Agenda — Pacifica City Council, September 26, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86083392833
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 860 8339 2833
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Comcast Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 September 26, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
September 26, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
CORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID-19) NOTICE

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

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

THIS TELECONFERENCED MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT

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

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

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

To Observe the Meeting:
• To access the meeting by computer / smartphone, go to:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86083392833
• To dial-in via phone:

Dial: 1-669-900-6833 And enter Webinar ID: 860 8339 2833 To Participate in the Meeting by Providing Public Comment:
• During the Meeting: Live verbal public comments may be made by members of the public joining the meeting via Zoom. Zoom access information is provided above. Use the “raise hand” feature (for those joining by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”) during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address. The City Clerk will call on people to speak by name provided or last 4 digits of phone number for dial-in attendees.

Please clearly state your full name for the record at the start of your public comment. • Before the Meeting: Written public comments for the record may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date by email to: [email protected] and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public City Council Regular Meeting 2 September 26, 2022
comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Oral Communications” in the Subject Line for items not on the agenda
• Include the submitter’s full name
Written public comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date will be provided in their entirety to the City Council prior to the meeting and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments will be posted to the City’s website for review prior to the meeting.

Alternative Ways to Watch the Meeting:

The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is via the zoom link or phone number listed above, however, there are alternative ways to watch the meeting:
• Watch on TV on local cable channel 26
• Watch a Live Stream of the meeting by following
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream or www.pacificcoast.tv (LIVE STREAM) Note: The methods of observing the meeting or providing public comments may be altered or the meeting may be cancelled, if needed. You may check on the status of the meeting by visiting the City’s website at www.cityofpacifica.org for any updates or changes, should they occur.
5:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION-Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: Patricia Lee v. City of Pacifica et al, Superior Court of State of California – County of San Mateo, Case. No. 21-CIV03524 5:30 PM - OPEN STUDY SESSION
Study Session #2 regarding the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan PROPOSED ACTION: Receive an informational presentation regarding the status of the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan following the Study Session held on July 11, 2022 and provide comments and direction to City Staff.
7:00 PM - OPEN REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities City Council Regular Meeting 3 September 26, 2022
as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck
Closed Session Report

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Pius Garcia
B. Proclamation - Jane Northrop

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

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

1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 8/01/22 through 8/15/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 8/01/22 through 8/15/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on August 22, 2022 and the City Council Special Meeting held on August 31, 2022.

3. Adopt Resolution Amending the City's Conflict of Interest Code to Revise the List of Designated Employees
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution amending the City of Pacifica Conflict of Interest Code to revise the list of Designated Employees and repealing Resolution No. 50-2020.

4. Report on July 4, 2022 Activities
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the staff report on July 4th 2022 activities.

5. Resolution approving First Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for consult services in connection with grant funding between the City of Pacifica and the firm California Consulting.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and California Consulting to extend the Agreement for one year at an additional cost of $60,000; and authorize the City Manager to exercise another optional two-year City Council Regular Meeting 4 September 26, 2022
extension.

6. First Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for Professional Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, by increasing the contract amount by $132,000 with a total not to exceed amount of $792,000 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.

7. Third Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for On-Call Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Good City Company PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve the Third Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Good City Company, by increasing the contract amount by $100,000 with a total not to exceed amount of $320,000 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.

8. Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction and Additional Engineering Services During Construction
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for the Anza Pump Station Repair - Gas Service Line Construction and Additional Engineering Services During Construction:

A. Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Construction Services Agreement with Casey Construction, Inc. (Attachment “A”) in an amount not to exceed $185,100 and authorize a budget authority in an amount not to exceed $222,120 which includes a contingency in an amount not to exceed $37,020 or twenty percent (20%) of the Construction Services Agreement amount;
B. Authorize the City Manager to approve and execute Task Order No. 3 (Attachment “B”) with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc. for Additional Engineering Services During Construction (ESDC) in the amount not to exceed $30,000 and authorize a budget authority in an amount not to exceed $34,500 which includes a contingency in an amount not to exceed $4,500 or fifteen percent (15%) of the proposed fee; and
C. Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the listed contingency amounts.

9. Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services related to the FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing Project.

PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services in the amount of $147,000.00 in connection to the FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing Project (Attachment 1); approve budget authority in the amount of $161,700.00 from the Street Construction Fund (Fund 9); and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related with the project.

City Council Regular Meeting 5 September 26, 2022

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

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

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS

10. Consideration of 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). (Continued from 8/8/22).

PROPOSED 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.

11. Introduction of an Ordinance to enact a new Article 52 “Outdoor Commercial Permits” and to amend Section 9-4.2308 “Commercial and Industrial Uses Outside Structures” of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to conduct commercial activity outside of an enclosed structure (Text Amendment TA-122-22, File No. 2022-017) and finding the Text Amendment Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Text Amendment by a Vote of 6-0 (with one absence) on September 6, 2022.

PROPOSED ACTION:
• Move to waive the first reading and introduce by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to Enact a New Article 52 ‘Outdoor Commercial Permits’ and to Amend Section 9-4.2308 ‘Commercial and Industrial Uses Outside Structures’ of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Create a Process for Commercial City Council Regular Meeting 6 September 26, 2022
Businesses to Conduct Commercial Activity Outside of an Enclosed Structure and Finding the Text Amendment Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Text Amendment TA-122-22, File No. 2022-017),” including the modification to insert “bars” as an eligible commercial use as listed in sec. 9-4.5204(b) and refer the modified ordinance to Planning Commission for report and recommendation in accordance with Section 9-4.3507.
• Provide feedback to staff on the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines as recommended by the Planning Commission.
• Provide feedback to staff on the proposal to establish a deposit cap for processing an Outdoor Commercial Permit.

CONSIDERATION

12. Update on Returning to In-Person City Council and City Committee / Commission Meetings
PROPOSED ACTION: Hear an update about the status of the pandemic and confirm return to in-person City Council and Commission/Committee meetings beginning October 10, 2022.

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

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

HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:

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

View on the Internet:

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

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

Agendas are available at the City Council meeting
City Council Regular Meeting 7 September 26, 2022

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

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

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/26/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Study Session #2 regarding the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive an informational presentation regarding the status of the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan following the Study Session held on July 11, 2022 and provide comments and direction to City Staff.

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:

In 2012, the City hired Carollo Engineers to develop a Storm Drainage Master Plan that modeled the City’s existing storm drainage system. The 2012 plan identified several key infrastructure improvement projects including new storm drain lines on Linda Mar Boulevard, new storm drain lines on Avalon Drive and Edgemar Avenue, and a new storm drain pump station located in the vicinity of Clarendon Road and Lakeside Avenue, adjacent to the Sharp Park Golf Course. Although City staff sought funding for these projects, no funding was identified, and the projects were not constructed.

A Study Session with Council was held on July 11, 2022 regarding the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan (2022 SDMP). This is also being developed by Carollo Engineers and significant outreach to the community was conducted through social media to allow for input from the public. One of the purposes of the Study Session was to update Council on the progress of the 2022 Storm SDMP. Other objectives for the Study Session were to obtain the Council’s comments to help finalize the 2022 SDMP. Topics that were discussed at the July 11, 2022 Study Session included flow monitoring, hydraulic modeling, public outreach efforts, design storms, and potential impacts from climate change.

Below are follow-up topics of interest that were raised by City Council during that Study Session, along with staff corresponding responses:

Packet Pg. 8
Pacifica City Council 2
September 26, 2022

1.) 100-Year Storm Design:

Council requested that the SDMP discuss the 100-year design storm. The 100-year storm is also called a 1%/year chance storm event. The SDMP report will identify the volume of rain associated with the 100-year event per Council request (including the existing 100-year event and the future event with climate change impacts). As is the case for most municipalities, the City’s storm drainage system is not designed to accommodate a 100-year design storm and developing system improvements to accommodate that level of storm would be cost prohibitive, particularly considering the City’s current availability of funding for storm drainage projects. Additionally, waiting to secure this high level of funding to build such a system likely would delay drainage improvements for years. The 2022 SDMP designs improvements for 50- year storm events as this is considered a robust design and best practice.

Additionally, flows related to projected climate change have been included in the design calculations, providing an added factor of safety. This allows for a good balance in the design of cost versus risk.

2.) Low Impact Development (LID):

LID measures are used to reduce runoff and mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology. They retain and treat stormwater runoff using infiltration, evapotranspiration, rainwater harvesting/use or biotreatment. One such example is a bioretention basin located on Crespi Drive, adjacent to Cabrillo School. Stormwater runoff flows into the bioretention basin so that any debris from the street can settle out of the stormwater and be treated by the retention basin. Examples of LID measures will be provided during the staff presentation during the Study Session.

3.) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Data Volumes:

The WWTP flow average between wet weather months and dry weather months is

0.84 MGD (Million gallons per day). The implementation of a sewer system infiltration and inflow (I/I) reduction program on the City’s sewer system, as is proposed in the current Wastewater Capital Improvement Program, will likely reduce the amount of I/I that runs through the system and is treated at the plant. The ultimate success of I/I reduction programs varies depending on a number of factors, including the sources of I/I, and nature and extent of I/I mitigation performed. Reducing I/I into the WWTP would provide a significant benefit; however, it is not possible to accurately quantify the impact this would have on the City’s storm drainage system. One of the reasons related to this is the unknown nature of where blocked I/I will flow. It may not necessarily flow to the storm drain system and may instead flow to waterways, continue as groundwater, or become surface drainage. The City continues to assess the issue of I/I in the sewer system and will also assess impacts of I/I repairs on the City’s storm drain system.

Existing and Future System Analysis and Recommendations:

A temporary flow monitoring program was initiated to capture wet weather stormwater runoffs during the month of December 2021 for the SDMP. With the flow rate data captured, a hydraulic/hydrologic model was developed to understand the storm drain system’s existing capacities such as allowable flood depths and to identify deficiencies. The hydraulic models were run with existing 10-year, 24-hour events and 50-year, 24-hour events which included contributions from climate change.

The 2022 SDMP was developed using 10- and 50-year storm events and allowable flood depths were evaluated for each design storm (including future increases in the 10- and 50-year design storms due to climate change). The hydraulic models for 10-year, 24-hour events and for 50- year, 24-hour events were analyzed, and the recommended improvements were classified into Packet Pg. 9
Pacifica City Council 3
September 26, 2022
three types:
• Category 1 Improvements - These projects are needed to mitigate severe flooding concerns under the 10-year and 50-year design storms. Based on the risk of severe flooding that may cause property damage, these are identified as the highest priority storm drain projects and include the Lower Linda Mar, Monterey Road, and Sharp Park Improvements.
• Category 2 Improvements - These projects are needed to address ongoing drainage issues that are considered less severe than the Category 1 improvements (i.e., areas where there is a lower potential for property damage compared to the Category 1 improvements). The project is comprised of Edgemar Avenue Improvements. • Category 3 Improvements - Category 3 includes projects to address model simulated flooding under the 50-year design storm that have not historically been observed by City staff, nuisance drainage as well as other projects to extend storm drain infrastructure to unserved areas. Although important, delay in constructing these projects is not anticipated to cause near-term property damage. These projects could be implemented during larger utility upgrade or development projects. These projects include Madeira Drive, Rockaway Beach Avenue, and Lauren Avenue.

Preliminary Planning Level Costs:

Preliminary construction costs for the proposed improvements shown in the 2022 SDMP were developed in conjunction with Freyer & Laureta, an engineering firm specializing in storm drain improvement costing. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) defines an Order of Magnitude Estimate for master plan studies as an approximate estimate made without detailed engineering data. These are considered high-level estimates and a final detailed project design would be necessary for more accurate costing. Higher contingencies are included as part of the estimate to account for this.

These high-level project cost estimates are calculated based on a variety of elements, such as the project location, size, length, land acquisition needs, and other factors. As noted above, allowances for project contingencies (consistent with an “Order of Magnitude” type estimate) are also included in the project costs prepared as a part of this study for better cost accuracy. The proposed system improvements, capacity upgrades, and long-term maintenance plan set the foundation for the City’s storm drainage system CIP. The cost estimates presented in this study are developed from bid tabulations, cost curves, information obtained from previous studies, and Carollo Engineers experience on other projects. The costs are based on an Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI).

Category 1 Improvement Construction Costs: - As noted, these projects are needed to mitigate severe flooding concerns under the 10-year and 50-year design storms. These are the highest priority projects due to the higher risk of flooding and include:
• Lower Linda Mar Boulevard – Installation of new 30” and 36” storm drain lines on Linda Mar Boulevard and installation of larger catch basins in Arguello Boulevard and Anza Drive - approximate project cost $5,200,000.
• Monterey Road – Installation of new storm drain lines and catch basins on Monterey Road. Modification may include a new storm drain line within Big Inch Creek - approximate project cost $6,900,000.
• Sharp Park – Construction of a new storm drainage pump station, storm drain lines to pump station, force main, and new outfall to the Pacific Ocean - approximate Packet Pg. 10
Pacifica City Council 4
September 26, 2022
project cost $6,000,000.

Total Category 1 Project Costs: $18,100,000
Category 2 Improvements - These projects are needed to address ongoing drainage issues that are considered less severe than the Category 1 improvements would experience (i.e., areas where there is a lower potential for property damage compared to the Category 1 improvements). These projects include:
• Edgemar Avenue – Upsize existing storm drain line and adding new storm drain lines on Manor Drive, Edgemar Avenue and Avalon Drive - approximate project cost $5,000,000
Total Category 2 Project Costs: $5,000,000
Category 3 Improvements - Category 3 includes projects to address model simulated flooding under the 50-year design storm that have not historically been observed by City staff, nuisance drainage as well as other projects to extend storm drain infrastructure to unserved areas. These projects include:
• Maderia Drive – Upsize existing storm drain line from 21” to 30” for capacity - approximate project cost $500,000
• Lauren Avenue – Install new 15” storm drain line on Lauren Avenue - approximate project cost $1,200,000
• Rockaway Beach Avenue – Install new 15” storm line on Rockaway Beach Avenue and outfall to creek - approximate project cost $700,000 Total Category 3 Project Costs: $2,400,000
Other steps that will be taken to complete the 2022 SDMP will include identifying funding options, such as grants or low interest loans, to ensure that projects can transition to the construction phase; and complete the final 2022 SDMP Report, tentatively scheduled for completion in November 2022.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There are no alternative actions at this time.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan 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 2022 Stormwater Drainage Master Plan will recommend areas in the City for improving stormwater drainage infrastructure network while taking into account the effects of sea level rise.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact as a direct result of this study session. Council approval of the Final 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan would be presented at a later date for consideration.

Packet Pg. 11
Pacifica City Council 5
September 26, 2022
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Packet Pg. 12

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/26/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for Dated 8/01/22 through 8/15/22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 8/01/22 through 8/15/22.

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 738-7402
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Staff has submitted the following disbursements for Council approval:
• Disbursements dated 8/01/22 through 8/15/22 in the amount of $1,628,903.85 as written on regular checks numbered 61230-61300, 61317-61320 & 61343-61402 (Attachment 1). These disbursements are for Fiscal Year 2021-2022. • Disbursements dated 8/01/22 through 8/15/22 in the amount of $1,752,249.70 as written on regular checks numbered 61301-61302, 61321-61342 & 61403-61510 (Attachment 2). These disbursements are for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT:

These disbursements are within budgeted appropriations.

ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 61230-6130, 61317-61320 & 61343-61402-8-1 to 8-15-22 (PDF) FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61301-61302, 61321-61342 & 61403-61510-8-1 to 8-15-22 (PDF)
1 Packet Pg. 13
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:15 Page: 1

REPORT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
ORGANIZATION : 001
BANK : 1
PRINT BY : CHECK #
SORT OPTION : CHECK #
PRINT DETAILS : N
ORG NAME FOR EXTRACT FILE : PACIFICA
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:15 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61230 - 61300
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61230 $78.00 08/01/22 05585 0 AMY SKEETERS-BEHRENS S OUTSTANDING 1 61231 $78.00 08/01/22 05586 0 ANDREW CHUNG S OUTSTANDING 1 61232 $78.00 08/01/22 05587 0 BARRY OBRIEN S OUTSTANDING 1 61233 $78.00 08/01/22 05588 0 BASECAMP RV S OUTSTANDING 1 61234 $78.00 08/01/22 05589 0 BRANDON SPRAGUE S OUTSTANDING 1 61235 $78.00 08/01/22 05590 0 BURTON LEE BIRCH, SR. S OUTSTANDING 1 61236 $156.00 08/01/22 05592 0 BYRON SAUL ALVARADO S OUTSTANDING 1 61237 $78.00 08/01/22 05593 0 CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA S OUTSTANDING 1 61238 $120.00 08/01/22 05594 0 CARLY WIEDMANN S OUTSTANDING 1 61239 $78.00 08/01/22 05595 0 CATREENA LUSK S OUTSTANDING 1 61240 $78.00 08/01/22 05596 0 CHAD PETERS S OUTSTANDING 1 61241 $78.00 08/01/22 05597 0 CHANDARA TANG S OUTSTANDING 1 61242 $156.00 08/01/22 05599 0 CHASE EDGINGTION S OUTSTANDING 1 61243 $120.00 08/01/22 05600 0 CHRIS ANTHONY COPELAND S OUTSTANDING 1 61244 $156.00 08/01/22 05601 0 CHRISTINA HAMILTON S OUTSTANDING 1 61245 $78.00 08/01/22 05602 0 COLLIN WHITE S OUTSTANDING 1 61246 $1221.00 08/01/22 05082 1 COLUMN, PBC S OUTSTANDING 1 61247 $78.00 08/01/22 05603 0 DAVID BARAS S OUTSTANDING 1 61248 $78.00 08/01/22 05604 0 DAVID BEST S OUTSTANDING 1 61249 $198.00 08/01/22 05606 0 DAVON BENSON S OUTSTANDING 1 61250 $78.00 08/01/22 05607 0 DENNIS BRIAN MILTON S OUTSTANDING 1 61251 $156.00 08/01/22 05608 0 DERECK ESTORES S OUTSTANDING 1 61252 $78.00 08/01/22 05609 0 DON M MORALES S OUTSTANDING 1 61253 $43.00 08/01/22 05610 0 ECGY POOLS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61254 $120.00 08/01/22 05611 0 EDGAR SANTOS S OUTSTANDING 1 61255 $78.00 08/01/22 05613 0 GREGORY L DONDONO S OUTSTANDING 1 61256 $120.00 08/01/22 05614 0 HARRY LOUIS BODE JR. S OUTSTANDING 1 61257 $156.00 08/01/22 05615 0 JANET J JONES S OUTSTANDING 1 61258 $234.00 08/01/22 05616 0 JILLIANROSE GARCIA S OUTSTANDING 1 61259 $240.00 08/01/22 05655 0 JOHN ALBEE S OUTSTANDING 1 61260 $78.00 08/01/22 05622 0 JOHN JOSEPH MELODY S OUTSTANDING 1 61261 $78.00 08/01/22 05623 0 JONATHAN DEVOTO S OUTSTANDING 1 61262 $156.00 08/01/22 05619 0 JONATHAN REED S OUTSTANDING 1 61263 $78.00 08/01/22 05620 0 KATELYN TIEMAN S OUTSTANDING 1 61264 $78.00 08/01/22 05621 0 KRISTOPHER BRANDON MOUNCE S OUTSTANDING 1 61265 $240.00 08/01/22 05618 0 M STACEY HAWVER S OUTSTANDING 1 61266 $234.00 08/01/22 05617 0 MARISOL SAMPERIO S OUTSTANDING 1 61267 $78.00 08/01/22 05624 0 MATTHEW RETHMEIER S OUTSTANDING 1 61268 $198.00 08/01/22 05625 0 MICHAEL BULLARD S OUTSTANDING 1 61269 $156.00 08/01/22 05626 0 MIRIAM MONTESINOS S OUTSTANDING 1 61270 $120.00 08/01/22 05627 0 MONICA WOODWORTH S OUTSTANDING 1 61271 $120.00 08/01/22 05628 0 NICOLAS CLAIRMONT S OUTSTANDING 1 61272 $78.00 08/01/22 05629 0 NICOLE CHAVEZ S OUTSTANDING 1 61273 $156.00 08/01/22 05630 0 OSCAR SANDOVAL S OUTSTANDING 1 61274 $60.00 08/01/22 05631 0 PATRICIA CORSETTI S OUTSTANDING 1 61275 $156.00 08/01/22 05632 0 PATRICK JOHNSEN S OUTSTANDING 1 61276 $156.00 08/01/22 05633 0 RAMON VASQUEZ S OUTSTANDING 1 61277 $156.00 08/01/22 05634 0 RICHARD CASTILLO S OUTSTANDING 1 61278 $78.00 08/01/22 05635 0 RICHARD WOOD S OUTSTANDING 1 61279 $120.00 08/01/22 05636 0 RICK HENRY LEAL S OUTSTANDING 1 61280 $78.00 08/01/22 05637 0 ROBERT CRAIG ROBERTSON S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:15 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 1 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 61230-6130, 61317-61320 & 61343-61402-8-1 to 8-15-22 (5098 : Disbursements - Dated 8/01/22 through 1 61286 $78.00 08/01/22 05643 0 ROBYN KERRAN S OUTSTANDING 1 61287 $156.00 08/01/22 05644 0 RONALD TADDEI S OUTSTANDING 1 61288 $78.00 08/01/22 05645 0 SALVADOR GONZALEZ S OUTSTANDING 1 61289 $78.00 08/01/22 05646 0 SARA SANCHEZ S OUTSTANDING 1 61290 $78.00 08/01/22 05647 0 STAN GUSTVSON S OUTSTANDING 1 61291 $354.00 08/01/22 05648 0 STEPHEN BRUNTON S OUTSTANDING 1 61292 $234.00 08/01/22 05649 0 STEPHEN ZIMTRICHT S OUTSTANDING 1 61293 $78.00 08/01/22 05650 0 TANYA GUIDO S OUTSTANDING 1 61294 $120.00 08/01/22 05651 0 THAN F GANN S OUTSTANDING 1 61295 $78.00 08/01/22 05652 0 TIM GAMBER S OUTSTANDING 1 61296 $78.00 08/01/22 05653 0 TOM KAYS S OUTSTANDING
1 61297 $120.00 08/01/22 05612 0 TROY ESTORES S OUTSTANDING 1 61298 $120.00 08/01/22 05654 0 VICTOR JARA S OUTSTANDING 1 61299 $78.00 08/01/22 05605 0 WALTER DAVID LEE S OUTSTANDING 1 61300 $240.00 08/01/22 05598 0 ZGHEIB CHARBEL TANIOS S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 71 TOTAL AMOUNT: 9,665.00
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 0
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:15 Page: 4

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 9,665.00 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 9,665.00 0.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:15 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61317 - 61320
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61317 $821540.57 08/08/22 02502 0 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP S OUTSTANDING 1 61318 08/08/22 02502 0 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP UNISSUED 1 61319 08/08/22 02502 0 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP UNISSUED 1 61320 08/08/22 02502 0 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP UNISSUED TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 4 TOTAL AMOUNT: 821,540.57
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 3
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:15 Page: 6

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 745,693.35 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 62,233.62 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 1,573.00 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 12,040.60 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 821,540.57 0.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:15 Page: 7

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 2 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 61230-6130, 61317-61320 & 61343-61402-8-1 to 8-15-22 (5098 : Disbursements - Dated 8/01/22 through 1 61348 $2800.00 08/12/22 05414 0 BEECHER ENGINEERING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61349 $1807.20 08/12/22 02087 0 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION S OUTSTANDING 1 61350 $5460.00 08/12/22 03814 1 CAPPSTONE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61351 $80.30 08/12/22 05660 0 CHERYL BROWN S OUTSTANDING 1 61352 $8734.05 08/12/22 00507 0 CHILDCARE CAREERS S OUTSTANDING 1 61353 $450.00 08/12/22 05552 0 CIVICPLUS, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61354 $1074.00 08/12/22 00595 0 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61355 $1271.08 08/12/22 01204 1 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS S OUTSTANDING 1 61356 $68818.85 08/12/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61357 $741.30 08/12/22 00630 0 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61358 $24586.91 08/12/22 00025 0 DALY CITY/CITY OF S OUTSTANDING 1 61359 $306.46 08/12/22 04397 2 DENTONI WELDING WORKS, INC.-SAN LEANDRO S OUTSTANDING 1 61360 $7648.29 08/12/22 00014 4 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61361 $150.00 08/12/22 00690 0 DU-ALL SAFETY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61362 $31897.50 08/12/22 01854 0 DYETT & BHATIA S OUTSTANDING 1 61363 $10421.84 08/12/22 04275 0 EKI ENVIRONMENT & WATER, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61364 $149.18 08/12/22 05477 0 ENID ANSGARIUS S OUTSTANDING 1 61365 $19877.50 08/12/22 03930 0 FREYER & LAURETA, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61366 $535.71 08/12/22 00848 0 GFS CHEMICALS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61367 $4965.00 08/12/22 05269 0 GOOD CITY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61368 $10355.61 08/12/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 61369 $15452.50 08/12/22 03616 0 GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH PLANNING INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61370 $5207.88 08/12/22 04131 0 HDL SOFTWARE, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61371 $2696.09 08/12/22 00990 0 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS S OUTSTANDING 1 61372 $109705.00 08/12/22 01005 0 JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCH DIST S OUTSTANDING 1 61373 $2771.00 08/12/22 04088 0 LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 61374 $32300.00 08/12/22 05424 0 LIFFEY ELECTRIC, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61375 $8170.00 08/12/22 05582 0 LUHDORFF AND SCALMANINI CONSULTING ENGINEERS S OUTSTANDING 1 61376 $63947.65 08/12/22 04077 0 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP S OUTSTANDING 1 61377 $775.96 08/12/22 04549 0 NAF SERVICES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61378 $12269.12 08/12/22 01206 0 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. S OUTSTANDING 1 61379 $9868.17 08/12/22 02458 0 PARKSON CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61380 $1288.68 08/12/22 01297 0 PARS S OUTSTANDING
1 61381 $4180.01 08/12/22 03071 0 PHENOVA S OUTSTANDING 1 61382 $194.81 08/12/22 01317 0 PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61383 $150.00 08/12/22 05661 0 PUBLIC AGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61384 $3428.98 08/12/22 04026 0 RANEY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61385 $284.92 08/12/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 61386 $195.00 08/12/22 00001 55 RON FASCENDA S OUTSTANDING 1 61387 $1703.90 08/12/22 00055 0 SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 61388 $10485.00 08/12/22 04646 0 SCHAAF & WHEELER S OUTSTANDING 1 61389 $4344.00 08/12/22 02638 0 SUGAR BEAR PLUMBING S OUTSTANDING 1 61390 $245.29 08/12/22 00002 39 SUZUKI, MARIA (PETTY CASH) S OUTSTANDING 1 61391 $8020.14 08/12/22 01570 0 SYNAGRO WEST, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61392 $1679.73 08/12/22 03785 1 THATCHER COMPANY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61393 $799.00 08/12/22 01029 2 THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP INC. S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:15 Page: 8

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61343 - 61402
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61394 $3675.00 08/12/22 02880 0 TOWNE FORD S OUTSTANDING 1 61395 $903.25 08/12/22 01647 0 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS S OUTSTANDING 1 61396 $6539.56 08/12/22 01656 1 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61397 $1138.65 08/12/22 04576 1 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61398 $116798.13 08/12/22 04200 1 VERDANT PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61399 $1678.43 08/12/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 61400 $1317.50 08/12/22 01729 0 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61401 $64278.95 08/12/22 04832 1 WOODARD & CURRAN, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61402 $409.65 08/12/22 02495 0 YSI INCORPORATED S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 60 TOTAL AMOUNT: 797,698.28
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 0
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:15 Page: 9

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 364,481.51 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 60.59 0.00
014 MANOR DRIVE IMPROVEMENT FUND 81,145.32 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 37,315.75 0.00
031 PACIFICA LIBRARY FUND 15,452.50 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 295,111.15 0.00
067 SELF-INSURANCE FUND (LIAB) 150.00 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 306.46 0.00
072 MOTOR POOL REPLACEMENT FUND 3,675.00 0.00

Page 3 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 61230-6130, 61317-61320 & 61343-61402-8-1 to 8-15-22 (5098 : Disbursements - Dated 8/01/22 through ================ ================
TOTAL - 797,698.28 0.00

Page 4 of 4 ends

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

TOTAL = $9,665.00 + $821,540.57 + $797,698.28 = $1,628,903.85

1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 61230-6130, 61317-61320 & 61343-61402-8-1 to 8-15-22 (5098 : Disbursements - Dated 8/01/22 through Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:33 Page: 1

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61301 - 61302
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61301 $895.00 08/01/22 05656 0 CAL STATE UNIV LONG BEACH RESEARCH FOUNDATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61302 $2290.80 08/01/22 00001 361 CAMARGO, SUZANNE S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 2 TOTAL AMOUNT: 3,185.80
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 0
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:33 Page: 3

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 3,185.80 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 3,185.80 0.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:33 Page: 4

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61321 - 61342
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61321 $7176.04 08/05/22 05469 0 BCC BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61322 $9092.21 08/05/22 03741 0 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61323 $29.50 08/05/22 01757 1 CALIFORNIA ASSN OF PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS S OUTSTANDING 1 61324 $242.76 08/05/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 61325 $240.00 08/05/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 61326 $729.00 08/05/22 01757 0 CLEA S OUTSTANDING
1 61327 $50.00 08/05/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 61328 $350.00 08/05/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 61329 $100.00 08/05/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 61330 $110.00 08/05/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 61331 $4.00 08/05/22 01764 3 NATIONAL D.R.I.V.E S OUTSTANDING 1 61332 $838.60 08/05/22 01758 1 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION S OUTSTANDING 1 61333 $800.00 08/05/22 01759 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61334 $200.00 08/05/22 01760 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS S OUTSTANDING 1 61335 $420.00 08/05/22 01769 0 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61336 $1401.16 08/05/22 01758 5 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 S OUTSTANDING 1 61337 $92.00 08/05/22 01758 4 SMC FIREFIGHTERS PAC S OUTSTANDING 1 61338 $882.00 08/05/22 01768 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #350 S OUTSTANDING 1 61339 $2609.50 08/05/22 01764 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 S OUTSTANDING 1 61340 $64963.00 08/05/22 01771 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856 S OUTSTANDING 1 61341 $34.64 08/05/22 01766 0 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA S OUTSTANDING 1 61342 $3121.37 08/05/22 01766 0 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 22 TOTAL AMOUNT: 93,485.78
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00

Page 1 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022

1.b
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61301-61302, 61321-61342 & 61403-61510-8-1 to 8-15-22 (5098 : Disbursements - Dated 8/01/22 TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 0
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:33 Page: 5

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 81,745.74 0.00
065 SELF-FUNDED DENTAL PLAN FUND 11,740.04 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 93,485.78 0.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:33 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61403 - 61510
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61403 $496.46 08/12/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 61404 $1765.10 08/12/22 04029 0 ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 61405 $118.00 08/12/22 04066 0 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61406 $29.50 08/12/22 00136 0 ALHAMBRA S OUTSTANDING
1 61407 $21275.00 08/12/22 03946 0 ALL BAY ENVIRONMENTAL S OUTSTANDING 1 61408 $3052.36 08/12/22 00138 0 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61409 $7901.86 08/12/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61410 $228.65 08/12/22 03895 0 AMERICAN FIDELITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61411 $907.87 08/12/22 05005 0 AMERICAN TRANSIT SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 61412 $2000.00 08/12/22 05663 0 ANN BAUDEN S OUTSTANDING 1 61413 $124.71 08/12/22 04459 0 ARROWHEAD FORENSICS S OUTSTANDING 1 61414 $14649.00 08/12/22 00217 3 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS S OUTSTANDING 1 61415 $45.03 08/12/22 00009 1 AT&T LONG DISTANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 61416 $200.00 08/12/22 04561 0 AVINA, ANGEL S OUTSTANDING 1 61417 $35165.20 08/12/22 05475 0 B.E.A.M. CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61418 $95.00 08/12/22 05127 0 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61419 $1835.64 08/12/22 00335 0 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61420 $5872.50 08/12/22 05463 0 BRETT STOLLENWERK S OUTSTANDING 1 61421 $440.00 08/12/22 00398 1 CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61422 $135.37 08/12/22 00452 0 CALPICO INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61423 $490.00 08/12/22 04899 0 CHARLES R. LEBAK S OUTSTANDING 1 61424 $2000.00 08/12/22 05664 0 CHERYLEEN PAGETT S OUTSTANDING 1 61425 $6133.95 08/12/22 00507 0 CHILDCARE CAREERS S OUTSTANDING 1 61426 $839.69 08/12/22 00510 1 CINTAS S OUTSTANDING
1 61427 $3044.43 08/12/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 61428 $255.93 08/12/22 02822 0 CITY AUTO SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 61429 $725.52 08/12/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 61430 $44.86 08/12/22 01824 0 CSI FORENSIC SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 61431 $1291.09 08/12/22 00622 0 CURTIS & SONS, L.N. S OUTSTANDING 1 61432 $115572.81 08/12/22 03121 0 D.W. NICHOLSON CORPORTATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61433 $847.13 08/12/22 00630 0 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61434 $3795.83 08/12/22 00025 0 DALY CITY/CITY OF S OUTSTANDING 1 61435 $14950.00 08/12/22 00645 0 DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61436 $4377.37 08/12/22 00653 0 DELL MARKETING L.P. S OUTSTANDING 1 61437 $901.86 08/12/22 04397 2 DENTONI WELDING WORKS, INC.-SAN LEANDRO S OUTSTANDING 1 61438 $2500.00 08/12/22 05099 0 DIGITAL ASSURANCE CERTIFICATION LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61439 $126569.57 08/12/22 02130 1 DRYCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61440 $245.00 08/12/22 04101 0 DUTTON, NORMAN S OUTSTANDING 1 61441 $927.83 08/12/22 02793 0 EAST PENN MANUFACTURING CO., INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61442 $34.52 08/12/22 05477 0 ENID ANSGARIUS S OUTSTANDING 1 61443 $10925.00 08/12/22 02199 0 EPS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61444 $23.36 08/12/22 00773 0 FEDEX S OUTSTANDING
1 61445 $6495.23 08/12/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61446 $3786.00 08/12/22 00813 0 FOSTER CITY, CITY OF S OUTSTANDING 1 61447 $10827.73 08/12/22 00352 0 G. BORTOLOTTO & COMPANY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61448 $328.13 08/12/22 02213 0 GARRATT CALLAHAN S OUTSTANDING 1 61449 $6359.44 08/12/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 61450 $750.00 08/12/22 03947 1 GRANICUS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61451 $333.76 08/12/22 00892 0 HACH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61452 $1790.50 08/12/22 00894 0 HACK'S AUTO BODY, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61453 $4974.19 08/12/22 00919 1 HERC RENTALS INC. S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:33 Page: 7

