Engineer.

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

4. Public Safety
Contractor shall be responsible during all phases of work to provide for public safety and convenience.

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

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

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

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

6. Discrimination
No discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons upon public works because of the race, sex, age, color, national origin, creed, sexual orientation or marital status of such persons and every

6.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 14

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
contractor for public works violating this section is subject to all the penalties imposed for a violation of Section 1735 of the California Labor Code.

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

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

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

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

9. Protection
The Contractor shall provide adequate protection for the site and surroundings throughout the work. All damage done to existing property shall be neatly repaired or replaced at the Contractor’s expense.

Work shall be executed in a careful and orderly manner with the least possible disturbance to public and occupants of the area.

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

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

The site shall be secured at the conclusion of each work day.

10. Inspections
Inspectors, employed by the City, shall be authorized to inspect all work done and all materials furnished. Such inspection may extend to all or any part of the work on the project and to the preparation, fabrication or manufacture of the materials to be used. An inspector is not authorized to revoke, alter or waive any requirements of the specifications. He is authorized to call the attention of the Contractor to any failure of the work or materials to conform to the specifications and contract. He shall have the authority to reject materials or suspend the work until any question at issue can be referred to and decided by the Engineer.

6.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 15

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
An inspector will in no case act as foreman or perform other duties for the Contractor, nor interfere with the Contractor’s management of the work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Temporary Suspension of Work and Extension of Time for Performance When conditions at the site of the proposed work are unsatisfactory for the prosecution of a part or all of the work as adjudged by the Contractor and he is forced to suspend such work until reasonable conditions for its prosecution exist, he may request, in writing, that the Engineer authorize such suspension of work. Without the Engineer’s approval, any suspensions violate this specification.

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 16

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
When, in the opinion of the Engineer, suspensions of work are beyond the control of both the Contractor and the City (including, without limitation, adverse weather, conditions, earthquakes, force majeure events), the time of performance as set forth in the Agreement will be extended by the Engineer, in writing, by a period of time equal to that lost due to the delay occasioned by the allowed suspension, all at no additional cost to the City and without waiver of remedies for nonproliferation of the work. Such allowed suspension of work shall not relieve the Contractor of his contractual responsibilities.

13. Laws and Regulations
The Contractor shall comply with all local, regional, State and Federal laws and regulations at all times.

In addition, the Contractor shall meet the standards set by the Air Quality Act for Noise and Pollution.

If there is any conflict between these specifications and provisions and any laws or regulations, the matter shall be brought to the attention of the Engineer immediately.

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

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

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

16. Water Pollution
General:

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

Correction of Inadequate Pollution and Erosion Control Measures:

If the measures being taken by the Contractor are inadequate to control water pollution effectively, the City Engineer may direct the Contractor to revise operations. The directions will be in writing and will specify the items of work for which the Contractor’s water pollution control measures are inadequate.

No further work shall be performed on those items until the water pollution control measures are made adequate.

Abatement of Other Water Pollution:

The cleanup of water pollution by chemicals, petroleum products, cement or by the escape of any other material that is harmful or potentially harmful, from the work site as a result of the Contractor’s operations, into drainage systems or the ocean shall be the financial responsibility of the Contractor.

The means of cleanup and the party or parties to be engaged to perform the cleanup work shall be determined by the Engineer in consultation with appropriate hazardous materials, pollution control,

6.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 17

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
safety, health and wildlife authorities and officials. The Contractor shall immediately carry out cleanup orders issued to him through or by the Engineer and shall make the work site accessible to personnel and equipment from outside pollution control resources called in by the Engineer. The cost of cleanup action called for by the Engineer and performed by outside resources shall be deducted from any monies due or become due the Contractor.

Compensation:

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

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

Contractor shall reuse or recycle any useful construction materials generated during the project.

Disposal
At the end of each working day, the Contractor shall collect all scrap, debris and waste material and dispose of such materials properly.

Hazardous Material/Waste Management
A. Storage
The Contractor shall label and store all hazardous materials, such as pesticides, paints, thinners, solvents, and fuels; and all hazardous wastes, such as waste oil and antifreeze; in accordance with the City of Pacifica Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance and all applicable State and Federal regulations.

The Contractor shall store all hazardous materials and all hazardous wastes in accordance with secondary containment regulations, and it is recommended that these materials and wastes be covered, as needed, to avoid potential management of collected rain water as a hazardous waste.

The Contractor shall keep an accurate, up-to-date inventory, including Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes stored on-site, to assist emergency response personnel in the event of a hazardous materials incident.

B. Disposal

6.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 18

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
The Contractor shall use secondary containment, such as a drip pan, to catch leaks or spills any time that vehicle or equipment fluids are dispensed, changed or poured.

The Contractor shall keep a stockpile of spill cleanup materials, such as rags or absorbents, readily accessible on site.

The Contractor shall clean up leaks and spills of vehicle or equipment fluids immediately and dispose of the waste and cleanup materials as hazardous waste, as described in the section above.

The Contractor shall not wash any spilled material into streets, gutters, storm drains or creeks and shall not bury spilled hazardous materials.

The Contractor shall report any hazardous materials spill to the City of Pacifica Building Division at (650) 738-7344.

The Contractor shall inspect vehicles and equipment arriving on site for leaking fluids and shall promptly repair leaking vehicles and equipment. Drip pans shall be used to catch leaks until repairs are made.

C. Activity-Specific Requirements
The following requirements shall be met on all projects within the City of Pacifica that include the listed activities.

Concrete, Grout and Mortar Waste Management
Material Management:

The Contractor shall store concrete, grout, and mortar away from drainage areas and ensure that these materials do not enter the storm drain system or the ocean waters.

Concrete Truck/Equipment Wash Out:

The Contractor shall not wash out concrete trucks or equipment into streets or gutters.

The Contractor shall perform washout of concrete trucks or equipment off-site or in a designated area on-site where the water will flow onto dirt or into a temporary pit in a dirt area. The Contractor shall let the water percolate into the soil and dispose of the hardened concrete in a trash container. If a suitable dirt area is not available, then the Contractor shall collect the wash water and remove it off-site.

18. Layout of Work
Layout of work shall be done by the Contractor. Contractor shall mark the work area limits and facilities to be removed and replaced. All layout shall be approved by the City.

19. Substitutions

6.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 19

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
Substitutions in material or methods of construction, when necessary because of material shortages or in order to avoid serious delay may be made only after they are approved by the City Engineer in writing.

20. Traffic Control and Public Access
The Contractor shall be responsible for proper traffic control to assure public safety and convenience.

Continuous safe public access shall be maintained to residential structures at all times.

21. Material and Workmanship
All materials and workmanship are to be the best of their respective kinds. The terms “or equal,” “approved,” “selected” and so forth shall mean as approved, etc. by the City Engineer. All materials and equipment used should be in accordance with the manufacturer’s printed directions.

Use adequate numbers of skilled workmen who are thoroughly trained and experienced in necessary crafts and who are completely familiar with the specified requirements and methods needed for proper performance of work specified. Use equipment adequate in terms of size, capacity and numbers to accomplish work in a timely manner.

22. Drug-Free Workplace
The Contractor is required to comply with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. The requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Policy are described in City of Pacifica Administrative Policy Number 46.

23. Harassment and Discrimination
The Contractor is required to comply with City of Pacifica Administrative Policy Number 33, Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace.

24. Payroll Records
Contractor and each Sub-Contractor shall keep an accurate payroll record, showing the name, address, social security number, work week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by him in connection with the public work. All payroll records shall be certified and maintained by the Contractor and be made available to auditors and managers from the City upon request.

6.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Construction Services Agreement with Miracle Playsystems (4968 : Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/9/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 funded by SB 1: Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 funded by SB 1: Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

STAFF CONTACT:

Raymund Donguines, P.E.

Senior Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3768
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E.

Deputy Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E.

Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017).

To address basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local streets and road system, SB 1 increases per gallon fuel excise taxes, increases diesel fuel sales taxes and vehicle registration fees, and provides for inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years.

The State Controller (Controller) deposits various portions of this new funding into the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). A percentage of this new Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funding will be apportioned by formula to eligible cities and counties pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2032(h) for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system.

SB 1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in the delivery of California’s transportation programs. Therefore, to be eligible for Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funding, statute requires cities and counties to annually provide basic project reporting to the Commission for projects anticipated for and funded through the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account. The City will receive approximately $863,690 for street rehabilitation for FY 2022-23.
7 Packet Pg. 106
Pacifica City Council 2
May 09, 2022
The Streets and Highways Code requires that prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the Controller in a fiscal year, all eligible cities or counties shall submit to the California Transportation Commission (Commission) a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted resolution by the applicable City Council or County Board of Supervisors at a regular public meeting. The attached resolution is in the strict format provided by the Commission and includes a list of all streets that are eligible for SB1 funding.

These streets are part of the City’s 5-Year Street Maintenance program for FY 2022-23.

This year, the City Manager recommends the following project for SB1 funding for Fiscal Year 2022-23:

• FY 2022-23 Pavement Resurfacing Project. The project will follow the City’s approved 5- year street maintenance program and resurface approximately 4.5 miles (19 street sections) of City pavement and includes asphalt overlay, cape seal, double slurry seal, slurry seal, microsurfacing, base repair, pavement striping and markings and other miscellaneous related work.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

If the Council chooses not to adopt the Resolution, it will result in the City not meeting statutory requirements for the SB1 Funds. Therefore, staff does not recommend this alternative action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
• Fiscal Sustainability: includes investing in economic development to increase revenues, funding a reserve/emergency fund, and being well prepared for grant opportunities.

Adopting the resolution and approving the Proposed Project List meets statutory requirements that will allow the City to receive SB1 Funds. • 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. Adopting the resolution and approving the Proposed Project List meets statutory requirements that will allow the City to receive SB1 Funds and repair City infrastructure.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no Fiscal Impact associated with the Adoption the Resolution. Separate Council action is required for appropriation of funds for each of the projects listed.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:
7 Packet Pg. 107
Pacifica City Council 3
May 09, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. _________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 FUNDED BY SB 1:

THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our City of Pacifica are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica, will receive an estimated $863,690 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2022-23 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, this is the sixth year in which the City of Pacifica is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City of Pacifica to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica has undergone a robust public process to ensure public input into our community’s transportation priorities/the project list; and WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the communities’ priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City of Pacifica maintain and rehabilitate several streets/roads and active transportation infrastructure throughout the City of Pacifica this year and many other similar projects into the future; and WHEREAS, the 2018 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City of Pacifica’s streets and roads are in an “poor” condition and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade will bring our streets and roads into a “at risk” condition; and
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets 7 Packet Pg. 108
Pacifica City Council 4
May 09, 2022
infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.

NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, State of California, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The following list of newly proposed projects will be funded in-part or solely with Fiscal Year 2022-23 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

Project Title: FY 2022-23 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Project Description: The project will resurface approximately 4.5 miles (19 street sections) of City pavement and includes
asphalt overlay, cape seal, double slurry seal,
slurry seal, microsurfacing, base repair, pavement
striping and markings and other miscellaneous
related work.

Project Location: Various Streets and Roads, See attached list.

Estimated Project Schedule: July 2022 – October 2022
Estimated Project Useful Life: 5 to 20 Years
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, State of California this 9th day of May, 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 7 Packet Pg. 109
Pacifica City Council 5
May 09, 2022
FY 2022-23 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Street Name From To Treatment

BEACHVIEW AVENUE HICKEY BLVD CORAL RIDGE DR DOUBLE SLURRY SEAL

BROOKHAVEN COURT CATALINA AVE CUL DE SAC CAPE SEAL

CATALINA AVENUE HICKEY BLVD CORAL RIDGE DR CAPE SEAL

CRESTMOOR CIRCLE BEACHVIEW AVE BEACHVIEW AVE DOUBLE SLURRY SEAL

FOOTHILL DRIVE INVERNESS DR FOREST LAKE DR SLURRY SEAL

FOREST LAKE DRIVE INVERNESS DR FOOTHILL DR CAPE SEAL

HAMILTON COURT CATALINA AVE CUL DE SAC DOUBLE SLURRY SEAL

HEATHCLIFF DRIVE INVERNESS DR KAVANAUGH WAY RUBBER CAPE SEAL

HEATHECLIFF DRIVE MANOR DR INVERNESS DR CAPE SEAL
HICKEY BOULDEVARD MONTEREY AVE INVERNESS DR 2 INCH AC OVERLAY

HICKEY BOULDEVARD INVERNESS DR FIRECREST AVE SLURRY SEAL

HORIZON WAY FOOTHILL DRIVE INVERNESS DR DOUBLE SLURRY SEAL

IDLEWILD COURT HORIZON WAY CUL DE SAC CAPE SEAL

INVERNESS DRIVE HEATHCLIFF DR HICKEY BLVD RUBBER CAPE SEAL

INVERNESS DRIVE MANOR DR HEATHCLIFF DR SLURRY SEAL

MANOR DRIVE MONTEREY RD LOCKHAVEN RD SLURRY SEAL

MELROSE COURT CATALINA AVE CUL DE SAC CAPE SEAL
MONTEREY ROAD 600' S/O HICKEY BLVD MANOR DR SLURRY SEAL

RUTLAND DRIVE CRESTMOOR CIRCLE CATALINA AVE DOUBLE SLURRY SEAL 7 Packet Pg. 110

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/9/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Adopt an “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California repealing Chapter 19 of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Chapter 19 (Park Facilities Impact Fee); repealing Section 10-1.803 (Park Land Dedication) of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Section 10-1.803 (Park Land Dedication) to establish updated Impact Fees and Quimby Act dedication requirements and in lieu fees imposed on New Development in the City of Pacifica”; and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

STAFF CONTACT:

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

This ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council on April 25, 2022 and is now in order for adoption.

On the same date, City Council adopted a resolution to update the Park Facilities Impact Fee and the Quimby Act Parkland In Lieu Fee, which included fee reductions/exemptions for affordable housing units. As stated earlier at the meeting, the Mitigation Fee Act, contained in Government Code 66000 et seq., permits the City to impose development impact fees on new development for the purposes of funding the public facilities necessary to serve that new development, and California Government Code section 66477 (the “Quimby Act”) allows cities to require the dedication of land or to impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreation purposes as a condition of approval of a tentative or parcel map.

The City’s Municipal Code contains outdated provisions regarding the City’s Park Facilities Impact Fee and Quimby Act dedication requirements and in lieu fees. As such, staff is bringing the attached Ordinance (Attachment “A”) to amend the City’s existing Code provisions and bring 8 Packet Pg. 111
Pacifica City Council 2
May 09, 2022
them into compliance with new state laws. In the future, the Council would be able to update the fees or change the amount of the fees via resolution without needing to adopt another ordinance.

CEQA:

This Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This action is not a project within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it has no potential for physical effects on the environment because it involves an adoption of certain fees and/or charges imposed by the City, does not commit the City to any specific project, and said fees and/or charges are applicable to future development projects and/or activities, each of which future projects and/or activities will be fully evaluated in full compliance with CEQA when sufficient physical details regarding said projects and/or activities are available to permit meaningful CEQA review (see CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(b)(1)). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the creation of government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a “project” under CEQA. Therefore, approval of the fees and/or charges is not a “project” for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378(b)(4); and, even if considered a “project” under CEQA, is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approval of the fees and/or charges may have a significant effect on the environment.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council could choose not to adopt the proposed amendments to the ordinance, and provide staff further direction.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“Stewardship of City Infrastructure” The updated park in-lieu fee would assist the City in acquiring parkland and/or fund the design and construction of public park improvements that would promote a healthy environment and activities for residents and visitors.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This action will not result in any direct fiscal impact.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment "A" - Quimby Act and Park Facilities Impact Fee Update Ordinance (DOCX) 8 Packet Pg. 112
Pacifica City Council 3
May 09, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. (ID # 4976)
8 Packet Pg. 113
Pacifica City Council 4
May 09, 2022
* * * * *
(ID # 4976) at 5/9/2022 6:00 PM City Council Regular Meeting 8 Packet Pg. 114
ATTACHMENT “A”
ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA REPEALING CHAPTER 19 OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPLACING IT WITH CHAPTER 19 (PARK FACILITIES IMPACT FEE); REPEALING SECTION 10-1.803 (PARK LAND DEDICATION) OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPLACING IT WITH SECTION 10-1.803 (PARK LAND DEDICATION) TO ESTABLISH UPDATED IMPACT

FEES AND QUIMBY ACT DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS AND IN LIEU FEES IMPOSED ON NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF PACIFICA.

WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica’s Municipal Code contains outdated provisions regarding the City’s Park Facilities Impact Fee and Quimby Act dedication requirements and in lieu fees; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act, contained in Government Code 66000 et seq., permits the City to impose development impact fees on new development for the purposes of funding the public facilities necessary to serve that new development; and WHEREAS, the City’s current Park Facilities Impact Fee requirements are contained in Chapter 19, “Park Facilities Impact Fee,” of Title 8 “Building Regulations,” of the Pacifica Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to continue to impose a Park Facilities Impact Fee on new non-subdivision, residential development to fund the costs associated with constructing and expanding park and recreation facilities and to update the fee to bring it in line with current City objectives; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City’s existing ordinance regarding the Park Facilities Impact Fee to ensure that the Park Facilities Impact Fee ordinance is consistent with state law; and
WHEREAS California Government Code section 66477 (the “Quimby Act”) allows legislative bodies of cities to require the dedication of land or to impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, or park or recreation purposes as a condition of approval of a tentative or parcel map; and WHEREAS, the City’s current parkland dedication requirements are contained in Section 10-1.803, “Parkland Dedication,” of Article 8, “Dedication and Reservations,” of Chapter 1, “Subdivisions,” of Title 10 “Subdivisions and Dedications,” of the Pacifica Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City’s existing ordinance regarding the dedication of parkland and the payment of in-lieu fees to ensure that the Parkland Dedication ordinance is consistent with state law; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on April 25, 2022, after duly publishing all required notices, the City Council held a public hearing as part of a regularly scheduled meeting to consider the ordinance.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA, does hereby ordain as follows:

8.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Quimby Act and Park Facilities Impact Fee Update Ordinance (4976 : Adopt Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Section 1. Chapter 19 (Park Facilities Impact Fee) is hereby repealed and replaced as set forth in Attachment 1, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. Section 10-1.803 (Parkland Dedication) is hereby repealed and replaced as set forth in Attachment 2, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 3. Validity. The above recitations are true and correct.

Section 4. Findings. The City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the Pacifica Municipal Code are necessary and reasonable to implement the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan and are permitted by California state law.

Section 5. Environmental review. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This action is not a project within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it has no potential for physical effects on the environment because it involves an adoption of certain fees and/or charges imposed by the City, does not commit the City to any specific project, and said fees and/or charges are applicable to future development projects and/or activities, each of which future projects and/or activities will be fully evaluated in full compliance with CEQA when sufficient physical details regarding said projects and/or activities are available to permit meaningful CEQA review (see CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(b)(1)). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the creation of government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a “project” under CEQA. Therefore, approval of the fees and/or charges is not a “project” for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378(b)(4); and, even if considered a “project” under CEQA, is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approval of the fees and/or charges may have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 6. Actions to effectuate and codification. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take other actions on behalf of City, which are not expressly and specifically reserved for the City Council, to implement and effectuate this ordinance. The City Clerk is directed to codify this ordinance in a manner which best reflects the legislative intent of the City Council in enacting this ordinance. The City Clerk is directed to resolve any numbering conflicts accordingly.

Section 7. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.

The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this and each section, subsection, phrase or clause thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrase or clauses be declared unconstitutional on their face or as applied.

Section 8. Effective date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective no less than thirty (30) days after its adoption, and shall be published or posted as required by law.

Section 9. 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.

8.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Quimby Act and Park Facilities Impact Fee Update Ordinance (4976 : Adopt Ordinance Repealing and Replacing 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 Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

8.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Quimby Act and Park Facilities Impact Fee Update Ordinance (4976 : Adopt Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Attachment 1
Chapter 19
Park Facilities Impact Fee
Chapter 19. – Park Facilities Impact Fee
Sec. 8-19.01. - Authority and purpose.

This chapter is enacted pursuant to Section 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code (“the “Mitigation Fee Act”) and the general police powers of the City. This chapter is enacted for the purpose of providing land and/or funds for such additional parks, recreational facilities, and open space as may be deemed appropriate pursuant to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan, and zoning laws of the City. This chapter is also enacted to require the dedication of such funds and/or lands to offset the impact on the need for parks, recreational facilities, and open space created by new residential development which does not require a tentative subdivision or parcel map pursuant to Title 10 of this Code.

Sec. 8-19.02. - Definitions.

The definitions set forth in this section govern the construction of this chapter:

1. "Manufactured or mobile home" means and includes each manufactured or mobile home located in a mobile home park on a temporary, semi-permanent or permanent basis.

2. "Person" or “Developer” means and includes every person, firm or corporation constructing new single-family residences, manufactured and mobile homes, residential dwelling units directly or through the services of an employee, agent or independent contractor.

3. "Residential dwelling unit" means each unit of an apartment, duplex, multiple-dwelling structure or dwelling group or condominium.

4. "Bedroom" means any room in a residential dwelling unit used for sleeping, for the purposes of this chapter meaning any room added to a residential dwelling unit that includes a bedroom, or has provision for such inclusion.

Sec. 8-19.03. - Fee imposition.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, each person developing nonsubdivision residential development projects shall pay a Park Facilities Impact Fee in an amount established by resolution of the city council in accordance with a nexus study that demonstrates the reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee will be imposed and demonstrates the reasonable relationship between the need for park facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee will be imposed.

8.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Quimby Act and Park Facilities Impact Fee Update Ordinance (4976 : Adopt Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Sec. 8-19.04. - Exemptions.

The following types of development shall not be required to pay a Park Facilities Impact Fee:
a) Alterations, renovations or expansion of an existing residential building or structure where no new bedrooms are created.
b) Replacement of existing dwelling units on the same lot resulting in no net increase of bedrooms.
c) The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed or damaged building or structure where no additional bedrooms are created.
d) Nonresidential development.

Sec. 8-19.05. - Determination of required fees.
a) Every person constructing any new single-family residence, residential dwelling unit or manufactured mobile home within the City, or any addition or modification to such that includes the addition of one or more bedrooms, shall pay the Park Facilities Impact Fee established by resolution of the City Council, unless the development of such residence, unit, home, addition or modification requires a tentative subdivision or parcel map pursuant to Title 10 of this Code, in which case Section 10-1.803 shall be applicable. b) The Park Facilities Impact Fee may be modified automatically on an annual basis in accordance with the change in the Engineering News Record (“ENR”) construction cost index for the San Francisco area.

Sec. 8-19.06. – Payment of fees
a) The fees required by this chapter shall be paid at the time the city issues a building permit for each development project, unless the developer of a nonsubdivision residential development enters into an agreement with the city to pay the fees at the time the certificate of occupancy is issued, pursuant to Government Code Section 66007(c). An agreement to defer payment until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy must be executed and recorded before the city will issue a building permit for the development project.
b) If new development changes or intensifies the existing use on the project site, thereby requiring the payment of a new or additional Park Facilities Impact Fee, the fee amount associated with the existing use on the project site shall be credited against the new total fee due, as determined by the public works director; provided, however, that in no event shall the city refund the fees previously paid.

Sec. 8-19.07. - Park Facilities Impact fee fund and accounting. a) All of the funds collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in the Park Development Fund currently being maintained by the City and shall be used solely for the acquisition, improvement and expansion of public parks, playground and recreational facilities in accordance with the provisions of the open space and recreation element of

8.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Quimby Act and Park Facilities Impact Fee Update Ordinance (4976 : Adopt Ordinance Repealing and Replacing the General Plan of the City. Any interest accrued by the account shall be used solely for the purpose of funding park facilities.
b) Park Facilities Impact Fee Accounting. The city shall maintain accounts and prepare reports in accordance with California Government Code Section 66001 et seq.

Sec. 8-19.08. – In Lieu of Fees
In lieu of fees the City may accept, in its sole discretion, the donation of land or the development of parks to satisfy all or part of the development fees established by this chapter.

Sec. 8.19.09. – Fee adjustments.

Any person subject to a fee required by this chapter may apply to the public works director for a reduction, adjustment or waiver of that fee based upon the absence of a reasonable relationship between the impact of that applicant’s residential development project on park facilities in the city and the amount of the fee charged.
a) Application. An applicant shall file a written request to adjust fees with the public works director not later than 10 days after the city notifies the developer of the amount of the fee to be charged. Additional time, as determined by the public works director, will be allowed when significant additional information is required of the developer. The application shall provide evidence illustrating that the payment of the fee authorized by this chapter and imposed by implementing resolution bears no reasonable relationship or nexus with the impact of the development on the need for park facilities within the city and shall state in detail the factual basis for the request for reduction, adjustment or waiver. If an applicant desires to receive a building permit prior to the completion of the appeal process, the applicant shall deposit the fee being appealed with the application.

Such fee or portion thereof will be refunded if the appeal is successful. b) Decision of the Public Works Director. The public works director shall issue a decision on the application within 30 days after the application is filed with the public works department. The public works director’s decision shall state his or her determination regarding the amount of the Park Facilities Impact Fee that may reasonably be imposed on the new development and include a brief description of the basis for the director’s decision.
c) Appeal of the Decision of the Public Works Director. Decisions of the public works director may be appealed to the city manager. Appeals must be filed within 10 days of the public works director’s decision. The city manager shall review the application and evidence presented to the public works director and issue a decision within 15 days. The decision of the city manager is final and may be appealed or protested pursuant to Government Code Section 66020.

