Agenda — Pacifica City Council, May 23, 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 23, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
May 23, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Off-street parking is allowed by permit for attendance at official public meetings.

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

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

The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is in-person at the meeting location published in the meeting agenda. However, there are alternative ways to observe and participate in the meeting:
• Watch on TV on local cable channel 26
• Watch a Live Stream of the meeting by following https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream or www.pacificcoast.tv
• Call-In Public Comments (offered on a pilot basis):
• When the Mayor announces the Agenda Item on which you would like to comment, dial-in to the number and enter the Conference ID listed below. You will be placed on hold in a call-queue.

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

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

BEFORE THE MEETING: Written public comments for the record may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date by email to: [email protected] and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Oral Communications” in the Subject Line for items not on the agenda
City Council Regular Meeting 2 May 23, 2022
• 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. 4:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation- Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (One potential case) 5:00 PM - STUDY SESSION
Study Session - Tree Ordinance - Community Outreach & Benchmarking Study PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a report regarding the Tree Ordinance - Community Outreach & Benchmarking Study and provide direction to the City Manager regarding next steps for Tree Ordinance revisions.
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember O'Neill
Closed Session Report

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Wildfire Awareness Month - May 2022
City Council Regular Meeting 3 May 23, 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 4/01/22 through 4/15/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 4/01/22 through 4/15/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on May 9, 2022.

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

4. Agreement with Telecommunications Engineering Associates for Information Technology Equipment and Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve an Agreement with Telecommunications Engineering Associates for Technology Equipment and Services Related to Radio Communications Infrastructure, and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents related to this project.

5. Adoption of Resolution to Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2022-23 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding for the Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution next in order, “A Resolution by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission the allocation of Fiscal Year 2022-23 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding” for the Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project; committing up to $37,240 of General funds for the required matching funds; and authorizing the City Manager to execute any documents required for the grant.

6. Adoption of an Ordinance titled “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.”
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt an Ordinance titled “An Ordinance of the City City Council Regular Meeting 4 May 23, 2022
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.”

7. Adoption 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 adopt 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.”

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.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.

CONSIDERATION

8. FY 22-23 General Fund Base Budget Report
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the report and provide feedback and direction on the proposed FY 2022-23 General Fund Base Budget, position recommendations, Master Fee Schedule, and the FY2022-27 Capital Improvement Plan.

City Council Regular Meeting 5 May 23, 2022

9. Vision 2025 & Beyond – Potential Local Revenue Options, Public Opinion Research Findings, and Council Direction on Next Steps on Potential Ballot Measures Related to Transactions and Use Tax, Utility Users Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and discuss public opinion research findings on potential local revenue options available to the City, community priorities and perspectives, and provide direction to the City Manager about which potential revenue measure needed to maintain the current level of City services, if any, should advance to the next phase of City Council consideration, including the development of a draft ordinance and related documents to place such a measure on the November 2022 General Election Ballot and return to City Council to consider such actions at an upcoming City Council meeting in June 2022.

10. Resolution of Intention to Continue the Business Improvement District Program and Levy the Annual Assessments for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Confirming the Annual Report of the Advisory Board of the Pacifica Hotels and Business Improvement District (BID) and Declaring the City Council's Intention to Continue the BID Program and Levy the Annual Assessments for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 at the Same Rate as Levied in the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Without Change" and set the date of June 13, 2022, for the Public Hearing on the annual levy of assessments on hotels within the BID.

11. Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations for Council Chambers Renovations PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for the City Council Chamber Renovation Project:

A. Accept report from Ad Hoc Committee; and
B. Approve the following actions recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee; a. Approve a project budget of $170,000 from unallocated General Fund Balance. b. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with various contractors to perform project tasks within this amount.

12. Appointments to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission; Beautification Advisory Committee; and Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Move to appoint applicant(s) to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission: for one partial term to expire May 2024 and two full terms to expire May 2026; 2) Move to appoint one (1) applicant to the Beautification Advisory Committee for a full term to expire March 2026;
3) Move to appoint applicant(s) to the Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee for two full terms to expire May 2026.

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 City Council Regular Meeting 6 May 23, 2022
The City of Pacifica will provide assistance for disabled citizens upon at least 24 hours advance notice to the City Manager’s Office (650) 738-7301, or send request via email to:
[email protected] if you need sign language assistance or written material printed in a larger font or taped, advance notice is necessary. All meeting rooms are accessible to the disabled.

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

HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:

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

View on the Internet:

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

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

Agendas are available at the City Council meeting

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

CITY COUNCIL
• 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
5/23/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Study Session - Tree Ordinance - Community Outreach & Benchmarking Study RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive a report regarding the Tree Ordinance - Community Outreach & Benchmarking Study and provide direction to the City Manager regarding next steps for Tree Ordinance revisions.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Starting in 2020, the City of Pacifica began a study and public engagement process to revamp the City’s existing Heritage Tree Ordinance. This included contracting with Davey Resource Group (DRG) to provide robust community outreach and an information gathering phase to help define desired changes that would meet both the Pacifica community’s needs, as well as Industry Best Management Practices for tree preservation.

In the City, large, mature trees on private and public property have been protected from removal for nearly 40 years under Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 12 -Preservation of Heritage Trees. In 2006, the adoption of Title 4, Chapter 14-Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees recognized the value of public trees to the community. Adopted in 1996, the “Logging Ordinance” (Ordinance No. 636 C.S. and No. 673 C.S.) defines logging operations and prohibits logging operations within the City. Together, these regulations have protected many trees from unnecessary removal.

While Chapter 12 provides protective status for trees that meet the definition of “Heritage Tree,” City staff and members of the community are concerned that there are still many valuable trees in the community that are not being protected for future generations. The current definition of heritage tree is limited to trees or groves of trees that have reached a specific size (trunk diameter), which does not account for trees that are significant to the community for reasons other than size (e.g., native trees, visibly prominent, historically or culturally significant, etc.). In addition, City trees that do not meet the definition of a Heritage Tree have no legal protection from removal. Another challenge with the current ordinance is that the permitting process for legally removing a tree is difficult to navigate for community members and City staff. Currently, the Municipal Code requires that both Public Works and Planning are responsible for the review and processing of applications. The community desires improvements to the permitting process and greater transparency in the decision-making process for approval or denial of applications. The “logging ordinance” is not easily accessible through the City’s website. The lack of accessibility and visibility of this ordinance may be contributing to the loss of groves of trees that do not meet the definition of a Packet Pg. 7
Pacifica City Council 2
May 23, 2022
Heritage Tree.

In response to these concerns, the City contracted with DRG in 2021 to assist with updating Chapter 12 and 14 of the Pacifica Municipal Code. The initial process included benchmarking the tree preservation ordinances in eight other communities and engagement with the community and stakeholder groups to clarify existing challenges and opportunities for improvement.

This robust community engagement process included development of a project website, meetings with commission/committees/stakeholders, a participatory online public survey, update e-mails to stakeholders, pop-up events at the Pacifica Beach Farmers Market, Rotary Club meeting and a virtual public meeting. Results of this engagement process, as well as Industry Best Management Practices, helped to inform the Community Outreach and Benchmarking Study (Report) recommendations. Based on the results of the public engagement, the Pacifica community generally is aware of the existing Heritage Tree Ordinance and in favor of more specifically defining the ordinance. They understand the value of trees in the community and the need for protection and notification when these significant trees are removed. The community also sees the need for replacement of trees that are removed.

The Report can be found online at
<https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=19747>. The Report details the process that led up to the recommendations, identifies challenges and opportunities with the existing Code provisions and makes recommendations based on industry standards and input from City staff and the community. The Report was released to the Community for review on April 22, 2022. The following are Key Recommendations for revisions to Chapter 12, Chapter 14, and Ordinance No. 636 C.S. and No. 673 C.S. from the Report:

Key Recommendations for revision to Chapter 12-Preservation of Heritage Trees of Pacifica are:
• Revise the definition of “Heritage Tree” to specifically recognize native and other significant trees in the community.
• Add a definition of “Protected Tree” to identify and protect trees of a specific size that are currently defined as Heritage Trees.
• Use the industry standard of diameter at breast height (DBH) to measure trunk diameter. • Require developers to protect trees defined as “Heritage” or “Protected” from construction activities, including trees on adjacent properties.
• Revise criteria for evaluating tree removal permit applications. • When a “protected” or “heritage” tree must be removed, require a minimum of two (2) replacement trees for every otherwise healthy tree that is removed. • Permit the use of in-lieu fees when trees cannot be replaced on site.

Key Recommendations for revision to Chapter 14-Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees are:
• Protect all City trees, including trees not currently protected under Chapter 12.

Key Recommendations for revision to Ordinance No. 636 C.S. and No. 673 C.S. (Logging Ordinance) are:
• Incorporate important protections for groves of trees into Chapter 12. • Repeal Ordinances no. 636 C.S. and no. 673 C.S
On September 28, 2021, the City held a Joint Study Session on the Heritage Tree Ordinance Update with the Planning Commission, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, and Beautification Advisory Committee. A series of questions were posed to the groups regarding Packet Pg. 8
Pacifica City Council 3
May 23, 2022
definitions of heritage trees, methodology of measuring trees, tree removal permit reviews, notifications of removals, fees and penalties, mitigating loss of trees, changing the title for Chapter 14, responsibility of City trees, planting in the public rights-of-way, and evaluating the logging ordinance. In general, the majority of the people at the virtual meeting were in favor of revising definitions of Heritage and Protected trees; requiring a minimum of two (2) replacement trees; and to permit the use of in-lieu fees.

Appendix C of the report provides information related to responses from the community regarding these same questions. As seen in Appendix C, there was strong support from the public for the current staff recommendations related to these questions during the 45-person virtual public meeting, as shown below:
1) 87% agreed that “Heritage Tree” should be more specifically defined. 2) 77% agreed that a new definition for “Protected Tree” should be added. 3) 69% agreed that the City should adopt the industry standard for measuring tree diameter at 54-inches above the ground.
4) 76% agreed that an arborist report should be required for removal of Protected Trees based on health, pest/pathogen, and/or when a tree is a Heritage Tree. 5) 46% agreed (majority from options provided) that website tree removal notification should be provided over other possible types of notification or no change to the current notification process.
6) 88% agreed that disincentivizing illegal tree removals should be studied. 7) 88% agreed that establishment of a Tree Fund should be reviewed. 8) 74% agreed that the City should require a 2:1 replacement for removal of an otherwise healthy heritage/protected/City tree.
9) 88% agreed the City should review establishing in lieu fees for trees not replaced on site.

Response from the Rotary Club also generally aligned with the virtual public meeting responses.

Based on the strong confirmation of many key staff recommendations during the community outreach process, the more detailed discussion of the recommendations in this Council report and at the Study Session will revolve around areas that staff found needed further policy discussion from the Council in order to prepare an ordinance amending Chapters 12 and 14. These areas include the following:
• Specific definitions of a heritage tree and protected tree. • Use of industry standard for measuring trunk diameter. • Protection of trees during construction.
• Revising criteria for evaluating removal permits.
• Logging Ordinance - loss of protection for groves.
• Fees and Penalties.

Specific Definition of a Heritage Tree and Protected Tree Because the benefits of trees transcend property lines, many communities have ordinances to protect trees on private property from damage and removal. Tree preservation ordinances generally are intended to preserve large trees on private property for the sake of conserving canopy cover. A heritage tree designation is usually applied to trees that require special recognition and protection. In many instances, having both a definition for “Protected Tree” and “Heritage Tree” can protect even more trees.

Strong support from the Community was noted for a more specific definition of a “Heritage Tree” and a new definition for a “Protected Tree.” However, during this discussion, a specific recommendation from staff related to these definitions had not yet been developed. The recently Packet Pg. 9
Pacifica City Council 4
May 23, 2022
released Report provided recommendations related to a specific definition for a “Heritage Tree” and “Protected Tree” based on discussions with the community, benchmarking information, and Industry Best Management practices. The recommended definitions in the Report were as follows:
• Heritage Tree - If one of the following criteria are met and trees are in a condition that can be maintained in the landscape so as not to create an unreasonable risk shall be designated as a “Heritage Tree”:
o Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak), Quercus lobata (valley oak), Aesculus californica (California buckeye), Pinus radiata (Monterey pine), and Sequoia sempervirens (redwood) greater than 12-inches DBH
o Heteromeles arbutifolia (toyon) greater than 4-inches DBH o Trees of historic value
o Specimen tree of any species
o Is one of the largest or oldest trees in Pacifica
o Significant habitat value
o Visibly prominent in the community.
• Protected Tree - Use current definition of “Heritage Tree” to define a “Protected Tree”.

Questions for Council:
• Should the City adopt the above recommended definition for a “Heritage Tree”? • Should the City adopt the above recommended definition for a “Protected Tree”? Measuring Trunk Diameter
Current methodology of measuring diameter is not consistent with industry standards. Some Community members expressed concerns that if the method of measurement is changed, some trees that are currently protected may no longer be protected as the diameter of some trees may be less that 16-inches if measured at 54-inches above natural grade. Staff recommends measuring trees according to ISA Best Management Practices (Tree Inventories, Second Editions, 2013 by Jerry Bond). It is also recommended to reduce the minimum diameter in the new definition for “Protected Tree” from 16-inches to 14-inches to ensure that no trees that are currently protected by the “Heritage Tree” definition will lose protective status.

Questions for Council:
• Should the City adopt the industry standard for measuring tree diameter at 54-inches above natural grade?
• Should the diameter for protected trees be decreased from 16-inches to 14-inches? Protection of Trees During Construction
Trees located on the property and adjacent properties are not adequately protected during construction activities. Currently, developers are not required to identify if Heritage Trees exist on a property. It is staff’s recommendation to develop a permit application that is specific to trees in construction zones that will not be removed. In addition, staff recommends that a tree protection plan be submitted with an application for a permit and have the applicant disclose all Protected or Heritage Tree(s) that exist on the property. Developers would be required to protect trees that are on adjacent properties, where likely impacts will occur, from construction activities.

Questions for Council:
• Should there a be a separate permit for trees in construction zones that will not be removed?
• Should developers be required to hire an arborist to prepare a tree protection plan? • Should developers be required to protect trees on adjacent properties? Packet Pg. 10
Pacifica City Council 5
May 23, 2022
Revise Criteria for Evaluating Removal Permits
The criteria for which the Director is supposed to evaluate tree removal permit applications is vague.

There is no standard or methodology for the Director to evaluate whether the removal or retention of a tree is appropriate. It is recommended to revise the criteria for both Protected and Heritage Trees to remove the vague terminology such as “good forestry practices” and to clarify concerns for pests and disease. When reviewing the applications, assigning points to the review criteria, giving more weight to trees designated as heritage trees, would be helpful in the determination of removal.

It has also been reported that heritage trees are being illegally removed and irreparably pruned. It is recommended to require a permit for pruning of protected and heritage trees. Also, it is recommended that a certified/consulting arborist report be required when a permit is being requested to remove a tree based on poor health, pest/pathogen, and/or when the tree is a heritage tree.

Questions for Council:
• Should a point system be developed to provide guidance to staff on requested tree removals of Protected and Heritage Trees?
• Should there be a separate permit for pruning Protected and Heritage Trees? • Should an arborist report be required to remove a tree based on poor health, pest/pathogen, and/or when a tree is a Heritage Tree?
Logging Ordinance - Loss of Protection for Groves
During the stakeholder engagement sessions, there was a concern for clear cutting forested land with loss of protection for groves of trees that do not meet the size thresholds for Protected Trees.

The current ordinances provide protections for very small, groves of trees that are otherwise not protected through Chapter 12. It is recommended to repeal both Ordnance No. 636-C.S. and No. 673-C.S. and add important protections for very small, groves of trees, which are currently protected through the “logging ordinance” directly to Chapter 12 for clarity. If the ordinances are to remain, the ordnances should be more easily accessible like the rest of the Municipal Code provisions.

Questions for Council:
• Should protections for groves of trees greater than six (6) inches in diameter be added to Chapter 12?
• Should Ordinance No. 636-C.S. and No. 673-C.S. be repealed? Fees and Penalties
Pursuant to the City’s current ordinance (Sec. 4-12.11) violators of Chapter 12 will be fined no more than $1,000, imprisonment (not exceeding six month), or civil penalties as provided in the Code.

The Report indicates that the $1,000 penalty is not a deterrent for someone who is intent on removing a tree and this does not adequately compensate for the loss of a Heritage Tree. However, $1,000 is the maximum fine that can be imposed by the City for a misdemeanor violation pursuant to Government Code 36901. Because of this, the Report recommends including other alternative civil enforcement remedies and penalties, such as payment of money which would be the equivalent of the replacement value of the removed Heritage Tree for violation of the ordinance. In addition, the recommendation notes that damages collected should be applied to a tree mitigation fund that could be created and funds in that account could be used towards planting, maintenance and preservation of the urban forest.

Question for Council:
• Should staff add a section that includes other alternative civil enforcement remedies and penalties for violation as noted above and have damages applied to a tree mitigation fund?
Packet Pg. 11
Pacifica City Council 6
May 23, 2022
Based on tonight’s Council comments and direction, the next step would be to draft the updated ordinance showing proposed revisions and tentatively introduce the updated ordinance in July, for adoption in August, 2022.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose to require further study of one or more of the recommendations, which would delay the update of the heritage tree ordinance.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The tree ordinance update is consistent the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: The project would help provide guidelines as the City continues to maintain healthy trees and remove dead or dying trees. • Environmental Sustainability: Updating the tree ordinance would provide the City with improved best management practices for its City’s trees and promote environmental sustainability.
• Maintaining a Safe Community: The project will address how the City will manage moderate to high-risk trees.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This work is currently funded under an executed consultant agreement with Davey Resource Group.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Packet Pg. 12

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/23/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for 4/01/22 through 4/15/22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 4/01/22 through 4/15/22.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Staff has submitted the following disbursements for Council approval:
• Disbursements dated 4/01/22 through 4/15/22 in the amount of $1,066,293.84 as written on regular checks numbered 59693-59768 & 59770-59927 (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 59693-59768 & 59770-59927 -4-1 to 4-15-22 (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 13
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY APR2122 15:00 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: THURSDAY APR2122 15:00 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 59693 - 59768
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 59693 $9283.35 04/01/22 03741 0 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 59694 $29.50 04/01/22 01757 1 CALIFORNIA ASSN OF PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS S OUTSTANDING 1 59695 $242.76 04/01/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 59696 $179.39 04/01/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 59697 $240.00 04/01/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 59698 $661.50 04/01/22 01757 0 CLEA S OUTSTANDING
1 59699 $50.00 04/01/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 59700 $350.00 04/01/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 59701 $100.00 04/01/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 59702 $110.00 04/01/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 59703 $4.00 04/01/22 01764 3 NATIONAL D.R.I.V.E S OUTSTANDING 1 59704 $831.92 04/01/22 01758 1 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION S OUTSTANDING 1 59705 $800.00 04/01/22 01759 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 59706 $200.00 04/01/22 01760 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS S OUTSTANDING 1 59707 $420.00 04/01/22 01769 0 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 59708 $1401.16 04/01/22 01758 5 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 S OUTSTANDING 1 59709 $92.00 04/01/22 01758 4 SMC FIREFIGHTERS PAC S OUTSTANDING 1 59710 $1008.00 04/01/22 01768 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #350 S OUTSTANDING 1 59711 $2749.50 04/01/22 01764 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 S OUTSTANDING 1 59712 $64355.00 04/01/22 01771 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856 S OUTSTANDING 1 59713 $3176.79 04/01/22 01766 0 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA S OUTSTANDING 1 59714 $349.52 04/01/22 00045 2 ALBERTSONS / SAFEWAY S OUTSTANDING 1 59715 $112.14 04/01/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59716 $157.45 04/01/22 00056 0 ARAMARK S OUTSTANDING
1 59717 $42.39 04/01/22 00009 1 AT&T LONG DISTANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 59718 $280.97 04/01/22 00009 2 AT&T MOBILITY S OUTSTANDING 1 59719 $590.70 04/01/22 00225 0 ATCO INTERNATIONAL S OUTSTANDING 1 59720 $300.00 04/01/22 04561 0 AVINA, ANGEL S OUTSTANDING 1 59721 $3809.00 04/01/22 03634 0 BAY POWER LLC GENERATOR SYSTEM DESIGN AND SER S OUTSTANDING 1 59722 $752.61 04/01/22 00293 0 BEARING AGENCIES INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59723 $550.00 04/01/22 00321 0 BIG E CONCRETE PUMPING S OUTSTANDING 1 59724 $91132.36 04/01/22 02502 0 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP S OUTSTANDING 1 59725 $783.54 04/01/22 00483 0 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59726 $1015.34 04/01/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 59727 $1160.51 04/01/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING 1 59728 $320.51 04/01/22 01374 1 CORE & MAIN S OUTSTANDING 1 59729 $77303.58 04/01/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59730 $225.00 04/01/22 03283 1 DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS S OUTSTANDING 1 59731 $2400.00 04/01/22 02201 0 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. S VOIDED 1 59732 $45.91 04/01/22 02614 0 DISH S OUTSTANDING
1 59733 $1200.00 04/01/22 04321 0 DUBOCE JANITORIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59734 $2400.00 04/01/22 04277 0 EASTMAN INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59735 $85.00 04/01/22 04894 0 ESQUIVEL GRADING & PAVING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59736 $14.00 04/01/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 59737 $77.00 04/01/22 00775 0 FEDEX FREIGHT WEST S OUTSTANDING 1 59738 $1320.00 04/01/22 03930 0 FREYER & LAURETA, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59739 $143648.45 04/01/22 00352 0 G. BORTOLOTTO & COMPANY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59740 $763.46 04/01/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 59741 $8230.13 04/01/22 00929 0 HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59742 $4234.65 04/01/22 04083 1 INTERNATIONAL DIOXCIDE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59743 $1211.88 04/01/22 00990 0 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY APR2122 15:00 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 1 of 5 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/21/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 59693-59768 & 59770-59927 -4-1 to 4-15-22 (4975 : Disbursements - Dated 4/01/22 through 4/15/22) 1 59749 $225.00 04/01/22 00001 360 LAUGHRIDGE, RIANNA S OUTSTANDING 1 59750 $179.23 04/01/22 01070 0 LAURETTA PRINTING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 59751 $174.68 04/01/22 05485 0 LEO PORTUGAL S OUTSTANDING 1 59752 $1583.20 04/01/22 03522 0 MACKAY METERS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59753 $331.82 04/01/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 59754 $10924.50 04/01/22 03955 0 MOFFATT & NICHOL S OUTSTANDING 1 59755 $1202.01 04/01/22 01183 0 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59756 $4972.00 04/01/22 03656 0 NORTH AMERICAN FENCE & RAILING S OUTSTANDING 1 59757 $903.44 04/01/22 01244 0 PACIFIC NURSERIES S OUTSTANDING 1 59758 $285.68 04/01/22 01289 0 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59759 $467.49 04/01/22 04024 0 PET WASTE ELIMINATOR S OUTSTANDING 1 59760 $232.39 04/01/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 59761 $831.55 04/01/22 00001 266 SCHRIVER, ANTHONY S OUTSTANDING 1 59762 $2010.18 04/01/22 01450 0 SEAVIEW TIRE & BRAKE CENTER S OUTSTANDING 1 59763 $4980.94 04/01/22 03785 1 THATCHER COMPANY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59764 $40000.00 04/01/22 04935 1 TRITECH SOFTWARE SYSTEMS S OUTSTANDING 1 59765 $514.26 04/01/22 01648 2 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF NORTHERN CA & NV S OUTSTANDING 1 59766 $3587.05 04/01/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59767 $1856.59 04/01/22 02899 1 UTILITY TELECOM GROUP, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 59768 $1037.97 04/01/22 04999 1 XEROX FINANCIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 76 TOTAL AMOUNT: 516,829.24
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 1 TOTAL AMOUNT: 2,400.00 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 0
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY APR2122 15:00 Page: 4