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 2 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022

1.b
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61301-61302, 61321-61342 & 61403-61510-8-1 to 8-15-22 (5098 : Disbursements - Dated 8/01/22 1 61461 $457.59 08/12/22 01090 0 LIFELOC TECHNOLGIES S OUTSTANDING 1 61462 $1196.82 08/12/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61463 $71.91 08/12/22 05462 1 MCA DIRECT S OUTSTANDING 1 61464 $2022.00 08/12/22 03430 0 MOUNTAINTOP INSIGHT CONSULTING S OUTSTANDING 1 61465 $1848.23 08/12/22 01183 0 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61466 $845239.00 08/12/22 01184 1 MUNICIPAL POOLING AUTHORITY OF NORTHERN CALIF S OUTSTANDING 1 61467 $2180.08 08/12/22 04549 0 NAF SERVICES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61468 $178.20 08/12/22 01194 0 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61469 $4250.00 08/12/22 05318 1 NETFILE, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61470 $85280.00 08/12/22 04632 0 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD S OUTSTANDING 1 61471 $180.00 08/12/22 03391 0 NORTH STATE ENVIRONMENTAL S OUTSTANDING 1 61472 $1159.35 08/12/22 03981 0 NORTHERN SAFETY CO. INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61473 $1112.93 08/12/22 02486 0 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS S OUTSTANDING 1 61474 $307.42 08/12/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 61475 $33497.48 08/12/22 01250 0 PACIFICA COMMUNITY TELEVISION S OUTSTANDING 1 61476 $112.50 08/12/22 01758 3 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61477 $262.46 08/12/22 00054 2 PAPE MACHINERY S OUTSTANDING 1 61478 $1528.18 08/12/22 03071 0 PHENOVA S OUTSTANDING 1 61479 $1585.57 08/12/22 04651 0 PLAZO CONSTRUCTION S OUTSTANDING 1 61480 $1752.89 08/12/22 03160 0 PUBLIC PARKING ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61481 $185.47 08/12/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61482 $871.06 08/12/22 01337 0 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61483 $460.00 08/12/22 05662 0 RAMIRO HERNANDEZ S OUTSTANDING 1 61484 $8120.00 08/12/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 61485 $498.81 08/12/22 01402 1 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. S OUTSTANDING 1 61486 $2430.79 08/12/22 05572 0 SAN FRANCISCO WINDOW AND DOOR CO, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61487 $190.78 08/12/22 01461 0 SERRAMONTE FORD INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61488 $258.91 08/12/22 05465 0 SIGILLO SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61489 $77.36 08/12/22 01498 0 SMART & FINAL S OUTSTANDING 1 61490 $174555.25 08/12/22 00049 5 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF S OUTSTANDING 1 61491 $1330.95 08/12/22 01546 0 STERICYCLE S OUTSTANDING 1 61492 $297.84 08/12/22 01546 1 STERICYCLE S OUTSTANDING 1 61493 $130.83 08/12/22 01550 2 STEWART CHEVROLET S OUTSTANDING 1 61494 $6000.00 08/12/22 00044 5 SWRCB - ELAP FEES S OUTSTANDING 1 61495 $1716.64 08/12/22 01587 0 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 61496 $617.50 08/12/22 05108 0 TEN OVER STUDIO, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61497 $6000.00 08/12/22 05487 0 THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP S OUTSTANDING 1 61498 $335.40 08/12/22 01599 0 THOMAS FISH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61499 $59.94 08/12/22 05659 0 TRILITERAL S OUTSTANDING 1 61500 $281.95 08/12/22 04418 1 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61501 $3187.72 08/12/22 01647 0 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS S OUTSTANDING 1 61502 $34.52 08/12/22 02663 0 UNDERWOOD, EILEEN S OUTSTANDING 1 61503 $14.13 08/12/22 01652 0 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 61504 $3238.00 08/12/22 02527 0 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:33 Page: 8

CITY OF PACIFICA

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 329,226.33 0.00
007 S.L.E.S. FUND 4,231.71 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 137,397.30 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 125.57 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 37,320.00 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 62,930.20 0.00
026 PARK IN-LIEU - CAP IMPROVMNT 85,280.00 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 135,472.00 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 2,568.04 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 178.20 0.00
066 SELF-INSURANCE FUND (W/C) 845,239.00 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 15,609.77 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 1,655,578.12 0.00

Page 3 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022

1.b
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61301-61302, 61321-61342 & 61403-61510-8-1 to 8-15-22 (5098 : Disbursements - Dated 8/01/22

Page 4 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022 NO FY 2022-2023 CHECKS ISSUED ON 8/1/22.

TOTAL = $3,185.80 + $93,485.78 + $1,655,578.12 = $1,752,249.70

1.b
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61301-61302, 61321-61342 & 61403-61510-8-1 to 8-15-22 (5098 : Disbursements - Dated 8/01/22

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/26/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on August 22, 2022 and the City Council Special Meeting held on August 31, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on August 22, 2022 (Attachment A) and the City Council Special Meeting held on August 31, 2022 (Attachment B).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (PDF) Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 22

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86083392833
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 860 8339 2833
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Comcast Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 August 22, 2022

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
August 22, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on August 22, 2022 at 5:30 PM 5:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION – Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2)(e)(5): (One Case- See Attachment A)
B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8. Property: 1220 C Linda Mar Boulevard, Pacifica (APN 023-281- 130). Agency negotiator: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager. Negotiating parties: City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography. Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment of lease.

Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present, announced the business to be discussed and then opened to public comments.

City Clerk Coffey introduced the speaker.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, referred to the appeals around the safe parking program have increased the complexity surrounding an already challenging issue for the public. She shared her thoughts and concerns for the appeal as well as the safe parking program.

City Clerk Coffey stated that there were on other speakers.

Mayor Bier closed public comments and recessed to Closed Session.

2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 August 22, 2022
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the regular meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.

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

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director; Kirk Stratton, Interim Police Chief; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Maria Aguilar, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Nelson Schlater, Wastewater Engineering Manager; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Ken Fong, IT Analyst; Alyssa Barranti, Mgmt. Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

City Clerk Coffey explained the conditions for having City Council meetings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 (as amended by AB 361), to conduct necessary business as an essential governmental function as a teleconference meeting with no meeting location open to the public. He also gave information on how to present public comments participating by Zoom or phone.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgement.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Vaterlaus
Closed Session Report
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated there was no reportable action.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if any Councilmember wanted to pull an item from the consent calendar.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she wanted to ask a question about Item #13, but did not need to pull it.

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 August 22, 2022
Mayor Bier stated she can ask her question now.

Councilmember Vaterlaus referred to vacating property, and asked if the city has ever done any improvements or paving on that property.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he will see if Director Petersen or a city engineer can answer that specifically. He thought PW Dep. Director Bautista is with us.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that the city has not done any improvements to that piece of property and it is as it was for a very long time.

Mayor Bier opened public comments for items only on the consent calendar, Items #1-13.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.

Lindsay Raike, Pacifica, thanked her for pronouncing her name correctly as the first person to do that at a Council meeting. She is the CEO of Warmwater Wellness. She thanked Council for putting Item 6 for the Mickelson Therapy Pool, hoped it passes and wanted to add to her request, expressing the specific requests.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated she wanted to speak on two items on the consent calendar, first Item #2, minutes where she referenced a couple of things mentioned in her testimony that are missing and she felt were important; and, regarding Council’s recent approval of the project at the end of Talbot where in her testimony there were also things mentioned that were missing which she also felt were important. Second, Item #13, where she is confused by the language and expressed her request for clarification.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested they pull the minutes and allow staff the opportunity to review the items that Ms. Boles brought forward and approve the rest of the consent agenda as she didn’t know a practical way to do that without staff having an opportunity to look at it in this moment as she couldn’t imagine a way that they can amend those minutes and approve them, so she proposed putting them aside, look at it and decide what needs to be amended if necessary and bring it back.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that this topic has come up about the detailed nature of meeting minutes, and he reminded Council that the recording of meetings have all the verbatim language used, and the meeting minutes are detailed summary level minutes and are not intended to capture all the verbatim comments provided. He stated that they wouldn’t want to engage in updating the minutes now during this meeting and push it off to a future meeting, but it didn’t sound like the claim was that there were factual inaccuracies but what has come up before is that, when every detail that is commented is not captured in the minutes, even though they are captured in the recording of the meetings. He thought it was a policy question for the Council as to whether they really want to go through the task of adding back in a lot of details that aren’t captured in the current written minutes because it is staff time and city resources when the record and recording already contain all that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his comment had more to do with whether or not Councilmember Beckmeyer still is pulling the item. He asked her if she is pulling the item.

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 August 22, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, in light of the fact that the issue at hand was an appeal, she is pulling the item.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he has very brief comments on Items #5, 6 and 13. He stated that, if they are pulling Item #2, they will have public comment on it and he asked Ms. Boles to have specific page numbers and approximately where the comments she is referencing are so they know where to look, that would be helpful.. He referred to the question asked on Item #13, and the impression he got from reading that the city has not claimed ownership and that they will be holding a hearing to determine whether or not somebody thinks they should claim ownership and go from there. He asked if the City Manager can untangle that knot.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it is accurate that this is setting a hearing that will be held, but he will turn to PW Dep. Director Bautista regarding details.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that the county did not accept the dedication and this process is to publicly vacate any interest that the city has on Hotel Way and they are going through the formal process of publicly vacating a right-of-way.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to Ms. Raike’s comment on item #6 regarding sending a cover letter and doing a press release. He asked if that is something that can go through staff or do they want Council to deliberate on that for a moment, in which case he asks if he should pull it if staff wants them to deliberate on it.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if that was a question for him.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it is a question for him or any other pertinent staff member.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that transmitting the city’s action via letter would be a normal course of action, but what would be different is issuing a press release. He stated that they can do that, but the one difference is that the pool is not in Pacifica so we are tangentially related. It serves citizens from Pacifica but if other cities have issued press releases, they can do that, adding that they really focus press releases more on very city specific items. He stated that he can get Council direction or work with the mayor about whether they do that piece of it. He was okay with the letter and they would welcome any language that are suggested to transmit the letter.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to Item #5, stating he learned two things he did not know before reading No. 5, i.e., that the city still uses fax machines and the other being that they will be missing our PB&R Director Perez and it was a touch of sadness that he read that particular item. He stated that they will have until December to properly lavish him with more praise. He then was happy to put forth the consent agenda minus Item #2.

Councilmember Beckmeyer seconded the motion.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote on the Consent Calendar excluding Item #2 by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5 - 0.

2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 August 22, 2022
CONSENT CALENDAR EXCLUDING ITEM #2:

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

1. Approval of Disbursements for 6/16/22 through 6/30/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 6/16/22 through 6/30/22.

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

3. Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending June 20, 2022.

PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2022.

4. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending June 30, 2022.

PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending June 30, 2022.

5. Update Job Classification for the Director of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Position.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a resolution approving revisions to the job classification for the Director of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation.

6. Resolution of Support for the Reopening of Mack E. Mickelson Therapy Pool PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution supporting the reopening of the Mack E. Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool located at the Mills Health Center in San Mateo, California.

7. Notice of Completion for the Collection System Projects FY 2020-2021 Sacramento Easement
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Collection System Projects FY 2020-2021 Sacramento Easement; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

8. Notice of Completion for the Crespi Drive Sewer Mainline Improvements Project PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Crespi Drive Sewer Mainline Improvements Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

9. Purchase Agreement with JM Squared Associates, Inc. to furnish two (2) new pumps at the Linda Mar Pump Station

2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 August 22, 2022
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and JM Squared Associates, Inc., via sole source, in the amount of $430,819.44 for the purchase of two Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis pumps for the Linda Mar Pump Station; approve budget authority in the amount of $473,901.38 which includes 10% contingency in the amount of $43,081.94; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.

10. Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and MISCOwater for the purchase of two JWC Muffin Monster Grinders and Control Panel for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Grit Removal System
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and MISCOwater, via sole source, in the amount of $66,044 for the purchase of two JWC Muffin Monster grinders and Control Panel for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant grit removal system; approve budget authority in the amount of $76,000 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $9,954; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.

11. Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and De Nora Water Technologies, LLC for the purchase of ControlLogix System and Blower Unloading Valve in connection to the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Sand Filter Upgrade Project.

PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and De Nora Water Technologies, LLC, via sole source, in the amount of $131,000.00 for the purchase of ControlLogix System and Blower Unloading Valve in connection to the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) Sand Filter Upgrade Project; approve budget authority in the amount of $151,000.00 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $20,000.00; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project

12. Task Order No. 1 with TJC And Associates, Inc. - Consulting Services for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) Arc Flash Study (P031) and Electrical Condition Assessment (P037)
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and TJC And Associates, Inc. for Engineering Consulting Services in the amount of $134,932.00 in connection to Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) Arc Flash Study (P031) and Electrical Condition Assessment (P037); approve budget authority in the amount of $148,425.20 which includes 10% contingency in the amount of $13,493.20; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.

13. Resolution of Intention By the City Council of the City Of Pacifica to Vacate Portions of Hotel Way and Setting the Public Hearing for September 12, 2022.

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution of Intention By the City Council of the City of Pacifica to Vacate Portions of Hotel Way and Setting the Public Hearing for September 12, 2022.

Agenda Item #2 Discussion:

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 August 22, 2022
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speaker.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that this is regarding her testimony on packet page 26, and she reminded Council that they have had this discussion before, and she understands that staff has summarized public comments on issues, but that appeal testimony is different and it should be accurately reflected in the minutes. She stated that she typed her notes from her presentation for the appeal and she would be happy to share with the City Clerk to make her job easier.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Councilmember O’Neill asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano about common practice, i.e., are the notes we keep very typical for what a city needs to be legally and are the minutes of appeals to City Council different than the general minutes.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that most jurisdictions do a summary rather than verbatim and some city’s only record the action in the minutes. She stated that the majority do summary minutes and some just record the actions taken. She stated that, in terms of whether appeals are more important than other items, she stated that you just pick a process and be consistent with that process, as one item is not more important than another but they typically find a process that works for the city and be consistent in that process.

City Manager Woodhouse added for clarity, to have the nomenclature the same. He stated that the type of minutes Pacifica does are very detailed summary minutes, almost verbatim, and when Asst. City Attorney Bazzano refers to summary minutes, that is a much more general summarization and action minutes are just the action. He wanted to be sure they were on the same page on how much more detailed we do minutes compared to other jurisdictions, typically.

Councilmember O’Neill prefers they keep the minutes the way they are. If there is a citizen who wishes to put some amendments, they could attach them to those minutes and they become part of the record. He asked if that is an option.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she or anybody can send in their comments or edits to the minutes as a public comment prior to the meeting, and that would become a record of the meeting, but the minutes are the ones that are adopted by Council, and unless the Council makes an amendment to the meeting minutes before them, there would not be any changes.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he would keep it the way it is.

Mayor Bier personally thinks, in this case, it is okay for them to change the minutes because it is an appeal, and that was one of the reasons why Councilmember Beckmeyer asked that it be pulled in the first place, and she thought they should accept her changes to the minutes.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they would need to see what those amendments are before Council makes any decisions about agreeing to the amendment.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was what she was asking for, i.e., whatever the proposed changes or what is perceived to have been left out or in whatever way it isn’t accurate or reflecting the recollection of Ms. Boles, as she has made her comments and has offered that staff take a look at it and bring back any recommended changes and they can put it on their

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 August 22, 2022
next consent agenda to approve those minutes whether as amended or as they stand at that time.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they are continuing this item to allow for review of the minutes.

Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to continue this item to allow for review of the minutes; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote on Item #2 by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5 - 0 (Continue Item #2 to allow for review of minutes.) AGENDA ITEM #2:

RESULT: CONTINUED TO FUTURE MEETING
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mike O’Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speaker.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated she was still concerned about the timeline presented by staff on August 8 for our housing element and she shared her concerns on the issue as well as suggestions for the process including a more inclusive outreach.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has nothing to report as his groups are still on summer breaks.

Councilmember Vaterlaus attended the Fairmont Homeowners Association board meeting and requested a fireman to come and speak about keeping wildfires away from their homes which was a great thing. He suggested things they can do and they also talked about the fact that, at one point, the blue dots in the street were provided by the Association for past pavings and they wanted to make sure the blue dots will still be in the street after this next paving. She stated she was in a statewide group about electrification and she attended that meeting which had a lot of interesting information. She stated that the Recovery Coordination Council for Covid met and they said there is still definitely Covid out there and we all know and everyone must continue to take precautions, etc. She stated that there are about 50 people in the hospital each day and the numbers are small compared to how it used to be, and they are no longer counting positive cases since there are so many at home tests. They talked about grants and they have a lot of money for grants, especially for child care. She suggested they look at San Mateo County Strong if interested in grants. She went to Grocery Outlet where they handed a check to Pacificans Care and they earned $13,000 that went towards four community groups through Pacificans Care. She attended both the Republicans and Democrats meetings with some Council candidates at one and all of them at the other. She attended the Fog Fest committee and she asked everyone to make sure it is in their calendar as they will have a big parade and all of the Councilmembers are going to be in the parade, which she thinks will be a first in a long time. She had another meeting with Kevin Mullin and he talked about sea level rise. She

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 August 22, 2022
stated that they often hear about sea level rise and they talk about the bayside, and she said something about the coastside and he said he was in favor of protecting the coastside from sea level rise. She stated that he had other items but that was the one most tied to Pacifica.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she would give them a flavor of the Coastal Commission meeting she attended a couple of weeks ago in Calabasas. She traveled there to participate in the local government workshop and they have met five or six times. She stated that it is intended to be an in person meeting with representatives, all the Coastal Commissioners, representatives from the Coastal Cities Group which is part of Cal Cities, otherwise known as the League of Cities, and the county’s group, and there were representatives from Ventura, Del Norte, Monterey and Santa Barbara counties, and she attended. The chair of the Coastal Cities group from Santa Barbara city, Councilmember Friedman, Ed Sprigs from Imperial Beach and Ed Waage from Pismo Beach. She stated that there was one other person from Ft. Bragg who attended by Zoom as they have a fully integrated hybrid meeting format with the Coastal Commission. She will give specific updates on what was discussed at a future Council meeting, but the meeting was productive, positive and exciting for her to hear Mr. Sprigs speak because he has attended every single one since the inception. She stated his work was on another group called the Sea Level Rise working group, and he was positive about the tone and conversation. They had two presentations for which she will be giving them specifics, one from a city and one from a county, in terms of a case study of working through their LCP with the challenges, successes, rough spots and where they stand. She thought it would be useful if she writes it up for them in advance so they have something to look at before the meeting and they can have more of a question/answer and she can fill in some gaps for them. She attended the Democrats meeting and she attended the Coastal Conservative meeting and the Pacifica School Volunteers board meeting but she didn’t make it to the Economic Development Committee meeting that was rescheduled for last week. She stated that, if the Mayor was there, she can give an update on it.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that as usual, he reflects on Ukraine as long as they will be fighting for their freedom. He attended a meeting with Councilmember Beckmeyer and PCE staff and the City Manager in regard to REACH codes. He thought they will be beginning their REACH code update around September with the intention of being done with our new construction codes by the end of November. He thought they spent time discussing new construction being done as a part 1 and existing construction REACH codes will be more complicated and they will do it as part 2. They will discuss REACH codes and existing construction which is a spectrum from very simple and easy for everyone in our community to do versus they probably don’t want to touch that in our community with a ten-foot pole. It will be a separate process to keep things simple until it needs to be more complex. He was excited that the process was getting underway. He attended the Historical Society fundraiser where the Ohlone café served them lunch, and he stated that he saw Councilmember O’Neill there. He was working that day and got there as quickly as he could and didn’t hear the full story but what he heard was uplifting to hear from the native people. He stated, if he could eat that way every day, it was delicious so he felt more nutrients going into his body than in a long time. He met with Charles Stone who is running for County Supervisor in another district who is a Councilmember in Belmont and it is strengthening the relationship in things like the housing element that come up and he is able to get perspective from a different city and how they have been dealing with it, and what they can expect as going through the process and it was a fruitful discussion. He stated that he attended an Emergency Preparedness meeting and they discussed the San Mateo County emergency safety event which was successful. He was reminded to recommend Zone Haven to everyone and if you don’t know your zone, look it up, as it is part and parcel with San Mateo County alert system, and you get the text directly to your

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 August 22, 2022
phone. He loves that it tells him if there is major traffic problems somewhere which it frequently does and he can think better planning which way he’s driving on any given day. He stated that the members of Emergency Preparedness are getting excited to do their booth at Fog Fest on September 24 and 25. He stated that the free Covid testing site on Francisco and Salada is still open on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays from 8 am to 8 pm. He had a brief catch up meeting with Tina Wehrmeister. He attended the Democrats candidate forum on Saturday following which there was a cigarette butt art can contest judging event he was able to go and see, and enjoyed watching the cans being judged. He stated that Katrina Rill with Congresswoman Jackie Speier’s office was there and he had a nice conversation with her and a friend from Menlo Park Ray Mueller was at the candidate forum and the contest judging and it was nice to check in with him as well. He stated that, apparently every third Saturday, there is a community dance at the Pie Ranch in Pescadero and he was there and it was very wholesome and fun and he recommended it to anyone as it got him out of his comfort zone. He had a quick meeting with Paul Totah in preparation for our next item.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he did do a couple of things. He went to the Pacifica Democrats meeting and the Pacifica Conservatives meeting and also went to the Ohlone lunch.

He hopes to make it on upcoming Saturday, as the San Mateo Historical Society is having a history walk at a very unknown state park on the peninsula, Burleigh Murray Ranch State Park on Higgins Canyon Road in Half Moon Bay and what is unusual about this is that it has a type of barn which is rare in California that is dug into the side of the hill so the cows can walk to the second story up the hill and the others can walk in the first story. He stated it is a 2-mile hiking trail to get to the barn and they will talk about the inhabitants. He stated that, on Saturday, there is going to be a presentation on the history of Pescadero and apparently they have a website where you can go and view some of the buildings that are torn down but are talking about that on 80 Stage Road, Pescadero, and you are supposed to rsvp ahead of time for them. He stated that he is on LAFCO and one of the presentations coming up is the process the county is going to be using to update their RHNA numbers and what they’re going to be doing. He stated that, when he gets the link for that Zoom meeting, he will forward it to the City Manager to forward to everyone. He stated that a lot of the county’s housing is an incorporated area which is basically they have to drive through us to get to that area. He has gotten several emails and is aware the planes are flying however; he isn’t getting a lot of cooperation from people as to why and he will get back to those people who have written emails to him about the noise from the airport.

Mayor Bier stated she has been busy. She had a meeting with Seth Miller who is with our House City Peninsula division and been recruited to serve as the at large member of Cal Cities Peninsula Division Executive Committee, and the ballots went out to all the mayors this past week, and it will be announced in Long Beach at their conference. She stated that it was another exciting opportunity to serve. She attended the project review panel for One Bay Area Grants, and one of our Pacifica applications made the cut and was a really big deal because a lot of the other applications were BART and really big projects and she was happy to see that they made the cut for our panel and the next step is to be approved by MTC. She stated that it is good to be part of that and when we put ourselves out there and able to score applications and represent our city, things can happen and she was excited to do that. She went to the Save San Pedro Mountain event, and Ray Mueller has been spending a lot of time with Pacificans and he was there. He went to the Ohlone lunch, and she attended the Economic Development Committee special which was a very efficient one-hour meeting where they approved their budget and work plan. She stated that she wants to give Asst. City Manager Carter warm fuzzies for the good job for that. She attended the Open Space meeting which was interesting as they had a presentation by a member on 30-30 which was an executive order by President

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 August 22, 2022
Biden to conserve at least 30% of the US land fresh water and 30% of the US ocean areas by 2030 and there is going to be work done around the region in San Mateo County so it is exciting to have that information shared with us to see where it can take us. She attended the Pacifica School Volunteers meeting. She attended both the Democrats and Republicans meetings and she got to judge the buckets for Beach Coalition. They were big giant buckets painted for cigarette butts and the art work was amazing, so it was hard to judge and she was glad she wasn’t the only one. She met with someone from Tree City Pacifica.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she also met with Gail from Tree City Pacifica.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse has two announcements, one sad news and one good news. He acknowledged that last week the city lost one of our active current employees, Pius Garcia, who suddenly passed away the previous Thursday and the Mayor will be saying more at the end of the meeting and adjourning the meeting in his honor. He stated that he was with the city for 25 years, working in the facility maintenance division and is well known by all the city employees.

He stated that they are going to do more of a robust memory and acknowledgment of Pius Garcia’s services at the next City Council meeting and they are all saddened by that loss and their thoughts go out to his family. He stated that the good news is that many saw they had the official launch of our Shop Pacifica E-Gift Card program and there are great financial incentives for the community to participate at this point in time, and that information is widely available on the city’s website and they will continue to put it in the Connect with Pacifica newsletter. He stated that it was also featured last week on the news, KPIX, and that was an exciting minute about this program on the news, and it is exciting as it is focused on people taking action to support our local small business community that Pacifica thrives on.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

14. Public Hearing on Proposed Ordinances repealing and replacing Pacifica Municipal Code Chapter 12 - Tree Preservation and Chapter 14 - Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Waive the First Reading of and Introduce by Title an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and Replacing Chapter 12 (Preservation of Heritage Trees) and Chapter 14 (Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees) within Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

PW Director Petersen stated that they had consultants Allison Steere and Tina McKeand of Davey Resource Group available for input and then presented the staff report.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to Packet pages 427 and 450, and he didn’t know if anyone had the anomaly in their document but on his packet page 427, Section 2, Environmental Analysis, should be there, but it is kind of in the last paragraph of section 1 and he didn’t necessarily see anything listed under section 2 so he is asking if that is the same for everyone.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked him to confirm that it was packet page 427.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck responded affirmatively, adding that he is using a PDF reader on his pad so he didn’t know if it was his software, and the heading is over what he believes is the last

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 August 22, 2022
paragraph in Section 1 and he doesn’t see anything listed under the Section 2 heading.

Mayor Bier thought it was on a different page as that is not on her packet page 427. She asked what the heading is.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated it was the first page of attachment D, page 1, at the bottom of the page.

Councilmember Vaterlaus assumed it is the heading for the paragraph it is on top of as she sees it exactly like he does.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it is Environmental Analysis so it makes sense but he read it in sequence and it didn’t occur to him to look at it that way. He asked if she had a similar thing on Packet page 450, page 24 of attachment D.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that on Packet page 424 , it looks like the page is out of format but it does have the environmental analysis on that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had a similar overlap phenomena occur on Page 24 of attachment D.

Councilmember Beckmeyer saw it at the very bottom.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck didn’t know if it meant anything as he couldn’t read that paragraph and it didn’t bother him too much, but he wanted to follow up.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano pointed out that the Environmental Review Analysis is also contained in the staff report, so the staff report is the applicable environmental review.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has questions but would prefer to hear public comments first.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.

Irene, Pacifica, stated she wanted to know if invasive eucalyptus are being protected, and shared her thoughts and alternative suggestions because of that not being a good idea.

Gail Benton Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated that she is speaking as a member of Tree City Pacifica, and was impressed with this version of the tree ordinance but shared her thoughts and detailed requests on changes to the ordinance.

Paul Totah, Pacifica, stated he is also a member of Tree City Pacifica, and he praised them, mentioning specifics and also shared a request for a change to the ordinance.

Kai Martin, Pacifica, stated he is also a member of Tree City Pacifica and happy about the work Council and staff have done, and shared his thoughts and request on helping care for trees.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thanked Council, staff, consultants and the public for the time spent on

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 August 22, 2022
this process, and shared her thoughts and requests on changes to the ordinance.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked staff if they received the email that Tree City sent in, and he saw Director Petersen’s and Dep. Director Bautista’s names on the email but he didn’t think the City Manager’s name was on it, and if he saw it, he asked that he let them know as well as his response to it.

PW Director Petersen stated that they saw it and had good comments. She went through and outlined where they were covered in the ordinance already. She referred to the comment regarding the grove of trees, and the grove is defined as any species, which includes invasive species as well. She stated that they talked about this the last time they went through the ordinance, and there were some areas where they were comfortable with things being repeated, and that is fine. She stated that there were a couple of areas, such as section 4-14.03 where there was a typo and it does need to be changed to say “4-14.06" as mentioned by Tree City Pacifica but it doesn’t need to say 4-14.07 and there was a section at the very end in violations that Tree City Pacifica had asked to be added, which said “measured with CalPERS and at least 15 gallon tree and she agreed that it was dropped and it should be added. She stated that the other elements are in the ordinance, but if Council is more comfortable with these things said again in certain areas to highlight it, they can do that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if there was anything they found objectionable that they shouldn’t do because if it all looks kosher, that might be the easy way from Council’s side.

PW Director Petersen stated that there was only one where she had a little concern, and she thought they may be able to cover it with a different type of verbiage, i.e., under 4-14-06, removal of trees, where they wanted to get rid of the word “undesirable” where it says, “The director may remove or cause the removal of any city trees or other plant materials planted in the plantable strip or planning easement. If such city trees or plant materials are deemed by the director to be unhealthy, hazardous, undesirable or causing excess damage to public improvements or city trees.” She stated that the only thing she was concerned about with this is that, typically, a hazardous tree is a tree that is going to fall or hit something and not necessarily the tree itself by its own identity would be considered hazardous. She stated that they have trees out there that drop balls on the street, people trip and twist their ankles, then recalled it was liquid amber. She stated that those type of trees tend to be undesirable and cities take them down all the time, as well as other things like that. She stated that they want to cover themselves from a pedestrian walking path standard where they won’t have a tree that is dropping something like the liquid ambers that cause people to fall and twist their ankles. She thought they can possibly come up with a different word.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, if people are twisting their ankles, is that considered hazardous at that point or merely undesirable.

PW Director Petersen stated that is what she is worried about, as a tree itself is owned by those species and not considered hazardous but it becomes hazardous and she is afraid that, if they get into a semantics discussion related to it and the city had a liability issue, they may not be able to take something out. She stated that she could bring Ms. McKeand or Ms. Steere in and they may have an idea of how they can cover themselves under that.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it is kind of the same vein, but he asked, what if the tree

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 August 22, 2022
roots are raising the sidewalk and it is a trip hazard.

PW Director Petersen agreed, adding that there is coverage in that which is damage to existing public infrastructure and they are covered on that, and if Council feels they are covered under the word hazardous, they can leave it. She was concerned because the tree by its own nature is not considered hazardous, but perhaps that is good enough.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agrees with her assessment and she thinks semantics and words matter and, as a non-arborist who will defer to their experts, from her read and experience in this endeavor, when she hears the word hazardous in relationship to a tree, it makes her think that it needs to meet certain ISA criteria to be deemed hazardous and maybe that’s not accurate, however, their goal is that it isn’t a good idea to wait 40 years but let this document last for a long time and be interpreted by future people who are not necessarily these councilmembers. She agrees with her interpretation that a tree of its own nature is not hazardous. She thought creating a hazardous condition or something to that effect that could elucidate what is meant by undesirable. She thinks Tree City Pacifica’s concern about “undesirable” is that it is a subjective term as any tree could be undesirable to some people and there is nothing to attach to that definition for the average reader. She asked the experts if they had a suggestion about how they address it.

PW Director Petersen stated that she can throw something out there, that is that they could just add something to the end of it that says “or causing excessive damage to existing public infrastructure or causes a safety concern to the pedestrian path of travel” which is what they are worried about, people walking, or they can say “causes a safety hazard to the pedestrian path of travel.” She asked the consultants if they have a thought.

Consultant McKeand stated that undesirable could mean a couple of things, such as an undesirable species of trees or it could mean a good tree species in an undesirable location, such as next to a stop sign. She thought that answers the question.

PW Director Petersen thought they have some verbiage that covers them for taking care of sight distance, covering signs, etc. and if they just want to add something to the effect of what she said. She asked Ms. Steere what she thought and does that work.