Sec. 8-19.09. – Fee refunds.

Upon application, fees collected by the city pursuant to this chapter shall be refunded under the following circumstances:
a) Fees collected pursuant to this chapter are erroneously or illegally collected. b) The building permit expires, and no extension has been granted, for the development project upon which fees were imposed pursuant to this chapter. An application for refund

8.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Quimby Act and Park Facilities Impact Fee Update Ordinance (4976 : Adopt Ordinance Repealing and Replacing pursuant to this subsection (B) shall be filed with the community development director no later than 90 days after expiration of the building permit. The amount of refund shall be reduced by an amount to cover the cost to the city for processing the refund.

8.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Quimby Act and Park Facilities Impact Fee Update Ordinance (4976 : Adopt Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Attachment 2
Sec.10-1.803
Park land Dedications
Sec.10-1.803. – Park land Dedications
a) General. This section is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by the Subdivision Map Act and the general police powers of the City and is for the purpose of providing such additional park and recreational facilities and open space as appropriate pursuant to the General Plan of the City. The park and recreational facilities for which the dedication of land and/or payment of a fee is required by this article are in accordance with the policies, principles, and standards for park and recreation facilities contained in the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. b) Requirements. As a condition of the approval of a final subdivision map or parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City, for park or recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formula contained in this article. The land dedicated or the fees paid, or both, shall be used for community and neighborhood parks and facilities in such a manner that the locations of such parks and facilities bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the development generating such dedication or fees, or both.
c) Standards and formula for the dedication of land. Where a park or recreational facility has been designated in the General Plan, and is to be located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision, and is reasonably related to serving the present and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land for park and recreation facilities sufficient in size and topography to meet such purpose. The amount of land to be provided shall be determined pursuant to the following standards and formula: the formula for determining the amount of acreage to be dedicated is based on the General Plan standards and shall be two (2) acres per 100 dwelling units (two hundredths (.02) acre per unit). The dedication of land shall not exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing in the subdivision, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds that limit, in which case, the city council may adopt a higher amount, not to exceed five acres per 1,000 persons residing in the subdivision. This acreage shall be in net acres and shall not include any public rights-ofway within or adjacent to the proposed park site pursuant to Government Code Section 66477(a)(2).
d) Formula for fees in lieu of land dedication.

1. General formula. If there is no park or recreational facility designated in the General Plan to be located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the subdivider, in the City's discretion, shall either dedicate land in the amount provided in subsection (d) of this section or pay a fee in lieu of dedication equal to the value of the land prescribed for dedication in said subsection (d) and in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of subsection (g) of this section.

2. Fees in lieu of land: Fifty parcels or less. If the proposed subdivision contains fifty (50) parcels or less and has no park facility, the subdivider shall pay a fee equal to the land value of the portion of the park or recreational facilities required to serve the

8.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Quimby Act and Park Facilities Impact Fee Update Ordinance (4976 : Adopt Ordinance Repealing and Replacing needs of the residents of the proposed subdivision as prescribed in subsection (d) of this section and in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of subsection (g) of this section.

3. Use of money. The money collected shall be used for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community parks or recreational facilities reasonably related to serving the subdivision, including the purchase of necessary land or the improvement of such land for park and recreational purposes. The money shall be committed within five (5) years after payment or the issuance of building permits on one-half (½) of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later.

If the money is not committed, it shall be distributed and paid to the then record owners of the subdivision in the same proportion the size of their lots bears to the total area of all lots in the subdivision.
e) Criteria for requiring both dedications and fees. In subdivisions of over fifty (50) lots, the subdivider shall both dedicate land and pay a fee in lieu of dedication in accordance with the following:

1. When only a portion of the land to be subdivided is proposed in the General Plan as the site for a local park or recreational facility, such portion shall be dedicated for local park purposes, and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of subsection (g) of this section shall be paid for any additional land which would have been required to be dedicated pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.

2. When a major part of the local park or recreational site has already been acquired by the City, and only a small portion of land is needed from the subdivision to complete the site, the remaining portion shall be dedicated, and a fee, computed according to subsection (g) of this section, shall be paid in an amount equal to the value of the land which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated according to subsection (d) of this section. The fee shall be used for the improvement of the existing park and recreational facility or for the improvement of other neighborhood or community parks and recreational facilities reasonably related to serving the subdivision. f) Amount of fees in lieu of park land dedications. When a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, the amount of the fee shall be as set forth in a resolution adopted by the City Council.
g) Determination of land or fee. Whether the City accepts the land dedication, or elects to require the payment of a fee in lieu of, or a combination of both, shall be determined by the consideration of the following:

1. The policies, standards, and principles for park and recreation facilities in the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan;

2. The topography, geology, access, and location of land in the subdivision available for dedication;

3. The size and shape of the subdivision and the land available for dedication;

4. The feasibility of dedication;

5. The compatibility of dedication with the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan; and

6. The availability of previously acquired park property.

The determination by the City as to whether land shall be dedicated or whether a fee shall be charged, or a combination, shall be final and conclusive. h) Credit for Park Improvements. If the subdivider provides park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land, the value of the improvements together with any equipment located

8.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Quimby Act and Park Facilities Impact Fee Update Ordinance (4976 : Adopt Ordinance Repealing and Replacing thereon shall be a credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land required by this section pursuant to Government Code Section 66477(a)(9). i) Credit for private recreation or open space. Common interest developments, as defined in Section 4100 of the Civil Code, shall be eligible to receive a credit, as determined by the city council, against the amount of land required to be dedicated or the amount of the fee imposed for the value of private open space within the development which is usable for recreational purposes. All other residential, subdivision developments may apply for a credit for private recreation or open space, which shall be provided in the City’s sole discretion. j) Procedure.

1. At the time of the approval of the tentative subdivision map or parcel map, the Planning Commission shall determine, after a report and recommendation from the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission, whether land is to be dedicated or inlieu fees are to be paid by the subdivider or any combination of land and fees.

2. The Planning Commission may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission; provided, however, any modification of the proposed recommended condition not previously considered by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission shall first be referred back to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission for a report and further recommendation. The Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission shall report back to the Planning Commission within thirty (30) days. After the receipt of the report, or after thirty (30) days have passed, the Planning Commission may adopt the condition.

3. The recommendation of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission shall include the following:
i. The amount of land required; or
ii. That a fee be charged in lieu of land; or
iii. That a combination of land and a fee be required; and/or iv. That a stated amount of credit be given for private recreation facilities or unique natural and special features and the like; and
v. The location of the park land and, where appropriate, the siting and conceptual design of the park facilities appurtenant thereto to be dedicated or used in lieu of fees; and
vi. The approximate time when the development of the park or recreation facility shall commence.

4. At the time of the recording of the final subdivision map, the subdivider shall dedicate the land and/or pay the fees as determined by the City. At the discretion of the City, fees may be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit for any structure in the subdivision.

5. Open space covenants for private park or recreational facilities shall be submitted to the City prior to the approval of the final subdivision map and, if approved, shall be recorded concurrently with the final subdivision map.

8.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Quimby Act and Park Facilities Impact Fee Update Ordinance (4976 : Adopt Ordinance Repealing and Replacing k) Parkland Dedication in Lieu Fee Fund. The revenues from fees collected by the city in lieu of land dedication shall be deposited in a segregated land in lieu fee fund for park or recreational purposes, pursuant to Government Code Section 66477(a)(3). l) Commencement of development. At the time of the approval of the final subdivision or parcel map, the City shall specify when the development of the park or recreational facilities shall be commenced.
m) Not Applicable to Certain Subdivisions. The provisions of this section do not apply to:

1. Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used for residential purposes.

However, the city shall place the following condition on the parcel map:

If, within four years, a building permit is requested for construction of a residential structure on one or more of the parcels, the owner of each such parcel is required to pay a parkland dedication in lieu fee in the amount set forth by City Council resolution before the permit is issued.

2. Commercial or industrial subdivisions or condominium projects or stock cooperatives that consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building which is more than five years old when no new dwelling units are added.

8.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment "A" - Quimby Act and Park Facilities Impact Fee Update Ordinance (4976 : Adopt Ordinance Repealing and Replacing

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/9/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Public Hearing on Proposed Ordinance Amending Sections 6-6.403, 6-6.404 and 6-6.406 of Chapter 6 (Sewer Charges) and Section 6-11.102 through Section 6-11.105 of Chapter 11 (Sewer Connection Charges), Title 6 (Sanitation and Health) of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

If the City does not receive written protests against the proposed sewer charges from a majority of the parcels receiving wastewater service, staff recommends that the City Council adopt proposed charges for Sewer Services for Fiscal Years 2022/23 through 2026/27 and adopt the revised wastewater capacity fees.

STAFF CONTACT:

Lisa Petersen, Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3767
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer
(650) 501-6004
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Maria Aguilar, Plant Manager
(650) 738-4660
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Every five years, the City completes a wastewater rate study to determine the rate increases that are necessary to meet the Wastewater Division’s (Wastewater) operating costs, projected Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and expected yearly consumer price index increases. The previous Council adoption of a resolution stating the intention to consider updating the City’s sewer charges was in March 2017 with final rate adoption in May 2017. This past year, as in 2017, the City completed a sewer rate study (“Study”) by Bartle Wells Associates (“BWA”), who specializes in wastewater financing.

On February 15, 2022, the City Council held a publicly noticed special meeting to discuss the 9 Packet Pg. 126
Pacifica City Council 2
May 09, 2022
sewer rates and one-time developer sewer capacity fees. At this meeting, the Council adopted a resolution stating its intention to hold a public hearing and consider updating the City’s sewer service changes beginning in year FY 22/2023 for a five-year period to FY 2026/27 (Attachment 1). The Council also provided direction to staff for capacity fees related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) and other low-income housing.

The sewer rate study is primarily based on the costs of service for two major components of the City’s wastewater system, which are noted below:
1) The Collection System that is comprised of the sewer mains, collector mains, and trunk lines and the pump stations that carry the wastewater to the sewage treatment plant; and 2) The Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (“the Plant”) that was designed in 1991 and became operational in 2000. The Plant is designed to treat an average daily dry weather design flow of 4 million gallons per day (MGD) and a peak hourly wet weather discharge capacity of 20 MGD to Calera Creek. It employs an innovative sequencing batch reactor (SBR) that combines the basins for aeration and clarification, which are separate basins at conventional wastewater treatment plants. Moreover, the Plant was one of the first fully automated plants in the San Francisco Bay Area designed for nutrient removal and helped pioneer the use of ultraviolet (UV) disinfection for wastewater effluent in California. Furthermore, it was also one of the first plants using ATAD technology (autothermal thermophilic aerobic digesters) for the generation of Class A sludge in California.

Both the Collection System and the Plant are supported by rate payer revenue. Due to the age of the Plant and Collection System infrastructure (which is exposed to a harsh coastal environment), stringent regulatory requirements and vendor phase-out of parts, the City needs to incur costs to replace and maintain its sewer treatment infrastructure. Therefore, sewer rate increases are proposed to provide adequate funding for capital replacement and to address costs related to consumer price index (CPI) increases and operation needs.

The Proposed Rates
The proposed rate revisions and the calculation methodology that supports the rates are set forth in a wastewater rate study conducted by BWA (Attachment 2). A rate increase of

3.5%/year is proposed to cover Wastewater operations, maintenance, capital projects, consumer price index (CPI) increases and debt service. Rates are projected for a 10-year period for forecasting purposes from FY2022/23 to FY2031/32; however, the rate increase approval is for a 5-year period from FY2022/23 to FY2026/27 (Attachment 3).

Residential Rates
Residential customers pay a rate per hundred cubic feet (hcf) of water consumption subject to a minimum charge.

The method for estimating water consumption for single-family and multi-family residences is to multiply total water consumption during the billing year by 90% (0.90). This process was adopted by the Council in 2017.

Generally, the water consumption estimate for a user is the user’s total water consumption for the six (6) bi-monthly water billing periods ending with the billing period for February of the calendar year during which the charges will be levied. This twelve (12) month period is known as the “billing year.”
Commercial Rates
Commercial customers pay a rate per hundred cubic feet (hcf) of water consumption multiplied by a strength factor based on the customer classification. Rates are subject to a minimum 9 Packet Pg. 127
Pacifica City Council 3
May 09, 2022
charge.

The “billing year” for commercial rates is the same as for residential rates. However, schools with mixed water use (drinking water and irrigation) may apply to have their flow estimate calculated as six (6) times the average consumption of the following bimonthly periods: (i) March and April, (ii) May and June, (iii) ½ billed during November and December, and (iv) January and February.

Why are the sewer rates increasing?
The proposed rate increase is based on anticipated expenditures for the operation, maintenance, repair, debt service and management of the entire wastewater system as well as the construction of capital projects and estimated CPI. In addition, staff is proposing key changes to the Wastewater program related to projections of the developed FY2022/23 to FY2031/32 10-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). These changes include the following:
• Increase the amount of Collection System repair to address stormwater entering the sewer collection piping through age-related problem connections/cracks (infiltration and inflow) by approximately 2x the amount completed in the previous 10 years. • Increase the amount of Plant equipment replacement by approximately 4x the amount completed in the previous 10 years.
• Augment the Wastewater Engineering staff by reclassifying one position to a higher-level manager position and adding one position to deliver the increased proposed CIP. • Protection of critical sewer infrastructure through a fair share contribution to the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP).

The total cost of the proposed Wastewater CIP over the 10-year period will be approximately $120M. Staff believes the increases to the CIP is necessary to address the deterioration of the wastewater infrastructure in both the Collections System and at the Plant. Engineering augmentation, which will be discussed in more detail below, would be necessary to deliver this larger CIP due to the increased engineering workload. The fair share BBIRP contribution is discussed more below.

For fiscal year 2021/22, $14,000,000 has been budgeted to ensure continued smooth operations of the Plant and Collection System to include plant operations and maintenance, collection system operations and maintenance, CPI increases and debt service.

How can the City save money on Wastewater operation and maintenance costs? The City’s Wastewater Capital Improvement Program is geared towards reducing operation and maintenance costs at the Plant and Collection System. For example, additional repairs to the City’s Collection System to reduce infiltration and inflow into the system can prevent the Plant from treating unnecessary sewer flow. Averaging low rain and high rain years, it is estimated that the City treats 100 million gallons of unnecessary flow from ground and surface water entering the system and mixing with sewage each year. The cost of treating this level of extra flow is estimated to be $700,000 per year or more. The proposed CIP projects targeting reduction of I/I will help to minimize this cost.

The Plant also has CIP projects planned to lower costs. The Plant started a project in 2021 to repair and upgrade its existing photovoltaic system with a better system that allows for more energy savings. It is anticipated the cost saving following completion of the photovoltaic project upgrade will be approximately $200,000 per year. Another Plant CIP project that will help save money is the replacement of the aging ultraviolet disinfection system. The new system is anticipated to use about 70% less energy. This, in addition to the realized savings from the new system efficiencies, will allow cost savings in the range of $400,000 per year once the project is complete. More information related to the City’s proposed CIP is provided in the paragraphs 9 Packet Pg. 128
Pacifica City Council 4
May 09, 2022
below.

Changes to City’s Adopted 5-Year Wastewater CIP FY2021/22 to FY2025/26 As part of the public process related to the City’s proposed update of the City’s sewer service charge, it is important to not only discuss the new 10-year CIP projection from FY2022/23 to FY2031/32, but also to highlight changes that are proposed related to the City’s previously adopted 5-year Wastewater CIP. The previously adopted CIP started in FY2021/22 and projected CIP work through FY 2025/26 and is available to view at https://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/asd/finance/2021_2022_proposed_budget/default.asp. The Council adopted the City’s 5-year CIP for FY 2021/22 to 2025/26 in June of 2021 as part of the City’s yearly budget process. As noted above, staff is proposing changes to the CIP, some of which change the previously adopted CIP projections to address the increased infiltration and inflow (I/I) the system is experiencing and the age deterioration of Wastewater infrastructure at both the Plant and Collection System.

For the Collection System, the following changes to the adopted CIP are proposed that will increase capital project work on the system or reflect increased costs from the previously adopted 5-year CIP:
• FY 2022/27: Collection system repairs to address I/I -$6.9M increase • FY 2022/23: Linda Mar/Rockaway Pump Stations - $300K increase • FY 2022/23: Sharp Park Pump Station - $1M increase
• FY 2024/25: Force main Condition Assessment - $75K (new) • FY 2023/26: Relocation of Sewer Mainline SF RV Park - $1.2M increase Changes to the City’s adopted 5-year CIP related to the Plant include moving forward equipment work on the critical path and moving out work that is non-critical. Prioritized projects related to the adopted CIP that increased in cost include the Ultraviolet Disinfection System Upgrade and the SCADA system that are discussed in detail further down in this report. The Vehicle Storage and Office Facility project is proposed to move out to FY2029/30, as this project is less critical. Moving out the storage/office facility helped to minimize the Plant related cost impacts from the prioritized projects related to the adopted Wastewater 5-Year CIP allowing for a minimal cost change from the adopted CIP (+$80K) related to the Plant. Additionally, a $10M fair share contribution to the BBIRP is proposed.

Proposed 10-Year FY2022/23 to FY2031/32 Wastewater CIP Recommendations As noted, part of the rate assessment is related to the projection of the developed FY2022/23 to FY2031/32 10-year Capital Improvement Program. This developed 10-year (Attachment 7) CIP includes the recommendation for City’s next FY 2022/23 to FY 2026/27 5-year CIP (to be brought to Council for approval during the upcoming budget discussions) and the projection of the CIP for another five-year period from FY 2027/28 to FY 2031/32. The below discussion highlights major projects for the Collection System and Plant that are proposed for the upcoming FY 2022/23 to FY 2026/27 5-year CIP. The proposed 5-year CIP starting in FY 2022/23 will increase the amount of CIP work from the previously adopted CIP by approximately $25M. $15M of this is allocated for upgrades to the Collection System and Plant and $10M for protecting the sewer infrastructure in Sharp Park. In addition to the discussion of the proposed upcoming 5-year CIP, the information below provides a general discussion of projects forecasted in the out years through FY 2031/32
Collection System Capital Projects
The City’s wastewater collection system is aging. Sewer age ranges from sewers constructed in the 1940s and 1950s, to more recently repaired and rehabilitated sewers in locations like the Pedro Point area. The three main pump stations (Linda Mar, Rockaway, and Sharp Park) are 9 Packet Pg. 129
Pacifica City Council 5
May 09, 2022
also aging. To address aging assets and improve system operation, the City constructed the Wet Weather Equalization Basin as well as continued the lateral grants and ongoing sewer cleaning programs. These improvements and programs also comply with the Cease and Desist Order (CDO) issued to the City by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in May of 2011, and the Consent Decree (CD) entered into with the RWQCB in June 2011.

The City completed an assessment of the pump stations in 2018 and recently updated the City’s Collection System Master Plan (Master Plan). Based on this information and the recent rain events and high groundwater tables that have highlighted the impact of infiltration/inflow (I/I) into the City’s Collection System, a more robust rehabilitation program is recommended for the upcoming years related to the Collection System.

For the proposed 5-Year CIP from FY2022/23 to FY2026/27, which will be recommended for Council approval during the upcoming budget process, staff has estimated the total cost of the Collection System capital projects, including $10M to support the BBIRP (discussed more below), is $35M. The following are the major projects that need to be completed during this period:
• Collection System I/I Repairs and Rehabilitation
Recent rain events in October 2021 have brought to light the need to expedite sewer repair and rehabilitation of aging sewers to confront the detrimental impacts of extreme weather events. These extreme weather events may become more frequent, which would be in line with the trends attributed to climate change. To meet this challenge, the City is proposing a robust sewer repair and rehabilitation program over the next ten years. For the proposed 5-year FY2022/23 to FY2026/27 CIP, the program will focus in the Lower Linda Mar area (sewers constructed in the 1950s) and East Rockaway area (sewers constructed in the 1940s). Implementing this program will reduce rainfall related I/I into the sewers thereby reducing the wet weather impacts on downstream equipment at the Linda Mar and Rockaway Pump Stations and the Plant. • Pump Station (PS) Repair and Rehabilitation
Currently, the City is beginning a project at the Linda Mar Pump Station to replace aging electrical systems. The program also includes pump station improvements proposed for the three main pump stations (Linda Mar, Rockaway, and Sharp Park). For FY2022/23 to FY2026/27, the program will focus on the electric improvement completion, pump replacement and screen rebuild at the Linda Mar PS and odor control, mainline relocation, wet well improvements and screen rebuild at the Sharp Park PS, with screen rebuild at the Rockaway PS.

Forecasts for Collection System improvements in future years, from FY2027/28 to FY2031/32, are projected to be $48M and generally include sewer repair and rehabilitation of Vallemar and Fairway Park to address I/I and support of the BBIRP to protect the Sharp Park sewer infrastructure. During the FY2022/23 to FY2031/32 10-year CIP, Collection System pipeline I/I repair and rehabilitation are projected to approximately double from the previous 10-year period.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital Projects
The Plant is an aged but well-maintained facility. Most of its major equipment have been around since the beginning of operation and some have been replaced or rebuilt through the years. It has been an on-going process of repairing and replacing pumps, blowers, valves, motors and other mechanical and electrical equipment. Because of the age of the Plant, many of the existing systems have now reached their life cycle and major upgrades are needed. For FY2022/23 to FY2026/27, the total cost of the Plant’s capital projects is projected to be $25M.

The following are the major projects that need to be completed during this 5-year period:
9 Packet Pg. 130
Pacifica City Council 6
May 09, 2022
• Ultraviolet Disinfection System Upgrade
The Plant currently uses Trojan UV4000, a medium- pressure Ultraviolet (UV) radiation lamp system, for disinfection. The system was installed in the year 2000 and the manufacturer will begin discontinuation of replacement parts in the near future. Since the disinfection is the most important process of wastewater treatment, it is imperative that the system be upgraded as soon as possible. A UV System Feasibility Study (Study) was completed in November 2021 to determine the best alternative for a replacement. The new UV system will be energy efficient, reliable, easy to maintain and most of all be able to fit within a limited footprint. The Study identified new complexities of construction that included building temporary disinfection infrastructure, new electrical building and electrical equipment. Due to this and the rising cost of raw materials and labor, the original estimated cost of $4.7 million escalated to $11.4 million based on the Study. The City currently has a Request for Proposals out for design firms to submit on the project to complete the needed design work.
• Plant Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) Upgrade
In 2019, the City’s consultant, Woodard & Curran, completed an assessment of the Plant’s SCADA system which concluded that much of the system components are no longer supported by the manufacture and at risk of potential failure without available replacement parts. Additionally, software versions are out of date, which could present risks related to cybersecurity, specifically exploitation of vulnerabilities in older software revisions. This project will replace the current PLC (to address the issue of manufacturer parts phase-out) to the Control Logix platform, upgrade the existing computers and HMI software to the latest Microsoft platform, install a secure remote access system with hardware and software, install appropriate SCADA and Internet Cybersecurity equipment and standards, and complete other improvements needed. This will be a multi-phased project to ensure no disruption in the Plant’s operation. • Plant Photovoltaic System Improvement
The City of Pacifica commissioned the Plant 350 kWp Solar Photovoltaic Project in late 2006. In 2017, the inverter for the fixed solar panel array failed and became nonoperational. In 2021, Panasonic paid the City to buy out the remaining 10-year warranty for the solar modules. Also in 2021, the construction to replace the existing 100 kWp fixed array with 132 kWp system commenced. This project is expected to be completed by Summer 2022. The 2nd phase of the project will replace the remaining 200 kWp system with a system allowing for 30% more power output and is planned for FY2024/25.
• Plant Headworks Feasibility and Improvements
A plant’s headworks plays a crucial role in the pretreatment of influent for any wastewater treatment facility. It protects the operation of downstream equipment and enhances the efficiency of the overall wastewater treatment process. Because all wastewater debris removal starts at the headworks, proper screening and debris removal is imperative to the entire wastewater system. At the Plant, the headworks consist of an influent channel and mechanical vortex grit removal.

However, because of its age, the influent channel has deteriorated, and the mechanical vortex grit removal has not been performing well due to material build-up in the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) and Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion (ATAD) basins requiring costly cleaning activities. This Project will rebuild the influent channel, replace the mechanical vortex grit removal and add bar screening facilities at 9 Packet Pg. 131
Pacifica City Council 7
May 09, 2022
the Plant to augment the existing screening at the pump stations. • Plant Electrical Condition Assessment and Improvements The Plant’s electrical system has been updated as needed but is aging with some existing replacement parts no longer available. This project consists of conducting a condition assessment of the electrical system to identify improvements. Improvements will include replacement of two existing 900 KW emergency generators, upgrade of existing transfer switches, and other electrical improvements.

Forecasts for the Plant’s improvements in future years, from FY2027/28 to FY2031/32, are projected to be $11M and generally include continuation of the Headworks improvements and the Vehicle Storage and Office Facility project. The storage and office facility has been moved further out on the schedule to allow staff to concentrate on more critical projects. During the FY 2022/23 to FY 2031/32 10-year CIP, Plant equipment replacement is projected to increase by approximately 4 times from the previous 10-year period.