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 261,416.72 2,400.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 143,648.45 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 249.40 0.00
016 NPDES STORMWATER FUND 467.49 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 31,980.53 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 40,910.34 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 6,376.50 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 1,583.20 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 11,474.50 0.00
065 SELF-FUNDED DENTAL PLAN FUND 4,564.00 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 11,758.11 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 514,429.24 2,400.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY APR2122 15:00 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 2 of 5 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/21/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 59693-59768 & 59770-59927 -4-1 to 4-15-22 (4975 : Disbursements - Dated 4/01/22 through 4/15/22) 1 59801 $39171.51 04/08/22 04131 0 HDL SOFTWARE, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 59802 $214.32 04/08/22 00929 0 HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59803 $3850.95 04/08/22 04859 1 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59804 $50.00 04/08/22 05488 0 KANTAK, SEEMA OR KARULKAR, SHREEAJ S OUTSTANDING 1 59805 $9974.50 04/08/22 05489 0 LUCAS LOREE S OUTSTANDING 1 59806 $31.59 04/08/22 00001 362 MANGIBIN, VIMA S OUTSTANDING 1 59807 $2000.00 04/08/22 00001 246 MARQUEZ, RYAN S OUTSTANDING 1 59808 $874.95 04/08/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 59809 $178.20 04/08/22 01194 0 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59810 $2690.00 04/08/22 03656 0 NORTH AMERICAN FENCE & RAILING S OUTSTANDING 1 59811 $1009.11 04/08/22 02486 0 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS S OUTSTANDING 1 59812 $2303.29 04/08/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 59813 $671.77 04/08/22 01243 0 PACIFIC MANOR HARDWARE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59814 $12480.00 04/08/22 01261 0 PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT S OUTSTANDING 1 59815 $1295.96 04/08/22 01297 0 PARS S OUTSTANDING
1 59816 $50.00 04/08/22 05490 0 PECK, BRITNEY L. S OUTSTANDING 1 59817 $197.72 04/08/22 01289 0 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59818 $14087.50 04/08/22 01309 0 POLYDYNE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59819 $1048.14 04/08/22 03160 0 PUBLIC PARKING ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59820 $55.75 04/08/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY APR2122 15:00 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 59770 - 59927
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 59821 $8772.07 04/08/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 59822 $191.28 04/08/22 02182 0 SERVICE PRESS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59823 $7892.97 04/08/22 01475 0 SHIELDS, HARPER & CO. S OUTSTANDING 1 59824 $4000.00 04/08/22 05491 0 STEVE & DENISE SOBERANIS S OUTSTANDING 1 59825 $610.51 04/08/22 02642 2 T-MOBILE CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 59826 $8998.85 04/08/22 04670 0 U.S. TELEPACIFIC CORP. S OUTSTANDING 1 59827 $21.54 04/08/22 01652 0 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 59828 $3257.28 04/08/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59829 $969.04 04/08/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 59830 $1100.00 04/08/22 01729 0 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59831 $295.00 04/08/22 01737 0 WORLD JOURNAL SF LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 59832 $159.15 04/15/22 00122 0 AIRGAS USA, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 59833 $132.75 04/15/22 04066 0 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59834 $237.01 04/15/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59835 $1175.47 04/15/22 00223 0 AT WORK UNIFORMS S OUTSTANDING 1 59836 $42.39 04/15/22 00009 1 AT&T LONG DISTANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 59837 $95.00 04/15/22 05127 0 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59838 $2149.92 04/15/22 00335 0 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 59839 $459.26 04/15/22 04524 0 BRUECK, CYNTHIA S OUTSTANDING 1 59840 $666.00 04/15/22 01690 0 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 59841 $2441.00 04/15/22 03814 1 CAPPSTONE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59842 $403.13 04/15/22 03438 0 CELLEBRITE USA INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59843 $1386.57 04/15/22 00510 1 CINTAS S OUTSTANDING
1 59844 $786.96 04/15/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 59845 $1798.50 04/15/22 05082 1 COLUMN, PBC S OUTSTANDING 1 59846 $92.09 04/15/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 59847 $14916.23 04/15/22 03787 0 CONTRACT SWEEPING SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59848 $9340.00 04/15/22 05341 0 CREATIVE DIGITAL AGENCY INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59849 $337.23 04/15/22 00630 0 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 59850 $44005.00 04/15/22 00645 0 DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 59851 $55.95 04/15/22 00672 0 DIAL GLASS AND WINDOW CO S OUTSTANDING 1 59852 $54.00 04/15/22 02343 0 DMV RENEWAL S OUTSTANDING 1 59853 $37053.03 04/15/22 01854 0 DYETT & BHATIA S OUTSTANDING 1 59854 $109.95 04/15/22 00489 0 ENTERSECT S OUTSTANDING 1 59855 $48.00 04/15/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 59856 $6492.49 04/15/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 59857 $3237.26 04/15/22 04369 0 GHD INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59858 $92.35 04/15/22 00870 0 GOVCONNECTION, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59859 $375.98 04/15/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 59860 $3075.00 04/15/22 00875 0 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26577 S OUTSTANDING 1 59861 $175.00 04/15/22 05492 1 GREASE TRAP CLEANERS, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 59862 $22617.50 04/15/22 05453 0 INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES S VOIDED 1 59863 $76.64 04/15/22 01027 0 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA S OUTSTANDING 1 59864 $95.00 04/15/22 05333 1 KASEYA US LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 59865 $62.73 04/15/22 01812 4 KBA DOCUSYS S OUTSTANDING 1 59866 $115.97 04/15/22 03529 0 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59867 $1690.73 04/15/22 01095 0 LINDA MAR HARDWARE S OUTSTANDING 1 59868 $191.59 04/15/22 00002 57 MANGIBIN, VIMA (PETTY CASH) S OUTSTANDING 1 59869 $167.80 04/15/22 00001 300 MARTINEZ, ERIC S OUTSTANDING 1 59870 $2341.06 04/15/22 01154 0 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS S OUTSTANDING 1 59871 $8700.00 04/15/22 01156 0 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY APR2122 15:00 Page: 7

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 3 of 5 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/21/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 59693-59768 & 59770-59927 -4-1 to 4-15-22 (4975 : Disbursements - Dated 4/01/22 through 4/15/22) 1 59876 $354.07 04/15/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 59877 $1400.00 04/15/22 04928 0 OPTIMUM GREEN CLEANING LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 59878 $2043.54 04/15/22 02124 0 ORION SAFETY PRODUCTS S OUTSTANDING 1 59879 $500.00 04/15/22 03370 0 PEERY & ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED S OUTSTANDING 1 59880 $3521.88 04/15/22 01309 0 POLYDYNE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59881 $2722.86 04/15/22 03531 0 PRECISE MAILING S OUTSTANDING 1 59882 $143.99 04/15/22 01317 0 PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59883 $1987.47 04/15/22 05188 0 PUBLIC RISK, INNOVATION, SOLUTIONS & MGMT S OUTSTANDING 1 59884 $634.52 04/15/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 59885 $2686.00 04/15/22 01337 0 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59886 $8343.80 04/15/22 04026 0 RANEY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59887 $7536.97 04/15/22 04802 0 RECORDS CONTROL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59888 $9515.34 04/15/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 59889 $180.00 04/15/22 00001 55 RON FASCENDA S OUTSTANDING 1 59890 $3991.50 04/15/22 00022 8 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLER S OUTSTANDING 1 59891 $125.00 04/15/22 00022 31 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF S OUTSTANDING 1 59892 $1485.00 04/15/22 03720 0 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL S OUTSTANDING 1 59893 $162.03 04/15/22 01423 0 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP S OUTSTANDING 1 59894 $356.61 04/15/22 01461 0 SERRAMONTE FORD INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59895 $727.98 04/15/22 01498 0 SMART & FINAL S OUTSTANDING 1 59896 $1000.00 04/15/22 02041 1 SUSTAINABLE SAN MATEO COUNTY S OUTSTANDING 1 59897 $11070.00 04/15/22 04943 0 THE KPA GROUP S OUTSTANDING 1 59898 $831.05 04/15/22 01636 0 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59899 $862.37 04/15/22 04418 1 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59900 $184.09 04/15/22 01647 0 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS S OUTSTANDING 1 59901 $3172.40 04/15/22 02527 0 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59902 $262.18 04/15/22 01812 3 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 59903 $3265.60 04/15/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 59904 $161.46 04/15/22 02266 0 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL SPECIALTIES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59905 $1555.06 04/15/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 59906 $229.66 04/15/22 01673 0 VWR INTERNATIONAL S OUTSTANDING 1 59907 $1100.00 04/15/22 02816 0 WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGY TRAINERS S OUTSTANDING 1 59908 $44.81 04/15/22 01698 1 WATSON-MARLOW INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59909 $116.98 04/15/22 01707 0 WEST COAST CONTRACTORS SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 59910 $2110.55 04/15/22 02987 0 WESTERN STATES OIL CO. S OUTSTANDING 1 59911 $3446.00 04/15/22 04832 1 WOODARD & CURRAN, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 59912 $16127.07 04/15/22 05469 0 BCC BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 59913 $242.76 04/15/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 59914 $240.00 04/15/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 59915 $50.00 04/15/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 59916 $350.00 04/15/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 59917 $100.00 04/15/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 59918 $4.00 04/15/22 01764 3 NATIONAL D.R.I.V.E S OUTSTANDING 1 59919 $246.00 04/15/22 01767 0 NPFBA S OUTSTANDING
1 59920 $923.92 04/15/22 01758 1 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION S OUTSTANDING 1 59921 $439.00 04/15/22 01758 0 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS-LTD S OUTSTANDING 1 59922 $800.00 04/15/22 01759 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: THURSDAY APR2122 15:00 Page: 8

CITY OF PACIFICA

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 345,216.40 22,617.50
005 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 9.45 0.00
007 S.L.E.S. FUND 2,341.06 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 9,530.15 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 34,609.16 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 37,424.68 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 5,662.32 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 44,439.60 0.00
065 SELF-FUNDED DENTAL PLAN FUND 16,127.07 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 31,487.21 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 526,847.10 22,617.50

Page 4 of 5 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/21/2022 TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS= $516,829.24 + $549,464.60 = $1,066,293.84

1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 59693-59768 & 59770-59927 -4-1 to 4-15-22 (4975 : Disbursements - Dated 4/01/22 through 4/15/22)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/23/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on May 9, 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 May 9, 2022 (Attachment A).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 18

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 May 09, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
May 09, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on May 9, 2022 at 6:00 PM 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION.

Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present and announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session. Mayor Bier announced the business to be discussed.
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
Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. She stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer would be participating via phone, and she will be checking in with her to be sure she is participating.

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 Remote
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call, adding that Councilmember Beckmeyer is participating via phone.

2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 May 09, 2022
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer; Dan Steidle, Police Chief; Bill Glasgo, Police Captain; Christopher Clements, Police Captain; Chuck Pomicpic, Dep. Fire Chief; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Ryan Marquez, Assoc. Civil Engineer; Nelson Schlater, Senior Engineer; Maria Aguilar, Wastewater Plant Manager; Brian Martinez, Wastewater Collection Sys.

Manager; Paul Lavorini, PW Field Services Manager; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Josh Montemayor, Management Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgement.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Bier
Mayor Bier asked if Council was open to moving Item #11 up to first public hearing, and all agreed.

City Clerk Coffey asked that they have a motion for the agenda order change.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to approve moving Item #11 to the first public hearing; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (amend order of agenda)
Closed Session Report
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated there was no reportable action.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Life Saving Award Medal - Officer Sheedy
Mayor Bier introduced Police Chief Steidle to make the special presentation to Officer Matt Sheedy for a Life Saving Award.

Police Chief Steidle stated that Officer Sheedy was present to be presented with a Life Saving Award, and mentioned that a little over six years ago in 2016 he was awarding Officer Sheedy a Medal of Valor after taking a double attempted homicide suspect into custody who had fired a shot when Officer Sheedy was attempting to take him into custody. He stated that they have another good story to tell from March 2020, delayed due to COVID and they wanted the award presented in person rather than on Zoom. He reported about officers responding to a call in Melrose Court for an adult male experiencing a mental health crisis. When Officer Sheedy responded and was attempting to make contact, and when hearing screams inside the residence, he requested assistance from additional officers. When the male subject exited the residence bleeding heavily on his left arm and Officer Sheedy immediately called for medical assistance and instructed the officer to put pressure on the wound, and learned that he had just stabbed himself with a knife through his arm and punctured a major artery. Officer Sheedy ran into the house and grabbed a towel to wrap around the wound and took control, instructing an officer to remove a tourniquet he was carrying on his belt and Officer Sheedy safely applied the tourniquet and

2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 May 09, 2022
stopped the bleeding. During this process, the male subject was losing consciousness and Officer Sheedy assured the male he was going to be alright and continued to ask questions to keep him alert until medical personnel arrived. He gave the medical personnel a complete update of the actions taken and a fire department captain on the scene advised them that, if not for Officer Sheedy’s quick actions, this man likely would have died based on the extent of the wound and large amount of blood lost. He stated that tonight Officer Sheedy is commended for his quick action and life saving measures which saved a life and a mother can hug her son. Officer Sheedy is awarded the Pacifica Police Department’s prestigious Life Saving Award.

Officer Sheedy thanked everyone, including all the officers he works with every day, and stated that he does it for them and the citizens.

Mayor Bier stated that they were grateful to have him. She asked for public comments and then introduced Captain Clements.

Police Captain Clements acknowledged that they were recognizing swift action by an officer, adding that this isn’t the first time Officer Sheedy has been recognized for his swift decisive action in the midst of crisis and were proud that he was a local product of Pacifica and they are proud of what he has accomplished and how he has served his home town community.

Mayor Bier thanked him and knew he was home-grown. She thought they sometimes take police officers for granted, but she felt we have a safe place because of officers like Officer Sheedy, and she thanked him.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he has the privilege of seeing him in Pacifica on a regular basis, and he heard he keeps stickers in his pocket for children if they are wandering by. He often gets to have the pleasure of observing him being awarded for his heroism and he is a model of what service looks like. He thanked him for putting his physical well-being at stake. He is honored to try to serve the community he is serving and he thanks him.

Councilmember O’Neill thanked all our officers, and especially Officer Sheedy for his awards.

They all do a great job, with some tasks as unsung, or some like this one. He thanked Officer Sheedy as well as the command staff who keep all of them on the straight and narrow.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked him for knowing what to do in this situation and doing it, as that is sometimes very difficult. She thought it was amazing that he saved someone.

Councilmember Beckmeyer added her congratulations and appreciation of Officer Sheedy for what he has done for our community and continue to do. She also thanked the Chief and acknowledged the spirit of family that is always brought forward in our police department and their focus on training which enables them to make right choices and rely on that training in that moment of crisis. She also thanked his mother, just having celebrated Mother’s Day, and she had the opportunity to spend time with his mom in the past and she knows how proud she is of him. She believes a lot of who he is comes from his mom, so she thanked her and Officer Sheedy.

Mayor Bier asked if he wanted to take a photo.

They then took the photo.

B. Proclamation - Emergency Medical Services Week: May 15-21, 2022

2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 May 09, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck would read this proclamation, and acknowledged the presence of Dep. Fire Chief Pomicpic.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck read the proclamation honoring Emergency Medical Services Week - May 15-21, 2022.

Dep. Fire Chief Pomicpic stated that the North County Fire Authority on serving Pacifica have worked tirelessly as they go through the Covid-19 pandemic to make sure all emergency medical needs are met with grace and quality. They appreciate the proclamation recognition at this meeting.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked them for all they do, stating that they need them and appreciate them.

Mayor Bier thanked them also.

C. Proclamation - National Public Works Week: May 15-21, 2022 Mayor Bier stated that Councilmember O’Neill will read the proclamation and PW Director Petersen will say a few words.

Councilmember O’Neill read the proclamation honoring National Public Works Week - May 15- 21, 2022.

PW Director Petersen appreciated this. She stated that they have an amazingly hard-working dedicated Public Works employees and she is so proud of them and she thanked Council for this recognition.

Mayor Bier thanked them, adding that it was nice to see all of them at the meeting.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that PW is near and dear to her and she was proud of all the work they do, mentioning all the middle of the night work and quality of life work, and about keeping us safe and healthy. She thanked them for everything they do.

D. Proclamation - Mental Health Month: May 2022
Mayor Bier read the proclamation honoring Mental Health Month - May 2022.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had the pleasure of learning more about this at the Progress Seminar a week ago. He thought mental health was too often overlooked, if not taken for granted. He thought it was an invisible thing and easy to look at someone who is actively bleeding and say they need a bandage, etc., whereas with mental health, it is more difficult. He thought learning to balance your own mental health is difficult, especially during a pandemic and threats of war, climate change, and we need to pause and reflect mental health means to each of us. He stated that, on May 14, there is a mental health class going on at the community center and he signed up for it and there are seven more spots available and he encouraged others to sign up for that, and added that there will be more mental health related events.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if anyone wants to pull any items from the consent calendar.

2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 May 09, 2022
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that she didn’t want to pull any but wanted a quick clarification on the minutes, and asked Councilmember O’Neill to clarify something in his report to Council. The minutes referred to the Jefferson Union High School staff housing and reflected that it was a taxpayer bond in Pacifica. She asked that Councilmember O’Neill clarify the jurisdictional line where that bond was passed.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it was a bond passed by the citizens of the Jefferson High School District, of which Pacifica is part of that district, along with Daly City, Brisbane and Colma.

That was the startup funding and they took an additional COP, certificate of participation, for additional apartments.

Mayor Bier opened up public comments. She saw no cards and asked if there were any call-ins.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated there were no hands raised at this time.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.
1 - O’Neill
2 - Vaterlaus
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked, before voting, if there was any clarification or desire of the Council to amend the minutes or was it just to clarify for Councilmember Beckmeyer’s information on that section of the minutes.