Consultant McKeand stated an additional definition to clarify what is meant there would help.

PW Director Petersen agreed that they could do that, add a definition for what is meant by undesirable.

Councilmember Beckmeyer assumed that definitions would go at the front of a section, and asked if each section had its own definition, referring to 4-12.02.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.

PW Director Petersen stated that there they could put undesirable tree and put a definition of what that is.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they don’t need to say tree, just define the term undesirable. She asked Ms. Steere if she could give them the definition she stated earlier again, i.e., it could be either by undesirable meaning a location that is not appropriate for the species of the tree or the species is undesirable for the location or something like that.

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 August 22, 2022
Consultant Steere stated that a tree could be undesirable because of the species of the tree and it could be undesirable because, while a good tree species, it is in an undesirable location.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that an alternative to that would be to use the defined term for undesirable, which means not wanted or not desired because it’s harmful, objectionable or unpleasant. She thought a general definition would give the director a little more discretion in determining whether a tree is or is not undesirable.

Mayor Bier thought that was the concern of Tree City Pacifica, that it would be more clear if there was a standard such as through the ISA form or just remove that word.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that defining the term gives it a little bit more of a narrow parameter.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought the definition she gave a minute ago includes unwanted and that is a subjective thing and the goal is to get away from subjective and try to have it be an objective reason, such as creating a trip hazard. She didn’t know how you compact that into one word in that paragraph, but maybe they can ask them to do that before they bring it back.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, if that is the concern, maybe they strike that term and as Director Petersen suggested, just state what the concerns would be that would cause it to be undesirable, such as a trip hazard or the tree species is located in an area that is inappropriate for the tree species.

Mayor Bier thought that was good.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she is seeing heads nodding.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it works for her.

Mayor Bier reiterated that it works for her.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought it sounded good.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to packet page 426, and she thought it might be attachment page 3, in item E, it says diameter or DBH and she asked if they could have a parenthetical phrase after DBH that says diameter at breast height that defines what DBH is.

She stated that they use that term a lot but she doesn’t know if it is defined somewhere else and, if it is, that’s fine, but she would prefer that it be clarified what that stands for. She then refers to I on that same page where it says “any species with a minimum diameter of six inches in diameter” and asked if they can strike the second in diameter.

PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked, on No. 1, if they can add at DBH to the end of the sentence, “12 inches or greater at DBH”.

PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to talk about the issue on item 4, inserting language “groves of trees”, as Tree City Pacifica proposed inserting a phrase after the word except “groves of

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 August 22, 2022
trees as the director may deem otherwise”. She stated that the purpose of that has been stated well by Tree City people who commented, but she wanted to reiterate that the intent here is around not clearing an area just because they’re invasive species, but mostly from the point of view of runoff and top soil disappearing, etc., especially in the light of development. She stated her question is there an unintended consequence of putting that phrase into No. 4, that they can think of.

PW Director Petersen stated that grove of trees now is defined as any species, such as invasive species and when you say grove, it means it can be an invasive species. She stated that they can put it again at this location to make it clear.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought that was a good idea.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked her what section that was in.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it is on packet page 426, Item N, No. 4.

PW Director Petersen stated this was the email that she sent her that had the different recommended changes which is also in the email.

Mayor Bier stated they were going down the line. She thought there was some discussion about whether the city has to be at the same standard as a citizen when removing a tree and she knows they put a whole section under B.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it was two sentences.

Mayor Bier thought they should talk about that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed and stated that she got from PW Director Petersen’s presentation that it is covered, but she thought it wasn’t clear enough or there is a sense that there is a double standard and she wants to figure out if it’s their double standard and if so, how do they correct that so it’s clear. She again asked what are the unintended consequences. She needs staff to help them see through that.

PW Director Petersen thought it was in there already and even in the sentence they provide, it says a qualified arborist’s report with reasons for removal in (f) and mitigation for tree removal including two to one replacements in (g). She stated that, if you look at section 4-4.06, sometimes it’s helpful to look at the redline version so they can see what they added. So, in packet page 420, you can see that there was something that was added related to this, item (c), which talks about the arborist report and into the IAS basic tree risk assessment. They also have (g) on the next packet page 421 which talks about planting a minimum of two replacement trees for an otherwise healthy tree and under (g), there is No. 2 which talks about replacment trees shall be a minimum of 1.5 inches measured with CalPERS at least a 15-gallon tree. She stated that, in saying that, she didn’t think there was any problem with adding this sentence into (b) if the Council wants, as all it’s doing is reiterating that these elements are in those sections further down.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they should include it.

Mayor Bier agreed.

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 August 22, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, in a similar vein, on 14-4.07, Item (a), she thinks it’s along the same line of the suggestion to remove the words “receipt of” and replace with “creating or receiving”, or language she would prefer to use. She stated that “upon receipt of” implies there is only one way that it happened which was from citizens to the city. She thought what they were trying to do in looking for the recommendation is broadening that language a little bit in some way so it would also pertain to city actions with city trees. She asked if that makes sense.

PW Director Petersen agreed and stated that they can put their language in there instead of saying receipt of, they can say “upon initiating or receiving”.

Councilmember Beckmeyer liked initiating better.

Mayor Bier thought it was a lovely suggestion from Kai Martin about the adopted tree program but she wasn’t sure where they can put that or talk about that.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thought the Beautification Committee could take something up like that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer liked that suggestion and it occurred to her that Council decides what committees and commissions do.

Mayor Bier added that they are going to be reviewing charters.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought that may be the perfect opportunity to add that in. She thought the City Manager might have something to say about that. She stated that Council needs to consider if that’s an appropriate thing to ask a committee to look at and that is where she was coming from.

City Manager Woodhouse added to what she was astutely observing which is the difference between a committee considering a new program versus writing it into an ordinance. He stated that any new program falls to city staff so even the efforts the BAC undertakes requires a significant amount of PW staff time to support and they don’t know what kind of staff resources would be involved in implementing and adopting a tree program. He thought it was a fabulous idea and they would love to do that and support it, but they don’t know what the resource demands of that would be.

Mayor Bier assumed that would be part of a study session.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, i.e., a future budget decision, etc.

Councilmember Vaterlaus referred to the support of Arbor Day but didn’t know if support was the right word as support means paying for everything. She suggested they encourage the Arbor Day celebration or someone may come up with a better word that she just gave.

City Manager Woodhouse added that the Arbor Day celebration and effort is supported by the city, but it isn’t a city program. Tree City Pacifica runs that, and to write that into an ordinance or requirement is different. If that system were to change, it would fall on the city to do that and that has resource effects. He stated that they can continue to support that, but it’s not a city program that they run.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they know it is one of the criteria for Pacifica being a

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 August 22, 2022
true Tree City. To have an Arbor Day, put a certain amount of money into trees every year or a resolution. She stated that they have done those things but each year they come back and reconfirm it and she feels that is how the certification process for Tree City USA and she asked what the City Manager would say they do to reflect that in city documents even though it’s not a city program.

City Manager Woodhouse didn’t think it needs to be in the ordinance but in a future year, if the Arbor Day celebration didn’t happen and they couldn’t get that designation for that year but it happens in the future, that is different than it being a requirement of the city to always hold that regardless of budget impacts, etc. He asked Director Petersen to give her thoughts on it, but policy-wise, it is a difference between mandating something in an ordinance versus the programs that we intend to do and carry out in collaboration with non-profits in the community.

Mayor Bier thought that is usually the point of a non-profit once it gets institutionalized.

PW Director Petersen stated that they have a great relationship with Tree City and there was a meeting today regarding Arbor Day and she thought it could be helpful for all of them to memorialize it in an informal policy so we are all on the same page. She stated that, as you have a new director or people come in, it can change, and if they can memorialize it in some informal policy about the support that the city provides, but she wasn’t sure about putting it in an ordinance as she has never seen that before.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it is just a resolution that they intend to try to keep going forward with Arbor Day, if at all possible, instead of in the policy.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano if a resolution is something they pass repeatedly or is it a onetime deal.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they can pass a resolution and make amendments to the resolution, rescind the resolution, make new resolutions.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they have already done a resolution that memorializes Arbor Day.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she did not know and would defer to City Clerk Coffey.

Councilmember Beckmeyer was just asking her off of her head but they can research.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed they could research it, and she agreed with Director Petersen and City Manager Woodhouse that it is not something they would typically memorialize in an ordinance.

Consultant McKeand stated that it is often a proclamation that is done on an annual basis from the mayor.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they have been doing that, and if Tree City brings that forward to them, she would want it more memorialized than that in case Tree City forgets. She is going back to the mayor’s point of it being institutionalized. She wondered what the happy medium is between not putting it in the ordinance and not having it be a proclamation that may or may not happen. She thought a resolution sounds good to her.

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 August 22, 2022
Mayor Bier asked if there was anything else they would like to suggest and how do they move forward.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she just wants to say thank you.

Mayor Bier stated that they need a motion.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has some questions and comments on the actual ordinance, not the resolutions, etc. He stated that there is phrase that keeps coming up that says the applicant may be required to provide a plot plan or survey drawn to scale depicting the trees and any improvements on the property and/or arborist report. He asked, if they have a guy who wants to cut a tree down for whatever reason and has to have a plot plan and survey drawn to scale, if he might have to go to an architect or who do they go to get that taken care of.

PW Director Petersen stated that it is geared toward development and specifically for those who will be getting a tree protection plan in place or someone who might be taking down multiple trees but not someone taking down a single tree.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if she was talking about someone building a subdivision.

PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively, and added that, if someone is coming in with a building permit for a property they are trying to build or trying to take down multiple trees or need to protect multiple trees because of putting a building on that site, and this is to make sure they are looking at it globally and considering all the trees on the site, but not just a homeowner that wants to take out a tree in his yard but for bigger projects.

Councilmember O’Neill mentioned having someone wanting to use SB 9 or 10 and want to tear down a Linda Mar rancher and put up four units, and they may or may not be able to replace all the trees there, and, if it is a healthy tree, he assumed that they have to pay for the replacement of the tree, and asked if he is correct.

PW Director Petersen stated that the way it would work is that, if someone takes down a tree illegally, they would need to pay for the replacement value of the tree, and the way the ordinance reads for development, it provides the option for the city to ask for that, but it doesn’t require it. What the developer is being required to do is the 2-1 replacement ratio for those trees or required to pay in lieu fee if they couldn’t put all the trees on that property.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he is concerned because they have housing goals to reach and, if you get a tree cut down, it is roughly $2000 or $2500 and the permit is about $400-$500 and then they are talking about an arborist report and they were told it was around $500.

PW Director Petersen stated that it was $400-$600 and then they would probably have another $200 for the ISA risk assessment form.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if you have someone who wants to put an ADU legally in their backyard and they have to cut down a tree, they are adding to the cost of that ADU.

PW Director Petersen stated he was correct, and if someone wants to take down a tree because of putting in an ADU, they would have to pay for the permit, have an arborist report, the ISA tree risk assessment form and, if it wasn’t appealed, they would need to take down the tree which would cost them some money.

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 August 22, 2022
Mayor Bier thought they were talking about heritage trees.

PW Director Petersen stated just protected trees. She is talking specifically about protected trees, anything that is 12 inches in diameter or greater that is non-invasive.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that heritage trees are about the size of the general plate, 12 inches, and he stated that they are adding to the cost of an ADU and he asked if there were some restrictions in terms of someone adding an ADU of what fees they could charge.

PW Director Petersen thought some of that was going to be discussed during the housing element.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if the tree ordinance is going to be discussed as part of the housing element.

PW Director Petersen didn’t think necessarily the tree ordinance, but that fees related to low income housing ADUs were supposed to be discussed and, if it is something that would be appropriate to discuss at that time, she thought Acting Planning Director Murdock might be able to help her.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if they pass it at this meeting, they might be revising it because of the fees associated with it, asking specifically if it is the fees they charge or fees because they dictate an arborist report, etc. He then stated that replacement trees shall be the same species and he asked if they really want to replace Monterey pine with Monterey pine. He stated that, in driving around Pacifica, you can see a lot of the Monterey pines are dead and he asked if we want to remove one and then plant two more that, in ten years, they will be dealing with the Monterey pine cancer again.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked where is he reading that it is the same.

Councilmember O’Neill stated, on page 6 of the ordinance, it says “replacement tree shall be the same species as the tree removed or species of similar mature stature unless otherwise specified by the director”. He asked if they want to replace a tree that is very susceptible to disease with the same tree, adding that he didn’t know if they want to give the director guidance on that or not.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought another example is when the tree height gets problematic for our power lines, etc., and the city is going to link to permanent species that should be planted.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that was also on his list, such as what if a neighbor’s tree covers up their solar panels and one neighbor wants to cut the tree down or major pruning but the arborist will say it is a health tree and they can’t do it. He stated that they are then saying the other person can’t use solar panels that are supposed to limit greenhouse gases. He asked if that can be addressed in some way. He stated that he had another question, probably for Planning, regarding that all decisions and deadlines regarding the building permit will be suspended until the final decision regarding the tree permit has been made, and he asked why things have to run consecutively and not concurrently. He asked Director Petersen if she was saying the building permit issuance but they will still do plan check, architectural drawing, etc., and she is talking about the actual building permit.

2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 August 22, 2022
PW Director Petersen thought the intent of the provision is that there was concern from the community and at the study session on the 27th there was a lot of robust discussion related to how they address the issue of people who come in, apply for a building permit then get a grading permit, impact trees or cut down trees, get their building permit and then never do the building. She thought there was a question on how we protect trees and not have someone come in, cut them down from the property and they walk away from the project without getting their building permit.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he supports that, and he hates all the half-built projects, such as on Fassler. He just wanted to be sure that, if someone applies for a building permit, they can also apply for the tree permit, go to Planning and submit an application to start the planning process and review the application at the same time so it is not consecutive but concurrent.

PW Director Petersen agreed.

Councilmember O’Neill stated another thing to look at is whether the requested action is necessary for the economically viable use of the property and he asked if they should put something on there according to the zoning of the property, as there are cases in town where people want places vacant because they can have a Christmas tree lot there and it’s economically viable. He stated that he didn’t see it in the ordinance, but he wanted to clarify that, in her slide show, she stated staff will be coming back with an ordinance for fire hazard zone, and he asked if they will be coming back with an ordinance for that.

PW Director Petersen stated that they talked about coming back with a tree permit exception based on fire risk and it is something they have seen in other cities, so they will be developing a tree permit exemption process based on fire risk.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that some of the trees are fire risks, and there could be a grove of eucalyptus that is a fire hazard that will need that exemption, and they would then be a protected tree. He asked if that will cover protected trees as well.

PW Director Petersen stated that, once they have a tree permit exemption, that tree is exempted from the permit, no matter what type of tree it is. She stated that they can ultimately develop the permit exemption based on what Council would like but, in looking at a couple of other cities, it seems like they are basically exempting any permit requirement for any type of tree within certain types of circumstances that are areas of very high fire risk. She stated that they would have to have that discussion moving forward and she believes there will be a lot of moving elements, i.e., what it looks like, and it is a general statement of what they will be trying to do, but no detail behind it yet.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he is concerned of the number of houses that probably will need some sort of break for trees to create the safe zone. He thought it needs to be an expedited process because, if they get a notice of their house insurance being cancelled, they might be able to mitigate if they were to cut a tree down. He referred to the Tree Fund, and asked how it will be handled, what will it be used for, or is that to be developed and come back to Council.

PW Director Petersen stated that it is specifically in the ordinance, and she thought Dep.

Director Bautista might be able to find the exact language in the ordinance or one of the consultants, but it was to the effect of use or increasing tree canopy, tree maintenance work.

2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 August 22, 2022
Consultant McKeand quoted that it can be used for purchasing, planting and maintaining trees within the city, maintaining and preserving trees within the city to remain in naturalistic state in perpetuity, performing and maintaining a citywide tree inventory, educating residents and developers on the preservation, care, maintenance, benefits and values of trees within the City of Pacifica and supporting programs for the purpose of increasing the tree sanity within the City of Pacifica, as approved by Council.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if that includes staff costs, whether full or half time equivalent.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was what she thinks the maintenance piece was about.

Councilmember O’Neill agreed, but thought it was a staff person to do that, and he asked if that person was coming from the General Fund or the Tree Fund.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought it could come from the Tree Fund. She asked Director Petersen if she was correct.

PW Director Petersen stated she would include the City Manager in this discussion but ongoing positions usually need to be taken care of with ongoing funds but could be used for consultant services, etc.

City Manager Woodhouse added that the Tree Fund is likely to have a small amount of money and year to year one time money and funding a permanent position from that would probably not be feasible, but as the ordinance is written, those funds could be used to augment and use hourly staff in the maintenance activities. Thus, he thought it could be used for personnel but not on an ongoing permanent basis.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he would like to see them address solar panels as people get more solar panels with some guidance on trees that get so tall they block solar panels. He stated that, on a one-story Linda Mar rancher, there are many trees on Linda Mar that block the sun for the neighbors and he asked how they deal with that. He suggested a list or guidance from the city of trees that don’t reach more than 20 or 25 feet tall, and he thought that would be something to give citizens.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to his earlier point about replacing with the same species and asked if that was what he was saying.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that on the city website, if a person is applying for a permit, we give them a paper copy of the recommended trees that might not be more than 20 or 25 feet tall, which he knows this was done several years ago for the micro-climates in Pacifica because the climate where he lives is different than the climate in Fairmont or Manor, so they are not blocking the neighbors solar panel, etc.

PW Director Petersen stated that they are going to be putting up a few things on the website, such as posting for significant pruning or tree removals, some recommendations on pruning as they discussed at the last meeting, and they can also put recommendations for trees that only grow a certain height to help with covering solar panels at a future date.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it will address general aesthetics. He sees in his neighborhood trees that are 90-95 feet tall and that is potentially storm damage down the road.

He is concerned about the city removing trees and having the same standards that a private

2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 August 22, 2022
person would have because the government is passing out grants to cut down eucalyptus, such as that type of grant in El Granada, and he thought Pacifica got that grant last year. He asked if we want the money used to cut down fire hazards or go for arborist reports, etc. He asked, if we have a grove of eucalyptus and get a grant that we can cut it, how much of the grant is going to be spent getting arborist reports.

City Manager Woodhouse thinks he identifies a very astute policy issue, i.e., the tradeoff of public resources compared to private resources and how they’re utilized for public benefit such as this case of fire safety. He thought, when they are considering the conditions under which the same requirements are applied to private tree removal applications, such as an individual wanting to develop their property with financial gain, there are certain conditions that apply compared to public benefit applications where trees are removed for fire safety and there are ten trees that you can’t remove as they have to go to the other arborist report or conditions, and the policy observation is very appropriate.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought the public benefit argument goes both ways and, on behalf of many in the community they hear from, they would say the public benefit is enhanced by keeping the trees, and she thinks what Councilmember O’Neill brought forward that they need to wrestle with is, when they are talking about hazardous or potentially hazardous trees or trees in a high fire zone, they don’t want to walk away from a grant or be compelled to give it back because we couldn’t get an arborist report to determine of that grove should be cut or not. She stated that is what she meant when she referred to untended consequences when you carry things out to their logical extreme, and they have heard from many citizens about concerns about eucalyptus and there are grant funds around to remove them. She asked what the implications are of the policy conversations they are having around groves of trees if the grove of trees is eucalyptus and they want to cut them down in a safe and responsible way so they don’t have erosion. She then said she will pass off to other member’s comments.

Mayor Bier stated that Director Petersen has something to say and then Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck can speak.

PW Director Petersen stated that this is definitely something that was going to be considered with this Phase 2 related to the tree permit exemptions. She stated that once there is a tree permit exemption, it would not require an arborist report, the ISA risk assessment and that is something they can come back with in the next phase and provide a recommendation on how to manage that issue.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he didn’t know what the estimated date of when they come back with chapter 2, but in the interim, this is the ordinance that would stand if there was a grant that came up in the state budget and filtered down through the county. He asked if this was an obstacle for them to get a grant like that.

PW Director Petersen stated that, when they did get the grant through the county for Cattle Hill, that was a big area with a lot of trees and there was an environmental review that was required as part of that grant for that many trees. She stated that, if it is a large grant to take down a lot of trees, they are probably going to be required to do some sort of environmental assessment on all of the trees before they can take them down. She asked Ms. McKeand if she had anything to add in regarding taking down a large amount of trees and would that require and environmental impact assessment.

Consultant McKeand stated that it could if it was a large project, as it would be something they

2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 August 22, 2022
would have to analyze.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he would ask, for example, on the Cattle Hill project, even though it underwent CEQA review for that project. He stated that doesn’t make the determination about what permits or arborist review are required if our ordinance says that. He thinks the question being considered is if it is going to take 1 1/2 to 2 years to develop the next phase of the ordinance. They don’t know the timeline yet, but in the meantime, they are eligible to get grants for eucalyptus tree removal, he asked what is the exemption or exception that can apply so that they don’t have to undergo additional undue costs to implement that program.

Councilmember Vaterlaus mentioned hazardous.

Mayor Bier asked her to repeat her response.

Councilmember Vaterlaus mentioned hazardous conditions such as fire hazard conditions to get those grants for tree removal.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if fire was one of the criteria on that ISN report or INS report she mentioned.

PW Director Petersen stated it was not.

Consultant McKeand stated that it wasn’t typically, but you could file an emergency exemption to allow for those type of removals under those conditions.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that there were other examples that were brought forward from back of the valley during public comment, such as the pinched time anchor where they have trees losing their limbs. She thought they recalled that comment.

Councilmember O’Neill stated it was behind Park Pacifica round Yosemite and Big Bend.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought that one goes under the hazardous element that Director Petersen was talking about, and dead trees and hazardous trees don’t have the same constraints, but not specifically for fire.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if an arborist report looks at a grove and says the majority of the trees are dead or do they do an analysis on each tree. If someone has 2-3 trees, can they just give them a narrative about all the trees or each individual tree.

PW Director Petersen stated that she will pass that over to Ms. McKeand to respond.

Consultant McKeand stated that an arborist report could include a grove of trees and consider it as a grove of trees but it would still describe the overall condition of that grove or describe and apply to individual trees, so the answer is all of the above based on the situation.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that, if they have a healthy grove of eucalyptus, under the present ordinance, they could not cut them down.

Consultant McKeand agreed unless one of the exceptions applies.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, most of what he was going to say was already addressed,

2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 August 22, 2022
but what is sticking to him is, under circumstances in which these groves of eucalyptus aren’t protected the way they apparently are in this ordinance, what steps are normally taken to ensure that erosion doesn’t occur if they were to chop down a large number of them. He referred to driving through the Tom Lantos Tunnel and seeing all the eucalyptus on the hillside, and stated the point is well taken, because as he envisions all of those trees cut down, he asks what happens to the hillside. He asked, this ordinance notwithstanding, if they were to clear cut for the sake of eliminating the fire danger which he always thinks about driving through the tunnel, what would happen to the hillside in such a circumstance or, without the ordinance, would they need to replace trees with other trees in order to stabilize the hillside, and how would it work.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, with the significant sized project he is referring to for fire safety, like it was done on Cattle Hill, you would have an environmental review and it isn’t a decision about not cutting down all the trees because erosion will occur. They would refer to the project and suggest how to safely do the project, and there is where the mitigation measures are related to the project so erosions and landslides don’t occur in cutting down the trees. He stated that there is a difference between saying categorically that they can’t do that versus the need to undergo project and environmental reviews with appropriate project implementation so it is safe to do.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano wanted to clarify that it is important to note what they are talking about and she thought Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s question went to was just the exemptions that Director Petersen had previously addressed that will be coming later, and she wanted to be sure they responded to the questions that she thought he asked.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, in the various criteria provided in this ordinance as drafted for considering removal, is topography of the land and effect of requested action on it, and he felt he had a lot of meaning to Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s point, steep site with significant tree removal proposed requires a permit from the city under the ordinance as drafted before another exemption might be crafted, and that was a criteria to be considered. In the event an analysis and consideration of that criteria concludes that there may be a potential slope stability impact, even though the project was intended for fire hazard reduction, that is a criteria and the ordinance would also provide the director where the opportunity for adverse consequences might stem from the removal to impose mitigation measures including replanting. He thought the ordinance already addresses those considerations with its own provisions as drafted and everything the City Manager said about some companion CEQA process that may or may not be required for a particular project holds true as well, but the ordinance as drafted already, with its own provisions internally provides those criteria to be considered and the safeguards and authority to impose steps to protect against those unintended consequences.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought the original question was that, if they are given a grant to eliminate some of the fire hazards that eucalyptus presents, with everything they discussed, is there something in the ordinance that gets in that way and, if so, where should they specifically be looking at this point to tweak that so, if a grant arises, they are able to take advantage of that.

He thought a lot could happen over two years and he thought his point was well taken that Phase 2 is essentially to answer the question before them but he thought it would be nice to have a stop gap as appropriate so they can get to Phase 2 without having to worry about a grant for wildfire mitigation and have their one and two at the end of the day.

PW Director Petersen thought, through their Asst. City Attorney having worked on the ordinance, she would ask if there is an appropriate location in there where they could put some

2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 August 22, 2022
language in that could help or she could also throw this to Ms. McKeand of Davey Resource Group.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought Acting Planning Director Murdock cited some very good areas where there are some language already existing about erosion control.

Councilmember O’Neill didn’t think erosion control was the question. He stated that, under this present ordinance, a heritage tree has to get an arborist report and hazard report, and consultant McKeand stated fire is not one of the considerations in that INS report. He stated that last year several million dollars were passed out and Pacifica was able to get some of the money and they were able to cut down hazardous trees. He reiterated that it wasn’t so much the erosion report which will be covered by the environmental review that the city manager mentioned, but he asked if there was something in the ordinance that prevents them for applying for a grant so they can mitigate or cut down trees that may be hazardous, whether or not they are a protected tree. He asked if they have to go through an arborist report for the entire grove, the individual trees, etc.

Mayor Bier thought it might be good for them to direct staff to come back with information about that with the changes they are already requesting as they may not have an answer for that now.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is the ordinance hearing.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they can have a statement in there that simply says at a 4/5 vote of Council this provision can be waived for fire mitigation funding opportunities.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that was the direction he was going, i.e., to include wherever it be, a temporary exception that relates to projects focused on fire safety removal and the temporary nature of it is, until the permanent future exemptions are identified so, in the intervening years, they don’t lose the opportunity to get some significant grants for eucalyptus removal and have a focused exception someplace and that would be the concept. He thought they could come up with that language now that would be acceptable to Council. He asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano if the next phase of the project is going to make additional amendments to the ordinance. He stated that Director Petersen will need to make additional ordinance amendments.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if he was talking about the tree permit exemption process that Director Petersen was talking about.

City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively and added that he thought the concern of Council was that they don’t want to lose the opportunity for significant project funding and grants that can help with fire protection in our community and they want to maximize the money that they could get for project implementation rather than arborist costs or not being able to do the project. He asked her how they include a focused temporary exception so they don’t run into that problem.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano is not sure what he means by temporary. She thought they could include an exemption that specifies language that says city fire mitigation projects shall be exempt from the requirement of whatever specifications of the process they want to exempt city fire mitigation projects from. She didn’t know how they are proposing to add a temporary provision.

2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 August 22, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated that what he meant by temporary is that this is placeholder language until we finish the next phase of the project which develops and defines what the exemptions are in the future related to fire safety.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they would have the exemption but at a future date they would amend that exemption.

City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano understood that.

Consultant McKeand stated that she wasn’t sure if this addresses everything, but it says that tree removal permit shall be granted based on public nuisance or risk, under which she would think fire might be covered, deferring to the City Attorney on that decision. She added that it doesn’t address whether an arborist permit or report would be needed in those instances which she may need to clarify.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought it depends on whether Council wants a blanket exemption for those projects or just exempt the arborist report or some other aspect of the process. She would prefer a more specific exemption for fire mitigation programs; however they want to word it.

Mayor Bier likes those fire mitigations.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to section 4-12.09, “Emergency Tree Removals,” and stated potentially we could add another paragraph in there or retitle it emergency tree removals/fire mitigations or fire risk exception. She thought that was what they were ultimately talking about. She agreed with the City Attorney that they want to make it specific because the whole point of having groves of trees was to put limitations around specifically in the instance of development. She stated that what they are talking about here is a different issue, it is fire hazard reduction, fuel load reduction, etc., and she thought Councilmember O’Neill was right that the money is there and we don’t want our policy to be in the way of being able to meet that important goal.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he also had a question that, if they apply for one of those grants and we have an amendment in the ordinance that leaves discretion to the Council, will that provide a road block or does it need that it is an exemption and Council can’t change it. He asked if he was clearly understood.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought he was, stating that she thought he was suggesting putting language in that says something like it would be decided on a case by case basis at the discretion of the Council.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he wasn’t, but rather if they do it case by case discretion, is that an impediment or do they need to say that Council has, as a matter of policy for fire mitigation that this is exempt.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, if it is the will of Council to include an exemption, they include the exemption specifically. She stated that future Councils can always amend that section of the ordinance, repeal it, make changes, etc. as they are not bound by the ordinance just because they adopted the ordinance.

2.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 August 22, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill understood and concluded that a grant funder would look at it and say that they are okay and it isn’t an impediment.

Mayor Bier stated that there was a lot of discussion and she wanted to be sure it was very clear moving forward so, when they have a motion everything is clear.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if it was a motion to continue this.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano understood that they had coalesced around an exemption, and if they can find the location where they would like to place that exemption and agree to the language in the exemption, she thinks they can move forward as Director Petersen is keeping a list of changes and they would just add this to the list of changes and, if Council is inclined, they can make that motion to introduce the ordinance with the changes that have been discussed at this meeting.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he was going to make a suggestion that they go to the next item, let them work on it and then come back to it at this meeting. He asked if that makes sense.

Mayor Bier didn’t think it is necessary.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was ready to make a motion, and before making the motion, he wanted to say that it has been a good collaborative process with the community that has brought them here and it has been a heavy topic to get through but he feels like they got through it collaboratively and worked well together which is very uplifting to him after the last fiscal year we have had, and he was hoping this begins a new fiscal year of getting back on track of working with our partners in the community. He thanked them for all the work they have been doing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to waive the first reading of and introduce by Title an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and Replacing Chapter 12 (Preservation of Heritage Trees) and Chapter 14 (Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees) within Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) with amendments as discussed; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano acknowledged that they have a motion and a second and she would propose to add a totally new section, somewhere after 4-12.09, maybe 4-12.10 and all the other subsections following that would be renumbered, that excludes fire mitigation programs conducted or undertaken by the city that would be exempt from the requirements of the chapter.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck so moved.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, for all the other changes that have been listed at this meeting, maybe they can get Director Petersen to read that list.

PW Director Petersen stated that, on section 4-12.02 “Definitions,” after 1 at the end, they would be adding at DBH; in that same section 4, they would be adding “groves of trees” and, right before, “as the director may deem otherwise”; for section 4-14.03(c), this should read, “The director shall have the authority to remove a city tree pursuant to 4-14.06.” She stated that

2.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 August 22, 2022
under section 4-14.06(b), they are going to add at the end of the section a sentence that says “in order to remove a tree, the city will meet all requirements.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she didn’t think that was what they talked about. The talked about striking the term “undesirable” and talked about adding language saying, “The director has discretion to remove or cause removal of any city tree that causes a trip hazard or is a species in a location that creates a hazard.”
PW Director Petersen thought they had come up with a definition for undesirable.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they decided to strike that.

PW Director Petersen stated that, in that case, she thought the Asst. City Attorney had come up with what they were going to add.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she just read that into the record.

PW Director Petersen stated that they were also adding at the end the other sentence, “in order to remove the tree, the city will meet all the requirements of the permit listed below, including the criteria listed in (e) (a qualified arborist report with reasons for removal in (f) and mitigation for tree removal including 2-1 tree replacement in (g). The next section, 4-14.07(a), they are going to be removing the word “receipt of” and instead adding “initiating or receiving”. In section 4-14.08, Violation Penalties, in (2), after replacement tree shall be a minimum of 1.5 inches, they are going to be adding “measured with calipers and at least a 15-gallon tree otherwise approved by the director”. She stated that was the last one.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked her if she included the addition to the ordinance of Section 8 in her list.

PW Director Petersen stated she did not include that. Also, they need to add a section, Section 8, is to be added to the ordinance that is stating “Ordinance Nos. 636 and 673 (logging ordinances) shall be repealed in their entirety)”. She thinks that is all she has.

Mayor Bier thanked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano for her guidance.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that is the motion.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5 - 0 (Item #14 AS AMENDED)
Mayor Bier agreed that this was a nice way to collaborate with our community.

2.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 August 22, 2022
AGENDA ITEM #14:

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

CONSIDERATION

15. Direction to Pacifica Voting Delegate Regarding Cal Cities 2022 Annual Conference Resolution - Proposed Bylaws Amendments
PROPOSED ACTION: Provide direction to Pacifica's voting delegate to support one resolution regarding proposed bylaws amendments to be considered by Cal Cities at the 2022 Cal Cities Annual Conference to be held in Long Beach, September 7 - 9, 2022.

City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report.