Wastewater Engineering Staff Augmentation
Currently, Wastewater only has one engineer, a Senior Civil Engineer who administers both the Collection System’s and the Plant’s capital projects. To deliver the needed Wastewater CIP for both the Collection System and Plant, which is averaging approximately $60M over each 5-year period of the forecasted 10-year CIP, an augmentation to Wastewater engineering is necessary.

The proposed 3.5% increase to the sewer rates (discussed below) includes this augmentation.

The restructuring would begin in FY 2022/23 and includes reclassifying the Senior Civil Engineer position to a Wastewater Engineering Manager (Manager) position. Additionally, one (1) new staff position is proposed for a Wastewater Assistant/Associate Engineer. Along with managing the new Wastewater Assistant/Associate Engineer position, the Manager will hire and manage multiple consultant program/construction managers for the proposed increased CIP work and the Manager position will also take on their own project management work. Staff will recommend these staffing changes (reclassifying Senior Civil Engineer to Wastewater Engineering Manager and adding a Wastewater Assistant/Associate Engineer) to the Council during the budget discussion for FY2022/23. The fiscal impact for reclassifying the Senior Civil Engineer to a Wastewater Engineering Manager and adding a full-time Wastewater Assistant/Associate Engineer is estimated to be $350,000 annually, at top step. This cost is included in the rate increase.

Fair Share Contribution to the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP) The Master Plan, which was approved by Council in October 2021, noted that the critical Beach Boulevard gravity sewer main line and Sharp Park pump station are vulnerable assets from sea level rise/climate change without protection. The Master Plan stated that the City’s Wastewater Division should assist the City-led protection efforts for this area discussed in the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project’s (BBIRP) Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment (MHRA) and noted supporting the BBIRP would be a cost-effective way to protect the sewer infrastructure in this area of Sharp Park.

The BBIRP is a combination of secant pile wall, rock revetment and beach nourishment to replace the existing seawall along Beach Boulevard in West Sharp Park. In line with this discussion in the Master Plan, the rate study includes the $40M identified in the BBIRP MHRA as the cost of relocating this infrastructure over the 10-year Wastewater CIP. This funding would be used to support the BBIRP that will protect the sewer infrastructure in this area. The 5-year rate increase includes a $10M contribution to the BBIRP with funding contributions expected toward design, environmental permitting, and construction. The Wastewater 10-year CIP shows future outlays for the project in year’s 6, 7 and 8 of $10M each year. This is because it is anticipated that the construction work will be concentrated in these later years. A 9 Packet Pg. 132
Pacifica City Council 8
May 09, 2022
new 5-year rate study must be approved at the end of the currently proposed 5-year rate increase period and would show this final $30M contribution.

Proposed Rates
Staff is recommending an increase to the City sewer rates over the next five years (See Table 1 below and Attachment 3).

BWA projects 3.5% per year rate increases are required each year for the next 5 years (FY 2022/23 to FY 2026/27). Projections include 0.5% growth estimated based on projected development.

TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHARGES
Current Maximum Proposed Rate*
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27
Percent Increase 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%
Rate** $18.81373 $19.47221 $20.15374 $20.85912 $21.58919 $22.34481 Minimum Annual
Rate
$903.06 $934.67 $967.38 $1,001.24 $1,036.28 $1,072.55
** per hundred cubic feet (hcf) or 1 water unit
BWA projects an initial loan of $31.6M is required in FY2022/23 to fund the capital program. An additional $52.4M is estimated to be required in FY2026/27 for three years of capital, primarily to fund the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (total est. cost is $40M over four years, beginning in FY2026/27) and other projects. For projection purposes, the loan terms are estimated at 4% interest, 30 years, with 1.5% issuance fees. However, staff will also review other funding options such as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) or other loans that can provide lower rates.

Staff will be providing the Council with more information related to loan funding during the City’s upcoming budget review process.

The financial projections are designed to meet a minimum operating reserve target of 90 days and least 1.25x debt service coverage (calculated as net revenues / annual debt service). The City is projected to have very strong debt service coverage of at least 1.43x throughout the projection period.

Rate comparison
The City’s average monthly rate for a single-family home is currently $94.07 (based on 5 water units). The regional average is $96.70, based on BWA’s most recent survey for 2021/22 (See Attachment 4). The proposed 3.5% increase would increase the average monthly rate to $97.36, a $3.29 increase ($39.48 increase over a year).

Rate setting process
In preparation for tonight’s hearing, on May 9, 2022 the City mailed notices to the owner of each of the 12,834 parcels subject to charges (Attachment 6). Pursuant to Proposition 218 (Article XIID of the California Constitution) the City Council may not impose or revise charges if it receives written protests from the owners of a majority (50% + 1) of the parcels subject to the charges. During the 2017 sewer rate public hearing, a little over 1000 protests were received for the sewer rate increase, which represented a percentage of protests of 8.15%.

As there are 12,834 parcels subject to the proposed fee, a successful majority protest would require the receipt of protests from the owners of 6,418 parcels. As of 5/4/22, the City received 94 protests, which represents a percentage of protests of 0.5%. The protests period concludes 9 Packet Pg. 133
Pacifica City Council 9
May 09, 2022
at the termination of the public hearing of this item. If a majority of affected parcel owners do not object to the proposed rate increase, the City Council may act to impose the increase if it so desires.

Capacity Fee Study
BWA has also completed a Capacity Fee study for the City (Attachment 4). Capacity fees are the one-time fee property developers pay to connect to the City’s wastewater system. The City’s current fee was adopted in 1974 and has been escalated annually by inflation. The City currently charges $3,825 per single family home, one of the lowest of the surveyed cities in the region (the regional average for BWA’s 2021/22 survey was $10,063.) BWA updated the City’s wastewater capacity fees with the goals of developing fees that recover the full cost of wastewater system infrastructure assets and planned facilities expenditures that benefit new or expanded development to help ensure that growth pays its own way. BWA recommends that the City charge capacity fees based on meter size to reflect difference in wastewater demand between customer classes that have varying meter sizes (increased sizes demand more water and produce more wastewater). This meter-based capacity fee structure aligns with industry trends in wastewater connection fees and closely resembles North Coast County Water District’s meter-based water capacity fee changes.

Single-Family Home
BWA calculated a wastewater capacity fee of $652.16 per drainage fixture unit. BWA then translated the fee per drainage fixture into a fee for single-family homes. Since the average single-family home has 19 drainage fixture units, BWA’s fee for a single-family home (SFD) is $12,391. While the proposed fee comes in slightly above average for the region, this fee is reasonable compared to the regional average of $10,063 because many of the surveyed agencies have outdated fees that will likely increase in the future as they are updated.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Similar to many regional agencies, Pacifica currently does not charge sewer capacity fees for accessory dwelling units. To comply with state law, BWA recommends capacity fees be changed on a $/drain fixture unit (SFD are charged per home). BWA conducted a survey of the regional agencies which do charge for accessory dwelling units and found that the average charge for an example 12 fixture unit accessory dwelling is $6,024. Should the City implement the proposed charge for accessory dwelling units, a 12 fixture unit accessory dwelling connection would cost $7,826. While above average for the region, the charge would still be well below the highest of $12,876 charged by Montara WSD and $8,867 by Castro Valley SD.

Although Union Sanitary District and Benicia were on the lower cost end of the survey, both base their costs on square footage. BWA’s survey assumes that a 12 fixture unit accessory dwelling unit would be equivalent to 500 square feet of floor area to compare square footage charges with fixture unit charges; should the assumed square footage be higher per fixture unit, those agencies shown on the low end of the survey would show a higher cost.

On April 20, 2022, the Notice of Public Hearing for the Proposed Adoption of Amendments to the Pacifica Municipal Codes on Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges (Attachment 5) was advertised in the Pacifica Tribune and mailed to property owners who have active planning application for development projects.

February 15, 2022 Special Council Meeting
During a publicized special Council meeting in February, Council and staff discussed the recommended 5-year sewer rate increase and the update to the City Sewer Capacity Fees.

Discussion related to the Capacity fees and application to ADU’s and other types of low-income housing included moving forward with adoption of the fees as recommended by staff and then reviewing if the fees would disincentive this type of housing during upcoming Housing Element 9 Packet Pg. 134
Pacifica City Council 10 May 09, 2022
meetings. During the Housing Element meetings, other types of City fees that could impact building of low-income housing units could also be discussed. Staff recommends Council move forward with this approach.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may choose not to adopt the Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Chapter 6, “Sewer Charges” and Chapter 11, “Sewer Connection Charges” of Title 6, “Sanitation and Health” of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Revise and Increase the City’s Sewer Charges and Revise the Sewer Connection Charges. This is not recommended as the wastewater utility needs funds for important repairs to the Collection System to address ongoing I/I problems and maintenance at the aging Plant is necessary for the Plant to continue to function appropriately. Additionally, the City needs to update their sewer connection/capacity fees, which have not been updated for many years.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Adoption of the Resolution and Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Chapter 6, “Sewer Charges” and Chapter 11, “Sewer Connection Charges” of Title 6, “Sanitation and Health” of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Revise and Increase the City’s Sewer Charges and Revise the Sewer Connection Charges:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure and Maintaining a Safe Community: This Adoption of the Resolution and Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Chapter 6, “Sewer Charges” and Chapter 11, “Sewer Connection Charges” of Title 6, “Sanitation and Health” of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Revise and Increase the City’s Sewer Charges and Revise the Sewer Connection Charges is the second step necessary to ensure sufficient funding to maintain operations and maintenance of sewer collection system, pump stations, and the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact for FY2022/23 will be a revenue generation of $18.2M or a 4% increase from the prior year for Sewer Funds 34 and 18. The 4% increase is based on the 3.5% rate payer increase plus an additional 0.5% increase to revenues that is projected to be paid through new development. The increased rates will provide the wastewater program with a total of $98.7 million over the five years to address capital replacement and increased costs.

As noted, the City’s current single-family capacity fees are $3,825 per unit. Updated capacity fees will generate an additional $8,566 per new single-family connection. Based on 0.5% growth per year or 64 connections, the increased fee could generate an additional $548,224 per year.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment1 - Service Rates and Capacity Fee ResolutionFinal_Rev (DOCX) Attachment2 - Pacifica Wastewater Rates Memo (PDF)
Attachment3 - SewerServiceCharges2022-27 (PDF)
Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (PDF) 9 Packet Pg. 135
Pacifica City Council 11 May 09, 2022
Attachment5 - Sewer Rate and Capacity Fee Public Hearing Notice (PDF) Attachment6 -Sewer Rate Public Hearing NoticeUpdated (PDF) Attachment7 - 10-YearCIP (PDF)
9 Packet Pg. 136
Pacifica City Council 12 May 09, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. (ID # 4971)
ORDINANCE NO. ____-C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AMENDING CHAPTER 6, “SEWER CHARGES” AND CHAPTER 11, “SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES” OF TITLE 6, “SANITATION AND HEALTH”

OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE

RELATING TO CHARGES FOR SEWER SERVICE AND CONNECTION FEES RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that WHEREAS, on May 8, 2017, the City adopted five years of rate increases from fiscal years 2017-18 through 2021-22; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to update its sewer service charges and connections fees and delete outdated sections of the Sewer Serve Charge Code and Sewer Connection Fees Code; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to make these changes to streamline adoption of charges in the future; and
WHEREAS, Pacifica Municipal Code sections 6-6.404 and 6-6.406 currently provide the maximum and minimum annual sewer charges for FY 2017 through 2022 and Article 10 provides the manner in which rate increases may be established; and WHEREAS, staff is recommending that Pacifica Municipal Code sections 6-6.404 and 6-

6.406 be amended to allow the City Council to fix rates for sewer services by resolution and revised from time to time with the objective that the City sewer system be operated on a sound economic basis; and
WHEREAS, Pacifica Municipal Code sections 6-11.102, 6-11.103 and 6-11.104 currently provide the fees for sewer connection, for sewage facilities, for the main trunk interceptor and outfall sewers, and for eliminating inflow and infiltration; and WHEREAS, staff is recommending that Pacifica Municipal Code sections 6-11.102, 6-

11.103 and 6-11.104 be amended to consolidate the sewer connection fees, inflow and infiltration fees, trunk line fees, and sewer tap fees into one sewer capacity fee and to allow the City Council to fix rates for sewer connection fees by resolution and revised from time to time with the objective that the City sewer connection system be operated on a sound economic basis; and
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. Sections 6-6.406, “Minimum rate”, of Article 4 and Article 10 within Chapter 6, “Sewer Charges” of Title 6 of the Pacifica Municipal Code are hereby amended by repealing Section 6-6.406 and Article 10 in their entirety. 9 Packet Pg. 137
Pacifica City Council 13 May 09, 2022
Section 6-11.103 “Sewer connection charges to provide funds for sewage facilities, main trunk, interception, outfall sewers, acquisitions, construction or reconstruction of sanitation or sewage facilities,” 6-11.104 “Inflow/Infiltration charges to provide funds for eliminating and equivalent volume of inflow and infiltration as the wastewater flow contributed to the collection system” of Article 1 “Sewer Connection Charges” and Article 3 “Sewer Tapping Charges” within Chapter 11 “Sewer Connection Charges” of Title 6 of the Pacifica Municipal Code are hereby amended by repealing sections 6-11.103 and 6-11.104 in their entirety.

Sections 6-6.403 “Liens” and 6-6.404 “Schedule” of Chapter 6, “Sewer charges” within Title 6 “Sanitation and Health” are amended to read as follows (strikethrough marking items as deleted, underlines marking additions):

Sec. 6-6.403. Liens.

The sewer charges set forth in this article shall be a lien upon the premises and shall be reimbursable to the owner of the premises by any nonowner tenant of other occupant thereof.
(§ 2.03, Ord. 423)
Sec. 6-6.404. Schedule of Charges for Service.

The City Council shall fix the rates to be charged for sewer service by the City, by resolution, and in so doing shall distinguish the different classes of service made available and fix rates appropriate to each class of service. Rates shall be fixed and revised from time to time with the objective that the City sewer system shall be operated on a sound economic basis.

Annual sewer charges shall be based upon water consumption that is in conformity with the rate measurement formulas set forth in this article and shall be charged at a maximum of:

Fourteen dollars and point 08834 cents ($14.08834) per one hundred (100) cubic feet of water consumption, effective July 1, 2017.

Fifteen dollars and point 21541 cents ($15.21541) per one hundred (100) cubic feet of water consumption, effective July 1, 2018.

Sixteen dollars and point 43264 cents ($16.43264) per one hundred (100) cubic feet of water consumption, effective July 1, 2019.

Seventeen dollars and point 58293 cents ($17.58293) per one hundred (100) cubic feet of water consumption, effective July 1, 2020.

Eighteen dollars and point 81373 cents ($18.81373) per one hundred (100) cubic feet of water consumption, effective July 1, 2021.
(§§ 2.04 through 2.59, Ord. 423, as amended by § 1, Ord. 17-C.S., eff. March 11, 1971, § 1, Ord. 113-C.S., eff. June 12, 1974, § 1, Ord. 150-C.S., eff. June 9, 1975, § 1, Ord. 206-C.S., eff. June 9, 1977, § 2, Ord. 223-C.S., eff. March 29, 1978, § 1, Ord. 235-C.S., eff. August 14, 1978, § 1, Ord. 264-C.S., eff. August 13, 1979, § 1, Ord. 305-C.S., eff.

September 9, 1981, § 1, Ord. 345-C.S., eff. September 8, 1982, § 1, Ord. 415-C.S., eff.

August 22, 1984, § 1, Ord. 449-85, eff. August 31, 1985, § 1, Ord. 465-86, eff. August 13, 1986, § 1, Ord. 486-C.S., eff. July 22, 1987, § 1, Ord. 507-C.S., eff. July 27, 1988, § 1, Ord. 531-C.S., eff. July 26, 1989, § 1, Ord. 555-C.S., eff. August 8, 1990, § 1, Ord. 573-C.S., eff. July 24, 1991, § 1, Urgency Ord. 593-C.S., eff. July 6, 1992, § 1, Ord. 606- C.S., eff. June 28, 1993, § 1, Ord. 616-C.S., eff. July 27, 1994, § 1, Ord. 629-C.S., eff.

July 26, 1995, § 1, Ord. 643-C.S., eff. August 7, 1996, § 1, Ord. 655-C.S., eff. August 13, 1997, § 1, Ord. 662-C.S., eff. July 22, 1998, § 1, Ord. 668-C.S., eff. July 28, 1999, § 1, 9 Packet Pg. 138
Pacifica City Council 14 May 09, 2022
Ord. 676A-C.S., eff. August 9, 2001, § 1, Ord. 691-C.S., eff. August 8, 2001, § 1, Ord. 702-C.S., eff. July 24, 2002, § 1, Ord. 710-C.S., eff. August 14, 2003, § 1, Ord. 717-C.S., eff. August 26, 2004, § 2, Ord. 719-C.S., eff. October 27, 2004, § 1, Ord. 726-C.S., eff.

July 27, 2005, § 1, Ord. 727-C.S., eff. July 27, 2005, § 1, Ord. 737-C.S., eff. July 26, 2006, § 1, Ord. 748-C.S., eff. July 5, 2007, § 1, Ord. 750-C.S., eff. July 5, 2007 and § 1, Ord. 759-C.S., eff. June 26, 2008; Ord. No. 764-C.S., § 1, eff. June 11, 2009, § 1, Ord. 772-C.S., eff. June 24, 2010, § 1, Ord. 783-C.S., eff. June 23, 2011, § 1, Ord. 790-C.S., eff. June 13, 2012; § 1, Ord. 794-C.S., eff. June 13, 2013, and § 1, Ord. 816-C.S., eff.

June 7, 2017)
Sections 6-11.102 “Sewer connection charges” and 6-11-105 “Sewer connection charges: time of payment for proposed structures” of Article 1 within Chapter 11, “Sewer Connection Charges” within Title 6 “Sanitation and Health” are amended to read as follows (strikethrough marking items as deleted, underlines marking additions):

Sec. 6-11.102. Sewer connection charges.

The City Council shall fix the fees to be charged for sewer connection by the City, by resolution. Fees shall be fixed and revised from time to time with the objective that the City sewer system shall be operated on a sound economic basis.

The following charges are hereby established for the connection of the plumbing of any building or structure to the sanitary sewer system of the City:
(a) Residential schedule in the original City limits:
(1) Six Hundred and no/100ths ($600.00) Dollars for each single-family, townhouse, and condominium dwelling unit; and
(2) Four Hundred Sixty and no/100ths ($460.00) Dollars for each multiple-family dwelling unit.
(b) Commercial schedule in the original City limits:
(1) Six Hundred and no/100ths ($600.00) Dollars per unit for commercial units not discharging industrial waste; and
(2) A charge based on the biochemical oxygen demand removal requirements, gallonage of flow, or a combination thereof, for commercial and industrial units discharging industrial waste;
(c) Areas annexed:
(1) For areas annexed between November 23, 1957 and December 31, 1960, subject to the City's then existing bonded indebtedness for sewer purposes:
(i) Eight Hundred Thirty and no/100ths ($830.00) Dollars for each single-family, townhouse, and condominium dwelling unit;
(ii) Six Hundred Thirty and no/100ths ($630.00) Dollars for each multiple dwelling unit; and
(iii) A charge as set forth in subsection (b) of this section for commercial and industrial units.
(2) For areas annexed after December 31, 1960, subject to the City's then existing bonded indebtedness for sewer purposes:
(i) One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty and no/100ths ($1,260.00) Dollars for each single-family, townhouse, and condominium dwelling unit; (ii) Eight Hundred Eighty and no/100ths ($880.00) Dollars for each multiple dwelling unit; and
(iii) A charge as set forth in subsection (b) of this section for commercial and industrial units.
(d) A charge for schools based on the following formula:

Number of Students× School
Hours×5
(School Days) × 600.00*
9 Packet Pg. 139
Pacifica City Council 15 May 09, 2022
Number of persons
per average family
24 hours/day
7 (days of week)
* Residential unit charge
(e) A charge for the Commercial Recreation District (C-R), as set forth in Section 9-

4.1501 of Article 15 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of this Code, for the connection of the plumbing of any building or structure to the sanitary sewer system of the City equivalent to one-half (½) the fees set forth, in subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section.

To provide for construction cost increases due to inflation, on July 1 of each year, beginning September 1, 1984, the fee shall be increased on the basis of the Construction Cost Index (CCI) in the San Francisco Bay Area, published in the issue of the Engineering News Record (ENR) by McGraw-Hill Publication Company. (§ 2, Ord. 5, as amended by § 1, Ord. 374, § 2, Ord. 128-C.S., eff. September 25, 1974, § 1, Ord. 188-C.S., eff. December 22, 1976, § 1, Ord. 265-C.S., eff. October 11, 1979, and § 2, Ord. 385-C.S., eff. February 8, 1984, as renumbered by § 2, Ord. 395-C.S., eff.

March 28, 1984; § 2, Ord. 853-C.S., eff. February 26, 2020) 6-11.105: Sewer connection charges: time of payment for proposed projects The sewer connection charges set forth in this article shall be payable at or before the time of application for such new or increased service. the time a building permit is issued by the City for the construction of a proposed building or structure.

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, 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 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 go into effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, State of California this ___ day of _______, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ 9 Packet Pg. 140
Pacifica City Council 16 May 09, 2022
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 9 Packet Pg. 141
Pacifica City Council 17 May 09, 2022
9 Packet Pg. 142
Pacifica City Council 18 May 09, 2022
* * * * *
(ID # 4971) at 5/9/2022 6:00 PM City Council Regular Meeting 9 Packet Pg. 143
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING

NEW WASTERWATER (SEWER) SERVICE CHARGES AND WASTEWATER
(SEWER) CAPACITY FEES FOR PACIFICA MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER WHEREAS, the City hired Bartle Wells Associates (“BWA”) to review the City’s wastewater rates and make recommendations on rate increases for the next five years to reflect current costs of service; and
WHEREAS, BWA submitted a Wastewater Rate Study dated January 26, 2022 (“Wastewater Rate Study”), which recommends a revised wastewater rate schedule for fiscal years 2022/23 through 2026/27; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that, based on the entire record before the City Council, including but not limited to the Staff Report and attachments thereto:
1) Revenues derived from the proposed wastewater rates will not exceed the funds required to provide wastewater service.
(2) Revenues derived from the proposed wastewater rates will not be used for any purpose other than that for they were imposed.
(3) The amount of the wastewater rates imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership will not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.
(4) The wastewater rates are imposed for services that are actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. (5) The wastewater rates are not being imposed for general government services; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 13D, Section 6, of the California Constitution (e.g., Proposition 218), prior to extending, imposing or increasing wastewater rates, property owners shall be provided at least 45 days’ notice of a public hearing to consider such modifications to the rates together with an explanation of: (1) the amount of the propose rates, (2) the basis on which the rates are calculated, (3) the reason for the rate modifications, and (4) the date, time and place of a public hearing to consider the rate modifications, together with an explanation of the rights of property owners to submit written protests to the proposed rate modifications. The proposed rate modifications may not be imposed if, prior to the close of the public hearing, written protests are submitted by property owners or tenants representing a majority of the properties subject to the modified rates (“majority protest”); and
WHEREAS, Notice of the public hearing to consider proposed adjustments to the

9.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment1 - Service Rates and Capacity Fee ResolutionFinal_Rev [Revision 1] (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer wastewater rates was mailed at least 45 days prior to the scheduled public hearing as required by state law (Cal. Cons. Art. XIIID, §6); and
WHEREAS, On May 9, 2022, the City Council conducted a public hearing, considered testimony, and at the conclusion of the hearing determined that a majority protest did not exist; and
WHEREAS, the City also hired BWA to review wastewater connection fees to determine if they are adequate to pay for the costs of existing and planned public improvements that provide capacity to serve new development; and WHEREAS, BWA submitted a Wastewater Capacity Fee Study dated February 4, 2022 (“Wastewater Capacity Fee Study”), which recommends consolidating the City’s current wastewater connection fees, consisting of Connection Fees, Inflow and Infiltration Fees, Trunk Line Fees, and Sewer Tap Fees, into one capacity fee; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed wastewater capacity fee is to fund a proportionate share of the costs of existing and future wastewater system facilities and assets that are reasonably necessary to provide wastewater capacity for new development. For the purpose of this Resolution, “new development” means all new building construction, conversion to a new use, or additional use within an existing building that creates a need for additional wastewater capacity; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 66013 and 66016, notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matters to be considered and a statement that required data is available was mailed at least 14 days prior to the meeting to those members of the public who filed a written request with the City; and
WHEREAS, at least ten (10) days prior to the public meeting referenced above, the City made available for public inspection information required under government Code section 66013; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the City Council considered the proposed wastewater capacity charges set forth in the Water Capacity Fee Study, at an open and public meeting, during which all interested persons were given an opportunity to comment.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA HEREBY RESOLVES, as follows:

1. The City Council hereby finds that the above recitations are true and correct and, accordingly, are incorporated as a material part of this Resolution.

2. The procedures followed and the wastewater rates referenced herein are in compliance with the California Constitution Article XIII D, California Government Code section 53755, and Health and Safety Code section 5471.

3. The City Council adopts the wastewater service charge rate schedules in “Exhibit A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

9.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment1 - Service Rates and Capacity Fee ResolutionFinal_Rev [Revision 1] (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer

4. The wastewater service charge rate for FY 2022/23 will be effective as of July 1, 2022. The Wastewater Rates set forth for Fiscal Years 2023/24, 2024/25, 2025/26, and 2026/27 will be effective as of July 1 of each such years, unless the Council determines otherwise by separate resolution.