Councilmember O’Neill stated, if they want to amend the minutes, it was fine with him as it was probably better as he gave a clearer explanation tonight than he did at that meeting.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if he was amending his motion.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he amended the motion.

Councilmember Vaterlaus amended her second.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (Consent Calendar, with Item #2 as amended)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

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.

2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 May 09, 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.

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
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, before oral communications, he wanted to provide a special staff communications before oral communications as he thought it will be valuable to potentially some of the public who want to provide oral communications on the issue of the Boys and Girls

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 May 09, 2022
Club in Pacifica. He stated this issue has been on the minds of Councilmembers, staff, the public and particularly on the minds of the families and children served by the Boys and Girls Club. He stated that the city will be sending a letter, and he wanted to read the letter for the record to be clear. He then read the letter.

Mayor Bier thanked him and appreciated it.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they can address that letter to the Peninsula Boys and Girls Club in North San Mateo County.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that it would make sense.

Mayor Bier opened oral communications.

Bruce Wright, Pacifica, stated he has been a Pacifican for 33 years, been on the Board of Directors of the Boys and Girls Clubs of North San Mateo County for nine years and he was present to give an update on the status of the club. He thanked Council for this opportunity and for sharing their concerns. He stressed that they are not closing, and then gave specifics on the issue, including correcting inaccuracies .

Erin Pickett, Pacifica, stated that she has sons at the Boys and Girls Club and they hadn’t heard anything so was difficult, upsetting and frightening to think they might close. She expressed her continuing concerns and suggested options.

Judith Bezverkh, Pacifica, expressed her thanks for them taking this seriously and listening to parents and she thought it would be nice if they could get on the agenda and speak more about it and get a dialogue going.

Ken Miles, Pacifica, stated he wanted to talk about fire safety. He thanked the North County Fire Authority and Coastal Conservancy for funding the chipper program, and expressed his concerns on the problems involved for residents regarding fire dangers and rising insurance costs.

Therese Dyer, Pacifica, referred to all the proclamations and thought they should thank PCTV for all they are doing to bring informational programs to television. She referred to the sale of the buildings at Crespi Center and expressed her concerns and solutions to help save them, and added her thoughts in agreement with Ken Miles.

Ron Maykel, Pacifica, stated he has been on hiatus from city meetings, and he wanted to express his appreciation for what the city has been doing to improve the city.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she and her husband are architects and built the first allelectric net-zero energy house in Pacifica in 2018 and they won an award for that from Pacifica Clean Energy last year. She shared their successful efforts, including with water preservation, as well as home tours and she was willing to share the information with anyone.

Tom O’Toole, Pacifica, shared his concerns regarding the Boys and Girls Club issue and his thoughts on going forward for more information.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, thanked the family members for sharing their personal stories regarding the Boys and Girls Club, as well as the City Manager and Bruce Wright, and expressed her thoughts on going forward. She then mentioned her thoughts on the Pacifica safe parking

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 May 09, 2022
program, including being close to implementation of the program and a path to permanent housing, and her continuing concerns.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speaker.

Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, stated that she wanted to update everyone to their present schedule and all their programs available to the public.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she hasn’t attended any city meetings as she has been on vacation, and she stressed that vacations are very important in terms of mental health issues to take time for yourself. She thanked Bruce Wright and the parents who have been advocating regarding the Boys and Girls Club, as it has been a trying time. She won’t be able to attend the meeting on Monday, but a lot of people will be there and she thought it will be a productive meeting. She felt the most important thing to keep in mind, as stated by the City Manager, Council does not control the Boys and Girls Club but they can set the tone for everything in the city which she thought they were doing that regarding the Boys and Girls Club. She stated that the Boys and Girls Club is a private non-profit and she thought there was a certain amount of expectation from the community that everything should be transparent and there should be 100% ability to demand information, but she felt they will have to work with the Boys and Girls Club of North San Mateo County and their board, understanding that there have been difficulties and it is hard to recover from that. She thought they have to take a deep breath and look forward to the future and work hard together to make them a success.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she went to Sacramento and met with Assemblyman Marc Berman, Senator Josh Becker and chief of staff Hugh Bauer for Kevin Mullin, Assemblyman.

They talked about housing issues and trying to get more funding for housing issues, which is a problem across the whole state. She was the lead testimony in the Senate Housing Committee on Senator Becker’s bill, SB1094, which we have 170 unit building that we converted to 100% affordable. She stated that, when we did that, we lost the taxes but because it is a conversion, they also do not get their RHNA numbers and the housing allotment numbers are not counted.

She spoke before the Senate Housing Committee and they passed it. It has to go to the Assembly, but it was a fluky kind of thing because she talked to him and he said he was adding it to his bill. It passed and was a good thing for us, and hopefully they will count towards our RHNA numbers. She attended different committees, Land Use to talk about wild fires, and insurance, taxation, federal issues, etc. She joined other Councilmembers at the Progress Seminar and they had various topics working to end homeless, affordable housing, venture capital, work that works for all, thriving in education and there was a presentation by Mayor Bier on the Mayor’s Mental Health Initiative and it was great to see her up there promoting that. She stated that the mayors have done great work so far and they will continue to do great work on mental health.

Mayor Bier thanked her for all that.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has not had a lot of meetings. He had several Zoom meeting for the county on LAFCO and they were picking a public member of LAFCO as the term is expiring. Regarding the Boys and Girls Club, he thanked Bruce Wright for all the effort and work he has put into this, as they have talked over the phone several times. He thought what was great about what is so far intended is that the Pacifica club is getting the building, the licenses which could take up to 5-6 months to transfer over if it didn’t come with them, and he is getting whatever is in their foundation which will lasts for a couple of years, and he has made a promise

2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 May 09, 2022
of not raising the fees until June 2023 at the earliest. He thought we have come out well in this merger and splitting of the clubs. He looks forward to help the Boys and Girls Club succeed, adding that it will take all of Pacifica to keep them up but this is 300-400 families in Pacifica and it is roughly 10% of the enrollment of the Pacifica School District and the after school program of at least two schools and the intermural and sports program for the middle schools, referring to eighth graders who graduate have their drug of choice chosen when they are going into high school and it was an integral part of a community based organization such as the Boys and Girls Club to keep our kids off the drugs. He stated that the sports program is a good prep to get them started for the high school programs and extracurricular activities in sports. He thanked Bruce Wright for his efforts in rebuilding the organization to continue serving the families in Pacifica, adding that he is the only board member from Pacifica on the club with eight from South San Francisco and the other side of the peninsula.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wished a happy belated Mother’s Day to all the mothers listening. He stated that Ukraine is on his mind and he wanted to voice that as he is thinking about them in their struggle. He thanked Bruce Wright for being here as he feels he can breathe more now than over the last month. He referred to the notion of trust being eroded and the idea of communication having to be reciprocal going forward. He appreciated that there have been so many legalities around this that were hard to wrap his head around as a Councilmember who has to deal with legalities, aside from any parent who may not have exposure to non-disclosure agreements. He referred to being told there will be a meeting on Monday and he thought it sounds like a meeting where everyone will get to converse to talk things through and find out everything they can. He was looking forward to being there, and this being a first step and a great deal of healing that needs to go on in Pacifica around this organization that has helped so many for so long and needs to continue to help. He stated that he used to go to the Boys and Girls Club and attended Oddstad Elementary and he would go there after school. He is looking forward to the healing and finding out everything that he can along with the parents and then taking a second step with all of us working as a community to figure out what our subsequent steps will be, appropriate level of city involvement and he was hearing that parents would favor some sort of parental oversight as Pacifica comes into its own. He thought parents being on that board is as close to parental oversight as possible for such an organization. He attended the Sheriff candidate forum for San Mateo County and it was great to see Christina Corpus there and the other individual which was a great forum for sheriff candidates. He attended the Peninsula Clean Energy meeting on April 28 where they went over the acronyms of CAP and AMP programs, which was about taking ARPA monies and distributing them to families who were having difficulty paying the bills and keeping the lights on. It was good to see how everyone maintains their power. They spoke about the bigger community choice aggregation, CC power, which is looking at the little CCAs of which PCE is one. They get together to procure energy which they will be doing around the 15th of June in terms of a new geothermal energy project. He stated the next PCE meeting is on May 26. He attended the Progress Seminar, and it was a great networking opportunity between various community groups and school districts and other electeds. He stated that there were a number of seminars going on, i.e., homeless and housing, as he heard the head of Life Moves tells them it was an “and” and not “or” approach to housing, as all housing was valuable. He stated that the last week when he was arguing for low, low income housing, the mayor was right and they voted correctly. He stated that there was a thing on Venture Capitalism which was fascinating and a discussion about equity advancement pertaining to jobs and about dignity in jobs, living wages, and there was a comment made about the relationship between our regional housing need allocation numbers, RHNA and childcare and he thought it was a fascinating point brought up.

He stated that the idea that, if one is doing well, they can be a network of one, meaning they can look to those who are in need of a job and reach out to them. He stated that last of the four breakout sessions was called education is everyone’s business and they told a story that, in Africa

2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 May 09, 2022
there is a greeting, “And how are the children?”, to which the appropriate response is, “The children are well.” He stated it was all about including children in every conversation that we, as policymakers, should consider how every decision we make ultimately effects children as being how they assess the wellbeing of our community. He stated that they then had a large group in which everyone was in the same room while they were discussing the mayor’s mental health initiative, some of which he went over earlier about the mental health first aid at the community center which he will enjoy with Anita Rees. He stated that, if they go to smcmentalhealthmonth.org, you can find a bunch of these events happening in which you can take a deeper dive into mental health and learn how to help those who need help. He stated that one overlaying themes of that information session was feel free to use the term suicide which is a word that we often shy away from, and in voicing it and talking about that word, maybe they can help someone who they know who is suicidal. He stated that he will have more to report after the May 14 session at the Community Center. He attended the employee appreciation lunch. He was inspired by staff as they have so many amazing employees doing amazing jobs everywhere they look. He was jealous of Sue Beckmeyer who got to thank Public Works as he has only seen a little bit of the job they do, and he is astounded by them and recognizing those who have been doing these jobs in our community for upwards of 40 years which is humbling. He attended the PRC board meeting later that evening and they had a few new board members and they are looking for board members and, if interested in joining, he suggested you reach out to PRC. He stated that, in an updated strategic planning process, they are discussing whether or not to go back to in person meetings and discussing a lease agreement for more staff space. They are keeping the current place where they are, but they need more staff for programing and they are getting authorization to lease accordingly. He had a conversation with a constituent about Reach Codes the other night, noticing that he will be looking at ADU specifically and reach codes in association with ADUs. One final update on Safeway is that they have ratified their contract and he won’t need to talk about it for another three years.

Mayor Bier wanted everyone to know how important it was what Councilmember Vaterlaus did for Pacifica in Sacramento, and she thanked her as it was important for her to be there and important for Pacifica to do what she did. She stated that she also attended the Progress Seminar and it was important for Pacificans to create relationships with other people in the region and other elected officials. She stated that it was an honor for her to do a presentation with three other mayors and the director of Behavioral Health and Recovery Services, Scott Gilman. While she was nervous, it went well and what she found out was that our elected officials and other people in the room were willing to go deep in conversations to talk about what has happened to them in the last two years. She stated that they arranged tabletop discussions for them to do that and shared resources. She felt it was a beautiful experience to see those around the table really letting their guard down and sharing openly with each other. She stated that is how we fill our cups. She referred to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s comment that they have a hard job. She agreed and it was helpful to sit around a table with others who understand what we are going through and share openly. She attended Doretta Youngdahl’s 100th birthday but she was not able to attend Therese Dyer’s 90th birthday and she wished Ms. Dyer a happy birthday, stating that they appreciated her and all of her civic engagement more than she knows. She stated that being with Doretta on her birthday was one of the most joyous experiences she had with her family and she thanked her for including her in that day. She wasn’t able to go to the staff awards and thanked them for being there, and she congratulated all the staff members who received awards.

She referred to the Pacifica Collaborative, and thanked Cindy Abbott and the Sanchez Art Center for taking on the Pacifica Collaborative. She stated that they went to the Art Center and did some art related activities around emotions and feelings and it was wonderful. She thanked Cindy Abbott for always stepping up for us. She stated that, regarding the Mental Health Initiative, we were fortunate to get funding from the county to do these mental health first aid trainings in our

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 May 09, 2022
city for free. She stated that is such a beautiful resource and she was glad that people are signing up. She stated that there are a few spots open and she asked anyone interested to sign up. She stated that there will be a meditation session at the Pacifica Library on May 11 and Be Sensitive, Be Brave is a virtual training on May 25. She stated that you can go to smcmentalhealthmonth.org and there is a full calendar of things. She thanked our firefighters for being present at this meeting, as they didn’t get to express that to them. She stated that they have been creating relationships with our fireman which has been very important for us. She thanked Jeremy Stafford for reaching out to us consistently. She stated that they got some updates about fires as there have been some fires in our community in the past few days. She thanked them for taking care of us. She then thanked Bruce Wright for being here and the parents for their consistent advocacy as it has been hard on all of them and all the families, as well as on staff as they really want to work with them and support them. She stated that she has been involved with the Boys and Girls Club for a very long time, as her daughter went there and kids she raised went there. She coached volleyball and basketball at IBL, sat on the safety committee and she is definitely as involved and care just as much as all of them do. She looked forward to the meeting Monday night and moving forward together as a community because that is how they do the best. When we have something we want to do and come together, we can do a great job and she looks forward to doing that.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she didn’t say anything about the Boys and Girls Club. She stated that her kids also went to the Boys and Girls Club and they are in their 40s, late 30s and it has been a long time. She appreciated the club and appreciated Bruce Wright for being present at this meeting and all the parents for working so hard on this. She was sure that they will get to a mutual agreement and the situation will be solved.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in addition to the special communication prior to oral communications, he had a couple of brief communications. He stated that two relate to successful grant awards that the city has received. They received a $54,428 award from Cal Recycle for the AB1383 local assistance program, the law related to compostables in California and the funding will assist their support to the county organic procurement program which is one of the requirements of the law and they will get credit for our share of funding that procurement that will support farms and ranches in San Mateo County so the application of compostable material to the ground benefits the environment. He stated that some of the funding will also help our direct purchase of organic products. The other grand award was the Coastal Conservancy that awarded Pacifica the $260,000 grant for the pier repair project which augments the previously designated $0.5 million from the state and that project can be fully funded with the city funding the construction management portion of that contract and moving it forward this summer. He stated that the employee recognition event was mentioned by several councilmembers and they haven’t been able to do that since pre-Covid, i.e., 2019, and they had a full lunch time with a lot of employees who were receiving their 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and even 40-year service awards. They had a great time and were able to tell stories about the great service and dedication. He had it in his mind that he wanted to add up all the years of service of all those employees at the five-year mark that were honored, and he failed to fit it in, it was thousands of years of service. He stated it was a great event to be in person and celebrating and recognizing employees. He thanked all of those who were able to attend and for mentioning it at this time.

Mayor Bier called a break and then reconvened the meeting.

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 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).
[Agenda Item #11 was discussed prior to Agenda Item #9.] City Manager Woodhouse stated that he was going to kick this off with some introductory comments while PW and consultants are getting situated. He stated that staff was pleased to present this recommendation for a prudent wastewater rates increase for the next five-year cycle.

He stated that the city has received comments from a small number of rate payers, as well as some individuals who don’t live in Pacifica or pay wastewater rates who expressed concern about the wastewater enterprise fund paying its fair share of cost related to the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project, i.e., Beach Boulevard project, which is a capital project approved by Council to help protect and maintain wastewater infrastructure. He was expecting them to hear public comment at this meeting. He stated that this item is not about the virtues of the Beach Boulevard project as Council voted moving that project into its next stage of design, i.e., environmental review and permitting and continuing the funding strategy of local, regional, state and federal funding possibilities. The item is about rates necessary to fund expenses of the wastewater fund for the next five years, including a projected capital improvement program. He stated that each year Council approves the next year’s capital improvement program and next year’s rate increase up to but not exceeding the recommended 3.5%. He stated that, if there are ever major changes to the capital improvement program, Council can vote to lower rates if warranted but, with the Beach Boulevard project, the no-action or managed retreat alternative would result in wastewater fund expenditures to relocate wastewater infrastructure that would equal or exceed the current estimated fair share of the Beach Boulevard project hybrid alternative and requiring at least the same wastewater rate increase being recommended at this meeting.

He stated staff has done an exceptional job throughout the process in planning for the future of Pacifica’s wastewater infrastructure. Beyond the normal wide outreach and noticing for this hearing, staff has responded to dozens of questions from the small group opposed to the Beach Boulevard project, created a detailed frequently asked questions to respond to question on this topic and misinformation being spread on social media and offered a tour of wastewater facilities for this group. He stated that, upon the group’s request, he offered to meet and discuss the rates recommendation with several of those who opposed the Beach Boulevard project, but they did

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 May 09, 2022
not take him up on his offer. He stated that the recommendation before Council at this meeting is staff’s professional assessment about how to most prudently fulfill Council’s goals and priorities related to the future of wastewater infrastructure and services in Pacifica.

PW Director Petersen introduced Wastewater Sr. Engineer Nelson Schlater and Bartle Wells & Associates consultant Michael DeGroot who are experts in wastewater finance. She stated that they also have in the audience Bartle Wells & Associates consultant Doug Dove, WW Plant Manager Maria Aguilar, WW Plant Asst. Superintendent Dave Peel, WW Collection Manager Brian Martinez and WW Asst. Collections Superintendent Ray Mendez who are available for questions. She then began presentation of the staff report.

Consultant DeGroot continued the staff report.

PW Director Petersen completed the staff report.

Mayor Bier asked Council if they had any questions and, seeing none, she opened the public hearing.

Victor Carmichael, Pacifica, stated that the 3.5% sewer rate increase over the next five years makes good sense and worth the 7% in 2018. He thanked WW staff for the detailed explanation of what needs to be done, expressing his positive thoughts on all the planned projects but stated he was part of the small group opposing the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project, expressing his thoughts on the Sharp Park seawall project.

Paul Chervatin, Pacifica, asked that they reevaluate the sewer rate increase, expressing his concerns on the proposed expenditures and requested more transparency and specificity.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that WW needed a forensic audit before they do any other fee increases, giving specific details regarding his concerns on several legal issues, and if not, the FBI will as he has sent his complaint to them as well.

Laurie Goldberg, Pacifica, stated that she was against this rate increase, and wanted more details. She mentioned her specific concerns regarding the burden being put on Pacificans.

Sam Casillas, Pacifica, referred to Foster City residents who voted on a tax measure regarding a levee and seawall, and he expressed his concerns on this issue in Pacifica in detail and questioned the process negatively.

Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, thanked PW Director Petersen for explaining this issue, and he felt the sea wall was the core of the discussion. He expressed his negative concerns on this issue, and felt the lives in the back of the valley were at stake in addition to the property.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that while they debate the increase in the sewer fee, they have to acknowledge the need for repairs in our current systems. She pointed out those Pacificans struggling financially, and she felt that they have to ask what cost is fair for our community. She stated that she supports the increase fees for current infrastructure maintenance and repairs, but not the $10-$30 million rate increase for the BBIRP.

Vicki Sundstrom, Pacifica, referred to legislation regarding sewer rate increases, and she then concluded that Pacifica’s proposed rate increase does not comply with the proportional rate requirement, mentioning some specifics. She concluded that Council should study the issues

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 May 09, 2022
presented to determine when the rate proposal complies with California.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, thanked PW for giving them a tour of Calera Creek WW treatment plant. She agreed that the infrastructure needs a lot of work and is in support of the majority of the fee increase, then shared some questions and hoped she will get answers at this time. She concluded that they need long-term planning.

Robert Boles, Pacifica, stated he was speaking for Stan Zeavin who wasn’t available to comment. He recognized much of the fee increase is needed to pay for ongoing sources and refurbishment, but he agreed with Mr. Zeavin that more information was needed before approving the increase. He mentioned specific concerns regarding the clear purpose of the use of the money, suggesting a possible bait and switch situation.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, thanked the City Manager on his clarifying introductory statement. He was in full support of the sewer rate proposal as written, mentioning his thoughts on voiced concerns and the process of the project. He thanked all staff for trying to make Pacifica a better place.

Therese Dyer, Pacifica, stated that she thinks this is nothing but fraud and should be investigated, and shared an article in the paper questioning this project. She concluded that she was totally against it, adding that they will have some lawsuits if they pass this.

Ken Miles, Pacifica, expressed his thoughts on alternative options that may be cheaper than this tax increase. He understood Prop. 218 and thought it was not a good way to vote on this, and he would take the sea wall out and make it a vote for the people. He also asked if senior citizens will get a property tax break.

John O’Dowd, Pacifica, stated that he would like to set aside the sea wall, and expressed his concerns on the revenue required on covering at all the costs and maintenance, and was concerned about the minimum charge in the proposal. He expressed his thoughts on the heavier usage of businesses and questioned whether they took that into consideration.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speakers.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, thought the sewer rate charge is probably warranted, but he would challenge the $10 million for the sea wall, mentioning his thoughts on that. He stated there was no response without a challenge to the data presented and he felt this was a losing proposition.