There were no public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that originally it almost occurred to him about critiquing one of these amendments and then thought better of it, so he didn’t have anything to add except that, commented on the CalCities conference, last year it was more interesting because there were a couple of lobbying topics being discussed and, in this case, it’s just amendments to bylaws. He thought it was amazing to be in a room where there are representatives from almost every city in California and there is someone orchestrating the meeting where everyone is voting on something as simple as these bylaws, they can see what they go through to take votes at any given moment with five and imagine what it’s like to take that vote with hundreds of people on something as simple as bylaws, it is a remarkable thing to behold. He didn’t think there was much discussion past that observation.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to direct the voting delegate to vote yes on all these items; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she wanted to make sure they took public comment.

Mayor Bier stated that they did.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (Item #15)

2.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 August 22, 2022
AGENDA ITEM #15:

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

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m., in memory of city employee, Pius Garcia, briefly mentioning that he worked for the city for 25 years, lived in Daly City, married with one son, and his job took him throughout the city and he interacted with many staff members in numerous departments. He was respected and loved by those who knew him and will be greatly missed by his Public Works family and they will remember him more formally at the September 12 City Council meeting.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of August 22, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83307754477
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 833 0775 4477
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Comcast Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Special Meeting 1 August 31, 2022

SPECIAL MEETING
August 31, 2022 (WEDNESDAY)
6:00 PM
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on August 31, 2022 at 6:00 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

City Clerk Coffey explained the conditions for having City Council meetings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 (as amended by AB 361), to conduct necessary business as an essential governmental function as a teleconference meeting with no meeting location open to the public. She also gave information on how to present public comments participating by Zoom or phone.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief; Raymund Donguines, Sr. Civil Engineer; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Elizabeth Brooks, Mgmt.

Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgement.

2.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 2 August 31, 2022
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Consideration of Adoption of the Sharp Park Specific Plan.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached Resolution to:

A. Find approval of the Sharp Park Specific Plan to be substantially consistent with the plan evaluated in the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2012022046, certified by the City Council on July 11, 2022, for purposes of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
B. Approve the Sharp Park Specific Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission; and
C. Incorporate all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

Planning Director Murdock stated he is joined by consultants, Alison Moore and Rajeev Bhatia of Dyett & Bhatia, and several staff members, and then began the staff report.

Consultant Alison Moore continued the staff report.

Planning Director Murdock completed the staff report.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Planning Director Murdock if staff got his email listing some corrections he made in the document, and asked if they needed corrections or just minor typographical errors.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they did receive them and they are quality assurance checks that staff will do when they have time following acceptance of the document, and will correct those minor non-substantiative typographical errors in the final document.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had some questions but didn’t know if this was the time to ask, and as the Mayor confirmed that they will go through it chapter by chapter, he will wait until after public comment.

Councilmember Vaterlaus sent some changes mentioned by the public regarding specifics of certain lots zoned on the map incorrectly and wanted to know if those changes were part of this also.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he did get them and staff reviewed them. He stated that the plan was consistent with the planning approach in Sharp Park Specific Plan, i.e., staff focused on Council’s directions to improve the vibrancy focused on north and south corridors but did not make changes to the east/west corridors. He stated that the land use designation in the Sharp Park Specific Plan, such as Salada Avenue cited in the comments, are reflected of the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan and that staff did not look to make changes in the east/west corridors presently so nothing will change in the status quo of the current Coastal Land Use Plan based on those land use designations.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the citizen was saying that one of the buildings was currently a six-unit building and is shown on the map as a single family.

2.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 3 August 31, 2022
Planning Director Murdock stated there could possibly be an error in the existing land use diagram which is not a policy component of the document, just an informational component, but they can revisit that and, if there is a technical error, they can correct it before they finalize the document. He thought, more importantly looking forward, if any of the land use policies would be contrary to future redevelopment of the site. He added that there is a policy in the Sharp Park Specific Plan now that allows sites that exceed the allowable density to redevelop at that existing density even if the policy calls for lower density, thus, the owner would be allowed to continue with the six-unit apartment complex.

Mayor Bier stated she have questions but they can wait for deliberation. With no other questions or comments, she opened up public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, appreciated the efforts by staff and the Planning Commission and she appreciated the addition of the preservation policies. She wanted this plan to be successful for all the community to increase the vibrancy of the neighborhood, and wanted to make a few comments and asked questions and shared her thoughts and concerns, such as on parking sites, commercial spaces, fire safety, etc.

Tom Thompson, Pacifica, stated that he had submitted some comments by email, but is sharing his thoughts and suggestions on some of his concerns regarding the Sharp Park Specific Plan, including specifically the importance of the sea wall to ensure all investments are safe.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he wanted to correct one comment by Ms. Boles who referred to 55 stories high for buildings, and he corrected it to be 55 feet.

Kimberly Williams, San Mateo County Surfrider Foundation, acknowledged that sea rise was an important issue. She thought there were many good things in the plan, but she shared her thoughts and concerns on many issues that are not included in the plan, such as the sea wall, etc., and Surf Rider encouraged Council to engage in long term planning for sea level rise.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, expressed her thoughts regarding the Sharp Park Specific Plan changing the land use area of Sharp Park, mentioning some of her specific concerns regarding that issue and expressed her suggested changes including working with the Coastal Commission to maintain the character of the area.

David Beaumont, Pacifica, stated that he sent email with his thoughts to the Commissioners and city staff, and confirmed staff received it. He stated he was representing six owners and then shared their specific concerns with suggested several changes he and his neighbors have for Council’s consideration regarding specific areas in Sharp Park.

Robine Runneals, Pacifica, thanked city staff for all their work, and she didn’t think they missed anything. She did agree with Mr. Thompson regarding his comments on the sea wall and with Ms. Abbott regarding height limits. She hoped they adopt the plan and take into consideration what the Planning Commission addressed and include the public’s comments and suggested changes for what is best for the neighborhood.

Robert Hutchinson, Pacifica, stated he was speaking at Ms. Runneals’ request, and he agreed with her regarding her defense of Sharp Park and support for the sea wall and he

2.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 4 August 31, 2022
thought the Council has done a good job on this plan.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing and then reopened for another speaker.

Bob Haxo, Pacifica, expressed his specific concerns regarding the changes in the Plan regarding his neighborhood, such as sidewalks and bike safety.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck welcomed Ms. Brooks back. He then followed up on the community’s questions. He referred to the sea wall, asking why they aren’t putting in stronger nomenclature in the plan as to the city’s commitment to a sea wall.

Planning Director Murdock began by reminding Council and the public of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update process including the sea level rise adaptation planning process which was very challenging for the community. Council ended up with policies that most of the Council supported in the Local Land Use Plan that was sent to the Coastal Commission for certification. It was staff’s desire not to be redundant and not mire the Sharp Park Specific Plan by relitigating the complicated conversations that were already resolved by Council in the LCLUP update process, so their approach to coastal resiliency issues was to defer to the applicable policies of the LCLUP and remain in effect as they harmonize the Sharp Park Specific Plan with the LCLUP.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he may have a question later related to amending the LCLUP once they have made changes to this document, but this may tie in to public comments, so he asked what it means if they amend the LCLUP later after they approve this document and if it ties into whether they emphasize that they support the Beach Boulevard Resiliency Infrastructure project.

Planning Director Murdock stated, for any of the land use regulations to apply within the coastal zone, the city needs to obtain Coastal Commission certification of those policies. The city currently has a 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan which was certified by the Coastal Commission and has had a number of amendments over the years since 1980 which still remains in effect and is the General Plan for the coastal zone which was consistent with the 1980 General Plan up to adoption of 2020 General Plan last month. The city approved the draft of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and directed staff to send it to the Coastal Commission for certification. They are still working on that process, and this month the Coastal Commission accepted our application as filed and the statutory timeline for their review has begun with 90- day requirement to take to a public hearing unless the Coastal Commission grants themselves a 12-month timeline and they are working through the process. The question of certification of an amendment is a moving target, i.e., when they started the Sharp Park Specific Plan process by adopting the 2020 LCLUP update, they assumed they would be further along and had the documented certified by the present time with minor additional amendments to incorporate the specific policies of the Sharp Park Specific Plan. He thought it still makes sense to pursue certification of the 2020 LCLUP first, as it is a major change to the 1980 LCLUP and provides a lot of baseline policies, including the coastal resiliency policies they discussed but there is no mandatory order for that and given it’s a narrower scope, the Sharp Park Specific Plan could potentially proceed more quickly through the LCLUP certification process with the Coastal Commission. He thought, if Council approves this document, they could have two LCLUPs running concurrently He stated that they will have to do the comprehensive amendment to the 1980 LCLUP to incorporate the 2020 LCLUP or a more tailored LCLUP to incorporate the Sharp

2.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 5 August 31, 2022
Park Specific Plan. He stated that it is uncertain and out of the city’s control with respect to LCLUP amendment and certification.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he was bringing some level of comprehensibility to a complex problem, and he will add his thoughts to understand it to the best of his ability. He asked, if they pass this, will they have to conform it to the 1980 LCLUP or the updated LCLUP.

Planning Director Murdock stated that in a simple sense, yes. He stated that they will either be amending the 1980 LCLUP to say they have newer and more specific policies in the Sharp Park Specific Plan, and it may be more challenging of the two because there is a disconnect between broader policies in the 1980 LCLUP and the more modern focused policies in the Sharp Park Specific Plan. He stated that the alternative is that they will achieve certification of the 2020 LCLUP and making relatively minor amendments to that to incorporate the Sharp Park Specific Plan. He pointed out the difference between the 2020 and the Sharp Park Specific Plan are much smaller than the difference between the 1980 LCLUP and the Sharp Park Specific Plan.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, if he is understanding him correctly, if they submitted the 1980 plan, got it certified and that’s the law, but now is the 2020 LCLUP considered an amendment to the 1980 or is the 1980 gone and 2020 is the new law.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was a bit of semantics, and he would use different terms.

They need Coastal Commission certification of our policies in order for them to take effect. He stated that people call them amendments when there are relatively small changes, such as changing one parcel’s land use designation. He didn’t know if amendment makes as much sense when they are talking about a comprehensive replacement, but in either case, it is a replacement and it needs certification from the Coastal Commission and that is the operative issue in order for it to take effect in the coastal zone.

Councilmember O’Neill assumed that they are just amending the 1980 plan with the 2020 plan and then submit this if Council approves.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they would be amending in its entirety the 1980 LCLUP as opposed to a narrower amendment that might implement a particular change in land use designation.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck returned to the question of putting more robust language about the sea wall in this document. He thought he heard him say that they were in the process of figuring out which document they are adapting this document to. He stated that they already have policies in the update that clearly and robustly state that this is the city’s direction and to incorporate such language in this document, being the STSD, might muddy the water when what they are trying to accomplish is very clearly state this is the approach we are taking to protect ourselves.

Planning Director Murdock thought he had that correctly.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he had other comments to follow up on and confirmed that, if no one else wanted to speak now, he would continue.

Mayor Bier stated she was depending on him to look at the public comments and ask the questions.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to parking garages and asked if they made any effort to

2.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 6 August 31, 2022
identify a site where they might put a parking garage.

Planning Director Murdock didn’t think they had because staff’s intention is to try to seek joint use parking facilities, given the significant expense and scarce land area in Sharp Park, i.e., there has been consideration of opportunities to potentially have a joint use parking garage as part of the 2212 Beach Boulevard project or as part of the library redevelopment or both. He stated that there were other opportunities to seek other places to construct parking facilities, but those are the two most promising as they have project concepts, under the city’s control and make sense given their centralized location to provide common parking facilities and he thought that was likely where staff’s energy will be unless Council thinks a different direction makes more sense.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck commented that Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser has joined them, and he encouraged her to share any comments that might be helpful as he asks questions.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he didn’t want to butt in but wanted to ask a question about parking in lieu.

Mayor Bier stated he can go ahead and ask his questions.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they had talked about raising our in lieu parking fees, and he asked if they have raised them, and what is the amount. He asked if they need to do a separate parking in lieu fee just for this area as they did in Rockaway.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the Council has already adopted an in lieu parking fee for the Sharp Park Specific Plan area and it is in effect, and indexed to construction cost index and thus a mechanism to step it up which was missing from the original Rockaway Beach parking fee. He stated that he would have to pull up the resolution for the specific amount, but he thought it was around $40,000 per space. He stated that individual requests for payment of the fee in lieu of providing parking need to be approved by the city and Council can approve a lower amount and may want to for certain types of land uses as an incentive. They may want higher per space fees for other land uses as well. He stated that, while Council retains some discretion on the actual fee amount for a particular use as each reduction may run across purposes to accrue enough money to construct the improvements, which is a delicate balance for Council.

City Manager Woodhouse thought Sr. Civil Engineer Donguines might have the exact figure, but he thought the maximum amount in considering park in lieu fees was higher for Rockaway Beach and in Sharp Park, more in the $70,000 and Council did adopt more than average and in the $40,000 as mentioned by Planning Director Murdock. He stated that they can double check that.

Councilmember O’Neill wanted to be sure they don’t end up with the situation they had in Rockaway Beach and it was addressed for Council’s and the public’s knowledge. He asked confirmation that it is not spent on other issues.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed that it is intended for parking related improvements.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the adopted maximum per space fee at the time of adoption in 2020 was $40,260 per space. He didn’t have the figure available on what the maximum allowable justifiable fee would be, but the Council’s maximum adopted was that

2.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 7 August 31, 2022
amount.

Mayor pro Term Bigstyck referred to the parking in lieu fees, and he read that there was an opportunity to tweak how they use the parking in lieu fees to bolster infrastructure such as bike infrastructure, such as for bike racks, etc. He asked if this is the time to start contemplating making those changes or are they putting it down the road.

Planning Director Murdock stated that a fee, other than the fee adopted for in lieu parking, would require a separate fee study and separate adoption by Council and that is something Council would direct staff to undertake, probably as part of the annual goal setting process. He stated that they would want to be sure they have sufficient policies in the document to make it clear what the requirement is and the action from developers as part of the project and implement an appropriate fee for that purpose.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck liked the comment about the notion of being commercial spaces not on the ground floor, and he asked if he could address that briefly as something that could come.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there is, but there is nothing in the Sharp Park Specific Plan today to prevent commercial uses above the ground floor. He stated that they have sought to require them along Palmetto Avenue on the ground floor to make those active commercial uses and allow residential use above the ground floor, but commercial uses could comprise some or all of stories above the ground floor such as to achieve ocean views.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought they will spend some time talking about height and what it means for the area, but his next question was regarding serving fire needs up to 55 feet and he asked if they have checked in with the Fire Department and does Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh have any insights.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated regarding the aerial ladder they have for Pacifica housed in Station 95 in Daly City on Edgemont is 107-foot aerial platform they have that is used for the entire JPA for North County Fire for Brisbane and Pacifica. He stated, regarding height, depending on commercial or residential is anywhere from 10-12 feet, and there are a lot of factors in play when they are talking about an aerial platform. They have setbacks from the street to the structure compared to the angles of inclination for the areal itself, thus, multiple factors that can take place when they look at the position of areal ladders and how far a ladder can reach. He stated that there is a formula and it would be hard to explain it but, if they have a street to put the truck with an offset of 50 feet to reach the building, that is a right angle that you look at as you have the distance from where the vehicle is to the distance to the structure off the setback to how high the story is. From that, you have to remember that, even though they are 107-foot ladder or whatever it is, you have angles you have to deal with. He stated that, if they are setback, they can’t get 107 feet all the way. He stated that it depends on the type of building, placement, parking, height of the stories, etc., that they have to look at, but they have a truck that services Pacifica.

Planning Director Murdock asked him to discuss the relationship of modern building materials and construction, as well as the inclusion and mandatory requirement for fire sprinklers in these buildings and how it weighs into consideration of availability of a ladder apparatus.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated that is something they deal with constantly when it comes to construction. They talk about the new alternative methods of materials that are more fire resistant, fireproof and they also look at what type of sprinkler systems they may want to put in.

2.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 8 August 31, 2022
He stated that, at times, people will come and look at the alternative methods that they can get away with those type of materials instead of having something fully sprinklered. They are all factors taken in with new construction almost every day.

City Manager Woodhouse added further clarification as it is important regarding fire response.

He thought the intent of the question was simply do we have the equipment to respond to this kind of building at that height, and the answer is yes, as that equipment serves buildings that high in Daly City. He added a related point was the approach of their boundaryless approach to fire response in San Mateo County, and if any special equipment is busy at any given time, they have a system that brings it from other communities as well as rapidly as possible, thus the answer to that question is yes to that question.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated he was correct regarding the cooperative relationship they have in all the boundaries and responses they have throughout the entire county. If our ladder is busy on an incident and we have another need for one, they get from another department and vice versa, and that cooperative relationship is great in San Mateo County. He stated that they do have a ladder aerial platform available whenever it is needed in Pacifica.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded that, on the one hand, anytime we build anything, especially something taller than is usual, they will make sure to clear it with the fire department to make sure we are in conformance.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh responded affirmatively.

Mayo pro Tem Bigstyck asked, based on this plan, if there was anything he is seeing that makes him think that it might cause a problem down the road and they shouldn’t do that out of a sense of safety.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated, for clarification, when you are talking heights on buildings, an aerial platform is only going to be good up to certain amount, and it doesn’t matter what city you are in, but they take into consideration some of the other means and ways to build to make sure the public in those buildings are safe including the fire responders.

Planning Director Murdock referred to Policy 6-I-4 which gets exactly to the heart of his question by ensuring that, before approval or construction of 4 or 5 story buildings, the city ensures the fire authority has the ability to properly service those buildings.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the question of east/west changes, i.e., Santa Maria, and the question regard single family zoning and multi-family residence that is there. He thought Councilmember Vaterlaus was asking this question and it was answered earlier, but he wanted to circle back as it was asked again. He wanted to get as much clarity on the point as possible.

He stated that a commenter also referred to the seven properties on Salada and density and consistency. He asked Planning Director Murdock to help him navigate these.

Planning Director Murdock thought his understanding of the comments may reflect a misreading of the diagrams in the plan, as one diagram referenced is titled existing land use. He thought they may be interpreting that to mean existing land use designation when it is actually meant to describe the existing built condition of those properties shown in the diagram which is not necessarily the same thing as the existing 1980 LCLUP land use designation and he thought that was the source of one point of confusion. He stated it is possible that land use diagram contains an error, and staff will certainly review the properties mentioned to ensure that they

2.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 9 August 31, 2022
correct any factual errors, but he reiterated that it was a misinterpretation of the information being conveyed by the diagram. He mentioned earlier in the meeting that, when you compare the existing land use designation in the 1980 LCLUP, they have not undertaken any changes to those east/west residential streets from those land use designations that are in the 1980 LCLUP. If there may be dissatisfaction with what they are, they don’t reflect any change that is proposed in the Sharp Park Specific Plan and reflects the status quo that has been in place since 1980 and that is the best description and summation of the issue at hand and what might be able to be done about it.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the 8-foot sidewalks on San Jose and stated that the commenter had questions about addressing people going down the street the wrong way and does this plan address that.

Planning Director Murdock recalled when he was a planning commissioner and expressed the same observations and concerns from his past experience in the Sharp Park neighborhood. He didn’t know what a plan can do to address people failing to observe traffic directional signs that indicate one-way streets. He thought there may be additional ways to visualize that, but it was in the purview of the city engineer in accordance with the manual for uniform traffic control design, and he suggested Sr. Civil Engineer Donguines can talk about what options there are to make a more prominent visualization of the one way, so he will let him think about it and circle back. He then asked him to repeat the first part of his question.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was asking about 8-foot sidewalks down San Jose.

Planning Director Murdock asked Ms. Moore if she could bring up a diagram that shows that section on San Jose. He stated that the diagram was trying to emphasize the importance of those east/west pedestrian and bicycle connections which were emphasized in a variety of community engagement settings and the Planning Commission’s extensive deliberation. He thought it reflects a possible misreading of the plan.

Consultant Moore apologized for interrupting but asked if staff could bring up her screen to share.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they needed to reflect on one thing the commenter said that was true, i.e., there are a variety of encroachments by property owners into the public rightof-way that they may perceive as their front yards but are a right-of-way owned by the city and it is a point they want to raise for Council to consider and weigh that policy consideration as to whether they want to drive towards these improvements to serve the greater good in terms of safe pedestrian and bicycle circulation or are they concerned about removing encroachments by property owners into the right-of-way. He asked Ms. Moore to walk them through that.

Consultant Moore stated that the diagram shows the width of existing segments, as well as proposed segments along San Jose Avenue and an extension of the sidewalk to eight feet is proposed on the northern side to provide the connection to the pedestrian bridge, but there is no change proposed to the width on the southern side of San Jose.

Planning Director Murdock thought it might be vice versa, but in either case, it is eight feet on one side and six feet on the other, reflecting the improvements in that sense.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if that would be taking out what someone perceives their front yard.

2.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 10 August 31, 2022
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, explaining that the city right-of-way in many cases in Pacifica is wider than the built street and often wider than the improved sidewalk space. Over the years, owners may have unknowingly encroached into the public right-of-way with fences, walls, etc., and if these improvements were made, the city would need to remove those encroachments from the public right-of-way and go through a process with the property owners to do so.

Consultant Moore added that he was correct, and on the southern side that connects to the pedestrian overcrossing.

Mayor Bier asked if they know how many properties are affected which is a concern to her.

Planning Director Murdock didn’t think they had a specific number as they haven’t surveyed the area, and they made a preliminary assessment that multiple properties are likely to have encroachments and that would be part of a more refined engineering assessment if the city were to pursue a project like that in the future.

Mayor Bier asked if he could give her the Policy number in Chapter 4.

Planning Director Murdock asked Ms. Moore if she has the document up.

Consultant Moore stated that they specific east/west improvements are included in Table 4-3, packet page 71.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if there is a state regulation on how wide a street has to be in order to be passable by vehicles, parking and bicycle lane.

Planning Director Murdock asked Sr. Civil Engineer Donguines if he could speak to what those minimum engineering standards are as well as comment on the MUTCD considerations.

Sr. Civil Engineer Donguines referred to the one-way San Jose street, he knows that on some of the streets they have a do not enter sign along with a one-way sign. They will review the other streets that are one-way and add the one-way or do not enter signs to make sure that the public knows not to enter those streets the wrong way. He will get back to them regarding the minimum width for the travel lane. At this time, for passenger vehicles, it is between 10-12 feet for a regular one lane street.

Consultant Bhatia added that this issue was discussed extensively by the Planning Commission. When they went to the Planning Commission, they did not have the extra foot and a half on the southern side nor reclaiming the city right-of-way but they had narrower parking strips. He thought Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser may be able to comment on that, i.e., they had 6-foot wide parking lanes which the Commissioners thought were not adequate and cars would be getting out into the right-of-way needed to safely travel on the street and that is when they ended up widening it a little bit which required on the southern side of the street to go into the places where the city right-of-way does exist. He stated that there are about ten properties, and he is not sure how many actually have any structures, like fences, etc., that will come up to the street.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that Mr. Bhatia is correct. When this came to the Planning Commission, the parking spaces were much narrower and they thought 8-foot wide parking

2.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 11 August 31, 2022
spaces were appropriate but working with Public Works and talking through this, 7.5 feet was what they thought would be the minimum that would be safe, effective and feel comfortable to provide the extra breadth that Mr. Bhatia mentioned.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they can consider language for policy specific to one-way streets and improving signage and other safety measures if desirable to Council and is a specific recommendation in Chapter 4.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck didn’t know if he heard that there is a particular mechanism for addressing the one-way streets within the context of the document. He thanked Sr. Civil Engineer Donguines for pointing out that they would look at extra signage. He thought the Local Roadway Safety Plan they are currently working on might also be a good opportunity to bring that to the safety plan underway. His last question regarding community feedback was the issue of 55-feet structures and when he was on the Planning Commission, north of San Jose was where it seemed more appropriate for 35 feet and no higher than 45. Now, it seems there are potentials along that strip for 55 feet. He watched all the Planning Commission meetings, and he has a rough sense of how they arrived at that and thought either Vice Chair Hauser or Planning Director Murdock could chime in, but it was a concern because going straight to 55 feet does strike him as out of character with the neighborhood. He wasn’t sure what it looks like when it is stepped back or what further study would make him feel more comfortable. He wanted to hear how they arrived at that potential as he didn’t think they were considering that in the last consideration.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that the Planning Commission discussed this a lot, and one of the things they talked about was, looking at the land use diagram, Figure 3-3, there are a lot of MUC along Palmetto, the MUC designation at Eureka Square and MUC designation on Francisco. She stated that, if you look at the policies, such as 3-I-39, northern Palmetto density and height.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked her to give them a page number.

Vice Chair Hauser stated it is 3-24 and she always does it in the document instead of the packet and that is the closest she can give him. She stated that it says that, on Palmetto, heights up to 45 feet and only when you do affordable housing do you go above 45 feet. For Eureka Square, it also starts at a lower height which she thinks is 45 feet and only by doing additional commercial space do you end up being able to develop into 55 feet. They looked at the two things the city wants, affordable housing to help with the housing crisis and RHNA numbers and they want high quality commercial because that is what Pacifica needs for economic development. By using the 55 feet as an incentive, it provides more flexibility. She thought the land uses on Francisco are the only place where the 55 feet was for MUC.

Planning Director Murdock added that Palmetto south of San Jose was up to 55 feet and he didn’t think it was further conditioned on incentives. He added that, along the lines of what Vice Chair Hauser mentioned, Council’s guidance with respect to heights north of San Jose was clearly understood and it also received a lot of public input about the need for affordable housing. In recognition of the fact that the city does not have a significant funding source to support the production of affordable housing, using the incentive of additional height in very narrow circumstances to achieve sorely needed affordable housing, he thought the Commission thought that was one reasonable exception to the other important policy consideration which is neighborhood scale effectuated through the 45-foot height limit. He thought Council would ultimately find out where to come down on that issue, but it was from an affordable housing

2.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 12 August 31, 2022
supportive standpoint that the Commission resulted in that recommendation which, for a project of seven units, which would not be subject to the city’s BMR ordinance, they got a 28% inclusionary housing requirement, nearly double the 15% they would get through the city’s otherwise applicable standards, thus, they might go from zero affordable units to two under this mechanism.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that there was one other thing she forgot to mention. In chapter 5, the plan requires setbacks as well as setbacks from single family residential zoning to create a buffer. It was not a zero lot line and all of a sudden it goes from a 15-foot height single family home to a 55-foot building. She stated that there are buffers and design controls that have been contemplated and put into this document.

Mayor Bier asked if they can see that. She stated that, when she watched the Planning Commission meeting, she thought there were some brought up on the screen and it would be helpful to see those again. She is very concerned about this as she thought their direction was clear. She would like to push back a little bit and see what it would look like in showing our cottages.

Planning Director Murdock stated that packet page 110 is one example of the visualization of the daylight plane and Ms. Moore can jump in if she can identify some others. He thought it reflects that the rear setback is showing a 55-foot mixed use center building near a 35-foot high building to the rear behind it. He thought it could be a single family residence in the configuration that Vice Chair Hauser mentioned. It is showing the requirements to step back with the daylight plane along the rear of that building to provide some separation and ensure reduced impacts to shadowing the daylight for the property to the rear as well as the minimizing of the imposing that might result in a box that went straight up to 55 feet along the whole facade and he pointed out more detailing in the diagram. He added that they may get to a different issue regarding the human scale or smaller scale desirable while trying to allow the achievement of density which is a critical element to the vibrancy they envision through the plan.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to state laws and exemptions that would allow the developer to build denser regardless of what they tell them they can do, and he doesn’t know how deeply that played into this conversation but he recalled it being there somewhere. He asked, if they allowed 55 feet if affordable housing, what it would look like if they did up to 35 and then allowed them up to 45 with affordable housing instead.

Planning Director Murdock thought he was referring to state density bonus law which has a variety of thresholds that a project needs to meet in terms of including affordable housing units.

He stated that, in some cases, it is as little as 10% affordable for certain types of projects, and applies to projects of 16 units or more, so very small projects are not subject to the state density bonus law. As mentioned in the policy that Planning Commission recommended, projects that invoke state density bonus law would not be able to avail themselves of those additional bonuses. He thought that, at the heart of local community fears about state density bonus law, on the one hand it is supportive of affordable housing development but on the other hand it eviscerates local land use control through the required incentives and concessions that the city has to grant in accordance with the state density bonus law which the legislature determined was necessary to allow additional housing density and monetary compensation in return for providing those affordable housing units. He stated that the Planning Commission took care, i.e., Eureka Square, to try to manage state density bonus law to try to fully achieve to the extent possible about commercial and residential site.

Mayor Bier stated she fully understands Eureka Square but she is having a hard time with this

2.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 13 August 31, 2022
section, and she hoped other councilmembers chime in.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that, when the Planning Commission reviewed this, one thing they really looked at were the density ranges established in the General Plan that were matched in this Specific Plan for consistency. She stated one thing they thought was appropriate was the densities that are being contemplated, i.e., MUC 30-50 dwelling units per acre, in order to achieve that and have homes that are appropriate for families and not just micro-studio apartments, they need to allow for that additional height potentiality.

Councilmember Vaterlaus was concerned about Eureka Square because that location’s height limit doesn’t affect anyone else and brings more people who would walk and use the square, but she understands that they are incentivizing them so they can go higher if they build affordable housing. She stated that all of that is supposing that someone is going to build any of this. She stated that they can try and change height limits but they don’t build and people will have to come in and build them. She knows construction is difficult on a neighborhood but it isn’t going to happen all at one time so it will take a long time for this process to go through.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was going to jump in response to the Mayor’s comment and her request for hearing from councilmembers. She shares the mayor’s concerns as she looks at the plan and thinks about the neighborhood we currently see and looks at some of the designs in the plan and she can’t help but think about places they all see when they travel over the hill. She mentioned this to Planning Director Murdock’s attention multiple times. She stated that in areas that have different zoning and are on a very busy transportation corridor such as El Camino they are seeing boxes that go from street level to the fifth floor with very little attention given to setbacks, changing the look in terms of little decks, etc. She is concerned that they are inadvertently creating a condition where that could happen in this neighborhood. She doesn’t want to disrespect the work that the city, Planning Commission and consultants have done in terms of delivering what they asked for and she is not saying that the plan is terrible. She is not saying that, and thinks it is very good, but she thinks they need to be a bit more refined in certain parts of the corridors. She thought they did a good job in multiple public meetings when they discussed 45 feet north of the street and 55 south. When she looks at some of the renderings, she realizes these are not plans that anyone has put forward, but it still gives her pause. She referred to packet page 102, architectural features, and when she looks at a potential building, she doesn’t think it looks like the picture on page 103 and doesn’t look like the design elements at 1914, 1922 and 1926 Palmetto. When she looks at the building on page 101, she has a similar response and maybe what she needs to get over is that you can’t have a tiny cottage and affordable housing. She is trying to navigate and be respectful to our community who gave Council their impassioned feedback multiple times over the months they have been working on this. She is looking for a way for Council, that is committed to creating more housing in our community and vibrancy in this neighborhood, to honor that and continue forward with that while at the same time defining a way that our design can look more like the historic cottage neighborhood that she is hearing about from many commenters and they see.

She wants to hear from staff and consultants on how they do that.

City Manager Woodhouse didn’t know if his question will help or not on this discussion on tension between neighborhood character and affordable housing. He thought it might be a question for Vice Chair Hauser as to whether the Commission talked about this in the context of our RHNA allocation and the difficult work they have to do with the housing element coming up, particularly the large number of affordable housing that is required. He stated that this important discussion weighs on the capacity for in-fill development for housing versus the tough issues that will arise for potential housing sites elsewhere in Pacifica. He stated that he wanted to

2.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 14 August 31, 2022
throw the RHNA and housing element variable into the conversation and apologized if that makes it more difficult.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that one thing that was added on 3-16, where it talks about Eureka Square redevelopment on a 5-acre parcel. It is MUC and allows for a lot of development, one of the biggest place available in Pacifica. She stated that it contemplated that a space that large gets 171 housing unit. She referred to the City Manager’s point that it will be very difficult to meet RHNA numbers close to 2,000 units when they don’t have a lot of spaces this large. The question the Commission looked at is how they do it and give a flexibility to the Planning Department to come up with a housing element draft that contemplates that. She stated that they took it into consideration and having that 171 units puts into perspective for them on what it takes to get to that large number.

Planning Director Murdock stated, in response to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s comments, he would go back to packet page 110 and explain that his opinion on the ground to sky 55-foot high boxes that she alluded to in other communities would not result from the Sharp Park Specific Plan, as staff and the Commission took great care to put objective design standards in place that would ensure building articulation and stepbacks along the front and rear of these buildings so they don’t get large, unwieldy boxes that are well out of character with the scale and design desired. He also referred to the Commission’s point of the character of the character of the buildings at Palmetto and San Jose, and they put in two specific policies that get to the heart of what’s desirable about those buildings, i.e., windows, sidings, detailing, to ensure that it is carried forward into the design of future buildings. He stated that none of the diagrams referenced are intended to be example buildings, but to depict different characteristics that would result in the policies but not to be a building design in and of themselves. He stated that, more to the point, those were created much earlier in the planning process and don’t reflect the refinements that they would get through the policies that were developed and the design guidelines and all comprehensive characteristics that come together in a particular building. He then pointed out that they are being asked to decide what the future character is of the neighborhood and there is a lot to like about what they have today but Council determined several years ago that they wanted something different, better, and what he said earlier in the process and will repeat, the 35 foot height limit intact for 40 plus years has not achieved what Council has said it wants through the Specific Plan. He stated that, as hard as it is to move beyond that, it may be a necessary element to achieve some of the other desired outcomes that Council has espoused and giving its guidance to staff. He then referred to the height issue, i.e. north of San Jose Avenue and Palmetto, and stated that is not a make or break component of this plan and wasn’t an earlier component of the plan. He thought the Planning Commission saw it as a unique opportunity to try, with the tools available to it, to provide for additional affordable housing. He didn’t think that was an essential element to the plan and didn’t think it was likely to get them along the way where they need to be in their RHNA in the housing element for affordable units, given the small size of the sites but it would be indicative of the city’s support in every instance for affordable housing because every unit counts for the families that live in those units. He concluded that was a policy issue that Council will have to weight and decide, but the plan can retain its integrity without that height of 45 feet north of San Jose, but just a rare opportunity to try to get additional affordable housing units without direct public financing.