5. The City Council accepts and approves the Wastewater Rate Study setting forth the basis for the wastewater service charge rates.

6. The City Council repeals the existing sewer connection, inflow and infiltration, trunk line, and sewer tap fees.

7. The City Council adopts the wastewater capacity fees set forth in “Exhibit B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

8. The procedures followed and the wastewater capacity charges referenced herein are in compliance with Government Code sections 66013 and 66016 and Health and Safety Code section 5474.

9. The City Council accepts and approves the Wastewater Capacity Fee Study setting forth the basis for the wastewater capacity fees.

10.The wastewater capacity charges shall automatically increase starting on July 1, 2022, and in each year thereafter, in accordance with any increases in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area. The formula for determining the percentage increase or decrease applied to the wastewater capacity charges shall be: (Current Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area) / (14396.70) – 1.

11.The City Council hereby finds that the wastewater service charge rate increase and adoption of wastewater capacity fees are exempt from CEQA under the "General Rule", Section 15061 (b) (3), in that it can be seen with certainty that no environmental impacts will result from these actions, and under CEQA Guideline section 15273 as these actions apply only to rates and fees to obtain funds necessary to operate, maintain, construct new capacity in the wastewater system.

12.This resolution shall go into effect on the date that Ordinance No. *** becomes effective.

9.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment1 - Service Rates and Capacity Fee ResolutionFinal_Rev [Revision 1] (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the ______day of ________, 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

9.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment1 - Service Rates and Capacity Fee ResolutionFinal_Rev [Revision 1] (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer EXHIBIT “A”

9.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment1 - Service Rates and Capacity Fee ResolutionFinal_Rev [Revision 1] (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer EXHIBIT “B”

9.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment1 - Service Rates and Capacity Fee ResolutionFinal_Rev [Revision 1] (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer City of Pacifica – Wastewater Rate Study Page 1
DATE: January 26th, 2022
TO: Lisa Petersen, Director of Public Works
FROM: Douglas Dove, President
Michael DeGroot, Financial Analyst
SUBJECT: Wastewater Rate Study

MEMORANDUM
Introduction
Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) has been retained by the City of Pacifica to evaluate the City’s current wastewater rates and make recommendations on rate increases. At a public hearing, on May 8, 2017, the City adopted 5 years of rate increases from FY 2017/18 through 2021/22. The City now wants to update its wastewater rates for the next five years to reflect current costs of service.

Current Wastewater Rates
Pacifica’s adopted wastewater rates are listed in Table 1. Rates have been implemented as adopted and the final increase was implemented July 1st, 2021.

BWA recommends continuing the current billing practices. Generally, the water consumption estimate for a user is the user’s total water consumption for the six (6) bi-monthly water billing periods ending with the billing period for February of the calendar year during which the charges will be levied. This twelve (12) month period is known as the “billing year.” The method for estimating water consumption for single-family and multi-family residences is to multiply total water consumption during the billing year by 90% (0.90). 10% of usage is estimated to be used for irrigation based on an analysis of billing data and BWA’s experience with coastal community’s water usage.

The City’s minimum charge is based on 48 units and is applied to the lowest user through the median user, who consumes 48 units per year. The minimum charge is designed to recover a minimum of 60% of projected sewer revenues before factoring in usage. The minimum charge reflects the cost profile of the sewer enterprise, which is heavily fixed regardless of wastewater flows.

Any nonresidential user with substantial irrigation requirements may be able to apply to have his or her flow estimate recalculated based on criterion in City Municipal Code Section 6-6.407. 2625 Alcatraz Ave, #602
Berkeley, CA 94705
Tel 510 653 3399
www.bartlewells.com
ATTACHMENT 2 9.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment2 - Pacifica Wastewater Rates Memo (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Rate Study Page 2
Applications submitted will be subject to the procedures and requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code. If a user has more than one water meter at a service location, and one or more of those meters measures only water used for landscaping purposes, the meter usage for landscaping purposes will be excluded.

Schools with mixed water use (drinking water and irrigation) may apply to have their flow estimate calculated as six (6) times the average consumption of the following bimonthly periods: (i) March and April, (ii) May and June, (iii) ½ billed during November and December, and (iv) January and February.

Operations and Maintenance Expenses
Table 2 shows the projected operations and maintenance expenses for the City’s WWTP and collection system. BWA projects that operations and maintenance expenses will increase 3% per year from the City’s FY 2022/23 budget.

Outstanding Debt Service
The City had four outstanding debt obligations as of January 1st, 2021, as shown in Table 3.

Importantly, one of the debt issuances was recently paid off, and one of the City’s debts will be paid off within the rate study projection period: the 1997 State of California Water Resource Control Board Loan final payment was July 2021, and the 2014 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds final payment is in 2026. The payoff of these loans will free up $1.8 MM to $2 MM of cash flow for future debt service or to cash fund capital projects.

Loan Balances as of January 1st, 2021:
• 1997 State of California Water Resource Control Board Loan: $2.1 MM principal outstanding (paid off July 1st, 2021)
• 2012 Loan and Installment Agreement: $4.3MM principal outstanding • 2014 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds: $6.7 MM principal outstanding • 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bond: $22.1 MM principal outstanding Capital Improvement Program
The City’s wastewater capital program is shown in Table 4. Total planned capital projects in the rate period amount to $125 MM, with $47.2 MM in collection system capital, $37.8 MM in WWTP capital projects, and $40 MM for the Beach Blvd Infrastructure Resiliency Project. The capital program averages $11.4 MM per year with the largest annual capital expenditure at $20.9 MM in FY 2026/27.

Financial Projections
Table 5 shows the wastewater cashflow projection from FY 2021/22 to FY 2031/32. BWA projects that rate increases of 3.5% per year are required each year for the next 5 years (FY

9.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment2 - Pacifica Wastewater Rates Memo (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Rate Study Page 3
2022/23 to FY 2026/27) to meet the City’s wastewater expenses. Projections include 0.5% growth estimated based on projected development.

BWA projects a loan of $31.6 MM is required in FY 2022/23 to fund the capital program. An additional $52.4 MM is estimated to be required in FY 2026/27 for three years of capital, primarily to fund the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project & Other Coastal Projects (total est. project cost is $40 MM over four years, beginning in FY 2026/27.) For projection purposes, the loan terms are estimated at 4% interest, over 30 years, with 1.5% issuance fees.

The financial projections are designed to meet a minimum operating reserve target of 90 days with at least 1.25x debt service coverage (calculated as net revenues / annual debt service). The City is projected to have very strong debt service coverage of at least 1.43x throughout the projection period. These financial targets are based on industry standard metrics to obtain a high credit rating and qualify for debt financing.

Chart A shows a graphical presentation of the 10-year financial projections.

Rate Survey
Chart B shows a regional sewer rate survey for FY 2021/22. The surveyed average monthly sewer bill for a single family home using 5 hcf per month is $96.70. The City’s sewer rates compare favorably with regional agencies and are in the average range at $94.07.

Wastewater Strength Factors
Table 6 shows the derivation of the wastewater strength factors. Based on a detailed review of wastewater enterprise costs, system costs are allocated 44% to flow, 28% to biological oxygen demand (BOD) and 28% total suspended solids (TSS). BWA uses this formula to calculate the strength factors for each customer class based on their estimated wastewater strength characteristics in milligrams per liter (mg/l).

Proposed Rate Schedule
Table 7 shows the proposed wastewater rate schedule for the next 5 years (FY 2022/23 to FY 2026/27).

9.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment2 - Pacifica Wastewater Rates Memo (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Rate Study Page 4
Table 1
City of Pacifica
Adopted Annual Wastewater Rates 2017/18 - 2021/22
Rate Increase % 8% 8% 8% 7% 7%
$/hcf 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22
Residential [1] $13.04476 $14.08834 $15.21541 $16.43264 $17.58293 $18.81373 Commercial [2] $13.04476 $14.08834 $15.21541 $16.43264 $17.58293 $18.81373 Minimum Charge $626.14 $676.24 $730.34 $788.76 $843.98 $903.06 Commerical Strength Factors
Car Washes 0.9
Cleaners 1.2
Laundromats 0.75
Restaurants with grease traps 1.6
Restaurants without grease traps 1.8
Gymnasiums 0.9
All other commercial use 1.0
2 - units calculated using total annual water use multiplied by strength factor 1 - units calculated using total annual use multiplied by 0.9

9.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment2 - Pacifica Wastewater Rates Memo (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and City of Pacifica – Wastewater Rate Study Page 5
Table 2
City of Pacifica
Expense Detail - Operations and Maintenance
EXPENSE FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FUND 18 BUDGET PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED Operations & Maintenance

18.940741.51200 Salaries - Regular $ 1,197,627 $ 1,408,556 3.0% $1,450,813 $1,494,337 $1,539,167 $1,585,342 $1,632,902 $1,681,889 $1,732,346 $1,784,317 $1,837,846

18.940741.51200.0275 Salaries - Regular
COVID $ 68,000 $ 68,000 3.0% $70,040 $72,141 $74,305 $76,535 $78,831 $81,196 $83,631 $86,140 $88,725

18.940741.51300 Salaries - Part-time $ 80,000 $ 80,000 3.0% $82,400 $84,872 $87,418 $90,041 $92,742 $95,524 $98,390 $101,342 $104,382

18.940741.51400 Salaries - Overtime $ 80,000 $ 80,000 3.0% $82,400 $84,872 $87,418 $90,041 $92,742 $95,524 $98,390 $101,342 $104,382

18.940741.51500 Retirement $ 289,913 $ 298,611 3.0% $307,569 $316,796 $326,300 $336,089 $346,172 $356,557 $367,254 $378,271 $389,619

18.940741.51500.0275 Retirement COVID $ 17,452 $ 17,452 3.0% $17,976 $18,515 $19,070 $19,642 $20,232 $20,839 $21,464 $22,108 $22,771

18.940741.51600 Benefits $ 295,968 $ 304,847 3.0% $313,993 $323,413 $333,115 $343,108 $353,402 $364,004 $374,924 $386,172 $397,757

18.940741.51600.0275 Benefits COVID $ 17,816 $ 18,351 3.0% $18,901 $19,468 $20,052 $20,654 $21,274 $21,912 $22,569 $23,246 $23,944

18.940741.51606 Shoe Allowance $ 2,600 $ 3,000 3.0% $3,090 $3,183 $3,278 $3,377 $3,478 $3,582 $3,690 $3,800 $3,914

18.940741.51608 Car Allowance $ 4,000 $ 4,000 3.0% $4,120 $4,244 $4,371 $4,502 $4,637 $4,776 $4,919 $5,067 $5,219

18.940741.51700 Conferences &
Training $ 14,000 $ 14,000 3.0% $14,420 $14,853 $15,298 $15,757 $16,230 $16,717 $17,218 $17,735 $18,267

18.940741.52102 Utility - PG&E $ 1,400,000 $ 1,500,000 3.0% $1,545,000 $1,591,350 $1,639,091 $1,688,263 $1,738,911 $1,791,078 $1,844,811 $1,900,155 $1,957,160

18.940741.52103 Utility - Water $ 78,000 $ 80,000 3.0% $82,400 $84,872 $87,418 $90,041 $92,742 $95,524 $98,390 $101,342 $104,382

18.940741.52104 Insurance $ 104,000 $ 107,120 3.0% $110,334 $113,644 $117,053 $120,565 $124,181 $127,907 $131,744 $135,696 $139,767

18.940741.52105 Telephone $ 34,000 $ 34,000 3.0% $35,020 $36,071 $37,153 $38,267 $39,415 $40,598 $41,816 $43,070 $44,362

18.940741.52220 Tax Collection
Expenses $ 78,000 $ 80,340 3.0% $82,750 $85,233 $87,790 $90,423 $93,136 $95,930 $98,808 $101,772 $104,825

18.940741.52300 Departmental Expense $ 38,000 $ 38,000 3.0% $39,140 $40,314 $41,524 $42,769 $44,052 $45,374 $46,735 $48,137 $49,581

18.940741.52300.0275 Departmental Expense
COVID $ 3,000 $ 3,000 3.0% $3,090 $3,183 $3,278 $3,377 $3,478 $3,582 $3,690 $3,800 $3,914

18.940741.52325 Operating Software $ 22,000 $ 23,000 3.0% $23,690 $24,401 $25,133 $25,887 $26,663 $27,463 $28,287 $29,136 $30,010

18.940741.52340 WWTP Operations
Supplies $ 60,000 $ 60,000 3.0% $61,800 $63,654 $65,564 $67,531 $69,556 $71,643 $73,792 $76,006 $78,286

18.940741.52340.0275 WWTP Operations
Supplies COVID $ 7,000 $ 7,000 3.0% $7,210 $7,426 $7,649 $7,879 $8,115 $8,358 $8,609 $8,867 $9,133

18.940741.52341 WWTP UV Supplies &
Services $ 100,000 $ 130,000 3.0% $133,900 $137,917 $142,055 $146,316 $150,706 $155,227 $159,884 $164,680 $169,621

18.940741.52342 WWTP Chemical
Expense $ 275,000 $ 280,000 3.0% $288,400 $297,052 $305,964 $315,142 $324,597 $334,335 $344,365 $354,696 $365,336

18.940741.52343 WWTP Laboratory
Supplies & Services $ 120,000 $ 100,000 3.0% $103,000 $106,090 $109,273 $112,551 $115,927 $119,405 $122,987 $126,677 $130,477

18.940741.52344 WWTP Sludge
Removal $ 140,000 $ 120,000 3.0% $123,600 $127,308 $131,127 $135,061 $139,113 $143,286 $147,585 $152,012 $156,573

18.940741.52400 Maintenance - Office
Equip $ 5,000 $ 5,000 3.0% $5,150 $5,305 $5,464 $5,628 $5,796 $5,970 $6,149 $6,334 $6,524

18.940741.52401 Maintenance - ATAD $ 30,000 $ 20,000 3.0% $20,600 $21,218 $21,855 $22,510 $23,185 $23,881 $24,597 $25,335 $26,095

18.940741.52402 Maintenance -
Biosolids $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3.0% $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 $11,255 $11,593 $11,941 $12,299 $12,668 $13,048

18.940741.52403 Maintenance -
Generator $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3.0% $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 $11,255 $11,593 $11,941 $12,299 $12,668 $13,048

18.940741.52404 Maintenance - Grit $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3.0% $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 $11,255 $11,593 $11,941 $12,299 $12,668 $13,048

18.940741.52405 Maintenance -
Instrument $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3.0% $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 $11,255 $11,593 $11,941 $12,299 $12,668 $13,048

18.940741.52406 Maintenance -Sand
Filter $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3.0% $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 $11,255 $11,593 $11,941 $12,299 $12,668 $13,048

18.940741.52407 Maintenance - SBR $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3.0% $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 $11,255 $11,593 $11,941 $12,299 $12,668 $13,048

18.940741.52408 Maintenance - SCADA $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3.0% $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 $11,255 $11,593 $11,941 $12,299 $12,668 $13,048

18.940741.52409 Maintenance - Solar
System $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3.0% $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 $11,255 $11,593 $11,941 $12,299 $12,668 $13,048

18.940741.52450 Maintenance -
Landscaping $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3.0% $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 $11,255 $11,593 $11,941 $12,299 $12,668 $13,048

18.940741.52491 Maintenance - Biofilter $ 30,000 $ 30,000 3.0% $30,900 $31,827 $32,782 $33,765 $34,778 $35,822 $36,896 $38,003 $39,143

18.940741.52499 Maintenance -
Centrifuge $ 15,000 $ 15,000 3.0% $15,450 $15,914 $16,391 $16,883 $17,389 $17,911 $18,448 $19,002 $19,572

18.940741.52500 Maintenance - Field
Equip $ 15,000 $ 15,000 3.0% $15,450 $15,914 $16,391 $16,883 $17,389 $17,911 $18,448 $19,002 $19,572

18.940741.52501 Annual Motor Pool Exp $ 40,000 $ 40,000 3.0% $41,200 $42,436 $43,709 $45,020 $46,371 $47,762 $49,195 $50,671 $52,191

18.940741.52502 Annual
Depr/Replacement $ 17,000 $ 17,000 3.0% $17,510 $18,035 $18,576 $19,134 $19,708 $20,299 $20,908 $21,535 $22,181

18.940741.52700 Rentals & Lease Exp $ 20,000 $ 20,000 3.0% $20,600 $21,218 $21,855 $22,510 $23,185 $23,881 $24,597 $25,335 $26,095

18.940741.52800 Contractual Services $ 60,000 $ 60,000 3.0% $61,800 $63,654 $65,564 $67,531 $69,556 $71,643 $73,792 $76,006 $78,286

18.940741.52800.0275 Contractual Services
COVID $ 1,000 $ 1,000 3.0% $1,030 $1,061 $1,093 $1,126 $1,159 $1,194 $1,230 $1,267 $1,305

18.940741.52818 SWRCB Permitting
Fees $ 60,000 $ 60,000 3.0% $61,800 $63,654 $65,564 $67,531 $69,556 $71,643 $73,792 $76,006 $78,286

18.940741.52828 Contractual - Legal
Services $ 190,000 $ 100,000 3.0% $103,000 $106,090 $109,273 $112,551 $115,927 $119,405 $122,987 $126,677 $130,477

18.940741.53781 Ins. Premi - Liab/Prop $ 707,000 $ 728,210 3.0% $750,056 $772,558 $795,735 $819,607 $844,195 $869,521 $895,606 $922,475 $950,149

18.940741.53782 Employment Risk Ins. $ 14,000 $ 14,000 3.0% $14,420 $14,853 $15,298 $15,757 $16,230 $16,717 $17,218 $17,735 $18,267

18.940741.53785 Administrative
Services $ 1,019,979 $ 1,000,000 3.0% $1,030,000 $1,060,900 $1,092,727 $1,125,509 $1,159,274 $1,194,052 $1,229,874 $1,266,770 $1,304,773

18.940741.55130 Capital Outlay -
Mach/Equip $ 30,000 $ 30,000 3.0% $30,900 $31,827 $32,782 $33,765 $34,778 $35,822 $36,896 $38,003 $39,143

18.940741.59155 Fines & Penalties $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3.0% $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 $11,255 $11,593 $11,941 $12,299 $12,668 $13,048 TOTAL

OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE EXP.
$ 6,880,356 $ 7,114,487 $ 7,327,922 $ 7,547,759 $ 7,774,192 $ 8,007,418 $ 8,247,640 $ 8,495,070 $ 8,749,922 $ 9,012,419 $ 9,282,792 Escalation %
projected

9.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment2 - Pacifica Wastewater Rates Memo (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Rate Study Page 6
FY 2021-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FUND 18 BUDGET PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED Collection Systems Maintenance

18.940742.51200 Salaries - Regular $ 1,697,450 $ 1,923,373 3.0% $1,981,074 $2,040,507 $2,101,722 $2,164,773 $2,229,717 $2,296,608 $2,365,506 $2,436,472 $2,509,566

18.940742.51300 Salaries - Part-time $ 5,000 $ 15,000 3.0% $15,450 $15,914 $16,391 $16,883 $17,389 $17,911 $18,448 $19,002 $19,572

18.940742.51400 Salaries - Overtime $ 80,000 $ 82,400 3.0% $84,872 $87,418 $90,041 $92,742 $95,524 $98,390 $101,342 $104,382 $107,513

18.940742.51500 Retirement $ 42,377 $ 43,648 3.0% $44,957 $46,306 $47,695 $49,126 $50,600 $52,118 $53,681 $55,292 $56,951

18.940742.51600 Benefits $ 517,986 $ 533,526 3.0% $549,532 $566,018 $582,998 $600,488 $618,503 $637,058 $656,169 $675,855 $696,130

18.940742.51606 Shoe Allowance $ 3,600 $ 3,600 3.0% $3,708 $3,819 $3,934 $4,052 $4,173 $4,299 $4,428 $4,560 $4,697

18.940742.51608 Car Allowance $ 4,000 $ 4,000 3.0% $4,120 $4,244 $4,371 $4,502 $4,637 $4,776 $4,919 $5,067 $5,219

18.940742.51700 Conferences &
Training $ 17,000 $ 17,000 3.0% $17,510 $18,035 $18,576 $19,134 $19,708 $20,299 $20,908 $21,535 $22,181

18.940742.52103 Utility - Water $ 500 $ 500 3.0% $515 $530 $546 $563 $580 $597 $615 $633 $652

18.940742.52105 Telephone $ 11,000 $ 11,000 3.0% $11,330 $11,670 $12,020 $12,381 $12,752 $13,135 $13,529 $13,934 $14,353

18.940742.52300 Departmental Expense
$ 23,000 $ 23,000 3.0% $23,690 $24,401 $25,133 $25,887 $26,663 $27,463 $28,287 $29,136 $30,010

18.940742.52300.0275 Departmental Expense
COVID $ 1,000 $ 1,000 3.0% $1,030 $1,061 $1,093 $1,126 $1,159 $1,194 $1,230 $1,267 $1,305

18.940742.52325 Operating Software $ 5,000 $ 5,000 3.0% $5,150 $5,305 $5,464 $5,628 $5,796 $5,970 $6,149 $6,334 $6,524

18.940742.52340 WWTP Operations
Supplies $ 98,000 $ 98,000 3.0% $100,940 $103,968 $107,087 $110,300 $113,609 $117,017 $120,528 $124,143 $127,868

18.940742.52340.0275 WWTP Operations
Supplies COVID $ 7,000 $ 7,000 3.0% $7,210 $7,426 $7,649 $7,879 $8,115 $8,358 $8,609 $8,867 $9,133

18.940742.52342 WWTP Chemical
Expense $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3.0% $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 $11,255 $11,593 $11,941 $12,299 $12,668 $13,048

18.940742.52485 Maintenance - CMMS $ 32,600 $ 32,600 3.0% $33,578 $34,585 $35,623 $36,692 $37,792 $38,926 $40,094 $41,297 $42,536

18.940742.52490.0000.00
0 Maintenance -
Easement $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3.0% $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 $11,255 $11,593 $11,941 $12,299 $12,668 $13,048

18.940742.52492.0000.00
0 Maintenance - Anza
PS $ 5,000 $ 5,000 3.0% $5,150 $5,305 $5,464 $5,628 $5,796 $5,970 $6,149 $6,334 $6,524

18.940742.52493.0000.00
0 Maintenance - Brighton
PS $ 5,000 $ 5,000 3.0% $5,150 $5,305 $5,464 $5,628 $5,796 $5,970 $6,149 $6,334 $6,524

18.940742.52494.0000.00
0 Maintenance - Linda
Mar PS $ 21,000 $ 21,000 3.0% $21,630 $22,279 $22,947 $23,636 $24,345 $25,075 $25,827 $26,602 $27,400

18.940742.52495.0000.00
0 Maintenance -
Rockaway PS $ 12,000 $ 12,000 3.0% $12,360 $12,731 $13,113 $13,506 $13,911 $14,329 $14,758 $15,201 $15,657

18.940742.52496.0000.00
0 Maintenance - Sharp
Park PS $ 11,000 $ 11,000 3.0% $11,330 $11,670 $12,020 $12,381 $12,752 $13,135 $13,529 $13,934 $14,353

18.940742.52497.0000.00
0 Maintenance - Skyridge
PS $ 5,300 $ 5,300 3.0% $5,459 $5,623 $5,791 $5,965 $6,144 $6,328 $6,518 $6,714 $6,915

18.940742.52498.0000.00
0 Maintenance -CCTV $ 10,600 $ 10,600 3.0% $10,918 $11,246 $11,583 $11,930 $12,288 $12,657 $13,037 $13,428 $13,831

18.940742.52499.0000.00
0 Maintenance - Root
Foaming $ 20,000 $ 20,000 3.0% $20,600 $21,218 $21,855 $22,510 $23,185 $23,881 $24,597 $25,335 $26,095

18.940742.52501 Annual Motor Pool Exp $ 284,473 $ 280,000 3.0% $288,400 $297,052 $305,964 $315,142 $324,597 $334,335 $344,365 $354,696 $365,336

18.940742.52502 Annual Motor Pool
Depr/Replacement $ - $ - 3.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18.940742.52700 Rentals & Lease Exp $ 5,300 $ 5,300 3.0% $5,459 $5,623 $5,791 $5,965 $6,144 $6,328 $6,518 $6,714 $6,915

18.940742.52800 Contractual Services $ 60,000 $ 61,800 3.0% $63,654 $65,564 $67,531 $69,556 $71,643 $73,792 $76,006 $78,286 $80,635

18.940742.52800.0275 Contractual Services
COVID $ 1,000 $ 1,000 3.0% $1,030 $1,061 $1,093 $1,126 $1,159 $1,194 $1,230 $1,267 $1,305

18.940742.55130 Capital Outlay -
Mach/Equip $ 60,000 $ 60,000 3.0% $61,800 $63,654 $65,564 $67,531 $69,556 $71,643 $73,792 $76,006 $78,286 TOTAL

COLLECTION
SYSTEM MAIN EXP.
$ 3,066,186 $ 3,318,647 $ 3,418,206 $ 3,520,752 $ 3,626,375 $ 3,735,166 $ 3,847,221 $ 3,962,638 $ 4,081,517 $ 4,203,962 $ 4,330,081 projected
Escalation %