He stated that they have to move that wall now and expressed his thoughts on this, adding that the Coastal Commission will never approve the BBIRP.

Kimberly Williams, Pacifica, stated she represents the local San Mateo County chapter of Surf Rider Foundation. She stated that they encourage Pacifica to engage in longer term planning on sea level rise, etc., and the cost to maintain important city infrastructure in hazardous areas vulnerable to sea level rise, sharing their thoughts on specific issues, and they continue to oppose the proposed sea wall expressing specific reasons.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, presented his thoughts on his major issue with the proposed plan for taxes, referring to previous increase and they hoped this would reverse that one and protect some Pacificans with a rate break, and mentioned concerns regarding the RV park where he objected to Pacificans being charged and thought visitors should be charged. He also expressed his concerns regarding the sea wall.

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 May 09, 2022
Mayor Bier gave the fourth caller some time to resolve his problems connecting.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, before she close the public hearing, they will need to hear from City Clerk Coffey for the vote tabulation.

Mayor Bier apologized for the caller not being able to connect, and she asked her to contact them to get the public comment. She then introduced another speaker.

Robine Runneals, Pacifica, appreciated the study and report from staff regarding the needs for the entire sewer system, including supporting the future of Sharp Park sewer plant. She stated she was not happy to pay a higher sewer rate as it is already high. She mentioned her thoughts on the previous process and also mentioned her thoughts on the sea wall and infrastructure support which will benefit those on Beach Boulevard as well as the entire neighborhood. She expressed her thoughts regarding the sea wall needing governmental financial support to put up the best sea wall possible.

Mayor Bier asked City Clerk Coffey to give them an update on public response.

City Clerk Coffey stated that the city received and tabulated the written protests received against the proposed sewer rate charges and would be considered valid if they meet the criteria, i.e., identifying the affected property by either address, assessor parcel number or customer North County Water District account, and including the original signature and name of the recorded owner and indication of opposition of the proposed sewer rate. In that regard, the city has received, including those submitted at this meeting, a total of 154 written protests. She stated that, for the majority protest, a total of 6,418 parcels would constitute a protest majority of the parcel owners.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, before he ask questions, it was 10:52 and he will make motion to go until midnight; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (extend meeting to midnight)
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the City Manager making a statement about the over ten-year amount of time of $40 million proposed for the sea wall project, and he thought the City Manager stated that, if they were to build the wall or move the infrastructure, either would be about $40 million.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that his point was that the estimates for the fair share is $40 million based on the master plan study in 2021, rerouting the wastewater infrastructure and the recommendation was that it was more cost effective to pay the fair share for the sea wall to protect the infrastructure. He stated that the point is that the rate revenue that would fund that capital project, and if in the future the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project didn’t come to fruition, there would be other capital projects related to relocation of infrastructure, if that is what Council decided, and that would cost at least that much as well. He stated that the rate increase recommended at this time is needed for whatever the future capital projects are. He stated that it was based on a projected capital program for the next five years and the study factors out to

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 May 09, 2022
ten years to provide that long-term planning component.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought they approved the capital improvement program every year.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed that the capital improvement program is approved every year and the wastewater rates up to the maximum recommended of 3.5% are deliberated on and approved every year.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they set the 3.5% and what they do with that is not etched in stone as they mention what they think they will do with it, and should some major reversal in Council thinking take place, and they aren’t thinking of the Beach Boulevard resiliency infrastructure, the sea wall would be the say to go but they should figure out a way to move infrastructure and use it for that if the Council chooses.

City Manager Woodhouse said they could, adding that the long-term capital planning, program and project design and construction, if interrupted by major policy shifts, that is not the most fiscally responsible changes to the community, but it can happen.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck didn’t favor playing with $40 million as if it is a rubber band, but he wanted to understand how flexible that money is as they try to plan long-term. He referred to a speaker’s question about Proposition 218 and asked the city attorney if she tracked that question, but he hopes she can help him.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she was not sure which speaker he was addressing, but there was a question about whether this is an assessment. She stated that it is not an assessment, but a Prop. 218 wastewater fee measure and the attorney’s office has been involved in working with staff to ensure that it complies with Prop. 218.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she didn’t have any questions and was comfortable with the report as presented. She thought the course they are on is the correct one and she tends to make a motion as soon as comments are done.

Mayor Bier referred to mention of 6,000 protest responses they would need to have, but she felt that 154 plus the ones they have at this meeting are a lot and she wants to address that. She stated that, anytime in the past where they have seen 154 emails come in or 154 people in their space, they pay attention to that and she didn’t want to diminish it because it is not 6,000 needed to show the majority. She stated that there were some questions asked such as how the minimum charges were calculated.

PW Director Petersen thought Michael DeGroot could talk about that.

Mr. DeGroot stated that, when looking at the sewer enterprise costs, they are mostly fixed and they are charging a volume extra grade and they want to be sure they have a stable source of revenue and they design the minimum charges to collect at least 60% of their costs, and they are based on four units a month of water usage.

Mayor Bier stated that a lot of them talked about a tax and she asked if they can explain it so they can understand it better.

PW Director Petersen stated that it is not a tax, but considered a fee as it is funding only uses for wastewater and the sustainability of the system. Without that, they wouldn’t be able to have a

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 May 09, 2022
system. She stated that the difference is that the wastewater fees are directly used for everything related to wastewater and there is a benefit to users of the system and that is where the difference lies.

Mayor Bier stated that there were a lot of questions about the sea wall, and she asked, if the Coastal Commission doesn’t approve the project, they money they set aside from the fees, whether the fees can be put forward to whatever happens after that.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that there are no legal requirement that the rate only be based on projects that have been approved or are certain to go forward. She stated that the utility revenue requirements are always based on projected costs which often spans planning periods of over a number of years, as discussed at this meeting. She stated that it is by necessity because utilities involve major infrastructure projects that require long-term planning to fund and this is how they have to plan for projects going forward and why it is an appropriate way on which to base the fees even though they don’t have a final approved project. She stated that the projected costs should be included in the planning documents as discussed, but they are always subject to change as circumstances and technology change over time.

Mayor Bier stated that there were also questions about exemptions for seniors, and she asked if they can discuss that at this time as to what that looks like now and in the past.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought Michael DeGroot might be able to speak to that, but she didn’t think exemptions were contemplated as part of the rate study.

Mr. DeGroot stated that they aren’t allowed to use that, as with Prop. 218 the cost has to be proportional and they aren’t allowed to have one class of customers subsidize another. If they were to implement a low income discount, that would need to be funded through General Funds or non-rate sources of revenue. He stated that this study did not look at a low income discount but just determining what the costs are and what the rates should be to recover those costs. He recommended that, if they were to look at a low income discount, it be considered through another process.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they knew what the numbers were for protests they have gotten in the past protests of Prop. 218.

City Clerk Coffey stated that she doesn’t have the exact number available, but it was on the order of 1,000 or so during the last consideration of the major increase in 2017.

Councilmember Vaterlaus wanted to reply to someone who said this just affects Sharp Park. She stated that it doesn’t just affect Sharp Park but everyone as this is a huge sewer project that affects the whole town, as they can’t have a sewer project without one portion of it. She stated that, if they did the do nothing item in our Local Coastal Plan, they should consider that they might not have Highway One anymore. She stated that it is a huge issue that people aren’t taking into consideration when they say it only affects 40 houses. It affects more than that. She stated that there are so many parts of it and they have had so many meetings about the Local Coastal Plan, the sewer system and sea wall, etc., and she was sorry that they weren’t at all the meetings and listened to all the facts on this.

Mayor Bier stated that a lot of people asked specifically what the money would be spent on regarding the money that is being set aside for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project and she asked if it was possible to get more detailed information about where the money

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 May 09, 2022
would go than they have put out already.

PW Director Petersen stated that they are currently looking at the big picture of what is going to be needed next and they don’t have those types of details at this time. They can only say that they are moving in to the final design so the money would be used towards final design and environmental permitting and what that looks like at this time. She stated that they don’t have all the specifics for it, as, in any capital project, they wouldn’t know at this point until they actually start doing the work and getting a cost estimate from a consultant for what that would be. She stated that it is important to note that all these things would come back to Council for approval and anything they will move forward with, whether final design, environmental permitting, would be back before Council for approval and will give the public an opportunity to speak on them.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to asking the City Manager about the money that would be put toward the fair share cost of the sea wall, and he felt it was important that, if something should shift, that money will be needed, and it is not etched in stone. He likes to remember that, when they have heated discussions, at the inception, this was a 51% vote to make Pacifica a city after the third vote. He stated that was the flavor on how they discuss things. He stated at the last meeting, when they were experiencing the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project, he began to firm up what his understanding is regarding the conversation going on. He thought it started with the sea level rise discussion years before, and he didn’t attend as many of the sea level rise meetings as he would have liked to, but one time, he found himself in the Community Center’s main room while they were having a major sea level rise discussion and there were members of the community who were freaked out by the concept of managed retreat, yelling at decision makers, how terrified they were of their property being stripped away from them unceremoniously. He stated that the sea wall discussion was not quite that pitched, but a great deal of heated discussion about the environmental ramifications of what it would mean to do this major costly project. He stated that so many people came out from either side to tell each other how terrified they are of what they are perceiving as an ideological approach that will strip from them what they hold dear. He stated that they hear a cry about sea level rise and climate change, and that they are all going to die unless they do the right thing, and they need to start moving things as it will take a while to do that and they need to plan properly. Then on the other side, they hear that they are trying to take away their home, their business, their life, affordable housing, before they even get to the discussion of how they think they have the revenue to move all the infrastructure it would take to do that if they don’t even think we have enough money to create a sea wall. He apologized that this is a sewer rate discussion, not a sea wall discussion, but it became usurped, but the conclusion he came to which he tried to articulate is much clearer and the reason is that armoring around the pier has a remaining lifespan of about ten years. He then turned to PW Director Petersen, and asked her, if they were to move the infrastructure and start doing that planning, how long would it take from starting the process of planning and actually breaking ground on moving it, and she responded that it was approximately 15 years, so 10 years of infrastructure failure versus 15 years when they start moving it. He stated that, if they do a rush job on moving all of this infrastructure before the lawsuits start pouring in because they aren’t protecting the homes and businesses, and they turn to the Coastal Commission and say the visitor serving accessibility thing they are always talking about went out the window because they need to do this now, and no one is going to be able to have access to the beach while they figure that out. He didn’t look at things in terms of 10 and 15 years as being a long time, but a short time, and with quick math, it looks we have about a ten-year lifespan left before we start needing to worry if we don’t start armoring that. He stated that 50 years looks like a proper timeline to plan moving things if that is what we want to do, and start doing that. He didn’t think this statement is probably not making anyone happy but it is his understanding and that is what he is voicing.

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 May 09, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she appreciates that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, from his perspective, he thought it was a fair share contribution that they need to armor that essential infrastructure and they need to armor the area to make sure we are safe. When everyone calms down because they are worried about their livelihood and whether they will be able to afford their insurance, they can then have the other discussion of whether they are capable of moving things and, if so, how soon.

Councilmember Beckmeyer appreciated those comments. She stated that she looks at it as a longer term view and the idea of relocating the infrastructure they are talking about, the former wastewater treatment plant on Beach Boulevard. She stated that they don’t have the land that they would move it to and have to acquire it which is a cost, so not a $40 million price tag altogether but a small portion of what the overall cost would be. She stated that the sea wall and infrastructure, the sand retention and replenishment, etc., is also a higher cost than what they are talking about at this time, but as they heard earlier from PW Director Petersen, the cost and complexity of relocating infrastructure is intense and hasn’t been studied. She stated that there is the characterization that doing any sort of Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project is only going to protect 40 homes when some of them who oppose it have stated that it, in fact, affects about 40% of the households of Pacifica. She stated that, as the decision maker and whose responsibility it is to make the best decision for the greatest number of people in Pacifica, she thinks it is prudent for them to move forward with what is proposed at this meeting. She referred to a statement about the Equalization Basin and why should they have to pay for that as it is in the south end of town, but when our city is sued by multiple agencies and non-profits because of sanitary sewer overflows, the millions of dollars that they have to pay out, not to mention the harm to the environment, is all of our responsibility not just those adjacent to the Equalization Basin. She stated the best course is to continue with the course they outlined.

Mayor Bier stated that they might have to have her repeat that as they are getting a really bad interference and it is hard to hear her, and she has to repeat at least the last section of it.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano suggested that they could come back to Councilmember Beckmeyer.

Mayor Bier stated that they will come back to her and see if they can make some changes to fix that. In the meantime, she stated that it is very clear that they have to raise the rates and they are worried about the project. She stated that, if they are able to have enough information for the community to understand where the money is going, then she is comfortable with raising the rates. If they can come back and talk about exemptions at another time, she would appreciate that as well as she felt they needed to look at that as a Council. She asked Councilmember Beckmeyer to try to talk again. Then stated that it was still not working.

Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested that she call in again.

Mayor Bier agreed that she could try hanging up and calling back. She asked the City Attorney what they should do.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they could take a break or have her call back in. She stated that they could also continue Councilmember deliberations if there were other councilmembers who want to speak on the item before she calls back.

Mayor Bier called a short break and then reconvened the meeting.

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 May 09, 2022
4:22:40
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she could hear her.

Mayor Bier stated that she can barely hear her.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked again if she can hear her.

Mayor Bier stated that she can hear her but it is really garbled. She stated that they will move forward. She stated that it was 11:24.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if she had a question.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was trying to make a motion.

Mayor Bier stated that they cannot hear that.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer said she would like to make a motion.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if they can’t hear her, someone else should make the motion.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to 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 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); seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (Item #9)
Mayor Bier stated that they have a decision to make as they have two items left and it’s 11:30 and she stated that they might want to consider moving and pulling an agenda item.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought the next item will be quick, but he didn’t know about Item #12.

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

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 May 09, 2022
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.” Acting Planning Director Murdock indicated that he was joined by Planning Commissioner David Leal and Director Murdock presented the staff report.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if he said the RDA allotment does not apply because she asked how that would fit into their RHNA allocation.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that SB330, a state law enacted in 2019, it prevents cities from adopting or implementing any provisions in local code that would limit the number of permits or require some sort of numerical allocation for housing development permits. Staff recommended, and the Planning Commission supported, was keeping on the books the provisions that are in the Municipal Code. They were adopted and enacted by the voters and, to respect the will of the voters, keep them on the books although recognizing that the city is unable at this time to implement them. He stated that there is a sunset provision through 2032 at this point in time. He stated that after that, the city could resume implementation of the RDA process, but for the time being and the foreseeable future, they would not be able to do that.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.

Acting Planning Director Murdock wanted to clarify one statement, i.e., the sunset date is January 1, 2034.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, thanked staff for their work on this and encouraged Council to approve this five-year extension of the Growth Management Ordinance, mentioning her thoughts on this item.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speakers.

JoAnne Arnos, Pacifica, asked Council to approve the Growth Management Ordinance for another five years, especially the agriculture and HPD segments of the ordinance, mentioning her thoughts on the issue. She also asked that the city respond to emails commenting on their position on an issue to avoid misunderstandings.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, thanked them for their work on this and he urged Council to approve this extension which is important, mentioning his thoughts on the issue.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, thanked Council and Planning for bringing this forward, and mentioned his thoughts on the issue.

Mayor Bier introduced a speaker.

Paul Chervatin, Pacifica, urged Council to renew the growth control ordinance, mentioning his thoughts on this issue.

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 May 09, 2022
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had comments but it is a long meeting and it is a nice to have something that everyone seems to be able to get behind and agree upon. He would be happy to vote yes.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if Planning Commissioner Leal had any comments from Planning.

Planning Commissioner Leal stated he did not have any additional comments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she didn’t have any comments and would be happy to make a motion.

Mayor Bier encouraged her to make the motion.

Councilmember Beckmeyer moved 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; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (Item #10)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

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. [Agenda Item #11 was discussed as the first public hearing prior to Agenda Item #9.] Acting Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.

Mayor Bier asked if they go through the same process.

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 May 09, 2022
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they would but they have agreement from the appellant and applicant to continue the hearing and they could consider waiving making their presentations if they so choose.

Mayor Bier asked if any Councilmembers have had any conflict of interest or ex-parte communications.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he has had communication with Eamonn Murphy, Ian Butler and talking to Margaret Goodale about communicating with her.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she also talked to Mr. Murphy.

Mayor Bier stated that she spoke with both the appellant and Eamonn Murphy.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he spoke with the Murphy’s, developer, and a couple of email exchanges and they set a date to meet then the staff report came out postponing it and he didn’t physically meet with him.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she had a conversation with the developer, Eamonn Murphy, and was working on scheduling a meeting with the appellant but they haven’t had the opportunity because she has been out of town.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing and invited the appellant to speak.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked, before they open the public hearing, if there were any questions from Council to staff.

Mayor Bier asked if there were any questions and there were not. She then opened for the appellant to speak.

Margaret Goodale, appellant, stated that she just heard she had a choice of waiving the presentation but she has asked for the last five days about that, and she wants the clock stopped as it was not fair. She reiterated that she had five days with the question about the legality of her talking. She wrote a two-minute discussion and she will read what she had before this afternoon.

She stated that there is normally an opportunity for mutual agreement to the timing of the change for an appeal and she was not extended that courtesy and she should have been asked five nights ago, not just informed before this meeting. She stated that the process has been entirely irregular.

She stated that, until hearing the city attorney, she did not know that she would be presenting any appeal at this time, as she does not have her appeal to present. She stated that it was ridiculous.

Mayor Bier stated that she wasn’t expected to give her presentation at this time.

Ms. Goodale stated that they were offering her ten minutes and she asked if staff will remove any future opportunity and, if so, she will continue with what she is saying as she is angry and needs to be able to give a presentation in the future since she had never been told that she had ten minutes at this time. She stated that presentation may change as some parts of it may be mooted by the revisions that began nearly a month ago. She stated that staff has not directly or completely answered her questions and she asked what she is to think. How do they proceed? She stated that the developer wants to extend the time and the city staff wants to extend the time, and she would be happy to extend the time if the project can be made better, as she thought it could be a wonderful project. She stated that they need to all agree to a mutually agreeable hearing date

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 May 09, 2022
which has apparently happened. She didn’t know that might preclude the opportunity for a Planning Commission meeting. She needs an agreement allowing her to amend the appeal and add any new grounds that may arise from the planned revisions. She needs an agreement with the city that she will be notified promptly and provided with all copies of every document received and she needs an assurance at this time that the process will now preclude anyone, including her, speaking to the appeal or about it in the future. She stated that she did not know she could speak at this time. She stated that there is much more to be said and she thought they should talk about it at some point. She thanked Councilmember Beckmeyer for asking the City Attorney for clarification. She wished that she had gotten that clarification. She asked forgiveness for her frustration and anger. She continued to believe that this needs to go back to the Planning Commission and she does not intend for her agreement for a changed date to constitute a consent for continuance if that precludes having the Planning Commission getting this again. She stated that the project could be marvelous and a huge benefit to Pacifica but as it stands now, it is not.

Mayor Bier asked if they have any questions. She stated that she might not have explained it well enough before she came up, and she apologized for that.

Ms. Goodale stated that she is the appellant and has lived in Pacifica for 45 years and watched Pacifica grow and change and watched staff change and she is unhappy.

Mayor Bier understood and asked if any councilmembers had questions for her.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she didn’t have a question for Ms. Goodale but she has a question for staff. She asked if she asks that now or is there a staff presentation.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that staff has made their presentation and they should stick to the format and the next process would be to ask the applicant to speak and when Council closes the public hearing, they can ask questions of staff.

Mayor Bier invited the applicant to come up.

