Agenda packet — Pacifica City Council, August 8, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

Scope of Work
Task 1: Project Management, Meetings, & Coordination
Erin Ferguson, our Project Manager, will oversee all aspects and day-to-day operations of the project. She will ensure the scope of services is completed in a timely and professional manner; prepare and implement a project schedule; oversee progress meetings; ensure the project meets all federal, state, and local requirements; report directly to the City’s Project Manager; ensure all appropriate communications, correspondence, and reports are completed as intended; arrange and conduct detailed quality checks and reviews of all project deliverables; and include appropriate stakeholders in the process.

Throughout the project, Erin will work proactively with City staff to confirm successful, highquality production of each deliverable and ensure that they meet all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements in anticipation of future grant funding opportunities.

To facility effective communication between Fehr & Peers and City Staff, we propose to host monthly Progress Review Meetings over the life of the project, including a project kick-off meeting to discuss project goals, schedule, modifications to the scope of work and budget, communication protocols, and coordination of immediate next steps and reviews. For each meeting, Fehr & Peers will provide a meeting agenda at least three working days prior and meeting minutes within one week.

As part of the project kick-off and initiation, Fehr & Peers will work with the City to identify representatives for the LRSP Stakeholder Group. Stakeholders could include other city departments, community residents, businesses and schools. Specific stakeholder meetings will be held as part of subsequent tasks (see Task 2, Task 4, and Task 5).

Task 1 Deliverables:
• Meeting agenda and minutes
• Project schedules/timeframes
• LRSP Stakeholder Group Roster
• Monthly progress reports and invoices
• Ongoing monitoring of project schedule and budget
• Ongoing quality assurance/quality control activities
Task 2: Establish LRSP Baseline and Framework
Fehr & Peers will review relevant City plans, policies, and programs such as the Draft Plan Pacifica 2040 General Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian master Plan, Specific Plans including Sharp Park Specific Plan, Capital Improvement Program, and Traffic Impact Fees projects list. The

11.b
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment 2 -Task Order 1 for LRSP [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers for LRSP) Mr. Ryan Marquez, P.E.

June 24, 2022

Page 3 of 6 ends

purpose of this review will be to document existing efforts and policies that address transportation safety and to set the stage for identifying emphasis areas.

Fehr & Peers will prepare for and conduct the initial LRSP Stakeholder Group meeting. The purpose of the initial stakeholder meeting will be to discuss partnership for addressing safety in the City, discuss current and planned programs related to transportation safety, and to identify safety focus areas and stakeholder priorities to establish LRSP goals and objectives.

To document the stakeholder meeting, Fehr & Peers will develop a memorandum that will provide a framework for the final LRSP document, identify State and Federal requirements, summarize current efforts to address transportation safety including identifying programs that have evidence of measurable success, identify stakeholders’ concerns and priorities, and outline potential emphasis areas.

Task 2 Deliverables:
• Stakeholder meeting #1 agenda and minutes
• LRSP Framework Memorandum, revised based on one round of consolidated City comments
Task 3: Safety Data Collection and Analysis
Fehr & Peers will compile collision data for Pacifica for the past five years of data from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). We will also develop a database of contextual characteristics to support identifying factors that may contribute to the most commonly occurring severe injury and fatal collisions. The contextual database will be compiled based on available data from the City and from census data.

Our first step for collision analysis will be to identify intersections and corridors that account for a disproportionate share of severe and fatal collisions. We will use this analysis as a basis for identifying priority locations. We will include all public roads within the City of Pacifica excluding grade-separated Caltrans’ facilities. We will include ramp terminal intersections with Caltrans grade separated facilities and we will include any at-grade Caltrans facilities within City limits.

Our second step will be to define collision profiles that represent the most frequent and most severe crash typologies citywide. Defining collision profiles is a systemic approach that identifies risk factors from the contextual data including trends or patterns in crash type, driver factors, roadway features, vehicle factors, and environmental conditions. These collision profiles will support identifying locations that have inherent collision risk, even if collision history does not indicate an apparent safety concern, so the City can be both proactive and reactive when addressing safety.

Fehr & Peers will provide a memorandum that summarizes the collision dataset, includes maps of the collision data, highlights priority locations, and provides an overview of each collision profile, including key statistics of each typology.

11.b
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment 2 -Task Order 1 for LRSP [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers for LRSP) Mr. Ryan Marquez, P.E.

June 24, 2022

Page 4 of 6 ends

Task 3 Deliverable:
• Memorandum summarizing results of the data collection and collision analysis (with revisions to be reflected in the draft LRSP)
Task 4: Development of Countermeasures
Fehr & Peers has developed a number of safety countermeasure toolboxes for the various safety studies we have supported throughout California; we will pull resources from our previous work to define a toolbox of engineering and non-engineering (i.e., enforcement, education, emergency response) countermeasures that are focused on the context of safety concerns for the City of Pacifica that will target emphasis areas.

We will also expand on these past resources to include additional relevant countermeasures that may be appropriate and of interest to the City, based on our intimate familiarity with countermeasure resources such as the CMF Clearinghouse, Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), FHWA PedSAFE/BikeSAFE, Highway Safety Manual (HSM), and various NCHRP studies, including the recent Guidance to Improve Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety at Intersections (NCHRP Report 926, 2020). The countermeasures will include the “4 Es” of highway safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Reponses.

For each countermeasure identified, we will include any quantitative efficacy (such as a crash modification factor) and planning-level cost estimates in 2022 dollars. We will also provide a table that identifies which countermeasure are applicable for each of the collision profiles. With assistance from City staff, Fehr & Peers will identify a lead agency for each countermeasure and establish measurable objectives and goals.

Fehr & Peers will then organize a second stakeholder meeting. The intended purpose of the second stakeholder meeting will be to share and get feedback on potential solutions and countermeasures to ensure the project is meeting the established LRSP goals and stakeholder priorities. At this meeting, we will provide an overview of the collision analysis, associated countermeasures selected, and the measurable objectives and goals of the selected countermeasures.

Task 4 Deliverables:
• Stakeholder meeting #2 agenda and minutes
• Draft and final (based on one set of consolidated comments) countermeasure toolbox with table for collision profiles.

Task 5: Implementation of LRSP
As part of this task, Fehr & Peers will expand upon the collision profiles to include countermeasures identified in Task 4. This will serve as the implementation strategy for the systemic approach.

11.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment 2 -Task Order 1 for LRSP [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers for LRSP) Mr. Ryan Marquez, P.E.

June 24, 2022

Page 5 of 6 ends

Through the results of priority location and systemic evaluation in Task 3, we will identify five priority project locations with City staff. Once identified, Fehr & Peers will identify project description based on our evaluation of the safety data, a field review of the project sites, discussions with City staff and stakeholders, and countermeasure efficacy (as outlined in Task 4).

This will include recommending location-specific engineering solutions and preparing cost estimates and cut sheets for the five selected priority project locations.

Fehr & Peers will finalize the emphasis areas with feedback from City staff. Fehr & Peers will then organize a third and final stakeholder meeting. At this meeting, we will provide an overview of the collision analysis and review of the emphasis areas and will discuss potential non-engineering strategies with the group. Fehr & Peers will come prepared to the meeting with a preliminary list of non-engineering strategies focused on the collision profiles and emphasis areas and will highlight that enforcement strategies should be sensitive to marginalized communities.

Finally, Fehr & Peers will develop the Draft LRSP that aligns with the State and Federal Highway Safety Plan and the LRSP template from the National Association of County Engineers Local Roadway Safety Plan Pilot. The draft LRSP will include a include a refinement of the emphasis areas and strategies, present findings from all previous tasks, recommend location-specific engineering solutions, identify strategies for implementation, and suggest a methodology to regularly review and update the LRSP once it has been approved and adopted by City Council.

Task 5 Deliverables:
• Stakeholder meeting #3 agenda and minutes
• Draft of LRSP
Task 6: Final Draft of LRSP and City Council Support
Fehr & Peers will revise the Draft LRSP based on one round of comments by City staff. The final draft will then be presented to the City Council for adoption. In assisting with this process, we have budgeted for preparing materials, attending, answering questions, and assisting City staff with presentations at up to two meetings related to City Council adoption. We have also budgeted for one minor round of revision if City Council requests editorial changes.

Task 6 Deliverables:
• Final LRSP, based on one round of City review and one round of City Council review • Prepare for and present at two meetings related to City Council adoption

11.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment 2 -Task Order 1 for LRSP [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers for LRSP) Mr. Ryan Marquez, P.E.

June 24, 2022

Page 6 of 6 ends

Schedule
We anticipate the above scope of work to be completed eight months from notice-to-proceed.

We propose the schedule presented in Attachment A.

Fee
Fehr & Peers will perform the above scope of work on a time and materials basis not to exceed $79,865. An estimated fee breakdown and the approximate number of staff hours is outlined in Attachment B. Invoices will be submitted monthly for services rendered and are due and payable upon receipt. We propose to conduct this work pursuant to the terms and conditions of our on-call contract between Fehr & Peers and the City of Pacifica. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project.

Should you have any questions, please call Erin Ferguson at (415) 255-5963.

Sincerely,

FEHR & PEERS
Dana Weissman, AICP, RSP1
San Francisco Operations Manager
ACCEPTED BY:

Signature:
_______________________________________
Name:
_______________________________________
Title:
_______________________________________
Company:
_______________________________________
Date:
_______________________________________
P22-2333-SF
Attachments:

A. Project Schedule
B. Fee Proposal

11.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment 2 -Task Order 1 for LRSP [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers for LRSP) Attachment A - Schedule for City of Pacifica Local Road Safety Plan August September October November December January February March Task 1: Project Management, Meetings, & Coordination

1.1. Project Meetings P P P P P P P P

1.2 LRSP Stakeholder Group Roster R

1.3 Monthly Progress Reports
Task 2: Establish LRSP Baseline and Framework

2.1 Document Review and Framework Memo M

2.2 Stakeholder Meeting #1 S
Task 3: Safety Data Collection and Analysis

3.1 Data Collection and Analysis

3.2 Results Memo M
Task 4: Development of Countermeasures

4.1 Countermeasures Toolbox and Collsion Profiles/
Emphasis Areas

4.2 Stakeholder Meeting #2 S
Task 5: Implementation of LRSP

5.1 Draft LRSP D

5.2 Stakeholder Meeting 3 S
Task 6: Final Draft of LRSP and City Council Support

6.1 Final LRSP F

6.2 City Council Support C C
Total for all Tasks
Legend
Team Activity
P Project Check-in with City Staff
R Stakeholder Roster
S Stakeholder Meeting
M Memorandum Deliverable
D Draft LRSP
F Final LRSP
C City Council Meeting(s)
2022 2023
Tasks
1 11.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment 2 -Task Order 1 for LRSP [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & ATTACHMENT “B”

COMPENSATION

11.b
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment 2 -Task Order 1 for LRSP [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers for LRSP) Attachment B - Fee Proposal for City of Pacifica Local Road Safety Plan Fehr & Peers (Prime)
Principal-inCharge/ Project
Manager
Project
Planner/
Engineer
Project
Coordinator
Labor
Hours
Direct
Costs
Total
Total
Hours
Total
Costs
Tasks $310 $155 $150
Task 1: Project Management, Meetings, & Coordination

1.1. Project Meetings 9 8 2 19 $300 $4,630 19 $4,630

1.2 LRSP Stakeholder Group Roster 2 4 1 7 $100 $1,490 7 $1,490

1.3 Monthly Progress Reports 5 1 6 $120 $1,820 6 $1,820 Task 2: Establish LRSP Baseline and Framework

2.1 Document Review and Framework
Memo
7 16 3 26 $360 $5,460 26 $5,460

2.2 Stakeholder Meeting #1 4 8 2 14 $190 $2,970 14 $2,970 Task 3: Safety Data Collection and Analysis

3.1 Data Collection and Analysis 16 55 9 80 $1,040 $15,875 80 $15,875

3.2 Results Memo 5 12 2 19 $260 $3,970 19 $3,970
Task 4: Development of Countermeasures

4.1 Countermeasures Toolbox and
Collsion Profiles/Emphasis Areas 18 48 8 74 $1,000 $15,220 74 $15,220

4.2 Stakeholder Meeting #2 4 8 2 14 $190 $2,970 14 $2,970 Task 5: Implementation of LRSP

5.1 Draft LRSP 14 32 6 52 $710 $10,910 52 $10,910

5.2 Stakeholder Meeting 3 4 8 2 14 $190 $2,970 14 $2,970 Task 6: Final Draft of LRSP and City Council Support

6.1 Final LRSP 10 16 3 29 $420 $6,450 29 $6,450

6.2 City Council Support 8 12 3 23 $340 $5,130 23 $5,130 Total for all Tasks 106 227 44 377 $5,220 $79,865 377 $79,865 Notes:

This fee proposal is valid for a period of 90 days from the proposal submittal date.

Actual billing rate at the time of service may vary depending on the final staffing plan at the time the project starts; the overall fee will not be exceeded.

Mileage is billed at the IRS rate plus 10% handling fee Rates and non-key staff are subject to change at any time, without notice, and within the total budget shown 1 11.b
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment 2 -Task Order 1 for LRSP [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr &

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Award of Construction Services Agreement for the Beach Boulevard Public Plaza Project RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the following actions for the Beach Boulevard Public Plaza Project:

A. Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Construction Services Agreement with Cazadoro Construction, Inc. (Attachment A) in an amount not to exceed $86,400.00 which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed $14,400.00 or twenty percent (20%) of the Construction Contract amount; and a Materials Testing Services Task Order (Attachment B) in an amount not to exceed $12,694.65 which includes a contingency in an amount not to exceed $1,604.20 or fifteen percent (15%) of the proposed fee;
B. Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the listed contingency amounts.

STAFF CONTACT:

Lawrence Henriquez, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3772
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E., DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Beach Boulevard Plaza Project, which is located between Beach Boulevard and Sharp Park Beach, is one of the identified projects in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

On August 24, 2020, the City Council approved the concept plan for the Beach Boulevard Public Plaza Project comprised of art sculpture installations and which postponed construction for the remaining concrete elements that would be coordinated with the future Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project.

The Project was advertised on June 9, 2022, through June 30, 2022, in accordance with the formal bid process. Eleven (11) companies requested plans and specifications and three (3) companies submitted bids. On June 30, 2022, the bid opening was held via Zoom by the City Clerk and the results are as follows:
12 Packet Pg. 213
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
Company Base Bid
Cazadoro Construction, Inc. $ 72,000.00
Plazo Construction $ 82,000.00
Golden Bay Construction, Inc. $ 124,703.00
The apparent low bidder is Cazadoro Construction, Inc. with a base bid amount of $72,000.00.

All required documentation was submitted with their bid. As there are sufficient project funds approved as part of the FY 2022-2023 budget, the City Manager recommends the award of contract to the apparent low bidder, Cazadoro Construction, Inc. In addition, a 20% contingency is recommended to allow enough funding to handle any additional improvements that are identified during construction. Staff also solicited three companies for materials testing services and recommends Smith Emery San Francisco at a cost of $10,694.65.

Materials Testing Companies
BSK Associates $19,224.00
Smith Emery San Francisco $10,694.65
Mott Macdonald No proposal received
The material testing services will be comprised of concrete compression testing and native soil compaction tests. Both activities are required to ensure that the installed concrete will meet the compression strength specifications and that the native soil will meet the compaction requirements to support the concrete foundation loads.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to approve the construction contract. However, this will result in project delays and possible increase in construction cost. Staff does not recommend this alternative action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the construction contract is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
· Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise. The Beach Boulevard Public Plaza Project will beautify the existing terrain by installing art sculptures along the promenade.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The following is the source and use of funds for the project:

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Fund 22 - General Capital Improvement (FY 2020-2021) $100,000.00 Fund 22 - General Capital Rollover Funds (FY 2021-2022) $30,000.00 Fund 26 - Park-in-Lieu Fund $20,000.00
Fund 27 - PB&R Roy Davies Trust Fund $30,000.00
Total Source of Funds $180,000.00
Construction Cost with 20% Contingency ($86,400.00)
12 Packet Pg. 214
Pacifica City Council 3
August 08, 2022
Art Sculpture Purchase (7 pcs) ($56,943.35)
Materials Testing Services with 15% Contingency ($12,298.85) Total Use of Funds ($155,642.20)
Estimated Project End Balance $24,357.80
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Cazadoro Construction Services Agreement (PDF) Attachment B - Beach Blvd Public Plaza Task Order with Smith Emery San Francisco (PDF) 12 Packet Pg. 215
%($&+%28/(9$5'38%/,&3/$=$352-(&7 3DUW,±3DJH
&,7<2)3$&,),&$
&UHVSL'ULYH3DFLILFD&$

&216758&7,216(59,&(6$*5((0(17
%($&+%28/(9$5'38%/,&3/$=$ 352-(&7
'$7(
BBBBBBBBBBBB

1. ,'(17,),&$7,212)&2175$&725

&2175$&725
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

&$/,)251,$/,&(16(12
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB&/$66
$*HQHUDO(QJLQHHULQJ&RQWUDFWRU

2. 6&23(2)7+(:25.
6HH6FRSHRI:RUNDWWDFKHGDV$SSHQGL[$
&203(16$7,21)25:25.&RQWUDFWRU¶VWRWDOFRPSHQVDWLRQIRUWKH:RUNSHUIRUPHGXQGHU WKLV$JUHHPHQW
&RQWUDFW6XP
LVBBBBBBBBBBWREHSDLGDV
FKHFNRQH

OXPSVXP

OXPS VXP ZLWK SURJUHVV SD\PHQWV

SHU DWWDFKHG VFKHGXOH RI UDWHV DQG FKDUJHV XS WR D JXDUDQWHHGQRWWRH[FHHGDPRXQWRIBBBBBBBBBB$OOSD\PHQWV FKHFNRQH

:VKDOO
VKDOOQRWEH
VXEMHFWWRDILYHSHUFHQW

UHWHQWLRQ

3. 6&+('8/(2)3(5)250$1&()257+(:25.&RQWUDFWRUVKDOOFRPPHQFHDQGFRPSOHWH WKH:RUNE\WKHIROORZLQJGDWHV

&RPPHQFHPHQW'DWHVKDOOEHRQWKHGDWHHVWDEOLVKHGLQWKH1RWLFHWR3URFHHG2ZQHUUHVHUYHVWKH ULJKWWRPRGLI\RUDOWHUWKH&RPPHQFHPHQW'DWHRIWKH:RUN 6XEVWDQWLDO&RPSOHWLRQ'DWH
:LWKLQ workingGD\VRI&RPPHQFHPHQW'DWH
)LQDO&RPSOHWLRQ'DWH
:LWKLQ FDOHQGDUGD\VRI6XEVWDQWLDO&RPSOHWLRQ

3.01 /LTXLGDWHG'DPDJH$PRXQWV
A. $VOLTXLGDWHGGDPDJHVIRUGHOD\&RQWUDFWRUVKDOOSD\2ZQHU2QH7KRXVDQG'ROODUV

IRU HDFK 'D\ WKDW H[SLUHV DIWHU WKH WLPH VSHFLILHG KHUHLQ IRU &RQWUDFWRU WR DFKLHYH 6XEVWDQWLDO &RPSOHWLRQRIWKHHQWLUH:RUNXQWLODFKLHYHG
B. $VOLTXLGDWHGGDPDJHVIRUGHOD\&RQWUDFWRUVKDOOSD\2ZQHU2QH7KRXVDQG'ROODUV

IRUHDFK'D\WKDWH[SLUHVDIWHUWKHWLPHVSHFLILHGKHUHLQIRU&RQWUDFWRUWRDFKLHYH)LQDO&RPSOHWLRQ RIWKHHQWLUH:RUNXQWLODFKLHYHG

3.02 6FRSHRI/LTXLGDWHG'DPDJHV
&RQWUDFWRUDQG2ZQHUDJUHHWKDWEHFDXVHRIWKHQDWXUHRIWKH3URMHFWLWZRXOGEHLPSUDFWLFDORU H[WUHPHO\GLIILFXOWWRIL[WKHDPRXQWRIVXFKDFWXDOGDPDJHVLQFXUUHGE\2ZQHUEHFDXVHRIDGHOD\ LQFRPSOHWLRQRIDOORUDQ\SDUWRIWKH:RUN&RQWUDFWRUDQG2ZQHUDJUHHWKDWVSHFLILHGPHDVXUHV RIOLTXLGDWHGGDPDJHVVKDOOEHSUHVXPHGWREHWKHDPRXQWRIVXFKGDPDJHVDFWXDOO\VXVWDLQHGE\ 7/27/2022
CAZADORO CONSTRUCTION, INC.
1003033
72,000.00

ATTACHMENT A

12.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment A - Cazadoro Construction Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5070 : Beach Boulevard Public Plaza Project) Owner, and that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damages.

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

4. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

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

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

4.02 4.03
The Contract Documents are the sole and exclusive provisions that govern theWork. Any provision contained in any Owner purchase orderissued in connection with this Agreement or anyWork shall be null and void and shall have no force or effect.

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

City of Pacifica, Department of Public Works,
540 Crespi Drive., Pacifica, CA 94044

BRYAN HOLM, PRESIDENT
Print Name & Title
10/27/22
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

BEACH BOU LEV ARD PUBLIC PLAZA PROJECT
OWNER: City of Pacifica
Signature
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Date
ATTEST:

Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
Part 1- Page 13

12.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment A - Cazadoro Construction Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5070 : Beach Boulevard Public Plaza Project) TASK ORDER NO. 2

CITY OF PACIFICA
AND

SMITH EMERY SAN FRANCISCO
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct Smith Emery San Francisco to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below, in accordance with the provisions of the Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica (“CITY”) and Smith Emery San Francisco (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated November 8, 2021 (“MASTER AGREEMENT”)
SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK
The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Attachment “A” – Scope of Services,which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT. Compensation for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be as set forth in Attachment “B” – Compensation, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided under this Task Order shall not exceed Ten-Thousand Six-Hundred and Ninety-Four and Sixty-Five Cents ($10,694.65) (“Cost Ceiling”).

SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed by December 16, 2022 or as extended in writing by the City Manager.

SECTION 5 – ITEMS AND CONDITIONS
All terms and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT are incorporated by reference and remain in full force and effect.

Approved this 27th day of July , 2022 .

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By: Date
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
By: Date
Greg Partridge, Owner, Smith Emery San Francisco

ATTACHMENT B

12.b
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment B - Beach Blvd Public Plaza Task Order with Smith Emery San Francisco [Revision 1] (5070 : Beach Boulevard Public ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

12.b
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment B - Beach Blvd Public Plaza Task Order with Smith Emery San Francisco [Revision 1] (5070 : Beach Boulevard Public ATTACHMENT “B”

COMPENSATION

12.b
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment B - Beach Blvd Public Plaza Task Order with Smith Emery San Francisco [Revision 1] (5070 : Beach Boulevard Public

12.b
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment B - Beach Blvd Public Plaza Task Order with Smith Emery San Francisco [Revision 1] (5070 : Beach Boulevard Public

12.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment B - Beach Blvd Public Plaza Task Order with Smith Emery San Francisco [Revision 1] (5070 : Beach Boulevard Public

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to Authorize Submission Of An Application To The California Infrastructure And Economic Development Bank ("iBank") For Financing The Lower Linda Mar Sewer System Rehabilitation And Repair Project And The Ultraviolet Disinfection Replacement Project (“Projects”) As Part Of The Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to Adopt a Resolution of the City Council Authorizing Submission of an Application to the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank ("iBank") for Financing the Lower Linda Mar Sewer System Rehabilitation and Repair Project and the Ultraviolet Disinfection Replacement Project ("Projects") as Part of the Wastewater Capital Improvement Program.

STAFF CONTACT:

Nelson Schlater, Engineering Manager - Wastewater
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 501-6004
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:

The purpose of this report is to request the Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the submittal of an application to the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank ("iBank") for financing the Lower Linda Mar Sewer System Rehabilitation and Repair Project and the Ultraviolet Disinfection Replacement Project. These projects were factored in the recently completed Sewer Rate study and included in the Wastewater Capital Improvement Program as approved by the City Council on June 27, 2022, as part of the budget.

This application approval is a procedural requirement by iBank as part of the financing process.

Once the final terms and conditions are provided by iBank following the submittal of the application, staff will review the terms and come back to Council at a later date to request authorization to execute the iBank loan.

DISCUSSION
At the May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting, Council adopted a resolution approving New Wastewater Service Charges (Rates) to finance the upcoming 5-year Wastewater Capital Improvement Program (CIP). As documented in the Sewer Rate Study conducted by Bartle & 13 Packet Pg. 223
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
Wells and discussed with Council during the rate adoption, proposed borrowing for the 5-year CIP included financing of approximately $31.5M in FY 22-23.