9.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment2 - Pacifica Wastewater Rates Memo (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Rate Study Page 7
Table 3
City of Pacifica
Debt Service
Debt Service
Loan Source 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2012 Loan and Installment Agreement WW Charge Fund $447,334 $447,161 $446,983 $446,798 $446,607 $446,408 $446,203 $446,031 1997 State of California Water Resource
Control Board Loan WW Charge Fund 2,065,919 2,065,919 2,065,919 2,065,919 2014 Wastewater Revenue Refunding
Bonds WW Charge Fund 337,000 337,000 337,000 337,000 1,819,000 1,816,125 1,814,375 1,808,625 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bonds
WW Charge Fund 1,061,600 1,061,600 1,061,600 1,061,600 1,670,975 1,668,975 1,670,350 1,669,975 Total Debt Service $3,911,853 $3,911,680 $3,911,502 $3,911,317 $3,936,582 $3,931,508 $3,930,928 $3,924,631 total payment (pricipal + interest)

9.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment2 - Pacifica Wastewater Rates Memo (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and City of Pacifica – Wastewater Rate Study Page 8
TABLE 4 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (COST IN THOUSAND DOLLARS) PROJECT 21 -22 22 -23 23 -24 24 -25 25 -26 26 -27 27 -28 28 -29 29 -30 30 -31 31 -32 TOTALS

COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade $ 1,475 $ 590 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,065 Linda Mar Pump Station - Bar Screen Rebuild $ - $ 150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150 Linda Mar Pump Station - New Washer/Compactor $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 160 $ 160 Rockaway PS Upgrade (Formerly Rockaway PS Upgrade FY 20-21) $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 Rockaway PS - Bar Screen Rebuild $ - $ 150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150 Sharp Park Pump Station Facility Improvements Project $ 500 $ 1,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000 Sharp Park Pump Station Bar Screen Rebuild $ - $ 250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250 Sharp Park Pump Station - New Washer/Compactor $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 160 $ 160 Anza Pump Station Rebuild $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000 Sewer System Master Plan Update Phase 2 $ 20 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 90 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 110 Collection System Projects $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 1,100 Lateral Grant Assistance $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 1,100 Relocation of Sewer Mainline at SF RV Park $ - $ - $ 200 $ 2,400 $ 1,200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,800 Collection System R&R Project Lower Linda Mar 1 $ - $ - $ 492 $ 2,786 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,278 Collection System R&R Project Lower Linda Mar 2 $ - $ - $ - $ 492 $ 2,786 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,278 Collection System R&R Project Lower Linda Mar 3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 492 $ 2,786 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,278 Collection System R&R Project Fremont, Linda Mar Blvd & Catalina Ave $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 210 $ 1,190 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,400 Collection System R&R Project Vallemar 1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 557 $ 3,152 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,709 Collection System R&R Project Vallemar 2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 557 $ 3,152 $ - $ - $ 3,709 Collection System R&R Project Vallemar 3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 557 $ 3,152 $ - $ 3,709 Collection System R&R Project Vallemar 4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 557 $ 3,152 $ 3,709 Collection System R&R Project Fairway Park 1 & 2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 990 $ 990 Rockaway Beach Ave (San Sewer) 1&2 $ - $ - $ 506 $ 2,863 $ 506 $ 2,863 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,738 Forcemain Condition Assessment $ - $ - $ - $ 75 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 75 Linda Mar Pump Station Jockey Pump Upgrade $ - $ 50 $ 150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200 Collection System Projects $ 3,295 $ 3,890 $ 1,548 $ 8,816 $ 5,184 $ 6,059 $ 2,037 $ 3,909 $ 3,909 $ 3,909 $ 4,662 $ 47,218 Total Collection System Projects FY 2022-27
Total Collection System Projects FY 2027-32

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (COST IN THOUSAND DOLLARS) PROJECT 21 -22 22 -23 23 -24 24 -25 25 -26 26 -27 27 -28 28 -29 29 -30 30 -31 31 -32 TOTALS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Digesters - ATAD Modification Phase 3 $ 175 $ 150 $ - $ - $ 100 $ - $ - $ 100 $ - $ - $ 100 $ 625 CCWRP Pump Replacement $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 550 CCWRP Centrifuges $ 25 $ 50 $ - $ - $ - $ 250 $ - $ - $ - $ 250 $ - $ 575 CCWRP SCADA and PLC Upgrade $ 200 $ 400 $ 400 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000 Calera Creek and Wetlands Maintenance $ 75 $ - $ 30 $ - $ 30 $ - $ - $ 30 $ - $ 30 $ - $ 195 CCWRP Parking Lot Restoration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 CCWRP Roof Improvements $ - $ 200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200 CCWRP Laboratory Room Improvement $ 25 $ - $ - $ - $ 25 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25 $ - $ 75 CCWRP Security & Gate System $ 70 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 70 CCWRP Blower Replacement $ 30 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 530 San Pedro Creek & Pacifica State Beach TMDL, BMP, Monitoring Plan $ 10 $ 10 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20 CCWRP Arc Flash Hazard Analysis $ 65 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 65 CCWRP R&R Project $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 550 CCWRP R&R Project - Transformer Upgrade $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CCWRP R&R Project - Grit Classifier Upgrade $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CCWRP R&R Project - Sand Filter Upgrade $ 170 $ 150 $ - $ - $ 750 $ 750 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,820 Ultraviolet Disinfection System Upgrade $ 122 $ 3,760 $ 2,980 $ 4,570 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,432 CCWRP Photovoltaic System Improvement Project $ 280 $ 100 $ 1,100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,480 CCWRP Process Optimization Projects $ 50 $ 100 $ - $ - $ 100 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 550 Sewer Rate Study for FY 2022-2027 $ 20 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 50 $ 20 $ - $ - $ - $ 50 $ 140 CCWRP R&R Project - Drain Pump Station Piping Replacement $ 40 $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 140 CCWRP R&R Project - Plant Effluent Pipe Line Spot Repair $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 CCWRP Electrical Condition Assessment and Improvements $ 50 $ 100 $ 1,100 $ 1,150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,400 CCWRP Environmental Compliance Project $ 50 $ - $ - $ - $ 50 $ - $ - $ - $ 50 $ - $ - $ 150 CCWRP Admin Building Elevator Assessement $ 40 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 140 CCWRP Headworks Feasibility and Improvements $ 50 $ 100 $ 300 $ - $ 1,500 $ 3,500 $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,450 CCWRP Vehicle Storage and Office Facility $ 17 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 400 $ 4,000 $ - $ 4,417 CCWRP Projects $ 1,764 $ 5,170 $ 5,160 $ 6,970 $ 2,805 $ 4,850 $ 5,220 $ 330 $ 650 $ 4,505 $ 350 $ 37,774 Total Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects FY 2022-27
Total Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects FY 2027-32
Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects $ 5,059 $ 9,060 $ 6,708 $ 15,786 $ 7,989 $ 10,909 $ 7,257 $ 4,239 $ 4,559 $ 8,414 $ 5,012 $ 84,992 lection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects FY 2022-27 lection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects FY 2027-32

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (COST IN THOUSAND DOLLARS) PROJECT 21 -22 22 -23 23 -24 24 -25 25 -26 26 -27 27 -28 28 -29 29 -30 30 -31 31 -32 TOTALS OTHER
540 Crespi Drive Tree Replacement $ 10 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10 Beach Blvd Infrastructure Resilency Project $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 40,000 Other Wastewater Projects $ 10 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 40,010 Total Wastewater Other Projects FY 2022-27
Total Wastewater Other Projects FY 2027-32
$ 10,000
$ 30,000
$ 25,497
$ 18,426
$ 24,955
$ 11,055
$ 50,452
$ 29,481

9.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment2 - Pacifica Wastewater Rates Memo (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Rate Study Page 9
Table 5
City of Pacifica
Wastewater Cashflow Projection
2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 Beginning Fund Balance
Unrestricted Charge Fund $6,359,443 $10,415,877 $47,292,020 $50,009,416 $52,868,979 $56,194,679 $112,480,186 $115,526,298 $119,102,026 $123,229,422 $127,936,777 Unrestricted Construction Fund $777,246 -$4,291,755 -$13,351,755 -$20,059,755 -$35,845,755 -$43,834,755 -$64,743,755 -$82,000,755 -$96,239,755 -$110,798,755 -$119,212,755 Total Unrestricted Funds $7,136,688 $6,124,122 $33,940,265 $29,949,662 $17,023,225 $12,359,924 $47,736,431 $33,525,544 $22,862,272 $12,430,668 $8,724,023 % Rate Revenue Increase 7.0% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% % Capacity Fee Revenue Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% % Growth 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

REVENUE
Charge Fund Revenue
Investment Earnings
Sewer Service Charges 17,514,293 18,217,930 18,949,835 19,711,145 20,503,040 21,326,750 22,183,552 23,074,776 24,001,805 24,966,078 25,969,090 New Loan 1 (4%, 30 Yrs, 1.5% Fees) 31,554,000
New Loan 2 (4%, 30 Yrs, 1.5% Fees) 52,405,000
Miscellaneous Income1 2,000,000
Pension Obligation Bond Repayment 400,000 400,000 297,339 Total Charge Fund Revenue $17,914,293 $52,171,930 $19,247,174 $19,711,145 $20,503,040 $73,731,750 $22,183,552 $23,074,776 $24,001,805 $24,966,078 $25,969,090 TOTAL REVENUE $17,914,293 $52,171,930 $19,247,174 $19,711,145 $20,503,040 $73,731,750 $22,183,552 $23,074,776 $24,001,805 $24,966,078 $25,969,090

EXPENSES
Charge Fund Expenses
Operations and Maintenance $6,880,356 $7,114,487 $7,327,922 $7,547,759 $7,774,192 $8,007,418 $8,247,640 $8,495,070 $8,749,922 $9,012,419 $9,282,792 Collection System Maintenance 3,066,186 3,318,647 3,418,206 3,520,752 3,626,375 3,735,166 3,847,221 3,962,638 4,081,517 4,203,962 4,330,081 New Loan 1 Debt Service 0 926,071 1,852,143 1,852,143 1,852,143 1,852,143 1,852,143 1,852,143 1,852,143 1,852,143 1,852,143 New Loan 2 Debt Service 0 0 1,538,023 3,076,045 3,076,045 3,076,045 3,076,045 3,076,045 State Loan 2,065,919 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sewer Loan 446,798 446,607 446,408 446,203 446,031 445,769 445,540 445,303 445,057 444,803 444,540 2014 Refunding Bond 337,000 1,819,000 1,816,124 1,814,375 1,808,625 199,875 0 0 0 0 0 2017 Refunding Bond 1,061,600 1,670,975 1,668,975 1,670,350 1,669,975 1,667,850 1,668,850 1,667,850 1,669,725 1,669,350 1,671,600 Total Charge Fund $13,857,859 $15,295,787 $16,529,778 $16,851,582 $17,177,340 $17,446,243 $19,137,439 $19,499,048 $19,874,409 $20,258,723 $20,657,201 Construction Fund
Capital Project2 $5,069,000 $9,060,000 $6,708,000 $15,786,000 $7,989,000 $20,909,000 $17,257,000 $14,239,000 $14,559,000 $8,414,000 $5,012,000 Total Construction Fund $5,069,000 $9,060,000 $6,708,000 $15,786,000 $7,989,000 $20,909,000 $17,257,000 $14,239,000 $14,559,000 $8,414,000 $5,012,000 TOTAL EXPENSES $18,926,859 $24,355,787 $23,237,778 $32,637,582 $25,166,340 $38,355,243 $36,394,439 $33,738,048 $34,433,409 $28,672,723 $25,669,201 Net Revenue
Charge Fund $4,056,434 $36,876,143 $2,717,396 $2,859,563 $3,325,700 $56,285,507 $3,046,113 $3,575,728 $4,127,396 $4,707,355 $5,311,889 Construction Fund -$5,069,000 -$9,060,000 -$6,708,000 -$15,786,000 -$7,989,000 -$20,909,000 -$17,257,000 -$14,239,000 -$14,559,000 -$8,414,000 -$5,012,000 Total Net Revenue -$1,012,566 $27,816,143 -$3,990,604 -$12,926,437 -$4,663,300 $35,376,507 -$14,210,887 -$10,663,272 -$10,431,604 -$3,706,645 $299,889 Ending Fund Balance
Unrestricted Operating Fund $10,415,877 $47,292,020 $50,009,416 $52,868,979 $56,194,679 $112,480,186 $115,526,298 $119,102,026 $123,229,422 $127,936,777 $133,248,666 Unrestricted Capital Fund -$4,291,755 -$13,351,755 -$20,059,755 -$35,845,755 -$43,834,755 -$64,743,755 -$82,000,755 -$96,239,755 -$110,798,755 -$119,212,755 -$124,224,755 Total Unrestricted Funds $6,124,122 $33,940,265 $29,949,662 $17,023,225 $12,359,924 $47,736,431 $33,525,544 $22,862,272 $12,430,668 $8,724,023 $9,023,912 Total Unrestricted Fund Target
(90 Days Charge Fund Expenses) $3,417,006 $3,771,564 $4,075,836 $4,155,185 $4,235,509 $4,301,813 $4,718,821 $4,807,984 $4,900,539 $4,995,301 $5,093,556 # Days Funded 161 810 661 369 263 999 639 428 228 157 159 Debt Service Coverage (Min 1.25x) 2.04 2.09 1.47 1.49 1.58 1.68 1.43 1.51 1.59 1.67 1.75 Target Met yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
1 - $2 MM Anza pump station insurance reimbursement
2 - Total Short and Long Term Capital Improvement Plan. Includes General Fund Transfers projected

9.b
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment2 - Pacifica Wastewater Rates Memo (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and City of Pacifica
– Wastewater Rate Study Page 10

9.b
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment2 - Pacifica Wastewater Rates Memo (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and City of Pacifica – Wastewater Rate Study Page 11
Table 6
City of Pacifica
Wastewater Strength Factors
Customer Class Strength Factor (Rounded)
Residential BOD SS
Single Family 175 175 1.0
Multi Family 175 175 1.0
Commercial
Car Washes 30 230 0.9
Cleaners 300 160 1.2
Laundromats 100 95 0.75
Restaurants with grease traps 440 265 1.6
Restaurants without grease traps 550 300 1.8
Gymnasiums 150 150 0.9
Other commercial use 175 175 1.0
Formula:

Strength Factor = 44%+(28%*BOD(MG/L)/175+28%*TSS(MG/L)/175) Estimated Strength (mg/l)

9.b
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment2 - Pacifica Wastewater Rates Memo (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Rate Study Page 12
Table 7
City of Pacifica
Proposed Annual Wastewater Rates 2022/23 - 2026/27
Current
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27
Percent Increase 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%
Residential [1] $18.81373 $19.47221 $20.15374 $20.85912 $21.58919 $22.34481 Commercial [2] $18.81373 $19.47221 $20.15374 $20.85912 $21.58919 $22.34481 Minimum Charge $903.06 $934.67 $967.38 $1,001.24 $1,036.28 $1,072.55 2 - units calculated using total annual water use multiplied by strength factor Commerical Strength Factors
Car Washes 0.9
Cleaners 1.2
Laundromats 0.75
Restaurants with grease traps 1.6
Restaurants without grease traps 1.8
Gymnasiums 0.9
All other commercial use 1.0
1 - units calculated using total annual use multiplied by 0.9 Maximum Proposed Rate

9.b
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment2 - Pacifica Wastewater Rates Memo (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica
– Wastewater Rate Study Page 13

9.b
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment2 - Pacifica Wastewater Rates Memo (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE CHARGES FY 2022-23 to 2026-27
Proposed FY 2026-27 $22.34481/100 cubic feet of water consumption (Increase of 3.5%) Proposed FY 2025-26 $21.58919/100 cubic feet of water consumption (Increase of 3.5%) Proposed FY 2024-25 $20.85912/100 cubic feet of water consumption (Increase of 3.5%) Proposed FY 2023-24 $20.15374/100 cubic feet of water consumption (Increase of 3.5%) Proposed FY 2022-23 $19.47221/100 cubic feet of water consumption (Increase of 3.5%) Sewer Charge:

FY 2021-22 $18.81373/100 cubic feet of water consumption (Increase of 7.0%) FY 2020-21 $17.58293/100 cubic feet of water consumption (Increase of 7.0%) FY 2019-20 $16.43264/100 cubic feet of water consumption (Increase of 8.0%) FY 2018-19 $15.21541/100 cubic feet of water consumption (Increase of 8.0%) FY 2017-18 $14.08834/100 cubic feet of water consumption (Increase of 8.0%) FY 2016-17 $13.04476/100 cubic feet of water consumption (Increase of 4.28%) FY 2015-16 $12.50867/100 cubic feet of water consumption (Increase of 2.94%) FY 2014-15 $12.15128/100 cubic feet of water consumption (Increase of 2.9%) FY 2013-14 $11.81632/100 cubic feet of water consumption (no change) CFOWC = Cubic Feet of Water Consumption
CALCULATION YEAR FY 2022-23
(March of the previous year thru February of the current year):

March 2021 thru February 2022
MEASUREMENT PERIOD FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS:

Water billings from March 2021 thru February 2022.

RESIDENTIAL CALCULATION:

Actual Annual Water Consumption x 90% x $19.47221 = Sewer Service Charge MINIMUM SEWER SERVICE CHARGE:
48 Annual Units of Water Consumption x $19.47221 = $934.67 Prior year minimum charge = $903.06
MEASUREMENT PERIOD FOR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS:

Actual Annual Water Consumption.

COMMERCIAL CALCULATION:

Actual Annual Water Consumption x $19.47221 x strength factor = Sewer Service Charge.

COMMERCIAL STRENGTH FACTORS:

Car Washes 0.90
Cleaners 1.20
Laundromats 0.75
Restaurants with functioning grease traps 1.60
Restaurants without functioning grease traps 1.80
Gymnasiums 0.90
Any other commercial use 1.00
Section 6-6.401 to 6-6.405, 6-6.407 and 6-6.408 of the Pacifica Municipal Code addresses the assessment of Sewer Service Charges including the rate and the measurement periods for both residential and commercial customers.

FY 2012-13 $11.81632/100 CFOWC.

FY 2011-12 $10.63211/100 CFOWC.

FY 2010-11 $10.28208/100 CFOWC.

FY 2009-10 $9.75568/100 CFOWC.

FY 2008-09 $9.51463/100 CFOWC.

FY 2007-08 $8.01056/100 CFOWC.

FY 2006-07 $7.33488/100 CFOWC.

FY 2005-06 $6.94083/100 CFOWC.

FY 2004-05 $6.47862/100 CFOWC.

FY 2003-04 $5.38619/100 CFOWC.

FY 2002-03 $4.69754/100 CFOWC.

FY 2001-02 $4.67424/100 CFOWC.

FY 2000-01 $4.27433/100 CFOWC.

FY 1999-00 $4.37985/100 CFOWC.

FY 1998-99 $3.96437/100 CFOWC.

FY 1997-98 $3.89008/100 CFOWC.

FY 1996-97 $3.52/100 CFOWC.

FY 1995-96 $3.38/100 CFOWC.

FY 1994-95 $3.07/100 CFOWC.

FY 1993-94 $2.87/100 CFOWC.

FY 1992-93 $2.70/100 CFOWC.

9.c
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment3 - SewerServiceCharges2022-27 (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges)

CITY OF PACIFICA
Wastewater Capacity Fee Study

FINAL REPORT
February 4th, 2022

BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
Bartle Wells Associates
2625 Alcatraz Ave #602
Berkeley, CA 94705
Tel. 510.653.3399
Fax 510.653.3769
www.bartlewells.com
ATTACHMENT 4

9.d
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica
– Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 1
This page was intentionally left blank.

9.d
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 2 2625 Alcatraz Ave, #602
Berkeley, CA 94705
Tel 510 653 3399
www.bartlewells.com
February 4th, 2022
City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
Attn: Lisa Petersen, Director of Public Works
Re: Wastewater Capacity Fee Study
Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) is pleased to submit to the City of Pacifica (City) the attached Wastewater Capacity Fee Study. The results of the study are a product of extensive review of public information and input from City Staff.

This study presents BWA’s analysis of the costs of the City’s wastewater infrastructure, assets and projects benefiting new development. The enclosed report recommends updating capacity fees to recover the benefit associated with new wastewater development within the City given the latest changes in wastewater assets, expected growth, and capital plan. BWA finds that the proposed fees follow generally accepted fee design criteria and adhere to the substantive requirements of California government code.

We have enjoyed working with the City on this study. Please contact us with any future questions about this study and the recommended capacity fee.

Sincerely,

BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
Doug Dove, CIPFA
Principal

9.d
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica
– Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 3
This page was intentionally left blank.

9.d
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction, Objectives, and Government Code.................................................. 5

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Government Code...................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Municipal Code Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units ......................................... 6 2 Capacity Fee Methodology....................................................................................... 6

2.1 Current Wastewater Capacity Fees........................................................................ 6

2.2 Proposed Wastewater Capacity Fees .................................................................... 7

2.3 Average Cost (Buy-In + Expansion) Approach ..................................................... 8

2.4 Facility Cost Valuation............................................................................................... 8

2.5 General Fee Methodology........................................................................................ 8 3 Wastewater Capacity Fee Calculation..................................................................... 9

3.1 System Buy-In Component – Existing Assets....................................................... 9

3.2 System Expansion Component – Capital Improvement Plan........................... 10

3.3 Customer Base......................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Wastewater Capacity Fee Calculation ................................................................. 11

3.5 Proposed 2022 Fee................................................................................................. 14 4 Conclusion and Recommendations...................................................................... 14

4.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 14

4.2 Future Fee Adjustments.......................................................................................... 15 Appendix A – Supporting Tables for Wastewater Capacity Fees............................... 1 Appendix B – Government Code Pertaining to Capacity Fees................................... 1

9.d
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 5 1 Introduction, Objectives, and Government Code

1.1 Introduction
Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) has been retained by the City of Pacifica (City) to evaluate the City’s capacity fees as part of a comprehensive wastewater rate study. Key objectives of the study include (1) evaluating the City’s current value of wastewater assets (2) developing a capacity fee that reflects the City’s current assets and planned facilities expenditures, and (3) establishing a methodology for assessing fees for accessory dwelling units. BWA’s recommended capacity fees align with industry standards and regional trends, while considering the City’s need to address Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) developments.

The City of Pacifica contracted BWA to update the City’s wastewater capacity fees with the goals of developing fees that:
- Recover the full cost of wastewater system infrastructure and assets that benefit new or expanded development to help ensure that growth pays its own way - Equitably recover project costs associated with the increased capacity needs of the City
- Are consistent with industry-standard practices and methodologies - Comply with government code

1.2 Government Code
Development impact fees are governed by California Government Code Section 66000 et. seq This section of the Code was initially established by Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) and is commonly referred to as the Mitigation Fee Act. A development impact fee is not a tax or special assessment but is instead a voluntary fee levied to defray the cost of public facilities needed to serve a new development.

Section 66013 of the Code specifically governs water and wastewater capacity fees. This section of the Code defines a “capacity charge” to mean “a charge for public facilities in existence at the time a charge is imposed or charges for new public facilities to be acquired or constructed in the future that are of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged.” The Code distinguishes “capacity charges” from “connection fees” which are defined as fees for the physical facilities necessary to make a water or wastewater connection, such as costs related to installation of meters and pipelines from a new building to a water or wastewater main.

According to Section 66013, a water or wastewater capacity fee “shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed” unless approved by a two-thirds vote.” As such, the capacity fees calculated in this report

9.d
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 6 represent the maximum fees that the City can levy. Section 66013 does not detail any specific methodology for calculating capacity fees.

Section 66016 of the Code identifies the procedural requirements for adopting or increasing water and wastewater capacity fees and Section 66022 summarizes the general process by which the fees can be legally challenged. The full text of Sections 66013, 66016 and 66022 are attached in Appendix B.

1.3 Municipal Code Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
According to Ordinance No 854-C.S., an ordinance of the City Council of Pacifica, Sec 9-4.53 – Development standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (i) Utilities (2) “… the [accessory dwelling unit] connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit upon the water or sewer system, based upon either its square feet or the number of its drainage fixture unit values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials…” BWA developed fees for Accessory Dwelling Units based on the 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code.
2 Capacity Fee Methodology

2.1 Current Wastewater Capacity Fees
The City’s current capacity fees are broken out into several categories: Connection Fees and Inflow and Infiltration Fees, Trunk Line Fees and Sewer Tap Fees – Per Tap. BWA evaluated the current cost for new customers to buy in to existing wastewater system capacity (which is currently shown as Connection Fees and Inflow/Infiltration Fees, Trunk Line Fees and Sewer Tap Fees.)
Single Family
per unit
Multi-Family
per unit
Commercial
(for 12 fixture units)
Connection Fees $1,452 $1,109 $1,463
Inflow/Infiltration Fees1 801 801 801
Trunk Line Fees2 1,098 1,098 1,098
Sewer Tap Fees - per tap 474 474 474
Total $3,825 $3,482 $3,836
1 - or $1,706 per acre, whichever is higher
2 - or $2,193 per acre, whichever is higher
2021/22 Capacity Fees, Adopted 1974, Escalated Annually

9.d
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 7 Based on BWA’s 2021/22 survey of single family capacity fees in surrounding wastewater agencies, the City’s current single family (SFR) wastewater capacity fee is below the regional average SFR wastewater capacity fee of $10,137. Pacifica’s capacity fees are the lowest in the region. The full survey can be seen in Appendix A.