Eamonn Murphy, applicant, stated he is a co-developer with his brother, Brendan, on the 570 Crespi project and he was present with his wife. They are both locals and have lived in Pacifica for 47+ years and their parents are still living in the back of the valley. He stated that they met at Safeway when they were in their early 20s, and working their way through college. He stated that they have two amazing sons. He stated that they are fully invested in Pacifica, their home. He spent 15 years coaching youth baseball little league, CYO basketball and soccer. He stated that his wife is a founding mother of the Friendship Playground and a first grade teacher at Vallemar School. He stated that they weren’t the typical outside developers. The purchased the infield project seven years ago, and when they purchased it, they had a beautiful vision of that property as it was a great location and they knew it had some awesome potential. When they first got there, his dad, brothers, all went down there and they moved about 3-4 yard bins of garbage. He stated that those wetlands were filled with tires and they cleaned it up and it was still an eyesore today but it is in better condition than it was when they first purchased the property. He stated that they read the appeal and he asked the appellant why them, as there were bigger fish to fry in this town. They have the Linda Mar Woods, the mega church in the back of Cape Breton, the high rise they are talking about on Highway One, the quarry is back and now they are talking about tearing down Sea Bowl and he asked the appellant why their infill project. He stated that there is talk that there should be more commercial in the project and that was unsustainable. He stated that, if you look at the e-sewer project and you have the Crespi Center and there are about 15-20 commercial condominiums sitting there now. East of that, they have Kenny’s Chinese food,

2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 May 09, 2022
the batting cages, the Pacifica Athletic Club, the Community Center to the left and the Quickstop across the street and the surf shop and they have Puerto 27, and he asked why they need more commercial. He stated that he talked with m any of the tenants there and they have all said the same thing, that they don’t need more competition but more customers. He stated that place is the right spot for more housing. He stated that the front of the property is going to be a beautiful commercial building, and behind that, they will have residential homes, condominiums with three below market rate units. He stated that, to build 19 units in Pacifica is taking them forever and has been a painful process. He stated that they are ready to take it to the next step. He stated that they heard talk about encroachment on the wetlands, but they are not encroaching one inch on the wetlands and they spent the last several years working with a biologist and making sure they are not stepping one inch on the wetlands. He stated that there is talk about the parking and they are putting 13 parking spots on the Community Center site and they aren’t even in the calculations for the project and they are a net positive for parking. They are building a beautiful driveway where the seniors can now pull up to the front of the Community Center, get dropped off and continue on out with an awesome flow of one way in and one way out. The exits will meet in the center and they can pull right out of there and parking is not going to be an issue. He stated that the heritage trees were brought up as an issue by the appellant and they are taking some heritage trees down but they are putting plenty of extra trees, more than the 3 to 1 ration, and all the landscaping that will be happening outside their property and onto the Community Center side. He stated that he sees the appellant’s frustration. She hasn’t been dealing with this for seven years, but they have and they have answered all the questions and are trying to keep everybody happy. He stated that they have done everything that has been asked of them and they are now at the finish line with an awesome project that is going to be a massive upgrade to lower Crespi Drive. They thanked Council for their time and they hope to see again. He wished they would reconsider the appeal, but he doubt it will happen at this time, but they look forward to seeing them in 2-3 weeks.

Mayor Bier invited public comment.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he wanted to clarify that staff did communicate very clearly the process to the appellant and the applicant, including very clearly that there would be a lot of ten minutes at this time, as well as ten minutes at the continuation hearing. He stated that Acting Planning Director Murdock can elaborate on that communication if Council wishes.

Mayor Bier again invited public comment.

Ron Maykel, Pacifica, stated that he was new to the project. He was familiar with the property and he feels that the property has a biological and historical value, as some may know it is a remnant of a lake called Lake Matilda and mentioned his concerns and suggestions on the process for this project.

Victor Carmichael, Pacifica, stated that he prepared his response to coincide with the appeal to support the appellant’s position, and mentions his concerns about asking for a continuance, as well as specific concerns about the project itself.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that the project has so much potential, providing much needed low income housing as well as protection of a historic wetland, and she was grateful that the community has become engaged, but then expressed her concerns and suggestions about the changes in the process.

Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, stated he believes in protecting the environment and providing

2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 May 09, 2022
affordable housing, and expressed his thoughts and suggestions on the process.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that this was a painful process and she wished she wasn’t present to talk about it as it was a mess. She then mentioned her thoughts and suggestions on the project and the process going forward.

Ian Butler, Pacifica, stated that he has followed this site for a long time, and mentioned his thoughts and suggestions on the project and the process.

Mor Hirsh, Pacifica, stated that he is concerned about the process, and mentioned his thoughts and suggestions on that as well as the process.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that he sat through a similar situation recently in another county and mentioned his thoughts and suggestions on the process.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speakers.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that the thing is about the process, mentioning his thoughts and concerns on the process.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that he wasn’t sure what the city can legally do at this point, but he mentioned his thoughts and suggestions on the project and the process.

JoAnne Arnos, Pacifica, stated that her recommendation was for this to go back to Planning, and mentioned her thoughts on the project and the process.

Dinah Verby, Pacifica, stated that she had sent in her written thoughts on this project but she was concerned about the process unfolding at this meeting, with several misrepresentations by staff and she felt compelled to share her thoughts to clear the record.

Mayor Bier stated that she owes an apology to the appellant as she didn’t feel she was able to explain the process properly for her to understand and she didn’t even ask her if she was going to set aside time.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it would be best to offer them each three minutes to allow the opportunity to rebut.

Mayor Bier stated that she would offer the appellant two minutes for a rebuttal.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano clarified that they wanted to provide an opportunity for her to come up and respond to what she heard, but if not, it does not preclude her from providing her statements or presentation at the continued public hearing if that is what Council does.

Ms. Goodale stated that she has calmed down and appreciated all the support asking for reconsideration of this. She thinks there could be something wonderful to happen on the site and they have a marvelous opportunity for the site. She also thought it was time to let people talk about it rather than having everything going on since 2015 without any public study as not even the Commissioners got to study this in public or ask questions. She stated that it is time for people to talk about what is possible. She stated that the Murphy’s have been through flaming hoops which she understands, and they were led there by staff. She was sorry that they are the brunt of this, but they need something excellent, not just something that will hurt the wetland and doesn’t

2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 May 09, 2022
solve our housing problems.

Mayor Bier offered the applicant a chance to rebut but he chose not to so she closed the public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated what stood out to him as they were discussing an exercise in frustration was that the applicant and appellant had some form of mutual respect for one another and the community is here together no matter how they are feeling about the project itself. He feels like it is important to remind them of that before going forward. He referred to the last speaker asking about continuance and he was not privy to the communications that have been going on between the appellant and city and he asked the City Attorney to clarify if consent is necessary for that continuance before they make a motion for continuance so he can know that.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Council has opened the public hearing and it is within the Council’s purview to continue the hearing to whatever date Council desires. Staff has reached out to the applicant and the appellant as she thought staff would prefer to have the applicant and appellant to agree to a date so that there is no dispute about when the appeal is going to be heard and the appeal is thoroughly considered. She understood that Acting Planning Director Murdock has spoken with the appellant and applicant and they both agreed to the June 27 continued hearing date. She stated that he can elaborate on that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the nuance is whether the appellant agrees or consents to a continuance and the question of whether he has vetted a date to conduct a continued public hearing. He will let the appellant speak for herself regarding the first item, and as to the latter, he has confirmed in writing with both applicant and appellant that the June 27 date is an agreeable date for a continued public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was not certain if he heard the appellant tell them that she agrees to the continuance.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he will not speak for the appellant on that, but he can say that he has confirmed with both applicant and appellant that the June 27 City Council meeting is an acceptable date to hold a continued public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, in past that, it was in Council’s purview specifically. He stated that there were a lot of comments around perception and ultimately doing better and one spoke on behalf of good will, which is what he would like to cultivate. He felt doing better was a good idea. He stated that he would speak about where he made an error. He was uncomfortable placing blame on others but comfortable on himself. He stated that Ms. Goodale is seated behind the cameraman, and he appreciated his moving to allow him to look at her as he speaks. He stated that, when he started receiving her communications that she was sending to the city on Wednesday, he should have immediately followed up with the City Manager to make sure her questions were addressed, and he did not actively do that until after 2 p.m. this day and he was sorry that he made assumptions he shouldn’t have. He failed as the link in the chain of trying to communicate what he was hearing from her and he apologized. He will be following up with city staff to ensure that this does not happen again.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she acknowledged the frustration on the part of many people in this situation and she echoed what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck said about trying to get answers to questions on behalf of individuals. She stated that, when you are a Councilmember, the best thing for you to do is to speak directly to staff and stay out of the middle of direct

2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 May 09, 2022
communication, especially when talking about an appeal. She stated that this project has been going on since 2015 during the previous Council and when she was elected, she was thinking that the project would be underway before the election was done, and they are still here. She stated that they know there has been a lot of changes to the project over time. She stated that the site adjacent to where the Murphy’s property is located underwent a major construction project with the EQ Basin and there has been a lot of activity over the period of time since the project was first brought forward and it has changed form. She stated that was not unusual as projects change form a lot. She thought there were so many issues at play and they had a lot of communication going on to Council that raised a number of questions in her mind that led her to want to know the process and at what point in time would the decision be made for the issue to be sent back to Planning if that is what Council wanted. She stated that it has been in her mind as a possibility that Council needs to consider. She stated that there are questions regarding heritage trees, use of public land, suggestions that there is not enough affordable housing included in the project, traffic impacts, the definition of wetlands and buffer zones related to wetland. She stated that she has a question about Army Corp permitting and where that happens in the process. She stated that the public needs a better clarification about what portion of this project is on former public property because, on hearing some of the commentary, you would think the entire project was on public property which is not the case. She feels that there needs to be better clarification when something is existing over seven years as when there is people’s awareness of one piece or another, then their continuity of focus on the project waxes and wanes.

She listened to the Planning Commission meeting on this project and there were not all these questions that have come up at the end of the process and regarding the assertion about nontransparency and no access to what is being decided, she has a hard time understanding that because it was publicly noted at the Planning Commission meeting that anyone could attend.

She stated that, in light of the pandemic and a lot of meetings through various means such as calling in from another country to participate in the meeting, she recognizes that not everyone’s awareness and continuity of every aspect of this project has been equal. Thus, she thinks they need to have more understanding for all parties. She realizes they are engaged in an actual process with an appeal, and it is not a town hall meeting, but she hears from many parties the need for more information. She thinks the place for that to occur, given where they are in the process, is probably at the Planning Commission level. She stated that matter is something she still has to understand better from staff as to what the options are and when Council can ask for or request those options.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has been going through his emails and the timeline, and he got his first email from the appellant on May 6 at 9:51 and he admits he is usually not quick but he happened to be online and he forwarded it to Acting Planning Director Murdock at 9:58. He got a copy of the response from him to Ms. Goodale at 1:37. He stated that there have been various emails between the appellant and Acting Planning Director Murdock and he got a copy today, May 9, at 3:59 p.m. that says regarding tonight’s meeting, the applicant and appellant will each have ten minutes for public comment tonight, other public comments will be the usual 2 or 3 minutes at the Mayor’s discretion and the opportunity to speak at this meeting cannot be removed from the agenda. At the continued public hearing, the applicant and appellant will be given ten minutes for public comment and other public comments will be the usual 2-3 minutes.

He stated that the first paragraph clearly states the appellant and the applicant get ten minutes at this meeting and public input of 2-3 minutes and at the continued public hearing, whether they agree with it being June 13 or June 27, the appellant and applicant were both told they will have ten minutes then in addition to ten minutes at this meeting and the public will have the usual 2-3 minutes at that point. He stated that it says that he understands he cannot make the June 13 meeting date and they can also consider a continuance to June 27. He stated that at 3:59 this afternoon, the applicant and appellant were both told June 27 was an option. He stated that it

2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 May 09, 2022
does not state in his email that either one accepted it, but it does say that both were offered that date and they were both told they had ten minutes tonight and ten minutes at the continuance.

He stated that stating that no one was told this before the meeting was not accurate. He would make a motion to continue this to June 27.

Councilmember Vaterlaus seconded his motion.

Mayor Bier stated that she was surprised and feels bad about what happened with Ms. Goodale and she apologized to her if she was not clear in her facilitation. She stated that she has the same email changes as Councilmember O’Neill explained and she thought there were plenty of questions and she thought there was a general agreement between the two parties for June 27.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had a couple of questions before they vote. He appreciated Councilmember Beckmeyer’s thought about possibly turning this back to the Planning Commission. He would like to ask the question and think about his vote and whether or not he wants to vote yes on what is on the floor currently or whether he preferred to turn this back to Planning Commission.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she could give a comment when he is done about that issue.

She understands that the time for them to make that determination would not have been tonight as the way the item is put before them at this meeting was whether they should continue or not continue to a date certain. At the time that the staff report was written, that date was June 13, but in later email communications, it was clear that it didn’t work for the appellant then another date was found as Councilmember O’Neill read from the email that it was June 27. She stated that it wasn’t on the floor for Council to decide to send it back to Planning at this time. She stated that an outcome of the continuation of this item could be that decision.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked her for that clarification. He was ready to vote.

Mayor Bier stated that was her understanding as well.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (Item #11, as amended to continue the public hearing to June 27) RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

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.

Mayor Bier asked if they need to extend the meeting.

2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 May 09, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, before they discuss extending, he conferred with Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter about the budget timeline impacts if they were to not hear the base budget and position recommendations in the initial capital until the May 23 meeting and it was possible to do that. The intended to bring the more flushed out Capital Improvement program back on May 23 after they initial input at this meeting on base budget and some of the limited term position recommendations, but they can do it altogether on May 23. He stated that the impact was that it just compresses their timeline in getting Council’s input, processing it and coming back at the first June meeting, June 13, for the proposed budget. If Council prefers a fresh mind in diving into the budget issues, they can do it on May 23.

Mayor Bier thought it was necessary after the night they have had that they move it to the 23rd.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated since they aren’t going to hear that appeal on that night, it gives them more time.

City Manager Woodhouse thought that was a good point, as in looking at their tentative list, they have on the 23rd a lengthy study session starting early on the heritage tree ordinance recommendations and the regular agenda is not overly impacted.

Mayor Bier asked if they need a motion.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, before they make a motion, they might open it up for public comment in case there is anyone present who wants to speak on it.

Mayor Bier opened up public comments and, seeing no one, asked if they had any call-ins.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that there were people on line but no hands raised.

Mayor Bier closed the public comments.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to postpone this item to the next City Council meeting on May 23, 2022; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (to postpone item #12 to 5/23/2022 meeting)
RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 5/23/2022
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier thanked Councilmember Beckmeyer for calling in.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked everyone for hanging in there.

Councilmember Vaterlaus wanted to adjourn the meeting in honor of Jean Headly who recently passed away and was a large part of our community for many years.

2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 May 09, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that she started the Fog Fest.

Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m. in memory of Jean Headly.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting (4996 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/23/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of a Resolution Making Findings as Required by AB 361 to Continue to Permit the City Council to Conduct Teleconferenced Meetings Due to Health and Safety Concerns Relating to COVID-19
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt a Resolution making findings pursuant to AB 361 to authorize the City Council to to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19.

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
650-738-7409
[email protected]
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:

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 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 and continues to affirm the existence of the local emergency.

Beginning with the Special City Council Meeting held on March 18, 2020 for the purpose of adopting Resolution No. 18-2020 ratifying the City Manager’s Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus (“COVID-19”), all City Council, Committee and Commission meetings have been held via videoconference using a Zoom Meeting or Zoom Webinar platform with no physical meeting location open to the public. The Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20 suspended certain requirements of the Brown Act to allow for public meetings to be held via teleconferenced meetings, either via audio or video or both, for all members of the body to participate from remote locations with no physical meeting location open to the public. The City of Pacifica has been holding public meetings of the City Council and City Committees and Commissions fully virtually via Zoom with no physical location open to the public since March 18, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic as 3 Packet Pg. 50
Pacifica City Council 2
May 23, 2022
provided for under Governor’s Executive Orders suspending certain provisions of the Brown Act to allow for the virtual meeting format. Some Committee and Commission meetings had been initially suspended in the early months of the pandemic, but most have resumed meeting regularly via Zoom. The usage of Zoom to conduct public meetings remotely via teleconference has allowed the City to ensure the public’s continued access to meetings while also ensuring the public’s safety.

The Governor’s Executive Order N-08-21 issued on June 11, 2021 provided local jurisdictions a basis upon which to continue conducting public meetings via videoconference without a physical location open to the public under the relaxed provisions of the Brown Act until 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.

Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) was signed by the Governor on September 16, 2021 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 legislative bodies to be conducted via teleconference. Its provisions allow a local agency legislative body to meet without complying with the standard teleconferencing requirements of the Brown Act if the Governor has proclaimed a State of Emergency and any of the following occurs:
1) State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing,
2) the meeting is being held for the purposes of determining, by a majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees;
3) the legislative body has determined that as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

In addition, AB 361 adds new procedures and clarifies the requirements for conducting remote meetings, including the following:
• Public Comment Opportunities in Real Time - a legislative body that meets remotely pursuant to AB 361 must allow members of the public to access the meeting via a call-in option or an internet-based service option, and the agenda for the remote meeting must provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the body in real time. A legislative body cannot require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting. • No Action During Disruptions - in the event of a disruption that prevents the local agency from broadcasting the remote meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control that prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in 3 Packet Pg. 51
Pacifica City Council 3
May 23, 2022
option or internet-based service option, AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from taking any further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access is restored. • Periodic Findings - Government Code § 54953(e)(B) requires the legislative body to hold a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risk to the health or safety of attendees.

AB 361 will sunset on January 1, 2024.

DISCUSSION:

At the regular meeting of the City Council held on October 11, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 63-2021 making findings as required by AB 361 to permit the City Council and City Committees and Commissions to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to the health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19. The resolution also directed staff to agendize for Council consideration no less than every 30 days the need to continue to utilize teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361. The City Council subsequently adopted Resolution No. 69-2021 on November 8, 2021; Resolution No. 80-2021 on December 13, 2021; Resolution No. 01-2022 on January 10, 2022; and Resolution No. 07-2022 on February 14, 2022 re-affirming the findings required by AB 361 to continue to conduct teleconferenced public meetings due to COVID-19 risk.

With the COVID-19 update provided at the City Council meeting held on February 28, 2022, it was reported that although the Omicron variant spread rapidly during and after the December 2021 holiday season, with positive case rates spiking in mid-January 2022, there had been a dramatic decrease in positive cases in the third week of February, the health effects of the Omicron variant generally much less severe for vaccinated persons, and San Mateo County has a 93.9% vaccination rate for 5+ age. Effective February 16, 2022, the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that Health Officer Order No. c19-12 (For The Wearing of Face Coverings In Workplaces And Public Settings issued on August 2, 2021) was rescinded in full.

As a result of the decrease in case rates, lower health risks and higher vaccination rates, at the City Council meeting held on February 28, 2022, the City Manager had recommended the return to in-person City Council and City Committee and Commission meetings beginning March 14, 2022. The City Council approved of the return to in-person meetings beginning March 14, 2022 by majority vote at the February 28, 2022 City Council meeting. Since then, no further Resolutions have been adopted pursuant to AB 361 to provide for meetings be teleconference.

With the May 6, 2022 update regarding COVID-19 transmission rates, the County of San Mateo Health Officer reports that the County is again experiencing an increase in COVID-19 transmission and positive tests in the community in addition to the level of COVID-19 hospitalizations rising. With the current Centers for Disease Control (CDC) rubric, based on the higher of new admissions and inpatient beds metrics in the past 7 days, San Mateo County is categorized in “medium” category for COVID-19 community levels. The CDC has cautioned that some people and communities, such as our oldest citizens, people who are immunocompromised, and people with disabilities, are at higher risk for serious illness. With the 3 Packet Pg. 52
Pacifica City Council 4
May 23, 2022
increase in COVID-19 incidence and transmission and the vulnerability of certain segments of the population, the City Manager is recommending that the City Council consider again adopting a Resolution making findings as required by AB 361 to permit the City Council and City Committees and Commissions to conduct teleconferenced meetings if necessary due to the health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19 and to evaluate 30 days thereafter the need to continue to utilize if necessary teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361. With this recommendation, City Council meetings would continue to be conducted in-person with a live broadcast by Pacific Coast Television on local channel 26 and online Live Stream with a phonein line to allow for participation by members of the body, as necessary, and members of the public to provide verbal input to the meeting. The City Manager is not recommending resuming the virtual Zoom meeting format at this time.

The enclosed Resolution makes the required findings under AB 361, and if adopted, it will allow the City to offer teleconference accessibility for public meetings, to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19, as well as during other state-proclaimed emergencies, such as earthquakes or wildfires, where physical attendance may present a risk. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to make the findings required by AB 361.