Staff has been working with Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE), sewer infrastructure financing experts, on developing the best funding strategies to finance these upcoming Projects needed for both the Collections System and the Plant during the 5-year rate increase period. The consultant has evaluated the balance loan closure time, securing the best overall interest rates and payback periods. Based on work with LSCE, staff recommends proceeding with borrowing $21M from the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (iBank) in FY 22-23 and borrowing the remaining amount needed for the 5-year CIP funding period in FY 23-24 from the Environmental Protection Agency Water Infrastructure and Innovation Act Program (WIFIA).

IBank was created in 1994 by the State of California to finance public infrastructure and private development and is operated out of the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development.

Funding from iBank is expected to provide the quickest and most cost-effective method of financing the necessary infrastructure loan and will allow the City to quickly start on the needed Wastewater repair and replacement work. WIFIA financing is expected to provide low-interest rates and repayment flexibility. However, WIFIA financing is also time-consuming (18 to 24 months) to apply for and secure. Using iBank for the first funding tranche will allow for an expedited start to complete the necessary capital repair/replacement work.

Increasing interest rates make the loan closing period time sensitive for locking in the lowest interest rate. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council directs staff to submit an application with iBank for the first needed $21M of funding. As noted earlier in the report, submitting an application does not commit the City to using iBank for the financing of the loan.

However, based on iBank's standard operating procedures, the City has to submit an application to receive the required terms of the loan (i.e. interest rate). Should acceptable terms and conditions be offered by iBank, staff will return to Council at a later date to request authorization to execute the iBank loan.

The City Manager recommends the Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the submission of an application to iBank.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may choose not to adopt the Resolution approving the application. However, this would delay securing a loan for the Wastewater Division repair/replacement work, possibly resulting in higher interest rates and delays in addressing the critical repair/replacement needs.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Adoption of the Resolution is consistent the these adopted City Goals:
· Stewardship of City Infrastructure and Maintaining a Safe Community: Adoption of the Resolution is the first step to ensuring sufficient funding to begin implementing the 5-year Wastewater CIP.
· Fiscal Sustainability: The adoption of the Resolution will allow for securing the lowest interest rate possible from iBank, as interest rates continue to rise.

FISCAL IMPACT:
13 Packet Pg. 224
Pacifica City Council 3
August 08, 2022
There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Staff will bring forward the financing terms for approval at a future meeting.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:
13 Packet Pg. 225
Pacifica City Council 4
August 08, 2022
RESOLUTION NO._______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AUTHORIZING THE

SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BANK (“IBANK”) FOR FINANCING THE LOWER LINDA MAR

SEWER SYSTEM REHABILITATION AND REPAIR PROJECT AND THE ULTRAVIOLET

DISINFECTION REPLACEMENT PROJECT AS PART OF THE WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN; AUTHORIZING THE INCURRING OF AN OBLIGATION PAYABLE

TO IBANK FOR THE FINANCING OF A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IF IBANK

APPROVES SAID APPLICATION AND CONTINGENT UPON THE CITY COUNCIL SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVING THE FINANCING AGREEMENT; APPROVING THE

DECLARATION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF AN OBLIGATION; AND APPROVING CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS IN

CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (“IBank”) administers a financing program to assist local governments with the financing of eligible projects in accordance with Section 63000 et seq. of the California Government Code (the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, IBank created the Infrastructure State Revolving Fund Program (“ISRF Program”) pursuant to the provision of the Act; and
WHEREAS, IBank has instituted an application process for financing under its ISRF Program; and
WHEREAS, IBank’s Criteria, Priorities and Guidelines for the Selection of Projects for Financing under the ISRF Program, dated February 23, 2016, and as may thereafter be amended from time to time (the “Criteria”), establishes requirements for the financing of projects under the ISRF Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica (“Applicant”) desires to submit an application (“Financing Application”) to IBank under the ISRF Program for financing the costs of the Lower Linda Mar Sewer System Rehabilitation and Repair and Ultraviolet Disinfection Replacement Projects (“Project”) in an amount not to exceed $21,000,000.00; and WHEREAS, the Act and the Criteria require the Applicant to make, by resolution of its governing body, certain findings prior to a project being selected for financing by IBank; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant expects to incur or pay certain expenditures in connection with the Project from its Wastewater Enterprise Fund that are reimbursable with the proceeds of tax exempt bonds or other tax exempt securities under Federal Tax Law (defined below) prior to incurring indebtedness for the purpose of financing costs associated with the Project on a long-term basis (the “Reimbursement Expenditures”); and WHEREAS, contingent upon City Council approval, the Applicant reasonably expects that a financing arrangement (“Obligation”) in an amount not expected to exceed 13 Packet Pg. 226
Pacifica City Council 5
August 08, 2022
$21,000,000 will be entered into under and memorialized by one or more financing agreements and related documents (collectively, the “Financing Agreement”) and that certain proceeds of such Obligation will be used to reimburse the Applicant for Reimbursement Expenditures incurred or paid prior to incurring the Obligation; and WHEREAS, the Applicant acknowledges that IBank funds the ISRF Program, in part, with the proceeds of tax exempt bonds and, as such, has certain compliance obligations that may require it to have the Applicant enter into one or more new financing agreements to replace the Financing Agreement (collectively, the “Replacement Agreement”) on terms and conditions substantially identical to the original Financing Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA THAT:

Section 1. The City of Pacifica hereby approves confirms, ratifies, and affirms all actions of the Applicant’s representatives, employees and officers heretofore taken in connection with, or with respect to, submitting the Financing Application, and the consideration and approval of the Obligation and the Financing Agreement, if IBank approves the Financing Application and the Obligation and contingent upon the City Council approval of the Financing Agreement, and in connection therewith the City of Pacifica finds and certifies:
a. The Project facilitates the effective and efficient use of existing and future public resources so as to promote both economic development and conservation of natural resources;
b. The Project develops and enhances public infrastructure in a manner that will attract, create, and sustain long-term employment opportunities; c. That the Project is consistent with the City of Pacifica’s General Plan and the General Plan of the County of San Mateo;
d. The proposed financing is appropriate for the Project; e. The Project is consistent with the Criteria; and
f. It has considered (i) the impact of the Project on California’s land resources and the need to preserve such resources; (ii) whether the Project is economically or socially desirable; and (iii) whether the project is consistent with, and in furtherance of the State Environmental Goals and Policy Report (as defined in the Criteria).

Section 2. The Applicant hereby declares its official intent to use proceeds of the Obligation to reimburse itself for the Reimbursement Expenditures with the proceeds of taxexempt bonds or other tax-exempt securities issued under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and those Treasury Regulations implementing such provisions (collectively, “Federal Tax Law”). This declaration is made solely for purposes of establishing compliance with applicable requirements of Federal Tax Law and its date is controlling for purposes of reimbursement under Federal Tax Law. This declaration does not bind the Applicant to make any expenditure, incur any indebtedness, or proceed with the Project.

Section 3. All of the Reimbursement Expenditures were made no earlier than 60 days prior to the date of this Resolution. The Applicant will allocate proceeds of the Obligation to pay Reimbursement Expenditures within eighteen (18) months of the later of the date the original expenditure was paid or the date the Project was placed in service or 13 Packet Pg. 227
Pacifica City Council 6
August 08, 2022
abandoned, but in no event more than three (3) years after the original expenditure was paid.

Section 4. The City Manager and his or her designee is hereby authorized and directed to act on behalf of the Applicant in all matters pertaining to the Financing Application, and if IBank approves the Financing Application and the Obligation and if the City Council subsequently approves the Financing Agreement, the execution of related financial documents, including but not limited to, the authority to: (i) pledge the revenues of the City’s wastewater enterprise fund and all legally available amounts in the wastewater enterprise fund on a parity basis with the Applicant’s obligations in connection with the existing debts, to the repayment of the Obligation, (ii) provide covenants relating to, among other things, maintaining the debt service coverage ratio required by IBank, rates and charges to be pledged, and as to any other security or collateral securing the Obligation, and (iii) take any other action necessary or desirable to enable the Applicant to enter into the Financing Agreement and incur the Obligation and with the authority to make payments from the wastewater enterprise fund revenues and other legally available sources of funds for the repayment of the Obligation and to provide covenants relating to the Obligation and as to any security or collateral securing the Obligation.

Section 5. If the Financing Application and the Obligation is approved by IBank and subsequently approved by the City Council, the City Manager and his or her designee is authorized to negotiate, enter into and sign financing documents and any amendments thereto, including, but not limited to the Financing Agreement and the Replacement Agreement, with IBank for the purposes of financing the Obligation.

Section 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. • • • • •
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the City Council of the City of Pacifica in a regular meeting assembled on the 8th day of August 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 13 Packet Pg. 228

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval with conditions of Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 to establish one on-street Temporary Safe Parking Program parking space (30’ by 10’) on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public right-of-way (ROW), east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection (File No. 2022-012).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution.

STAFF CONTACT:

Christian Murdock, AICP, Acting Planning Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The following section provides the relevant background of the project as well as discussion of the appeal.

A. BACKGROUND
On March 15, 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”), the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and Disability Rights Advocates filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Pacifica on behalf of the Plaintiffs1 challenging the City’s Oversized Vehicle (“OSV”) Ordinance and its Vehicular Habitation Ordinance.2 On November 8, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 72-2021 approving execution of a settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) for the lawsuit and as part of the Settlement Agreement, the City agreed to develop and adopt an on-street, temporary safe parking program (“Program”) and identified the 13 designated parking spots that would be used for the Program, to be jointly administered with Pacifica Resource Center (“PRC”).

On February 28, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 12-2022 to approve a threeyear Temporary Safe Parking Program (“Program”) in the City of Pacifica which provides up to 13 parking spaces for exclusive use by Program participants living in an operational recreational vehicle, trailer or motorhome with operating toilet facilities. The Program would allow temporary parking of such vehicles for limited time periods in each of the designated spaces that have been approved by the City Council while Program participants seek permanent housing solutions. The resolution also authorized the City Manager to execute the Operations 1 Named Plaintiffs identified in the Complaint are as follows: Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen Sanders
2 Geary, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780 14 Packet Pg. 229
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto between the City of Pacifica and the PRC, which details the terms, provisions, and obligations of the PRC and City to implement the Program. The City Council also adopted Ordinance No. 873-C.S. adding a new PMC Section 4-

7.1207, which, among other things, specifies various parameters for the use of Regular, Provisional, and Short-Term Permits under the Program and amended PMC Section 5-2.03 to create an exemption from the City’s 72-hour parking limitation for vehicles displaying either a valid Regular Permit or Provisional Permit under the Program.

Program parking space locations both within and outside of the coastal zone include:

Location Number of Spaces
West side of Oceana Boulevard, across from City of Pacifica Public Works Dept. at 151 Milagra Avenue
4 South side of Milagra Drive, across from City of Pacifica Public Works Dept. at 151 Milagra Avenue
1 East side of Lundy Way, north of Rifle Range Road 3
West side of Bradford Way near the Sharp Park Golf Course3 2 San Pedro Avenue in the dirt ROW in front of ACE Hardware4 2 West side of Francisco Boulevard adjacent to North Coast County Water District at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (Project site)
1 On May 16, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-012 by a vote of 5 to 0 finding establishment of one on-street Program parking space (30’ by 10’) and improvements on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public ROW, east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection (“Project”) exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approving, with conditions, Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 (“Development Permit”) (Attachment B). The staff report and minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of May 16, 2022, are included as Attachments C and D, respectively. The Project plans are included as Attachment E.

After duly noticing the public hearing for a regular meeting of the City Council on July 11, 2022, staff requested a continuance for the appeal hearing to August 8, 2022, in order to manage the number of items on the City Council’s agenda. The Appellant agreed to the continuance and the City Council granted the continuance to their regular meeting on August 8, 2022.

B. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
On May 26, 2022, North Coast County Water District (hereafter “Appellant” or “District”) timely submitted a City of Pacifica Appeal Form, letter, and applicable fee to the City Clerk’s office to appeal the Planning Commission’s approval of the Development Permit for the Project (Attachment F). The Appellant cited several reasons for the appeal in the appeal form and attached letter, which are summarized and addressed by staff below. 3 This location is the subject of an ongoing appeal to the California Coastal Commission. 4 Ibid.
14 Packet Pg. 230
Pacifica City Council 3
August 08, 2022
Basis 1. “The Temporary Safe Parking Program (“Program”) is inconsistent with the City’s adopted Local Coastal Program.”
Staff Response: The Appellant claims that if the City is unable to meet all applicable Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) policies related to housing, then the only legal option is to move all housing and temporary parking locations outside of the City’s Coastal Zone. This statement is inaccurate and misstates the requirements for the Planning Commission findings required for the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit pursuant to PMC section 9-4.4304(k) as further supplemented by the discussion below. Staff has also found that the Project is consistent with the applicable policies of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (“LCLUP”).

The Appellant contends that the May 16, 2022 Planning Commission staff report cited Coastal Act Policy Nos. 2 and 5 for purpose of seeking a blanket determination that the Program is consistent with the City’s LCP. This statement is incorrect. As explained in the May 16 Planning Commission staff report the LCP consists of the LCLUP and the Implementation Plan (“IP”). The staff report identifies LCLUP Coastal Act Policy Nos. 2 and 5 as applicable policies as the Project would support both Policies. No regulations in the IP are applicable to the Project.

The Appellant claims that if the City should consider the Project as housing then all other applicable housing policies should apply and cites Coastal Act Policy Nos. 23, 25, and portions of 26. The finding to support the Project’s consistency with Coastal Act Policy No. 5 identifies the Project as a temporary housing opportunity because Program participants will be working with PRC to find long-term housing and be provided a temporary place to park their OSV. Staff notes that Coastal Act Policy Nos. 23, 25, and 26 are not specific to housing developments, however staff addresses each of these policies as cited by the Appellant below.

Coastal Act Policy No. 23 states:

New development, except as otherwise provided in this policy, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels. Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas.

Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas shall be located in existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction for visitors.

This policy requires that new development is “located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it.” The Project site is an existing developed street. Furthermore, the Project is immediately surrounded by existing developed areas, including the District’s headquarters (2400 Francisco Boulevard, APN 016-322-230) to the west, State Route 1 to the east, and residential uses to the north, and a mix of commercial and residential uses to the south of the Project site along Francisco Boulevard. Because the Project site is located near existing developed areas, the criteria for new development in areas not near existing developed areas does not apply. Regardless, staff notes that the Program, which would support the Project site, requires Participants to have an operational recreational vehicle with operating toilets. The Program will provide Participants with public services such as regular access to water at PRC’s facility, regular access to black and gray water disposal facilities, and regular access to solid waste and recycling facilities. The policy does not define “adequate public services” as utility connections for sewer, water, heating or air conditioning as 14 Packet Pg. 231
Pacifica City Council 4
August 08, 2022
implied by the Appellant. Finally, the remaining language of Coastal Act Policy No. 23 is not applicable as the Project does not include land divisions, new hazardous industrial development, or visitor-serving facilities.

Coastal Act Policy No. 25 states:

The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by:
(a) Facilitating the provision or extension of transit service; (b) Providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development, or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads; (c) Providing non-automobile circulation within the development; (d) Providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation;
(e) Assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings; and
(f) Assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with, the provision of on-site recreational facilities to serve the new development.

The Appellant claims that new housing must enhance public access, using options in the policy, which Appellant believes were not met by the Project. The Project is not at the scale that would necessitate or allow for implementation of many of these enhancements for public access because:
(a) The Project would occur within an existing public right-of-way (“ROW”) and wouldn’t establish a new area that would require an extension of transit service. The Project would simply establish one on-street Program parking space and installation of street markings and signage to the public ROW, thus the Project wouldn’t impact existing public transit service.
(b) The Project doesn’t include commercial facilities and the Project site is already in the immediate vicinity of commercial uses. The Project will also not minimize the use of coastal access roads as the Project is located in the ROW and will not impede any vehicular access to vehicles traveling in the area.
(c) The Project site is 30’ by 10’ and would not be large enough to accommodate nonautomobile circulation within the development. Additionally, an existing public sidewalk would be maintained immediately west of the Project site. (d) The Project is to provide a parking space and therefore the Project would meet this public access provision by its own design. Additionally, as analyzed in the May 16 Planning Commission staff report, adequate visitor-serving parking is available in the vicinity of the Project.
(e) The Project does not include high intensity uses. Additionally, the project wouldn’t impact existing public transit service.
(f) At most, the Project would establish a parking space to provide a temporary opportunity for Program participants to park for 30 days at a time in one location. The Program would prioritize existing residents of Pacifica and therefore it is likely the participants would not be new residents. However, even if there are new residents, they will not overload nearby coastal areas as there are only 5 parking spaces in the Program that are in the coastal zone and existing nearby recreational areas, such as Sharp Park Beach, Sharp Park Golf Course, Brighton Park, and other nearby recreational facilities would be adequate to accommodate the participants.

Coastal Act Policy No. 26 states:

New development shall:
14 Packet Pg. 232
Pacifica City Council 5
August 08, 2022
[…]
(c) Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air pollution control district or the State Air Resources Control Board as to each particular development. (d) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled. (e) Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods which, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.

Additionally, the Program would require the Participants to have current State vehicle registration. Air quality requirements associated with the vehicle would be addressed through the State vehicle registration process.
(b) The Project would establish a parking space to provide a temporary parking space that requires very little development since the existing public street facility is being used.

Therefore, the Project would require minimal energy consumption. Additionally, the Program would prioritize Participants that are existing Pacifica residents who are likely to have established connections, such as work, school, family, and friends in the area. By providing a temporary parking space in the area that Participants already reside in, the Project will reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled compared to an alternative outside of Pacifica.

Moreover, participants in the Program parked in the designated parking spaces do not have to move their vehicles every 72 hours to a new parking space thus reducing the number of trips that their vehicles have to take.
(c) The Project would have no impact on the special character and neighborhood of West Sharp Park as oversized vehicles are currently able to park along Francisco Boulevard.

No City noise regulations are applicable to the Project itself because the Project is the establishment of the parking space in an area that already allows parking and the installation of street markings and signage. The Program participants would be required to comply with the Program’s Code of Conduct as codified in Pacifica Municipal Code Section 4-7.1207(e)(1). The Code of Conduct would require the Program participants to maintain quiet hours between 10pm and 8am and turn off generators at that time. Program participants would be subject to the City’s noise ordinance in Chapter 10, Title 5 of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

Basis 2. “The Program will interfere with the District’s ability to provide essential public services and with the District’s construction of its new headquarters.” Staff Response: The Appellant claims that the Project would negatively impact emergency operations at their facility by inhibiting the flow of traffic and parking in and around the facility, however the Appellant provides no evidence to support these statements. The District’s headquarters currently has three driveway entrances to access their site. Two entrances are located on the south side of the property along Clarendon Road and one entrance is located on the east side of the property along Francisco Boulevard. Between the District’s Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance and the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection to 14 Packet Pg. 233
Pacifica City Council 6
August 08, 2022
the south, the west side of the Francisco Boulevard ROW contains approximately 87 feet of curb space available for parking as well as approximately 24 feet of red curb which is located closest to the intersection. The proposed location of the Project would abut the north end of the red curb and consume 30 feet of the available 87 feet of curb space. A condition of approval added by the Planning Commission on May 16 would also add 5 feet of red curb on the north side of the Project site. This would result in approximately 52 feet of available curb between the northern extent of the new red curb for the Project site and the District’s Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance. Approximately 52 feet of curb length is more than a reasonable distance to conclude that the Project would not inhibit flow of traffic into the District’s Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance. Furthermore, typical street parking would continue to occur along the remaining curb space between the Project site and the Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance as currently allowed. The Project would have no impact on inhibiting the flow of traffic into the District’s two Clarendon Road driveway entrances because the Project site is located along Francisco Boulevard.

Additionally, property owners are required to provide adequate parking facilities for the use on the site and are unable to claim public ROW as parking space required and reserved for their use. The Appellant’s District headquarters has 12 on-site parking spaces. Finally, with regard to any future construction or development on the District property, no such future development is currently approved. The timing of any such future approval and subsequent construction is also unknown at this time and speculative. This is particularly relevant in light of the temporary duration of the Program and Project at this site. Should development on the District property be approved in the future, the District, like any other developer, would be responsible to accommodate construction parking on site or use public ROW as is available to the public. As the District is seeking approval of development permits for their proposed headquarters renovations, the City will evaluate the parking impacts of the District’s project as appropriate.

For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

Basis 3. “The City is required to review the Program de novo, which encompasses the right to present additional evidence and claims.”
Staff Response: The Appellant contends that any citizen has the right to appeal, present additional evidence on any appeal and be provided a de novo public hearing on appeal of a Planning Commission approval, or denial to the City Council. Appeals of Planning Commission decisions are generally governed by Article 36 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which provides that the appeal shall be heard and determined according to the procedures set forth in PMC Section 9-4.3208. Subdivision (b) of Section 9-4.3208 provides that upon the receipt of the appeal, the Council may consider the appeal in one of the following ways:(1) By holding a public hearing, using the same procedures as set forth in Section 9-4.3302 of Article 33 of this chapter; or (2) By referral back to the Commission for reconsideration. Subdivision (c) of Section 9-

4.3208 provides that upon considering the appeal, the Council may approve, deny, or modify the permit. Because the Council has the discretion to modify the development permit, Council’s review on appeal is indeed considered a de novo review and the Council can consider all aspects of a project considered by the Planning Commission – not simply the issues being appealed.
14 Packet Pg. 234
Pacifica City Council 7
August 08, 2022
However, this review is limited to what was within the Planning Commission’s review jurisdiction. The Planning Commission’s action on May 16, 2022, was focused on determining whether the findings required for approval of the CDP could be made. The Planning Commission did not have the authority from City Council to review or consider alternative locations for the Project. Since this was not within the discretionary review authority of the Planning Commission, it would not be appropriate for the Council to consider alternative locations during the appeal hearing. The Council, pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3208(c), may either approve, deny or modify the CDP approved by the Planning Commission and not the Program itself because the Program was approved by the Council through a separate process.

The Planning Commission had no authority from City Council to review or consider alternative locations for the Project. Thus, it would not be appropriate for the Council to consider alternative locations during the appeal hearing.

For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

Basis 4. “The City failed to provide adequate notice of the ordinance implementing the Program and must hold a new hearing on appeal to validate the ordinance.” Staff Response: As indicated above in staff’s Response to Basis No. 3, the consideration of the Council is limited to the approval, denial or modification of the CDP issued by the Planning Commission. Because the issue of the validity of the Program implementation ordinance is not relevant to the issuance of a CDP, appeal Basis No. 4 should not be considered by the Council.

However, even if validity of the ordinance were relevant, this contention is without merit.

While the Appellant claims that the City failed to provide the District with the specified mailed notice that is required for certain general plan and zoning code changes pursuant to Government Code Section 65091(a)(4), those provisions are only applicable to certain planning and land use matters. In the case of the Program Ordinance, the City was not required to provide any notice pursuant to Government Code Section 65091 because the Program Ordinance does not constitute an amendment to the City’s Planning and Zoning Code found in Title 9 of the PMC or the City’s General Plan because the Program Ordinance does not change any allowed land uses. Rather, the City’s regulations relating to parking are identified in Article 12, “Stopping, Standing and Parking Restricted or Prohibited of Chapter 7, Title 4, including the OSV Ordinance and other available parking permits. The Program Ordinance added a new Section 4-7.1207 to the PMC which, among other things, specifies various parameters for the use of Regular, Provisional, and Short-Term Permits under the Program. The Program Ordinance also amends PMC Section 5-2.03 to create an exemption from the City’s 72-hour parking limitation for vehicles displaying either a valid Regular Permit or Provisional Permit under the Program. These provisions would not be appropriately included in the City’s Planning and Zoning Code because the use of the ROW did not change.

The Program Ordinance is not a zoning ordinance simply because some of the parking sites are located within a coastal zone and provide a temporary housing opportunity. The coastal zone issue is only relevant to the question of whether certain parking sites need a Coastal Development Permit. Parking regulations in the ROW, such as the ones contained in the Program Ordinance, are adopted through the City’s inherent police powers under the California Constitution Article XI, Section 7 to address health and safety issues, among other concerns.

They are located in Title 4 and 5 of the PMC and are not considered a land use regulated by the Planning and Zoning Code.
14 Packet Pg. 235
Pacifica City Council 8
August 08, 2022
Even assuming arguendo that Appellant is correct, a failure to provide the requisite notice under Government Code Section 65091 does not invalidate the ordinance. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65093, the failure of any person or entity to receive notice under the requirements of Sections 65090–65091, do not constitute grounds for a court to invalidate the actions for which the notice was given. Thus, Appellant’s request to invalidate the Program Ordinance would not be appropriate.

Additionally, the City Manager highlighted the Safe Parking Program agenda topic in the Friday February 25, 2022 release of the City’s weekly e-newsletter “Connect With Pacifica” prior to the February 28, 2022 Council meeting where the agenda item and introduction of the ordinance was discussed. Thus, members of the public, including Appellant, were provided notice of the Program Ordinance prior to adoption.