Mayor Bier thanked him and appreciated what he said.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck appreciated his articulating it in such a way that he feels like there is a little bit more flexibility in his decision making within the context that he is feeling acutely every

2.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 15 August 31, 2022
unit of what it will take to come to that 1800 number, and he suspect other councilmembers might feel the same as well. He wanted to address their full menu of options is. Instead of having it written that it is a 45 to 55 with the bonus, what if they looked at something of 35 to 45 instead. He asked what that would look like if they adjusted it, such as would it be helpful if they did that.

Planning Director Murdock thought they would need more time to think critically through the different variations of that approach, and his initial reaction is not to tether an incentive to get from 35 to 45, and probably better to allow 45 which Council has already supported earlier and hope to get more units in each project, up to eight units or more and try to trigger the city’s BMR ordinance. He thought that was a more useful way to crack that nut with respect to incentivizing affordable housing development, rather than tethering it to 35 to 45 which he wasn’t sure was enough density for economic benefit to get there.

Consultant Bhatia added that, if there were to be a qualified affordable housing project, they would keep a concession and the city would be compelled to grant concession for projects that are larger than six units. He thought they were talking about small projects, and allowing those projects have the same benefit that a larger project might have. He stated that it comes down to a handful of sites. He referred to page 48 of the packet, they have a map of opportunity sites and they can see many of those sites are larger sites and would have more than six units on them and it comes down to maybe no more than three or four sites. This is what they are talking about, those smaller sites, that may get some additional floors as a result.

Planning Director Murdock wasn’t sure he could put a number on it, but he does raise another important point, i.e., for projects of six or more units, they are more readily able to trigger state density bonus law which really takes the lid off of city control. He stated that the backstop in this location is the coastal zone and the CDP requirement and LCP and Coastal Act compliance, and density bonus isn’t quite the unlimited release of local zoning as it might be outside of the coastal zone, like in the Eureka Square context that the Commission worked hard to address.

He stated that the presumption is that it would apply and the city would be on the defensive to argue why a particular incentive or concession would be inconsistent with the LCP and the Coastal Act. The Commission was trying to incentivize projects not to invoke state density bonus law to get these other benefits available to them in terms of extra height and density and that is an additional wrinkle to this consideration.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought, in theory, by keeping in place the 45 to 55, we might wind up with smaller projects than if they leave it to the developer invoking state density bonus law.

Planning Director Murdock thought that was one of the indirect incentives for this project.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that was the extent of the question he wrote down in terms of community feedback.

Mayor Bier stated that she would like to come back to it as she didn’t think it was fair to the community to not listen to the specifics, as this is one part and they are doing a lot of other changes in other areas, thus she would push to keep it at 45. She thought they should start going chapter to chapter and they can come back to that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked why there is no table of contents in this document.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there isn’t a good reason, but they did include a hyperlink

2.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 16 August 31, 2022
table of contents in an earlier public review draft and they will add that into a future draft if Council directs that at a subsequent meeting or in a final approved version if that is where they get at this meeting.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he would like to see a table of contents.

Mayor Bier called a 5-minute break before starting going chapter by chapter.

Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting and began with Chapter 1.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to Chapter 1-2 about natives using water for food, water and fuel and he asked what is meant by saying they use it for fuel.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he reads the sentence to mean that, from the creeks, they pull the three different resources of food, water and fuel in the form of wood, brush, etc.

Mayor Bier then stated everyone agreed to move on to Chapter 2.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought they have addressed the question of amending the LCP depending on how they fall on this document. He referred to a similar question about the bike and pedestrian master plan and he heard the robust discussion in the Planning Commission and he took that to mean that, if they pass this, it was a good idea to go back to the bike and ped master plan as they might need to tweak it based on the adjustments they made in this document.

Planning Director Murdock agreed with him, and he didn’t think there was anything inconsistent with the bike and ped master plan that was recommended by the Commission. There are additional improvements and he thought it would be good practice to retroactively amend the bike and ped master plan to be consistent with these additional improvements and recommendations.

Mayor Bier agreed, then no other comments so she moved on to Chapter 3. She then referred to packet page 52, 3-G-4, where it talks about the Pacifica Resource Center, and it says for any future mixed use development of the current Pacifica Resource Center, allow the non-profit to use of PRC to continue and she wondered if they could possibly strengthen that language.

Planning Director Murdock thought they could as allowing expansions is one component of that.

He stated that the mixed use and land use designations proposed along Palmetto do not directly allow non-profit office type uses on the ground floor and he thought the Planning Commission was sensitive to the importance of the PRC and its uniqueness and ensured that there was a policy to support its ongoing use. He thought it could be interpreted to allow it at its current scale and range of uses and he is hearing that they are trying to allow it in all of its potential future forms.

Mayor Bier agreed.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to page 40, 3-2, types of commercial uses in Sharp Park where it says visitor serving, and he asked if they could add recreation as there is quite a bit of recreation between the golf course, fish and pier, archery range and, if they put in bike and walking.

2.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 17 August 31, 2022
Mayor Bier asked where he was.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to packet page 40, land use designations, table 3-2, stating it has community serving, neighborhood serving, visitor serving and he suggested they put something like visitor serving/recreational.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the visitor serving description currently includes commercial recreation and he asked if there was some other recreational component that he feels is not adequately addressed in that description.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that commercial sounds to him like a paid thing, such as money changing hands and a bowling alley and pee-wee golf, but there is a lot of free recreation there, such as the pier walking along Esplanade, the golf course which isn’t free but is a recreation, and he feels recreation is a component of Sharp Park.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed, adding that confusion or not, the constraints of changing it here is that the table title says types of commercial uses in Sharp Park. She asked if there was a place to put language that acknowledges the non-commercial recreational uses in the area or highlights that they exist and will continue to exist. She referred to the pier, which is free for fishing. She knows it is alluded to in the plan but what Councilmember O’Neill is getting to that we don’t want it to sound like we are going to commercialize all of the recreational opportunities in the area.

Councilmember O’Neill agreed, as he thought a major draw for out-of-town visitors is the pier, Esplanade and Mori Point. He didn’t know if any of those are really commercial, as commercial means to him that it is a private business, not a public recreational asset. He didn’t know if he had a different interpretation from everyone else.

Planning Director Murdock thought they may want to consider policies in Chapter 5 that talks about public gathering places and green space, and a variety of recreational uses mentioned and ways to support the physical development of spaces for recreation including public plazas and other public spaces. He stated that, when you think about land use that they are striving to and willing to focus on the north/south corridors, those are primarily recreation rather commercial oriented locations and that is why the policies they are reading are drafted as such.

He asked Ms. Moore if she wanted to add to that.

Consultant Moore added that, in chapter 7, packet page 140, there are more specific descriptions of what each of those unique coastal resources are.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if she stated 140.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she did.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if everyone is comfortable with the way it is, he was okay with it.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it is a technical response, but when you look at the planning area for the Sharp Park Specific Plan, it does not specifically include the pier, golf course or archery range in east Sharp Park and this plan would not directly any of the land use policies that protect those existing recreational uses and they would be thinking about other internal uses to existing subdivision throughout Sharp Park.

2.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 18 August 31, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated it was fine, adding that next time he will call it the Herschell Harkins Pier.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked him for mentioning that. She thought they should be referring to it by that name. In the very beginning of the document, it is just referred to as the Pacifica Pier. She thought it was a technicality.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they do call it Rev. Herschell Harkins Pier in there.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has to find it as she noted the reference when she was reading it.

Councilmember O’Neill suggested she open up a pdf and do a search.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed she could do that.

Mayor Bier stated she can let them know when she finds it. She then referred to packet page 56, affordable housing 3.6, and it says in the footnote that the recent comprehensive data is not available, and she asked staff to explain why it is not available and where do they get it.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he can speak to his personal experience and Ms. Moore may be able to speak about specific data gathering conducted to prepare the plan. He stated in his previous experience it is very difficult to find comprehensive systematically updated rental data, particularly for narrow geographies such as Sharp Park. He found in the past that it is citywide or region wide rental data that is a more reliable data source. He asked Ms. Moore if she had any familiarity with sources of more data that might support the mayor’s desire.

Consultant Moore suggested they look at Zillow or Redfin or other similar sites to get more of a sense on what rents are, but she didn’t know how that would be representative of the whole Bay Area but only available for units that are available for rent, not non-existing.

Consultant Bhatia stated that the census collects more comprehensive data and, at the time they did this, the census data had not been published. He stated that they could look at that and some other sources, but he was sure the Housing Element is getting into that. He stated that it is background facts, not policies and won’t change any policy, even if they had more up to date data.

Mayor Bier thanked him as there is a policy 3-I-36 displacement indicators and it talks about monitoring indicators such as changing share of low-income household, average rent, sales price, and she was curious about how they monitor that and if that type of detail belongs here or in another policy discussion they will have some time in the future as she knows there are rental registries that they can talk about, but she was curious about what they hear and how they monitor it.

Planning Director Murdock stated his assessment of the policy 3-I-36 on packet page 57 does reflect a best-case scenario of data you would have to support ongoing assessment of housing related impacts. He stated that the Sharp Park neighborhood is viewed historically as one of the more affordable neighborhoods and it has a lot of rental housing units, such as smaller or multi-family properties in many cases and he thinks there is a sense of wanting to protect those and existing occupants. He stated that, as an existing matter of law, displacement that might

2.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 19 August 31, 2022
occur as part of a redevelopment of the property has a number of legal protections in state law, including to the Mello Act which requires the city to determine whether low income persons occupy buildings that are affected by redevelopment and has certain provisions obligating the property owner to relocate those residents within three miles of the site in question or the coastal zone more generally. He stated that existing law already does contain a number of protections for displacement in the coastal zone.

Mayor Bier thought they could talk about that during the housing element. She then asked if anyone had something to say in Chapter 3, then moved on to Chapter 4. She stated that she didn’t see any discussion about micro-mobility and she didn’t see the term.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that on page 79, there is a reference on 4-I-15, shared bike, scooters, etc.,
Planning Director Murdock stated that the term was micro-transit, and the Planning Commission did spend some time talking about those kinds of issues and how to support a variety of mobility options, including electric scooters and bikes and types of regulations to balance the use of those implements with public safety and how to achieve that. He stated that Vice Chair Hauser might be able to share additional insights as they did discuss that.

Mayor Bier thought it would be great if Vice Chair Hauser would like to add comments.

Vice Chair Hauser thought Planning Director Murdock did a good job at answering that, and she wouldn’t add much. She stated that they spent a lot of time making sure that there were bike paths in appropriate places, how people get to the pedestrian bridge, adding the bike paths that gets them to the pedestrian bridge even though there is no direct site access. As they had that conversation, it came up that they needed to have a policy that provided for different types of mobility.

Planning Director Murdock added two more points that don’t immediately jump out from policy 4-I-15. One is that the Commission did explore whether it was appropriate to put policies that might regulate speed limits and other safety considerations and the consensus was that it was a question for Council on a citywide basis through a separate type of ordinance, if that was their desire to regulate safety of those types of transportation modes. In other policies related to the creation of public plazas, some of the required components of that to achieve some floor area ratio bonuses was the inclusion of electrical outlets and he thought that is supportive of those Escooters and E-bikes to allow people a convenient method of recharging those during their daily use.

Mayor Bier thanked him for that input.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked, in terms of encouraging private use of van pools, if there is an appropriate place to put that in the plan. In referring to Councilmember O’Neill telling them about the work that is done in staff housing at Jefferson Union High School District and linking that with existing resources, she was thinking about development in Eureka Square someday, and she asked if it is appropriate to mention that here, as they spoke a lot to existing public transportation through SamTrans and she was acknowledging that it is not adequate and it feels that, if they are going to encourage a number of housing units affordable, they will need to encourage, if not require, some kind of support to get people to transit hubs. She didn’t think SamTrans is it. She hoped it will change, as they are seeking to have that happen, looking for seamless transportation issues but she didn’t think it has gotten better over the last few years.

2.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 20 August 31, 2022
She asked if they need to insert something here or is it covered at another point in the process.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, if that was related to this being a priority development area and there is increased population, whether they will get some extra funding for some things.

Planning Director Murdock thought there are a number of ways that the Sharp Park Specific Plan and the PDA and other elements of existing law come to bear on this issue. He stated that the priority development area is one tool, and it is less clear because all of the funding opportunities are not always known at this point in time. He stated that there are additional funding opportunities where they can get to a critical mass and improve transportation service and add ways for existing transit. He stated that those are very expensive and somewhat longer term solutions, to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s point. One element of existing law that applies through state law through the congestion management program requirements for each county are that CCAG administers the county’s transportation demand management program and it is a fancy word of saying implementing measures like bus passes, van pools, increased bicycle parking and other site specific design and operational components to give people convenient alternatives a to a single occupant vehicle for their transportation needs. He stated that, at the scale of the Sharp Park Specific Plan, supporting bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, bicycle parking, supporting micro-mobility and micro-transit modes, to the mayor’s comments, are where the most impact is likely to be made, given the smaller scale of projects.

Through that transportation demand management program administered through CCAG, any median to larger scale projects that trigger 100 average daily trips are going to trigger a requirement to incorporate those transportation demand management principles into their project and the ongoing monitoring. He stated that, in Chapter 8, Table 8-2, on packet page 152, there is an interesting opportunity that the plan would support, but not appropriate to get into all the implementations specifics in the specific plan. Note No. 1 in Table 8-2 says as an impactful policy statement sort of hidden, they may be able to repackage that if desired, as it talks about the parking in lieu fee that the Council has adopted potentially being recast as a transportation demand of management in lieu fee and broadening the purpose and utility of the fee. He stated that they are singularly focused with the fee on providing off street parking spaces in a common configuration, but all that does is incentivize and reinforce automobile oriented transportation. If the desire is to focus on alternatives to single occupant automobile trips using an in lieu fee of some sort to provide other types of transportation infrastructure and incentives could support those alternatives in a way that the city hasn’t previously done, and that may be something worth revisiting as the plan supports it. He thought there may be some further amplification of how the policy could support that.

Mayor Bier stated she would support that.

Vice Chair Hauser stated this was very important to the Planning Commission as well. She wanted to draw their attention to two different policies. On packet page 75, 4-I-4, curb management, it talks about creating opportunities for ride share spaces, Uber and autonomous vehicle spaces but that was on the public streets and that was something that was thought through, and then they got into private development. On Policy 4-I-16, on packet page 86, it requires new development to contribute to the mobility network options and service quality. The note there says options include provision of onsite bicycle parking dedication of space for car share, e-bike charging stations or electric vehicle charging beyond CalGreen requirements which is currently just a pre-wire for e-bike charging and the Commission felt that this would be a good vehicle to allow staff, when Planning Commission or Council looking at a development proposal, to require these things.

2.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 21 August 31, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked her for mentioning the e-bike charging as that was her other thought.

Mayor Bier concluded they were done with Chapter 4 and moved on to Chapter 5.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if this was where they talk about the height limits again.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they were getting there.

Councilmember O’Neill thought, in Chapter 5, two issues or concerns he had was wanting to encourage commercial establishments, restaurants, etc., on Palmetto and Francisco. He asked if this was the appropriate document for them to put in the law or ordinance that they will put in the venting or ability to remodel for venting for restaurants. He thought the biggest obstacle for someone to open a restaurant is the capital needed to remodel an old building, which can cost $100,000 to $150,000 just to do the venting. When you are building, it is a minimal cost, and he would like to see if it is appropriate for this document or something they cover later.

Planning Director Murdock thought this is an appropriate document if a particular emphasis is on restaurant land uses to provide a policy that indicates support for that. They would like to include that in some other type of ordinance to provide more specifics and impose the requirement, including buildings that don’t trigger a discretionary permit under whatever scenario that might occur. He thought it would be appropriate to include it at the will of Council.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he is looking to see about flexibility in terms of the buildings being able to be adapted. He stated that there was something in there about buildings being built so they can handle a variety of businesses, he thought in Chapter 5. He was concerned that, if you want restaurants there, there are probably very few buildings there that are adaptable now for restaurants. He stated that, if that is what they want, this is where they put it.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was on page 100.

Councilmember O’Neill asked Planning Director Murdock if that was where they put it.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he would need more time to think about the best place in the document to place it and it would help to see if there is consensus from the Council on that policy and they can work on specific language and placement.

Councilmember Beckmeyer supports that as they need the area to be flexible and adaptable.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it depends on the size, as if they have a very small commercial, you aren’t going to want to put in all the elements to put in a restaurant in a little tiny space as it might be a coffee shop or bookstore, so it depends on size.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it was appropriate to say for square footage above a certain size.

Planning Director Murdock thought there are restaurants of a variety of sizes from very small to very large and it is hard to say that they will only get a restaurant above a certain square footage. To the point about size, he thought it may be a proportionality question, i.e., is the cost too great to include those relative to a very small commercial area. He stated his response would be that, when they come through with zoning amendments to implement the General

2.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 22 August 31, 2022
Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan, they will be talking about minimum commercial FARs and they are likely to ensure sufficient floor area for these commercial and mixed use properties that would be able to support that type of mandatory improvement.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that all they need to do at Rockaway Beach. They have the Holiday Inn, they did an addition, they have a commercial space downstairs. He stated that when you see a hotel, you think people have to eat breakfast but they didn’t outfit that space and it has been vacant for probably almost a year at this point and he talked to someone who had a tenant, a restaurant, and they were going to have to spend $150,00 to remodel it to get the venting, gas, bathrooms, etc., in there, and it seems frustrating that in our “visitor serving area” such as Rockaway, ground floor at the bottom of a restaurant at a prime corner, we did not encourage it to be a restaurant. He asked if they are going to end up with another real estate office, insurance company or something that brings in no revenue to the city, is not visitor serving and is a waste of valuable commercial space that brings in no revenue to Pacifica. He stated that, if you want a whole street of it, let’s not make Palmetto adaptable.

Mayor Bier stated that they want it to be adaptable.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he doesn’t know how to do it, and he asked, on Palmetto and Francisco, do they do it for both. He stated that restaurants do better if there is more than one restaurant, such as five or six, they do better.

Planning Director Murdock stated he was envisioning preparing the policy, if Council is supportive, to apply to all commercial and mixed use buildings in the Specific Plan area so there is a lot applicability unless Council feels it was appropriate to more narrowly target it to a specific street or streets.

Mayor Bier thought that was great.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed to have it apply to all this.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they all know what Manor Shopping Center is, and one of the issues at Manor Shopping Center is that every single one of those buildings is owned by a different owner. They tried to have a master sign ordinance which has fallen apart. If you go down to Solvang, they all look like they are from Denmark. If you go down to different places, they have a theme. He asked if we want to have some sort of sign design or sign standards so that it doesn’t look tacky or a free for all, etc. He stated that, if you are building mixed use, do you want the neon light to be on the building for the apartments above it.

Mayor Bier thanked him for bringing that up, as she was going to mention the florescent signs.

She stated that there are various sign designs and there is a lot of information about signage but she didn’t see anything about the florescent signs. She stated that there have been people complaining about them, such as the little new store on Palmetto.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the Rockaway Beach specific plan includes some basic sign criteria to help achieve a general consistency and there are guidelines and it is appropriate to support hopefully a policy that calls for development of either street wide or specific plan area wide sign criteria, perhaps as part of the zoning ordinance. He thought it would be difficult at this stage to go back and do that detailed design work now, but a policy to support consistency for corridors might be appropriate. Our current zoning requires multi-unit properties to have master sign programs but it is relatively burdensome for individual small property owners to

2.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 23 August 31, 2022
develop that. He stated that it is a pain point for him and his team as they work through those requirements. He thought, if they could achieve something that was suitable from a neighborhood wide standpoint that would business friendly, staff friendly and may result in a better outcome as well, rather than a building-by-building approach. He would offer one counterpoint, that Eureka Square has a very recently adopted m aster sign program and maybe Palmetto has one, Francisco may have another and maybe that is the right balance to consider, given the unique characteristics of each of those and the signage needs of those areas.

Councilmember O’Neill wasn’t saying that Palmetto and Francisco have to have the same, but Councilmember Vaterlaus was telling him about a merchant that was going to put up a sign and it was going to cost them $20,000 and he didn’t think they need to put that burden on someone, but he didn’t want a bunch of little tacky neon signs up and down Palmetto.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, in his professional judgment, signage is critically important and often overlooked as it can make or break the quality and character of an area.

He stated that high quality signs can be very expensive but they are a one-time investment that can last for many years if not decades, and make or break an area. He stated our code wouldn’t prescribe a cost, but with the higher quality of the sign, he thought it was a reasonable assumption it would be more expensive than those ticky-tacky signs they are describing that tend to be less expensive and often preferred by business owners on account of the cost. He stated that was a policy question for Council as it relates to the overall outcome and appearance of the area.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it is referenced very broadly on packet page 90 under guiding policies, 5-G-1, Unified Image, and it mentions signage. In a few places on lighting and illumination zone.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought that was to be a way finding more than regarding commercial use which is now he reads it.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he will need to circle around to that policy. He referred to packet page 92, with respect to the glare question, there is policy 5-I-10 that talks about light pollution reduction and you don’t excessively brighten neon signs, for example, would likely be inconsistent with that and they would want to take the allowable type of lighting into consideration when crafting signage guidelines.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that was all he had for right now.

Mayor Bier asked if they want to address height limits. She thought it was better to leave it at 45 feet. She thought the extra 10 feet is causing our community pain and making them afraid.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed with her. He recalled a couple of years ago, they were angling for 35 and 45 and it was a painful conclusion to come to. He is acutely aware of our affordable housing issues to the tune of two of roommates he lives with currently, and while he is acutely aware of the regional housing allocation numbers that are going to be a tension point for at least the next few months,, it is important to our community and he will err on the side of Mayor Bier’s judgment in this instance.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the current height limit is 35, and if they are going to expand at all and try to put forward that that the city is willing to try to meet our numbers, how are we going to do it. She thought we will have to change density. She thinks that, by stepping

2.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 24 August 31, 2022
back the properties and putting rooftop decks makes a huge difference. She thinks that those buildings that look like they are old but aren’t, she thinks buildings can be built that way. She stated that the Royal Bee has a facade and they could have a deck and step back residential on the top of that building. She stated that it won’t affect other people and that is her big thing with Eureka Square, as it doesn’t affect anybody. She understands the incentive of trying to give people incentive to build more affordable, because that will be an issue too of trying to get more affordable. If they leave it at the same height limit it is now, what have they accomplished. She stated that they are trying to get somewhere where they can get to our RHNA numbers plus, if you have housing where the commercial is, this was our downtown. If you have residential with the commercial, it is a natural incentive for people to walk, get out, not use their cars and walk to shops, restaurants and use the shops there so those businesses are doing better because they have people around them all the time. She thought it was really important as you don’t want people who are going to work and then go home like downtown San Francisco where everyone goes there during the day and then they all leave. If people are living in the same neighborhood, and on top of the businesses, they are going to use those businesses more.

Mayor Bier thanked her for saying that, and she clarified that they are talking about the north of San Jose Avenue to 45 feet and Palmetto Avenue south of San Jose Avenue is 55, and they are increasing density in that one area.

Planning Director Murdock stated that was the point he wanted to clarify so he was understanding the conversation in the right context and he can provide helpful support. If they are focused on the discussion of whether 45 or up to 55 with certain incentives is appropriate on Palmetto Avenue north of San Jose, they talked about some of those relevant considerations.

He is asking if that additional height worth the tradeoff for potentially creating two affordable housing units for instance on a property and that is a policy attention that Council will have to work through. He stated that the Planning Commission prepared a thoughtful policy option for Council and Council could scale that back in line with their previous guidance on the Specific Plan north of San Jose Avenue.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it would be helpful to her to go back to what Mr. Bhatia was saying about the density and affordable housing development and limiting too much could stimulate builders to invoke state bonus law.

Consultant Bhatia stated that this is a discussion that Vice Chair Hauser can chime in on that they had with the Planning Commission. Currently, the scope that Vice Chair Hauser stated is that the densities do go up to 50 units per acre, but those densities are not realizable at 35 or maybe in some instances at 45 feet. He stated that the question is, if an affordable housing developer does come about, depending on the level of affordability they provide, the state law gives them ability to ask for anywhere from 1-4 concessions. He stated that building height is a typical concession that they ask for and a parking reduction would be another concession they may ask for. He stated that the city is not in the position to say that they take the parking instead of the height concession because they believe it is better for them or more financially feasible and the developer would decide what concessions they want. He stated that it applies to developments that are more than six units in size. He stated, if someone has an affordable development that provides the right mix of affordable housing and they asked for the concession they are able to get. They can ask for two stories or for 65 feet for example. He stated that there is a process they need to go through to get it, not just get it tomorrow. He stated that what the Planning Director Murdock was alluding to is that they will provide an alternative path that, in case they do not want to go in that direction and spend the months to get the additional height, they have the 65 feet and, if you need it, it is an easier task than getting implemented for larger

2.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 25 August 31, 2022
projects and for smaller projects that do not otherwise qualify for the state density bonus, that would still be a level of payment available to the small developments as well and, if it is a small lot, they are stepping back in the front and the side, and the lot is only so big, the perceptual mass of that building is not going be that big compared to a bigger lot where a bigger building may really come in. He stated that it is a balancing act across a variety of ideas.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if the density bonuses overrule the Coastal Commission.

Consultant Bhatia stated that there are density bonuses and the development concessions. He stated that he will defer to the city attorney about the Coastal Commission issue.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have a de facto height limit of 35 feet because it is in the coastal zone, and if they want to make it 55 or 45, it is a battle either way. He is asking if he is saying that we limit it to 45 and, if they want to get the density bonus, will that raise it to 55 or 65 or whatever and overrule the Coastal Commission’s rule.

Consultant Bhatia thought he was asking is, if the concession they ask for is a height concession, are they compelled to grant it even though our height limits will be lower under the coastal plan. He wasn’t sure about that answer but thought the city attorney may have the answer.

Planning Director Murdock stated he would start first and the city attorney can add on as necessary. He stated that state density bonus law is in government code section 659135, and subdivision M is that it really gets to the core of what they are talking about. He read it and then said they need to reconcile those two important policy components of state law, density bonus and affordable housing on one hand and coastal resource protection through the Coastal Act and our LCP on the other hand. He mentioned earlier that, while the state density bonus law can still apply in the coastal zone, the city will be on the defensive where they have to justify why the density bonus would be inconsistent with the Coastal Act and our LCP and that puts them in a position of having to argue why that density bonus incentive or concession should not be granted. He would prefer that the city be in a place where, if the developer chooses not to invoke state density bonus law and they can negotiate what the appropriate outcome is up to and including 55 feet in height and 50 units per acre in the mixed use center. He stated that the tradeoff is that they invoke density bonus law and we have much less control to achieve the desired outcomes and we may get 55 feet or more in height as those people may be entitled to under the state density bonus law unless the city can conclude that it is inconsistent with the Coastal Act.

Consultant Bhatia stated that, prior to 2019, the coastal zone provisions prevailed over the density bonus regulations. The state law Planning Director Murdock is referring to for the density bonus about harmonizing that with the coastal zone, in effect, overturned a cold case out there that was the guiding one that said that the Coastal Act prevailed, but it still speaks to the notion of harmonizing, but he didn’t have the answer to the concession of the height issue.

He stated that on the density issue, he does know that state law asks us to harmonize the state’s affordability density provisions with the provisions of the Coastal Act. He states that it puts the city in an odd situation to harmonize it and be better off to the extent they can have more control over it with the alternative path that gives the developers some guidance as Director Murdock suggested.

Councilmember O’Neill wants to be sure he understands this correctly that the RHNA numbers of approximately 1,900 is requiring the city to identify 1,900 places that they can build some sort

2.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 26 August 31, 2022
of housing and they have no control whether they will get it built because a developer has to come in. He stated that, if they go down from 55 to 45 feet, they would have to identify a specific amount of unites somewhere else in the city to build 1,900 units.

Planning Director Murdock stated that generally he is correct. He stated that part of the housing sites analysis that they have to go through to demonstrate their ability to accommodate the RHNA is demonstrating that their assumptions are reasonable. They start with the characteristics of the site, including size, maximum density allowed, and how developments have realistically developed in reliance on this. He stated that most aren’t developing at 100% density and there are assumptions that they didn’t include in the calculations that says realistically the density will be at a certain level, adding that when you take the height from 55 feet to 45 feet or 45 to 35, those reasonable assumptions the achievable density go down as it is harder to fit more units in a smaller building than a taller building. He stated that there could be impacts where they cannot assume as many units on sites that are limited to 35 or 45 feet and have to be made up at some other site in Pacifica.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he wanted to throw that out into the discussion as part of the recipe for this.

Mayor Bier wonders how many units would it be north of San Jose Avenue.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the answer is not many. He thought it was more illustrative of the city’s support and it would help them make the argument to the state in certifying our housing element that we are taking all reasonable measures to support housing production generally and affordable housing specifically. He concluded that, at the end of the day, it isn’t going to make or break their RHNA.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, in terms of going to the Coastal Commission, as they aren’t going to be happy with either 45 or 55 feet, whether it would be more prudent to go in there with 55 intending that they won’t go any lower than 45 from a negotiating point of view.

Planning Director Murdock stated that staff’s assessment is, whether 45 or 55, the visual resources impacts are not meaningfully different. He stated that you see what you see from public view’s advantage points along the rights of way in some minimum number of publicly owned property which are the key coastal views they are obligated to protect and preserve, and once you go above the current baseline of 35 feet, what will change in terms of the water views or mountain views in this particular neighborhood between 45 and 55. He thought not that much, but there are other considerations, like scale and neighborhood character which are relevant, but in terms of visual resource impacts, he wasn’t sure there is a meaningful difference.

Consultant Bhatia stated that many of the parcels are also corner parcels and we have such small blocks here so when stepping the buildings back, they are likely stepping it back on two streets in the front, not just Palmetto. He stated that, in many instances, there are only two parcels, one on either corner and the mass does get reduced effectively when you step back.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that something occurred to him in the discussion about the state density bonus laws that he wanted to see if this is an over-simplification or a potentially unintended consequence. If the current Planning Commission recommendation related to 55 feet height is scaled back to 45, he stated that an unintended consequence of that would be to incentivize more potential developers to utilize the state density bonus law and result in loss of

2.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 27 August 31, 2022
control factors to the city and higher height than 45 anyways. He asked if that is an unintended consequence or a simplification of this.

Consultant Bhatia stated this was specifically discussed and it is not an unintended consequence as the Commission discussed that this is what will happen in this very issue if they were to not do that and try to get more control and try to provide that incentive from the city’s perspective as opposed to developers by default who want to go up in that direction and seek the state density bonus. He thought two of the commissioners were well versed in those state laws.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, whether or not it is likely or unlikely, the fact is that, without providing this mechanism as recommended by the Planning Commission, there would be no available alternative for a developer to use other than state density bonus law which, by default, makes it more likely to occur.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Vice Chair Hauser, in her experience, if they are doing themselves a favor by retaining more control if they were to go along with the 55 feet.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that this is something they talked about a lot and it is definitely preferable to not have the state density bonus, seeing what governs developers, as the state density bonus takes a sledgehammer to something that really requires a chisel. She stated that, if she is a developer and provides a housing development with 10% of the units being moderate, which is less than Pacifica’s municipal code currently requires. She would automatically qualify for a state density bonus which allows for one concession, i.e., do whatever she wants as long as she can prove that there is an economic benefit to her and unlimited waivers. She stated that unlimited waivers is the thing that is really scary. If there is any sort of objective development standard that the city has established, a developer using the state density bonus law could say that he doesn’t want to do a setback, glazing on the bottom, or commercial and they can get something that looks completely different than anything that was ever intended by this plan. She stated that, by using a Pacifica incentive, it is to hold the purse strings and hold that control so they do have the flexibility to do something that is aesthetically pleasing and respectful of the neighborhood, community, etc.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought she also answered his next question, but he will ask so he can hear it again, i.e., if a developer were to apply for these height concessions, he thought he heard her say that, even though they asking for height concessions, they are simultaneously no longer constrained by our design standards.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that he is correct, as long as it is an objective design standard, they are not constrained by them.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked her to say the last part again.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that they can waive out of any objective design standards, any guidelines, any municipal code requirements for a setback, open space or parking. She stated that, in addition to the concession and waivers that are unlimited, there is subdivision P of the state density bonus law which already has a parking reduction baked into it. She stated that she can’t state enough that they really tried to do things in a way where developers would not be able to concede out of the commercial they were thinking of or provide minimal affordable housing and get all of the incentives that probably were not meant for them but for low and very low affordable deed restrictions.