2.2 Proposed Wastewater Capacity Fees
This report develops updated wastewater capacity fees designed to equitably recover the costs of facilities and assets benefitting new development. The recommended fees are based on an average cost approach under which new or expanded connections would fund their proportionate share of costs (in current dollars) for capacity needed in existing and planned wastewater system facilities and assets. Under this approach, new connections pay for the average cost of facilities needed to serve that type of connection in the City’s service area through buildout. Proposed fees assume 19 drainage fixture units per 1” or less connection, representing a typical family home.

For 2022, BWA calculates wastewater capacity fees to be $12,391 per meter equivalent unit, equal to one 1” or less water meter connection (the detailed calculation is shown in section 3.4 Wastewater Capacity Fee Calculation.) BWA recommends that the City charge capacity fees based on meter size to reflect differences in wastewater demand between customer classes that have varying meter sizes (typically demanding more water and producing more wastewater). This meter-based capacity fee structure aligns with industry trends in wastewater connection fees and closely resembles North Coast County Water District’s meter-based water capacity fee charges. To comply with recent changes in state law, BWA also recommends that 2022
Cost Per 1" Meter Equivalent Unit $12,391
Cost Per Fixture Unit1 $652.16
Cost per Meter - 1" Base
1" or less (Single Family Home) $12,391
1 1/2" $24,782
2" $39,651
3" $74,346
4" $123,910
6" $247,820
8" $396,512
1 - Assumes 19 Drainage Fixture Units per 1" or less connection

9.d
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 8 capacity fees for accessory dwelling units are calculated on a $/draining fixture unit (DFU) basis.

The calculation is based on 19 draining fixture units per 1” or less single-family metered connection according to the 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code and is calculated to be $652.16/DFU.

Multi-family and commercial developments may also be charged on a $/DFU basis to account for wastewater demand from these customers that varies from a typical single-family home with the same meter size.

Fees were calculated using the Average (Buy-In + Expansion) Cost Methodology, described in detail in this report.

2.3 Average Cost (Buy-In + Expansion) Approach
BWA recommends use of an average cost approach to calculate updated wastewater capacity fees. Under this approach, new connections buy in for a proportionate share of capacity needs in existing assets (buy-in) and the City’s schedule of planned capital improvements to wastewater system facilities and assets (expansion). The fees are calculated based on the total cost of facilities including the capital improvement plan, divided by the total number of customers that the City is projected to serve through build-out. Hence the fees recover the average cost of capacity in infrastructure and assets. The average cost approach is a widely used and accepted approach for calculating capacity fees.

2.4 Facility Cost Valuation
There are several widely-used methods for valuing infrastructure and assets for cost recovery via capacity fees. BWA developed the capacity fees in this report using an asset valuation approach known as Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation (RCNLD) – This approach escalates the depreciated accounting book value of each asset escalated into current dollars based on the change in the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index from each asset’s acquisition date. The ENR index is a widely-used index for determining construction cost inflation.

2.5 General Fee Methodology
The general methodology used to calculate updated wastewater capacity fees is summarized on the following page.

9.d
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 9 3 Wastewater Capacity Fee Calculation

3.1 System Buy-In Component – Existing Assets
Under the methodology described in section 2, updated wastewater capacity fees are designed to recover the cost of existing wastewater system facilities and assets (in current dollars) as well as the cost of system upgrades and expansion needed to serve the City through buildout. The table below shows a summary of BWA’s evaluation of current assets escalated using the RCNLD Capacity Charge Methodology
Step 1 - Determine Cost of Assets and Capital Projects for Fee Recovery Determine the recoverable cost of current assets (system buy-in component) and capital projects (system improvement component) benefiting new development to be recovered by the capacity charge.

Step 2 - Identify Capacity of Facilities
Identify the corresponding number of customers to buildout associated with facilities and assets identified in Step 1
Step 3 - Calculate Cost per Unit of Capacity
Calculate the cost per unit of capacity by dividing the costs identified for fee recovery in Step 1 by the capacity of those facilities to buildout identified in Step

2. Step 4 - Apply Cost per Unit to the Capacity Needs of New Development Apply the unit cost for capacity to the infrastructure capacity needs of each new development to determine an equitable capacity charge per new connection.

9.d
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 10 Method as described above. BWA estimates that the City’s wastewater system has a current value of $49,136,331 not including buildings, machinery, and equipment assets. This is the buyin portion of the capacity fee calculation. A complete list of wastewater system assets and costs is included in the tables contained in Appendix A.

3.2 System Expansion Component – Capital Improvement Plan To account for capital improvement and expansion-related projects that will be part of the City’s future asset value, the City’s capital plan is included in the capacity fee calculation. A summary of the capital plan is shown below. The City’s capital improvement plan is estimated to cost $125,002,000. A detailed list of capital improvement plan projects is shown in the tables contained in Appendix A.

3.3 Customer Base
The City’s demographic data is shown in the table below. The City currently serves 12,393 wastewater connections, equal to 12,719 meter equivalent units of 1” or less water meters.

Flow factors are determined by the American Water Works Association (AWWA).

Asset Category Net Present Value*
Land $8,797,741
Buildings1 0
Collection System 13,341,274
Machinery and Equipment1 0
Calera Creek Plant 26,997,316
Total $49,136,331
1 - Not included in capacity fee valuation
*Using Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation (RCNLD method) Description Current Project Cost
Capital Plan $125,002,000
Total $125,002,000
Pacifica Capital Improvement Program

9.d
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 11 Conservatively assuming that the City is a slow-growth community, the City can expect 0.5% growth in new wastewater connections per year. As the City is mostly built out, BWA used a low growth assumption. In 20 years, the City will have approximately 1,334 additional meter equivalent units of 1” water meters or less as shown in the table below. Meter equivalent units that exist today will account for 90.51% of all wastewater customers, while the 1,334 future meters will account for 9.49% of all wastewater customers in 20 years, totaling 14,054 estimated meter equivalent units in 2041.

This projection will serve as the dividing factor for the proposed capacity fee calculation.

3.4 Wastewater Capacity Fee Calculation
BWA calculated the proposed wastewater capacity fee based on an average cost approach. The fee is designed to recover costs for:
- System Buy-In Component - Existing Facilities & Assets: To be reasonable and conservative, fee recovery accounts for the book value of the City’s wastewater facilities escalated to current dollars using the ENR Construction Cost Index (RCNLD Method)
- System Improvement Component - Capital Projects: The fee recovers capital improvement project costs according to the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. Total Meter Equivalent Units - July 30, 2020
Meter Size (inches) # of meters
Flow Factor
for 1" Base Meter Equivalent Units
5/8 11,242 1.0 11,242
3/4 317 1.0 317
1 608 1.0 608
1 1/2 69 2.0 138
2 72 3.2 230
3 7 6.0 42
4 3 10.0 30
6 4 20.0 80
8 1 32.0 32
Total 12,323 12,719
Meter Equivalent Units
Demographic Statistics Existing Total (2021)
Projected
Service Total
(2041)*
Meter Equivalent Units:

Wastewater 12,719 14,054 1,334 10.49% 67 0.5%
*assumes 0.5% growth per year, slow-growth community
Total Change
(Cumulative)
Annualized Change
(per year, 20 years)

9.d
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 12 costs for fee recovery are divided by the total number of customers in number of meter equivalent units through build‐out, resulting in a fee of $12,391 per meter equivalent unit. Fees for larger meters are escalated based on AWWA meter factor ratios using a 1” base. These fees do not include the physical cost of a wastewater connection. The new proposed capacity fees would place the City in the middle range for single-family capacity fees in the region, as shown in Appendix A.

BWA also calculated a cost per fixture unit for accessory dwelling units based on 19 drainage fixture units per 1” or less meter capacity, according to typical number of drainage fixtures per single family home and drainage fixture unit values in the 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code shown in the following table. This fixture unit approach may be used to estimate actual needed capacity in multi-family and accessory dwelling units, which may have less actual demand on the wastewater systems than the capacity of the 1” or less meters that would likely serve them.

As an example, consider the fee for a customer with an ADU that includes a lavatory, shower (single), kitchen sink, and toilet (1.6 gal per flush). The total fixture units would be calculated as the following (1+2+2+3=8 drainage fixture units). The cost per drainage fixture unit of $652.16 would be multiplied by 8 to determine a total fee of $5,217.28.

Fixture Type Quantity DFU (1) Total DFU
Bathtub(with or without shower) 1 2 2
Clothes Washer 1 3 3
Dishwasher 1 2 2
Lavatory 2 1 2
Shower (single) 1 2 2
Kitchen Sink 1 2 2
Toilet (1.6 gal per flush) 2 3 6
19 1. DFU=Drainage Fixture Units as defined in Chapter 7 of the CA Plumbing Code Source: 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code Tabe 702.1
DFU's in a Typical Single Family Residence

9.d
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 13 Fixture Type Quantity DFU (1) Total DFU
Bathtub(with or without shower) 0 2 0
Clothes Washer 0 3 0
Dishwasher 0 2 0
Lavatory 1 1 1
Shower (single) 1 2 2
Kitchen Sink 1 2 2
Toilet (1.6 gal per flush) 1 3 3
8 1. DFU=Drainage Fixture Units as defined in Chapter 7 of the CA Plumbing Code DFU's in Example ADU

9.d
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 14

3.5 Proposed 2022 Fee
A summary of the 2022 proposed fees is presented in the table below.

Commercial Strength Adjustment: Fees listed above are for residential and standard strength commercial (175 mg/l BOD and 175 mg/l TSS). Commercial discharging lower or higher strength than standard should be adjusted by multiplying the standard strength fee by the calculated strength factor. The formula for calculating strength factor is:

Strength Factor = 44%+(28%*BOD(mg/l)/175 + 28%*TSS(mg/l)/175) 4 Conclusion and Recommendations

4.1 Conclusion
BWA finds that the proposed fees follow generally accepted fee design criteria and adhere to the substantive requirements of the Government Code. The above proposed capacity fees, including an increase in the wastewater fee per meter equivalent unit and cost per drainage fixture unit, represent the most up to date and equitable distribution of cost for new development for the wastewater enterprise. The revised fee structure from cost per unit to cost per meter size will align the City’s capacity fee structure with regional standards and the City’s current water capacity fees. BWA recommends that the City adopt the proposed 2022 fees enclosed in this report by following the procedure to increase capacity fees as follows:

1. Create a nexus study to determine equitable capacity fees (Done by BWA)

2. Set date of a public hearing as required in Government Code

3. Send notice of hearing to developers if specifically requested in writing 14 days before the hearing.
2022
Cost Per 1" Meter Equivalent Unit $12,391
Cost Per Fixture Unit1 $652.16
Cost per Meter - 1" Base
1" or less (Single Family Home) $12,391
1 1/2" $24,782
2" $39,651
3" $74,346
4" $123,910
6" $247,820
8" $396,512
1 - Assumes 19 Drainage Fixture Units per 1" or less connection

9.d
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page 15

4. Hold public hearing and adopt new capacity fees via Resolution

5. Fees may become effective not less than 30 days after adoption

4.2 Future Fee Adjustments
In future years, BWA recommends that the City update its capacity fees annually by adjusting the fees by the change in the Engineering News‐Record Construction Cost Index to account for future construction cost inflation. Additionally, the City should review and consider updating its capacity fees when substantial revisions are made to anticipated capital improvement costs or to substantial changes in projected demand. In general, BWA recommends that capacity fees be independently reviewed and/or updated approximately once every five years.

9.d
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page A1 Appendix A – Supporting Tables for Wastewater Capacity
Fees

9.d
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica
– Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page A2

9.d
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges City of Pacifica
– Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page A3

9.d
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges City of Pacifica
– Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page A4

9.d
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page A5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (COST IN THOUSAND DOLLARS) PROJECT 21 -22 22 -23 23 -24 24 -25 25 -26 26 -27 27 -28 28 -29 29 -30 30 -31 31 -32 TOTALS

COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade $ 1,475 $ 590 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,065 Linda Mar Pump Station - Bar Screen Rebuild $ - $ 150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150 Linda Mar Pump Station - New Washer/Compactor $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 160 $ 160 Rockaway PS Upgrade (Formerly Rockaway PS Upgrade FY 20-21) $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 Rockaway PS - Bar Screen Rebuild $ - $ 150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150 Sharp Park Pump Station Facility Improvements Project $ 500 $ 1,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000 Sharp Park Pump Station Bar Screen Rebuild $ - $ 250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250 Sharp Park Pump Station - New Washer/Compactor $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 160 $ 160 Anza Pump Station Rebuild $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000 Sewer System Master Plan Update Phase 2 $ 20 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 90 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 110 Collection System Projects $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 1,100 Lateral Grant Assistance $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 1,100 Relocation of Sewer Mainline at SF RV Park $ - $ - $ 200 $ 2,400 $ 1,200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,800 Collection System R&R Project Lower Linda Mar 1 $ - $ - $ 492 $ 2,786 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,278 Collection System R&R Project Lower Linda Mar 2 $ - $ - $ - $ 492 $ 2,786 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,278 Collection System R&R Project Lower Linda Mar 3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 492 $ 2,786 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,278 Collection System R&R Project Fremont, Linda Mar Blvd & Catalina Av $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 210 $ 1,190 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,400 Collection System R&R Project Vallemar 1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 557 $ 3,152 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,709 Collection System R&R Project Vallemar 2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 557 $ 3,152 $ - $ - $ 3,709 Collection System R&R Project Vallemar 3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 557 $ 3,152 $ - $ 3,709 Collection System R&R Project Vallemar 4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 557 $ 3,152 $ 3,709 Collection System R&R Project Fairway Park 1 & 2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 990 $ 990 Rockaway Beach Ave (San Sewer) 1&2 $ - $ - $ 506 $ 2,863 $ 506 $ 2,863 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,738 Forcemain Condition Assessment $ - $ - $ - $ 75 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 75 Linda Mar Pump Station Jockey Pump Upgrade $ - $ 50 $ 150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200 Collection System Projects $ 3,295 $ 3,890 $ 1,548 $ 8,816 $ 5,184 $ 6,059 $ 2,037 $ 3,909 $ 3,909 $ 3,909 $ 4,662 $ 47,218 Total Collection System Projects FY 2022-27
Total Collection System Projects FY 2027-32
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (COST IN THOUSAND DOLLARS) PROJECT 21 -22 22 -23 23 -24 24 -25 25 -26 26 -27 27 -28 28 -29 29 -30 30 -31 31 -32 TOTALS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Digesters - ATAD Modification Phase 3 $ 175 $ 150 $ - $ - $ 100 $ - $ - $ 100 $ - $ - $ 100 $ 625 CCWRP Pump Replacement $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 550 CCWRP Centrifuges $ 25 $ 50 $ - $ - $ - $ 250 $ - $ - $ - $ 250 $ - $ 575 CCWRP SCADA and PLC Upgrade $ 200 $ 400 $ 400 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000 Calera Creek and Wetlands Maintenance $ 75 $ - $ 30 $ - $ 30 $ - $ - $ 30 $ - $ 30 $ - $ 195 CCWRP Parking Lot Restoration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 CCWRP Roof Improvements $ - $ 200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200 CCWRP Laboratory Room Improvement $ 25 $ - $ - $ - $ 25 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25 $ - $ 75 CCWRP Security & Gate System $ 70 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 70 CCWRP Blower Replacement $ 30 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 530 San Pedro Creek & Pacifica State Beach TMDL, BMP, Monitoring Plan $ 10 $ 10 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20 CCWRP Arc Flash Hazard Analysis $ 65 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 65 CCWRP R&R Project $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 550 CCWRP R&R Project - Transformer Upgrade $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CCWRP R&R Project - Grit Classifier Upgrade $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CCWRP R&R Project - Sand Filter Upgrade $ 170 $ 150 $ - $ - $ 750 $ 750 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,820 Ultraviolet Disinfection System Upgrade $ 122 $ 3,760 $ 2,980 $ 4,570 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,432 CCWRP Photovoltaic System Improvement Project $ 280 $ 100 $ 1,100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,480 CCWRP Process Optimization Projects $ 50 $ 100 $ - $ - $ 100 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 550 Sewer Rate Study for FY 2022-2027 $ 20 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 50 $ 20 $ - $ - $ - $ 50 $ 140 CCWRP R&R Project - Drain Pump Station Piping Replacement $ 40 $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 140 CCWRP R&R Project - Plant Effluent Pipe Line Spot Repair $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 CCWRP Electrical Condition Assessment and Improvements $ 50 $ 100 $ 750 $ 750 $ 750 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,400 CCWRP Environmental Compliance Project $ 50 $ - $ - $ - $ 50 $ - $ - $ - $ 50 $ - $ - $ 150 CCWRP Admin Building Elevator Assessement $ 40 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 140 CCWRP Headworks Feasibility and Improvements $ 50 $ 100 $ 300 $ - $ 1,500 $ 3,500 $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,450 CCWRP Vehicle Storage and Office Facility $ 17 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 400 $ 4,000 $ - $ 4,417 CCWRP Projects $ 1,764 $ 5,170 $ 4,810 $ 6,570 $ 3,555 $ 4,850 $ 5,220 $ 330 $ 650 $ 4,505 $ 350 $ 37,774 Total Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects FY 2022-27
Total Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects FY 2027-32
Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects $ 5,059 $ 9,060 $ 6,358 $ 15,386 $ 8,739 $ 10,909 $ 7,257 $ 4,239 $ 4,559 $ 8,414 $ 5,012 llection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects FY 2022-27 llection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects FY 2027-32 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (COST IN THOUSAND DOLLARS) PROJECT 21 -22 22 -23 23 -24 24 -25 25 -26 26 -27 27 -28 28 -29 29 -30 30 -31 31 -32 TOTALS OTHER
540 Crespi Drive Tree Replacement $ 10 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10 Beach Blvd Infrastructure Resilency Project $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 40,000 Other Wastewater Projects $ 10 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 40,010 Total Wastewater Other Projects FY 2022-27
Total Wastewater Other Projects FY 2027-32
$ 10,000
$ 30,000
$ 50,452
$ 29,481
$ 25,497
$ 18,426
$ 24,955
$ 11,055

9.d
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page A6 DESCRIPTION #YEARS

ENR CCI
(yearly average)

LATEST ENR
(May 2021)
% INCREASE FROM

ACQUISITION DATE ORIGINAL COST

PRESENT VALUE
AS OF May 2021
Depreciation As
of 2021

DEPRECIATION

PRESENT VALUE
AS OF May
2021)
RCNLD
AS OF May
2021
USEFUL
LIFE
LAND
FY 95-96 1995 26 5,471 11,990 119% $4,014,412 $8,797,741 $0 $0 $8,797,741 TOTAL LAND $4,014,412 $8,797,741 $0 $0 $8,797,741

COLLECTION SYSTEM

ANZA PUMP STATION
FY 85-86 1985 36 4,195 11,990 186% $28,364 $81,068 $28,364 $81,068 $0 20 FY 86-87 1986 35 4,295 11,990 179% $88,600 $247,336 $88,600 $247,336 $0 20 FY 87-88 1987 34 4,406 11,990 172% $22,544 $61,348 $22,544 $61,348 $0 20 FY 88-89 1988 33 4,519 11,990 165% $1,455 $3,860 $1,455 $3,860 $0 20 FY 95-96 1995 26 5,471 11,990 119% $6,350 $13,916 $6,350 $13,916 $0 20 FY 96-97 1996 25 5,620 11,990 113% $3,885 $8,288 $3,885 $8,288 $0 20 FY 03-04 2003 18 6,694 11,990 79% $10,048 $17,997 $9,043 $16,198 $1,800 20 FY 04-05 2004 17 7,115 11,990 69% $108,092 $182,152 $91,878 $154,829 $27,323 20 FY 05-06 2005 16 7,446 11,990 61% $5,988 $9,642 $4,790 $7,714 $1,928 20 FY 06-07 2006 15 7,751 11,990 55% $8,351 $12,918 $6,263 $9,689 $3,230 20 FY 07-08 2007 14 7,966 11,990 51% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20
FY 08-09 2008 13 8,310 11,990 44% $1,739 $2,509 $1,130 $1,631 $878 20 FY 09-10 2009 12 8,570 11,990 40% $8,827 $12,349 $5,296 $7,410 $4,940 20 FY 10-11 2010 11 8,799 11,990 36% $2,679 $3,651 $1,473 $2,008 $1,643 20 FY 11-12 2011 10 9,070 11,990 32% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20
FY 12-13 2012 9 9,308 11,990 29% $8,249 $10,626 $3,712 $4,782 $5,844 20

ROCKAWAY PUMP STATION
FY 85-86 1985 36 4,195 11,990 186% $1,158 $3,310 $1,158 $3,310 $0 20 FY 87-88 1987 34 4,406 11,990 172% $12,145 $33,050 $12,145 $33,050 $0 20 FY 88-89 1988 33 4,519 11,990 165% $27,286 $72,396 $27,286 $72,396 $0 20 FY 96-97 1996 25 5,620 11,990 113% $8,588 $18,322 $8,588 $18,322 $0 20 FY 97-98 1997 24 5,826 11,990 106% $80 $165 $80 $165 $0 20 FY 02-03 2002 19 6,538 11,990 83% $9,063 $16,620 $8,610 $15,789 $831 20 FY 03-04 2003 18 6,694 11,990 79% $11,762 $21,067 $10,586 $18,961 $2,107 20 FY 04-05 2004 17 7,115 11,990 69% $173 $292 $147 $248 $44 20 FY 05-06 2005 16 7,446 11,990 61% $13,959 $22,477 $11,167 $17,982 $4,495 20 FY 06-07 2006 15 7,751 11,990 55% $28,623 $44,277 $21,467 $33,207 $11,069 20 FY 07-08 2007 14 7,966 11,990 51% $1,874 $2,821 $1,312 $1,974 $846 20 FY 08-09 2008 13 8,310 11,990 44% $2,824 $4,075 $1,836 $2,648 $1,426 20 FY 09-10 2009 12 8,570 11,990 40% $1,882 $2,633 $1,129 $1,580 $1,053 20 FY 10-11 2010 11 8,799 11,990 36% $5,388 $7,342 $2,963 $4,038 $3,304 20 FY 11-12 2011 10 9,070 11,990 32% $22,365 $29,565 $11,183 $14,782 $14,782 20 FY 13-14 2013 8 9,547 11,990 26% $601 $755 $240 $302 $453 20 FY 18-19 2018 3 11,062 11,990 8% $57,877 $62,732 $8,682 $9,410 $53,322 20

FAIRWAY PUMP STATION

SHARP PARK PUMP STATION
FY 01-02 2001 20 6,343 11,990 89% $182,969 $345,859 $182,969 $345,859 $0 20 FY 02-03 2002 19 6,538 11,990 83% $163,873 $300,523 $155,679 $285,497 $15,026 20 FY 03-04 2003 18 6,694 11,990 79% $9,630 $17,249 $8,667 $15,524 $1,725 20 FY 05-06 2005 16 7,446 11,990 61% $2,448 $3,942 $1,958 $3,154 $788 20 FY 06-07 2006 15 7,751 11,990 55% $79,214 $122,535 $59,411 $91,901 $30,634 20 FY 07-08 2007 14 7,966 11,990 51% $64,958 $97,771 $45,471 $68,439 $29,331 20 FY 08-09 2008 13 8,310 11,990 44% $19,680 $28,395 $12,792 $18,457 $9,938 20 FY 09-10 2009 12 8,570 11,990 40% $4,584 $6,413 $2,750 $3,848 $2,565 20 FY 10-11 2010 11 8,799 11,990 36% $99,523 $135,614 $54,738 $74,588 $61,027 20 FY 11-12 2011 10 9,070 11,990 32% $13,010 $17,198 $6,505 $8,599 $8,599 20 FY 12-13 2012 9 9,308 11,990 29% $77,669 $100,048 $34,951 $45,021 $55,026 20 FY 15-16 2015 6 10,035 11,990 19% $21,214 $25,347 $6,364 $7,604 $17,743 20 FY 16-17 2016 5 10,338 11,990 16% $37,227 $43,176 $9,307 $10,794 $32,382 20 FY 17-18 2017 4 10,737 11,990 12% $65,689 $73,355 $13,138 $14,671 $58,684 20

WASTEWATER ASSETS

9.d
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page A7 DESCRIPTION #YEARS

ENR CCI
(yearly average)

LATEST ENR
(May 2021)
% INCREASE FROM

ACQUISITION DATE ORIGINAL COST

PRESENT VALUE
AS OF May 2021
Depreciation As
of 2021

DEPRECIATION

PRESENT VALUE
AS OF May
2021)
RCNLD
AS OF May
2021
USEFUL
LIFE

SKYRIDGE PUMP STATION
FY 10-11 2010 11 8,799 11,990 36% $16,201 $22,076 $8,911 $12,142 $9,934 20 FY 11-12 2011 10 9,070 11,990 32% $9,755 $12,895 $4,878 $6,448 $6,448 20 FY 15-16 2015 6 10,035 11,990 19% $28,680 $34,267 $8,604 $10,280 $23,987 20 FY 18-19 2018 3 11,062 11,990 8% $24,262 $26,297 $3,639 $3,945 $22,352 20