For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

Basis 5. “The District and [sic] reserves the right to challenge the City’s determination for the parking and housing ordinance.”
Staff Response: As indicated above in staff’s Response to Basis No. 3, the consideration of the Council is limited to the approval, denial or modification of the CDP issued by the Planning Commission. Since the issue of whether adequate notice of the ordinance implementing the Program was provided is not relevant to the issuance of a CDP, staff believes that this appeal Basis No. 5 should not be considered by the Council. However, if Council is inclined to consider this issue, staff provides the following information to refute this contention.

The Appellant argues that the Program or the Program Ordinance does not fit within the scope of the CEQA exemptions identified by the City because the Appellant contends that allowing long-term parking of RVs, which Appellant equates to “temporary housing,” will result in “potential air quality, noise and public services impacts.” These arguments are without merit.

The Program Ordinance was determined by the Council to be exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(Class 1- Existing Facilities) and 15304 (Class 4-Minor Alterations to Land) and the “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) based on staff’s recommendation and review of the Program and Program Ordinance.

Section 15301 also specifies that the types of “existing facilities” itemized are not intended to be an all-inclusive list but rather the key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. In this case, the Program will only involve a negligible expansion of use of existing City street facilities. The City is utilizing existing streets for parking of OSVs participating in the Program that will be signed and marked for the Program. The Project site is 14 Packet Pg. 236
Pacifica City Council 9
August 08, 2022
also currently used for OSV parking up to 72 hours by any individual OSV. Yet the space may be used continuously under existing regulations by any combination of different OSVs provided that no single OSV occupies the space for more than 72 hours. If the CDP is approved, the Project site will continue to be used for parking of OSVs by Program participants while the Program is being conducted. Additionally, Appellant argues that the Class 1 exemption would be inconsistent with the “separate findings that the City is intending to provide low-cost housing by allowing long term parking in these designated areas.” It is unclear what findings the Appellant is referring to as there is no such finding in the Program Ordinance. There is however, a finding in the Planning Commission’s Resolution No. 2022-012 approving the Project. The Planning Commission found that the Project, among other findings, was in conformance with Coastal Act Policy No. 5, because the “…Program parking space will provide a low cost temporary housing opportunity for Program participants for a limited period of time while participants in the Program seek permanent housing solutions. Therefore, the Project would encourage and provide housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income.” This finding confirms why the Project conforms with Coastal Act Policy No. 5 and while the Project does encourage and provide housing opportunities to Program participants, the finding itself does not indicate that the City is intending to provide “low-cost housing” through the Program. While it is true that the Program will provide housing opportunities for participants because they will be working with PRC to find long-term housing and be provided a temporary place to park their OSV, the use of the ROW will remain essentially the same and there is only a negligible expansion of the former use of existing City facilities as a result of the Program- and thus the Class 1 exemption is appropriate.

Appellant also does not appear to consider that the parking sites for the Program are currently used for vehicle parking, including OSV parking. While the Program will make alterations in the condition of land, given that the Program is temporary and the alterations to the land are minor (reserving 30’ by 10’ of existing public ROW, placement of post for signs and markings in ROW), the Class 4 exemption is appropriate.

With regard to the Common Sense exemption, the Appellant argues that because the Program will result in “potential air quality, noise and public services impacts given the likely use of generators and lack of utility connections for each designated location" the Program is not subject to the Common Sense exemption. Again, the Appellant does not provide any evidence beyond these broad statements to support its contention that there will be impacts to air quality, noise and public service nor does the Appellant provide any evidence to support the contention that generators are more likely to be used by Program participants rather than other nonparticipant OSV operators. This exemption provides that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this case, since the parking areas in the right-of-way are being used for the purpose they are originally intended, the Program and Ordinance are not a project that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment and are exempt under the Common Sense exemption (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)). The Program would essentially reserve 13 parking spaces for a temporary period of three years to allow Program participants to park at one of the Program sites for periods of up to 29 days while in the Program. There would also be minor improvements to the Program parking spaces (placement of post for signs and markings in ROW). The Program would also provide other benefits to the Program participants such as trash and recycling collection and black water collection, however, these are services that OSV owners would require regardless of participation in the Program and OSV parking would be 14 Packet Pg. 237
Pacifica City Council 10 August 08, 2022
available regardless of the Program status. This negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment.

Appellant also contends that City was required to file a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”). This is not correct. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152(b), when an agency determines that a project is exempt, it may file a notice of exemption but is not required to make any such filing. (See also California Code of Regulations Section 15062(a)).

For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

Basis 6. “The City has the authority to and should select an alternative location to Francisco Boulevard.”
Staff Response: As indicated above in staff’s Response to Basis Nos. 3, 4, and 5 the consideration of the Council on this Appeal is limited to the approval, denial or modification of the CDP issued by the Planning Commission. Since an alternative location is not relevant to the issuance of a CDP, staff believes that this appeal Basis No. 6 should not be considered by the Council. However, if Council is inclined to consider this issue, staff provides the following information to refute this contention.

The Program sites were approved as part of the Settlement Agreement in November 2021. The Program, including the design and operation of the Program, was considered and approved by the Pacifica City Council on February 22, 2022.5 As detailed in the May 16 Planning Commission staff report, the establishment of the parking space and implementation of the improvements in the Coastal Zone meet the definition of “development” per PMC Section 9-

4.4302(z). Development in the Coastal Zone requires issuance of a Coastal Development Permit per PMC Section 9-4.4303(a). The Planning Commission’s action on May 16, 2022, was focused on determining whether the Project is appropriate or not, with respect to the findings required for approval of the Coastal Development Permit. The Planning Commission was not provided the authority from City Council to review or consider alternative locations for the Project. Therefore, because review and consideration of alternative locations for the Project was not within the Planning Commission’s purview, it is also beyond the purview of the City Council as part of the appeal.

For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

C. CITY COUNCIL’S ROLE
Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3208, the Council may approve, deny or modify the Coastal Development Permit, after considering the appeal. In the event that the Council determines that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s approval of the Coastal Development Permit, the Council should deny the appeal by adopting the attached Resolution. In the event that the Council decides to uphold the appeal and deny the Project, Council will need to provide staff with the basis for those findings that are supported by substantial evidence which would be inserted into a Resolution upholding the appeal by staff and brought back to Council at a later date.
5 City of Pacifica City Council Resolution No. 12-2022
14 Packet Pg. 238
Pacifica City Council 11 August 08, 2022
D. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
Staff analysis of the Project supports the City Council finding that the Project qualifies for Class 1 and 4 exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15304 and the “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as described below:
15301. “Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be allinclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. […]” The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The existing use of the public ROW allows for vehicle parking; therefore, the proposed use is a negligible expansion of the existing use. 15304. “Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include, but are not limited to:
[…]
(e) Minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc.;” The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment. Installation of two pole signs and pavement markings are minor alterations and do not involve removal of healthy, mature scenic trees.

Additionally, none of the exceptions applicable to a Class 1 and 4 exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply, as described below. • Sec. 15300.2(a): This exception does not apply to the Class 1 exemption. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the Project would impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies. • Sec. 15300.2(b): There is no evidence in the record that cumulative projects of the same type would occur within the same place to create a significant cumulative impact. • Sec. 15300.2(c): There is no evidence that the activity would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
• Sec. 15300.2(d) through (f): The Project is not proposed near an officially designated scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and, does not affect any historical resources. Therefore, the provisions of subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this Project.

Because the Project is consistent with the requirements for Class 1 and Class 4 exemptions and none of the exceptions to applying Class 1 and 4 exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply; therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
14 Packet Pg. 239
Pacifica City Council 12 August 08, 2022
Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) states “The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.” The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of existing public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment. Installation of two pole signs and pavement markings are minor alterations to the existing environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment.

E. STAFF SUMMARY
Staff believes there is substantial evidence to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval as discussed above. Staff also believes there is substantial evidence to support the application of Class 1 and 4 CEQA exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15304 and the “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) to the Project. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.

F. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
The City Council may move to continue the appeal hearing in order to allow staff to prepare a resolution and associated findings to uphold the appeal and deny the Planning Commission approval of the Coastal Development Permit. The City Council may also refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The Project is consistent with the following City Council-adopted goal:

Goals
● “A Healthy and Compassionate Community” includes addressing affordable housing and mental health services, exploring and implementing strategies that relate to homelessness, and supporting community services for all ages.

It is also the City Council’s normal governance process to hear and determine appeals of Planning Commission actions under the Pacifica Municipal Code.

FISCAL IMPACT:

In the event the Settlement Agreement conditions are not met, the City could incur significant additional costs in defending the lawsuit which could exceed $500,000. These additional costs would be in addition to the over $300,000 in legal defense costs already expended in the lawsuit.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
14 Packet Pg. 240
Pacifica City Council 13 August 08, 2022
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (DOCX)
Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-012 (PDF) Attachment C - Planning Commission Staff Report - May 16, 2022 (PDF) Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (PDF) Attachment E - Project Plans(PDF)
Attachment F - NCCWD Appeal (PDF)
14 Packet Pg. 241
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVLOPMENT PERMIT CDP-437-22 (FILE NO. 2022-012),

SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, TO ESTABLISH ONE ON-STREET TEMPORARY SAFE

PARKING PROGRAM PARKING SPACE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE FRANCISCO BOULEVARD PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, EAST OF 2400 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD (APN 016-322-230) AND APPROXIMATELY 32 FEET NORTH OF THE CLARENDON

ROAD AND FRANCISCO BOULEVARD INTERSECTION, AND FINDING THE

PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
________________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: City of Pacifica (“Applicant”)
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2022, the City of Pacifica City Council adopted Resolution No. 12-2022 to approve a three-year Temporary Safe Parking Program (“Program”) in the City of Pacifica which provides up to 13 parking spaces for Program participants living in an operational recreational vehicle, trailer or motorhome with operating toileting facilities a temporary parking space for a limited period of time while participants try to find permanent housing solutions; and WHEREAS, the Program includes the establishment of one on-street Program parking spaces (total size of 30’ by 10’) on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public right-of-way (ROW), east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection. Improvements, including installation of two pole signs and pavement markings, will be used to designate the area of public ROW being reserved for the Program parking space (File No. 2022-012)(“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a coastal development permit pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.4303 on the basis that the Project constitutes “development,” as defined in PMC Section 9-4.4302(z)(7), and the Project does not qualify as a category of excluded development; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on May 16, 2022, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 2022-012, finding the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 on May 16, 2022; and WHEREAS, North Coast County Water District (“Appellant” or “District”) filed an appeal (“Appeal”) of the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt Resolution No. 2022-012 on May 26, 2022;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on July 11, 2022, and continued the public hearing to August 8, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on August 8, 2022, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.

14.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (5066 : Safe Parking Program File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
2 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:

A. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

B. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby deny the Appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s Approval on May 16, 2022 of the project, and makes the following findings pertaining to this denial of the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s action:

Basis 1. “The Temporary Safe Parking Program (“Program”) is inconsistent with the City’s adopted Local Coastal Program.”
Response: : The Appellant claims that if the City is unable to meet all applicable Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) policies related to housing, then the only legal option is to move all housing and temporary parking locations outside of the City’s Coastal Zone. This statement is inaccurate and misstates the requirements for the Planning Commission findings required for the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit pursuant to PMC section 9-4.4304(k) as further supplemented by the discussion below. Staff has also found that the Project is consistent with the applicable policies of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (“LCLUP”).

The Appellant claimsthat if the City should consider the Project as housing then all other applicable housing policies should apply and cites Coastal Act Policy Nos. 23, 25, and portions of 26. The finding to support the Project’s consistency with Coastal Act Policy No. 5 identifies the Project as a temporary housing opportunity because Program participants will be working with PRC to find long-term housing and be provided a temporary place to park their OSV. Staff notes that Coastal Act Policy Nos. 23, 25, and 26 are not specific to housing developments, however staff addresses each of these policies as cited by the Appellant below.

Coastal Act Policy No. 23 states:

14.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (5066 : Safe Parking Program File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
3 areas. Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas shall be located in existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction for visitors.

This policy requires that new development is “located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it.” The Project site is an existing developed street. Furthermore, the Project is immediately surrounded by existing developed areas, including the District’s headquarters (2400 Francisco Boulevard, APN 016-322-230) to the west, State Route 1 to the east, and residential uses to the north, and a mix of commercial and residential uses to the south of the Project site along Francisco Boulevard. Because the Project site is located near existing developed areas, the criteria for new development in areas not near existing developed areas does not apply. Regardless, staff notes that the Program, which would support the Project site, requires Participants to have an operational recreational vehicle with operating toilets. The Program will provide Participants with public services such as regular access to water at PRC’s facility, regular access to black and gray water disposal facilities, and regular access to solid waste and recycling facilities. The policy does not define “adequate public services” as utility connections for sewer, water, heating or air conditioning as implied by the Appellant. Finally, the remaining language of Coastal Act Policy No. 23 is not applicable as the Project does not include land divisions, new hazardous industrial development, or visitor-serving facilities.

Coastal Act Policy No. 25 states:

The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by:
(a) Facilitating the provision or extension of transit service; (b) Providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development, or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads;
(c) Providing non-automobile circulation within the development; (d) Providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation;
(e) Assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings; and
(f) Assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with, the provision of on-site recreational facilities to serve the new development.

14.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (5066 : Safe Parking Program File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
4 wouldn’t impact existing public transit service. (f) At most, the Project would establish a parking space to provide a temporary opportunity for Program participants to park for 30 days at a time in one location. The Program would prioritize existing residents of Pacifica and therefore it is likely the participants would not be new residents. However, even if there are new residents, they will not overload nearby coastal areas as there are only 5 parking spaces in the Program that are in the coastal zone and existing nearby recreational areas, such as Sharp Park Beach, Sharp Park Golf Course, Brighton Park, and other nearby recreational facilities would be adequate to accommodate the participants.

Coastal Act Policy No. 26 states:

New development shall:
[…]
(c) Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air pollution control district or the State Air Resources Control Board as to each particular development. (d) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled. (e) Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods which, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.

The Appellant identifies the above portion of Coastal Act Policy No. 26 as applicable to the Project and claims that it is unlikely Program participants will meet all existing air quality, energy efficiency or noise regulations. Staff maintains that the Project is not at the scale that would necessitate or allow for implementation of many of these provisions for new development; however, to the extent applicable the Project is consistent because:
(a) The Planning Commission conditioned the Project as detailed in Resolution No. 2022-012 to require Program Participants to comply with all Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations applicable to generators proposed for operation at the Program spaces. This condition is consistent with requirements imposed by the air pollution control district. Additionally, the Program would require the Participants to have current State vehicle registration. Air quality requirements associated with the vehicle would be addressed through the State vehicle registration process. (b) The Project would establish a parking space to provide a temporary parking space that requires very little development since the existing public street facility is being used. Therefore, the Project would require minimal energy consumption. Additionally, the Program would prioritize Participants that are existing Pacifica residents who are likely to have established connections, such as work, school, family, and friends in the area. By providing a temporary parking space in the area that Participants already reside in, the Project will reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled compared to an alternative outside of Pacifica. Moreover, participants in the Program parked in the designated parking spaces do not have to move their vehicles every 72 hours to a new parking space thus reducing the number of trips that their vehicles have to take. (c) The Project would have no impact on the special character and neighborhood of West Sharp Park as oversized vehicles are currently able to park along Francisco Boulevard.

14.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (5066 : Safe Parking Program File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
5 For the reasons provided above, the City Council rejects this basis of appeal.

Basis 2. “The Program will interfere with the District’s ability to provide essential public services and with the District’s construction of its new headquarters.” Response: The Appellant claims that the Project would negatively impact emergency operations at their facility by inhibiting the flow of traffic and parking in and around the facility, however the Appellant provides no evidence to support these statements. The District’s headquarters currently has three driveway entrances to access their site. Two entrances are located on the south side of the property along Clarendon Road and one entrance is located on the east side of the property along Francisco Boulevard. Between the District’s Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance and the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection to the south, the west side of the Francisco Boulevard ROW contains approximately 87 feet of curb space available for parking as well as approximately 24 feet of red curb which is located closest to the intersection. The proposed location of the Project would abut the north end of the red curb and consume 30 feet of the available 87 feet of curb space. A condition of approval added by the Planning Commission on May 16 would also add 5 feet of red curb on the north side of the Project site. This would result in approximately 52 feet of available curb between the northern extent of the new red curb for the Project site and the District’s Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance. Approximately 52 feet of curb length is more than a reasonable distance to conclude that the Project would not inhibit flow of traffic into the District’s Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance. Furthermore, typical street parking would continue to occur along the remaining curb space between the Project site and the Francisco Boulevard driveway entrance as currently allowed. The Project would have no impact on inhibiting the flow of traffic into the District’s two Clarendon Road driveway entrances because the Project site is located along Francisco Boulevard.

The Appellant’s claim that the Project would inhibit parking around the District’s headquarters by consuming parking that could be used by emergency response staff during times of an emergency or by their construction contractor during an anticipated future renovation project are unsubstantiated. The Project site is currently used by the public for on-street parking and is not reserved for the use of emergency response staff. Therefore, the Appellant’s implication that the Project site is available for emergency response staff at any given time is inaccurate. Additionally, property owners are required to provide adequate parking facilities for the use on the site and are unable to claim public ROW as parking space required and reserved for their use. The Appellant’s District headquarters has 12 on-site parking spaces. Finally, with regard to any future construction or development on the District property, no such future development is currently approved. The timing of any such future approval and subsequent construction is also unknown at this time and speculative. This is particularly relevant in light of the temporary duration of the Program and Project at this site. Should development on the District property be approved in the future, the District, like any other developer, would be responsible to accommodate construction parking on site or use public ROW as is available to the public. As the District is seeking approval of development permitsfor their proposed headquartersrenovations, the City will evaluate the parking impacts of the District’s project as appropriate.

For the reasons provided above, the City Council rejects this basis of appeal.

Basis 3. “The City is required to review the Program de novo, which encompasses the right to present additional evidence and claims.”

14.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (5066 : Safe Parking Program File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
6 Response: The Appellant contends that any citizen has the right to appeal, present additional evidence on any appeal and be provided a de novo public hearing on appeal of a Planning Commission approval, or denial to the City Council. Appeals of Planning Commission decisions are generally governed by Article 36 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which provides that the appeal shall be heard and determined according to the procedures set forth in PMC Section 9-4.3208.

Subdivision (b) of Section 9-4.3208 provides that upon the receipt of the appeal, the Council may consider the appeal in one of the following ways:(1) By holding a public hearing, using the same procedures as set forth in Section 9-4.3302 of Article 33 of this chapter; or (2) By referral back to the Commission for reconsideration. Subdivision (c) of Section 9-4.3208 provides that upon considering the appeal, the Council may approve, deny, or modify the permit. Because the Council has the discretion to modify the development permit, Council’s review on appeal is indeed considered a de novo review and the Council can consider all aspects of a project considered by the Planning Commission – not simply the issues being appealed.

However, this review is limited to what was within the Planning Commission’s review jurisdiction.

The Planning Commission’s action on May 16, 2022, was focused on determining whether the findings required for approval of the CDP could be made. The Planning Commission did not have the authority from City Council to review or consider alternative locations for the Project. Since this was not within the discretionary review authority of the Planning Commission, it would not be appropriate for the Council to consider alternative locations during the appeal hearing. The Council, pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3208(c), may either approve, deny or modify the CDP approved by the Planning Commission and not the Program itself because the Program was approved by the Council through a separate process. The Planning Commission had no authority from City Council to review or consider alternative locations for the Project. Thus, it would not be appropriate for the Council to consider alternative locations during the appeal hearing For the reasons provided above, the City Council rejects this basis of appeal.

Basis 4. “The City failed to provide adequate notice of the ordinance implementing the Program and must hold a new hearing on appeal to validate the ordinance.” Response: : As indicated above in staff’s Response to Basis No. 3, the consideration of the Council is limited to the approval, denial or modification of the CDP issued by the Planning Commission.

Because the issue of the validity of the Program implementation ordinance is not relevant to the issuance of a CDP, appeal Basis No. 4 should not be considered by the Council. However, even if validity of the ordinance were relevant, this contention is without merit.

14.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (5066 : Safe Parking Program File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
7 Permit or Provisional Permit under the Program. These provisions would not be appropriately included in the City’s Planning and Zoning Code because the use of the ROW did not change.

Parking regulations in the ROW, such as the ones contained in the Program Ordinance, are adopted through the City’s inherent police powers under the California Constitution Article XI, Section 7 to address health and safety issues, among other concerns. They are located in Title 4 and 5 of the PMC and are not considered a land use regulated by the Planning and Zoning Code.

Even assuming arguendo that Appellant is correct, a failure to provide the requisite notice under Government Code Section 65091 does not invalidate the ordinance. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65093, the failure of any person or entity to receive notice under the requirements of Sections 65090–65091, do not constitute grounds for a court to invalidate the actions for which the notice was given. Thus, Appellant’s request to invalidate the Program Ordinance would not be appropriate.

Finally, although Appellant claims that they did not receive adequate notice of the Program Ordinance, there were numerous opportunities for the Appellant to provide public comment on the Program and the Program Ordinance. For example, the City Council specifically considered the Program Ordinance at two public meetings: February 28, 2022 and March 14, 2022 where members of the public, including Appellant, could provide public comment. The agendas for these meetings were distributed by email to the email distribution list for those that have requested agendas, posted at City Council Chambers (2212 Beach Boulevard) and at Pacifica Community Center (540 Crespi Drive) where the Civic Center / City Hall offices are currently located as well as posted online on the City of Pacifica website via the meeting portal. Additionally, the City Manager highlighted the Safe Parking Program agenda topic in the Friday February 25, 2022 release of the City’s weekly enewsletter “Connect With Pacifica” prior to the February 28, 2022 Council meeting where the agenda item and introduction of the ordinance was discussed. Thus, members of the public, including Appellant, were provided notice of the Program Ordinance prior to adoption.

For the reasons provided above, the City Council rejects this basis of appeal.

Basis 5. “The District and [sic] reserves the right to challenge the City’s determination for the parking and housing ordinance.”
Response: As indicated above in staff’s Response to Basis No. 3, the consideration of the Council is limited to the approval, denial or modification of the CDP issued by the Planning Commission.

Since the issue of whether adequate notice of the ordinance implementing the Program was provided is not relevant to the issuance of a CDP, staff believes that this appeal Basis No. 5 should not be considered by the Council. However, if Council is inclined to consider this issue, staff provides the following information to refute this contention.

The Appellant argues that the Program or the Program Ordinance does not fit within the scope of the CEQA exemptions identified by the City because the Appellant contends that allowing longterm parking of RVs, which Appellant equates to “temporary housing,” will result in “potential air quality, noise and public services impacts.” These arguments are without merit.

The Program Ordinance was determined by the Council to be exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(Class 1- Existing Facilities) and 15304 (Class 4-Minor Alterations to Land) and

14.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (5066 : Safe Parking Program File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
8 the “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) based on staff’s recommendation and review of the Program and Program Ordinance.

First, with regard to the Class 1 exemption, Appellant contends that City ROW are not facilities subject to this exemption. However, that contention directly contradicts the language in Section 15301, which identifies existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc. and similar facilities, as an example of facilities that are listed and subject to the Class 1 exemption. Section 15301 also specifies that the types of “existing facilities” itemized are not intended to be an all-inclusive list but rather the key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.

In this case, the Program will only involve a negligible expansion of use of existing City street facilities. The City is utilizing existing streets for parking of OSVs participating in the Program that will be signed and marked for the Program. The Project site is also currently used for OSV parking up to 72 hours by any individual OSV. Yet the space may be used continuously under existing regulations by any combination of different OSVs provided that no single OSV occupies the space for more than 72 hours. If the CDP is approved, the Project site will continue to be used for parking of OSVs by Program participants while the Program is being conducted. Additionally, Appellant argues that the Class 1 exemption would be inconsistent with the “separate findings that the City is intending to provide low-cost housing by allowing long term parking in these designated areas.” It is unclear what findings the Appellant is referring to as there is no such finding in the Program Ordinance. There is however, a finding in the Planning Commission’s Resolution No. 2022-012 approving the Project. The Planning Commission found that the Project, among other findings, wasin conformance with Coastal Act Policy No. 5, because the “…Program parking space will provide a low cost temporary housing opportunity for Program participants for a limited period of time while participants in the Program seek permanent housing solutions. Therefore, the Project would encourage and provide housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income.” Thisfinding confirms why the Project conforms with Coastal Act Policy No. 5 and while the Project does encourage and provide housing opportunities to Program participants, the finding itself does not indicate that the City is intending to provide “low-cost housing” through the Program. While it is true that the Program will provide housing opportunities for participants because they will be working with PRC to find long-term housing and be provided a temporary place to park their OSV, the use of the ROW will remain essentially the same and there is only a negligible expansion of the former use of existing City facilities as a result of the Program- and thus the Class 1 exemption is appropriate.