2.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 28 August 31, 2022
City Attorney Kenyon stated, not to correct any of the information and legal analysis that they have gotten from staff and Vice Chair Hauser, she is there to provide color as she can tell them that this struggle that they are all having now with how they deal with the implications of the state density bonus law and what it practically means when an application comes in as Vice Chair Hauser eloquently articulated for them, that is a discussion that Councils are having everywhere because of what is happening with the RHNA numbers and the need to find those units. She stated that the balance between being specific in what they want versus anticipating what is going to come to them and how can they address that future development that they don’t have in front of them. She stated that it is a balancing test and what they are hearing from Vice Chair Hauser is that the Commission has spent hours on this in many meetings, discussing it and coming up with an approach that is not unusual and other communities have followed as well when dealing with this tough issue.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he has spent hours watching the Planning Commission deliberate on this specific topic and Vice Chair Hauser speaking in such a way to bring them to this policy that it seemed to him that they were doing everything they could to protect us to the point where we could decide our own destiny through this methodology than the alternative.

He stated that it was painful for him to vote against one unit of affordable housing, but simultaneously, it is painful for him to vote against the community wanting their community to be at the scale and consistency they wanted. He thought 45 feet was going to a place that was uncomfortable for him north of San Jose on Palmetto within the context of the community. He wanted to say that they don’t have control over what the state says we have to do, but we do have control over saying that we support the community in what they would like to see and, from there, if the state wants to come and impose, they have the design standards in place and it is incumbent on the state to deal with it. He would be charmed if that oversimplification actually was something that he heard any evidence was true based on everything he just heard. He stated that makes an uncomfortable position for him to be in, even though it hurts to give up any affordable housing units. Since Planning Director Murdock stated that it wasn’t that much affordable housing, he could swallow that for the sake of his community but what is hard for him is hearing that, if he doesn’t do this thing which his community is looking at and saying that is not what they want but simultaneously hearing that it may be the same mechanism by which they can retain any control whatsoever. He stated that is what he is considering as he listen to others as he is in a place where he doesn’t know how he is going to fall.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, in keeping a 45 foot height limits, whether there is an incentive they can give a developer for keeping it at 45 that would not want to make them go for the density bonus. He asked, if they want to go for a bonus to go higher, whether there was some bonus they can think of to keep it at 45 and disincentivize them to go higher.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was hard for him to imagine, and they need to see if there are any direct economic financial gains and he thought an in lieu parking fee is one area to explore, such as a waiver in certain instances, but relative to the cost of potential income of an additional unit is a relatively small amount, even if Council were to waive the in lieu parking fee.

He was at a loss to think of additional base to incentivize the affordable housing production.

Consultant Bhatia stated that parking is the first thing that came to his mind as that the biggest cost of structured parking.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that the easy one for her is ground floor commercial space which is a loss later or a net neutral to most developers, and if you can use it for getting more housing, that

2.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 29 August 31, 2022
is an obvious way to create an economic benefit. She stated that, via a state density bonus, that can already happen as they can concede or waiver out of the commercial. She thought the question was how you balance that against all these other policies that they tried to put forth, i.e., an active ground floor that is walkable and pedestrian friendly with strong street walks. She stated that is the well hanging fruit she sees but she doesn’t know if it undoes other things they care about.

Planning Director Murdock stated he would continue what Vice Chair Hauser was saying and put in context the existing challenges that exist for creation of a vibrant, dynamic Palmetto Avenue. He stated that they are not in a situation like many other downtowns where there are multiple streets and a nice grid configuration with multiple opportunities to wrap around commercial in a very continuous environment. He stated that, on Palmetto, they are talking about a long linear mixed use area that they are trying to create with enough critical mass of interesting uses and business, etc., that they do draw the types of investment and visitors that they are seeking with the plan to result in half of that available area by foregoing ground floor commercial use north of San Jose Avenue as a tradeoff to manage height walls to achieve affordable housing. He stated that they might drastically undercut the primary mission of the plan which is to create a vibrant mixed use commercial destination.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he doesn’t know if it will help Council or not, but it occurs to him to realize that the decision they make on this matter at this time is not necessarily a permanent decision for the next 20 years for Pacifica as plans and policies can be revised in the future with revisions to the plan. He stated that Planning Director Murdock or City Attorney Kenyon can chime in on that. He stated that there are so many variables related to development incentives and what is happening or might happen in Pacifica that they would learn from what does happen and adjust. He didn’t know if it would help, but he was reminding them that the decision on this is very important but not permanent for future decades.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if it would be possible that only the larger parcels can have a height limit of 55 and the rest remain at 45, or if a developer buys 4 or 5 parcels to build something.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it was possible, and what he think that incentivizes is potentially lot consolidation which is one of the goals of this plan to achieve better building design and site planning. He stated that, once they have the larger lot, even if a minimal density, you have a project that is going to trigger state density bonus law and achieve eight or more units which is going to be subject to the city’s below market rate inclusionary ordinance and would not be in this category of projects. He stated that they are really talking about projects that are in the vicinity of seven units or below and six and seven unit projects are in that sweet spot for the lot sizes that they are talking about in this area.

Mayor Bier asked Council where they go from here.

Councilmember O’Neill thought they should take a sense of the Council to see how many are 55 and how many are 45, but he didn’t know if any of them have made up their mind.

Mayor Bier stated, after hearing everything, she wanted to stand up for the community and say that north of San Jose should be 45, not 55. She asked where the rest stand.

Councilmember O’Neill was leaning toward risking 45.

2.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 30 August 31, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought it was hard as they are changing the neighborhood. She stated that it has been in process for a long time to make this a downtown which is difficult because people want things to stay the same. She thought, in order to go forward and get what the state wants, it is hard and it could come out beautiful which is hard to imagine it. She thought it was difficult to follow what the pictures are. She stated that they have to do something.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thinks 45 north of San Jose and 55 elsewhere. She thinks the risk of the invocation of a density bonus is a calculated risk. She is looking at the figures 3-2 on existing land use, and 3-3.

Councilmember O’Neill asked what page she was on.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it was packet pages 36 and 41. She stated that they received public comment on this issue. She wants to test his understanding is that, if it were 45, there is the risk that the developer could say no, he wants a density bonus and not have to abide by any of the other design considerations in that transaction. She stated that she was concerned earlier when she was hearing that they could even ask for 65, so she thought the rubber part for her is what the risk is of what they are going to do and not being able to control it.

She stated, considering the coastal zone we are in and the need to respect the view shed area and neighborhood character that they see consistently brought up by the Coastal Commission, those will be issues for us and for any projects that come forward. She stated that they are attempting to have their guidelines blend in with the neighborhood as much as possible while changing it and she feels that 45 is a good compromise.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he heard an active member of the community and this area specifically for a long time that this is a nightmare. He thinks that 45 feet probably isn’t making that nightmare any better, even though it sounds like consensus is leaning toward that being the least we can do to make it not quite as much of a nightmare. He acknowledged that as well as that she is not the only one feeling that way. He also appreciated that other community members feel different, but this may be minimizing it a little bit and he will vote with consensus and take the chance that they may not be losing the last bit of control they could have and are trying on any level to stand up for our community. He agreed with 45 north of San Jose.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated with no incentives, if they build affordable even on small projects as that was one of their items with possibly going up to 55 if they have the incentives, sort of like Eureka Square, to build affordable even on small projects.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated not necessarily.

Planning Director Murdock stated, depending where the majority of Council goes on this, one policy option to minimize the risk of projects invoking state density bonus law is to lower fee density that is allowable for those areas north of San Jose Avenue. He stated that Planning Commission had recommended, as part of policy 3-I-39, that to maintain compatible scale, density be allowed at 30-25 dwelling units per acre, and he thought limiting it to 30 units would reduce the number of lot sizes that could potentially achieve 60 units and thus trigger state density bonus law. That was one risk mitigation approach the Council could consider as a companion to limiting building heights to 45 feet north of San Jose Avenue. He stated that the flip side of that would limit the number of potential projects that might get to eight units and trigger the cities BMR ordinance and have adverse effects on affordable housing production, but he thought it sounded as though the Council may be leaning towards balancing this issue in

2.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 31 August 31, 2022
favor of neighborhood scale and more modest height limits. He stated that, as a supplement to that, they may push down the density to 30 units per acre.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought that made sense to her.

Mayor Bier agreed that it made sense to her.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded it was specifically north of San Jose, only along Palmetto.

Mayor Bier agreed.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that one of the biggest vacant lots in Sharp Park is on Palmetto between Salada and Santa Maria which is north of San Jose.

Mayor Bier thought it is getting harder and harder with every single sentence.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that they are giving a consensus of 55 below south of San Jose, 45 above only on Palmetto. He stated he was okay with that.

Planning Director Murdock referred to Councilmember Vaterlaus’ point, and he thought the lot described at the southwest corner of Santa Maria and Palmetto Avenue, is designated mixed use center currently, and even pushing the density down to 30 units per acre, that project would trigger 11 units and would be eligible for state density bonus law and would be able to provide affordable housing and benefit from the variety of concessions and waivers and the Council would have limited options to prevent that.

Councilmember Vaterlaus concluded that it is regardless and it doesn’t make any difference.

Planning Director Murdock agreed unless a fundamental change in density of much lower than 30 units was considered which they would not recommend at this point.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they were lowering the density to 30.

Mayor Bier responded that they were.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that, while they are on this page, she brought up and one member of the public brought up, and she knows that Planning Director Murdock explained it, but she asked if he could explain again why certain parcels are designated certain ways. She stated that the went through this with the property on Salada where they ended up parking their cars on the front yard because it was zoned R2 and it had to be R3 and, even though it wasn’t three units, it was a very complicated process and, if some of the lots are already designated incorrectly, what about lots that are in the process of approval now. What happens with those.

Planning Director Murdock stated he was referring to the lot of 37 Salada Avenue project which is now being constructed. It was a very typical process. He admits that the city didn’t have the best tools available at that time, and those that were available were to redesignate that property to high density residential which he thinks elicited some reaction from Council at that time and it didn’t feel like the right approach. He stated that, due to the mathematics of how the density ranges are calculated, the applicable zoning that corresponds and allows development at those densities and the very small lot size that generated a high “density” even for one single family residence. He stands behind the right approach to resolve that issue from the tools that were

2.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 32 August 31, 2022
available at that time. He stated that the other considerations that made that project difficult were that the lots, as mentioned, were small but very narrow as well and the options to provide a nice economically desirable house while also providing a driveway and garage was hard to imagine how all of that could be provided. He stated that there are ways to do it, but there are tradeoffs in building design and they provided examples of that. At the end of the day, Council said they didn’t want to do this again so where he is hoping to address that is through zoning revisions that implement small lot size development standards which may allow development of lots to be constructed without changing the General Plan under certain strict development standards, perhaps smaller floor area and finding a way to accommodate parking that is acceptable to the neighborhood. He concluded that the reality is that there is no good way to make everybody happy when you have such small lots which is one of the factors in favor of encouraging lot consolidation by making development of individual very small lots undesirable and consolidation and development of larger lots that provide design flexibility that is more desirable. He stated that is the challenge that he has to try to put something together for Council to consider as part of the zoning ordinance update. He stated that, at this point, they tried to stick very close to direction not to tinker with the east/west streets in this Sharp Park Specific Plan and focus on the north/south commercial mixed use corridors, and that is why, for better or worse, they haven’t proposed a bunch of land use changes to maybe right size some of those densities or reflect existing built conditions. They kept the status quo from the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan and it would require direction from Council to go back and revisit that at this time.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated, since they didn’t change anything, the properties that are in process are still the same as they were before.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that he isn’t familiar with the application that one of the public commenters referenced earlier, and if it came in late today, he was not aware of it.

He thinks the more relevant point is, whatever the Council may due at this meeting or in an upcoming meeting, this plan and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan are not going to be certified in a day, week or even month by the Coastal Commission and another instance of where status quo remains and they will have to use the tools in the tool box today, including those tools they had to use for Salada Avenue, Lot 37, and it may come back again and they will have to figure out if there is an incrementally better way to design a project on one of those sites.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked him for reclarifying that for her.

Mayor Bier suggested they move on to Chapter 6.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed, but before they do, he stated that, after watching the Planning Commission going through all this, especially Chapters 3, 4 and 5, they just got the smallest taste of that and he reiterated how grateful he is for the pains the Commission has taken to get them to this point as that may be the most difficulty they have at this meeting.

Mayor Bier thanked him for saying that as she thought the same thing. She asked if they had anything in Chapter 6.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to packet page 120, under electricity and natural gas, at the top of that paragraph, and he wondered about the relationship between Peninsula Clean Energy and PG&E and how accurate that narrative is, adding that he may be speaking from the bias of working with PCE, and this may be accurate but he wanted to ask.

2.b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 33 August 31, 2022
Planning Director Murdock stated he was not seeing any factual inaccuracies with the narrative as presented, but if there is something more specific you would like to have clarified, they can revisit that narrative ad make it a more explicit statement that they are separate utility providers or PCE provides electricity through PG&E’s distribution system, but sources through its own power contracts. He needs to understand about what clarification or distinction should be made.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he want PCE to get as much credit as possible, but at the end of the day, he didn’t think it was inaccurate. He wanted to have that conversation out loud in a public venue to make sure that is straight for him.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it is inaccurate to say PCE and PG&E currently provide gas and electric services to Pacifica homes, adding that PCE doesn’t provide gas. She stated that they aren’t mentioned until a little way down the paragraph.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed, as he was thinking that they should be leading with PCE but, even when it comes to electric services, the poles and wires are all PG&E and it is not an inaccurate statement. He stated, as he read it, he felt a momentary wounding of pride as he has been closely identifying with PCE.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, under Council’s direction, they don’t have to the words meet that language at this time, but they can augment it and clean it up to make PCE more prominent and describe the relationship between PCE and PG&E if they get direction from Council that is what they want for the final document.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed with that.

Mayor Bier also agreed.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, on the same line, in the solid waste paragraph, they are leading with landfills.

Mayor Bier asked where she was.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it was page 121. She stated, while landfills a thing, Senate Bill 1383 and other regulations that are currently in place that may not have been when this was originally put together and not as strongly, but she added, as it says Recology emphasizes waste production and diversion, that she would like to see that up higher because the emphasis on landfill at the beginning of that sentence was stating the things they provide is troublesome.

She didn’t think most of Pacifica’s waste is going to landfills based on what she has heard from Chris Porter, as we are a super green waste producer and have been for quite a time, and she thought it was along the same line that everyone wants to see that emphasized.

City Manager Woodhouse thought they could do that same thing. He knows that the comma list mentions transfer stations and materials recovery facilities and they could move what is known as MRFs in the industry, material recovery facilities, before landfills and transfer stations and emphasize recycling and composting collection more in that paragraph.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought that would be great.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated, while in that section, he sent a list of typos to staff which he

2.b
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 34 August 31, 2022
thought was included in that list but it says residential recyclable waste is collected every other week, but the residential recyclable waste is collected every week.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated he was correct.

Mayor Bier then moved on to Chapter 7.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to packet page 136, figure 7-8, and he was curious about the one stationary source exceeding what Bay Area Air Quality Management District threshold was.

He asked if that was Clay Creations.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it is not. The figure is from a statewide data source using latitude and longitude that erroneously plots the dot and they need to fix it. It is a generator at the old wastewater treatment plant facility along Montecito Avenue. He stated that they will adjust that dot to correctly reflect the location.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought that was what it was from the narrative. He then stated when he reads a narrative about the seawall north of the pier, he keeps thinking in his head that it is a retaining wall, not a sea wall and that harkens back to the earlier conversation about the community wanting Council to emphasize our commitment to preserving that area of town, and he reminded them that the conversation they had earlier is that they might be muddying the waters more if they try to emphasize it in this document, and he thought they were not doing so to the best of his understanding now.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was concerned about acknowledging the need that was raised by some who live in that community. She thinks there is an element of confidence and trust that the city is going to take care of the community of property owners, homeowners, etc.

She stated, if there was a way to impart that without triggering the concerns raised by staff, she would like to see them do that. She didn’t know where to do it, and she didn’t think creating a policy is the best thing to do but it is a fact that they have submitted this in our Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update.

Mayor Bier stated that they also have the Beach Boulevard infrastructure resiliency part.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed. She then stated she was looking at packet page 142.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he wanted to offer a slightly different perspective or restatement of what Planning Director Murdock said earlier. He stated that it reminds him of other city business, administrative and policy issues via labor MOUs or policies and city ordinances for administrative efficiency and not to inadvertently create additional administrative approvals or regulatory approvals. He stated that they try not to overlap too much stuff as Council’s direction and position on policies related to the BBIRP (Beach Blvd Infrastructure Resiliency Project) are clear and the policies in the LCLUP that Council approved. He stated that there can be inadvertent consequences of creating hoops to jump through if you intertwine certain things in multiple plans. He didn’t know if that helps, but that is part of the driver.

Mayor Bier thought that helps her.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, as she looks at the paragraph on page 142 that describes the resiliency project, it is very clear what is contemplated in that project and what it is aiming to do. She wondered if there was somewhere else in this section where they can have a

2.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 35 August 31, 2022
more general statement.

Mayor Bier asked Councilmember Vaterlaus if she wanted to say something.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she saw it in there also, and she thought it explains what is going to happen in that process.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked her if she was talking about page 142.

Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively, adding in several of the areas on page 142.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it says to protect public infrastructure, recreational, homes, businesses, and the community at large from impacts due to continued coastal erosion.

She thinks that statement is what was asked for.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she also sees on page 124, in the very place that she was suggesting that they consider, i.e., this chapter establishes goals and policies that, in combination with General Plan and local Coastal Program policies and other local, state and federal regulations mitigate the potential negative effects of natural and man-made environmental hazards and coastal resiliency issues. She asked if they think that covers it.

Mayor Bier thought it covers it more on page 146, and she is okay with that. She then moved on to Chapter 8.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated there are a couple different paragraphs, one about updating the parkland in lieu fees and a couple of different things about impact fees, and what occurred to him when he was reading it was that it was talking about those impact fees as though we’re going to have the conversation. It occurred to him that they already had the conversation and he wondered if it would not be appropriate to change it to the past tense rather than the future tense.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, as given the drafting date of this language relative to when the Council updated those fees. They need to update the narrative and they will do that.

Mayor Bier asked if they could have a motion.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he wasn’t ready to make a motion. He wanted to make sure staff presented these changes to 3-11, 3-20 and 5-9 and regarding the recommendation of Planning Commission, he thought they all gave early consensus that they are including those in the motion and he wanted to remind them of that before a motion is made.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to make sure Planning Director Murdock was ready with policy language. He stated that there were a couple of suggested additions or policy revisions that they want to make sure they show that they captured them. He asked if Planning Director Murdock will show or read language.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he would need a bit more time to repackage it in a visual manner. He thought he could start by reading it. He stated that he would like to run down the list of Council’s directed revisions, with some involving more extensive policy language and they

2.b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 36 August 31, 2022
can pause there and take it as the Council needs. He stated that Council moved around the document but not entirely consecutively and they may be jumping around from chapter to chapter. He stated that the first on the list is adding a policy to Chapter 4 to install extra signage and other engineering measures to reduce wrong way travel on one-way streets, add a table of contents, amend the bicycle and pedestrian master plan to incorporate the additional improvements recommended by the Planning Commission, Policy 3-G-4 to be revised to also allow expansions of size and range of services provided by the Pacific Resource Center consistent with the development standards for the underlying land use designation. He stated there is one where he has a question mark for confirmation by Council is ensuring that there is a description at the first reference in the narrative to the Pacifica Pier indicating that its formal name is Rev. Hershel Harkins Pier but what is less clear is if Council wanted all references to Pacifica Pier to be to the Rev. Herschell Harkins Pier which would require a number of figure updates or if mentioned in the narrative is sufficient.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he was okay with just Pacifica Pier as that is the common vernacular.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated once is fine.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it is fine as long as it is named once somewhere.

Councilmember O’Neill stated it is on page 21.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought she saw it on page 18, but it is somewhere.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they will make sure that the first mention of the pier in the narrative is inclusive of Rev. Herschell Harkins Pier. He stated that the next item is Table 8-2 in note No. 1, wanting a policy to amplify that City Council is interested at some point in determines recasting the parking in lieu fee to a transportation demand management in lieu fee.

The policy that they would add would be explore opportunities to replace or supplement the parking in lieu fee with a transportation demand management fee to support transportation modes other than personal automobiles.

Councilmember O’Neill agreed.

Planning Director Murdock stated the next item was to add a policy to require the inclusion of venting and other improvements necessary for restaurants at the time of building construction and that policy language would be, ensure that commercial and mixed use buildings are designed and constructed to include venting and other required mechanical improvements to allow restaurant uses.

Councilmember O’Neill added that he didn’t know if it has to include the venting but allow the easy installation of the venting. He stated that, if you go in there, you don’t know where the stove is going to be then it would be fairly easy to install and not get into structural modifications.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Planning Director Murdock if that means that they will presumably discussing an ordinance associated with that policy when it comes to goal setting time.

Planning Director Murdock stated it was possible, and they will need to further assess the best

2.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 37 August 31, 2022
way to effectuate that. He stated that he mentioned earlier that there may be instances where a project does not need discretionary review and nearly all projects subject to this policy will and they can insert that in the Planning Commission level review and an ordinance may end up ultimately not being necessary, but they will need to consider if that should be a supplement to this. He stated that, based on Councilmember O’Neill’s feedback, he would suggest a revision to ensure that commercial and mixed use buildings are designed and constructed to allow ready installation of venting and other required mechanical improvements to allow restaurant uses.

He would like to consult with the building official should the Council make the motion to approve at this meeting to see if there is more specific technical wording that they can use to be more specific, but within the intent of Council.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that was fine.

Planning Director Murdock stated another policy that could be added is to develop signage guidelines for distinct commercial and mixed use corridors to ensure consistency and sign design. He stated that the next item on packet page 57, Policy 3-I-39, is to revise that policy to maintain a compatible scale, development on northern Palmetto Avenue north of San Jose Avenue, shall be allowed at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre and at heights up to 45 feet and they would delete the italicized text in Policy 3-I-11 which makes a reference to the affordable housing policies in the revised 3-I-39. He stated that there may be a need to make some corresponding edits to certain tables describing land use densities, and do they want that direction as well. He stated that, on page 6-9, packet page 120, they are going to rework the electricity and gas narrative to make Peninsula Clean Energy more prominent and more clearly describe what PCE is and its purpose and relevance in Pacifica and on page 6-10, similarly with the solid waste section, as City Manager Woodhouse described, they will reorder the list of Recology services to emphasize its recycling, waste reduction and diversion services including composting to de-emphasize the landfill services. On page 6-10, they will correct the misstatement by indicating that residential recyclable waste is collected every week as opposed to every other week. On Figure 7-8, they will correct the misplaced stationary source that exceeds background thresholds to its correct location on Montecito Avenue at the old wastewater treatment plant. On page 8-6, they will revise language regarding the park in lieu fee adoption to indicate that it has been adopted, not that it needs to be or should be adopted and updated, and lastly, as mentioned by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck, the additional revisions presented in the slides to fully incorporate the Planning Commission’s recommendations.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if he included the building height decision in his list.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, stating that it was mention of Policy 3-I-39 related to Palmetto Avenue north of San Jose Avenue.

Mayor Bier thanked him for all that work he just did. She asked if they have a motion.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to adopt the attached Resolution to a) Find approval of the Sharp Park Specific Plan to be substantially consistent with the plan evaluated in the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2012022046, certified by the City Council on July 11, 2022, for purposes of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and b) Approve the Sharp Park Specific Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission as amended; and c) Incorporate all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she would second it with the indications that Planning

2.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 38 August 31, 2022
Director Murdock gave them.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he said as amended.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that this has been at least a three-year long process and he thanked the consultants, Planning Commission for all they did and staff that never get enough credit for the work they do and he thanked them for the work they do to keep our city running as smoothly as possible within the context of the direction they are trying to give them.

Other councilmembers echoed that.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (as Amended)
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of August 31, 2022 Special Meeting (5131 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/26/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Adopt Resolution Amending the City's Conflict of Interest Code to Revise the List of Designated Employees
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the resolution amending the City of Pacifica Conflict of Interest Code to revise the list of Designated Employees and repealing Resolution No. 50-2020.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

California Government Code 87306.5 requires that each local agency review and, if necessary, revise its Conflict of Interest Code in even-numbered years. Public officials designated in Government Code section 87200 must file Statements of Economic Interest (Form 700s).

Additionally, pursuant to the City's Conflict of Interest Code, City employees and certain consultants who hold positions that involve making or participating in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on the holder’s financial interests must file Statements of Economic Interest (Form 700s). A Conflict of Interest Code was first approved by Resolution No. 16-79, which has been amended periodically as noted below.

The City is required to review and, if necessary, revise its list of "Designated Employees" when the City creates new positions, revises job titles, eliminates positions or conducts a structural reorganization within City departments.

In order to comply with State law, the City must amend its Conflict of Interest Code to reflect the changes made in job titles and/or positions. Staff has reviewed new positions created and revised job descriptions that have been adopted subsequent to the update to the Conflict of Interest Code in August 2020. Accordingly, staff recommends adoption of a resolution amending the City's Conflict of Interest Code to revise the list of designated employees to reflect current positions. Exhibit A attached to the resolution included with this report reflects these changes, and is intended to supersede and repeal Resolution No. 50-2020, which approved the last Conflict of Interest amendment on August 24, 2020.

With the amendments to the list of Designated Employees (Exhibit A) the City's Conflict of Interest Code accurately reflects those positions that may make or participate in making decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on the holder’s financial interests. 3 Packet Pg. 92
Pacifica City Council 2
September 26, 2022
Making a decision may include voting on a matter, approving the budget, adopting policy, making purchasing decisions and/or entering into contracts. Participating in a decision includes negotiating the terms or a contract, writing the specifications of a bid and/or advising or making recommendations to a decision-maker or governing body without significant intervening substantive review.

Notable amendments to the list of Designated Employees based on these criteria and the review of new and revised job classifications include:
• addition of Chief Financial Sustainability Officer (new classification adopted by Resolution No. 65-2020)
• addition of Deputy Finance Director (reclassification of Financial Services Manager adopted by Resolution No. 17-2022)
• removal of Financial Services Manager (due to reclassification to Deputy Finance Director adopted by Resolution No. 17-2022)
• update “Executive Assistant / Deputy City Clerk” to “Deputy City Clerk” (new classification adopted by Resolution No. 44-2022)
• addition of Deputy Director of Planning (new classification adopted by Resolution No. 61-2020)
• amend “Management Analyst II (Planning Department)” to “Management Analyst II” (per classification adjustment adopted by Resolution No. 44-2022) • addition of Engineering Manager - Wastewater (per reclassification adopted by Resolution No. 44-2022)
• addition of Public Works Project Manager (new classification adopted by Resolution No. 64-2021)
• amend “Parks, Beaches & Recreation Director” to “Director of Parks, Beaches & Recreation” (pursuant to the updated classification adopted by Resolution No. 50-2022).

Staff recommends the adoption of the resolution amending the City of Pacifica’s Conflict of Interest Code incorporating Exhibit A (Designated Positions). Exhibit B defines the Disclosure Categories and is attached for reference. No changes have been made to Exhibit B - Disclosure Categories.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Exhibit A - Designated Positions 2022 update (redlined) (PDF) Exhibit B - Disclosure Categories (PDF)
3 Packet Pg. 93
Pacifica City Council 3
September 26, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. __-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AMENDING THE CITY OF PACIFICA’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 50-2020
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code commencing with Section 87300, the City Council is required to adopt and promulgate a Conflict of Interest Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 87302, the Conflict of Interest Code shall provide for specific enumeration of the positions within the City, other than those specified in Government Code Section 87200, which involve the making or participation in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have material effect on any financial interest and for each such enumerated position, the specific types of investments, business position interests in real property and sources of income which must be reported; and WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act of 1974, (Government Code Section 8100 et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code and the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has adopted a regulation (2 Cal. Code of Regs. Sections 18730) that contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code, which can be incorporated by reference in an agency’s code. After public notice and a hearing the standard code may be amended by the FPPC to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. The terms of 2 California Code of Regulations section 18730, and any amendments to it duly adopted by the FPPC, may be incorporated by reference into a local agency’s conflict of interest code; and
WHEREAS, Council approved a Conflict of Interest Code by Resolution No. 16-79 which has been amended from time to time to conform to amendments by approving Exhibit “A” and disclosure categories for certain designated positions with the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, approval of this resolution supersedes and repeals Resolution No. 50- 2020 which approved the last Conflict of Interest amendment; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the attached Exhibit A accurately sets forth those positions which should be designated, and Exhibit B the categories of financial interests which should be made reportable for each position; and WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act requires review of the Conflict of Interest Code every two (2) years to determine whether it is accurate or whether it should be amended; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to update its current Conflict of Interest Code to revise the list of designated positions and disclosure categories. 3 Packet Pg. 94
Pacifica City Council 4
September 26, 2022
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica that Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated by reference and the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations section 18730, as may be amended, shall constitute the City of Pacifica’s Conflict of Interest Code.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that individuals holding designated positions identified in Exhibit A shall file Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) with the City Clerk, to whom the City Council hereby designates the authority to carry out the duties of the Filing Officer, in the manner identified by the City Clerk. Statements of Economic Interest shall be made on forms prescribed by the Fair Political Practices Commission and supplied by the City of Pacifica.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this amendment shall be the date this Resolution is adopted by the City Council and approval of this Resolution supersedes and repeals Resolution No. 50-2020, which approved the last Conflict of Interest amendment.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 26th day of September 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 3 Packet Pg. 95
Revised August September 20220

EXHIBIT A
Reportable Economic Interest
Designated Positions Category Nos. (See Exhibit B)
City Council member *
Planning Commission member *
City Attorney *
City Manager *
City Clerk *
Assistant City Attorney 1
Assistant City Manager 1
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer 1
Financial Services Manager 1
Deputy Finance Director 1
Human Resources Manager 4(a)
Economic Development Manager 1
Executive Assistant / Deputy City Clerk 1
Planning Director 1
Deputy Director of Planning 1
Senior Planner 1
Associate Planner 1
Assistant Planner 1
Management Analyst II (Planning Department) 1
Chief Building Official/Building Inspector 1
Code Enforcement Officer 1
Director of Public Works 1
Deputy Director of Public Works - Waste Water 1
Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer -Field 1
Services & Engineering
Engineering Manager – Wastewater 1
Public Works Project Manager 1
Senior Civil Engineer 1
Associate Civil Engineer 1
Assistant Civil Engineer 4(a)
Senior Project Engineer – Waste Water 4(a)
Field Services Manager 1
WasteWater Treatment Plant Operations Manager 4(a)
WasteWater Treatment Plant Collections System Mgr. 4(a) Public Works Superintendent 4(a)

3.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Exhibit A - Designated Positions 2022 update (redlined) (5135 : Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code) Revised August September 20220
Parks Supervisor 4(a)
Motor Pool Supervisor 4(a)
Police Chief 1
Police Captain 1
Fire Chief 1
Deputy Fire Chief 1
Paramedic Coordinator 4(a)
Director of Parks, Beaches & Recreation Director 1
Recreation Manager 4(b)
Recreation Supervisor 4(b)
Child Care Supervisor 4(b)
Senior Services Supervisor 4(b)
Information Systems and Technology Manager 4(a)
Members of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission 1 Members of the Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission 1 Consultants / New Positions **
* Individuals holding these positions are listed for informational purposes only. They are not covered by this code, but are required to file under Government Code Section 87200 et.

Seq.
** Individuals providing services as a Consultant as defined in Title 2 California Code of Regulations sections 18700.3 and 18734 or in a new position as defined in Regulation 18734 that make or participate in making governmental decisions shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in this Code subject to the following limitation:

If the new position or consultant performs limited duties, the agency may tailor the disclosure requirements to the duties performed. The City Manager (or designee) may determine in writing that, due to the range of duties or contractual obligations, it is more appropriate to assign a limited disclosure requirement. a. Not later than ten (10) days after the final approval of a newly created position, the department manager (or designee) shall submit to the Clerk a completed Fair Political Practices Commission Form 804 (Agency Report of New Positions), or subsequent form, which identifies the classification and disclosure categories. The City Manager (or designee) will review the department’s recommendation and make the final determination. The City Manager (or designee) determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code.
b. Not later than ten (10) days after an authorized City representative has signed a consultant contract, the department manager (or designee) shall submit to the Clerk a

3.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Exhibit A - Designated Positions 2022 update (redlined) (5135 : Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code) Revised August September 20220
completed Fair Political Practices Commission Form 805 (Agency Report of Consultants), or subsequent form, which identifies the consultant and disclosure categories. The City Manager (or designee) will review the department’s recommendation and make the final determination. The City Manager (or designee) determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code.

3.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Exhibit A - Designated Positions 2022 update (redlined) (5135 : Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code) 1 EXHIBIT B

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
1) Full Disclosure
All interests in real property located within the jurisdiction, as well as investments, business positions and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments. 2) Full Disclosure (excluding interests in real property) All investments, business positions and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments.
3) Interests in Real Property
All interests in real property located in the jurisdiction. 4) General Contracting Categories (Two models)
Note: The first model can be used for an individual who contracts for the entire agency.