BRIGHTON PUMP STATION
FY 85-86 1985 36 4,195 11,990 186% $2,276 $6,505 $2,276 $6,505 $0 20 FY 96-97 1996 25 5,620 11,990 113% $5,412 $11,546 $5,412 $11,546 $0 20 FY 05-06 2005 16 7,446 11,990 61% $8,127 $13,086 $6,502 $10,469 $2,617 20 FY 06-07 2006 15 7,751 11,990 55% $3,738 $5,782 $2,804 $4,337 $1,446 20 FY 07-08 2007 14 7,966 11,990 51% $998 $1,502 $699 $1,051 $451 20 FY 08-09 2008 13 8,310 11,990 44% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20
FY 09-10 2009 12 8,570 11,990 40% $7,709 $10,785 $4,625 $6,471 $4,314 20 FY 10-11 2010 11 8,799 11,990 36% $20,886 $28,460 $11,487 $15,653 $12,807 20 FY 11-12 2011 10 9,070 11,990 32% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20
FY 12-13 2012 9 9,308 11,990 29% $6,926 $8,922 $3,117 $4,015 $4,907 20 FY 13-14 2013 8 9,547 11,990 26% $8,913 $11,194 $3,565 $4,477 $6,716 20 FY 17-18 2017 4 10,737 11,990 12% $77,924 $87,018 $15,585 $17,404 $69,614 20 FY 18-19 2018 3 11,062 11,990 8% $18,378 $19,919 $2,757 $2,988 $16,931 20

GENERAL COLLECTION SYSTEM
FY 98-99 1998 23 5,920 11,990 103% $57,075 $115,595 $57,075 $115,595 $0 20 FY 01-02 2001 20 6,343 11,990 89% $9,598 $18,143 $9,598 $18,143 $0 20 FY 02-03 2002 19 6,538 11,990 83% $263,855 $483,879 $250,662 $459,685 $24,194 20 FY 03-04 2003 18 6,694 11,990 79% $20,650 $36,987 $18,585 $33,288 $3,699 20 FY 04-05 2004 17 7,115 11,990 69% $21,834 $36,794 $18,559 $31,275 $5,519 20 FY 05-06 2005 16 7,446 11,990 61% $83,112 $133,831 $66,490 $107,065 $26,766 20 FY 06-07 2006 15 7,751 11,990 55% $391,239 $605,202 $293,429 $453,901 $151,300 20 FY 07-08 2007 14 7,966 11,990 51% $29,548 $44,474 $20,684 $31,132 $13,342 20 FY 08-09 2008 13 8,310 11,990 44% $31,025 $44,764 $20,166 $29,096 $15,667 20 FY 09-10 2009 12 8,570 11,990 40% $547,346 $765,768 $328,408 $459,461 $306,307 20 FY 10-11 2010 11 8,799 11,990 36% $932,293 $1,270,384 $512,761 $698,711 $571,673 20 FY 11-12 2011 10 9,070 11,990 32% $889,766 $1,176,209 $444,883 $588,104 $588,104 20 FY 12-13 2012 9 9,308 11,990 29% $398,660 $513,526 $179,397 $231,087 $282,439 20 FY 13-14 2013 8 9,547 11,990 26% $2,153,962 $2,705,123 $861,585 $1,082,049 $1,623,074 20 FY 14-15 2014 7 9,806 11,990 22% $997,923 $1,220,172 $349,273 $427,060 $793,112 20 FY 15-16 2015 6 10,035 11,990 19% $252,540 $301,737 $75,762 $90,521 $211,216 20 FY 16-17 2016 5 10,338 11,990 16% $176,830 $205,086 $44,207 $51,271 $153,814 20 FY 17-18 2017 4 10,737 11,990 12% $3,742,457 $4,179,168 $748,491 $835,834 $3,343,334 20 FY 18-19 2018 3 11,062 11,990 8% $3,439,136 $3,727,620 $515,870 $559,143 $3,168,477 20

LINDA MAR FORCE MAIN
FY 97-98 1997 24 5,826 11,990 106% $200,674 $412,987 $200,674 $412,987 $0 20 FY 98-99 1998 23 5,920 11,990 103% $127,227 $257,676 $127,227 $257,676 $0 20 FY 99-00 1999 22 6,059 11,990 98% $78,852 $156,037 $78,852 $156,037 $0 20 FY 01-02 2001 20 6,343 11,990 89% $254,893 $481,813 $254,893 $481,813 $0 20

WASTEWATER ASSETS

9.d
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page A8 DESCRIPTION #YEARS

ENR CCI
(yearly average)

LATEST ENR
(May 2021)
% INCREASE FROM

ACQUISITION DATE ORIGINAL COST

PRESENT VALUE
AS OF May 2021
Depreciation As
of 2021

DEPRECIATION

PRESENT VALUE
AS OF May
2021)
RCNLD
AS OF May
2021
USEFUL
LIFE

LINDA MAR PUMP STATION
FY 85-86 1985 36 4,195 11,990 186% $17,378 $49,669 $17,378 $49,669 $0 20 FY 86-87 1986 35 4,295 11,990 179% $77,843 $217,306 $77,843 $217,306 $0 20 FY 87-88 1987 34 4,406 11,990 172% $931 $2,534 $931 $2,534 $0 20 FY 88-89 1988 33 4,519 11,990 165% $86,859 $230,456 $86,859 $230,456 $0 20 FY 90-91 1990 31 4,732 11,990 153% $1,096 $2,777 $1,096 $2,777 $0 20 FY 91-92 1991 30 4,835 11,990 148% $8,388 $20,801 $8,388 $20,801 $0 20 FY 92-93 1992 29 4,985 11,990 141% $119,516 $287,460 $119,516 $287,460 $0 20 FY 93-94 1993 28 5,210 11,990 130% $86,988 $200,188 $86,988 $200,188 $0 20 FY 95-96 1995 26 5,471 11,990 119% $28,188 $61,775 $28,188 $61,775 $0 20 FY 96-97 1996 25 5,620 11,990 113% $11,580 $24,705 $11,580 $24,705 $0 20 FY 00-01 2000 21 6,221 11,990 93% $9,650 $18,599 $9,650 $18,599 $0 20 FY 02-03 2002 19 6,538 11,990 83% $585,202 $1,073,190 $555,942 $1,019,531 $53,660 20 FY 03-04 2003 18 6,694 11,990 79% $13,141 $23,537 $11,827 $21,184 $2,354 20 FY 04-05 2004 17 7,115 11,990 69% $33,124 $55,819 $28,155 $47,446 $8,373 20 FY 05-06 2005 16 7,446 11,990 61% $1,275 $2,053 $1,020 $1,642 $411 20 FY 06-07 2006 15 7,751 11,990 55% $36,694 $56,761 $27,521 $42,571 $14,190 20 FY 07-08 2007 14 7,966 11,990 51% $32,656 $49,152 $22,859 $34,406 $14,746 20 FY 08-09 2008 13 8,310 11,990 44% $34,738 $50,121 $22,580 $32,579 $17,542 20 FY 09-10 2009 12 8,570 11,990 40% $84,127 $117,698 $50,476 $70,619 $47,079 20 FY 10-11 2010 11 8,799 11,990 36% $363,699 $495,592 $200,034 $272,576 $223,017 20 FY 11-12 2011 10 9,070 11,990 32% $12,585 $16,636 $6,293 $8,318 $8,318 20 FY 12-13 2012 9 9,308 11,990 29% $141,601 $182,400 $63,720 $82,080 $100,320 20 FY 13-14 2013 8 9,547 11,990 26% $290,443 $364,762 $116,177 $145,905 $218,857 20 FY 14-15 2014 7 9,806 11,990 22% $648,202 $792,565 $226,871 $277,398 $515,167 20 FY 15-16 2015 6 10,035 11,990 19% $21,214 $25,347 $6,364 $7,604 $17,743 20 FY 16-17 2016 5 10,338 11,990 16% $87,708 $101,723 $21,927 $25,431 $76,292 20 FY 17-18 2017 4 10,737 11,990 12% $46,987 $52,470 $9,397 $10,494 $41,976 20 FY 18-19 2018 3 11,062 11,990 8% $56,312 $61,036 $8,447 $9,155 $51,881 20 TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM $19,631,313 $26,157,346 $8,388,482 $12,816,071 $13,341,274

CALERA CREEK PLANT
FY 95-96 1995 26 5,471 11,990 119% $3,470,294 $7,605,285 $3,007,588 $6,591,247 $1,014,038 30 FY 96-97 1996 25 5,620 11,990 113% $6,278,969 $13,395,778 $5,232,474 $11,163,148 $2,232,630 30 FY 96-97 1996 25 5,620 11,990 113% $131,811 $281,210 $109,842 $234,341 $46,868 30 FY 97-98 1997 24 5,826 11,990 106% $20,358,392 $41,897,578 $16,286,714 $33,518,062 $8,379,516 30 FY 98-99 1998 23 5,920 11,990 103% $13,566,368 $27,476,272 $10,400,882 $21,065,142 $6,411,130 30 FY 99-00 1999 22 6,059 11,990 98% $3,071,885 $6,078,829 $2,252,716 $4,457,808 $1,621,021 30 FY 00-01 2000 21 6,221 11,990 93% $2,573,405 $4,959,796 $1,801,383 $3,471,857 $1,487,939 30 FY 01-02 2001 20 6,343 11,990 89% $316,253 $597,800 $210,835 $398,533 $199,267 30 FY 02-03 2002 19 6,538 11,990 83% $668,468 $1,225,890 $423,363 $776,397 $449,493 30 FY 03-04 2003 18 6,694 11,990 79% $91,583 $164,038 $54,950 $98,423 $65,615 30 FY 04-05 2004 17 7,115 11,990 69% $548,108 $923,649 $310,595 $523,401 $400,248 30 FY 05-06 2005 16 7,446 11,990 61% $2,191,599 $3,529,019 $1,168,853 $1,882,143 $1,646,875 30 FY 06-07 2006 15 7,751 11,990 55% $694,783 $1,074,750 $347,392 $537,375 $537,375 30 FY 07-08 2007 14 7,966 11,990 51% $617,475 $929,384 $288,155 $433,712 $495,671 30 FY 08-09 2008 13 8,310 11,990 44% $239,040 $344,894 $103,584 $149,454 $195,440 30 FY 09-10 2009 12 8,570 11,990 40% $162,007 $226,657 $64,803 $90,663 $135,994 30 FY 10-11 2010 11 8,799 11,990 36% $127,867 $174,237 $46,885 $63,887 $110,350 30 FY 11-12 2011 10 9,070 11,990 32% $466,421 $616,576 $155,474 $205,525 $411,051 30 FY 12-13 2012 9 9,308 11,990 29% $401,797 $517,567 $120,539 $155,270 $362,297 30 FY 13-14 2013 8 9,547 11,990 26% $104,835 $131,660 $27,956 $35,109 $96,551 30 FY 14-15 2014 7 9,806 11,990 22% $119,550 $146,175 $27,895 $34,108 $112,068 30 FY 15-16 2015 6 10,035 11,990 19% $442,687 $528,927 $88,537 $105,785 $423,142 30 FY 16-17 2016 5 10,338 11,990 16% $58,877 $68,285 $9,813 $11,381 $56,904 30 FY 17-18 2017 4 10,737 11,990 12% $56,187 $62,744 $7,492 $8,366 $54,378 30 FY 18-19 2018 3 11,062 11,990 8% $52,749 $57,174 $5,275 $5,717 $51,456 30 TOTAL CALERA CREEK PLANT $56,811,409 $113,014,173 $42,553,993 $86,016,857 $26,997,316

WASTEWATER ASSETS

9.d
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page B1 Appendix B – Government Code Pertaining to Capacity Fees

9.d
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page B2 California Government Code
Key Sections Pertaining to Water & Wastewater Capacity Fees Sections 66013, 66016, & 66022
66013
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency imposes fees for water connections or sewer connections, or imposes capacity charges, those fees or charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee or charge imposed in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue. (b) As used in this section:
(1) “Sewer connection” means the connection of a structure or project to a public sewer system.
(2) “Water connection” means the connection of a structure or project to a public water system, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 116275 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) “Capacity charge” means a charge for public facilities in existence at the time a charge is imposed or charges for new public facilities to be acquired or constructed in the future that are of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged, including supply or capacity contracts for rights or entitlements, real property interests, and entitlements and other rights of the local agency involving capital expense relating to its use of existing or new public facilities. A “capacity charge” does not include a commodity charge. (4) “Local agency” means a local agency as defined in Section 66000. (5) “Fee” means a fee for the physical facilities necessary to make a water connection or sewer connection, including, but not limited to, meters, meter boxes, and pipelines from the structure or project to a water distribution line or sewer main, and that does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of labor and materials for installation of those facilities. (6) “Public facilities” means public facilities as defined in Section 66000. (c) A local agency receiving payment of a charge as specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) shall deposit it in a separate capital facilities fund with other charges received, and account for the charges in a manner to avoid any commingling with other moneys of the local agency, except for investments, and shall expend those charges solely for the purposes for which the

9.d
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page B3 charges were collected. Any interest income earned from the investment of moneys in the capital facilities fund shall be deposited in that fund. (d) For a fund established pursuant to subdivision (c), a local agency shall make available to the public, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, the following information for that fiscal year:
(1) A description of the charges deposited in the fund. (2) The beginning and ending balance of the fund and the interest earned from investment of moneys in the fund.
(3) The amount of charges collected in that fiscal year. (4) An identification of all of the following:
(A) Each public improvement on which charges were expended and the amount of the expenditure for each improvement, including the percentage of the total cost of the public improvement that was funded with those charges if more than one source of funding was used.
(B) Each public improvement on which charges were expended that was completed during that fiscal year.
(C) Each public improvement that is anticipated to be undertaken in the following fiscal year.
(5) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the capital facilities fund. The information provided, in the case of an interfund transfer, shall identify the public improvements on which the transferred moneys are, or will be, expended. The information, in the case of an interfund loan, shall include the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the fund will receive on the loan. (e) The information required pursuant to subdivision (d) may be included in the local agency’s annual financial report.
(f) The provisions of subdivisions (c) and (d) shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Moneys received to construct public facilities pursuant to a contract between a local agency and a person or entity, including, but not limited to, a reimbursement agreement pursuant to Section 66003.

9.d
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page B4 (2) Charges that are used to pay existing debt service or which are subject to a contract with a trustee for bondholders that requires a different accounting of the charges, or charges that are used to reimburse the local agency or to reimburse a person or entity who advanced funds under a reimbursement agreement or contract for facilities in existence at the time the charges are collected.
(3) Charges collected on or before December 31, 1998.
(g) Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the ordinance, resolution, or motion imposing a fee or capacity charge subject to this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 66022.
(h) Fees and charges subject to this section are not subject to the provisions of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000), but are subject to the provisions of Sections 66016, 66022, and 66023.
(i) The provisions of subdivisions (c) and (d) shall only apply to capacity charges levied pursuant to this section.
(Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 94, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2008.) 66016
(a) Prior to levying a new fee or service charge, or prior to approving an increase in an existing fee or service charge, a local agency shall hold at least one open and public meeting, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement that the data required by this section is available, shall be mailed at least 14 days prior to the meeting to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of the meeting on new or increased fees or service charges.

Any written request for mailed notices shall be valid for one year from the date on which it is filed unless a renewal request is filed. Renewal requests for mailed notices shall be filed on or before April 1 of each year. The legislative body may establish a reasonable annual charge for sending notices based on the estimated cost of providing the service. At least 10 days prior to the meeting, the local agency shall make available to the public data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied, and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including General Fund revenues. Unless there has been voter approval, as prescribed by Section 66013 or 66014, no local agency shall levy a new fee or service charge or increase an existing fee or service charge to an amount which exceeds the estimated amount required to provide the service for which

9.d
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page B5 the fee or service charge is levied. If, however, the fees or service charges create revenues in excess of actual cost, those revenues shall be used to reduce the fee or service charge creating the excess.
(b) Any action by a local agency to levy a new fee or service charge or to approve an increase in an existing fee or service charge shall be taken only by ordinance or resolution. The legislative body of a local agency shall not delegate the authority to adopt a new fee or service charge, or to increase a fee or service charge.
(c) Any costs incurred by a local agency in conducting the meeting or meetings required pursuant to subdivision (a) may be recovered from fees charged for the services which were the subject of the meeting.
(d) This section shall apply only to fees and charges as described in Sections 51287, 56383, 65104, 65456, 65584.1, 65863.7, 65909.5, 66013, 66014, and 66451.2 of this code, Sections 17951, 19132.3, and 19852 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 41901 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 21671.5 of the Public Utilities Code. (e) Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the ordinance, resolution, or motion levying a fee or service charge subject to this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 66022.
(Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 643, Sec. 19. Effective January 1, 2007.) 66022
(a) Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting a new fee or service charge, or modifying or amending an existing fee or service charge, adopted by a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance, resolution, or motion.

If an ordinance, resolution, or motion provides for an automatic adjustment in a fee or service charge, and the automatic adjustment results in an increase in the amount of a fee or service charge, any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the increase shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the increase. (b)Any action by a local agency or interested person under this section shall be brought pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

9.d
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges) City of Pacifica – Wastewater Capacity Fee Report Page B6 (c) This section shall apply only to fees, capacity charges, and service charges described in and subject to Sections 66013, 66014, and 66016.
(Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 643, Sec. 20. Effective January 1, 2007.

9.d
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment4 - Pacifica Wastewater Capacity Fee Report (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges)

NOTICE OF HEARING

ON PROPOSED ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE

PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODES
CHAPTER 6 of TITLE 6 – SEWER CHARGES
AND
CHAPTER 11 of TITLE 6 – SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Pacifica will conduct a public hearing on Monday, May 9, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 2212 Beach Boulevard, Pacifica, to consider the following:

Approval of the Sewer Service Charges for Fiscal Years 2022-2027 and the Wastewater Capacity Fee for the City of Pacifica.

Capacity fees are the one-time fee property developers pay to connect to the City’s wastewater system. The City’s current fee was adopted in 1974 and has been escalated annually by inflation.

Bartle Wells Associates (“BWA”) updated the City’s wastewater capacity fees with the goals of developing fees that recover the full cost of wastewater system infrastructure assets and planned facilities expenditures that benefit new or expanded development to help ensure that growth pays its own way.

The proposed sewer rate revisions and wastewater capacity fee that will be considered by the City Council are based on a sewer rate study (“Rate Study”) and a wastewater capacity fee study (“Capacity Fee”) conducted by BWA which are available on the City’s website. (https://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/pw/wwt/wastewater_rate_study.asp) Below are the links to the Pacifica Municipal Code regarding the current Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges:
https://library.municode.com/ca/pacifica/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT6SAHE_CH6SECH https://library.municode.com/ca/pacifica/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT6SAHE_CH11SECOCH You are invited to present oral or written testimony to the City Council at the public hearing on May 9, 2022 on both sewer service charges and the proposed wastewater capacity fee. Related to sewer service charges only: You may present the City Clerk with a written protest against the proposed sewer service charges, either in person or by mail, prior to the close of the public hearing. A written protest related to the sewer service charges must (1) identify the affected property either by address, Assessor’s Parcel Number, or customer account number; (2) include the original signature and name of the record owner or customer submitting the protest; and (3) indicate opposition to the proposed sewer service charges. Only protests received by mail or in person prior to the close of the public hearing will be counted as a protest towards the sewer service charges. If written protests against the sewer service charges are presented by a majority of parcels subject to the charges, then the City Council will not impose the proposed sewer service charges.

ATTACHMENT 5 9.e
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment5 - Sewer Rate and Capacity Fee Public Hearing Notice (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection The City of Pacifica will provide special assistance for disabled citizens upon at least 24-hour advance notice to the City Manager’s office (650-738-7306). If you need sign language assistance or written material printed in a larger font or taped, advance notice is necessary.

If you have any questions about the proposed rates and capacity fees, or would like to review the BWA studies, please feel free to contact Maria Aguilar at (650) 738-4660 or go to the City’s website noted above.

9.e
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment5 - Sewer Rate and Capacity Fee Public Hearing Notice (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22,
1957
MAYOR
CITY OF PACIFICA Mary Bier
540 Crespi Drive • Pacifica, California 94044
www.cityofpacifica.org

MAYOR PRO TEM
Tygarjas Bigstyck

COUNCIL
City of Pacifica Sue
Beckmeyer
Mike O’Neill
Notice of Public Hearing – New Date Sue Vaterlaus

PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that at 7:00 PM on May 9, 2022, in the Council Chambers located at 2212 Beach Boulevard, Pacifica, CA 94044, the City Council of the City of Pacifica (“City”) will hold a public hearing to consider revisions to itssewerservice chargesthat will be effective beginning fiscal year 2022-2023.

The City anticipates that the public hearing will be conducted in-person at Council Chamber at the address listed above. However, if the City Council has stopped in-person meetings due to conditions relating to COVID-19, then the hearing will be conducted via teleconference. Anyone wishing to attend the hearing should confirm the location by reviewing the Agenda for the May 9, 2022 Council meeting, which shall be published 72 hours prior to the meeting.

If approved, you will see the sewer service charges appear at the new rate on your property tax bills issued later in 2022. The sewer service charge is a usage fee, charged for ongoing sewer services, and is placed on the property tax bills annually and collected by the County Controller’s Office.

The City imposes its sewer service charges to fund the City’s costs of operating and maintaining the sewer collection and sewage treatment systems and sewer related consumer price index (CPI) increases, capital improvement projects, as well as to pay debt service used to finance the construction/support of the infrastructure. Sewer service charge proceeds may not be used by the City for any other purpose. The proposed revisions to the sewer service charges were calculated to ensure that all sewer users are paying rates that are proportionate to each user’s costs of service. The proposed rate revisions that will be considered by the City Council (described briefly below) are based on a wastewater rate study (“Study”) conducted by Bartle Wells Associates (“BWA”). The Study is available on the City’s website. (https://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/pw/wwt/wastewater_rate_study.asp)

YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO GET INVOLVED
You are invited to present oral or written testimony to the City Council at the public hearing on May 9, 2022.

You may also present the City Clerk with a written protest against the proposed charges, either in person or by mail, prior to the close of the public hearing. A written protest must (1) identify the affected property either by address, Assessor’s Parcel Number, or customer account number; (2) include the original signature and name of the record owner or customer submitting the protest; and (3) indicate opposition to the proposed sewer rates.

Only protests received by mail or in person prior to the close of the public hearing will be counted. If written protests against the proposed charges are presented by a majority of parcels subject to the charges, then the City Council will not impose the proposed charges.

You are hereby notified, pursuant to Government Code, section 53759, that any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review,set aside, void, validate, or annul the City Council’s adoption of the proposed sewer rates must be commenced within 120 days of the effective date or of the date of the final passage, adoption, or approval of the ordinance or resolution adopting the sewer rates.

ATTACHMENT 6

9.f
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment6 -Sewer Rate Public Hearing NoticeUpdated (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges)

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHARGES
Current
Maximum Proposed Rate
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27
Percent Increase 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%
Rate* $18.81373 $19.47221 $20.15374 $20.85912 $21.58919 $22.34481 Minimum Annual Rate $903.06 $934.67 $967.38 $1,001.24 $1,036.28 $1,072.55 *Rate per 100 cubic feet of estimated water consumption.

The proposed sewer rate increases are necessary to address the City’s increased capital improvement and operating costs, including, without limitation, replacement of old Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) equipment as the CCWRP is over 21 years old, and increasing projects addressing stormwater/groundwater infiltrating into the older collection piping system causing increased water treatment costs and the possibility of sanitary system overflows.

The sewer service rates are based on water consumption. The formula used by the City for residential customers is designed to exclude water consumption that does not involve the sewer system, such as light landscaping.

Most non-residential customers are charged using their actual annual water consumption. The calculation for the proposed sewer rates is based on the analysis set forth in the BWA Study.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Method for Estimating Consumption. Generally, for residential and commercial users, the water consumption estimate for a user shall be that user’s total annual water consumption from March 1 of the previous year to February 28th of the current year. This twelve (12) month period is known as the “billing year.” Residential Users. The method for estimating water consumption for single-family and multi-family residences is to multiply total water consumption during the billing year by 90% (0.90). This method has been in-placed since FY 2017-18 to account for light irrigation use.

Users with substantial irrigation requirements. Any non-residential user with substantial irrigation requirements may be able to apply to have his or her flow estimate recalculated based on criterion in City Municipal Code Section 6-6.407. Applications submitted will be subject to the procedures and requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code.

Users with multiple meters. If a user has more than one water meter at a service location, and one or more of those meters measures only water used for landscaping purposes, the meter usage for landscaping purposes will be excluded.

Schools with mixed water use. Schools with mixed water use (drinking water and irrigation) may apply to have their flow estimate calculated as six (6) times the average consumption of the following bimonthly periods: (i) March and April, (ii) May and June, (iii) ½ billed during November and December, and (iv) January and February.

Strength Multipliers.

Estimated water consumption of certain non-residential sewer users, such as restaurants, laundromats and car washes, is multiplied by a “strength multiplier” that takes into account additional costs associated with certain types of effluent.