With regard to the Class 4 exemption, Appellant contends that allowing long-term parking of RVs (or temporary housing) will result in “potential air quality, noise and public services impacts.” The Appellant does not provide any evidence beyond these broad statements to support its contention that there will be impacts to air quality, noise and public services. Appellant also does not appear to consider that the parking sites for the Program are currently used for vehicle parking, including OSV parking. While the Program will make alterations in the condition of land, given that the Program is temporary and the alterations to the land are minor (reserving 30’ by 10’ of existing public ROW, placement of post for signs and markings in ROW), the Class 4 exemption is appropriate.

14.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (5066 : Safe Parking Program File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
9 This exemption provides that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this case, since the parking areas in the right-of-way are being used for the purpose they are originally intended, the Program and Ordinance are not a project that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment and are exempt under the Common Sense exemption (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)). The Program would essentially reserve 13 parking spaces for a temporary period of three years to allow Program participants to park at one of the Program sites for periods of up to 29 days while in the Program.

There would also be minor improvements to the Program parking spaces (placement of post for signs and markings in ROW). The Program would also provide other benefits to the Program participants such as trash and recycling collection and black water collection, however, these are services that OSV owners would require regardless of participation in the Program and OSV parking would be available regardless of the Program status. This negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment.

For the reasons provided above, the City Council rejects this basis of appeal.

Basis 6. “The City has the authority to and should select an alternative location to Francisco Boulevard.”
Response: As indicated above in staff’s Response to Basis Nos. 3, 4, and 5 the consideration of the Council on this Appeal is limited to the approval, denial or modification of the CDP issued by the Planning Commission. Since an alternative location is not relevant to the issuance of a CDP, staff believes that this appeal Basis No. 6 should not be considered by the Council. However, if Council is inclined to consider this issue, staff provides the following information to refute this contention.

The Program sites were approved as part of the Settlement Agreement in November 2021. The Program, including the design and operation of the Program, was considered and approved by the Pacifica City Council on February 22, 2022. As detailed in the May 16 Planning Commission staff report, the establishment of the parking space and implementation of the improvements in the Coastal Zone meet the definition of “development” per PMC Section 9-4.4302(z). Development in the Coastal Zone requires issuance of a Coastal Development Permit per PMC Section 9-4.4303(a).

The Planning Commission’s action on May 16, 2022, was focused on determining whether the Project is appropriate or not, with respect to the findings required for approval of the Coastal Development Permit. The Planning Commission was not provided the authority from City Council to review or consider alternative locations for the Project. Therefore, because review and consideration of alternative locations for the Project was not within the Planning Commission’s purview, it is also beyond the purview of the City Council as part of the appeal.

For the reasons provided above, the City Council rejects this basis of appeal.

14.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (5066 : Safe Parking Program File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
10 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the finding that the Project qualifies for Class 1 and 4 exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15304 and the “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as described below:
15301. “Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be allinclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. […]” The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The existing use of the public ROW allows for vehicle parking; therefore, the proposed use is a negligible expansion of the existing use. 15304. “Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include, but are not limited to:
[…]
(e) Minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc;” The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment. Installation of two pole signs and pavement markings are minor alterations and do not involve removal of healthy, mature scenic trees.

Additionally, none of the exceptions applicable to a Class 1 and 4 exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply, as described below.
• Sec. 15300.2(a): This exception does not apply to the Class 1 exemption. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the Project would impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies. • Sec. 15300.2(b): There is no evidence in the record that cumulative projects of the same type would occur within the same place to create a significant cumulative impact. • Sec. 15300.2(c): There is no evidence that the activity would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
• Sec. 15300.2(d) through (f): The Project is not proposed near an officially designated scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and, does not affect any historical resources. Therefore, the provisions of subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this Project.

14.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (5066 : Safe Parking Program File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
11 Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) states “The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.” The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of existing public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment. Installation of two pole signs and pavement markings are minor alterations to the existing environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does make the following findings pertaining to Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 as required by PMC section 9-4.4304(k):
1) The proposed development is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.

Discussion: The City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) includes the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) that contains policies to further the City’s coastal planning activities. Applicable policies and references in the City’s LCLUP are discussed further below:

Coastal Act Policy No. 2: Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rock coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

Finding: The Program would reserve a small number of on-street parking spaces. Public access to the sea would be maintained between the Program parking space and the shoreline through the use of the existing sidewalk along the west side of Francisco Boulevard which connect to various public access points to the sea. The Code of Conduct associated with the Program would require Program participants to keep all personal property within the participants’ vehicles and would prohibit Program participants from blocking any access to the sidewalk. Additionally, the signage proposed at the site will be located within the public ROW, but outside of the street and path of travel on the sidewalk, similar to other existing traffic and parking signage along Francisco Boulevard. Therefore, the use of the Program parking space and the signage will not obstruct or degrade physical access along Francisco Boulevard and will not impact on the public’s right of access to the sea.

The Program parking space is located approximately 0.25-miles from the Clarendon Road coastal access point (Coastal Access Point No. 9 in LCLUP). In 2019, the City hired consultants to help prepare the Sharp Park Specific Plan. As a part of this effort the consultants prepared an Existing Conditions Report, which included a parking analysis for the West Sharp Park neighborhood. While the block along Francisco Boulevard that would contain the Program parking space is not specifically included in the parking survey, surrounding block segments were included. The survey found that parking along the block along Francisco Boulevard immediately to the north and Clarendon Road immediately to the south of the Project were 0 to 25 percent utilized during weekday midday and weekday evenings. During the weekend midday, the block along Francisco Boulevard immediate to the north was 0 to 25 percent utilized and the block along Clarendon Road immediately to the west was 50 to 75 percent utilized. The Program would remove 30 linear feet of existing

14.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (5066 : Safe Parking Program File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
12 public parking along Francisco Boulevard, which is approximately 1.5 parking spaces for a standard vehicle. The beach parking lot along Beach Boulevard as well as the various streets west of the Program parking space provides significant free parking options to coastal visitors. Due to the distance of the Program parking space from the nearby coastal access point, the general availability of parking in the vicinity, and the various other available parking options closer to the nearby coastal access point, the reserved public ROW will not adversely affect coastal visitor parking and will not impact the public’s right of access to the sea.

Coastal Act Policy No. 5: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. […]
Finding: The Program parking space will provide a low cost temporary housing opportunity for Program participants for a limited period of time while participants in the Program seek permanent housing solutions. Therefore, the Project would encourage and provide housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income.

Additionally, the City’s certified Local Coastal Program includes an Implementation Plan (IP) to implement the policies contained in the LCLUP. The IP generally consists of the City’s zoning provisions and other PMC provisions relating to the regulation of development and coastal resources protection. As noted above, the Project site is not located within an underlying zoning district. However, it is located within the C-Z combining district and is subject to the supplementary standards contained in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 44 applicable to development in the Coastal Zone. Because of the nature of the activity involved with parking of Program vehicles in designated spaces on the existing Francisco Boulevard public ROW, the Program would not conflict with the habitat preservation, geotechnical suitability, grading and drainage, shoreline protection, public shoreline access, coastal view corridors, growth management procedures, or neighborhood commercial district supplementary regulations. Therefore, the Project would be in conformity with the City’s IP component of the certified LCP For all the reasons provided above, the Project is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.
2) Where the Coastal Development Permit is issued for any development between the nearest public road and the shoreline, the development is in conformity with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.

Discussion: The Project site is not located between the nearest public road and the shoreline; therefore, this finding does not apply in this case.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby approve Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 to establish one on-street Temporary Safe Parking Program (“Program”) parking space (30’ by 10’) and improvements on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public ROW, east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection, subject to conditions of approval included in Exhibit A to this Resolution. * * * * *

14.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (5066 : Safe Parking Program File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
13 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 8
th day of August 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

14.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (5066 : Safe Parking Program Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval: File No. 2022-012 – Coastal Development Permit CDP-437- 22, to establish one on-street Temporary Safe Parking Program parking space and improvements on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public right-of-way (ROW), east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection.

City Council Meeting of August 8, 2022
Planning Division of the Planning Department

1. Development shall be substantially in accord with the plans entitled “OSV Permit Parking Spot Implementation – Francisco Blvd.” included as Attachment B of the May 16, 2022 Planning Commission staff report and Attachment E of the July 11, 2022 City Council staff report, except as modified by the following conditions.

2. The term of this approval shall be limited to the period of effectiveness of the Temporary Safe Parking Program approved by the City of Pacifica City Council in Resolution No. 12- 2022. This approval shall have no further force or effect upon termination of the Temporary Safe Parking Program unless expressly authorized in another action by the City Council.

3. The City of Pacifica shall remove associated signage and pavement markings upon termination of the Temporary Safe Parking Program unless expressly authorized in another action by the City Council.

4. All vehicles and occupants of the spaces authorized in this approval shall comply with the terms, conditions, and other requirements of the Temporary Safe Parking Program, including but not limited to the Code of Conduct.

Conditions added by Planning Commission at May 16, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing

5. After not less than two months and not more than four months of operations, the Applicant shall prepare a written Operational Review Report summarizing operation of the Program space in relation to the adjacent North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) facility for review and consideration by the City Manager. The Applicant shall confer with the NCCWD to seek its input into the Report.

6. The Program space shall have a no parking buffer zone at the rear of the Program space (10' X 30') not less than 5' in depth and the full width of the program space (10'), with the exact depth at the discretion of the City Engineer.

7. All Program participants shall comply with all BAAQMD regulations applicable to generators proposed for operation at the Program spaces. ***END***

14.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Approval (5066 : Safe Parking Program

14.b
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-012 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.))

14.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-012 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.))

14.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-012 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.))

14.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-012 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.))

14.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-012 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.))

14.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-012 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.))

PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
DATE: May 16, 2022 FILE: CDP-437-22
ITEM: 4
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of Public Hearing was published Pacifica Tribune on May 4, 2022, and mailed to approximately 362 surrounding property owners and occupants and posted in three locations in the vicinity of the project site.

APPLICANT: Ryan Marquez, Associate Engineer
City of Pacifica, Department of Public Works
151 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
PROJECT LOCATION: West side of the Francisco Boulevard public right-of-way (ROW), east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection – West Sharp Park
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: File No.2022-012 - Establish one on-street Temporary Safe Parking Program (Program) parking space (30’ by 10’). The on-street parking space would be reserved for the use by a Program participant(s) living in an operational recreational vehicle, trailer or motorhome with operating restroom facilities for a limited period of time. Improvements include installation of signage and use of pavement markings to denote location of the Program parking space.

SITE DESIGNATIONS: General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan: N/A (Public right-of-way) Zoning: C-Z (Coastal Zone Combining District)
RECOMMENDED CEQA STATUS: Class 1 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 “Existing Facilities”; Class 4 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 “Minor Alterations to Land”; and “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

ADDITIONAL REQUIRED APPROVALS: None. Subject to appeal to the City Council.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve as conditioned.

PREPARED BY: Bonny O’Connor, AICP, Senior Planner
4 Packet Pg. 48

14.c
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Staff Report - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) PC Staff Report
Temporary Safe Parking Program CDP - Francisco Blvd.

May 16, 2022

Page 2 ends

PROJECT SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION, AND FINDINGS

1. Project Background
On February 28, 2022, the City of Pacifica City Council adopted Resolution No. 12-2022 to approve a three-year Temporary Safe Parking Program (Program) in the City of Pacifica which provides up to 13 parking spaces for exclusive use by Program participants living in an operational recreational vehicle, trailer or motorhome with operating toilet facilities.1 The Program would allow temporary parking of such vehicles for a limited period of time in designated spaces that have been approved by the City Council while Program participants seek permanent housing solutions2. The resolution also authorized the City Manager to execute the Operations Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto between the City of Pacifica and the Pacifica Resource Center (PRC), which details the terms, provisions, and obligations of the PRC and City to implement the Program. The City Council also adopted Ordinance No. 873-C.S. adding a new PMC Section 4-7.1207, which, among other things, specifies various parameters for the use of Regular, Provisional, and Short-Term Permits under the Program and amended PMC Section 5-2.03 to create an exemption from the City’s 72-hour parking limitation for vehicles displaying either a valid Regular Permit or Provisional Permit under the Program.

The Program includes the establishment of one on-street Program parking space (30’ by 10’) on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public right-of-way (ROW), east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016- 322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection.

Improvements, including installation of two pole signs and pavement markings, will be used to designated the area of public ROW being reserved for the Program parking spaces.

Program parking space locations both within and outside of the coastal zone include:

Location Number of Spaces
West side of Oceana Boulevard, across from City of Pacifica Public Works Dept. at 151 Milagra Avenue
4 South side of Milagra Drive, across from City of Pacifica Public Works Dept. at 151 Milagra Avenue
1 East side of Lundy Way, north of Rifle Range Road 3
West side of Bradford Way near the Sharp Park Golf Course3 2 San Pedro Avenue in the dirt ROW in front of ACE Hardware4 2 West side of Francisco Boulevard adjacent to North Coast County Water District at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (Project site)
1 1 The City Council approved the location of the Program parking spaces as part of the approval of a Settlement Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Plaintiffs, Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen Sanders on November 8, 2021 (Pacifica City Council Resolution No. 72-2021) 2 Pacifica City Council Resolution No. 12-2022.
3 File No. 2022-014, Coastal Development Permit CDP-439-22 4 File No. 2022-013, Coastal Development Permit CDP-438-22 4 Packet Pg. 49

14.c
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Staff Report - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) PC Staff Report
Temporary Safe Parking Program CDP - Francisco Blvd.

May 16, 2022

Page 3 ends

2. Project Description
The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of public ROW for exclusive use of Program participants for a period of three years, which constitutes one space at the subject location. The City will install two pole signs adjacent to the Program parking space. An example of the proposed 12” by 18” signs is shown in Attachment B. Additionally, a 4” white thermoplastic marking will be used to outline the three non-curb sides of the designated Program parking space.

3. General Plan, Local Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning, and Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is not designated by the General Plan or Local Coastal Land Use Plan as the entire Project would occur within City of Pacifica ROW (Attachment C). The Project is not located in the appeal zone of the Coastal Zone. The North Coast County Water District headquarters (2400 Francisco Boulevard, APN 016-322-230) is located west of the Project, State Route 1 is located east of the Project, residential uses are located to the north of the Project site and a mix of commercial and residential uses are located to the south of the Project site along Francisco Boulevard.

4. Municipal Code and Other Development Regulations
The establishment of the Program parking space and implementation of the improvements5in the Coastal Zone meets the definition of “development” per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) sec. 9-

4.4302(z). Development in the Coastal Zone requires issuance of a Coastal Development Permit per PMC sec. 9-4.4303(a).

5. Required Findings
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 – The Planning Commission shall grant a coastal development permit only when all of the following findings are made:
1) The proposed development is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.

14.c
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Staff Report - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) PC Staff Report
Temporary Safe Parking Program CDP - Francisco Blvd.

May 16, 2022

Page 4 ends

various public access points to the sea. The Code of Conduct associated with the Program would require Program participants to keep all personal property within the participants’ vehicles and would prohibit Program participants from blocking any access to the sidewalk. Additionally, the signage proposed at the site will be located within the public ROW, but outside of the street and path of travel on the sidewalk, similar to other existing traffic and parking signage along Francisco Boulevard. Therefore, the use of the Program parking space and the signage will not obstruct or degrade physical access along Francisco Boulevard and will not impact on the public’s right of access to the sea.

While the block along Francisco Boulevard that would contain the Program parking space is not specifically included in the parking survey, surrounding block segments were included. The survey found that parking along the block along Francisco Boulevard immediately to the north and Clarendon Road immediately to the south of the Project were 0 to 25 percent utilized during weekday midday and weekday evenings. During the weekend midday, the block along Francisco Boulevard immediate to the north was 0 to 25 percent utilized and the block along Clarendon Road immediately to the west was 50 to 75 percent utilized. The Program would remove 30 linear feet of existing public parking along Francisco Boulevard, which is approximately 1.5 parking spaces for a standard vehicle. The beach parking lot along Beach Boulevard as well as the various streets west of the Program parking space provides significant free parking options to coastal visitors. Due to the distance of the Program parking space from the nearby coastal access point, the general availability of parking in the vicinity, and the various other available parking options closer to the nearby coastal access point, the reserved public ROW will not adversely affect coastal visitor parking and will not impact the public’s right of access to the sea.

Coastal Act Policy No. 5: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. […] Finding: The Program parking space will provide a low cost temporary housing opportunity for Program participants for a limited period of time while participants in the Program seek permanent housing solutions. Therefore, the Project would encourage and provide housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income.

As noted above, the Project site is not located within an underlying zoning district. However, it is 6 Sharp Park Existing Conditions Report (December 2019), Chapter 4, Figures 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9. Available online:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5cafbfb565019f7d38d3fed4/t/5e30b764351c542c9b3ff5e2/158025101109 4/_Pacifica+ECR+compiled_reducedsize.pdf
4 Packet Pg. 51

14.c
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Staff Report - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) PC Staff Report
Temporary Safe Parking Program CDP - Francisco Blvd.

May 16, 2022

Page 5 ends

located within the C-Z combining district and is subject to the supplementary standards contained in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 44 applicable to development in the Coastal Zone. Because of the nature of the activity involved with parking of Program vehicles in designated spaces on the existing Francisco Boulevard public ROW, the Program would not conflict with the habitat preservation, geotechnical suitability, grading and drainage, shoreline protection, public shoreline access, coastal view corridors, growth management procedures, or neighborhood commercial district supplementary regulations.

Therefore, the Project would be in conformity with the City’s IP component of the certified LCP For all the reasons provided above, the Project is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.
2) Where the Coastal Development Permit is issued for any development between the nearest public road and the shoreline, the development is in conformity with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.

Discussion: The Project site is not located between the nearest public road and the shoreline; therefore, this finding does not apply in this case.

6. CEQA Recommendation
Staff analysis of the proposed Project supports a Planning Commission finding that it qualifies for a categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project qualifies for Class 1 and 4 exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15304 and the “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as described below:
15301. “Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. […]”
The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The existing use of the public ROW allows for vehicle parking; therefore, the proposed use is a negligible expansion of the existing use. 15304. “Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include, but are not limited to:
[…]
(e) Minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc;” The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on 4 Packet Pg. 52

14.c
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Staff Report - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) PC Staff Report
Temporary Safe Parking Program CDP - Francisco Blvd.

May 16, 2022

Page 6 ends

the environment. Installation of two pole signs and pavement markings are minor alterations and do not involve removal of healthy, mature scenic trees.

Additionally, none of the exceptions applicable to a Class 1 and 4 exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply, as described below.
• Sec. 15300.2(a): This exception does not apply to the Class 1 exemption. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the Project would impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies.
• Sec. 15300.2(b): There is no evidence in the record that cumulative projects of the same type would occur within the same place to create a significant cumulative impact. • Sec. 15300.2(c): There is no evidence that the activity would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
• Sec. 15300.2(d) through (f): The Project is not proposed near an officially designated scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and, does not affect any historical resources. Therefore, the provisions of subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this Project.

Because the Project is consistent with the requirements for Class 1 and Class 11 exemptions and none of the exceptions to applying Class 1 and 11 exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply; therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) states “The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.” The Project includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of existing public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. The negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment. Installation of two pole signs and pavement markings are minor alterations to the existing environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment.

7. Staff Analysis
The Project, as conditioned, would meet the necessary findings for approval of a Coastal Development Permit and would support the Program approved by City Council. 4 Packet Pg. 53

14.c
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Staff Report - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) PC Staff Report
Temporary Safe Parking Program CDP - Francisco Blvd.

May 16, 2022

Page 7 ends

COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION FOR APPROVAL:

Move that the Planning Commission FINDS the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; APPROVES Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A to the staff report, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution; and, incorporates all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Francisco Blvd. (DOCX) Attachment B - Permit Parking Spots Scope - Francisco Blvd. (PDF) Attachment C - Land Use and Zoning Exhibit - Francisco Blvd. (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 54
Not Attached Here
Not Attached Here
Not Attached Here

14.c
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Staff Report - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 62 of 76 ends

4. CDP-438-22 File No. 2022-012 – Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 to establish one on-street Temporary Safe Parking Program (Program) parking spaces (30’ by 10’. The on-street parking space would be reserved for use by a Program participant(s) living in an operational recreational vehicle, trailer or motorhome with operating restroom facilities for a limited period of time on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public right-of-way (ROW) located east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection..

Recommended CEQA Action: Class 1 and Class 4 Categorical Exemptions, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15304 and “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

Chair Berman asked, if anyone needs to recuse, if they recuse before she introduces the item or after.

Asst. City Attorney Sharma stated that after she reads the item and introduces it, then the recusing decision makers would announce their conflicts.

Chair Berman then read the item.

Commissioner Leal stated that he needs to recuse himself from the item due to ownership of real property in the direct vicinity of this project location, and as it is the last item on the agenda, he will see them at the next meeting.

Commissioner Ferguson stated that he also needs to recuse himself from this item due to owning real property in the vicinity, and he will also be leaving.

Chair Berman asked if they can hear the staff report now or do they wait until they have left.

Asst. City Attorney Sharma stated that departure would be preferred.

Sr. Planner O’Connor presented the staff report. She stated that PW Dep. Director Bautista was present as the applicant, Police Chief Steidle was present, and Executive Director Rees of PRC was available by phone to answer questions regarding the operation of the temporary safe parking program.

Chair Berman stated she would allow the applicant to speak if he so desires.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that he is ready to answer questions but has no further presentation.

Chair Berman opened the Public Hearing and, seeing no one in the audience, asked if anyone has called in.

Senior Planner O’Connor stated that the only member they have on the phone is Director Rees.

14.d
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 63 of 76 ends

Acting Planning Director Murdock reiterated that Planning Commission received a written public comment this evening applicable to this public hearing and also received a written public comment in advance of this public hearing that staff shared with the Commission and provided it in the rear of the Council Chamber as well as on the Planning Commission webpage.

Chair Berman closed Public Hearing.

Commissioner Wright assumed all previous principles discussed in the last two items still apply.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, if his comment is referring to litigation related to this, these permits are being considered as part of a settlement agreement and there is a May 29 deadline for the city to obtain coastal development permits to allow operation of these spaces, yes.

Commissioner Domurat thought that, as part of the condition for approval, they would assume the city would do due diligence in looking at markings of the roadway, making sure there is enough back up space. He stated that, while they don’t have a picture, it appears there will be no parking allowed in front of where that eighth RV space so it shouldn’t be a problem. He wanted to make sure that the appropriate street markings and signage is adequate for the safety for that region.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they will look at that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that staff can help prepare a condition of approval that addressed an appropriate buffer space, perhaps to the city engineer’s discretion, of not less than the minimum width at the rear of the space if the Commission so desires.

Chair Berman thought so, adding that staff has been very good at that. She had some concerns at this location. She stated that, prior to this meeting, the Commission received a comment from the North Coast Water District, and she wondered if staff can elaborate on the discussion that Public Works has had with the property owners, as it seemed they were opposed to this location for this program.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the property owner does not own the parking location, as the parking location proposed is in the public right-of-way and is under the domain of the City of Pacifica. He stated that there has been a comment from an adjacent property owner, the North Coast County Water District, who stated in their comment letter various concerns about the potential location of a safe parking program and space in this location. He stated that the Water District has been involved and communicating with the city for some period in relation to a potential parking space for oversized vehicles on the street adjacent to their property. He stated that the city has considered those concerns and similar types of concerns from many different property owners in the city, including residents, and it is determined that it is in the city’s best interest to approve a program that allows for on-street parking of these types of vehicles in locations enumerated by City Council. As it relates to the proximity of these types of parking spaces to critical government facilities, it is important to note that outside of the coastal zone, even though Planning Commission won’t see those for a permitting action, the city has authorized a number of these spaces immediately adjacent to its property at the corporation yard at 151 Milagra and they are not asking people to do something entirely different than what the city is willing to do itself to insure a safe program and implementation of a safe parking program.

14.d
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 64 of 76 ends

Chair Berman understands that the parking program is proposed in the city right-of-way, and asked if the property owner was responsible to maintain the frontage of their property which would be the sidewalk, i.e., if the Water District owned the parking lot that they used, would they be responsible for typical neighborly maintenance of their property frontage which is the sidewalk.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought that, under the streets and highways code, property owners are responsible for maintenance of the adjacent sidewalk improvement, including replacement if or when it constitutes a safety hazard, but he didn’t know if any special legal considerations apply when the adjacent property owner is another public agency. He thought, as a general rule for regular private property owners, they have a legal obligation to maintain those adjacent sidewalk improvements.

Asst. City Attorney Sharma was not aware of any different obligations on public agencies.

Chair Berman asked if it ends at the curb or expand into the gutter.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that it is sidewalk, curb and gutter in the codes.

Chair Berman stated, if the adjacent property owner is actively opposed to this location, she has concerns with imposing on their requirement to maintain the sidewalk. She realized that the vehicles won’t be parked on the sidewalk but the road is pretty narrow even without a large vehicle parked there, and she has concerns with the opposition from the adjacent property owner.