The second model is for an individual who has contracting authority for a specific department.
(a) All investments, business positions and income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, from sources that provide leased facilities, goods, equipment, vehicles, machinery or services, including training or consulting services, of the type utilized by the City of Pacifica.
(b) All investments, business positions and income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, from sources that provide leased facilities, goods, equipment, vehicles, machinery or services, including training or consulting services, of the type utilized by the employee’s department or area of authority.
5) Regulatory, Permit or Licensing Agency
All investments, business positions and income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, from sources that either contract to provide education or training required by the City of Pacifica to qualify for or maintain a license, or entities that provide education or training services which courses or curricula are approved by the City of Pacifica. 6) Grant/Service Providers/Agencies that Oversee Programs All investments, business positions and income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, or income from a nonprofit organization, if the source is of the type to receive grants or other monies from or through the City of Pacifica.

3.b
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Exhibit B - Disclosure Categories (5135 : Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/26/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Report on July 4, 2022 Activities
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Accept the staff report on July 4th 2022 activities.

STAFF CONTACT:

Bill Glasgo, Police Captain
650-738-7314
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

This report serves as the City’s annual summary report on July 4th activities, compiled and reported to City Council in September of each year.

The July 4th holiday brings visitors and residents alike out to enjoy local festivities and scenic beaches. While a holiday for most, City of Pacifica staff must work to coordinate community events, clean and stock beach facilities, and provide public safety. City departments collaborated this year, as in past years, to assure a safe and enjoyable July 4th holiday for community members and visitors.

Illegal Fireworks
Illegal fireworks have long been a problem not only in Pacifica, but throughout the State. The Police Department continued a campaign in 2022 to educate the community regarding the enforcement efforts and dangers related to illegal fireworks.

In the days leading to the July 4th holiday, Police Department personnel erected a lighted sign board on State Route One with a message reminding citizens that illegal fireworks are not allowed in Pacifica, and of the potential for a $1,000 fine for violations. In addition, posters were distributed within the City educating community members regarding the Illegal Fireworks Social Host Ordinance, with the theme of "Host a Show, Pay the Dough." This information was followed up by press releases issued to local print and web-based media, as well as highlighted in Connect with Pacifica weekly newsletters. In addition, anti-litter posters were distributed to local businesses with the intention of keeping Pacifica clean, not only during the July 4th holiday, but year-round.

Safe and Sane Fireworks
This year, (11) non-profit groups received permits to sell Safe and Sane Fireworks. The groups attended a pre-sales informational event hosted by the Pacifica Police Department and North County Fire Authority. Safe and Sane Fireworks booths were erected and inspected by a Fire Inspector before sales could commence. Safe and Sane Fireworks sales operations were without incident this year as no complaints or calls for service were reported to Police or Fire Departments.
4 Packet Pg. 100
Pacifica City Council 2
September 26, 2022
The fireworks sales season ends with mandatory beach clean-up efforts. Hosted by the Pacifica Beach Coalition and assisted by Department of Public Works staff, non-profit groups report to beach locations in Pacifica to assist with clean-up efforts. Each group works at least (10) hours on July 5th, then are required to provide at least (10) additional hours of clean-up on an assigned Saturday in July and August.

The below table indicates the number of hours of clean-up worked by each group. The total hours worked this year was 262 hours. Two groups failed to meet the minimum hours of beach clean-up as outlined in our PMC. The City is currently reviewing its options relating to enforcement of this requirement.

Group Hours (20 required)
American Legion 31.5
Pacifica Moose Lodge 24
Pacifica Girls Softball 21
Pacifica Tigersharks 5
Pacifica United Soccer Club 27.5
Pacifica Youth Baseball 13
Terra Nova High Boosters Club 22
Terra Nova High School Football 35.5
Bay Area Youth Baseball 25
Ingrid B Lacy Middle School 35.5
Pacifica Youth Group 22
Enforcement
The July 4th holiday this year proved to be another busy day for the Police Department. As has been the long-standing policy, all days off were cancelled, with all sworn police personnel working at some point during the day. Police staffing was augmented by (8) officers total from South San Francisco Police Department, Daly City Police Department, and Burlingame Police Department. In past years, staff has been augmented by up to (10) additional officers. This was not possible this year due to staffing shortages experienced by many local police departments.

There were (2) Police employees working in the police department front office, handling nonemergency telephone calls. This is a change from past practice, and allowed police dispatchers to focus on emergency calls for service and officer radio traffic.

The below table depicts total calls for service and fireworks related calls for service. Statistics are shown for the entire day (July 4th though July 5th at 2:00 AM) as well as for the busiest portion of the day (July 4th 7:00 PM through July 5th at 2:00 AM). The latter is the time period when the Police Department is the busiest, fireworks activity is at the highest, and the number of officers working is the highest.
4 Packet Pg. 101
Pacifica City Council 3
September 26, 2022
2020 2021 2022
July 4th
(All
Day)
through
July 5th
(2AM)
July 4th
(7PM)
through
July 5th
(2AM)
July 4th
(All
Day)
through
July 5th
(2AM)
July 4th
(7PM)
through
July 5th
(2AM)
July 4th
(All Day)
through
July 5th
(2AM)
July 4th
(7PM)
through
July 5th
(2AM)
Total Calls for Service 348 220 329 213 240 (-27%) 102 (-52%) Fireworks Calls Only 190 155 191 160 161 (-15%) 85 (-47%) This year, there were 20 administrative citations issued, compared to 15 in 2021 and 17 in 2020. This year, 4 administrative citations were for violations of the social host ordinance. Of the total administrative citations issued, 4 were issued to persons residing outside of Pacifica.

Staff conducted 7 firework appeal hearings and all seven appeals were denied.

Officers were busy handling non-firework related calls on the 4th of July, along with an extensive investigation involving a person found to be in possession of illegal explosives, which required a response from the San Mateo County Bomb Squad.

Overall, illegal firework activity decreased as in years past, as indicated in our call volume table above. Total calls for service throughout the entire day on July 4th decreased by 27% and fireworks only calls (during peak times) decreased 47%.

Safe and Sane Fireworks Sales
Safe and Sane Fireworks sales were robust this year, with the City’s 8% safety fee drawing $41,211 City expenditures for July 4th were largely driven by public safety personnel costs due to increased staffing needed by the Pacifica Police Department and North County Fire Authority. 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Police $13,311 $12,054 $17,514 $17,663 $15,438
Fire $14,282 $14,441 $15,901 $15,995 $15,314
Public Works $9,182 $6,229 $5,761 $5,665 $5,680
Total 36,775 $32,724 $39.176 $39,323 $36,432
8% Fee $32,430 $33,118 $41,676 $39,305 41,211
North County Fire Authority
The North County Fire Authority response to July 4th festivities included proactive community outreach, as well as augmented staffing on July 4th. During community outreach, special emphasis was placed on warning the public of the dangers associated with the use of illegal fireworks.

The public was encouraged to attend professional fireworks displays and refrain from using illegal fireworks.

The following is a list of public education and community outreach activities:
• Provided residence and local news outlets information through social media on the potential dangers of fireworks.
4 Packet Pg. 102
Pacifica City Council 4
September 26, 2022
• Fire companies, chief officers and fire prevention personnel interacted with the public, discussing fire safety and the penalties associated with the use of illegal fireworks. • Posted safety information regarding Fourth of July on NCFA website and through social media.
• Interacted with the public on fireworks and fire safety topics and advised where on beaches fireworks were allowed and not allowed in City of Pacifica. • Reviewed and approved permits for all Safe and Sane fireworks stands (City of Pacifica).
• Conducted safety and fire code compliance inspections of each Safe and Sane firework stand permitted within the City of Pacifica.
• Provided fireworks safety information to the public.

On July 4th, the North County Fire Authority augmented staffing in Pacifica by adding (2) additional fire companies to prepare for the potential of additional emergency incidents associated with the use of illegal and legal fireworks.

In Pacifica between 8 am on July 4th and 8 am on July 5th, the North County Fire Authority responded to one (very small) Vegetation fire and one debris fire related to fireworks. There were no structure fires or injuries reported.

Parks, Beaches and Recreation
The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department held the annual Rocket Run, a five-mile race that occurs at 9 am. Also of note, the annual July 4th celebration was held at Frontierland Park.

This family-oriented event offered food, crafts, games and other events to celebrate the holiday.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council could decide to not accept this Report and give alternative direction to staff.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The collaborative effort to address July 4th related issues and events is intended to contribute to the City Council Goal of Maintaining a Safe Community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact in accepting this report. The fiscal impact regarding July 4th expenditures is outlined in this report.

ORIGINATED BY:

Police
ATTACHMENT LIST:
4 Packet Pg. 103

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/26/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution approving First Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for consult services in connection with grant funding between the City of Pacifica and the firm California Consulting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and California Consulting to extend the Agreement for one year at an additional cost of $60,000; and authorize the City Manager to exercise another optional two-year extension.

STAFF CONTACT:

Alyssa Barranti, Management Analyst
(650) 501-6027
[email protected]
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 501-6004
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City Council has identified "Fiscal Sustainability" as an FY 2022-23 goal, and earlier this year, California Consulting was selected to assist in providing grant funding services to obtain funding for the City's most critical needs. The City Manager initially executed a six-month Agreement with California Consulting to provide full grant funding services in the City Manager's Office. Compensation for services did not exceed $30,000 within the City Manager's purchasing authority as provided in the City's Administrative Policy No. 76.

The City Manager's Office recognizes the value that California Consulting has delivered for grand funding services in executing the City Council's goal of Fiscal Sustainability. As the largest grant writing firm in California, California Consulting has developed an expertise in representing public agencies, having secured over 1.5 billion for their clients since inception.

With a team of approximately 25 grant writers, they have mastered the skill of identifying, researching, and obtaining funding for significant projects at every level of government.

California Consulting practices a full-service approach to working with its clients, starting with a needs assessment, then bringing grant opportunities to the City for review. The firm provides grant writing and submission services (assisted by City staff), and if grants are awarded, they assist in administering the grant, as well as in post-grant administration work. Taking an active role through the entire process is intended not only to find, win and properly administer grants but also to ensure the client develops a good working relationship with the Grantor and that the Grantor is encouraged to consider the City for future grants.

Upon the expiration of the initial six-month engagement in September 2022, California Consulting provided the City with a most recent progress report, which reflects grants in 5 Packet Pg. 104
Pacifica City Council 2
September 26, 2022
progress, grants submitted, and grants awarded (Attachment 2). With over $3 million pending grant value and 7 grants submitted and in progress by California Consulting, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution to allow the City Manager to extend the California Consulting agreement for an additional year with not to exceed $60,000 retainer, with an option for the City Manager to renew for two additional years if needed. This extension will provide staff with extra time to evaluate the overall success of this new grant program and allow staff to maximize the consultant’s knowledge, expertise, and connections in obtaining valuable thirdparty grant resources to fund a diverse range of infrastructure and other projects.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may choose not to approve the First Amendment to the Agreement, which would limit the staff’s ability to manage the grant management services if any of the grants presented in Attachment 2 of this report are awarded. Some technical expertise to execute grant services and related resource topics may be beyond staff’s qualifications. The impact of this increased workload would negatively affect staff’s ability to address other daily responsibilities, including priorities on the City Council’s adopted workplan.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total cost of the one-year retainer is $60,000, which includes unlimited grant research and matching, submission, and compliance management services. There are sufficient funds in the FY 2022-23 General Fund Budget to cover this additional cost, but staff may include the corresponding budget amendment during the mid-year budget review if deemed necessary.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - First Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services (PDF) Attachment 2 - Progress Report (PDF)
Attachment 3 - Original Agreement (PDF)
5 Packet Pg. 105
Pacifica City Council 3
September 26, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING FIRST

AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND CA

CONSULTING, TO CONTINUE PROVIDING FULL-SERVICE GRANT MANAGEMENT WHEREAS, the City has identified various critical infrastructure needs that are not fully funded in the adopted Capital Improvement Program.

WHEREAS, the City has entered, under the City Manager’s purchasing authority, into an agreement with CA Consulting to pursue grant opportunities to fund diverse City needs.

WHEREAS, seven grants have been recently submitted by CA Consulting and are now pending over $3 million in potential awards that may require additional documentation and management services if awarded.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, to authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary amendments to extend the existing contract with CA Consulting Services by one additional year, not exceeding the budget authority of $60,000, with an option to extend for two additional years at the City Manager’s discretion.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on September 26, 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 5 Packet Pg. 106
- 1 -

FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT

SERVICES
This First Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services (the "First Amendment") is made and entered into this _____ day of S eptember 2022 , by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and CALIFORNIA CONSULTING a California corporation with offices located at 214 Main Street, #102 El Segundo CA 90245. (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2022, CITY and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "Agreement for Consultant Services" ("Agreement") to provide contract planning and related services; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2022, City and Consultant entered into a First Amendment to that Agreement to increase the cost ceiling and effective date under the Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Section 2.1 of the Agreement, "Compensation" is hereby amended to read as follows:

Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with Exhibit B, Compensation, attached hereto and incorporated herein. It is agreed that the compensation for the Services shall not exceed $ 60,000 ("Cost Ceiling").

2. Section 3.1 of the Agreement, "Effective Date" is hereby amended to read as follows:

Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the second signature and shall: remain in full force and effect until the Services are completed (the "Term"). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all services by September 26, 2023.

3. Agreement in Effect. Except as amended by this First Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

4. Counterpart Signatures. This First Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding agreement.

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

5.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment 1 - First Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services [Revision 1] (5136 : California Consulting Resolution) - 2 -

CITY OF PACIFICA
By:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Date____
Approved As to Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
California Consulting Inc.

By:
________________________________________
By:

Date: ____________
Date_____

5.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment 1 - First Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services [Revision 1] (5136 : California Consulting Resolution) City of Pacifica
September 2022
A. Grants Submitted & Pending
Funding
Source
Date
Submitted
Department Purpose Amount
OBAG3 7/15/2022 Public Works Sharp Park Pedestrian Plan $2,360,000 OBAG 3 7/15/2022 Public Works Safe Routes to School $2,360,000 CalTrans 9/11/2022 Public Works HSIP RRFB $200,000
CalOES 9/1/2022 Public Works HMGP NOI
Storm Drain Improvements
-
T MOBILE 9/11/2022 Economic
Development
Planters/Street Lights $50,000
TMOBILE 9/11/2022 Economic
Development
Plaza Upgrades $50,000
B. Grants in Progress
Funding Source Department Grant Amount Grant
Writer
Assigned
Notes
Pacific, Gas &
Electric (PG&E)
Economic
Development
EV Charging
Station
Infrastructure
TBD Tracy
Yassini
Obtaining account
numbers and login
information from
public works.

San Mateo
County
Transportation
Authority
Public Works Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Improvements
Hwy 1.
$335,161 Tracy
Yassini
Submitting 9/22
City of Pacifica | September Monthly Report P1

5.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Progress Report (5136 : California Consulting Resolution) Upcoming grant opportunities

1. Economic Development | Senior Center Improvements
Maximum award amount $1,000,000
National Endowment for the Humanities (under Infrastructure Bill) Expected output Buildings; Digital Infrastructure; Equipment Period of performance Up to five years
Application available March 14, 2022
Optional draft due August 17, 2022
Deadline October 5, 2022
Expected notification date April 15, 2023
Project start date July 1, 2023 October 1, 2023

2. Public Works | Waste Water
Met with Nelson Schlater and Maria Alvarez to identify funding sources to Perform $37M in Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Projects Provide $200,00 per year in Lateral Grant Assistance (attached say $100,000 but the final CIP approved $200,000)
Replace the CCWRP Tracking Array Solar System
Possible funding from HMGP, BRIC
City of Pacifica | September Monthly Report P2

5.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Progress Report (5136 : California Consulting Resolution)

5.c
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Original Agreement (5136 : California Consulting Resolution)

5.c
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Original Agreement (5136 : California Consulting Resolution)

5.c
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Original Agreement (5136 : California Consulting Resolution)

5.c
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Original Agreement (5136 : California Consulting Resolution)

5.c
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Original Agreement (5136 : California Consulting Resolution)

5.c
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Original Agreement (5136 : California Consulting Resolution)

5.c
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Original Agreement (5136 : California Consulting Resolution)

5.c
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Original Agreement (5136 : California Consulting Resolution)

5.c
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Original Agreement (5136 : California Consulting Resolution)

5.c
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Original Agreement (5136 : California Consulting Resolution)

5.c
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Original Agreement (5136 : California Consulting Resolution)

5.c
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Original Agreement (5136 : California Consulting Resolution)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/26/2022
1 SUBJECT:

First Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for Professional Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, by increasing the contract amount by $132,000 with a total not to exceed amount of $792,000 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

The Planning Department refocused its efforts to comprehensively update the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP), as well as to create a new Sharp Park Specific Plan, in 2019. To support these three major work items, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a consultant services agreement (CSA) with Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners on January 28, 2019. The CSA amount of $660,000 reflected Dyett & Bhatia’s judgment of the anticipated level of effort to complete these three work items, as well as the associated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, based on its extensive experience performing similar work in jurisdictions across California.

While the City Council adopted the LCLUP update in February 2020, work on the General Plan update and new Sharp Park Specific Plan (SPSP) continued into 2022. Notably, the City received extensive public comments during the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) public review period which required a much greater level of effort to review and respond to comments than anticipated by Dyett & Bhatia in 2019. Moreover, the adoption processes for the General Plan update and SPSP required multiple public hearings that were not anticipated.

On account of the additional work required to comply with CEQA and complete the public hearing process for adoption of the plans, services provided by Dyett & Bhatia exceeded the initial contract amount and requires an amendment to the CSA. The proposed amendment to increase the cost ceiling of the CSA by $132,000 also includes a small amount of additional funding to support the interim rezoning work the City must perform to ensure its zoning map is consistent with the adopted General Plan and SPSP and would extend the term of the CSA through June 30, 2023, to ensure uninterrupted support of the interim zoning process.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

No alternative action has been identified.
6 Packet Pg. 123
Pacifica City Council 2
September 26, 2022
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The General Plan update, new SPSP, and CEQA review authorized in the First Amendment would support completion of the following Council-adopted Work Plan initiatives from Fiscal Year 2021-2022:
● Item 10: Complete a Sharp Park Specific Plan.
● Item 11: Complete a comprehensive General Plan update.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City imposes a General Plan maintenance fee on building permits to support the funding of periodic General Plan updates. Since FY 2018-2019 when the original CSA was executed, the City has received more than $43,000 in additional General Plan maintenance fee revenue that will be used to offset the additional costs of the First Amendment. The FY 2022-2023 adopted budget also projects an additional $18,000 in General Plan maintenance fee revenue in the current fiscal year.

Although the approximately $71,000 additional cost of the First Amendment was not included in the FY 2022-23 adopted budget, staff anticipates the cost to be covered by the salary savings in the Planning Department resulting from position vacancies and, therefore, is not requesting a budget amendment at this time. Staff will revisit this matter during the mid-year budget review to include any necessary amendment at that time if needed.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Resolution for Contract Amendment (DOCX)
Revised Scope of Work and Budget (PDF)
First Amendment - Dyett & Bhatia (PDF)
Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (PDF)
6 Packet Pg. 124
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO

THE CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DYETT & BHATIA URBAN

AND REGIONAL PLANNERS FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING AND RELATED SERVICES.
________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Purchasing Policy (Administrative Policy No. 76), the City of Pacifica entered into an agreement with Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners (“Dyett & Bhatia”) for consulting services under the City Council’s purchasing authority in January 2019; and
WHEREAS, the level of effort required to finalize the General Plan update, creation of a new Sharp Park Specific Plan, and California Environmental Quality Act review of these items exceeded the estimates used to establish the original agreement amount; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to approve a first amendment to the City’s agreement with Dyett & Bhatia for consulting services on September 26, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager to amend the agreement with Dyett & Bhatia for the purpose of increasing the cost ceiling to an amount not to exceed $792,000 and extending the term of the contract through June 30, 2023.
* * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 26th day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
______________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

6.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Resolution for Contract Amendment (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

MEMORANDUM
To: Christian Murdock, Planning Director, City of Pacifica Re: Amendment #1 - Additional Services for FEIR and Adoption Hearings Date: September 22, 2022
Dear Christian:

Dyett & Bhatia’s scope of work Task 5.C.1 includes preparation of a response to comments received during the public review period, and any necessary revisions to the Draft EIR. The original scope estimated 120 hours of D&B staff time to complete this effort. Task 5D anticipated 2 hearings each for the Planning Commission and City Council.

After a two-week comment period extension, approximately 180 public responses (representing more than 1,200 public comments) were received. At a time estimate of approximately 25 minutes per comment, this represents approximately 500 hours of staff time. This represents a vastly greater volume, complexity, and effort than originally anticipated in the scope. Additionally, the City has requested additional weekly check-in meetings from the period of 3/23/2022 and 8/30/2022, and up to seven (7) additional decisionmaker hearings. The City has also requested GIS assistance with interim zoning work.

This memo summarizes the additional work to be performed by Dyett & Bhatia (D&B) to address this unanticipated volume of work, together with delivery schedule and associated fee.

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AND MEETINGS
D&B will perform the following additional tasks:

FEIR comments and hearings
• Complete responses to all CEQA-related public comments in an administrative draft • Incorporate screencheck comments after period of city review for FEIR • Complete redlined version of DEIR
• Participate in weekly project team check-ins with City staff from period of 3/23/2022 to 7/11/2022 (23 meetings)
• Prepare a redline version of the DEIR
• Participate in up to 7 additional decisionmaker meetings beyond the original scope • Prepare redline document of proposed changes for General Plan and Specific Plan Council hearings

6.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Revised Scope of Work and Budget (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement) - 2 -
Interim Zoning Mapping Assistance
• Assist with GIS tasks required for interim zoning mapping

SCHEDULE
• An FEIR draft will be completed within two weeks of notice to proceed • We will respond to one round of consolidated comments from City staff on the FEIR draft and deliver a screencheck draft within 7 business days of receipt of City comments • Additional public hearings will occur June-September
FEE
The estimated fee for the additional analysis, screencheck draft response, additional meetings, and interim zoning assistance described above is $132,000. The associated number of hours and fee is attached. This not-to-exceed amount will be billed on a time and materials basis and includes labor for D&B Principal, Senior Planner, Associate, Planner, Planning Assistant, GIS/cartography staff, and administrative/production staff.

6.b
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Revised Scope of Work and Budget (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This First Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services (the "First Amendment") is made and entered into this ______ day of October 2022, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners, a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2019, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into that certain agreement entitled “Agreement for Consultant Services” (“Agreement”) to provide professional planning services and related services for the update to the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan, a Sharp Park Specific Plan, and associated environmental document; and WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT now desire to enter into this First Amendment to increase the Cost Ceiling in section 2.1 (“Compensation”) and extend the Term in section 3.1 (“Effective Date”) of the Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Section 2.1 of the Agreement, “Compensation” is hereby amended to read as follows:

Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with Exhibit A, Compensation, attached hereto and incorporated herein. It is agreed that the compensation for the Services shall not exceed $792,000 (“Cost Ceiling”).

2. Section 3.1 of the Agreement, “Effective Date” is hereby amended to read as follows:

Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the first signature and shall remain in full force and effect until the Services are completed (the “Term”). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all services by June 30, 2023.

3. Agreement in Effect. Except as amended by this First Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

4. Counterpart Signatures. This First Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding agreement.

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

6.c
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: First Amendment - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement) - 2 -

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

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT

DYETT & BHATIA URBAN & REGIONAL PLANNERS
By: Date
By: Date

6.c
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: First Amendment - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement) - 3
-

EXHIBIT A

6.c
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: First Amendment - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement) Position Hourly Rates as
of July 2022
Principal II 265
Principal 245
Senior Associate 190
Associate 175
Planner/Urban Designer II 150
Planner/Urban Designer I 140
Sr. GIS Specialist/Sr. Cartographer 165
GIS Specialist 150
Graphic Designer 115
Project Associate 110
Direct Charges
Maps, graphics, reproduction, local travel, out-oftown travel and subsistence, and miscellaneous costs; billed at cost.

Mileage at IRS permitted rate

6.c
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: First Amendment - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

6.d
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Original Agreement - Dyett & Bhatia (5129 : Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment to Agreement)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/26/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Third Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for On-Call Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Good City Company RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve the Third Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Good City Company, by increasing the contract amount by $100,000 with a total not to exceed amount of $320,000 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

The Planning Department is processing a significant number of routine and complex development project applications submitted for City permits. The Planning Department is also the lead department for several active City Council priority initiatives, including but not limited to the preparation of a Quarry Site Specific Plan, zoning amendments to implement the General Plan update and Sharp Park Specific Plan, and updating the Housing Element of the General Plan. The Planning Department has a key supporting role in many other priority initiatives.

The department currently contracts with two other consulting firms to augment planning staff resources in routine project reviews and CEQA reviews. The cost for these contracts is reimbursed by project applicants. Foreseeing that the projected workload in the Planning Department would exceed available staff resources, and in order to allow Planning staff to continue to implement items identified as City Council priorities, the City Manager recommends the City Council authorize execution of a contract amendment with Good City Company in order to continue work on several long-term planning projects.

Good City Company is also supporting Planning Department staff with the Housing Element update. Good City Company brings unique expertise to this task as it has supported several other jurisdictions in San Mateo County with their Housing Element updates. Good City Company has estimated the cost for it to support the preparation of a draft Housing Element document is $90,000. With the addition of an approximately 10% contingency to this amount, City staff is seeking a contract amendment to increase the cost ceiling for this contract by $100,000 to support work on the Housing Element. The contract amendment would also extend the term of the contract with Good City Company by one year to ensure uninterrupted work on the Housing Element through its date of adoption.

After issuing a Request for Proposals, the City initially engaged Good City Company beginning 7 Packet Pg. 170
Pacifica City Council 2
September 26, 2022
in October 2020 and the City Manager authorized a consultant services agreement (CSA) with a cost ceiling amount not to exceed $50,000. The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the original CSA on November 22, 2021, which increased the cost ceiling by $70,000 and extended the term of the CSA through June 30, 2022. The City Council subsequently authorized the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the original CSA on June 27, 2022, which increased the cost ceiling by $100,000 and extended the term of the CSA through June 30, 2023.

In light of the significant work and the potentially lengthy timeline associated with the Housing Element update, the City Manager recommends City Council approval of this Third Amendment to increase the cost ceiling by $100,000 and to extend the term of the CSA through June 30, 2024.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Deny, or authorize a different amount for the proposed amendment to the CSA. This may reduce staff’s ability to rely on its consultants to perform project reviews, which could delay the processing of projects. It could also impact the City’s ability to comply with its obligations under state law to update the Housing Element. The impact of this increased workload could also negatively affect staff’s ability to address other general responsibilities, including priorities on the City Council’s adopted Work Plan.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Good City Company’s support of the Housing Element Update is consistent with the following Council-adopted Work Plan initiative:
● Item 10: Prepare an update to the Housing Element of the General Plan.

The other tasks being performed by Good City Company are not directly associated with any of the projects and initiatives on the City Council’s adopted Work Plan, as development proposal processing is a general governmental responsibility of the City as a local public agency.

Indirectly, this CSA will allow in-house staff resources to devote time to Work Plan initiatives and other general matters assigned to the Planning Department.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Fiscal Year 2022-2023 (FY 2022-23) 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 (totaling $83,449). Allocated funds also include $20,000 for community engagement efforts for the Housing Element update. The City Council, during discussion of the Housing Element Update community engagement strategy on August 8, 2022, directed a third community meeting that will result in additional costs that were not included in the FY 2022-23 adopted budget.

Good City Company’s proposal to support the Housing Element Update plus contingency would exceed the estimated Housing Element Update costs included in the FY 2022-23 adopted budget by $16,551. Although the cost of these services was not included in the FY 2022-23 adopted budget, staff anticipates the cost to be covered by the salary savings in the Planning Department resulting from position vacancies and, therefore, is not requesting a budget amendment at this time. Staff will revisit this matter during the mid-year budget review to include any necessary amendment at that time if needed. 7 Packet Pg. 171
Pacifica City Council 3
September 26, 2022
ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Resolution for Contract Amendment (DOCX)
Third Amendment - Good City Company (PDF)
Second Amendment - Good City Company (PDF)
First Amendment - Good City Company (PDF)
Original Agreement - Good City Company (PDF)
7 Packet Pg. 172
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A THIRD AMENDMENT TO

THE CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GOOD CITY COMPANY FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING AND RELATED SERVICES.
________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Purchasing Policy (Administrative Policy No. 76), the City of Pacifica entered into an agreement with Good City Company for consulting services under the City Manager’s purchasing authority in October 2020; and WHEREAS, the City Council authorized amendments to the City’s agreement with Good City Company for consulting services on November 2021 and June 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to approve a third amendment to the City’s agreement with Good City Company for consultant services on September 26, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager to amend the agreement with Good City Company for the purpose of increasing the cost ceiling to an amount not to exceed $320,000 and extending the term of the contract through June 30, 2024.
* * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 26th day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

7.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Resolution for Contract Amendment (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement)

THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Third Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Third Amendment") is made and entered into this ______ day of October 2022, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Good City Company, a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2020, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into that certain agreement entitled “Agreement for Consultant Services” (“Agreement”) to provide on-call planning services and related services; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2022, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a First Amendment to that Agreement to increase the Cost Ceiling and extend the Term under the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2022, the City Council authorized CITY and CONSULTANT to enter into a Second Amendment to that Agreement to increase the Cost Ceiling and extend the Term under the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT now desire to enter into this Third Amendment to increase the Cost Ceiling in section 2.1 (“Compensation”) and extend the Term in section 3.1 (“Effective Date”) of the Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Section 2.1 of the Agreement, “Compensation” is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. Section 3.1 of the Agreement, “Effective Date” is hereby amended to read as follows:

3. Agreement in Effect. Except as amended by this Third Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

4. Counterpart Signatures. This Third Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding agreement.

7.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Third Amendment - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement) - 2 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

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

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
_GOOD CITY COMPANY____________________
By: Date
By: Date

7.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Third Amendment - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement) - 3
-

EXHIBIT A

7.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Third Amendment - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement) Good City prides itself on being a cost-effective solution for public sector agencies. Staff retains detailed timesheets and works efficiently to ensure the client is getting the best value for the services.
» Director/Principal $235/hour
» Principal Planner/Planning Manager $195/hour
» Economic Development Director $200/hour
» Chief Building Official $145/hour
» Senior Planner/Project Manager $160/hour
» Associate Planner $130/hour
» Assistant Planner $105/hour
» Planning Technician $85/hour
» Administrative Assistant $70/hour
Subconsultant Contracts Direct Billing + 10% oversight fee Rates subject to adjustment January 1st of each year

BILLING
RATES

BILLING RATES
Good City Company
1351 Laurel St
San Carlos, CA 94070
www.goodcityco.com

7.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Third Amendment - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement)

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Second Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Second Amendment") is made and entered into this ________ day of July 2022, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Good City Company, a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2020, CITY and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled “Agreement for Consultant Services” (“Agreement”) to provide on-call planning services and related services; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2022, CITY and Consultant entered into a First Amendment to that Agreement to increase the Cost Ceiling and extend the Term under the Agreement; and WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT now desire to enter into this Second Amendment to increase the Cost Ceiling in section 2.1 (“Compensation”) and extend the Term in Section 3.1 (“Effective Date”) of the Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Section 2.1 of the Agreement, “Compensation” is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. Section 3.1 of the Agreement, “Effective Date” is hereby amended to read as follows:

3. Agreement in Effect. Except as amended by this Second Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

4. Counterpart Signatures. This Second Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding agreement.

7.c
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Second Amendment - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement) - 2 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

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

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT

GOOD CITY COMPANY
By: Date
Aaron Aknin, Principal, Good City Company

7.c
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Second Amendment - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement) Good City prides itself on being a cost-effective solution for public sector agencies. Staff retains detailed timesheets and works efficiently to ensure the client is getting the best value for the services.
» Director/Principal $235/hour
» Principal Planner/Planning Manager $195/hour
» Economic Development Director $200/hour
» Chief Building Official $145/hour
» Senior Planner/Project Manager $160/hour
» Associate Planner $130/hour
» Assistant Planner $105/hour
» Planning Technician $85/hour
» Administrative Assistant $70/hour
Subconsultant Contracts Direct Billing + 10% oversight fee Rates subject to adjustment January 1st of each year

BILLING
RATES

BILLING RATES
Good City Company
1351 Laurel St
San Carlos, CA 94070
www.goodcityco.com

7.c
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Second Amendment - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement)

FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This First Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services (the "First Amendment") is made and entered into this ______ day of November 2021, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Good City Company, a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2020, CITY and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled “Agreement for Consultant Services” (“Agreement”) to provide on-call planning services and related services; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT now desire to enter into this First Amendment to increase the Cost Ceiling in section 2.1 (“Compensation”) and extend the completion date identified in section 3.1 (“Effective Date”) of the Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Section 2.1 of the Agreement, “Compensation” is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. Section 3.1 of the Agreement, “Effective Date” is hereby amended to read as follows:

3. Agreement in Effect. Except as amended by this First Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

4. Counterpart Signatures. This First Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding agreement.

7.d
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: First Amendment - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement) - 2 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

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

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
_GOOD CITY COMPANY____________________
By: Date
By: Date
Aaron Aknin, Principal, Good City Comany
11/15/21

7.d
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: First Amendment - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement) - 3 -

EXHIBIT A

7.d
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: First Amendment - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement)

7.e
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement)

7.e
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement)

7.e
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement)

7.e
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement)

7.e
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement)

7.e
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement)

7.e
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement)

7.e
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement)

7.e
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement)

7.e
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Original Agreement - Good City Company (5126 : Good City Company Third Amendment to Agreement)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/26/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction and Additional Engineering Services During Construction
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the following actions for the Anza Pump Station Repair - Gas Service Line Construction and Additional Engineering Services During Construction:

STAFF CONTACT:

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

The Anza Pump Station is a stormwater pump station located just off Linda Mar Beach, west of Cabrillo Highway between Crespi Drive and Linda Mar Boulevard. On March 16, 2020, a fire occurred at the Anza Pump Station causing catastrophic damage. During the fire investigation, the pumps, engines, shafts, and other mechanisms of the pumping system were inspected. The inspection found that the fire resulted in damage to the pump station’s mechanical, electrical, gas meter and appurtenances, control systems, and building roof. Although most of the pumping system (that consists of three pumps and engines plus associated equipment) was 8 Packet Pg. 194
Pacifica City Council 2
September 26, 2022
damaged by the fire and will need to be replaced, it was determined that that one pump, built in the 1940’s, could be temporarily repaired and run with a rental engine from Herc Rentals and this has allowed the Anza Pump Station to function during storm events. The Herc rental engine is diesel, given that the gas meter and appurtenances were damaged and will need to be replaced. The existing damage to the pump station prohibits proper normal operation and necessary redundancy, which could cause flooding and threaten the safety of persons, property, and critical public infrastructure.