Car Washes, 0.9 Gymnasiums, 0.9 Restaurants w/o functioning grease traps, 1.8 Cleaners, 1.2 Laundromats, 0.75 Restaurants with functioning grease traps, 1.6 All Others, 1.0 If you have any questions about the proposed rates, or would like to review the BWA rate study, please feel free to contact Maria Aguilar at (650) 738-4660 or go to the City’s website https://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/pw/wwt/wastewater_rate_study.asp

9.f
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment6 -Sewer Rate Public Hearing NoticeUpdated (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges)

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (COST IN THOUSAND DOLLARS) PROJECT 21 -22 22 -23 23 -24 24 -25 25 -26 26 -27 27 -28 28 -29 29 -30 30 -31 31 -32 TOTALS

COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade $ 1,475 $ 590 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,065 Linda Mar Pump Station - Bar Screen Rebuild $ - $ 150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150 Linda Mar Pump Station - New Washer/Compactor $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 160 $ 160 Rockaway PS Upgrade (Formerly Rockaway PS Upgrade FY 20-21) $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 Rockaway PS - Bar Screen Rebuild $ - $ 150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150 Sharp Park Pump Station Facility Improvements Project $ 500 $ 1,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000 Sharp Park Pump Station Bar Screen Rebuild $ - $ 250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250 Sharp Park Pump Station - New Washer/Compactor $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 160 $ 160 Anza Pump Station Rebuild $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000 Sewer System Master Plan Update Phase 2 $ 20 - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 90 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 110 Collection System Projects $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 1,100 Lateral Grant Assistance $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 1,100 Relocation of Sewer Mainline at SF RV Park $ - $ - $ 200 $ 2,400 $ 1,200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,800 Collection System R&R Project Lower Linda Mar 1 $ - $ - $ 492 $ 2,786 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,278 Collection System R&R Project Lower Linda Mar 2 $ - $ - $ - $ 492 $ 2,786 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,278 Collection System R&R Project Lower Linda Mar 3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 492 $ 2,786 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,278 Collection System R&R Project Fremont, Linda Mar Blvd & Catalina Ave $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 210 $ 1,190 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,400 Collection System R&R Project Vallemar 1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 557 $ 3,152 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,709 Collection System R&R Project Vallemar 2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 557 $ 3,152 $ - $ - $ 3,709 Collection System R&R Project Vallemar 3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 557 $ 3,152 $ - $ 3,709 Collection System R&R Project Vallemar 4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 557 $ 3,152 $ 3,709 Collection System R&R Project Fairway Park 1 & 2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 990 $ 990 Rockaway Beach Ave (San Sewer) 1&2 $ - $ - $ 506 $ 2,863 $ 506 $ 2,863 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,738 Forcemain Condition Assessment $ - $ - $ - $ - 75 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 75 Linda Mar Pump Station Jockey Pump Upgrade $ - $ 50 $ 150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200 Collection System Projects $ 3,295 $ 3,890 $ 1,548 $ 8,816 $ 5,184 $ 6,059 $ 2,037 $ 3,909 $ 3,909 $ 3,909 $ 4,662 $ 47,218 Total Collection System Projects FY 2022-27
Total Collection System Projects FY 2027-32

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (COST IN THOUSAND DOLLARS) PROJECT 21 -22 22 -23 23 -24 24 -25 25 -26 26 -27 27 -28 28 -29 29 -30 30 -31 31 -32 TOTALS

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Digesters - ATAD Modification Phase 3 $ 175 $ 150 $ - $ - $ 100 $ - $ - $ 100 $ - $ - $ 100 $ 625 CCWRP Pump Replacement $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 550 CCWRP Centrifuges $ 25 $ 50 - $ $ - $ - $ 250 $ - $ - $ - $ 250 $ - $ 575 CCWRP SCADA and PLC Upgrade $ 200 $ 400 $ 400 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000 Calera Creek and Wetlands Maintenance $ 75 - $ $ 30 $ - $ 30 $ - $ - $ 30 $ - $ 30 - $ $ 195 CCWRP Parking Lot Restoration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 CCWRP Roof Improvements $ - $ 200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200 CCWRP Laboratory Room Improvement $ 25 - $ $ - $ - $ 25 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 25 $ $ 75 CCWRP Security & Gate System $ 70 - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 70 CCWRP Blower Replacement $ 30 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 530 San Pedro Creek & Pacifica State Beach TMDL, BMP, Monitoring Plan $ 10 $ 10 - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20 CCWRP Arc Flash Hazard Analysis $ 65 - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 65 CCWRP R&R Project $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 550 CCWRP R&R Project - Transformer Upgrade $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CCWRP R&R Project - Grit Classifier Upgrade $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CCWRP R&R Project - Sand Filter Upgrade $ 170 $ 150 $ - $ - $ 750 $ 750 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,820 Ultraviolet Disinfection System Upgrade $ 122 $ 3,760 $ 2,980 $ 4,570 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,432 CCWRP Photovoltaic System Improvement Project $ 280 $ 100 $ 1,100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,480 CCWRP Process Optimization Projects $ 50 $ 100 $ - $ - $ 100 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 550 Sewer Rate Study for FY 2022-2027 $ 20 - $ $ - $ - $ - $ 50 $ 20 $ - $ - $ - $ 50 $ 140 CCWRP R&R Project - Drain Pump Station Piping Replacement $ 40 $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 140 CCWRP R&R Project - Plant Effluent Pipe Line Spot Repair $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 CCWRP Electrical Condition Assessment and Improvements $ 50 $ 100 $ 1,100 $ 1,150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,400 CCWRP Environmental Compliance Project $ 50 - $ $ - $ - $ 50 $ - $ - $ - $ 50 $ - $ - $ 150 CCWRP Admin Building Elevator Assessement $ 40 - $ $ - $ - $ - $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 140 CCWRP Headworks Feasibility and Improvements $ 50 $ 100 $ 300 $ - $ 1,500 $ 3,500 $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,450 CCWRP Vehicle Storage and Office Facility $ 17 - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 400 $ 4,000 $ - $ 4,417 CCWRP Projects $ 1,764 $ 5,170 $ 5,160 $ 6,970 $ 2,805 $ 4,850 $ 5,220 $ 330 $ 650 $ 4,505 $ 350 $ 37,774 Total Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects FY 2022-27
Total Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects FY 2027-32
Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects $ 5,059 $ 9,060 $ 6,708 $ 15,786 $ 7,989 $ 10,909 $ 7,257 $ 4,239 $ 4,559 $ 8,414 $ 5,012 $ 84,992 lection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects FY 2022-27 lection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects FY 2027-32

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (COST IN THOUSAND DOLLARS) PROJECT 21 -22 22 -23 23 -24 24 -25 25 -26 26 -27 27 -28 28 -29 29 -30 30 -31 31 -32 TOTALS OTHER
540 Crespi Drive Tree Replacement $ 10 - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10 Beach Blvd Infrastructure Resilency Project $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 40,000 Other Wastewater Projects $ 10 - $ $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 40,010 Total Wastewater Other Projects FY 2022-27
Total Wastewater Other Projects FY 2027-32
$ 10,000
$ 30,000
$ 25,497
$ 18,426
$ 24,955
$ 11,055
$ 50,452
$ 29,481
ATTACHMENT 3 9.g
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment7 - 10-YearCIP (4971 : Ordinance -Sewer Charges and Sewer Connection Charges)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/9/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Introduction of an Ordinance to approve Text Amendment TA-121-22, initiated by the City of Pacifica, to extend the Growth Management Ordinance codified in Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which has a current termination date of June 30, 2022. The Ordinance to be considered would affect property citywide in the A (Agricultural) zoning district and HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay zoning district. Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance by a vote of 5-0 (with two absences) on April 18, 2022.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to introduce, waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Text Amendment TA-121-22 to amend Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to extend certain provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance.”
STAFF CONTACT:

Christian Murdock, AICP, Acting Planning Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

1. Overview
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed ordinance on April 18, 2022. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (with two absences) to recommend City Council approval of Text Amendment TA-121-22 (“Proposed Ordinance”) by adopting Resolution No. 2022-008 (Attachment B). The Planning Commission agenda packet and minutes from April 18, 2022, are included as Attachment C and Attachment D, respectively. Public comments received after publication of the Planning Commission agenda packet but prior to this City Council public hearing are included as Attachment E. Public comments received after the Planning Commission public hearing but prior to publication of the City Council agenda packet are included as Attachment F.

In 1993, the voters of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 604-C.S. to add a new Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”). The ordinance is known as the City of Pacifica Growth Management Ordinance (GMO). The GMO contains three main components:

1. A requirement for voter approval of any a) rezoning out of the A (Agricultural) zoning district; b) change of the “B” Lot Size Overlay District associated with an A-zoned parcel; or, c) change to the uses or structures permitted on an A-zoned parcel.

2. A requirement for voter approval of any a) rezoning out of the HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay zoning district; or, b) change to the standards governing the HPD overlay zoning district in Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the PMC. 10 Packet Pg. 199
Pacifica City Council 2
May 09, 2022

3. A residential development allocation (RDA) process that a) establishes an annual allotment of 70 new residential units per year; b) exempts certain types of dwelling units from the requirement to obtain an RDA; and, c) imposes distribution and phasing criteria for the allocation of RDAs.

As enacted by the voters, the GMO had an initial termination date of June 30, 1997. The City Council has adopted several ordinances to extend the termination date of the GMO, most recently with the enactment of Ordinance No. 817-C.S. in 2017 to extend the GMO for five years until June 30, 2022.

The Proposed Ordinance the Planning Commission has recommended for approval by the City Council proposes extending the GMO for five years — to June 30, 2027 — and making clarifying changes so that the dates referenced in PMC Sections 9-5.07 [Agricultural land] and 9-5.08 [Hillside protection] also reflect the five-year extension. Staff proposes not making any clarifying changes to the RDA provisions specified in PMC Sec. 9-5.03 [Annual allotment], Sec. 9-5.04 [Exemptions], Sec. 9-5.05 [Allocation]; and Sec. 9-5.06 [Distribution and phasing], as these provisions are not currently enforceable under Senate Bill 330 (“SB 330”).

2. Description of Proposed Ordinance
The existing provisions of the GMO, codified in Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the PMC, are included as Attachment G with strikethrough and underline showing deletions and additions, respectively, contained in the Proposed Ordinance. As noted above, some provisions of the GMO related to the RDA process are not currently enforceable pursuant to state law. The City is currently unable to enforce these provisions due to changes in state law that took effect following the City’s last extension of the GMO in 2017. Specifically, under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (“HCA”), enacted via SB 330 in 2019, the City is prohibited from establishing or implementing any provision that “Limits the number of land use approvals or permits necessary for the approval and construction of housing that will be issued or allocated within all or a portion of the affected county or affected city…” or that “Acts as a cap on the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed either annually or for some other time period.” Government Code section 66300(b)(1)(D). For this reason, staff does not recommend making any clarifying changes to the RDA provisions at this time. This will enable the City to retain the RDA provisions for future implementation when permissible under state law, as the HCA contains a sunset date of January 1, 2034. However, until the HCA sunsets, the City will be unable to implement the RDA provisions.

Aside from the RDA provisions contained in the GMO, the Proposed Ordinance would extend the overall GMO for five years and make clarifying changes reflecting the ongoing enforceability of the voter approval requirements for changes to the A (Agricultural) and HPD (Hillside Preservation District) zoning districts by updating the dates referenced in these specific provisions (PMC Sections 9-5.07 [Agricultural land] and 9-5.08 [Hillside protection]. The new termination date established in the Proposed Ordinance would be June 30, 2027.

Overall Growth Management Ordinance Termination Date
The Proposed Ordinance would amend Section 9-5.11 of the PMC to extend the termination date of the GMO by five years to June 30, 2027.

A (Agricultural) and HPD (Hillside Preservation District) Voter Approval Requirements The Proposed Ordinance would amend Sections 9-5.07 and 9-5.08 of the PMC related to requirements for voter approval to modify A (Agricultural) and HPD (Hillside Preservation District) zoning classifications and standards, respectively, to clarify that these provisions would remain in effect through June 30, 2027.
10 Packet Pg. 200
Pacifica City Council 3
May 09, 2022

3. General Plan and Local Coastal Program Consistency
The Planning Commission found that the Proposed Ordinance, which would amend the GMO to extend it for five years, and make clarifying changes to PMC Section Sec. 9-5.07 [Agricultural land] and PMC Section 9-5.08 [Hillside protection] to reflect their continued enforceability, is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program because it would ensure the electorate has a voice in decisions concerning the sensitive hillside resources and would prevent the conversion of agriculturally-zoned lands to other land uses, consistent with General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies including but not limited to the following:

A. General Plan, Open Space Element Policy No. 1: Retain open space which preserves natural resources, protects visual amenities, prevents inappropriate development, provides for the managed use of resources, and protects the public health and safety.

B. General Plan, Open Space Element Policy No. 3: Encourage development plans which protect or provide generous open space appropriately landscaped.

Balance open space, development and public safety, particularly in the hillside areas.

C. General Plan, Community Design Element Policy No. 3: Protect the City's irreplaceable scenic and visual amenities.

D. General Plan, Community Design Element No. 4: Establish development standards that would keep open the steep slopes and visually prominent ridgelines.

E. General Plan, Linda Mar Neighborhood Narrative (p. 47): A few parcels in agricultural land use remain in the area. Those which are economically viable should be encouraged to remain.

F. Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) Policy No. 8: The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.

G. LCLUP Policy No. 19: The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in production to assure the protection of the areas' economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land uses through the following:
(a) By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas, including, where necessary, clearly defined buffer areas to minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses.
(b) By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to the land where the viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited by conflicts with urban uses and where the conversion of the lands would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the establishment of a stable limit to urban development.
(c) By developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior to the conversion of agricultural lands.
(d) By assuring that public service and facility expansions and non-agricultural 10 Packet Pg. 201
Pacifica City Council 4
May 09, 2022
development do not impair agricultural viability, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality.
(e) By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands and all development adjacent to prime agricultural lands shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural lands.

H. LCLUP Policy No. 20: All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to non-agricultural use unless:
(1) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or; (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Policy 23. Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands.

I. LCLUP Policy No. 21: The long-term productivity of soils and timberlands shall be protected, and conversions of coastal commercial timberlands in units of commercial size to other uses of their division into units of noncommercial size· shall be limited to providing for necessary timber processing and related facilities.

4. City Council’s Role
The City Council in its capacity as the legislative body of the City and in the exercise of its police power under the California Constitution is required to approve legislative actions on behalf of the City. The City Council is not bound by specific findings when approving legislative items, and may consider all information relevant to the public health, safety, and welfare of persons within the City.

Prior to adopting any legislative item, the City Council must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Compliance with CEQA requires the identification of potential significant impacts on the environment and identification of measures to mitigate any such effects. Discussion of CEQA compliance in relation to the Proposed Ordinance is contained in the following section of this report.

5. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status
Adoption of the Proposed Ordinance would be exempt from CEQA because of the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Because the Proposed Ordinance would only modify the expiration date of existing provisions codified in the PMC to maintain the status quo, and because the Proposed Ordinance would not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that Proposed Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the Proposed Ordinance is not subject to CEQA.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may choose not to introduce and adopt the Proposed Ordinance, which would result in the GMO expiring on June 30, 2022.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“Environmental Sustainability” The Proposed Ordinance would contribute to preserving hillsides in a manner consistent with this City Council Goal.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No direct fiscal impact.
10 Packet Pg. 202
Pacifica City Council 5
May 09, 2022
ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance to Extend Growth Management Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-008 (PDF) Attachment C - Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments) - April 18, 2022(PDF) Attachment D - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 18, 2022 (PDF) Attachment E - Public Comments Received After Planning Commission Agenda Publication (PDF)
Attachment F - Public Comment Received Prior to City Council Agenda Packet Publication (PDF)
Attachment G - Current Growth Management Ordinance with Redlines - PMC Title 9, Chapter 5 (PDF)
10 Packet Pg. 203
1 OAK #4870-0592-5147 v1
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING TEXT AMENDMENT TA-121-22 TO AMEND CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 9

OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXTEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE.

WHEREAS, in 1993, the voters of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 604-C.S. to add a new Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”), the City of Pacifica Growth Management Ordinance (“GMO”), with an initial termination date of June 30, 1997; and WHEREAS, the City Council has extended the GMO several times since then in five-year increments, most recently with the enactment of Ordinance No. 817-C.S. extending the GMO until June 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments contained in Text Amendment TA-121-22 on April 18, 2022, and adopted Resolution No. 2022-008 by a vote of 5-0 with two absences initiating and recommending City Council approval of the Text Amendment; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Section 9-5.11 of the PMC, the Planning Commission reviewed the GMO and determined that an extension of its termination date is appropriate and necessary to preserve the general health, safety, and welfare of the public in the City of Pacifica, and the City Council concurs with this determination of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that amendment of the GMO to extend its provisions for five years is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program because it would ensure protection of sensitive hillside resources and would prevent the premature conversion of agriculturally-zoned lands to other land uses, and the City Council concurs with this finding of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed ordinance on ____________, 2022, and introduced Ordinance No. ________ on the same date.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. CEQA Compliance. The City Council finds and declares that amendment of the GMO is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because of the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Because the GMO amendment would only modify the expiration date of existing provisions codified in the PMC to maintain the status quo, and because the GMO amendment would not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that amendment of the GMO will have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the ordinance is not subject to CEQA.

SECTION 2. Amendment. Section 9-5.07 “Agricultural land” of Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

10.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance to Extend Growth Management Ordinance (4979 : Introduce Growth Management Ordinance 2 OAK #4870-0592-5147 v1
“In order to maximize public participation in rezoning decisions concerning conversion of agriculturally zoned land to urban uses, to preserve the right of the local electorate to vote on significant zoning matters and to insure that development proposed for agricultural lands is appropriate to its unique character and importance, through June 30, 2027:
(a) All land within the City which is zoned or designated Agricultural District on the zoning maps of the City as set forth in Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter may not be rezoned or redesignated, and the "B" district with which the Agricultural District is combined may not be changed, without a vote of the people.
(b) The uses to which land zoned or designated Agricultural District can be put and the structures which can be erected thereon are only the uses and structures permitted by the provisions of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, unless otherwise approved by a vote of the people.”
SECTION 3. Amendment. Section 9-5.08 “Hillside protection” of Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“In order to maximize public participation in rezoning decisions concerning development of sensitive hillside lands, in order to preserve areas of open space where possible and to retain natural terrain by encouraging the concentration of dwellings and other structures on their sites, to help protect people and property from potentially hazardous conditions particular to hillsides, and to insure that development is compatible with the unique hillside resources of Pacifica, through June 30, 2027:
(a) All land within the City which is zoned or designated Hillside Preservation District on the zoning maps of the City as set forth in Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter may not be rezoned out of the Hillside Preservation District without a vote of the people. (b) The standards governing the Hillside Preservation District shall be the standards specified in the provisions of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, unless otherwise approved by a vote of the people.”
SECTION 4. Amendment. Section 9-5.11 “Termination” of Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“This chapter shall terminate on June 30, 2027. On or after June 30, 2025, this chapter shall be reviewed and revised, if determined to be necessary, to insure consistency with the City's General Plan, including its Housing Element, or with other laws.” SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phase 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, sentence, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. 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 a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with State law.

10.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance to Extend Growth Management Ordinance (4979 : Introduce Growth Management Ordinance 3 OAK #4870-0592-5147 v1
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law. * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of __________ , 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

10.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance to Extend Growth Management Ordinance (4979 : Introduce Growth Management Ordinance 1 OAK #4870-0592-5147 v1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-008

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING TEXT AMENDMENT TA-121-22 TO AMEND CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 9 OF THE

PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXTEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (TEXT AMENDMENT TA-121-22).

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

2. In making its findings, the Planning Commission relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all testimony, correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.

3. Amendment of the GMO to extend it for five years, and making clarifying changes to PMC Section Sec. 9-5.07 [Agricultural land] and PMC Section 9-5.08 [Hillside protection] to reflect their continued enforceability, is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program because it would ensure the electorate has a voice in decisions concerning the sensitive hillside resources and would prevent the conversion of agriculturally-zoned lands to other land uses, consistent with General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies including but not limited to the following:

B. General Plan, Open Space Element Policy No. 3: Encourage development plans which protect or provide generous open space appropriately landscaped. Balance open space, development and public safety, particularly in the hillside areas.

C. General Plan, Community Design Element Policy No. 3: Protect the City's irreplaceable scenic and visual amenities.

10.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-008 (4979 : Introduce Growth Management Ordinance Extension) 2 OAK #4870-0592-5147 v1
D. General Plan, Community Design Element No. 4: Establish development standards that would keep open the steep slopes and visually prominent ridgelines.

E. General Plan, Linda Mar Neighborhood Narrative (p. 47): A few parcels in agricultural land use remain in the area. Those which are economically viable should be encouraged to remain.

G. LCLUP Policy No. 19: The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in production to assure the protection of the areas' economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land uses through the following:
(a) By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas, including, where necessary, clearly defined buffer areas to minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses.
(b) By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to the land where the viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited by conflicts with urban uses and where the conversion of the lands would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the establishment of a stable limit to urban development.
(c) By developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior to the conversion of agricultural lands.
(d) By assuring that public service and facility expansions and non-agricultural development do not impair agricultural viability, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality.
(e) By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands and all development adjacent to prime agricultural lands shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural lands.

4. The Planning Commission finds and declares that amendment of the GMO is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because of the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Because the GMO amendment would only modify the expiration date of existing provisions codified in the PMC to maintain the status quo, and because the GMO amendment would not result in any direct or indirect physical change

10.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-008 (4979 : Introduce Growth Management Ordinance Extension)

10.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-008 (4979 : Introduce Growth Management Ordinance Extension) A-1
OAK #4870-0592-5147 v1

EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING TEXT AMENDMENT TA-121-22 TO AMEND CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 9

OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXTEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby ordain as follows:

10.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-008 (4979 : Introduce Growth Management Ordinance Extension) A-2
OAK #4870-0592-5147 v1
SECTION 2. Amendment. Section 9-5.07 “Agricultural land” of Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“In order to maximize public participation in rezoning decisions concerning conversion of agriculturally zoned land to urban uses, to preserve the right of the local electorate to vote on significant zoning matters and to insure that development proposed for agricultural lands is appropriate to its unique character and importance, through June 30, 2027:
(a) All land within the City which is zoned or designated Agricultural District on the zoning maps of the City as set forth in Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter may not be rezoned or redesignated, and the "B" district with which the Agricultural District is combined may not be changed, without a vote of the people.
(b) The uses to which land zoned or designated Agricultural District can be put and the structures which can be erected thereon are only the uses and structures permitted by the provisions of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, unless otherwise approved by a vote of the people.”
SECTION 3. Amendment. Section 9-5.08 “Hillside protection” of Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“In order to maximize public participation in rezoning decisions concerning development of sensitive hillside lands, in order to preserve areas of open space where possible and to retain natural terrain by encouraging the concentration of dwellings and other structures on their sites, to help protect people and property from potentially hazardous conditions particular to hillsides, and to insure that development is compatible with the unique hillside resources of Pacifica, through June 30, 2027:
(a) All land within the City which is zoned or designated Hillside Preservation District on the zoning maps of the City as set forth in Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter may not be rezoned out of the Hillside Preservation District without a vote of the people. (b) The standards governing the Hillside Preservation District shall be the standards specified in the provisions of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, unless otherwise approved by a vote of the people.”
SECTION 4. Amendment. Section 9-5.11 “Termination” of Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“This chapter shall terminate on June 30, 2027. On or after June 30, 2025, this chapter shall be reviewed and revised, if determined to be necessary, to insure consistency with the City's General Plan, including its Housing Element, or with other laws.” SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phase 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, sentence, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

10.b
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-008 (4979 : Introduce Growth Management Ordinance Extension) A-3
OAK #4870-0592-5147 v1
SECTION 6. 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 a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with State law.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law. * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of __________ , 2022 by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

10.b
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-008 (4979 : Introduce Growth Management Ordinance Extension)

PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
DATE: April 18, 2022 FILE: TA-121-22
ITEM: 2
PUBLIC NOTICE: A one-eighth page Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Pacifica Tribune on April 6, 2022.

APPLICANT: City of Pacifica
SUBJECT: File No. 2022-008 – Text Amendment TA-121-22, initiated by the City of Pacifica, to extend the Growth Management Ordinance codified in Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which has a current termination date of June 30, 2022. The Text Amendment to be considered would affect property citywide in the A (Agricultural) zoning district and the HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay zoning district. The Planning Commission will consider the Text Amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council.

PROJECT
LOCATION:

Citywide for parcels with an A (Agricultural) or HPD (Hillside Preservation District) zoning classification.

RECOMMENDED
CEQA STATUS:

Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

REQUIRED
APPROVALS:

Government Code Section 65853 et seq. requires the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and provide a written recommendation to the City Council on any new zoning ordinance, amendment to a zoning ordinance, or change in a property’s zoning designation. Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.3501 et seq. similarly requires the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and to provide a recommendation by resolution to the City Council on any zoning text amendment or change in a property’s zoning designation.

The City Council, as the legislative body of the City, must conduct a public hearing and enact by ordinance any zoning text amendment or change in a property’s zoning designation before it may take effect.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Adopt the attached Resolution initiating the Text Amendment and recommending approval to City Council (Attachment A).

PREPARED BY: Christian Murdock, AICP, Deputy Director of Planning 2 Packet Pg. 69

10.c
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments) - April 18, 2022 (4979 : Introduce Growth Management PC Staff Report
Growth Management Ordinance of the Pacifica Municipal Code April 18, 2022

Page 2 ends

Pacifica City CouncilMay 9, 2022

Pacifica City Council
May 9, 2022