She stated that they asked questions with the previous items regarding roadway width and she understands that there is 20 feet effectively from the curb to the center line and that would allow for a 10-foot parking spot and a 10-foot travel lane, but she thought it was tight there, especially with cars turning and if you have large vehicles and the side mirrors are often wider than 8.5 feet.

She just wanted to voice her concerns with this location as additionally to it being one of the gateways to our downtown. She stated that we and staff are working hard on the Sharp Park Specific Plan and they want to evolve the Sharp Park area and cars traveling from Half Moon Bay to visit Sharp Park will exit at this point and the first thing they see will be oversized vehicles.

Vice Chair Hauser concurred with Chair Berman, adding that part of why she feels this is a tough spot to do this is that, in the letter from the North Coast County Water District, they stated that they are worried about reduced access to emergency response facilities as district employees are critical to emergency response and the headquarters serves as an emergency operation center. In the event of an emergency, the district headquarters becomes a command center. She stated that the letter went on, and it is part of the public record, but she went to the site after seeing the letter and the location of the oversized vehicle parking space proposed is close to both the sliding gate along Francisco as well as the sliding gate across from where Stuckey’s was, stating that she doesn’t remember what the store front is now. She stated that, while there, she saw four or five different vehicles within 20 minutes actively coming and going and she didn’t know to do with the obligations they have for May 29, but she would concur that this is not a spot that she would feel ready to support at this time.

Commissioner Domurat thought he was just making an assumption that, in the development of this plan, these locations were all vetted with everyone in the community, and asked if city and the water district as the owners of the area were aware that this was going to happen a year ago.

14.d
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 65 of 76 ends

He stated that they are that point where they probably have to approve it anyway but it may be one where they look at it in six months or a year from now, and if its not working, they look at moving it. He didn’t think they were to vote on whether the location is appropriate or not, as it is. If it is a safety issue, they can comment on it, but he asked if the location was already locked in.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the Council has identified this as an appropriate location for the safe parking program.

Commissioner Domurat thought someone could appeal the Council’s decision.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they can appeal the Commission’s action on this item, whatever the ultimate action will be. He stated that, regarding his question on safety, safety is relevant and within the Commission discretion. He stated that, specifically, they should be considering the findings for approval of a coastal development permit and they relate primarily to local coastal program policies and the consistency of this application with those policies. He then referred to Vice Chair Hauser’s concerns, stating that this application is for one space and when they are considering the location of the rolling gate and access for the district’s vehicles, this space would be some distance, perhaps 30 or 40 feet away from that rolling gate on Francisco Blvd. would be located and it is not clear to him what direct impact the operation of this space would have on the district’s ability to access its property in the event of an emergency.

Commissioner Wright assumed Public Works considers the blocking of any sidelines for any turning vehicles so they don’t have any children getting run over by bicycles, as with these large vehicles it is often hard to see. He assumed they took that all into consideration when thinking about this spot.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they looked at high volumes and that was part of their criteria that they look at for OSVs.

Commissioner Godwin asked if they have the flexibility of not implementing this space and going back to the Ace hardware site and the parking lot and adding a space there. He knew it would not make a lot of people happy. He reiterated if they had the flexibility to say one of these does not need to be done and they add to somewhere else so they get to the legally required number of spaces, or is that something where they don’t have an option.

Commissioner Wright thought it would be up to the applicant.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the Commission would not be able to revisit its prior action on the San Pedro Avenue site, given that it took a vote and they decided on that application. Regarding this location, he stated that Council has approved this location and it is the Commission’s obligation to determine whether the findings can be made for approval of a coastal development permit, but not in the Commission’s discretion to determine whether the space should be in the program or not..

Vice Chair Hauser referred to Commissioner Domurat’s question, and stated that the Water District said that they had been voicing concerns since July 2020 and they continue to do so. She didn’t think this was new.

14.d
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 66 of 76 ends

Acting Planning Director Murdock thanked her for her comment, adding that he failed to follow up on Commissioner Domurat’s point in that regard. He stated that he cannot speak for what the Water District’s understanding is or was at any particular point in time. He is aware that they had multiple communications with the city, including with the City Manager. They reflected their perspective on some of those communications in the letter, but it was not clear to him that they had a full understand of the evolution of this issue. He stated, as he mentioned in one of the earlier public hearings, Council went through evaluation of a number of options to respond to the increasing number of oversized vehicles being parked on city streets and they considered private property programs, public right-of-way program and didn’t want either of those programs and initiated and enacted an oversize vehicle parking ordinance to strictly regulate the parking of such vehicles and then the city was sued. He stated it was his impression that the understanding conveyed in the Water District’s letter seems to reflect a conversation with the city that reflected an earlier point in time prior to the filing of the litigation. The understanding they had that no such space on the street was being considered by the city seemed to have been true at that point in time, and it seems they may not have been aware of the evolution of the issues in the city, including the litigation. He stated that it may have come to their attention relatively recently that spaces on the street were back in consideration by the city. He stated that was his best understanding of the timeline and chronology of the various points.

Commissioner Wright asked if they can make it a condition that Public Works do their best to address the concerns of the property owner in implementing this parking space somewhat in that location or is too general.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they would need to hear more about what steps they think the city could take to address the commenter’s concern.

Commissioner Wright thought they could move it forward or backwards ten feet to make something easier for them.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he thought the space proposed currently abuts the southerly red curb no parking zone and to shift it any place else could jeopardize additional on street parking which he thought was also a concern for the water district and the customers and employees coming to the customer service component of their operations at that site. He stated that there was mention made of an application the Water District has filed with the city for a significant project on their site to demolish one of the existing buildings and to rehabilitate another portion of the building. He stated, if and when that project is approved by the city, there will be a considerable period of construction activity which has certain impacts potentially on occupants of the space and would also mean there was no direct impact on the water district’s operations which was one the concerns they had. He didn’t know if they could have it both ways with respect to the comments about impacts of their operations, as well as impact during the construction phase, and the Commission may want to consider that. He stated that it is speculative as to whether that project will be approved and what the timeline is for that. At this point in time, the application has not been processed and decided by the city, but there are a number of considerations to be made about how this space may actually affect the District’s operation in the way stated in the letter. He added that the program was for three years as contemplated by Council, and not a permanent program as it is intended at this time. As it relates to the long-term operations by the Water District, if and when their new project is approved and constructed, it was likely that there will be very limited overlap between this temporary safe program and their ongoing operations of their renovated facility.

14.d
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 67 of 76 ends

Chair Berman asked, jumping back to their purview and the process of this program and the rock and a hard place that the Commission is in, if it was correct to say that there is currently no restriction for an oversize vehicle on this stretch of Francisco Blvd.

Police Chief Steidle believes that is correct that there is no restriction in that area.

Commissioner Godwin asked if that includes height restriction, as some of these vehicles can be quite tall.

Police Chief Steidle stated that there is no height restriction for parking in general parking areas.

Commissioner Godwin concluded that he could park a 14-foot tall RV there even thought it might affect some sight lines and that would be fine.

Chair Berman understood that the stopping site distance, if it is beyond a normal car height, would not be a concern for her that additional sight distance would be impaired. She thought the red-painted curb at the corner was probably implemented because that was probably the corner sight distance like the sight line and she didn’t have a concern with the height of the vehicle. She referred to her previous question on the existing condition on the road that oversized vehicles are technically allowed because they are not dis-allowed, stating she didn’t recall see oversized vehicles parking there, and she asked Police Chief Steidle, as his team is around there more often, if it was common to see oversized vehicles parked there.

Police Chief Steidle stated that, at this location, he thinks he has only seen one once, and he does travel that path on a daily basis.

Chair Berman stated that currently, without this program implemented, people who own oversized vehicles don’t choose to park there and, if the Commission and the adjacent property owner had concerns with designating for oversized vehicles to park there, she didn’t think it is an appropriate spot. She knows it is not in their purview to choose a different spot and not in their purview to go back to a previous item and add spots to it. She asked staff, if any of the locations where their locations will not come through the Commission, whether it was possible to add any spots to those. As this is one spot, she asked if they could add one spot to one of the locations designated by Council that they are not reviewing at this time.

Acting Planning Director Murdock asked what she means by “can we add”.

Chair Berman stated that, given that the city needs to provide 13 OSV parking spots with this program, if Planning Commission happened to deny this one spot, she understood that Council can make their own decision and supersede the Commission’s decision, but she asked, if Council does entertain the comments they provided for this spot, if they are able to find another location for this one spot. She was trying to make the program work as they have to and they need to have 13 spots. If this spot was determined not appropriate, she asked if the city could comply with their legal requirement to provide 13 spots.

Asst. City Attorney Sharma stated that, if the Commission were to deny this permit and kick it back to Council and Council ended also denying it in agreement with the Commission, the legal effect of that would be to out of compliance with the settlement agreement. She stated that the

14.d
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 68 of 76 ends

settlement agreement has specified the spaces even for the ones that are not before the Planning Commission and those spaces have also been set forth.

Chair Berman concluded that the location of these spaces were a part of the legal agreement.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that there are some conditions of approval from prior public hearings that may be relevant for the Commission in the event that a motion is made on this item. He then briefly read them, adding that there are only two that he has seen applicable to carry over. The first is, “the program space shall have a no parking buffer zone at the rear of the program space, 10 foot x 30 foot, not less than five feet in depth and the full width of the program space of 10 feet with the exact depth at the discretion of the city engineer.” The other is, “all program participants shall comply with all Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations applicable to generators proposed for operation at the program spaces.” PW Dep. Director Bautista asked clarification, as in the other conditions they ask for a back up buffer and in this case, did they want to have that as well.

Chair Berman thought that was included.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the condition he read would have a no parking buffer zone at the rear of the program space as the backup buffer given that the front of the space already had a red-curb no parking zone. He didn’t specify that additional buffer.

Vice Chair Hauser didn’t want to complicate matters but she felt like they were being asked to choose between safety and complying with the lawsuit and on this one she is torn. She thought they have a way of doing it and she won’t make a difference, but she wanted to be clear that she didn’t think she could support this one.

Chair Berman shares the same concerns and personally didn’t support this location.

Commissioner Wright still thinks they don’t have the benefit of all the considerations that Council went through, as they may have gone through a myriad of other options and this was the least of many other worse evils. He stated that they don’t have that benefit and it is hard for them to second guess their work from here without having any input from them, and none of them are present to give them any of that information.

Chair Berman listened to quite a few of the Council’s meetings on this item and she knows that, for over a year. There was a task force, and City Council did put a lot of time and consideration with long meetings similar to this meeting, and she appreciated all the time they have put into that. She stated that they are in a tough situation.

Commissioner Wright didn’t feel in a position to make a motion or second it, but if he is forced to vote, he will.

Commissioner Godwin thought that, after a lot of work, this is probably among the least bad choices and that is probably about the best they can say for it. He thought he could support the motion if it is made.

Chair Berman asked if he was willing to make the motion.

14.d
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 69 of 76 ends

Commissioner Godwin stated if he gets some help.

Chair Berman stated that, as she is taking an informal read, it is possible that this might not pass.

She asked Acting Planning Director Murdock where they may go from here if the majority of the Commission may not support this item. She asked if they should have someone make a motion for the item and then vote or do they make a motion to deny.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the Commission has a few options. They can make a motion to approve, and if that passes, they are done. He stated that, if it does not pass, that is not tantamount to a denial, and whatever motion is made, they will need to have an affirmative vote in order to have affect. He asked that the Commission can test a vote for an approval or denial at its discretion, depending on the motion and the second. He stated that the Commission could continue the item if it needed further specific analysis. He is not hearing what an additional analysis could be as it sounds to him like an instinctive reaction to the space and its proximity to a key property adjacent to the space, and no amount of analysis will change the nature of that relationship, so a continuance may not be the best option, but it is one of the options if there is something staff needs to analyze. He stated that, under the circumstances, he didn’t know how the Commission is weighing, other than at least two Commissioners seem reluctant to approve the space at this point. He stated that their normal recommendation to the Planning Commission is, in the event that there is a denial, to please continue it, stating specific reasons and allow staff to prepare a denial resolution supported by the weight of the evidence. He stated that, in this case, due to the time constraints and the fact that the city is the applicant and litigation is a low risk from the applicant in this instance, they would ask them, in the interest of time, to make a definitive action at this meeting, whichever route it goes. He stated that, should it be a denial, they state as much evidence as they can to support that action as to why the findings cannot be made for this particular space.

Commissioner Wright asked if it was possible to make it a condition that they ask that they try to negotiate with plaintiff to move this one spot, like a temporary approval and hopefully the plaintiff will work with them and Council to find what they would find to be a more suitable spot.

Asst. City Attorney Sharma asked if that was to renegotiate the settlement agreement that Council approved, not to add a condition of approval.

Commissioner Wright stated that they ask to see if there is any feasibility to that and they at least try. He asked if that would put the litigation in jeopardy if they did that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they have fielded this question in a number of different forms. He was going to try to stick to the same answer. The spaces have been approved by City Council and the Commission can decide whether the space is appropriate or not, with respect to the findings required for approval of the permit. He felt that to push for alternative locations is beyond the purview of the Planning Commission, and he thought it was a yeah or nay in this space but not looking beyond this space to some other potential space, given Council’s action and the relationship to the settlement agreement.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that it is more of a reaction to what Commissioner Wright said and that, based on Acting Planning Director Murdock’s response, she thinks she will withdraw her light.

14.d
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 70 of 76 ends

Chair Berman asked Commissioner Godwin if he would like to give a motion.

Commissioner Godwin moved that the Planning Commission APPROVES Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 subject to the conditions they have established for one on-street temporary site parking space on the left side of Francisco Blvd. public right-of-way, east of 2400 Francisco Blvd.

Acting Planning Director Murdock asked if the motion includes the two conditions of approval that he read.

Commissioner Godwin stated including the conditions of approval as read by Acting Planning Director Murdock.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thanked him for the clarification.

Chair Berman asked if there was a second.

Commissioner Domurat seconded the motion.

Vice Chair Hauser asked if they were three to two.

Chair Berman stated that she is predicting that it may turn into a 3-2.

Commissioner Wright asked if he could have a minute.

Chair Berman stated that they have a motion and a second in favor of the project.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that an affirmative vote by the majority of the Commission will conclude this item with an approval and failure of the motion to pass with a majority in favor will result in the status quo where they don’t have a decision or resolution and the Commission would need to continue to deliberate until it reached a majority in support of some motion on the item.

Vice Chair Hauser asked if 3-2 a majority or do they need four.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, for a permit action such as this, it is a majority of the Commissioners present, so in this case, 3-2 passes the item. He stated that for legislative items, a majority of the entire Commission, four, needs to be in favor regardless of the number present.

Vice Chair Hauser concluded that, in this instance, 3 would still pass the motion.

Acting Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Chair Berman stated that they have a motion and a second.

The motion failed 2-3.

Ayes: Commissioners Domurat and Godwin
Nays: Commissioners Hauser, Wright and Chair Berman.

14.d
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 71 of 76 ends

Chair Berman asked if there was any other item they need to touch on for this.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated not with respect to the motion that failed, but the Commission still needs to deliberate and reach a majority on an act ion to take.

Commissioner Domurat thought it was up to the three noes to figure out what it is that they can say. He stated that his point was that, in three years, Sharp Park is not going to get developed in three years, and in three years they are not going to be there. He stated that it is a short term three years which is why he voted yes.

Senior Planner O’Connor asked Commissioner Domurat if he could speak into the microphone.

Commissioner Domurat asked if they were allowed to deliberate on this.

Chair Berman stated that they are now in deliberation again.

Commissioner Domurat stated that the way he voted is that this is a three-year program and in three years, if this area is not a go, then they kill it in three years and make sure that the community is aware of what it does. He stated that they have analyzed the data, made sure it is a location that they don’t want for the future. For now, he stated that it was in a location that can provide data to the lessons learned and how well it would function. He stated that, as the community of Sharp Park develops further, it could be a location that they would not consider for the future.

Chair Berman asked Commissioner Godwin who was the other yes vote if he had anything to add to Commissioner Domurat’s statement.

Commissioner Godwin stated not significantly, as he thought it seems to be least bad option and the best way for the city to proceed. He stated that, in three years, a lot can happen and a lot of things that came before them that have been proposed and haven’t been built. He stated that it wasn’t clear that this is definitely a problem now, but if it is in the future, it can be dealt with then when it is a real problem as opposed to a potential problem.

Vice Chair Hauser stated she was always concerned when an emergency responder says that this is a problem for emergency response and she didn’t know any of the ins and outs of the Water District’s organization but it was a strong letter. She stated that, in the interest of finding some sort of solution, as the motion failed to pass, she wondered if this would be the opportunity to provide some sort of limited two-month reporting back to Council from North Coast County Water District and take Planning Commission out of it to see where things stand and leave it between the emergency responder and City Council. She didn’t know if that was a possibility but she feels like she can support something that would give people who are responsible for sustaining the safety of our water, especially in a drought, and they are responding to broken pipes, etc. She thought that would provide a level of comfort that she would need.

Chair Berman agrees with Vice Chair Hauser brought up. She asked if it was possible to implement, as a condition of approval, some reporting requirement.

Asst. City Attorney stated a very discrete reporting requirement.

14.d
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 72 of 76 ends

Commissioner Domurat stated that, as they deliberate, and Police Chief Steidle would be the closest one to being able to comment on the emergency access of vehicles, etc., and he asked if he would consider that an issue at this point or something they could learn about.

Police Chief Steidle stated that, on a lighter note, he has red and blue lights and he can get to wherever he needs but he admits that he doesn’t have any knowledge as to how this would affect an emergency response from the Water District. He added that, in fairness to the Water District, he didn’t know the type of equipment they have. They are emergency responders and they would be first responders to some sort of a water emergency but how they respond to it and what equipment they are pulling out of there and how an OSV parked there would affect that.

Commissioner Domurat stated that they have two access gates, one further north of where this location and one is on the corner and the big access is not even on that road.

Police Chief Steidle agreed, adding that it was his understanding that the proposed parking out there does not affect the gate.

Senior Planner O’Connor reminded them that parking does occur there now, and an emergency can happen at any time and parking can be occurring at any time there as well.

Commissioner Godwin stated that, if it was a problem, they could have had a red zone painted out in front of them.

Senior Planner O’Connor stated she was highlighting the scenario that, if there was a problem, such as 1:00 in the morning and someone could be parking along those 30-feet then and it doesn’t change the existing status.

Chair Berman stated that her concerns in regard to access aren’t so much with the water district but more so that this road feels narrow when you drive there, and there aren’t oversize vehicles that commonly park there to begin with. She stated that a lot of people take this route in this intersection so she was more concerned with accidents and cars hitting side mirror to side mirror.

She thought Commissioner Godwin is right and she has to trust that this is the lesser of many other evils so it is probably the least bad option but it doesn’t seem like a good location. She stated that they have two options. She apologized as she was tired and may not be processing correctly, but they have two options. They can keep deliberating until the project passes or they can formally provide a denial with specific aspects of why they deny.

Vice Chair Hauser asked if staff has a response.

Acting Planning Director Murdock asked for a little more time.

Vice Char Hauser stated her goal would be to leave with everybody happyish.

Acting Planning Director thanked Chair Berman for the opportunity for staff to conference over here.

14.d
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 73 of 76 ends

Chair Berman stated that, in the meantime, they came up with a Planning Commission slogan, everyone walks away happyish.

Acting Planning Director stated that the condition of approval that they would propose for discussion purposes is as follows, “after not less than two months and not more than four months of operations, the applicant shall prepare a written operational review report summarizing operation of the program space in relation to the adjacent North Coast County Water District facility for review and consideration by the City Manager.” Vice Chair Hauser thought it was a well crafted motion and she would ask that input from the Water District be solicited without a requirement for receiving it but at least they are soliciting it and, if received, that input is also provided to the City Manager. She stated that, at that juncture, is it up to staff to implement changes or amendments as seen fit.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they suggested adding an additional sentence that says “the applicant shall confer with the North Coast County Water District to seek its input into the report.”
Vice Chair Hauser stated that, nothing to change the condition but, once the report is received by the City Manager, does the City Manager have some level of power to make adjustments.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they have heard relaying other responses at this meeting, there should be finality with respect to this space for the time being in order to comply with the settlement agreement. He stated that the city has the ultimate discretion should this space prove unsafe to discontinue its use which may have ramifications with respect to the settlement agreement but the city needs to balance those factors and take the appropriate measures to protect public health and safety. They would seriously consider any concerns that are identified with respect to the report that is contemplated here.

Commissioner Wright asked if they can make it a condition that this be the last space filled.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that currently no more spaces are contemplated in the settlement agreement. There are 13 spaces required and 13 spaces identified.

Commissioner Wright clarified that in terms of filling it with applicants, can it be the last space filled.

Chair Berman like the last space filled.

Commissioner Domurat stated that, with part of the management plan, you have to leave flexibility as you don’t know the kind of sizes of everything else.

Acting Planning Director Murdock didn’t know if Executive Director Rees is still on the line, but she had indicated in a prior public hearing that the intent of the Resource Center as the program operator was to fill all the spaces more or less simultaneously and he wasn’t sure how attempting to delay the filling of this space would affect the operations.

Commissioner Domurat stated that she reiterated that earlier.

14.d
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 74 of 76 ends

Executive Director Rees stated that the intent is to fill all the spaces at once so that, when they have to move them every 29 days, it is an easy move for everybody. She added that the intent is to have all spaces filled, whether with program participants or the temporary parking for other oversized vehicles in town. She stated that they don’t want any spaces not being used.

Chair Berman asked if there were further questions.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that she didn’t need any flexing on the timing as she concurred with staff’s recommendation to do everything simultaneously. She would be interested in adding one more condition that says something along the lines of active construction project is created and the city also assesses the noise impacts on occupants. She thought there was also a health issue with having noise pollution. She stated that the other one was probably fine but, if it is easy, she would add something like that.

Commissioner Wright asked how that is different from anybody else doing a construction project on their next door neighbor’s house.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that, if you are living in an oversize vehicle, you don’t have doublepaned windows.

Commissioner Wright stated that you have laminated glass which is better.

Vice Chair Hauser asked if the RVs have a stronger amount of glass.

Commissioner Wright stated that, with the laminated glass, when you hit it, it doesn’t break as it has plastic in between and it is a better sound barrier than normal glass.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that she will rescind her request.

Chair Berman asked if they need to make an entirely new motion or can they use the same motion that Commissioner Godwin gave and add the conditions of approval that Acting Planning Director Murdock reads.

Asst. City Attorney Sharma stated that the motion that was previously read was already voted on, so they would be starting a new one.

Chair Berman asked if anyone wanted to provide a motion and incorporate the new conditions of approval. She then stated that she will help make the motion. She thought, with the two options they have, she would probably prefer to create less heartache and paperwork for the city staff.

She appreciated all their time at this meeting. She would prefer to make a motion in favor than deny.

Chair Berman moved that the Planning Commission FINDS the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; APPROVES Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A to the staff report including conditions of approval in Exhibit A and the ones read by staff to the resolution, and incorporates all maps and testimony into the record by reference and to clarify the conditions read by staff just recently with the prior motion.

14.d
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2022

Page 75 of 76 ends

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he can read them quickly for clarity in the record, “after not less than two months and not more than four months of operations, the applicant shall prepare a written operational review report summarizing operation of the program space in relation to the adjacent North Coast County Water District facility for review and consideration by the City Manager. The applicant shall confer with the North Coast County Water District to seek its input into the report; the program space shall have a no parking buffer zone at the rear of the program space, ten feet by 30 feet, not less than five feet in depth and the full width of the program space ten feet with the exact depth at the discretion of the city engineer and all program participants shall comply with all Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations applicable to generators proposed for operation at the program spaces.”.

Chair Berman if anyone wants to second.

Commissioner Domurat seconded the motion.

The motion carried 5-0.

Ayes: Commissioners Domurat, Godwin, Hauser, Wright
and Vice Chair Berman
Noes: None
Chair Berman declared that anyone aggrieved by the action of the Planning Commission has ten (10) calendar days to appeal the decision in writing to the City Council.

14.d
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2022 (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) OSV Permit Parking Spot Implementation -
Francisco Blvd.

Summary
This is to get City road spots agreed upon by City Council ready for OSV parking. The elements are signage and pavement markings.

1. Sign & Poles – 2 signs (generally) denoting where the OSV spots are will be placed at each location, except otherwise said. One where the spot(s) begin and end.

2. Pavement marking – traffic paint will used to denote the pavement begin, end and width of the OSV spot(s). Where multiple spots exist in one area, there will not be denotation of each individual spot but just beginning and end and width limit.

Signs & Poles
Signs will be placed adjacent the OSV space(s). Poles to be 2” galvanized steel pipe, hardware to be tamper proof. New pole installation will be account of any possible ADA issues and place poles behind sidewalk when ROW exists.

Sample sign shown below. Pole and sign installation, per site plan layouts attached.

Pavement Marking
A 4” white pavement marking will be used to outline the three non-curb sides of the designated OSV space, as shown in the site layouts in yellow.