The resolution also directs staff to agendize for Council consideration no less than every 30 days the need to continue to utilize teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361 if found that there is a continued risk to public health and safety.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“An Engaged Community” - includes taking actions to restore trust in city government, expanding communication, and building community.
“Maintaining a Safe Community” - includes support our first responders (police, fire, public works), responding to emergencies, protecting people, property, businesses, and our infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, storm and waste water), and engaging in emergency preparedness and prevention activities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (PDF)
Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 53
Pacifica City Council 5
May 23, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA MAKING FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY AB 361 TO PERMIT THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONDUCT

TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS DUE TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS RELATING TO COVID-19
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, as part of the State of California’s response to address the global COVID-19 outbreak, 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; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, at 12:11 p.m., 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 rapidly widespread of COVID-19 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 executed the “Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”)” (“Proclamation”); and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 18-2020 ratifying the “Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”)”, which continues to remain in place; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the Governor of California executed Executive Order N-29-20 which suspended and modified specified provisions in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section § 54950 et seq.) and authorized local legislative bodies to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and address the local legislative body; and
WHEREAS, 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 due to the COVID-19 Delta variant circulating in San Mateo County and evidence of the Delta variant being highly transmissible in indoor settings; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, the Governor of California executed Executive Order N-08-21 which extended the provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 concerning teleconference accommodations for public meetings through September 30, 2021; and 3 Packet Pg. 54
Pacifica City Council 6
May 23, 2022
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the Governor of California signed into law Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361, Rivas) (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) amending Government Code § 54953 and providing alternative teleconferencing requirements to conduct public meetings during a proclaimed state of emergency; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica has conducted public meetings of City Council and City Committees and Commissions via teleconference from March 18, 2020 through March 13, 2022 under the modified provisions of the Brown Act as allowed for by Governor’s Orders N-29-20, N-08-21 and/or N-15-21 in effect at the time; and WHEREAS, AB 361 (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) imposes requirements to ensure members of the public are able to attend and participate in public meetings conducted via teleconference, including:
• Notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option;
• The legislative body shall take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored; • Prohibits the legislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and specifies that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body and offer comments in real time;
• Prohibits the legislative body from closing the public comment period until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed; and WHEREAS, the City has already implemented and is in full compliance with the requirements listed above when conducting public meetings via teleconference, which are now codified in Government Code § 54953(e)(2)(B-G); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code § 54953(e)(B), the legislative body shall hold a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees. The City Council must make these findings no later than 30 days after the first teleconferenced meeting is held pursuant to AB 361 (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) after September 30, 2021, and must also make these findings every 30 days thereafter, in order to continue to allow teleconference accessibility for conducing public meetings; and
3 Packet Pg. 55
Pacifica City Council 7
May 23, 2022
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, in December 2021 and January 2022 the COVID-19 Omicron variant has been observed by scientists and medical professionals to spread rapidly even amongst some vaccinated individuals and continues to present a health and safety risk to the general public; and
WHEREAS, effective February 16, 2022 the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that Health Officer Order No. c19-12 (For The Wearing of Face Coverings In Workplaces And Public Settings issued on August 2, 2021) was rescinded in full); and WHEREAS, to the County of San Mateo Health Officer strongly recommends getting vaccinated or boosters for COVID-19, improve ventilation throughout indoor spaces as much as possible, wear a well-fitting mask in crowded indoor public places, and continue to follow State isolation and quarantine guidance to prevent the spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, as of May 6, 2022, San Mateo County is categorized in “medium” category for COVID-19 community levels within the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) rubric based on the higher of new admissions and inpatient beds metrics in the past 7 days and as of May 5, 2022, the County reported that the daily rate was 36 cases per 100K during the last seven days, which is an average of 276 new cases per day, test positivity rates are 5.4% countywide and the testing level report by the State (incorporating a 7-day lag) was 584 tests per 100k in the population and remains among the highest in the State; and WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has cautioned that some people and communities, such as our oldest citizens, people who are immunocompromised, and people with disabilities, are at higher risk for serious illness due to COVID-19; and WHEREAS, the City cannot ensure that social distancing can be maintained by Councilmembers and/or members of the public in Council Chambers for the duration of meetings in order to safeguard the most vulnerable populations, and COVID-19 variants and transmission rates remain an imminent and serious risk to public health; and WHEREAS, the City provides for City Council meetings to be conducted in-person with a live broadcast and call-in component for members of the body and members of the public to observe and participate in the meeting and to conduct the meeting in a manner 3 Packet Pg. 56
Pacifica City Council 8
May 23, 2022
that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby declares that the recitals set forth above are true and correct, and incorporated into this resolution as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby declares that a state of emergency as a result of the threat of COVID-19 still exists and continues to impact the ability of members of the public, the City Council, City staff and consultants to meet safely in person and would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees.

SECTION 3. The State of California and the City of Pacifica continue to follow safety measures in response to COVID-19 as ordered or recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), California Department of Public Health (DPH), and/or County of San Mateo, as applicable, including facial coverings when required. Based upon that guidance, in person attendance indoors at public meetings continues to present a health risk for certain segments of the population, necessitating teleconferencing to allow for meaningful public participation options for all Pacifica constituents.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to the findings listed in this Resolution, the City Council is authorized to utilize teleconferencing to conduct public meetings pursuant to AB 361 and Government Code § 54953, as amended thereby.

SECTION 5. The City Council determines that, every 30 days, it will reconsider the circumstances of the emergency and review whether it continues to directly impact the ability of the Council and appointed Committees and Commissions members to meet safely in person.

SECTION 6. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. Effective Date: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 23rd day of May, 2022, by the following vote:
3 Packet Pg. 57
Pacifica City Council 9
May 23, 2022
AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 3 Packet Pg. 58
Assembly Bill No. 361
CHAPTER 165
An act to add and repeal Section 89305.6 of the Education Code, and to amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of, and to add and repeal Section 11133 of, the Government Code, relating to open meetings, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
[Approved by Governor September 16, 2021. Filed with
Secretary of State September 16, 2021.]
legislative counsel
’
s digest
AB 361, Robert Rivas. Open meetings: state and local agencies:
teleconferences.
(1) Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency, as those terms are defined, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate. The act contains specified provisions regarding the timelines for posting an agenda and providing for the ability of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public.

The act generally requires all regular and special meetings of the legislative body be held within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, subject to certain exceptions. The act allows for meetings to occur via teleconferencing subject to certain requirements, particularly that the legislative body notice each teleconference location of each member that will be participating in the public meeting, that each teleconference location be accessible to the public, that members of the public be allowed to address the legislative body at each teleconference location, that the legislative body post an agenda at each teleconference location, and that at least a quorum of the legislative body participate from locations within the boundaries of the local agency’s jurisdiction. The act provides an exemption to the jurisdictional requirement for health authorities, as defined. The act authorizes the district attorney or any interested person, subject to certain provisions, to commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that specified actions taken by a legislative body are null and void.

Existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, authorizes the Governor, or the Director of Emergency Services when the governor is inaccessible, to proclaim a state of emergency under specified circumstances.

Executive Order No. N-29-20 suspends the Ralph M. Brown Act’s requirements for teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic provided that notice and accessibility requirements are met, the public members are allowed to observe and address the legislative body at the meeting, and that a legislative body of a local agency has a procedure for receiving and swiftly

92 3.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, as specified.

This bill, until January 1, 2024, would authorize a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Ralph M. Brown Act when a legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, during a proclaimed state of emergency held for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, and during a proclaimed state of emergency when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, as provided.

This bill would require legislative bodies that hold teleconferenced meetings under these abbreviated teleconferencing procedures to give notice of the meeting and post agendas, as described, to allow members of the public to access the meeting and address the legislative body, to give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option, and to conduct the meeting in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body. The bill would require the legislative body to take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored. The bill would specify that actions taken during the disruption are subject to challenge proceedings, as specified.

This bill would prohibit the legislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and would specify that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time. The bill would prohibit the legislative body from closing the public comment period and the opportunity to register to provide public comment, until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, as specified. When there is a continuing state of emergency, or when state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, the bill would require a legislative body to make specified findings not later than 30 days after the first teleconferenced meeting pursuant to these provisions, and to make those findings every 30 days thereafter, in order to continue to meet under these abbreviated teleconferencing procedures.

Existing law prohibits a legislative body from requiring, as a condition to attend a meeting, a person to register the person’s name, or to provide other information, or to fulfill any condition precedent to the person’s attendance.
92 Ch. 165 — 2 —

3.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) This bill would exclude from that prohibition, a registration requirement imposed by a third-party internet website or other online platform not under the control of the legislative body.
(2) Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend any meeting of a state body. The act requires at least one member of the state body to be physically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.

The Governor’s Executive Order No. N-29-20 suspends the requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act for teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic, provided that notice and accessibility requirements are met, the public members are allowed to observe and address the state body at the meeting, and that a state body has a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, as specified.

This bill, until January 31, 2022, would authorize, subject to specified notice and accessibility requirements, a state body to hold public meetings through teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the state body. With respect to a state body holding a public meeting pursuant to these provisions, the bill would suspend certain requirements of existing law, including the requirements that each teleconference location be accessible to the public and that members of the public be able to address the state body at each teleconference location. Under the bill, a state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically would satisfy any requirement that the state body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. The bill would require that each state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing provide notice of the meeting, and post the agenda, as provided. The bill would urge state bodies utilizing these teleconferencing procedures in the bill to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to existing law, as provided.
(3) Existing law establishes the various campuses of the California State University under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and authorizes the establishment of student body organizations in connection with the operations of California State University campuses.

The Gloria Romero Open Meetings Act of 2000 generally requires a legislative body, as defined, of a student body organization to conduct its business in a meeting that is open and public. The act authorizes the legislative body to use teleconferencing, as defined, for the benefit of the public and the legislative body in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law.

This bill, until January 31, 2022, would authorize, subject to specified notice and accessibility requirements, a legislative body, as defined for purposes of the act, to hold public meetings through teleconferencing and 92 — 3 — Ch. 165

3.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) to make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the legislative body. With respect to a legislative body holding a public meeting pursuant to these provisions, the bill would suspend certain requirements of existing law, including the requirements that each teleconference location be accessible to the public and that members of the public be able to address the legislative body at each teleconference location.

Under the bill, a legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically would satisfy any requirement that the legislative body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. The bill would require that each legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing provide notice of the meeting, and post the agenda, as provided. The bill would urge legislative bodies utilizing these teleconferencing procedures in the bill to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to existing law, as provided.
(4)  This bill would declare the Legislature’s intent, consistent with the Governor’s Executive Order No. N-29-20, to improve and enhance public access to state and local agency meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic and future emergencies by allowing broader access through teleconferencing options.
(5)  This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 54953 of the Government Code proposed by AB 339 to be operative only if this bill and AB 339 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(6)  The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (7) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (8) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 89305.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:
89305.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, and subject to the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), a legislative body may hold public meetings through teleconferencing 92 Ch. 165 — 4 —

3.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) and make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the legislative body.
(b)  (1)  For a legislative body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all requirements in this article requiring the physical presence of members, the clerk or other personnel of the legislative body, or the public, as a condition of participation in or quorum for a public meeting, are hereby suspended.
(2)  For a legislative body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all of the following requirements in this article are suspended:
(A)  Each teleconference location from which a member will be participating in a public meeting or proceeding be identified in the notice and agenda of the public meeting or proceeding.
(B)  Each teleconference location be accessible to the public. (C)  Members of the public may address the legislative body at each teleconference conference location.
(D)  Post agendas at all teleconference locations.
(E)  At least one member of the legislative body be physically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.
(c)  A legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, consistent with the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), shall have satisfied any requirement that the legislative body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. A legislative body need not make available any physical location from which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment.
(d)  If a legislative body holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, the legislative body shall also do both of the following:
(1)  Implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable modification or accommodation from individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and resolving any doubt whatsoever in favor of accessibility.
(2)  Advertise that procedure each time notice is given of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e).
(e)  Except to the extent this section provides otherwise, each legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section shall do both of the following:
(1)  Give advance notice of the time of, and post the agenda for, each public meeting according to the timeframes otherwise prescribed by this article, and using the means otherwise prescribed by this article, as applicable.
92 — 5 — Ch. 165

3.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (2)  In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, also give notice of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment. As to any instance in which there is a change in the means of public observation and comment, or any instance prior to the effective date of this section in which the time of the meeting has been noticed or the agenda for the meeting has been posted without also including notice of the means of public observation and comment, a legislative body may satisfy this requirement by advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time. Advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time shall include, but need not be limited to, posting such means on the legislative body’s internet website.
(f)  All legislative bodies utilizing the teleconferencing procedures in this section are urged to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the otherwise applicable provisions of this article, in order to maximize transparency and provide the public access to legislative body meetings.
(g)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 31, 2022, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 2. Section 11133 is added to the Government Code, to read:
11133. (a)  Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, and subject to the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), a state body may hold public meetings through teleconferencing and make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the state body.
(b)  (1)  For a state body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all requirements in this article requiring the physical presence of members, the clerk or other personnel of the state body, or the public, as a condition of participation in or quorum for a public meeting, are hereby suspended.
(2)  For a state body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all of the following requirements in this article are suspended:
(A)  Each teleconference location from which a member will be participating in a public meeting or proceeding be identified in the notice and agenda of the public meeting or proceeding.
(B)  Each teleconference location be accessible to the public. (C)  Members of the public may address the state body at each teleconference conference location.
(D)  Post agendas at all teleconference locations.
(E)  At least one member of the state body be physically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.
(c)  A state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically 92 Ch. 165 — 6 —

3.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) or otherwise electronically, consistent with the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), shall have satisfied any requirement that the state body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. A state body need not make available any physical location from which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment.
(d)  If a state body holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, the state body shall also do both of the following:
(1)  Implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable modification or accommodation from individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and resolving any doubt whatsoever in favor of accessibility.
(2)  Advertise that procedure each time notice is given of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e).
(e)  Except to the extent this section provides otherwise, each state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section shall do both of the following:
(1)  Give advance notice of the time of, and post the agenda for, each public meeting according to the timeframes otherwise prescribed by this article, and using the means otherwise prescribed by this article, as applicable.
(2)  In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, also give notice of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment. As to any instance in which there is a change in the means of public observation and comment, or any instance prior to the effective date of this section in which the time of the meeting has been noticed or the agenda for the meeting has been posted without also including notice of the means of public observation and comment, a state body may satisfy this requirement by advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time. Advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time shall include, but need not be limited to, posting such means on the state body’s internet website.
(f)  All state bodies utilizing the teleconferencing procedures in this section are urged to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the otherwise applicable provisions of this article, in order to maximize transparency and provide the public access to state body meetings.
(g)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 31, 2022, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 3. Section 54953 of the Government Code is amended to read:
92 — 7 — Ch. 165

3.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) 54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislati
ve body of a local agency shall
be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4)  For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

3.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (d) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members.
(e)  (1)  A local agency may use teleconferencing without complying with the requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) if the legislative body complies with the requirements of paragraph (2) of this subdivision in any of the following circumstances:
(A)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
(B)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(C)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B), that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(2)  A legislative body that holds a meeting pursuant to this subdivision shall do all of the following:
(A)  The legislative body shall give notice of the meeting and post agendas as otherwise required by this chapter.
(B)  The legislative body shall allow members of the public to access the meeting and the agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3. 92 — 9 — Ch. 165

3.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
(C) The legislative body shall conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. (D) In the event of a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the body shall take no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored. Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1.
(E) The legislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time.

3.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (3)  If a state of emergency remains acti
ve, or state or local officials have
imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the legislative body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(A)  The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B)  Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i)  The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii)  State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
(4)  For the purposes of this subdivision, “state of emergency” means a state of emergency proclaimed pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act (Article 1 (commencing with Section 8550) of Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2).
(f)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 3.1. Section 54953 of the Government Code is amended to read:
54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency in person, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. Local agencies shall conduct meetings subject to this chapter consistent with applicable state and federal civil rights laws, including, but not limited to, any applicable language access and other nondiscrimination obligations.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body 92 — 11 — Ch. 165

3.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory o ver
which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agency from providing the public with additional teleconference locations.
(c)  (1)  No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.
(2)  The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
(3)  Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation.
(d)  (1)  Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2)  Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3)  For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter 92 Ch. 165 — 12 —

3.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19)

In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
(C) The legislative body shall conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. (D) In the event of a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the body shall take no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored. Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1.
(E) The legislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must provide an opportunity for 92 — 13 — Ch. 165

3.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) the public to address the legislati
ve body and offer comment in real time.

This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment. (F)  Notwithstanding Section 54953.3, an individual desiring to provide public comment through the use of an internet website, or other online platform, not under the control of the local legislative body, that requires registration to log in to a teleconference may be required to register as required by the third-party internet website or online platform to participate. (G)  (i)  A legislative body that provides a timed public comment period for each agenda item shall not close the public comment period for the agenda item, or the opportunity to register, pursuant to subparagraph (F), to provide public comment until that timed public comment period has elapsed.
(ii)  A legislative body that does not provide a timed public comment period, but takes public comment separately on each agenda item, shall allow a reasonable amount of time per agenda item to allow public members the opportunity to provide public comment, including time for members of the public to register pursuant to subparagraph (F), or otherwise be recognized for the purpose of providing public comment. (iii)  A legislative body that provides a timed general public comment period that does not correspond to a specific agenda item shall not close the public comment period or the opportunity to register, pursuant to subparagraph (F), until the timed general public comment period has elapsed. (3)  If a state of emergency remains active, or state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the legislative body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(A)  The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B)  Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i)  The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii)  State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
(4)  For the purposes of this subdivision, “state of emergency” means a state of emergency proclaimed pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act (Article 1 (commencing with Section 8550) of Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2).
(f)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 4. Section 54953 is added to the Government Code, to read:
54953. (a) All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting 92 Ch. 165 — 14 —

3.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) of the legislati
ve body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4)  For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agency from providing the public with additional teleconference locations
(c)  (1)  No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.
(2)  The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
(3)  Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation.
(d)  (1)  Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, 92 — 15 — Ch. 165

3.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members.
(e) This section shall become operative January 1, 2024.

SEC. 4.1. Section 54953 is added to the Government Code, to read:
54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, in person except as otherwise provided in this chapter. Local agencies shall conduct meetings subject to this chapter consistent with applicable state and federal civil rights laws, including, but not limited to, any applicable language access and other nondiscrimination obligations.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the 92 Ch. 165 — 16 —

3.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) legislati
ve body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

3.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members.
(e) This section shall become operative January 1, 2024.

SEC. 5. Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of this bill incorporate amendments to Section 54953 of the Government Code proposed by both this bill and Assembly Bill 339. Those sections of this bill shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2022, but this bill becomes operative first, (2) each bill amends Section 54953 of the Government Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 339, in which case Section 54953 of the Government Code, as amended by Sections 3 and 4 of this bill, shall remain operative only until the operative date of Assembly Bill 339, at which time Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of this bill shall become operative.

SEC. 6. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to improve and enhance public access to state and local agency meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic and future applicable emergencies, by allowing broader access through teleconferencing options consistent with the Governor’s Executive Order No. N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, permitting expanded use of teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SEC. 7. The Legislature finds and declares that Sections 3 and 4 of this act, which amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of the Government Code, further, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:

This act is necessary to ensure minimum standards for public participation and notice requirements allowing for greater public participation in teleconference meetings during applicable emergencies.

SEC. 8. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that during the COVID-19 public health emergency, certain requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) were suspended by Executive Order N-29-20. Audio and video teleconference were widely used to conduct public meetings in lieu of physical location meetings, and public meetings conducted by teleconference during the COVID-19 public health emergency have been productive, have increased public participation by all members of the public regardless of their location in the state and ability to travel to physical meeting locations, have protected the health and safety of civil servants and the public, and have reduced travel costs incurred by members of state bodies and reduced work hours spent traveling to and from meetings.
92 Ch. 165 — 18 —

3.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (b) The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds and repeals Section 89305.6 of the Education Code, Section 2 of this act, which adds and repeals Section 11133 of the Government Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of this act, which amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of the Government Code, all increase and potentially limit the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
(1) By removing the requirement that public meetings be conducted at a primary physical location with a quorum of members present, this act protects the health and safety of civil servants and the public and does not preference the experience of members of the public who might be able to attend a meeting in a physical location over members of the public who cannot travel or attend that meeting in a physical location. (2) By removing the requirement for agendas to be placed at the location of each public official participating in a public meeting remotely, including from the member’s private home or hotel room, this act protects the personal, private information of public officials and their families while preserving the public’s right to access information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.

SEC. 9. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.

The facts constituting the necessity are:

In order to ensure that state and local agencies can continue holding public meetings while providing essential services like water, power, and fire protection to their constituents during public health, wildfire, or other states of emergencies, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.

O
92 — 19 — Ch. 165

3.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19)

3.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

3.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

3.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

3.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

3.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

3.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (4998 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/23/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Agreement with Telecommunications Engineering Associates for Information Technology Equipment and Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve an Agreement with Telecommunications Engineering Associates for Technology Equipment and Services Related to Radio Communications Infrastructure, and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents related to this project.

STAFF CONTACT:

Daniel Steidle, Chief of Police
650-738-7314
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

To facilitate critical, 24/7 communications between the 911 Dispatch Center in South San Francisco and officers utilizing portable and vehicle mounted two-way radios, the Pacifica Police Department utilizes a series of antennas, radio base station receivers and repeaters located at six locations in and around Pacifica. The high majority of the current infrastructure that facilitates this communication was installed in 2007-2008. The recommended lifespan for this equipment is approximately 10 years, or when manufacturers discontinue support for replacement parts. As such, the current infrastructure is well past life expectancy. Should replacement parts be required, they may be difficult to find and may only be sourced from the secondary market.

Fiscal constraints have caused the need to delay replacement of this equipment in recent years.