14.e
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.)) Francisco Blvd.
• 2 sign and pole installation needed. One near stop sign, one near north boundary of OSV location. • 4” white stripe- offset from edge of pavement 10’ and front and back of zone. Will be field marked.

Approx. 30’ in length.

14.e
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.))

14.f
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: Attachment F - NCCWD Appeal (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.))

14.f
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: Attachment F - NCCWD Appeal (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.))

14.f
Packet Pg. 287
Attachment: Attachment F - NCCWD Appeal (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.))

14.f
Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: Attachment F - NCCWD Appeal (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.))

14.f
Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: Attachment F - NCCWD Appeal (5066 : Safe Parking Program CDP Appeal (Francisco Blvd.))

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and Carollo Engineers, Inc. for Engineering Design Services related to the Ultraviolet Disinfection Replacement Project (P034).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and Carollo Engineers, Inc. for Engineering Design Services in the amount of $800,000 in connection to the Ultraviolet Disinfection (UV) Replacement Project (P034); approve budget authority in the amount of $920,000 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $120,000; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.

STAFF CONTACT:

Nelson Schlater, P.E., Senior Engineer - Wastewater
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Maria Aguilar, P.E., Plant Manager
(650) 738-4660
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Design for the Ultraviolet Disinfection Replacement Project is included the City’s approved FY 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) was brought online in the Year 2000. At that time, CCWRP was a State-of-the-Art treatment facility, employing ultraviolet (UV) disinfection utilizing the Trojan UV4000 UV treatment system. Although less energy efficient than today’s UV technology, the existing UV treatment system has performed well for the City, with City Maintenance staff receiving reliable support from the vendor. Like other industries that require mechanical/electrical equipment, the municipal wastewater industry is constantly innovating and replacing aging technology with new offerings. Now, this is the case for the City’s existing UV treatment system whose model will no longer be supported. Although the City has purchased spare components to maintain operation for the next several years, the time has come for replacement.

The City commissioned a UV Feasibility Study that was completed in March 2022. The purpose of this Study was to identify replacement alternatives and establish an opinion of probable project cost. On April 4, 2022, the City advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from engineering design teams (Consultants) to design and develop construction bid documents for replacement of the existing UV treatment system (Project). A mandatory preproposal mandatory meeting was held on April 21, 2022, which four consultant firms attended. 15 Packet Pg. 290
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
Then on May 20, 2022, three consultants bid the Project: Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo), Lee & Ro, Inc. (L&R) and Woodard & Curran, Inc. (W&C). The table below summarizes the fee and level of effort for each consultant.

Proposer Fee Level of Effort (Hours)
Carollo Engineers $800,000 3,200
Lee & Ro, Inc. $559,539 2,650
Woodard & Curran, Inc. $1,128,776 4,540
As required by state Public Contracts Code, the RFP utilized a qualifications-based selection (QBS) approach to ensure the City selected the most qualified Consultant for this complex and critical Project. The QBS evaluation used the following criteria: 1) Project Understanding and Approach; 2) Project Team; and 3) Ultraviolet Disinfection Project Experience. Furthermore, level of effort (i.e., hours) was requested in the RFP response to help calibrate proposal information. Following the interviews and review of the proposals, Carollo Engineers was rated the most qualified consultant for the project.

The fees shown in the table above only became available to staff after a thorough review of all the proposals and completing the ranking of the bidders. As shown on the table above, Carollo’s fee is $240,461 more than the proposal of the lowest cost proposer, L&R. However, the selection process is not based on the lowest cost and must be qualification based. In addition, Carollo’s level of effort (LOE) is about 21% more than L&R which is why Carollo’s fee is higher.

City staff believes that Carollo’s LOE is more representative of the project than the other two bidders.

Accordingly, based on the QBS approach, City staff ranked Carollo first, followed by L&R then W&C. City staff determined that Carollo’s team was the most experienced, completed the most UV projects in California, and proposed a concept that would result UV equipment which would allow for multiple UV equipment vendors to bid the Project. Furthermore, Carollo recommended development of a Contingency Plan during the design phase to identify upfront design issues that could disrupt the construction schedule which is critical given that the Project will need to furnish temporary UV disinfection during construction. Moreover, Carollo is a national leader in UV treatment systems and their UV practice lead is located in the bay area.

As stated above, time is of the essence, given that the existing UV treatment system will no longer be supported. The following table summarizes the schedule anticipated for the Ultraviolet Disinfection (UV) Replacement Project (P034):

Description Date
Council Approval of Engineering Agreement August 2022
Notice to Proceed Mid-August 2022
Preliminary Design November 2022
90-Percent Design July 2023
100-Percent (Final) Design September 2023
Bidding October 2023-January 2024
This proposed schedule will allow Project Construction to commence in Spring 2024.

Approval of the recommendation will allow staff to move forward with developing bid documents for design and equipment procurement for a new UV treatment system and shepherd the CCWRP into the next generation of energy efficient UV technology to disinfect wastewater for 15 Packet Pg. 291
Pacifica City Council 3
August 08, 2022
discharge to Calera Creek. Therefore, the City Manager recommends the Council approve the Master Agreement for Consultant Services (Attachment 1) and Task Order No. 1 (Attachment 2) between the City of Pacifica and Carollo Engineers, Inc. for Engineering Design Services in the amount of $800,000 and approve the budget authority in the amount of $920,000 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $120,000 in connection to the Ultraviolet Disinfection (UV) Replacement Project (P034).

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to approve the Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1; however, this will result in project delays, possible increase of construction costs, and increased possibility of equipment failure whose replacement parts may not readily be available. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
· Stewardship of City Infrastructure and Maintaining a Safe Community: This design project will develop bid documents whose construction will replace technology that will no longer be supported by the vendor; increase Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant energy efficiency; maintain the CCWRP National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, supply recycled water to North Coast County Water District; and deliver highly treated wastewater to help preserve the Calera Creek wetland.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost of Task Order No. 1 is $800,000. City staff recommends including a 15% contingency to the Task Order for any additional design work due to the complexity of the project. The Source and Use of Funds spreadsheet is shown below.

Total Use of Funds
Task Order No. 1 - Engineering Design
Services
$ 800,000.00
Contingency (15%) $ 120,000.00
Total Cost $ 920,000.00
Total Project Source
Enterprise Fund (Fund 34) Account No.

34.900000.52800.P034.000
$ 920,000.00
Total Source of Funds $ 920,000.00
No additional budget authority is necessary as sufficient funds have been allocated in the Wastewater Enterprise Fund FY 2022-23 budget for this project. The total cost of $920,000 is within the project budget of $1,000,000 allocated for engineering design services.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
15 Packet Pg. 292
Pacifica City Council 4
August 08, 2022
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers (PDF) Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers (PDF)
15 Packet Pg. 293
- 1 -
OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1

MASTER AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Master Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this _____9th______ day of ____August_____, 2022 by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and __________Carollo Engineers Inc________________________________________ [a 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 ___Professional Engineering Services in connection with the _Ultraviolet Disinfection System Replacement Project (P034) – Engineering Design Services;
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified to perform such services; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has agreed to provide CITY with such services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.

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

ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES

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

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

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

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

CONSULTANT agrees that the Services shall be performed in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which CONSULTANT is engaged, in the same or similar geographical area in which CONSULTANT practices its profession, and will prepare all work products required by this Agreement in accordance with such standards. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT is in responsible charge of the Services. Acceptance by CITY of the Services does not operate as a release of CONSULTANT from professional responsibility for the Services performed.

ATTACHMENT 1

15.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project - 2 -
OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1

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

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

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

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

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

ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION

2.1. Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with the rate and schedules specified in a Task Order. However, in no event shall the amount the CITY pays to CONSULTANT for work done under a Task Order exceed the total compensation specified in the Task Order (“Cost Ceiling”).

2.2. Invoices. CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices in a form satisfactory to CITY on or before the tenth day of each month for Services provided during the preceding month. CONSULTANT shall submit time and cost records as necessary to substantiate

15.a
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project - 3 -
OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1
performance of the Services. Within 35 days after receipt of each such invoice, CITY shall verify the accuracy of the invoice, correct the charges where appropriate and as discussed and mutually agreed with CONSULTANT, and make payment to CONSULTANT in an amount equal to the amount of such invoice, as verified or corrected by CITY. No payment hereunder shall be construed as evidence of acceptance of any of CONSULTANT's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONSULTANT on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in CONSULTANT's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder. CONSULTANT shall not stop or delay performance of the Services under this Agreement on account of payment disputes with CITY.

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

2.4. Withholding. In lieu of holding retention, CITY shall withhold CONSULTANT's final payment under a Task Order until the Services provided under that Task Order are complete and CITY has received all Documents. CONSULTANT shall diligently continue and complete performance of the Services if the Services are not complete at the time CONSULTANT has performed services up to the Cost Ceiling.

ARTICLE 3 - TIME OF PERFORMANCE

3.1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the second signature and shall remain in full force and effect until January 31, 2024 (the "Term").

Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be extended for successive one-year term(s) upon mutual, written approval by the City Manager or his/her designee and CONSULTANT. Work authorized by a Task Order shall be performed in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Task Order.

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

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

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

ARTICLE 4 - DESIGNATED CONTACTS

4.1. CITY Contact. CITY designates Nelson Schlater PE , its Project Manager , 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

15.a
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project - 4 -
OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1
CONSULTANT. In the event CITY wishes to make a change in CITY 's representative, CITY will notify CONSULTANT of the change in writing.

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

ARTICLE 5 - INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

5.1. Indemnification. CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to claims, liability, loss, damage, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees, awards, fines, penalties, or judgments, arising out of or relating to the Services (collectively "Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its Officials, officers, employees and agents (the "CITY Parties"), except to the extent the Claims are attributable to CITY Parties' gross negligence or willful misconduct. CONSULTANT shall defend the CITY Parties as required by California Civil Code Section 2778, and with counsel reasonably acceptable to those parties. CONSULTANT shall have no right to seek reimbursement from the CITY Parties for the costs of defense.

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

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

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

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

A. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance providing bodily injury liability and property damage, to protect against all liability arising out of the use of any owned, leased, passenger or commercial

15.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project - 5 -
OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1
automobile at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit and $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall apply to hired and non-owned autos.

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

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

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

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

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

15.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project - 6 -
OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1
to CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents, and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY for itself, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents shall be in excess of CONSULTANT's insurance and shall not be contributory with it.
• It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverages requirements and/or limits shall be available to the Additional Insured, including but not limited to any umbrella or excess insurance.

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

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

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

If to CITY: City Manager
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 738-7409
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038

15.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project - 7 -
OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1
Email: [email protected]
If to CONSULTANT: Paul Friedlander, PE, Associate Vice President 2795 Mitchell Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Phone: 925-698-3339
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 CITY Clerk.

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

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

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

15.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project - 8 -
OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1
Any violation by CONSULTANT of the requirements of this provision will constitute a 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.

15.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project - 9 -
OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1

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 mediation with a mutually agreeable mediator. Prior to the mediation, the parties shall exchange any documents reasonably necessary to resolve the matter to be mediated.

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

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

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

Date

CITY OF PACIFICA
By:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Paul Friedlander / Andrew Salveson
Attest:

By: ___________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:

By: ________________________________
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

15.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project OAK #4834-8257-2833 v1
05620-0129

EXHIBIT A

TASK ORDER

15.a
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project - 2 - OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1
TASK ORDER NO. ________

CITY OF PACIFICA
AND
__________________________
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct _______________ to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below, in accordance with the provisions of the Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica (“CITY”) and _______________ (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated ________________ (“MASTER AGREEMENT”)
SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK
The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Attachment “A” – Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT.

Compensation for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be as set forth in Attachment “B” – Compensation, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided under this Task Order shall not ____________________ ($____________) (“Cost Ceiling”).

SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed by _________________ or as extended in writing by the City Manager.

SECTION 5 – ITEMS AND CONDITIONS
All terms and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT are incorporated by reference and remain in full force and effect.

Approved this _______ day of _____, _______.
[Signatures on Next Page]

15.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project - 3 -
OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date
City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
_______________________________
By: Date

15.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project -
4- OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1
ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

15.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project -
5- OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1
ATTACHMENT “B”

COMPENSATION

15.a
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment 1 - UV Disinfection Replacement Master Agreement_ Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project 1 TASK ORDER NO. 1

CITY OF PACIFICA
AND
CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC.

SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC. to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below, in accordance with the provisions of the Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica (“CITY”) and CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC. (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated 9 August 2022 (“MASTER AGREEMENT”)
SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK
The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Attachment “A” – Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT. Compensation for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be as set forth in Attachment “B” – Compensation, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided under this Task Order shall not exceed _Eight Hundred Thousand ($_800,000) (“Cost Ceiling”).

SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed by January 31, 2024, or as extended in writing by the City Manager.

SECTION 5 – ITEMS AND CONDITIONS
All terms and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT are incorporated by reference and remain in full force and effect.

Approved this 9th day of August, _2022__.
[Signatures on Next Page]
ATTACHMENT 2

15.b
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement 2 CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC.

By: Date 7/26/22
Paul Friedlander /Andrew Salveson

15.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement 3 ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

15.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement JULY 2022 1
Scope of Work
TASK 1 – PROJECT STARTUP, COORDINATION, AND MANAGEMENT
Task 1.1 – Project Administration & Coordination
The purpose of this task is to provide management and oversight of the Carollo team in its execution of the work, and ongoing communication and coordination with the City.

Assumptions
 Project duration to be approximately 16 months through bid review.  Monthly reports will be submitted approximately two weeks following the month, to allow time to process invoicing for the services performed.

Deliverables
 Monthly progress reports and billing.

Task 1.2 – Project Management Plan
Carollo will prepare a Project Management Plan (PMP). The PMP will identify general procedures to be followed in the administration and management of the Project. The PMP will include the following elements:

1. Project team organization and responsibility.

2. Carollo contract administration procedures.

3. Cost and schedule control procedures.

4. Quality management procedures.

5. Change control procedures.

6. Schedule of tasks, milestones and deliverable due dates.

7. File management and coordination guidelines to allow integration with project team members and City.

8. Decision and action items log tracking procedures.

Assumptions
 The PMP is a “living” document and will be updated as needed.

Task 1.3 – Conduct Monthly Project Meetings
Carollo will prepare for, attend, and generate notes for monthly project coordination meetings. The meetings will be held virtually using Microsoft Teams. The meeting date will be maintained for a specific day of the month (e.g., first Tuesday at 10:00 a.m.). Carollo will present a summary of the ongoing work, issues pending, action items, etc. Participants will discuss outstanding or upcoming Project action items and issues.

Assumptions
 Assume 30-minute monthly meetings to be conducted throughout the project duration except in months when workshop occur.
 Meetings shall be held virtually.

Deliverables
 Meeting agendas, presentation materials, schedule updates, and minutes for monthly meetings.

15.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement JULY 2022 2
 Updated issue/action/decision log.

Task 1.4 – Kickoff Workshop
Carollo shall conduct a project kick-off workshop. The workshop will address the overall approach to managing the project tasks for design, schedule, and budget, communication and project team roles and responsibilities, as well as ideas and strategies for addressing project challenges. The meeting will include key project participants including the project manager, project engineer, process area leads, discipline leads and City staff.

Assumptions
 Assume 1 (one) 4-hour workshop at a City facility (TBD). Carollo project manager, project engineer, electrical lead, and UV specialist will attend in person.  Travel time and travel costs will be included.

Deliverables
 Meeting agenda, presentation materials, and minutes will be provided.

Task 1.5 – Collect and Review Available Data
This task includes reviewing existing data, including the Feasibility Study, plant data, and plant drawings.

Assumptions
 The City will provide additional available data that it deems relevant prior to Task 1.4 workshops.  Carollo will review data needs and will make additional requests prior to or during the Task 1.4 workshops, and the City will transmit via email or digital file transfer.  Digital files will be provided in portable document format (PDF), AutoCAD, Microsoft Office software or another format agreed upon by the City and Carollo.  If required, scanning of physical documents will be completed by the City.

Task 2 – Survey
Task 2.1 – Topographic Survey and Potholing
Carollo’s surveyor will conduct a topographic survey of the existing disinfection and filtration area surface features, including location of the existing hardscape features, parking areas, railings, fences, and visual utilities within the area. Surveyed area is anticipated to be approximately one acre. Potholing will be conducted at up to three locations to verify location of existing buried utilities. A topographic map of the site including topographic features and elevations at a 1-foot contour interval will be prepared and provided in the AutoCAD Civil3D for use as the project base map.

The surveyor will research and tie into published control to establish project datums on the California State Plane Coordinate System and a published vertical benchmark (NAVD 1988). This will not constitute a boundary survey or property boundary resolution.

Assumptions
 Up to three potholes.

Deliverables
 AutoCAD base file of survey.

15.b
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement JULY 2022 3
Task 2.2 – UV/Filter Room 3D LiDAR
Carollo’s LiDAR surveyor will conduct a LiDAR survey to capture the interiors of the existing UV and filter building galleries and provide a Revit model of the existing facilities tied to the survey control.

Assumptions
 City staff will assist by providing access and clearing the space for the scanning effort.

Deliverables
 3-dimensional model of the UV and filter piping space.

Task 3 – CEQA and Permitting Support
The purpose of this task is to provide design-related information to support regulatory permitting. In addition to the scope items described below, Carollo will include an allowance of 44 hours for Eli Davidian of ESA to provide guidance and advice on CEQA and permitting issues throughout the design process.

Task 3.1 – CEQA Support
Carollo shall provide engineering support for the CEQA documents that will be prepared by others.

Although it is currently assumed that the CEQA document would be a mitigated negative declaration (MND), and that there will likely be a mitigation monitoring program (MMP), there is a potential for the project to be categorically exempt. In the event that a CEQA MND and MMP are required, engineering support will include assistance in preparing and filing paperwork including site plans and figures.

Assumptions
 City will prepare and submit CEQA documentation.
 Carollo will provide support with project area figures and engineer’s estimates for construction activities.
 Carollo will support of work of CEQA and permitting consultants hired by the City by responding to CEQA and permitting consultant information requests.
 City CEQA and permitting consultants will be responsible for describing the project in CEQA and permitting documents based on information provided by the Carollo.  Carollo will review the project description sections of CEQA and permitting documents prepared by the City’s consultants.

Deliverables
 Design-related information for CEQA documents and permit applications.

Task 3.2 – California Coastal Commission Permitting Support Carollo will provide support for obtaining the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) that is expected to be needed for a new electrical building which may not be needed, and possibly the temporary disinfection system which will be needed. It should be assumed that no buried piping will be installed as part of the temporary disinfection system or the overall project due to potential California Coastal Commission restrictions.

Assumptions
 City will prepare and submit CDP documentation.

15.b
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement JULY 2022 4
 Carollo will provide support with project area figures and Carollo’s estimates for construction activities.

Deliverables
 Design-related information for CDP documents and permit applications.

Task 3.3 – Building Permit Support
Carollo will prepare the application submittal for the building permit that is expected to be required if the project includes a pre-fabricated electrical building. The City will assist with coordination on the submittal to the City’s Planning Department.

Assumptions
 Carollo will prepare the building permit application.  A single permit application is covered under this task; additional building permits will require additional budget and effort.

Task 3.4 – Other City Permit Support
Carollo will provide support for the applications for Special Use Permits and Site Development Permits.

Assumptions
 City will prepare and submit permits.
 Carollo will provide support with project area figures and Carollo’s estimates for construction activities.

Task 4 – Funding Support
Task 4.1 – Funding Support
Carollo shall provide support services for the funding application for the project, which is expected to consist of an application to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program. The application is expected to be prepared by a separate funding consultant contracting directly with the City, but the Carollo will be expected to prepare and provide engineering and cost-related documentation needed to support the application.

Assumptions
 City will prepare and submit application.
 Carollo will provide support with project area figures and engineer’s estimates for construction activities.

Task 5 – Preliminary Design
Task 5.1 – Draft Preliminary Design Report
The Preliminary Design Report (PDR) will provide an overview of the proposed project to be designed, design criteria, preliminary design drawings, project cost estimate at a preliminary design level, and overall project implementation schedule. The PDR will include the two technical memos (TMs) developed in Task

5.3 and 5.4.

15.b
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement JULY 2022 5
Assumptions
 The PDR contents will consist of design criteria, process flow diagrams, hydraulic profile, preliminary list of technical specifications, initial bid and construction schedule and opportunities to accelerate the schedule (such as equipment pre-purchase), constructability and construction phasing constraints, draft operational strategy, preliminary design level cost estimate, and other pertinent preliminary design data and work products.
 PDR will include:
Replacement system criteria.
Detail sufficient to select the UV disinfection system. A draft sequence of construction and a constructability discussion to confirm the viability of the selected design approach, estimated overall construction time, and estimated duration during which temporary disinfection facilities will be required (See Task 5.3 TM). An approach to the temporary disinfection system (See Task 5.3 TM) including siting; capacity; conveyance to temporary disinfection system, and piping from temporary disinfection. A list of pros and cons for UV equipment pre-purchase and pre-selection and provide a recommendation for how to proceed to facilitate overall project schedule. An estimate of probable construction cost
 The PDR will include a discussion of local permitting required based on information from the City’s permitting consultants.
 All drawings shall be PDF 22x34 but provided in half size, namely 11x17.

Deliverables
 Draft PDR (electronic PDF format only).

Task 5.2 – Final Preliminary Design Report
Carollo will incorporate comments from the Task 5.5 workshops and review as appropriate. The same assumptions from the Draft PDR apply.

Deliverables
 Final PDR (electronic PDF format only).

Task 5.3 – Bypass and Sequencing TM
This TM will cover the temporary disinfection and the bypass sequencing alternatives.

Deliverables
 Draft and Final TM with PDR (electronic PDF format only).

Task 5.4 – Wedeco Duron 8 TM
This TM will review the validation and economics of Duron 8 versus the Duron 6 and review what Duron 8 components are different, and thus impart risk on the client. This TM will include where the Duron 8 components have been used on other systems and if there are reasons to be concerned about some components and where the Duron 8 is being installed and what the timeline is for those installations.

Deliverables
 Draft and Final TM with PDR (electronic PDF format only).

15.b
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement JULY 2022 6
Task 5.5 – Preliminary Design Workshops
The PDR shall be discussed at two workshops with City staff up to 4-hours in duration each to be held on Microsoft Teams approximately one week apart. The first workshop shall cover design criteria including the proposed UVT, UV technology options, technology providers for these options, and system sizing and footprint to meet design criteria and existing constraints. The second workshop shall cover pre-purchase or pre-selection, sequence of construction and schedule, temporary disinfection system design criteria, and temporary disinfection system sizing and layout.

Assumptions
 Assume 2 (two) 4-hour virtual workshops.

Deliverables
 Meeting agenda, presentation materials, and minutes will be provided.

Task 6 – UV Pre-selection Documents (30% Design)
Carollo shall develop plans, sections, and specifications as necessary to support the procurement of the UV equipment. The following assumptions apply to all subtasks (as appropriate):

Assumptions
 Use the current Engineers Joint Contracts Committee (EJCDC) Procurement front end documents (e.g., “Seller-Buyer” documents), a UV system specification, and other supporting technical specifications to cover the UV system supplier scope of supply.  Selection criteria to include but not limited to equipment, operations, maintenance, and replacement costs.
 Selected UV supplier will include support detailed design support.  City will advertise the pre-selection.

Task 6.1 – Draft Pre-selection Documents
Deliverables
 Draft Pre-selection Documents (electronic PDF format only) Task 6.2 – Final Pre-selection Documents
Deliverables
 Final Pre-selection Documents (electronic PDF format only) Task 6.3 – Pre-selection Workshop and Review
Assumptions
 Assume 1 (one) 2-hour virtual workshop.

Deliverables
 Meeting agenda, presentation materials, and minutes will be provided.

15.b
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement JULY 2022 7
Task 6.4 – Pre-selection Submittal Review and Recommendation Letter Assumptions
 Carollo will provide bid support services under this task, including evaluating bids.

Deliverables
 Letter of recommendation.

Task 7 – 75% Design
Development of a 75% design document submittal package will be completed under this task. This task includes the development of an estimate of probable construction costs (AACE Class 3). The following will be included:
 Plans and key sections for mechanical, electrical, structural, civil and instrumentation design.  Temporary facilities design plans and key sections.
 Current EJCDC Construction front-end documents and Carollo’s technical specifications.  City will coordinate with Carollo on relevant project conditions including agreement language, project constraints, and supplementary condition language.  Prepare an opinion of probable construction cost.
 Prepare an update to the project schedule.

Task 7.1 – 75% Design Documents
Deliverables
 75% Design Documents (electronic PDF format only).
 All drawings shall be PDF 22x34 but provided in half size, namely 11x17  Comment tracking spreadsheet from previous deliverables.

Task 7.2 – Contingency Plan
A contingency plan for the bypass system selected during the PDR will be included as an appendix to the specifications as part of the Project Constraints section. Inclusion of a contingency plan reduces the risk to the City of significant change orders.

Assumptions
 Selection of a bypass method will occur during the PDR task.  City will provide critical criteria for plant operation.  Comments on the Contingency Plan will be incorporated and delivered during the 90% design.

Deliverables
 Bypass Contingency Plan
Task 7.3 – 75% Workshop and Review
Assumptions
 Assume one 4-hour virtual workshop.

15.b
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement JULY 2022 8
Deliverables
 Meeting agenda, presentation materials, and minutes will be provided.

Task 7.4 – Cost Estimate and Schedule
Assumptions
 Estimate of probable construction costs (AACE Class 3) using Carollo’s estimating tools/software.  Schedule using Microsoft Project.

Deliverables
 Estimate of probable construction cost.
 Construction schedule.

Task 8 – 90% Design
Development of a 90% design document submittal package will be completed under this task. This task includes the development of an estimate of probable construction costs (AACE Class 2). The following will be included:
 Plans and key sections for mechanical, electrical, structural, civil and instrumentation design.  Temporary facilities design plans and key sections.
 Building plans and specifications for City building department review. (See Task 3.3)  Current EJCDC Construction front-end documents and Carollo’s technical specifications.  City will coordinate with Carollo on relevant project conditions including agreement language, project constraints, and supplementary condition language.  Updated opinion of probable construction cost.
 Updated project schedule.

Task 8.1 – 90% Design Documents
Deliverables
 90% Design Documents (electronic PDF format only).
 All drawings shall be PDF 22x34 but provided in half size, namely 11x17  Comment tracking spreadsheet from previous deliverables.

Task 8.2 – 90% Workshop and Review
Assumptions
 Assume 1 (one) 4-hour virtual workshop.

Deliverables
 Meeting agenda, presentation materials, and minutes will be provided.

Task 8.3 – Cost Estimate and Schedule
Assumptions
 Estimate of probable construction costs (AACE Class 2) using Carollo’s estimating tools/software.  Schedule using Microsoft Project.

15.b
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement JULY 2022 9
Deliverables
 Estimate of probable construction cost.
 Construction schedule.

Task 9 – 100% Bid Level Documents
This task will deliver a complete, signed and sealed, set of Bid Documents.

Task 9.1 – Bid Documents
Assumptions
 Assume 1 (one) 2-hour virtual workshop to review final updates prior to signing. Workshop will only focus on changes made from the 90% deliverable. Any changes identified at this workshop that were not identified previously will likely affect schedule and budget and will require coordination with the City.

Deliverables
 Bid Documents (electronic PDF format only).
 All drawings shall be PDF 22x34
 Comment tracking spreadsheet from previous deliverables.

Task 9.2 – Final Cost Estimate and Schedule
Assumptions
 Estimate of probable construction costs (AACE Class 2) using Carollo’s estimating tools/software.  Schedule using Microsoft Project.

Deliverables
 Final estimate of probable construction cost.
 Final construction schedule.

Task 10 – Bidding Services
Task 10.1 – Attend Pre-bid Conference
Assumptions
 Project Carollo will attend the pre-bid conference in person.

Task 10.2 – Prepare Addenda
Assumptions
 Carollo will respond to technical questions and requests during bidding period.  City will respond to contracting questions and requests during bidding period.  Carollo will prepare up to three (3) addenda.

Deliverables
 Technical clarifications.
 Up to three (3) addenda clarifications.

15.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement JULY 2022 10
Task 10.3 – Evaluate Bid Packages
Assumptions
 Carollo will review responsive bidders’ package(s) and provide an evaluation letter.  City will predetermine the acceptance of bid packages prior to passing along to the Carollo for evaluation.

Deliverables
 Bid evaluation letter.

Scope Assumptions
 Deliverables will be digital (pdf or native files) unless otherwise noted.  Specification Divisions 00 and 01 will use the Carollo’s Master Specification format.  City will provide contract, insurance and financial requirements.  Technical Specifications will be MasterFormat 50-Division.  CADD files will use Carollo’s standard software. Files will be delivered in native file format. 3D drawings (not models) can be converted to AutoCAD 2D if required.  Drawings will be delivered in Full Size (34”x22”) and Half Size (17”x11”) format.  A geotechnical investigation is not included as part of the design scope as no buried piping is anticipated.
 Corrosion control for buried pipe is not included as part of the design scope as no buried piping is anticipated.
 City will provide comments in a compiled single document (pdf or Excel spreadsheet) for each deliverable within 2 weeks of receipt.

Project Assumptions
 Carollo shall be entitled to use and reasonably rely upon information provided by City in performing Carollo's services.
 Any reuse of completed documents or use of partially completed documents without written verification or concurrence by Carollo for the specific purpose intended will be at City's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Carollo.
 Carollo makes no warranty that City’s actual project costs, financial aspects, economic feasibility, schedules, and/or quantities or quality realized will not vary from Carollo’s opinions, analyses, projections, or estimates.
 Carollo is not responsible for damage or delay in performance caused by events beyond the reasonable control of Carollo. In the event Carollo 's services are suspended, delayed or interrupted for the convenience of City or delays occur beyond the reasonable control of Carollo, an equitable adjustment in Carollo 's time of performance and cost of Carollo 's personnel and subcontractors may be made. Additionally, Carollo shall not be responsible for acts and decisions of third parties, including governmental agencies, other than Carollo’s subconsultants, that impact project completion and/or success.

Preliminary Schedule
A preliminary schedule is attached.

15.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement 2022 2023

AUG SEP OCT
TASK 1 - PROJECT STARTUP, COORDINATION, AND MANAGEMENT

1.01 - Project Administration

1.02 - Develop Project Management Plan

1.03 - Conduct Project Meetings (Monthly)

1.04 - Kicko Meeting

1.05 - Collect and Review Available Data
TASK 2 - SURVEY

2.01 - Topographic Survey and Potholing

2.02 - UV/Filter Room 3D As-Building
TASK 3 - PERMITTING SUPPORT

3.01 - CEQA Support

3.02 - California Coastal Commission Permitting Support

3.03 - Building Permit (Electrical Building Only)

3.04 - Other City Permits
TASK 4 - FUNDING SUPPORT

4.01 - Funding Support
TASK 5 - PRELIMINARY DESIGN

5.01 - Draft Preliminary Design Report

5.02 - Final Preliminary Design Report

5.03 - Design Workshop and Review
TASK 6 - UV PRE-SELECTION DOCUMENTS (30% DESIGN)

6.01 - Draft Pre-Selection Documents

6.02 - Final Pre-Selection Documents

6.03 - Pre-Selection Workshop and Review

6.04 - Pre-Selection Submittal Review and Recommendations TASK 7 - 75% DESIGN

7.01 - 75% Design Documents

7.02 - 75% Workshop and Review

7.03 - Cost Estimate and Schedule
TASK 8 - 90% DESIGN

8.01 - 90% Design Documents

8.02 - 90% Workshop and Review

8.03 - Cost Estimate and Schedule
TASK 9 - 100% BID LEVEL DOCUMENTS

9.01 - Bid Documents

9.02 - Final Cost Estimate and Schedule
TASK 10 - BIDDING SERVICES

10.01 - Attend Pre-Bid Conference

10.02 - Prepare Addenda

10.03 - Evaluate Bid Packages
TASKS
Deliverable
Meeting/Workshop
Task Duration
City Review

NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Project Schedule

15.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement Project

SUBCONSULTANTS OTHER DIRECT COSTS COST SUMMARY
Project Project Lead Project Senior Project CFD Associate Senior
Structural Structural Cost Senior CAD CAD Document QA/QC Subtotals
PECE Electrical, I&C Survey
& Potholing ESA
Subtotals
Subconsultant
Markup
Misc.

Costs and
Printing
Travel
Total ODCs Total Cost
Manager Engineer Professional Professional Modeling Professional Engineer Engineer Estimating Technician Technician Processing Review TASKS
Todd Beecher
TBD
Elijah Davidian
Labor Rate $318 $231 $274 $318 $274 $188 $318 $274 $274 $199 $142 $125 $294 Hours Budget $13 10%
Friedlander Burnitt Sotirakos Salveson Lamb Dadik Rozgony Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost TASK1- Project Startup, Coordination, and Management

1.1 Project Administration& Coordination 32 6500020000040 103 $26,067 $1,3390 $00 $00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,339 $27,406

1.2 Project Management Plan1300080000040 16 $3,016 $2080 $00 $00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208 $3,224

1.3 Conduct Project Meetings (Monthly) 16 32880 160000040 84 $20,725 $1,0920 $00 $00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,092 $21,817

1.4 Kickoff Workshop8884020000010 31 $8,355 $4036 $1,3200 $00 $0 $1,320 $132 $0 $2,000 $3,855 $12,210

1.5 Collect and Review Available Data
2 12 1600 160000020 48 $11,045 $624 12 $2,640
0 $00 $0 $2,640 $264 $0 $0 $3,528 $14,573
Task1 Total Hours 59 120 32 120 4400000 150 282 18
00 Task1 Total Budget $18,776 $27,706 $8,753 $3,819 $0 $8,283 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,872 $0 $69,208 $3,666 $3,960 $0 $0 $3,960 $396 $0 $2,000 $10,022 $79,230 TASK2- Survey

2.1 Topographic Survey and Potholing24000 160000200 24 $4,857 $3120 $00 $12,0000 $0 $12,000 $1,200 $0 $0 $13,512 $18,369

2.2 UV/Filter Room 3D LiDAR
28000 16000 16800 50 $9,813 $650
0 $0
0 $20,000
0 $0 $20,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $22,650 $32,463
Task2 Total Hours 4 12000 32000 16 1000 74
000
Task2 Total Budget $1,273 $2,771 $0 $0 $0 $6,024 $0 $0 $0 $3,178 $1,425 $0 $0 $14,670 $962 $0 $32,000 $0 $32,000 $3,200 $0 $0 $36,162 $50,832 TASK3- CEQA and Permitting Support

3.1 CEQA Support48000 320002400 50 $10,111 $6500 $00 $0 20 $4,400 $4,400 $440 $0 $0 $5,490 $15,601

3.2 California Coastal Commission Permitting Support4 16000 400002440 70 $13,963 $9100 $00 $0 20 $4,400 $4,400 $440 $0 $0 $5,750 $19,713

3.3 Building Permit Support (Electrical Building Only)08000 160002440 34 $6,325 $4420 $00 $00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $442 $6,767

3.4 Other City Permit Support
08000 160000040 28 $5,358 $364
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $364 $5,722
Task3 Total Hours 8 40000 1040006 12 120 182
00 40
Task3 Total Budget $2,546 $9,235 $0 $0 $0 $19,577 $0 $0 $0 $1,192 $1,710 $1,498 $0 $35,757 $2,366 $0 $0 $8,800 $8,800 $880 $0 $0 $12,046 $47,803 TASK4- Funding Support

4.1 Funding Support
18000 320000080 49 $9,187 $637
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $637 $9,824
Task4 Total Hours 18000 320000080 49
000
Task4 Total Budget $318 $1,847 $0 $0 $0 $6,024 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $998 $0 $9,187 $637 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $637 $9,824 TASK5- Preliminary Design

5.1 Draft Preliminary Design Report 12 48 228 64 322204 1660 216 $52,000 $2,808 20 $4,4000 $04 $880 $5,280 $528 $1,500 $0 $10,116 $62,116

5.2 Final Preliminary Design Report
2662081100640 36 $7,751 $4684 $8800 $00 $0 $880 $88 $0 $0 $1,436 $9,187

5.3 Bypass& Sequencing TM2 16200 162000222 44 $9,649 $5720 $00 $00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $572 $10,221

5.4 Wedeco Duron8 TM128 12000000020 25 $7,037 $3250 $00 $00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $325 $7,362

5.5 Preliminary Design Workshops
8 1244080000010 37 $9,314 $4814 $8800 $00 $0 $880 $88 $0 $0 $1,449 $10,763 Task5 Total Hours 25 84 42 26 64 645304 24 152 358 28
04 Task5 Total Budget $7,956 $19,394 $11,488 $8,274 $17,505 $12,047 $1,591 $821 $0 $795 $3,420 $1,872 $589 $85,751 $4,654 $6,160 $0 $880 $7,040 $704 $1,500 $0 $13,898 $99,649 TASK6- UV Pre-Selection Documents (30% Design)

6.1 Draft Pre-Selection Documents4 16 1680 12480 16 24 120 120 $25,705 $1,5600 $00 $00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,560 $27,265

6.2 Final Pre-Selection Documents2644082402860 46 $9,911 $598 80 $17,6000 $00 $0 $17,600 $1,760 $0 $0 $19,958 $29,869

6.3 Pre-Selection Workshop and Review4460000000010 15 $3,962 $1950 $00 $00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $195 $4,157

6.4 Pre-Selection Submittal Review and Recommendation Letter 1261020000020 14 $3,365 $182
0 $00 $00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $182 $3,547
Task6 Total Hours 11 28 32 130 226 120 18 32 210 195 80 00 Task6 Total Budget $3,501 $6,465 $8,753 $4,137 $0 $4,141 $1,909 $3,282 $0 $3,576 $4,559 $2,621 $0 $42,943 $2,535 $17,600 $0 $0 $17,600 $1,760 $0 $0 $21,895 $64,838 TASK7- 75% Design

7.1 75% Design Documents 24 64 40 320 100 16 720 120 150 24 60 702 $153,011 $9,126 130 $28,6000 $00 $0 $28,600 $2,860 $0 $0 $40,586 $193,597

7.2 Contingency Plan2 16620 324004884 86 $18,015 $1,1180 $00 $00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,118 $19,133

7.3 75% Workshop and Review4860000000000 18 $4,761 $2342 $4400 $00 $0 $440 $44 $0 $0 $718 $5,479

7.4 Cost Estimate and Schedule
28110 1224 160020 48 $11,691 $6244 $8800 $00 $0 $880 $88 $0 $0 $1,592 $13,283 Task7 Total Hours 32 96 53 350 144 22 76 16 124 158 34 64 854 136 00 Task7 Total Budget $10,184 $22,164 $14,497 $11,138 $0 $27,107 $7,001 $20,788 $4,376 $24,631 $22,512 $4,243 $18,836 $187,478 $11,102 $29,920 $0 $0 $29,920 $2,992 $0 $0 $44,014 $231,492 TASK8- 90% Design

8.1 90% Design Documents 16 24 12 400 54 16 600 30 84 24 60 420 $96,895 $5,460 180 $39,6000 $00 $0 $39,600 $3,960 $0 $0 $49,020 $145,915

8.2 90% Workshop and Review4860000000000 18 $4,761 $2342 $4400 $00 $0 $440 $44 $0 $0 $718 $5,479

8.3 Cost Estimate and Schedule
1401081280010 26 $6,244 $3384 $8800 $0
0 $0 $880 $88 $0 $0 $1,306 $7,550
Task8 Total Hours 21 36 18 410 62 17 628 30 84 25 60 464 186 00 Task8 Total Budget $6,683 $8,312 $4,923 $13,048 $0 $11,671 $5,410 $16,958 $2,188 $5,959 $11,968 $3,120 $17,659 $107,900 $6,032 $40,920 $0 $0 $40,920 $4,092 $0 $0 $51,044 $158,944 TASK9- 100% Bid Level Documents

9.1 Bid Documents8 20440 244 120 12 16 160 120 $25,264 $1,560 40 $8,8000 $00 $0 $8,800 $880 $100 $0 $11,340 $36,604

9.2 Final Cost Estimate and Schedule
1401060040010 17 $3,908 $221
2 $4400 $00 $0 $440 $44 $0 $0 $705 $4,613
Task9 Total Hours 9 24450 304 124 12 16 170 137 42
00 Task9 Total Budget $2,864 $5,541 $1,094 $1,591 $0 $5,647 $1,273 $3,282 $1,094 $2,384 $2,280 $2,122 $0 $29,172 $1,781 $9,240 $0 $0 $9,240 $924 $100 $0 $12,045 $41,217 TASK 10- Bidding Services

10.1 Attend Pre-Bid Conference2800000000000 10 $2,484 $1300 $00 $00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $130 $2,614

10.2 Prepare Addenda (3 assumed)26200 121444840 47 $9,768 $6114 $8800 $00 $0 $880 $88 $0 $0 $1,579 $11,347

10.3 Evaluate Bid Packages
24200000000008 $2,107 $104
0 $00 $00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $104 $2,211
Task 10 Total Hours 6 18400 121444840 65
400
Task 10 Total Budget $1,909 $4,156 $1,094 $0 $0 $2,259 $318 $1,094 $1,094 $795 $1,140 $499 $0 $14,359 $845 $880 $0 $0 $880 $88 $0 $0 $1,813 $16,172 Total Hours 176 466 185 132 64 546 55 169 32 214 344 151 126 2660 4940 44 Total Budget $56,010 $107,591 $50,602 $42,007 $17,505 $102,780 $17,502 $46,225 $8,752 $42,510 $49,014 $18,845 $37,084 $596,425 $34,580 $108,680 $32,000 $9,680 $150,360 $15,036 $1,600 $2,000 $203,576 $800,000

15.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC.

FEE SCHEDULE
Hourly Rate
Engineers/Scientists
Assistant Professional $188.00
Professional 231.00
Project Professional 274.00
Lead Project Professional 294.00
Senior Professional 318.00
Technicians
Technicians 142.00
Senior Technicians 199.00
Support Staff
Document Processing / Clerical 125.00
Project Equipment Communication Expense
(PECE) Per DL Hour

13.00 Other Direct Expenses
Travel and Subsistence at cost
Subconsultant cost + 10%
This fee schedule is subject to annual revisions due to labor adjustments.

15.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement 4 ATTACHMENT “B”

COMPENSATION
(Documented in Attachment A)

15.b
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment 2 - UV Disinfection Replacement Task Order No. 1 Agreement Carollo Engineers [Revision 1] (5068 : UV Replacement

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Housing Element Update Community Engagement Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive staff presentation about the Housing Element Community Engagement Plan and provide direction.

STAFF CONTACT:

Christian Murdock, AICP, Acting Planning Director - (650) 738-7341 [email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

1. Background:

The City of Pacifica, as a local jurisdiction within the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) region, must adopt an update to the Housing Element of its General Plan as part of the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), also known as RHNA 6. The RHNA 6 Housing Element update will cover the period from January 2023 through January 2031. The deadline for adoption of the Housing Element update is January 31, 2023. State law provides a 120-day grace period beyond the due date before the City would experience any consequence from delayed adoption. The City last adopted an update to its Housing Element as part of the 5th Cycle RHNA on May 11, 2015.

The City intends to undertake a robust community engagement process as part of its Housing Element update. The City Manager recommended, and the Council adopted, $20,000 in additional budget allocation in the FY2022-2023 budget for community engagement efforts for the Housing Element update. Community input in the Housing Element update is particularly important given the ongoing challenges for many people to locate housing affordable for their families in Pacifica, as well as the City’s obligation to identify suitable sites for the 1,892 housing units allocated to the City under RHNA 61. Staff plans to build on prior community engagement efforts, including the Home for All community conversations and General Plan/Sharp Park Specific Plan community meetings, for the Housing Element update engagement process.

Staff is seeking City Council review and confirmation of the Housing Element community engagement plan due to the important nature of the input needed. The City’s community engagement plan is also an important part of the Housing Element review process by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which will consider the City’s efforts to include all economic segments of the community and/or their representatives in the development and update of the Housing Element. Therefore, the community engagement plan is a critical component of achieving HCD certification of the City’s Housing Element update.
1 For comparison, the City’s 5th Cycle RHNA allocation was 413 housing units. 16 Packet Pg. 325
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022

2. Housing Element Update Process:

The Housing Element update process includes multiple steps. These include, but are not limited to, background research on housing issues in Pacifica; technical work to analyze eligible housing sites for compliance with criteria in state law; community education and engagement; drafting of the Housing Element document; public review and comment on the draft document; preparation of responses to comments; HCD review and comment; revisions to the draft document; and, public hearings at Planning Commission and City Council for the final adoption process.

An update to the Housing Element is a major task for any local jurisdiction. Many cities and counties in the ABAG region started work on their Housing Element updates in mid- to late2021. While the City participated in informational meetings and limited community outreach as part of the San Mateo County housing collaborative 21 Elements during that timeframe, the City had focused significant resources on completion of the General Plan update. City Council adoption of the General Plan update2 on July 11, 2022, cleared the way for staff to refocus resources on the Housing Element update. As explained by staff during the General Plan update process, replacing the 1980 General Plan with the 2040 General Plan was an important prerequisite to an effective Housing Element update process.

The schedule ahead of the City for the Housing Element update process will require efficient work by staff and engagement with the community. It will also include using some portion of the 120-day grace period provided in state law. Table 1 outlines key milestones in the Housing Element update process in a rough timeline for planning purposes:

Milestone Description Projected Timeline
Confirmation of Community
Engagement Plan
City Council confirmation of key components
and timeline for community engagement on
Housing Element update.

August 8, 2022
Inventory of Potential Housing
Sites
Initial staff technical analysis of potential
housing sites meeting state criteria for
inclusion in Housing Element update.

August 2022
Community Engagement Public input opportunities to shape the housing site inventory and other components
of the Housing Element update.

Sep-Oct 2022
Finalize Draft Document Finalize the initial draft of the Housing Element following community engagement.

Nov-Dec 2022
Public Review and Comment 30-day public review and comment period on draft Housing Element.

Jan-Feb 2023
30 days (min.)
City Council Study Session Informational meeting and comment opportunity for City Council and public during
public review and comment period.

January 2023
Consider Public Comments Review and incorporate public comments into draft Housing Element.

Feb 2023
10 business days (min.)
2 The comprehensive General Plan update adopted by the City Council did not include a Housing Element update.
16 Packet Pg. 326
Pacifica City Council 3
August 08, 2022
HCD Review HCD review and comment period to identify
changes needed to achieve HCD
certification.

Mar-April 2023
Incorporate HCD Comments Revise the Housing Element to incorporate HCD’s required edits.

April 2023
Planning Commission Public
Hearing3
Consideration and recommendation to City
Council.

May 2023
City Council Public Hearing Consideration of adoption of the final Housing Element.

May 2023
Table 1. Key Milestones for Housing Element Update Process.

The community engagement plan that will support the City’s accomplishment of the abovelisted key milestones is discussed in the following section of this report. However, some of the milestones, such as HCD review, are outside of the City’s control and may exceed the estimated time for completion. It is also possible that rezoning will be required to accommodate the City’s RHNA 6 allocation. In that case, additional time will be required to perform environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to Housing Element adoption.

Delays in accomplishing any of the milestones in Table 1 could result in adoption of the Housing Element update beyond the 120-day grace period provided in state law. Adoption of the Housing Element update more than 120 days but less than one year beyond the January 31, 2023, deadline would require the City to complete any rezoning required to accommodate the RHNA 6 allocation by January 31, 2024, rather than January 31, 20264. It is not known at this time whether the City will need to perform any rezoning to accommodate its RHNA 6 allocation. That determination will be made following technical work and community engagement on the housing site inventory component of the Housing Element update.

3. Community Engagement Plan:

Community engagement is an essential component of the Housing Element update process.

It can leverage the public’s deep knowledge of housing issues in Pacifica and introduce new ideas about how to address them. The community engagement process will be most effective if it includes a broad segment of the Pacifica community, including not only those who live here, but those who aspire to live here, and those who may have previously been displaced from Pacifica. For purposes of Housing Element community engagement, the “community” also includes housing and disability advocates, affordable and market rate housing developers, faith leaders, and persons of all income levels and ethnicities. Staff will leverage the extensive connections it established during the Home for All community conversations in 2019 as a starting point for contacting key community members who can spread the word about community engagement opportunities on the Housing Element.

The City has utilized various outlets for community engagement in the past. These have included in-person and online meetings, pop-ups at community events, presentations to 3 The Planning Commission public hearing indicates the shift to the decision making phase of the Housing Element update process.
4 Additionally, ABAG’s One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 3) program requires adoption of an HCD-certified Housing Element by December 31, 2023, in addition to other requirements, for funding eligibility. 16 Packet Pg. 327
Pacifica City Council 4
August 08, 2022
community groups, messaging via the City’s Connect with Pacifica e-newsletter and other email lists, social media posts, online surveys, print and social media advertising, and other methods to reach different segments of the community. The Housing Element community engagement process will utilize many of these methods to spread the word about engagement opportunities and/or to conduct the engagements themselves.

As a preliminary effort in preparing staff’s recommended community engagement plan, staff conducted a FlashVote survey of public engagement preferences for the Housing Element update from Wednesday, July 27 to Friday, July 29. The FlashVote survey system is a tool for customized, scientific polling to yield statistically valid results. The surveys last for 48 hours and are intended to provide rapid results to the City. The tool establishes a panel of Pacifica residents for future surveys, from which a random selection of a statistically relevant sample size is selected to participate in any given survey initiated by the City. The use of specific sample sizes and randomized sample selections provides cost-effective yet representative survey results for the broader Pacifica community. Use of randomized samples also minimizes potential opt-in bias that may skew results. Any Pacifica community member can register as a FlashVote panelist at https://flashvote.com to participate in future surveys.