Law enforcement agencies are authorized by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to access the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications system (CLETS) for the purpose of accessing databases such as criminal history of persons and California Department of Motor Vehicle information (driver license and vehicle registration information). In October 2020, the Pacifica Police Department received information from DOJ that was disseminated to all California law enforcement agencies regarding the broadcasting of confidential information accessed via CLETS over law enforcement radio systems. It has been standard practice for law enforcement officers to utilize radio systems to send and receive information obtained via CLETS in conjunction with their law enforcement duties. The communication from DOJ mandated that certain information obtained via CLETS must be encrypted if broadcasted over radio systems. Law enforcement agency heads were directed to contact DOJ by December 31, 2020 to inform DOJ how they intended to come into compliance with this mandate. The Pacifica Police Department advised DOJ of the intent to switch to encrypted radio transmissions, as has been a statewide trend for law enforcement agencies. Encrypted radio transmissions protect confidential information obtained via CLETS as they cannot be heard over scanners commonly available to the general public. The deadline set to come into compliance with this mandate is December 31, 2023.
4 Packet Pg. 84
Pacifica City Council 2
May 23, 2022
Replacement of the radio communications infrastructure allows for the upgrade of outdated equipment already beyond expected life span and allows for the Pacifica Police Department to come into compliance with the DOJ mandate.

Telecommunications Engineering Associates (TEA), the company that currently services and maintains our radio communication needs, has the necessary equipment and unique expertise to perform the worked required to replace the aged radio infrastructure. TEA has been contractually responsible for city police and countywide fire radio systems in San Mateo County for more than 20 years. TEA has been the organization that has ensured all San Mateo County police departments can communicate with each other via radio. TEA also previously designed, implemented and currently maintains the Pacifica Police Department integration with the South San Francisco Police radio system. This integration has been necessary since October 2011, when the South San Francisco Police Department was contracted to provide 911 and radio communication services to the Pacifica Police Department.

The proposed Agreement with TEA (Attachment A) details the cost of this project to be $167,039.92 to complete the radio infrastructure equipment replacement. A component of the Agreement is five years of maintenance and support services related to the infrastructure at a cost of $65,088.00, for a total contracted amount of $232,127.92.

The $167,039.92 is currently budgeted and approved as part of the 2021-2022 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The maintenance and support cost of $65,088.00 over a five year period is an ongoing expenditure that is allocated for each year in the Pacifica Police Department budget for contractual services.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose to not approve the Agreement; however, as this critical infrastructure is already beyond its life expectancy, staff does not recommend this alternate action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Agreement to replace radio communications infrastructure supports City Council Goals of Stewardship of City Infrastructure and Maintaining a Safe Community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Approval of the Agreement will create an expenditure of $232,127.92. Funding for the expenditure is already allocated for in the CIP and Police Department budget.

ORIGINATED BY:

Police
ATTACHMENT LIST:
4 Packet Pg. 85
Pacifica City Council 3
May 23, 2022
Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (PDF)
4 Packet Pg. 86
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 1 - OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2

AGREEMENT FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT & SERVICES This Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 1st day of June, 2022, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Daryl D. Jones, Inc. dba Telecommunications Engineering Associates (TEA), a California ‘S’ corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY requires telecommunication engineering equipment and services in connection with law enforcement radio infrastructure replacement; WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified to perform such services; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has agreed to provide CITY with such services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, CONSULTANT and CITY agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.1. Scope of Work. CONSULTANT agrees to furnish the services set forth in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Services").

1.2. Compliance with Law. The Services shall be performed in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders.

1.3. Time is of the Essence. CONSULTANT agrees to diligently prosecute the Services. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence.

1.4. Professional Competence. CONSULTANT represents that it has the professional skills necessary to perform the Services and that it will perform the Services in a skillful and professional manner. CONSULTANT represents that it has all the necessary licenses to perform the Services and shall maintain them throughout the term of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees that the Services shall be performed in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which CONSULTANT is engaged, in the same or similar geographical area in which CONSULTANT practices its profession and will prepare all work products required by this Agreement in accordance with such standards. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT is in responsible charge of the Services and CITY shall have no control over the method or means of performance of the Services. Acceptance by CITY of the Services does not operate as a release of CONSULTANT from professional responsibility for the Services performed.

4.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 2 - OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2

1.5. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an employee of CITY. CONSULTANT expressly warrants that it will not represent that it is an employee of CITY. Persons employed or utilized by CONSULTANT in the performance of the Services will not be employees or agents of CITY. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.

1.6. Confidentiality. CONSULTANT agrees to maintain in confidence and not disclose to any person, firm, governmental entity, or corporation, without CITY's prior written consent, any trade secret or confidential information, knowledge or data relating to the products, process, or operation of CITY. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain in confidence and not to disclose to any person, firm, governmental entity, or corporation any data, information, technology, or material developed or obtained by CONSULTANT during the performance of the Services. The covenants contained in this Section 1.6 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause.

1.7. Ownership of Material. Any reports and other material prepared by or on behalf of CONSULTANT under this Agreement (collectively, the "Documents") shall be and remain the property of CITY. All Documents not already provided to CITY shall be delivered to CITY on the date of termination of this Agreement for any reason. The Documents may be used by CITY and its agents, employees, representatives, and assigns, in whole or in part, or in modified form, for all purposes CITY may deem appropriate without further employment of or payment of any compensation toCONSULTANT.

1.8. Documentation. CONSULTANT shall keep and maintain full and complete documentation and accounting records, employee time sheets, and correspondence pertaining to the performance of the Services, and CONSULTANT shall make such documents available for review and/or audit by CITY and CITY's representatives at all reasonable times for at least four years after the termination of this Agreement or completion of the Services.

1.9. Testimony. CONSULTANT agrees to testify at CITY's request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with the Services. Unless the action is brought by CONSULTANT or is based upon CONSULTANT's negligence, CITY will compensate CONSULTANT for the preparation and the testimony at CONSULTANT's standard hourly rates.

ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION

2.1. Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with Exhibit B, Compensation, attached hereto and incorporated herein. It is agreed that the compensation for the Services shall not exceed $232,127.92 ("Cost Ceiling").

2.2. Invoices. CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices in a form satisfactory to CITY on or before the tenth day of each month for Services provided during the preceding month. CONSULTANT shall submit time and cost records as necessary to substantiate performance of the Services. Within 35 days after receipt of each such invoice, CITY

4.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 3 - OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
shall verify the accuracy of the invoice, correct the charges where appropriate and as discussed and mutually agreed with CONSULTANT, and make payment to CONSULTANT in an amount equal to the amount of such invoice, as verified or corrected by CITY. No payment hereunder shall be construed as evidence of acceptance of any of CONSULTANT's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONSULTANT on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in CONSULTANT's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder. CONSULTANT shall not stop or delay performance of the Services under this Agreement on account of payment disputes with CITY.

2.3. Status Reports. Together with each monthly invoice, CONSULTANT shall submit a status report detailing the amount expended on the Services to that date and the remaining amount to be expended before the Cost Ceiling is reached. CONSULTANT shall notify CITY in writing when payments have reached 90 percent of the Cost Ceiling.

2.4. Withholding. In lieu of holding retention, CITY shall withhold CONSULTANT'sfinal payment until the Services are complete and CITY has received all Documents.

CONSULTANT shall diligently continue and complete performance of the Services if the Services are not complete at the time CONSULTANT has performed services up to the Cost Ceiling.

ARTICLE 3 - TIME OF PERFORMANCE

3.1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the second signature and shall remain in full force and effect until the Services are completed (the "Term"). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all services by June 30, 2025.

3.2. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by CITY upon written notice to CONSULTANT.

3.3. Final Payment. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation for Services performed up to the time of such termination, it being understood that any payments are full compensation for the Services rendered under this Agreement.

3.4. Other Remedies. Nothing in this Article 3 shall be deemed to limit the respective rights of the parties to terminate this Agreement for cause or otherwise to exercise any rights or pursue any remedies which may accrue to them.

ARTICLE 4 - DESIGNATED CONTACTS

4.1. CITY Contact. CITY designates the Chief of Police or his/her designee as its contact who shall be responsible for administering and interpreting the terms and conditions of this Agreement, for matters relating to CONSULTANT's performance under this Agreement, and for liaison and coordination between CITY and CONSULTANT. In the event CITY wishes to make a change in CITY's representative, CITY will notify CONSULTANT of the change in writing.

4.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 4 - OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2

4.2. CONSULTANT Contact. CONSULTANT designates Daryl D. Jones as its contact, who shall have immediate responsibility for the performance of the Services and for all matters relating to performance under this Agreement. Any change in CONSULTANT's designated contact shall be subject to written approval byCITY.

ARTICLE 5 - INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

5.1. Indemnification. CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to claims, liability, loss, damage, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees, awards, fines, penalties, or judgments, arising out of or relating to the Services (collectively "Claims"), defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its Officials, officers, employees and agents (the "CITY Parties"), except to the extent the Claims are attributable to CITY Parties' gross negligence or willful misconduct. CONSULTANT shall defend the CITY Parties as required by California Civil Code Section 2778, and with counsel reasonably acceptable to those parties.

CONSULTANT shall have no right to seek reimbursement from the CITY Parties for the costs of defense.

If CONSULTANT is a “design professional,” as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(c), CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Indemnitees harmless against Liability only to the extent such Liability arises out of, pertains to, or relates to CONSULTANT’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. In such an event, the cost to defend charged to CONSULTANT shall not exceed CONSULTANT’s proportionate percentage of fault.

The obligations contained in this Section 5.1 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause for the full period of time allowed by law and shall not in any way be limited by the insurance requirements of this Agreement.

5.2. Health and Safety. CONSULTANT may perform part of the Services at sites which contain unknown working conditions and contaminated materials. CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for the health and safety of CONSULTANT's employees during the performance of the Services.

5.3. Insurance. CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants and other agency shall procure, provide and maintain at all times during the performance of this Agreement, and for such additional periods as described herein, the insurance listed below with insurers licensed to do business in the State of California and with a Best's rating of no less than A:VII.

A. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance providing bodily injury liability and property damage, to protect against all liability arising out of the use of any owned, leased, passenger or commercial automobile at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit and $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall apply to hired and non-owned autos.

4.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 5 - OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
B. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial General Liability Insurance, with limits providing a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage for each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products/completed operations aggregate. The insurance shall cover all operations including but not limited to the following: (1) premises, operations and mobile equipment liability; (2) completed operations and products liability; (3) contractual liability insuring the obligations assumed by CONSULTANT in this Agreement; (4) broad form property damage liability; (5) personal injury liability endorsement, including death; and (6) automobile bodily injury and property damage insurance, including all owned, hired and non-owned equipment.

C. Professional Liability Insurance. Professional Liability Insurance protecting against liabilities arising out of or in connection with negligent acts, errors, or omissions of CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants and other agency in connection with this Agreement, at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage and $1,000,000 aggregate, on a "claims made basis" with a continuation of coverage extension for liabilities for two years from the date the Services are substantially complete. Such professional liability policies shall include coverage for liability assumed by the CONSULTANT under this Agreement.

D. Workers Compensation Insurance. Workers Compensation insurance, occupational disease insurance and employer’s liability insurance shall be required with minimum limits as required by law, covering all workplaces involved in this Agreement.

E. Policy Terms. Concurrently with execution of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with Certificates of Insurance evidencing that CONSULTANT has obtained or maintains the insurance required by this Section

5.3. The Certificates shall be on forms acceptable to CITY. CONSULTANT shall also furnish CITY with original endorsements with the following documentation:
• Precluding cancellation or reduction in coverage before the expiration of thirty (30) days after CITY shall have received written notification thereof from CONSULTANT by United States mail;
• Providing that CONSULTANT's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made orsuit is brought, and include a “separation of insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability (cross-liability endorsement);
• Excepting CONSULTANT’S professional liability insurance, naming CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds (“Additional Insureds”); and • Providing that for any claims relating to CONSULTANT's services hereunder, CONSULTANT's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents, and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by

4.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 6 - OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
CITY for itself, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents shall be in excess of CONSULTANT's insurance and shall not be contributory with it.
• It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverages requirements and/or limits shall be available to the Additional Insured, including but not limited to any umbrella or excess insurance.

Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be the greater of:
(a) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (b) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured.

F. Material Breach. If CONSULTANT fails to maintain insurance coverage or provided insurance documentation which is required pursuant to this Agreement, it shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. CITY, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from CONSULTANT resulting from said breach. Alternatively, CITY may purchase the required insurance coverage, and without further notice to CONSULTANT, may deduct from sums due to CONSULTANT any premium costs advanced by CITY for such insurance. These remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies available to CITY.

ARTICLE 6 - NOTICES
All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered or sent by facsimile or reputable overnight courier and shall be deemed received upon the earlier of: (1) if personally delivered, the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice; (2) if delivered by Federal Express or other overnight courier for next business day delivery, the next business day; (3) if sent by facsimile, with the original sent on the same day by overnight courier, the date on which the facsimile is received, provided it is before 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time; or (4) if sent electronically, the date of delivery on the confirmed read receipt. Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner described in this Article 6. Rejection or other refusal to accept or the inability to deliver because of a change in address of which no notice was given shall be deemed to constitute receipt of the notice or communication sent. Unless changed in accordance herewith, the addresses for notices given pursuant to this Agreement shall be as follows:

If to CITY: City Manager
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 738-7409
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038
Email: [email protected]

4.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 7 - OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
If to CONSULTANT: Daryl D. Jones, President
Daryl D. Jones, Inc.
dba Telecommunications Engineering Associates
1160 Industrial Rd, Suite 15
San Carlos, CA 94070
Phone: (650) 590-1801
Facsimile: (650-590-1871
Email: [email protected]
ARTICLE 7 - MISCELLANEOUS

7.1. Conflict of Interest Prohibition. CITY and CONSULTANT will comply with the requirements of the CITY’s Conflict of Interest Code adopted pursuant to California Government Code §87300 et seq., the Political Reform Act (California Government Code §81000 et seq.), the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission (Title 2, §18110 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations), California Government Code §1090 et seq., and any other ethics laws applicable to the performance of the Services and/or this Agreement. CONSULTANT may be required to file with the CITY Clerk a completed Form 700 before commencing performance of the Services unless the CITY Clerk determines that completion of a Form 700 is not required, pursuant to CITY’s Conflict of Interest Code. Form 700 forms are available from the CITYClerk.

CONSULTANT may not perform Services for any other person or entity that, pursuant to any applicable law or regulation, would result in a conflict of interest or would otherwise be prohibited with respect to CONSULTANT’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees to cooperate fully with CITY and to provide any necessary and appropriate information requested by CITY or any authorized representative concerning potential conflicts of interest or prohibitions concerning CONSULTANT’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement.

CONSULTANT may not employ any CITY official, officer or employee in the performance of the Services, nor may any official, officer or employee of CITY have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code §1090 et seq. CONSULTANT hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of CITY. If CONSULTANT was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of CITY in the previous twelve months, CONSULTANT warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. CONSULTANT understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et seq., the entire Agreement is void and CONSULTANT will not be entitled to any compensation for CONSULTANT’s performance of the Services, including reimbursement of expenses, and CONSULTANT will be required to reimburse CITY for any sums paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement. CONSULTANT understands that, in addition to the foregoing, penalties for violating Government Code §1090 may include criminal prosecution and disqualification from holding public office in the State of California.

Any violation by CONSULTANT of the requirements of this provision will constitute a

4.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 8 - OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
material breach of this Agreement, and the CITY reserves all its rights and remedies at law and equity concerning any such violations.

7.2. Subcontracting. CONSULTANT may subcontract portions of the Services upon the prior written approval of CITY. CONSULTANT will be solely responsible for payment of such subcontract Services. No contractual relationship will exist between any such subcontractors of CONSULTANT and CITY. CONSULTANT’s subcontractors agree to be bound to CONSULTANT and CITY in the same manner and to the same extent as CONSULTANT is bound to CITY under the Agreement. CONSULTANT’s subcontractors further agree to include the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, with any subsubcontractor to the extent they apply to the scope of the sub-subcontractor’s work. A copy of the CITY indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to CONSULTANT’s subcontractors upon request.

7.3. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of CITY and CONSULTANT as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. This Agreement may only be modified by an amendment in writing signed by each party.

7.4. No Assignment. The Services are deemed unique and neither party shall assign, transfer, subcontract or otherwise substitute its interest in this Agreement or any of its obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party. As limited by this Section

7.2, this Agreement is to be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.

7.5. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is determined to be unconstitutional, invalid or beyond the authority of either party, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement can be interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties.

7.6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and, when fully signed, such counterparts shall have the same effect as if signed in one document.

7.7. Choice of Law. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without reference to its choice of laws principles and venue shall be in the appropriate court in San Mateo County, California.

7.8. Waiver. No failure on the part of either Party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder. A waiver by either CITY or CONSULTANT of any breach of this Agreement shall not be binding upon the waiving party unless such waiver is in writing. In the event of a written waiver, such a waiver shall not affect the waiving party's rights with respect to any other further breach.

7.9. Mediation. In the event the parties are unable to resolve a dispute arising under this Agreement through good faith negotiations, the parties agree to submit the matter to

4.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 9 - OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
mediation with a mutually agreeable mediator. Prior to the mediation, the parties shall exchange any documents reasonably necessary to resolve the matter to be mediated.

7.10. Attorney’s Fees. If any action at law or in equity, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, which may be set by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled.

7.11. Interpretation. In the event this Agreement is ever construed in any dispute between the parties, it and each of its provisions shall be construed without regard to the party or parties responsible for its preparation and shall be deemed to have been prepared jointly by the parties. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement.

7.12. Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of one of the parties represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver the Agreement on behalf of such party and that this Agreement is binding on such party in accordance with itsterms.

7.13. Third Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with, or cause of action in favor of, a third party against either the CITY or CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT’s Services hereunder are being performed solely for the benefit of CITY. CITY shall be an express third-party beneficiary of all contracts between CONSULTANT and any subcontractors or subconsultants in connection with any services performed in connection with, or in furtherance of, this Agreement. * * *
[Signatures on following page]

4.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager

CONSULTANT
By: Date:

By: Date:

Attest
By:

Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
- 10 -

4.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall furnish, install and maintain police radio communications equipment as itemized in EXHIBIT B. All equipment shall be integrated into a fully operational police radio system capable of analog and P25 digital operation. Optional encrypted operation shall be supported. The system shall be interfaced with the South San Francisco Police Department’s radio system and the County of San Mateo’s coordinated “CCC” radio system. 24x7 maintenance and support services of the equipment identified in EXHIBIT B shall be provided through June 30, 2025. CONSULTANT shall furnish all labor, travel, test equipment and tools to provide engineering troubleshooting, and repair of the equipment items listed in the attached itemization. CONSULTANT shall provide parts necessary to accomplish repairs up to $100 per failure occurrence, and invoice the City for amounts over $100. Sufficient parts stock for critical components shall be on hand locally to keep system downtime to a minimum.

CONSULTANT shall provide total problem resolution services. This includes maintaining liaison with equipment manufacturers, other vendors, the County, and AT&T.

CONSULTANT shall serve as the City’s single point of contact for radio communications problems.

CONSULTANT shall make every effort to keep the equipment covered by this proposal in excellent working condition by using modern preventive maintenance techniques.

Neither parts or labor will be provided by CONSULTANT without additional charge to correct malfunctions or damage for problems caused by natural or manmade disaster such as flood, earthquake or fire. Labor and materials to repair damage to equipment caused by variation in electrical power quality from PG&E or emergency generators is excluded.

4.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2

EXHIBIT B
Compensation
CONSULTANT shall furnish and install the following Information Technology equipment, and provide maintenance and support services through June 30, 2025.

Equipment and Materials $121,563.90
Shipping and Handling $1,823.46
Sales Tax $11,567.56
Installation Services $32,085.00
Sub Total $167,039.92
Maintenance and support services $65,088.00
($1808.00 per month invoiced monthly)
Total Contract Amount $232,127.92

4.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) Pacifica Police Department
Detailed Quote for Police Radio System Replacement and Enhancement Quote# 20222648
Valid until: 07/31/2022
GGY/DDJ 4/23/2022
Telecommunications Engineering Associates Page 1
Item Manufacturer Model Number Description Qty Price Ext Labor NCCW
Item
UHF T-band base station receiver Tait TB8145H31K0000G000 MultiRX No PMU 48vdc P25 1 $9,199.80 $9,199.80 12 Ethernet Switch 48vdc power Ubiquity - 8 port switch, 48vdc 1 $261.00 $261.00 1 48VDC power supply chassis ICT IPS-BMM-LDM 48vdc PS Chassis 1 $1,467.00 $1,467.00 4 48VDC power module ICT ICT700-48PM 48vdc PS module 2 $558.00 $1,116.00 1 48VDC, 4ea 12v/18H batteries PowerSonic PS-12260 26AH batteries 4 $108.00 $432.00 1 AC Inverter ICT INV-48 AC inverter for ATT equipment 1 $405.00 $405.00 1 Battery Tray TEA BT1 19" rack tray 1 $180.00 $180.00 1
Misc Installation Supplies TEA MISC Install Supplies 1 $180.00 $180.00 0 $13,240.80 21
Fairmont Rec Center
Item
UHF T-band base station receiver Tait TB8145H31K0000G000 MultiRX No PMU 48vdc P25 1 $9,199.80 $9,199.80 12 Ethernet Switch 48vdc power Ubiquity - 8 port switch, 48vdc 1 $261.00 $261.00 1 48VDC power supply chassis ICT IPS-BMM-LDM 48vdc PS Chassis 1 $1,467.00 $1,467.00 4 48VDC power module ICT ICT700-48PM 48vdc PS module 2 $558.00 $1,116.00 1 48VDC, 4ea 12v/18H batteries PowerSonic PS-12260 26AH batteries 4 $108.00 $432.00 1 AC Inverter ICT INV-48 AC inverter for ATT equipment 1 $405.00 $405.00 1 Battery Tray TEA BT1 19" rack tray 1 $180.00 $180.00 1
Misc Installation Supplies TEA MISC Install Supplies 1 $180.00 $180.00 0 $13,240.80 21
Pacifica Police Dept
Item
UHF T-band base station receiver Tait TB8145H31K0000G000 MultiRX No PMU 48vdc P25 1 $9,199.80 $9,199.80 12 Console Analog Gateway Tait TN91100010N400 CONSOLE GATEWAY 1 CHANNEL ACDC48/12 1 $9,066.60 $9,066.60 8 P25 Encryption KEY Tait TBAS058 SFE KEY - P25 AES ENC (TB91) 1 $1,049.40 $1,049.40 8 Ethernet Switch 48vdc power Ubiquity - 8 port switch, 48vdc 1 $261.00 $261.00 1 RAD IP over TDM Converter RAD RICI-T1 T1 over IP with rack mount & Spare 2 $974.70 $1,949.40 4 48VDC power supply chassis ICT IPS-BMM-LDM 48vdc PS Chassis 1 $1,467.00 $1,467.00 4 48VDC power module ICT ICT700-48PM 48vdc PS module 2 $558.00 $1,116.00 1 48VDC, 4ea 12v/18H batteries PowerSonic PS-12260 26AH batteries 4 $108.00 $432.00 1 Battery Tray TEA BT1 19" rack tray 1 $180.00 $180.00 1
Misc Installation Supplies TEA MISC Install Supplies 1 $270.00 $270.00 0 $24,991.20 40
North Peak
Item
UHF T-band base station repeater Tait TB8135H3MK0000G000 48vdc 100w P25 Voting 1 $20,436.30 $20,436.30 18 Ethernet Switch 48vdc power Ubiquity - 8 port switch, 48vdc 1 $261.00 $261.00 1 RAD IP over TDM Converter RAD RICI-T1 T1 over IP with rack mount 1 $974.70 $974.70 4 48VDC power supply chassis ICT IPS-BMM-LDM 48vdc PS Chassis 1 $1,467.00 $1,467.00 4 48VDC power module ICT ICT700-48PM 48vdc PS module 2 $558.00 $1,116.00 1 48VDC, 4ea 12v/18H batteries PowerSonic PS-12260 26AH batteries 4 $108.00 $432.00 1 Battery Tray TEA BT1 19" rack tray 1 $180.00 $180.00 1
Misc Installation Supplies TEA MISC Install Supplies 1 $180.00 $180.00 0 $25,047.00 30

4.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Pacifica Police Department
Detailed Quote for Police Radio System Replacement and Enhancement Quote# 20222648
Valid until: 07/31/2022
GGY/DDJ 4/23/2022
Telecommunications Engineering Associates Page 2
Item Manufacturer Model Number Description
Royce Tanks
Qty Price Ext Labor
Item
UHF T-band base station repeater Tait TB8135H3MK0000G000 48vdc 100w P25 Voting 1 $20,436.30 $20,436.30 12 Ethernet Switch 48vdc power Ubiquity - 8 port switch, 48vdc 1 $261.00 $261.00 1 48VDC power supply chassis ICT IPS-BMM-LDM 48vdc PS Chassis 1 $1,467.00 $1,467.00 4 48VDC power module ICT ICT700-48PM 48vdc PS module 2 $558.00 $1,116.00 1 48VDC, 4ea 12v/18H batteries PowerSonic PS-12260 26AH batteries 4 $108.00 $432.00 1 AC Inverter ICT INV-48 AC inverter for ATT equipment 1 $405.00 $405.00 1 Battery Tray TEA BT1 19" rack tray 1 $180.00 $180.00 1
Misc Installation Supplies TEA MISC Install Supplies 1 $180.00 $180.00 0 $24,477.30 21
Beach Blvd
Item
UHF T-band base station receiver Tait TB8145H31K0000G000 MultiRX No PMU 48vdc P25 1 $9,199.80 $9,199.80 12 Ethernet Switch 48vdc power Ubiquity - 8 port switch, 48vdc 1 $261.00 $261.00 1 48VDC power supply chassis ICT IPS-BMM-LDM 48vdc PS Chassis 1 $1,467.00 $1,467.00 4 48VDC power module ICT ICT700-48PM 48vdc PS module 2 $558.00 $1,116.00 1 48VDC, 4ea 12v/18H batteries PowerSonic PS-12260 26AH batteries 4 $108.00 $432.00 1 AC Inverter ICT INV-48 AC inverter for ATT equipment 1 $405.00 $405.00 1 Battery Tray TEA BT1 19" rack tray 1 $180.00 $180.00 1
Misc Installation Supplies TEA MISC Install Supplies 1 $180.00 $180.00 0 $13,240.80 21
SSFPD Dispatch
Item
Digital Radio Gateway Zetron 901-9725 2 End Points 1 $2,857.50 $2,857.50 12 DFSI License Zetron 930-0270 License for 2 endpoints 2 $1,125.00 $2,250.00 1 Channel License Zetron 930-0376 License for 1 endpoint 1 $270.00 $270.00 1 Encryption License Zetron 931-0003 AES 2 $630.00 $1,260.00 1 Rack Mount Zetron 950-0588 Dual Mount 1 $202.50 $202.50 1 SFP's for Ethernet Switchs TEA SFP Wired SFPs 4 $99.00 $396.00 1 Misc Installation Supplies TEA MISC Install Supplies 1 $90.00 $90.00 0 $7,326.00 17
Administration
Item
Project Administration TEA PM Project Management 1 $0.00 $0.00 12 System Documentation TEA DM Documentation 1 $0.00 $0.00 8 System Integration TEA INT IP Radio System Intigration & Testing 1 $0.00 $0.00 8 Console Programming TEA INT Program SSFPD Console for DFSI & Encryption 1 $0.00 $0.00 8 $0.00 36
*NOTES:

Hardware Sub Total $121,563.90
*Note 1 Shipping & Handling $1,823.46
Sales Tax @9.375% $11,567.56
Hardware Total $134,954.92
1) Shippng costs subject to current rate adjustments Installation Services $155/hr Total $32,085.00 207 Hardware and Services Total $167,039.92

4.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology City of Pacifixa
Communications Equipment Summary Revised on April 23, 2023

Page 1 ends

Base Station Radio Equipment Qty
Monthly
Fee Each
Monthly
Total
Tait TB9400 UHF base station w/ P25 (PD-1) 2 $252 $504
Tait TB9400 UHF receiver w/ P25 (PD-1) 4 $122 $488
Tait P25 console gateway interface 1 $105 $105
DPW radio base station equipment 0 (T&M) (T&M)
Ethernet switch w/ DC power option 5 $18 $90
RAD Ethernet bridge over TDM 2 $30 $60
Zetron digital radio gateway 1 $110 $110
Antennas and coaxial cable (excluded - time and materials only) 0 (T&M) (T&M) Section Total: $1,357
Monthly Monthly
DC Power Systems and Miscellaneous Equipment (excluding batteries) Qty Fee Each Total 48V DC power system (excluding batteries) 6 $32 $192
48V batteries 0 (T&M) (T&M)
AC inverter 6 $14 $84
Section Total: $276
Monthly Monthly
Lawnet Network Qty Fee Each Total
Palo Alto Networks PA-440 firewall support and threat subscriptions 1 $175 $175 Aruba 2930M Ethernet switch 1 $42 $42
Section Total: $175
Summary
Monthly
Total
Base Station Radio Equipment $1,357
DC Power Systems and Miscellaneous Equipment (exlcuding batteries) $276 Lawnet Network $175
Total $1,808

4.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) City of Pacifixa
Communications Equipment Summary Revised on April 23, 2023

Page 2 ends

Monthly Monthly
Hourly Rates for additionalwork
Hourly rate for additional work(network engineer) $225
Hourly rate for additional work (systems engineer / project manager) $188 Hourly rate for additional work (systems technician) $155

4.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) TELEENG-01 MHERNANDEZ

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.

INSR

LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL INSD SUBR WVD POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF (MM/DD/YYYY) POLICY EXP (MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS

A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
AES1217323 00 12/6/2021 12/6/2022
EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000

CLAIMS-MADE X OCCUR DAMAGE TO RENTED
PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $ 50,000
MED EXP (Any one person) $ 5,000
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000

POLICY X PRO- LOC JECT
OTHER:

PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ 2,000,000

EMPLOYEE BENEFI
$ 1,000,000

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
(Ea accident) $
ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $
OWNED

AUTOS ONLY
HIRED

AUTOS ONLY

SCHEDULED
AUTOS

NON-OWNED AUTOS ONLY
BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $

PROPERTY DAMAGE
(Per accident) $
$

B X UMBRELLA LIAB

EXCESS LIAB

X OCCUR
CLAIMS-MADE 83439T216ALI 12/6/2021 12/6/2022
EACH OCCURRENCE $ 4,000,000
AGGREGATE $
DED RETENTION $ $ 4,000,000

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N
PER

STATUTE OTH- ER
ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? N / A E.L. DISEASE - EAEMPLOYEE $ (Mandatory in NH)
If yes, describe under
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ C
D
Errors & Omissions MKLV5PEO001849 10/7/2021 10/7/2022 Limit 1,000,000 Business Owners Poli 57SBADO1789 3/15/2021 3/15/2022 Limit 29,300 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) The City of Palo Alto, its council members, officers, agents, and employees are listed as additional insured.

The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
The City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)
2/23/2022
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.

THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

PRODUCER
Paul R. Nadler Insurance
1560 Laurel Street
Suite 200
San Carlos, CA 94070

CONTACT
NAME: PHONE (650) 508-8000
(A/C, No, Ext):

FAX (650) 508-8006
(A/C, No): E-MAIL [email protected] ADDRESS:

INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC #
INSURER A : AmTrust Financial Company 15954

INSURED
Telecommunications Engineering Associates
1160 Industrial Road #15
San Carlos, CA 94070
INSURER B : StarStone National Insurance Company 25496
INSURER C : EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY 35378
INSURER D : SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY 11000
INSURER E :

INSURER F :

4.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) Policy Number:

Insured Name: Daryl D. Jones, Inc.

Number:

VE 01 84 12 13
Effective Date: 12/06/202
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

DESIGNATEDCONSTRUCTIONPROJECTS(S)
GENERAL AGGREGATE LIMIT – SUBJECT TO A

MAXIMUM AGGREGATE
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

Commercial General Liability Coverage Part

SCHEDULE
Designated Construction Project(s): All construction projects for which you have agreed in writing in a contract, prior to an occurrence that causes "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury", to provide project specific limits.

A. For all sums which the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages caused by "occurrences" under Section I – Coverage A, and for all medical expenses caused by accidents under Section I – Coverage C, which can be attributed only to ongoing operations at a single designated construction project shown in the Schedule above:

1. A separate Designated Construction Project General Aggregate Limit applies to each designated construction project, and that limit is equal to the amount of the General Aggregate Limit shown in the Declarations.

2. The Designated Construction Project General Aggregate Limit is the most we will pay for the sum of all damages under Coverage A, except damages because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" included in the "products-completed operations hazard", and for medical expenses under Coverage C regardless of the number of:
a. Insureds;
b. Claims made or "suits" brought; or
c. Persons or organizations making claims or bringing "suits".

3. Any payments made under Coverage A for damages or under Coverage C for medical expenses shall reduce the Designated Construction Project General Aggregate Limit for that designated construction project. Such payments shall not reduce the General Aggregate Limit shown in the Declarations nor shall they reduce any other Designated Construction Project General Aggregate Limit for any other designated construction project shown in the Schedule above.

VE 01 8412 13 Page 1 of 2

4.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services)

4. The limits shown in the Declarations for Each Occurrence, Damage To Premises Rented To You and Medical Expense continue to apply. However, instead of being subject to the General Aggregate Limit shown in the Declarations, such limits will be subject to the applicable Designated Construction Project General Aggregate Limit.

5. All payments under this endorsement are subject to the Maximum Aggregate Limit of:
$ 5,000,000
The Maximum Aggregate Limit is the most we will pay under this endorsement regardless of the number of Designated Construction Project General Aggregate Limits. The Maximum Aggregate Limit is not available to pay for damages or expenses other than as set forth in the endorsement.

B. For all sums which the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages caused by "occurrences" under Section I – Coverage A, and for all medical expenses caused by accidents under Section I – Coverage C, which cannot be attributed only to ongoing operations at a single designated construction project shown in the Schedule above:

1. Any payments made under Coverage A for damages or under Coverage C for medical expenses shall reduce the amount available under the General Aggregate Limit or the Products-completed Operations Aggregate Limit, whichever is applicable; and

2. Such payments shall not reduce any Designated Construction Project General Aggregate Limit.

C. When coverage for liability arising out of the "products-completed operations hazard" is provided, any payments for damages because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" included in the "products-completed operations hazard" will reduce the Products-completed Operations Aggregate Limit, and not reduce the General Aggregate Limit nor the Designated Construction Project General Aggregate Limit.

D. If the applicable designated construction project has been abandoned, delayed, or abandoned and then restarted, or if the authorized contracting parties deviate from plans, blueprints, designs, specifications or timetables, the project will still be deemed to be the same construction project.

E. The provisions of Section III – Limits Of Insurance not otherwise modified by this endorsement shall continue to apply as stipulated.

VE 01 8412 13 Page 2 of 2

4.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) CG 20 10 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 1 of 2 Policy Number:

Insured Name: Daryl D. Jones, Inc.

Number:3
CG 20 10 12 19
Effective Date:12/06/202
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR
CONTRACTORS – SCHEDULED PERSON OR

ORGANIZATION
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

Commercial General Liability Coverage Part
Schedule
Name Of Additional Insured Person(s)
Or Organization(s) Location(s) Of Covered Operations
Any person or organization when you have agreed in
a written and executed contract, prior to an
“occurrence”, that such person or organization be
added as an additional insured on your policy.

All locations for which you have agreed in a
written and executed contract prior to an
“occurrence.”
Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.

1. Your acts or omissions; or

2. The acts or omissions of those acting on your
behalf;
in the performance of your ongoing operations
for the additional insured(s) at the location(s)
designated above.

However:

1. The insurance afforded to such additional
insured only applies to the extent permitted
by law; and

2. If coverage provided to the additional insured
is required by a contract or agreement, the
insurance afforded to such additional insured
will not be broader than that which you are
required by the contract or agreement to
provide for such additional insured.

B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following additional
exclusions apply:

This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury"
or "property damage" occurring after:

1. All work, including materials, parts or
equipment furnished in connection with such
work, on the project (other than service,
maintenance or repairs) to be performed by
or on behalf of the additional insured(s) at the
location of the covered operations has been
completed; or

2. That portion of "your work" out of which the
injury or damage arises has been put to its
intended use by any person or organization
other than another contractor or
subcontractor engaged in performing
operations for a principal as a part of the
same project.

4.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) CG 20 10 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 2 of 2 C. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following is added to
Section III – Limits Of Insurance:

If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the most
we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is
the amount of insurance:

1. Required by the contract or agreement; or

2. Available under the applicable limits of
insurance;
whichever is less.

This endorsement shall not increase the
applicable limits of insurance.

All other terms and conditions of this Policy remain unchanged.

4.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) Policy Number:

Insured Name: Daryl D. Jones, Inc.

Number:3
CG 20 18 12 19
Effective Date: 12/06/202
CG 20 18 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 1 of 1 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

ADDITIONAL INSURED – MORTGAGEE,

ASSIGNEE OR RECEIVER
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

Commercial General Liability Coverage Part
Schedule
Name(s) Of Person(s) Or Organization(s) Designation Of Premises Any person or organization you have agreed in a
written and executed contract, prior to an
“occurrence”, that such person or organization be
added as an additional insured on your policy.

All premises for which you have agreed in a
written and executed contract prior to an
“occurrence.”
Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.

A. Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended
to include as an additional insured the person(s)
or organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but
only with respect to their liability as mortgagee,
assignee or receiver and arising out of the
ownership, maintenance or use of the premises
by you and shown in the Schedule.

However:

1. The insurance afforded to such additional
insured only applies to the extent permitted
by law; and

2. If coverage provided to the additional
insured is required by a contract or
agreement, the insurance afforded to such
additional insured will not be broader than
that which you are required by the contract
or agreement to provide for such additional
insured.

B. This insurance does not apply to structural
alterations, new construction and demolition
operations performed by or for that person or
organization.

C. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following is added to
Section III – Limits Of Insurance:

If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the most
we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is
the amount of insurance:

1. Required by the contract or agreement; or

2. Available under the applicable limits of
insurance;
whichever is less.

This endorsement shall not increase the
applicable limits of insurance.

All other terms and conditions of this Policy remain unchanged.

4.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) Policy Number:

Insured Name: Daryl D. Jones, Inc.

Number:3
CG 20 37 12 19
Effective Date: 12/06/20
CG 20 37 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 1 of 1 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR
CONTRACTORS– COMPLETEDOPERATIONS
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

Commercial General Liability Coverage Part
Schedule
Name Of Additional Insured Person(s)
Or Organization(s)
Location And Description Of
Completed Operations
Any person or organization when you have agreed in
a written and executed contract, prior to an
“occurrence”, that such person or organization be
added as an additional insured on your policy.

All locations and completed operations for
which you have agreed in a written and
executed contract prior to an “occurrence.”
Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.

A. Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to
include as an additional insured the person(s) or
organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only
with respect to liability for "bodily injury" or
"property damage" caused, in whole or in part,
by "your work" at the location designated and
described in the Schedule of this endorsement
performed for that additional insured and
included in the "products-completed operations
hazard".

However:

1. The insurance afforded to such additional
insured only applies to the extent permitted
by law; and

B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following is added to
Section III – Limits Of Insurance:

If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the most
we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is
the amount of insurance:

1. Required by the contract or agreement; or

2. Available under the applicable limits of
insurance;
whichever is less.

This endorsement shall not increase the
applicable limits of insurance.

All other terms and conditions of this Policy remain unchanged.

4.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) Policy Number:

Insured Name: Daryl D. Jones, Inc.

Number:3
CG 24 04 12 19
Effective Date: 12/06/202
CG 24 04 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 1 of 1 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY

AGAINST OTHERS TO US (WAIVER OF SUBROGATION)
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

Commercial General Liability Coverage Part
Schedule
Name Of Person(s) Or Organization(s):

Any person or organization you have agreed in a written and executed contract, prior to an “occurrence”, that you would provide such person or organization a waiver of transfer of rights of recovery against others to us on your policy.

Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.

The following is added to Paragraph 8. Transfer
Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us
of Section IV – Conditions:

We waive any right of recovery against the
person(s) or organization(s) shown in the
Schedule above because of payments we make
under this Coverage Part. Such waiver by us
applies only to the extent that the insured has
waived its right of recovery against such person(s)
or organization(s) prior to loss. This endorsement
applies only to the person(s) or organization(s)
shown in the Schedule above.

All other terms and conditions of this Policy remain unchanged.

4.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment A - Agreement with TEA (4995 : Agreement for Information Technology Equipment and Services) Policy Number:

Insured Name: Daryl D. Jones, Inc.

Number:4
VE 09 73 04 20
Effective Date: 12/06/202
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

PRIMARY AND NONCONTRIBUTORY –

OTHER INSURANCE CONDITION
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

Commercial General Liability Coverage Part
The following is added to the Other Insurance Condition and supersedes any provision to the contrary:

Primary And Noncontributory Insurance
This insurance is primary to and will not seek contribution from any other Commercial General Liability insurance available to an additional insured under your policy, but only if:
(1) The additional insured is a Named Insured under such other Commercial General Liability insurance; and
(2) You have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that this insurance would be primary and would not seek contribution from any other Commercial General Liability insurance available to the additional insured.

Coverage granted to an additional insured remains subject to all terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions set forth in the endorsement form that conferred the additional insured status. In the event of conflict between this endorsement and an endorsement conferring additional insured status, then the endorsement conferring additional insured status shall govern the scope of coverage available to the additional insured.

All other terms and conditions of this Policy remain unchanged.

VE 09 73 04 20 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission

Page 1 of 1 ends

Pacifica City CouncilMay 23, 2022

Pacifica City Council
May 23, 2022