Attachment 1 contains a summary of the FlashVote results on Housing Element community engagement preferences. The survey asked four questions related to engagement preferences and provided a fifth “open ended” response opportunity. The results in Attachment 1 are grouped by the “Panel members” (those pre-registered in FlashVote and randomly selected to participate in the survey) and “Other” (those who accessed the survey link but who were not part of the random sample selection). In general, respondents had the following characteristics:
• The greatest proportion of respondents had lived in Pacifica for more than 20 years • Preferred online surveys and other input tools as well as online meetings/workshops over other forms of engagement such as in-person meetings/workshops • Preferred use of a mobile phone to provide input during a meeting and follow-up comments after a meeting over other forms of input such as three-minute public comment periods and small breakout discussions
• Preferred weekday evenings over other meeting times
Staff prepared the following community engagement plan based on its past experience with community engagement and informed by inputs from the FlashVote survey. Table 2 summarizes key engagement activities during the Community Engagement phase (September-October 2022) of the Housing Element update as well as the public review and comment period on the draft Housing Element document (January-February 2023). It is not an exhaustive list of supplemental or supporting engagement activities particularly those intended to increase awareness of the Housing Element update process to various community members. However, the list is intended to be reflective of the diversity of community engagement options sought by the community as evidenced from the FlashVote poll.
16 Packet Pg. 328
Pacifica City Council 5
August 08, 2022
Activity Description
Initial outreach to build awareness
August 2022
Utilize all outlets (social media, email, phone calls, etc.) to inform community of upcoming engagement opportunities; seek sign-ups to Housing Element email list.

Knowledge Building
Aug/Sep 2022
Social media posts and emails with background information on Housing Element process and legal requirements; outline of upcoming engagement opportunities.

Online community meeting5
September 2022
Expand on background information on Housing Element process; identify key requirements of update (RHNA sites, housing constraints identification, etc.); explain importance of continued community participation.

Post-meeting comment period
September 2022
Opportunity for email comments by meeting attendees after the online community meeting.

Pop-up Outreach
September 2022
Setup at Farmers’ Market to have conversations about Housing Element update process, inform community of upcoming engagement opportunities; seek sign-ups to Housing Element email list.

Online survey
Sep/Oct 2022
Online survey and/or map inputs seeking identification of housing opportunity sites/preferred housing locations for siting RHNA; prepare community for in-person community meeting.

In-person community meeting6
October 2022
Focused engagement on identifying constraints to housing production and sites discussion for accommodating RHNA.

Post-meeting comment period
October 2022
Opportunity for email comments by meeting attendees after the inperson community meeting.

Publicize public review and
comment period
Jan-Feb 2023
Email and social media publicity for public review and comment period on draft Housing Element.

City Council Study Session
January 2023
Informational meeting and public comment opportunity during public review and comment period.

Table 2. Community Engagement Activities During Housing Element Update.

The community meetings identified above are the focal points of the community engagement process for the Housing Element update. Planning and conducting community meetings is resource intensive in terms of time and money. Staff’s recommendation to conduct two community engagement meetings is consistent with the efforts of several surrounding jurisdictions for their Housing Element updates. Also, as noted in the FlashVote survey results, meetings are not preferred by all community members as a method for providing their input.

Thus, a variety of engagement opportunities is the best approach in staff’s assessment to reach a broad range of the community.
5 In addition to recognizing the community’s desire for diverse engagement options, the online format of this community meeting would also be consistent with the City Council’s direction to conduct public meetings as teleconference meetings (e.g., Zoom) through September 2022 as a public health precaution due to ongoing high transmission rates of COVID-19.
6 The in-person format of this community meeting could shift to an online format if necessary as a public health precaution related to COVID-19.
16 Packet Pg. 329
Pacifica City Council 6
August 08, 2022
While acknowledging the importance of community engagement, it is also important to recognize the limits of the City’s discretion to incorporate public input into the Housing Element update. Ultimately, the City must comply with the requirements of state law including the identification of sufficient sites to accommodate the RHNA, and must also satisfy HCD staff who will review and certify the City’s Housing Element. The City is also confronting a challenging timeline to adopt the Housing Element update, meaning there must be a reasonable time limit for community engagement and a clear transition point into the recommendation and decisionmaking process by the Planning Commission and City Council, respectively.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council could direct additional types of community engagement. The City Council could also add one additional community meeting if determined necessary to achieve the community engagement objectives for the Housing Element update. However, adding a third community meeting beyond the two meetings recommended could present potential timeline challenges.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

This item is consistent with the following Council-adopted goals and Work Plan initiatives:

Goals
● “An Engaged Community” includes creating opportunities to expand public participation, increase communication, and build community post-COVID. ● “A Healthy and Compassionate Community” includes addressing affordable housing and mental health services, exploring and implementing strategies that relate to homelessness, and supporting community services for all ages.

Work Plan
● Item 10: Prepare an update to the Housing Element of the General Plan.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Fiscal Year 2022-2023 budget allocated $103,449 for the Housing Element update process.

The allocated funds include $50,000 from the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) and $33,449 from the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grant programs. Allocated funds also include $20,000 for community engagement efforts for the Housing Element update. A third, optional community meeting is estimated to cost at least $5,000 although costs could be greater depending on the meeting design and intent. The cost for this optional community meeting is not currently included in the allocated budget for the Housing Element update.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - FlashVote Survey Results (Engagement Preferences) (PDF) 16 Packet Pg. 330
8/2/22, 4:17 PM Housing Feedback - Survey results - Pacifica, CA - FlashVote 1/8
Survey Results: Housing Feedback
 Survey Info - This survey was sent on behalf of the City of Pacifica to the FlashVote community for Pacifica, CA.

These FlashVote results are shared with local officials 439
Total Participants
334 of 681 initially invited (49%)
105 others
Margin of error: ± 5%
Applied Filter:

Member Panel
Started:

Jul 27, 2022 2:10pm PDT
Ended:

Jul 29, 2022 2:16pm PDT
Target Participants:

All Pacifica
Q1 The City of Pacifica is updating the “Housing Element” of the General Plan which will guide new and existing housing for all income levels over the next eight years (2023-2031). Your input will help identify challenges and strategies related to housing production and preservation.

About how long have you lived in Pacifica?
(438 responses by invited)
Q2 How would you prefer to participate and provide input for the Pacifica Housing Element update? (You can choose up to THREE)
Response Time (hours)
1 9
17 25
33 41
49 0
100
200
Panel members
Other
0% 20% 40% 60%
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 20 years
More than 20 years
Don’t live in Pacifica
Not Sure

8.7%

13.8%

21.9%

54.7%

0.9%

0.0%

20.0%

16.2%

15.2%

46.7%

1.9%

0.0%
Percent
Options
Panel
members
(333)
Other
(105)
0 to 5 years 8.7%
(29)

20.0%
(21)
6 to 10 years 13.8%
(46)

16.2%
(17)
11 to 20 years 21.9%
(73)

15.2%
(16)
More than 20 years 54.7%
(182)

46.7%
(49)
Don’t live in Pacifica 0.9%
(3)

1.9%
(2)
Not Sure 0.0%
(0)

0.0%
(0)

16.a
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment 1 - FlashVote Survey Results (Engagement Preferences) (5073 : Housing Element Update Community Engagement 8/2/22, 4:17 PM Housing Feedback - Survey results - Pacifica, CA - FlashVote 2/8
(396 responses by invited)
Panel members
Other
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
In-person meetings/workshops
Online meetings/workshops (e.g.,
Zoom)
Receive regular email updates from...

Online surveys and other input tools...

Provide written comments by email
or...

Not that interested in participating
Other:

16.6%

42.2%

65.9%

77.3%

36.4%

3.9%

1.0%

22.7%

52.3%

48.9%

70.5%

35.2%

3.4%

3.4%
Percent
interest
realize
participate
mail
comment
except
health
aspects
still
need
considered pacificans
line
option
city
council
administration
demonstrated
little
guided
citizen
input
quite
lot
free
time
survey actually
want
public
opt
rec
Options
Panel
members
(308)
Other
(88)
In-person meetings/workshops 16.6%
(51)

22.7%
(20)
Online meetings/workshops (e.g., Zoom) 42.2%
(130)

52.3%
(46)
Receive regular email updates from the City 65.9%
(203)

48.9%
(43)
Online surveys and other input tools (e.g., mapping tools) 77.3% (238)

70.5%
(62)
Provide written comments by email or on a website during a comment period 36.4% (112)

35.2%
(31)
Not that interested in participating 3.9%
(12)

3.4%
(3)
Other: 1.0%
(3)

3.4%
(3)

16.a
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment 1 - FlashVote Survey Results (Engagement Preferences) (5073 : Housing Element Update Community Engagement 8/2/22, 4:17 PM Housing Feedback - Survey results - Pacifica, CA - FlashVote 3/8
All except "not that interested in participating". Health aspects still need to be considered I realize many Pacificans cannot participate on line. Mail may be an option.

The City Council/administration have demonstrated little interest in being guided by citizen input Am quite interested but don't have a lot of free time....

Mail survey
Realizing you actually don’t want public comment I will opt get comments on rec Q3 Which of the following ways are you MOST likely to provide your input during a meeting? (You can choose up to THREE)
(392 responses by invited)
Panel members
Other
0% 20% 40% 60%
Speak during a three-minute public...

Small-group breakout discussions
Write my comments on an index card
or...

Use my mobile phone to respond to...

Provide follow-up comments by
email...

Not likely to attend any meetings on...

Other:

23.1%

26.4%

20.2%

58.3%

54.4%

20.5%

1.0%

23.5%

31.8%

21.2%

61.2%

55.3%

7.1%

3.5%
Percent
Options
Panel
members
(307)
Other
(85)
Speak during a three-minute public comment period 23.1% (71)

23.5%
(20)
Small-group breakout discussions 26.4%
(81)

31.8%
(27)
Write my comments on an index card or Post-It note 20.2% (62)

21.2%
(18)
Use my mobile phone to respond to live survey questions 58.3% (179)

61.2%
(52)
Provide follow-up comments by email within 24 hours after a meeting 54.4% (167)

55.3%
(47)
Not likely to attend any meetings on the Housing Element update 20.5% (63)

7.1%
(6)
Other: 1.0%
(3)

3.5%
(3)

16.a
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment 1 - FlashVote Survey Results (Engagement Preferences) (5073 : Housing Element Update Community Engagement 8/2/22, 4:17 PM Housing Feedback - Survey results - Pacifica, CA - FlashVote 4/8
Break outs don’t work when one person hogs the discussion I prefer to identify areas of concerns. 3 minutes is insufficient. small group summary insufficient City of Pacifica seems unwilling to respond to citizen input, so why bother? Submit survey by mail
Funny how SAMCAR tries to pretend they listen to public input 3 minutes at meetings via zoom
Q4 What days and times would be best for you to attend an in-person or online meeting/workshop? (Choose all that apply)
(383 responses by invited)
minutes
input break
outs work
person
hogs discussionprefer
identify
areas
concerns
insufficient
small
group
summary
city
pacifica
seems
unwilling
respond
citizen
bother
submit
survey
mail
funny samcar
tries
pretend
listen
public meetings
via
zoom
Options
Panel
members
(301)
Other
(82)
Weekday mornings 15.9%
(48)

14.6%
(12)
Weekday afternoons 25.2%
(76)

13.4%
(11)
Weekday evenings 49.8%
(150)

63.4%
(52)
Weekend mornings 11.6%
(35)

23.2%
(19)
Weekend afternoons 15.9%
(48)

18.3%
(15)
Weekend evenings 11.0%
(33)

18.3%
(15)
Not that interested in attending a meeting/workshop 27.2% (82)

15.9%
(13)
Other: 1.0%
(3)

2.4%
(2)

16.a
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment 1 - FlashVote Survey Results (Engagement Preferences) (5073 : Housing Element Update Community Engagement 8/2/22, 4:17 PM Housing Feedback - Survey results - Pacifica, CA - FlashVote 5/8
Hold at MANY DIFFERENT times to provide as much opportunity as possible.

My time is limited due to a family member’s health but I could participate in some in person meetin Citizen viewpoint is not valued by those in power.

Mail survey only
none
Q5 Any other comments or suggestions about how to make it convenient and easy for you to give your input to the City?
(69 responses by invited)
more FlashVote
All meetings should be hybrid (both on-site and online).

Have an option to give live feedback (on zoom meeting) and feedback in our own time (not dependent on meeting attendance) this works well.

The people that show up at meetings are very likely going to be a poor sample to represent most people in the city. People coming home from long days at work, dealing with dinner, kids' homework, etc.; people who are turned off by gatherings of all humanity experssing their political opinions, etc.... in other words, most "normal" people won't go. On housing for example, the reality is there is probably 100 to 1 people in the city that want the Panel members
Other
0% 20% 40% 60%
Weekday mornings
Weekday afternoons
Weekday evenings
Weekend mornings
Weekend afternoons
Weekend evenings
Not that interested in attending a...

Other:

15.9%

25.2%

49.8%

11.6%

15.9%

11.0%

27.2%

1.0%

14.6%

13.4%

63.4%

23.2%

18.3%

15.9%

2.4%
Percent
house
meeting
citysurvey
provide
online people
work
want input
time
like email
comment
option
public thank
participate
access
without
pacifica
person
way
need
neighborhood
important
issue
communication plans
engage
send
votes
process
available facebook
address
best
well
opinions
go
take
tax
better
element
developers
past specific
please
clear
easy

16.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment 1 - FlashVote Survey Results (Engagement Preferences) (5073 : Housing Element Update Community Engagement 8/2/22, 4:17 PM Housing Feedback - Survey results - Pacifica, CA - FlashVote 6/8
RVs gone, the laws that tell us we need to take tax dollars from schools, etc. to provide handouts repealed, etc.; however, in the meetings you'll see the 1, and all of his or her friends who have nothing better to do but fight causes.

Housing Element is another bad law by legislators, developers, and unions without the public's input. Pacifica 's infrastructure is already overloaded and poorly maintained. Local residential streets are being forced to take on more and more vehicular traffic. Proposed developments will tax already overtaxed streets, sewers, water, and other utilities and there is no more excess utilities without negatively impacting existing homeowners and renters! NO
make meetings short
Past surveys have seemed contrived to push for specific pre-determined outcomes. Need opportunity to provide indepth and detailed ideas; this isn't a simple "check the box" exercise. Don't use obvious phrases such as "do you support housing". Focus on AFFORDABLE housing. Need to be able to adequately present and receive input about safety (fire, landslide, coastal erosion/sea level rise); environmental (ESHA, not encroaching on wildlife areas, hillside preservation, protecting coastal viewsheds, etc.); neighborhood chacater; and traffic/transportation concerns.

Thank you for the survey.

Please be clear with the public early and often, in easy to understand language/bullet points, about what's important in the housing element and why they should care. Thanks!
Just want to know written comments are taken seriously. Parking has become a major neighborhood issue with multiple car households.

Not at this point in time.

Just email everyone who lives here and respond to email. We all work and group meetings are not productive.

Communication, Communication, Communication!!! The City as well as City Council is horrible oin informing it's residents of changes that directly impact them (like housing RV's in it's neighborhoods vs. in a central location to house and monitor them/provide services.) Also, get out of the dark ages posting in a newspaper or posting to the city website just doesn't cut it.

Set up a phone number people can call to leave a recorded message regarding their comments.

Thanks you for being as inclusive as possible.

I am engaged and am paying attention and want to participate, and I appreciate this survey. I would also like to get more information on how the city plans to engage with people who are not online and who may not have access to technology. I would hope that a mailer would be sent to all residents with clear explanations of the purpose of the housing element and the various ways that input will be sought. I also understand that this cycle of the housing element update requires outreach to the disabled, people of color, tenants and others groups that are not often represented in city meetings and that are more difficult to engage because of other life burdens they face, and I'd like to hear how the city plans to pursue this required engagement so we can work together to hear from the most voices possible.

Send us flash votes like this is wonderful and you will get the most diverse responses. In person meetings will only be attended by people who are against any form of housing or those that have very strong feelings about any other particular things involving the whole entire City. I’ve been to quite a few and that’s exactly how it works, everyone there has the same agenda and wants the same things. There is no diversity in the crowd.

City should provide the process of follow-up on the comments and questions. How will the City respond? Is the intention on being a dialogue? Mail a survey - this could be an option for many who have computer access challenges, mobility difficulties, or do not want to participate in person due to COVID.

Provide assurances that online communications, including votes by text messages, are recorded and available for audit.

Do not have flash surveys. Especially during summer vacation time .think about better access / Equity . Don’t build housing in Pacifica. No one wants to commute from Pacifica. The locals don’t want more housing , density and congestion but you will just ignore that feedback won’t you .

In exchange for our time and sincere evaluation of the issues at hand, we have the right to expect clear and detailed explanations of the reasoning applied by the City for their final decision. Without that happening, please don’t waste our time.

It would be great if the proposal(s) are presented in an email with attached voting options available. That way I can do it without having to adjust my schedule.

Hate to say it but.. Facebook comments
Send me a survey, I have crippling social anxiety that prevents me from joining in on meetings None
The key areas that have been lacking in the past are housing for the low, very low and extremely low income housing. Below market rate housing seems to be the only one that is ever addressed.

I would also like to read updates in the Pacifica Tribune that include an email address where I can send comments.

Please ensure there is an online or computer-based option available. In-person participation skews participation towards retirees. Those invested in Pacifica's future should have an accessible option for participation.

This is good.
survey
These flash votes work nicely
I would like a public assurance by the mayor and the remainder of the council that if a substantial number of citizens responding to an issue are in favor of one solution, that the city council or planning commission doesn't immediately decide in favor of the opposite position. I am very tired of

16.a
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment 1 - FlashVote Survey Results (Engagement Preferences) (5073 : Housing Element Update Community Engagement 8/2/22, 4:17 PM Housing Feedback - Survey results - Pacifica, CA - FlashVote 7/8
'sham' meetings, where citizens are asked for opinions but whatever they say is immediately discounted. Insufficient time is allowed for reading, digestion, and suggestions about dense written plans, when administration has an agenda they want to say has been approved.

Vía text
Thanks for this surgery!
It would be great to be able to access old meeting minutes/recordings and to find specific sections that are of interest. I don't know if there is money available for organizing all the information and making it easy to find and access, but that would be a really great way to get up to speed if your schedule doesn't allow real time participation....

Online!!!
no
Streamline and speed up the process for housing construction permits/plans.

Better social media outreach via Facebook
Not all people have access to online or the skills needed (elderly) to do in person or online . We should consider the opinions of the community members who have more experience and include their knowledge and input by doing a mail in .

The online survey and email comments options on the first question could easily be combined.

I hope the city sends mailers to citizens. I hope the city provides multiple avenues for input and education.

I like the Flashvote surveys. Engagement is important. I do feel that communication from the city is lacking.

N/A
Zoom - emails - surveys -
Appreciate the effort to get more people involved in the process Review periods should be proportional to the volume of material, degree of organization, ease or difficulty.

Use homeowners association
In general it would be good to provide easy ways to comment without having to attend meetings online surveys are best for me
I understand your motivation to pretend to take in public input but pretending to put all that housing in the coastal zone without working with the CCC is a joke;trying to vilify CCC is such a simpleton ploy Appreciate this process! Very citizen centered governance 😍 The main issue l have when viewing other high density housing is that the developers under provide on-sure parking and therefore additional vehicles spill over into existing neighborhoods.
email or survey is the best!
Online input and participation remains the best and most flexible option for anyone with work or family commitments, who can’t afford to travel to and spend time at in person meetings.

Nope
Looking forward to participating
Suggestion box physical and/or on-line
Pacifica population count has remained essentially unchanged for about 50 years. The NIMBYS and BANANAS are well entrenched in city politics.

Adding more desperately needed housing is such a long shot. I’ll pass on getting involved in this situation.

Publish specific details in the newsletter. Seniors and handicapped people can’t easily get to council mtgs.

It’s important to publicize this widely — next door? Facebook? Don’t build on dangerous gear hillsides. New housing closer to public transportation. Tax people who have vacant homes…tons of those!! No
Email survey would be best.

Thank you for this communication.

It was really nice was dinner was provided at a past meeting. Thank you.

Constructive forums on Nextdoor or Facebook might provide other ways to gather input. More importantly, it would be ideal for the city to summarize the input and track how its being addressed. No point in asking Pacificans for input if we can't track how the city is going to address them.

Additional survey reports

16.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment 1 - FlashVote Survey Results (Engagement Preferences) (5073 : Housing Element Update Community Engagement 8/2/22, 4:17 PM Housing Feedback - Survey results - Pacifica, CA - FlashVote 8/8
(c) Copyright 2013-2022 Governance Sciences Group, Inc., Patent pending

16.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment 1 - FlashVote Survey Results (Engagement Preferences) (5073 : Housing Element Update Community Engagement

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Designation of Voting Delegate for League of California Cities Annual Conference RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Designate a voting delegate and alternate(s) who will attend the 2022 League of California Cities (Cal Cities) Annual Business Meeting on Friday, September 9, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Pacifica is a member of the League of California Cities (Cal Cities), an association based in Sacramento that represents the interests of California’s cities to the state legislature and provides cities with information on federal and state legislative and administrative affairs. The League maintains a staff that assists cities in solving problems including reference and research services, publications, conferences, and seminars.

This year's League of California Cities Annual Conference is being held in person at the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, CA from September 7 - 9, 2022. The attached June 1, 2022 correspondence regarding the Cal Cities 2022 Annual Conference indicates that Council action must still be taken to designate a voting delegate and may appoint up to two alternates.

The Annual Business Meeting will be held on Friday, September 24, 2021. The Annual Business Meeting (during the General Assembly) for consideration of resolutions is scheduled to be held at 11:30 am on Friday, September 9, 2022. At this meeting the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. Any Council member attending is eligible to be a delegate. Designating the voting delegate and alternate(s) must be done by City Council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of Mayor or City Manager alone. City Council action is advised by August 31, 2022.

Following the Council's deliberation regarding the selection of a voting delegate and alternate, any Council member may make a motion to designate by name the voting delegate and one alternate who will be attending the League of California Cities Annual Conference business meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:
17 Packet Pg. 339
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: 2022 League of CA Cities Annual Conference Voting Procedures and Delegate/Alternate Form (PDF)
17 Packet Pg. 340
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: June 1, 2022
TO: City Managers and City Clerks
RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference & Expo – September 7-9, 2022 Cal Cities 2022 Annual Conference & Expo is scheduled for September 7-9, 2022 in Long Beach. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (during General Assembly) on Friday, September 9. At this meeting, Cal Cities membership considers and acts on resolutions that establish Cal Cities policy.

In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting delegate. Your city may also appoint up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity.

Please complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to Cal Cities office no later than Friday, September 2. This will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference. • Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council.

When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken, or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone. • Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration will open by June 1 on the Cal Cities website. In order to cast a vote, at least one voter must be present at the Business Meeting and in possession of the voting delegate card. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the Voting Delegate Desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during the Business Meeting.

Council Action Advised by August 31, 2021

17.a
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment A: 2022 League of CA Cities Annual Conference Voting Procedures and Delegate/Alternate Form (5074 : Designation • Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official. • Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, they must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk and obtain the special sticker on their badges.

The Voting Delegate Desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, September 7, 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.; Thursday, September 8, 7:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.; and Friday, September 9, 7:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. The Voting Delegate Desk will also be open at the Business Meeting on Friday, but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to Cal Cities office by Friday, September 2. If you have questions, please call Darla Yacub at (916) 658-8254.

Attachments:
• Annual Conference Voting Procedures
• Voting Delegate/Alternate Form

17.a
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment A: 2022 League of CA Cities Annual Conference Voting Procedures and Delegate/Alternate Form (5074 : Designation 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org Annual Conference Voting Procedures

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the Business Meeting.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate or alternate.

6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting.

17.a
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment A: 2022 League of CA Cities Annual Conference Voting Procedures and Delegate/Alternate Form (5074 : Designation CITY:________________________________________
2022 ANNUAL CONFERENCE

VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM
Please complete this form and return it to Cal Cities office by Friday, September 2, 2022. Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates.

To vote at the Annual Business Meeting (General Assembly), voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council.

Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business Meeting. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be obtained only at the Voting Delegate Desk.

1. VOTING DELEGATE
Name:

Title:

2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE Name: Name:

Title: Title:

ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES OR ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate(s).

Name: ____________________________________ Email_________________________________ Mayor or City Clerk_________________________ Date____________ Phone________________ (circle one) (signature) Please complete and return by Friday, September 2, 2022 to:

Darla Yacub, Assistant to the Administrative Services Director E-mail: [email protected]; Phone: (916) 658-8254

17.a
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment A: 2022 League of CA Cities Annual Conference Voting Procedures and Delegate/Alternate Form (5074 : Designation

Pacifica City CouncilAugust 8, 2022

Pacifica City Council
August 8, 2022