The original gas engines used to drive the stormwater pumps required an inlet gas pressure of 5 pounds per square inch (psi). Natural gas was supplied to the Anza Pump Station via a 1-inch gas service line which connects to the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) gas main, located in the west lane of the Pacific Highway. Current gas engine technology requires an inlet gas pressure of 15 psi. The City discussed this requirement with PG&E gas engineers. PG&E determined that the existing gas main was not capable of delivering the required gas flow rate at 15 psi.

Furthermore, PG&E determined that a new 2-inch gas service line was required to service Anza Pump Station’s new gas engines.

The City of Pacifica’s Emergency Plan and Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empower the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, to proclaim the existence of a local emergency when there is an actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and properties within this City. The Proclamation of Local Emergency was declared on April 8, 2020. The Proclamation has been continued and will continue until the Anza Pump Station is repaired and in working condition.

Additionally, pursuant to Section 3-15.09 (A) of the Pacifica Municipal Code, in cases of an emergency the City Manager is authorized to proceed at once to replace or repair any public facility without adopting plans, specifications, strain sheets, or working details, or giving notice for bids to let contracts. The City complies with Public Contract Code section 22050, which provides a process for City Council’s review of the emergency action if notice of bids to let contracts for public projects will not be given because of the emergency. This allows staff to obtain the necessary equipment to rehabilitate the pump station faster. In this case, the City Manager has determined that the damaged pump station threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure, which requires immediate attention and constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code section 1102.

The City applied for and received an Emergency Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) related to installation of a new gas service line and third pump and engine at the pump station. The City is in discussion with the Commission on whether permitting is required or not for other fire damaged components of the station. The City’s position is that these should be covered under the current City CCC permitting for maintenance and repair and not require a new CCC Coastal Development Permit, a position that is critical for the City to be able to continue to repair and maintain other City infrastructure in other City areas that have CCC oversight. The City will continue to move forward with Anza Pump Station repairs during these conversations due to the emergency nature of this repair project.

Previous Council Authorizations for the Anza Pump Station The following actions related to the Anza Pump Station were previously approved by Council and occurred at several Council meetings between 2020 and 2022. Costs for these actions are provided under the fiscal section of this report. The actions were as follows:
-Rebuild of damaged pump, purchase of pump and reinstallation -Consultant services for design services for the repair 8 Packet Pg. 195
Pacifica City Council 3
September 26, 2022
-Bathroom repairs
-Purchase of two engines
-Pump Station repair construction
-Purchase of third stormwater pump
-Purchase of third engine
-Consultant services for construction management for the repair Currently Requested Council Authorizations for Anza Pump Station in this Report All construction and purchases related to the Anza Pump Station emergency work are covered under the Emergency Proclamation that is brought to Council at the beginning of each month.

This allows the City Manager, acting as the Emergency Services Manager, to proceed at once to replace or repair any public facility without adopting plans/specifications or giving notice for bids to let contracts. However, in instances where time allows, staff will come to Council prior to authorization as is the case related to the below requests.

New Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement with Casey Construction Inc.

As discussed, under an Emergency Proclamation, a city can procure services without soliciting bids. However, staff put out an advertisement for bid for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project - New Gas Service Line. New Gas Service Line alignment, sizing, and required materials were developed by PG&E. Furthermore, PG&E has a rigorous qualifications program for the various types of work required for a new gas service line installation. Working closely with the City’s PG&E representative, the necessary PG&E qualifications for gas service line installation were listed in the bid documents, with bidders furnishing letters attesting that they had the requisite qualifications which were required for a responsive bid. As part of all gas service line installation projects, PG&E provides a construction inspector who will observe the new gas service line installation. In addition, PG&E takes responsibility to perform the gas main tapping and install the gas meter and appurtenances.

The City received bids from two (2) PG&E-qualified contractors with Casey Construction, Inc providing the lowest bid shown below:

Company Bid Percent Difference
Casey Construction, Inc $ 185,100.00
MBS Engineering, Inc $ 238,005.60 28%
City Estimate $ 150,000.00 19% (below)
Bids received are higher than the cost estimate received from the design consultant supporting the project. This is a small, yet complex project that has: construction in the Caltrans Right of Way; coordination with PG&E who performs the gas main tap and installs the gas meter and appurtenances; coordination with the Anza Pump Station repair contractor; construction through the City parking lot near the Anza Pump Station; and proximity to the beach. Moreover, material, labor, and fuel costs are escalating; and supply chain disruptions are increasing costs.

Due to the emergency nature of the work, staff recommends authorizing a budget authority for construction in the amount of $222,120, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Construction Contract amount for any unforeseen conditions and the unknown impacts of items listed above. It is anticipated that the new gas service line project construction will commence in October 2022 and be completed in November 2022.

Additional Engineering Services During Construction (ESDC) The Anza Pump Station Repair Project is proving to be a challenging project that has required greater than anticipated level of effort associated with equipment and material resubmittals; 8 Packet Pg. 196
Pacifica City Council 4
September 26, 2022
responding to contractor requests for information; coordination with the gas engine supplier; and support for small contractor change orders. Therefore, additional ESDC will be required moving forward with project construction; and will be performed by the project design engineer, Schaaf & Wheeler. Staff recommends approval of Task Order No. 3 with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc. for Additional Engineering Services During Construction (ESDC) in an amount not to exceed $30,000 and to authorize budget authority in the amount of $34,500 which includes a contingency in an amount not to exceed $4,500 or fifteen percent (15%) of the proposed fee. ESDC tasks include reviewing submittals and answering questions, as well as providing technical expertise as issues arise during construction. This will increase total compensation for EDSC under the Master Services Agreement from $105,630 to $135,630 or an additional 33%. For reference, the ESDC budget of $135,630 is approximately 6% of the project construction cost ($2,326,000) which is below the typical percentage range of 8% to 10% for these types of services. All task orders under this Master Services Agreement, which include design and ESDC services would increase from $369,790 to $396,790.

Project funding will be reimbursable by insurance as described below in further detail.

The following schedule is anticipated for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project:

Description Date
Council Approval of to Award Contracts September 2022
Award of Construction/Purchase Agreements October 2022
Construction Start October 2022
Substantial Completion November 2022
Final Completion November/December 2022
Approval of the recommendations will allow staff to move forward with constructing improvements that will result in supplying the new engines the gas pressure that is required; and staff to move forward with the engineering support necessary thereby supporting restoration of the stormwater pump station that will protect the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure. Should the Council approve the recommended actions in this report, the project will be constructed. The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve the construction, equipment, and construction services contracts as discussed in this Council report.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to approve this agreement; however, this will result in project delays, possible increase of construction costs and increased possibility of equipment failure at the pump station and could lead to catastrophic flooding events. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the construction contract and supporting agreements is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure and Maintaining a Safe Community: This construction project will help facilitate return of the Anza Pump Station to its pre-fire capacity, conveying storm water flows to the ocean to mitigate potential impacts of flooding including threatening the safety of residents and damaging private property or critical public infrastructure.
8 Packet Pg. 197
Pacifica City Council 5
September 26, 2022
FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impacts associated with the Anza Pump Station Repair - Gas Service Line Construction and Additional Engineering Services During Construction (C036) will be submitted for reimbursement to the City’s insurance carrier, PLAN JPA. The City’s deductibles are $225,000 for PLAN JPA and $10,000 for American International Group (AIG). The total project use of funds for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project (C036) to date, including the recommended agreement approvals, is as follows:

Pump Rebuild & Installation $104,937.41
Bathroom Renovations $210,868.52
Schaaf & Wheeler Engineers for Repair Design $264,160.00 Pump Purchase & Installation $185,371.87
Two Caterpillar Engines Purchase $492,268.00
Anza Pump Station Repair Project Construction Cost $2,326,000.00 Anza Pump Station Repair Project Construction Contingency (20%) $465,200.00 Pump No. 3 Purchase & Installation (incl 10% conting.) $228,133.64 Third Caterpillar Engine Purchase (incl 10% conting.) $358,696.72 Anza Pump Station Repair Project Construction Engineering Support $105,630.00 Anza Pump Station Repair Project Construction Management (incl 10% conting.) $242,660.00 Total Work Under Contract $4,983,926.16
Anza Pump Station New Gas Service Line Construction $185,100.00 Anza Pump Station New Gas Service Line Construction Contingency (20%) $37,020.00 Anza Pump Station Repair Project - Additional Constr. Engineering Support (incl 15% conting.)
$34,000.00
Total Work Proposed $256,120.00
Grand Total $5,240,046.16
Plan JPA ($ 225,000)
American International Group (AIG) ($ 10,000)
Total Insurance Deductible ($ 235,000)
Total Identified Insurance Reimbursement $5,005,046.16
Project Use of Funds - Work Proposed with this Approval Project Use of Funds - Previous Council Approved Completed/Under Contract ANZA PUMP STATION REPAIR PROJECT (C036)
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (PDF) Attachment B_Agreement_Schaaf & Wheeler_20220926_TaskOrder#3_Anza Pump Station Repair Project (PDF)
8 Packet Pg. 198
Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 1

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

CITY OF PACIFICA
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT
Anza Storm Water Pump Station – New Gas Service Line
DATE: September 26, 2022

1. IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR:

CONTRACTOR: Casey Construction, Inc.

LICENSE NO: 798190 CLASS: A

2. SCOPE OF THE WORK
Install new 2-inch natural gas service line to the Anza Pump Station through the City’s asphalt parking lot and Pacific Coast Highway in accordance with PG&E, Caltrans, and City requirements. The City has received the Caltrans Encroachment Permit (EP) that Contractor shall “Double Permit” off of the City EP.

Work also includes coordination with PG&E on their main line tap and existing mainline cutoff in Caltrans right of way; and coordination with PG&E on daylighting the new gas service line, core drilling through the existing wall, and establishing horizontal and vertical gas service line orientation in accordance with PG&E inspector. See Project Bid Documents, City Caltrans EP, and Contractor proposal including bid tab in Appendix A Scope of Services.

All bidders shall be PG&E Operator Qualification (OQ) certified for the gas service line-related work performed for this project.

Contractor or Subcontractor providing Traffic Control in Caltrans Right of Way shall be certified by Caltrans to provide this service.

3. COMPENSATION FOR WORK. Contractor’s total compensation for the Work performed under this Agreement (Contract Sum) is $185,100.00, to be paid as (check one): (1)  lump sum; (2)  lump sum w/bid items and progress payments; (3)  per attached schedule of rates and charges, up to a guaranteed not-to-exceed amount of $__________. All payments (check one):  shall shall not be subject to a five percent (5%) retention.

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

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

Substantial Completion Date: Within 80 calendar days of Commencement Date.

4.01 Liquidated Damage Amounts.

A. As liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay Owner One Thousand dollars ($1000.00) for each Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work, until achieved.

B. As liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay Owner One Thousand dollars ($1000.00) for each Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Final Completion of the entire Work, until achieved.

8.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 2

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

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

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

5. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

CONTRACTOR: Casey Construction, Inc OWNER: City of Pacifica _____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Signature Signature
_____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ _______________ President Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager _____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Date Date

8.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 3

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Addresses for Notices: Addresses for Notices:
____________________ City of Pacifica
Attn: _______________ Attn: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager ____________________ 540 Crespi Drive
____________________ Pacifica, CA 94044

8.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 4
OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
Appendix A to Construction Services Agreement (Incorporated by Reference) Summary of Work which has the following Appendices:

A-1: PG&E PLANS, MATERIAL LIST, AND DETAILS
A-2: CITY-DEVELOPED SITE SURVEY
A-3: CALTRANS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
A-4: CITY TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS & STANDARD DETAILS

8.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 5

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

GENERAL CONDITIONS
ARTICLE 1 TERMS OF PERFORMANCE

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

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

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

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

1.03 Records and Payment Requests. Contractor shall submit all billings with all necessary invoices or other appropriate evidence of proper performance, after which Owner shall make payment within 30 days. Upon Owner’s written request, Contractor shall make available to Owner, its authorized agents, officers, or employees, any and all ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, cancelled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to the Work or the expenditures and disbursement charged to Owner, and all correspondence, internal memoranda, calculations, books and accounts, records documenting its Work under the Contract Documents, and invoices, payrolls, timecards, records and all other data related to matters covered by the Contract Documents. Contractor shall furnish to Owner, its authorized agents, officers, or employees, such other evidence or information as Owner may require with regard to the Work or any such expenditure or disbursement charged by Contractor. Contractor shall maintain all such documents and records prepared by or furnished to Contractor during the course of performing the Work for at least five years following completion of the Work, except that all such items pertaining to hazardous materials shall be maintained for at least 30 years. Contractor shall permit Owner to audit, examine and make copies, excerpts and transcripts from such records. The State of California or any federal agency having an interest in the subject of the Contract Documents shall have the same rights conferred to Owner by this section. Such rights shall be specifically enforceable.

1.04 Use of Contract Documents and Other Information. Drawings, Specifications, and other Contract Documents are made available to Contractor solely for Contractor’s use under the Contract Documents.

Further, all tangible and intangible property developed, produced and/or provided by Contractor under the Contract Documents, and all such items (other than Contract Documents) provided by Owner to Contractor in connection with the Contract Documents including, without limitation, drawings, specifications, sketches, models, samples, tools, computer programs, technical information, confidential business information, scripts, customer or personnel information and data, whether written, oral or otherwise (all hereinafter referred to as Information) shall be Owner’s sole property. Contractor may not use Contract Documents or Information for any purpose unrelated to Contract Documents without Owner’s prior written consent. All copies of Information in written, graphic or other tangible form shall be delivered to Owner upon completion of Work, or earlier if otherwise provided in Contract Documents.

1.05 Performance of Work/No Assignment. Time is of the essence in the performance of the Work. Contractor will perform the Work in a skillful and workmanlike manner; comply fully with criteria established by Owner, and with applicable laws, codes, and all applicable industry standards. Contractor shall maintain its work area in a clean and sanitary condition, clear debris and trash at the end of each work day, and shall not damage or

8.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 6

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
disrupt any property unless specifically part of the scope of the Contract Documents. Contractor shall not contract any portion of the Work or otherwise assign the Contract Documents without prior written approval of Owner. (Contractor shall remain responsible for compliance with all terms of the Contract Documents, regardless of the terms of any such assignment.) Contractor shall permit Owner (or its designees) access to the work area, Contractor’s shop, or any other facility, to permit inspection of the Work at all times during construction and/or manufacture and fabrication. The granting of any progress payment, and any inspections, reviews, approvals or oral statements by any Owner representative, or certification by any governmental entity, shall in no way limit or relieve Contractor from its obligations under the Contract Documents. Either party’s waiver of any breach, or the omission or failure of either party, at any time, to enforce any right reserved to it, or to require strict performance of any provision of the Contract Documents, shall not be a waiver of any other right to which any party is entitled, and shall not in any way affect, limit, modify or waive that party’s right thereafter to enforce or compel strict compliance with every provision hereof. Owner shall have, at all times, set-off rights with respect to any payment and Contractor’s failure to perform the terms of the Contract Documents.

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

1.07 Earthwork and Underground Facilities. If the Work involves digging trenches or other excavations that extend deeper than four feet below the surface, Contractor shall notify Owner in writing of any material that Contractor believes may be hazardous waste that is required to be removed in accordance law, subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated by information about the site made available to bidders prior to the deadline for submitting bids, or unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in the Contract Documents, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 7104. For any Work involving trench shoring that costs in excess of $25,000, Contractor shall submit and Owner (or a registered civil or structural engineer employed by Owner) must accept, in advance of excavation, a detailed plan showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection from the hazard of caving ground during the excavation of such trench or trenches, pursuant to Labor Code Section 6705. If such plan varies from the shoring system standards, the plan shall be prepared by a registered civil or structural engineer. Consistent with Government Code Section 4215, as between Owner and Contractor, Owner will be responsible for the timely removal, relocation, or protection of existing main or trunk line utility facilities located on the Site only if such utilities are not identified in the Contract Documents or information made available for bidding.

ARTICLE 2 LEGAL

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

8.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARTICLE 3 MISCELLANEOUS

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

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

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

8.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 8

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

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

Owner will issue such directives in writing, and may do so, in whole or in part, for its convenience or due to Contractor’s fault. Owner will compensate Contractor for extra costs resulting from such directives only to the extent that Owner issues such directives for its convenience and not due to Contractor’s fault (but Owner shall not compensate Contractor for costs, profit or overhead anticipated to be earned or incurred on Work terminated for Owner’s convenience.) Contractor shall continue its Work throughout the course of any dispute, and Contractor’s failure to continue Work during a dispute shall be a material breach of the Contract Documents. All claims by Contractor against Owner shall be submitted in writing to Owner, and shall be governed by Public Contract Code Sections 20104 – 20104.6, after which time the one year time period in Government Code Section 911.2 shall be, pursuant to Government Code Section 930.2, reduced to 90 days.

Should Contractor be terminated for default, and such termination is subsequently determined to be wrongful, such termination will be converted to a termination for convenience as provided herein.

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

3.05 Dispute Resolution. All Contractor claims not otherwise subject to Public Contract Code Sections 20104 et seq shall, as a condition precedent to litigation thereon, first be mediated. Mediation shall be confidential, nonbinding, pursuant to the construction mediation procedures of JAMS in San Francisco, California, and utilize the services of a mediator mutually acceptable to the parties. If the parties are unable to agree, the mediator will be selected by JAMS from its panel of approved construction industry mediators, having a minimum of 10 years’ experience in the construction industry. The cost of mediation shall be equally shared by all parties to the mediation. The parties shall, prior to the commencement of a mediation pursuant to this Paragraph, upon notice of the other party, exchange relevant, non-privileged project documents in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2031.010 et seq. Additionally, the parties may agree mutually to engage in additional discovery prior to mediation. Should the parties proceed with additional discovery, they shall, unless mutually agreed otherwise, comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2019, et. seq. The Mediator will undertake to resolve any discovery disputes relating to the Mediation.

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

Appendix C to Construction Services Agreement

INSURANCE

1. Commercial General Liability Insurance, written on an “occurrence” basis, which shall provide coverage for bodily injury, death and property damage resulting from operations, liability for slander, false arrest and invasion of privacy, blanket contractual liability, broad form endorsement, and completed operations, personal and advertising liability, with limits of not less than [$2,000,000] general aggregate and [$2,000,000] each occurrence, subject to a deductible of not more than [$1,000] payable by Contractor.

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

3. Workers’ Compensation Employers’ Liability limits not less than [$2,000,000] each accident, [$2,000,000] per disease and [$2,000,000] aggregate. Contractor’s Workers’ Compensation Insurance policy shall contain a Waiver of Subrogation against the City of Pacifica, its officers, directors, officials, agents, employees and volunteers. In the

8.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 9

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
event Contractor is self-insured, it shall furnish Certificate of Permission to Self-Insure signed by Department of Industrial Relations Administration of Self-Insurance, State of California.

4. An Installation Floater including, without limitation, coverage against loss or damage to the Work by fire, lightening, wind, hail, vandalism, malicious mischief, and other such hazards as are normally covered by such coverage. Such insurance shall be in amount equal to the replacement cost (without deduction for depreciation and subject to stipulated value in lieu of average clause) of the Work. Such insurance may be subject to deductible clauses not to exceed [$10,000] for any one loss. Such insurance will not cover loss or damage to Contractor’s equipment, scaffolding or other materials not to be consumed in the performance of the Work. The insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation against Owner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 10

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

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

1. THAT WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica, a general law city and municipal corporation of the State of California (Owner) has awarded to _________ Casey Construction, Inc. ________________________ as Principal a Construction Services Agreement, dated the September 26, 2022 (Agreement), titled Anza Storm Water Pump Station - Gas Service Line located at Anza Pump Station, Pacifica State Beach in the amount of $_185,100.00 (Contract Sum), which Agreement is by this reference made a part hereof, for the work described as follows:

See Appendix A

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

3. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal and Contractors Bonding and Insurance Company as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto Owner in the sum of 100% OF THE CONTRACT SUM ($__185,100.00), for which payment well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 11

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

CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY
Company: Casey Construction, Inc.(Corp. Seal) Company: (Corp. Seal)

Signature Signature

Name Name

Title Title

Street Address Street Address

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

END OF DOCUMENT

8.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 12

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

CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:

1. THAT WHEREAS, City of Pacifica, a general law city and municipal corporation of the State of California (Owner) has awarded to ___ Casey Construction, Inc _______________________________ as Principal a Construction Services Agreement, dated the September 26, 2022 (Agreement), titled Anza Storm Water Pump Station - Gas Service Line located at Anza Pump Station, Pacifica State Beach in the amount of $185,100.00 (Contract Sum), which Agreement is by this reference made a part hereof, for the work described as follows:

See Appendix A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY
Company: Casey Construction, Inc (Corp. Seal) Company: (Corp. Seal)

Signature Signature

Name Name
Title Title
Street Address Street Address
City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code

8.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 14

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

SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS

1. Plans
Plans include:
 PG&E:
o Plans with horizontal alignment;
o Material specifications
o Trench bedding and service bellhole details;
 Caltrans:
o Encroachment Permit (EP) standard trench detail, EP incorporated into bid documents  City:
o Existing survey whose AutoCAD file will be made available to Contractor for their use o Standard trench details (PG&E and Caltrans details take precedence over City detail)  San Mateo County (SMC):
o Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) Plan

2. Shop Drawings
Contractor shall confirm that all PG&E materials are supplied in accordance with PG&E requirements.

A single submittal for all PG&E required scope of supply is acceptable. Other submittals, to be provided in accordance with these bid documents include:
 Traffic control plans (in Caltrans ROW and in City parking lot);  SWPPP in accordance with SMC BMPs; asphalt, bedding, concrete. Contractor shall also submit sequence of construction plan, as well as overall schedule.  Asphalt and concrete

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

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

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

4. Public Safety
Contractor shall be responsible during all phases of work to provide for public safety and convenience. It shall be the Contractor’s responsibility to provide adequate provisions to assure the safety of the general public throughout the duration of the project, including periods when no work is

8.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 15

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
being performed. The site shall be thoroughly fenced-off when work is not actively in progress, and lighted barricades shall be placed around any obstructions not encompassed by this fence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All damage done to existing property shall be neatly repaired or replaced at the Contractor’s expense.

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

The Contractor shall conduct his operations in such a manner as to avoid damage to existing improvements and adjacent property. The Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, repair or replace any damage occurring from his operations to pursue completion of the contract. The repairs and replacement shall be to the satisfaction of the Engineer and according to City standards and

8.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 16

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
practices. The minimum repair or replacement shall be equal to surrounding existing conditions or better, and the Engineer’s decision as to acceptable repair or replacement shall be final. The burden of proof as to whether there was existing damage by the Contractor shall rest with the Contractor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 17

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
No partial payment, inspection, taking possession of, or other act made or done by the Engineer or the City with respect to the work prior to the final completion and acceptance thereof shall relieve Contractor from performing the Work in accordance with this contract, and shall not affect or prejudice the right of the Engineer or the City to reject any defective work or material or to require the Contractor complete fulfillment of all the provisions of the contract.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 18

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

16. Water Pollution
General:

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

Correction of Inadequate Pollution and Erosion Control Measures:

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

Abatement of Other Water Pollution:

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

The means of cleanup and the party or parties to be engaged to perform the cleanup work shall be determined by the Engineer in consultation with appropriate hazardous materials, pollution control, safety, health and wildlife authorities and officials. The Contractor shall immediately carry out cleanup orders issued to him through or by the Engineer and shall make the work site accessible to personnel and equipment from outside pollution control resources called in by the Engineer. The cost of cleanup action called for by the Engineer and performed by outside resources shall be deducted from any monies due or become due the Contractor.

Compensation:

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

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

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

Disposal

8.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 19

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
At the end of each working day, the Contractor shall collect all scrap, debris and waste material and dispose of such materials properly.

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

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

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

B. Disposal
The Contractor shall use secondary containment, such as a drip pan, to catch leaks or spills any time that vehicle or equipment fluids are dispensed, changed or poured.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concrete, Grout and Mortar Waste Management
Material Management:

8.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 20

OAK #4836-0105-9886 v2
05620-0129
4/1/20
The Contractor shall store concrete, grout, and mortar away from drainage areas and ensure that these materials do not enter the storm drain system or the ocean waters.

Concrete Truck/Equipment Wash Out:

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

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

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

19. Substitutions
Substitutions in material or methods of construction, when necessary because of material shortages or in order to avoid serious delay may be made only after they are approved by the City Engineer in writing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction Services Agreement 00 5205 - 21

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

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

8.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line

8.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: AttachmentA_Agreement_ Casey Construction_20220926_AnzaGasLine (5122 : Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
TASK ORDER NO. 3

CITY OF PACIFICA
AND

SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 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 SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated May 11, 2020 (“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 Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) (“Cost Ceiling”).

SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed by December 31, 2023, 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 26th day of September 2022.
[Signatures on Next Page]

8.b
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment B_Agreement_Schaaf & Wheeler_20220926_TaskOrder#3_Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5122 : Anza Pump

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

CONSULTANT

SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
By: Date

8.b
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment B_Agreement_Schaaf & Wheeler_20220926_TaskOrder#3_Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5122 : Anza Pump ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

8.b
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment B_Agreement_Schaaf & Wheeler_20220926_TaskOrder#3_Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5122 : Anza Pump 1171 Homestead Rd., Ste. 255
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408) 246-4848
FAX (408) 246-5624
[email protected]

SCOPE MEMO

VIA EMAIL
TO: Nelson Schlater
City of Pacifica
DATE: September 7, 2022
FROM: Glen Anderson, PE JOB #: S&WP
SUBJECT: Proposal for Additional Engineering and Construction Support Services for Anza Pump Station Repair Project (C036)
Schaaf & Wheeler is providing you with this scope and fee to perform additional engineering services associated Construction Support Services required for Anza Pump Station. Outlined herein is the proposed scope and associated level of effort.

Task 1 – Construction Support Service
This task includes providing additional engineering support to the City during the construction process. Services include response to contractor issued RFIs, review of Contractor product submittals and shop drawings, preparation of necessary design clarifications, review of change order requests, and preparation of record drawings.

Schaaf & Wheeler’s fee for the above work is outlined below. Project Manager Project Engineer Junior Engineer
Schaaf & Wheeler
Subtotal
Subconsultant - Biggs
Cardosa
Subconsultant - Fehr
Engineering
Total
Task $230 $205 $165
1 Construction Support Services 24 70 0 $19,870 $5,000 $5,000 $29,870 Total 24 70 0 $19,870 $5,000 $5,000 $29,870
Total, Rounded Up $30,000
If you have any questions regarding this scope and budget, do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 966-5341 or [email protected].

8.b
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment B_Agreement_Schaaf & Wheeler_20220926_TaskOrder#3_Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5122 : Anza Pump To: Nelson Schlater
2 Date: September 7, 2022
Best regards,

SCHAAF & WHEELER
Glen M. Anderson, PE (RCE 76720)
Vice-President

8.b
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment B_Agreement_Schaaf & Wheeler_20220926_TaskOrder#3_Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5122 : Anza Pump ATTACHMENT “B”

COMPENSATION

8.b
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment B_Agreement_Schaaf & Wheeler_20220926_TaskOrder#3_Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5122 : Anza Pump 1171 Homestead Rd., Ste. 255
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408) 246-4848
FAX (408) 246-5624
[email protected]
Schaaf & Wheeler’s fee for the scope work is outlined in Attachment A. Project Manager Project Engineer Junior Engineer Schaaf & Wheeler Subtotal Subconsultant - Biggs Cardosa Subconsultant - Fehr Engineering
Total
Task $230 $205 $165
1 Construction Support Services 24 70 0 $19,870 $5,000 $5,000 $29,870 Total 24 70 0 $19,870 $5,000 $5,000 $29,870
Total, Rounded Up $30,000

8.b
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment B_Agreement_Schaaf & Wheeler_20220926_TaskOrder#3_Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5122 : Anza Pump

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/26/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services related to the FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing Project.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services in the amount of $147,000.00 in connection to the FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing Project (Attachment 1); approve budget authority in the amount of $161,700.00 from the Street Construction Fund (Fund 9); and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related with the project.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

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

In order to complete this street maintenance, the City identifies a budget every year for annual street maintenance projects as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). It is important for the City to complete the annual street maintenance projects each year to prevent Citystreets from falling into more expensive repair categories. One year missed in completing the City’s annual street maintenance projects can escalate the decline of the City’s overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and increase the ongoing cost of maintenance.

On the October 12, 2020 City Council meeting, staff discussed the updated 5-year Street Maintenance Program and the City’s 2019 Budget Options Report. At this meeting, the City Council accepted the updated 5-year Street Maintenance Program with identified streets for rehabilitations. As noted in the October 12, 2020 Council report, the goal of the updated fiveyear Street Maintenance program is to prevent streets from falling into more expensive repair categories. The City’s approved program does this by using slurry seal treatments to keep good streets in the good condition category (which is the least expensive way to maintain streets) and using a stop gap cape seal treatment on suitable residential and collector streets in the poorer condition categories. The cape seal, along with localized pavement repairs, will provide significant protection to the street surface of these poorer condition category streets for a period of seven to ten years preventing further deterioration of the street surface. This will 9 Packet Pg. 271
Pacifica City Council 2
September 26, 2022
allow time for the City to identify other pavement funding sources for street rehabilitation. In addition to slurry seal and cape seal treatments, the program will continue to assign overlay and reconstruction treatments to arterial and some collector streets based on the extent of pavement deterioration and traffic volumes.

Staff worked with a pavement consultant, NCE, to develop the five-year Street Maintenance Program (Attachment 2) for the City’s streets and the several resurfacing projects since the program was developed. NCE is on the City’s on-call consultant list for civil engineering and currently has a Master Consulting Agreement executed with the City (Attachment 3). Due to the condition of the City’s pavement, it is necessary to choose a consultant who is knowledgeable in specialized pavement design and rehabilitation for stop gap pavement treatments. NCE has been working in the Bay Area since 1990 and is highly regarded for their expertise in pavement design and rehabilitation in the area and for their work with the pavement research branch of the Federal Highways Administration. Staff requested NCE to provide a proposal for engineering services for the design of the FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing Project and prepare the construction documents for the project under Task Order No. 1. Attachment 4 is a map of the streets being resurfaced for FY 2023-24. The project will resurface streets generally in the northern part of Pacifica. A portion of Manor Drive and Monterey Road will receive a 2-inch asphalt overlay. Sections of Conchita Rd., Cragmont Ct., Del Mar Ave., Fremont Ave., Glascow Dr., Glencourt Way, Hacienda Ct. Heathcliff Dr., Hibbert Ct., Inverness Dr., Johnson Ave., Lorry Ln., Manor Dr., Milagra Dr., Miller Ave., Monterey Rd., Nelson Ave., Norfolk Dr., Perry Ave., and Vista Mar Ave. will receive a cape seal; sections of Arroyo Dr., Avalon Dr., Edgemar Ave., Lewis Ln., Manor Dr., and Nelson Ave. will receive a receive a slurry seal. Staff reviewed their proposal, and the City Manager recommends approval of Task Order No. 1.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to authorize design of the FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing Project.

However, this will result in continued deterioration of the City’s pavement network. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of these actions is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to sea level rise. Approval of these actions will improve the condition of the City street network.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Task Order No. 1. will provide the engineering services to complete the project. The cost of the Task Order is $147,000.00. City staff recommends including a 10% contingency to the Task Order for any additional work, such as additional field work. The use of the contingency will be reviewed and approved by City staff. The proposed project budget is as follows:

Project Budget
Task Order No. 1 - Engineering Services $ 147,000.00
Contingency (10%) $ 14,700.00
Total Project Cost $ 161,700.00
9 Packet Pg. 272
Pacifica City Council 3
September 26, 2022
The City’s funding for streets since FY18/19 includes ongoing SB1 and Measure W (began in FY 19/20) funding with yearly allocations of approximately $860K and $544K, respectively.

Additionally, rollover Measure A money in the Street Construction Fund (Fund 9) of approximately $350K/year is available for the 2020 adopted 5-year street maintenance program.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (PDF)
Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Five-year Street Maintenance Program (PDF) Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and

NCE (PDF)
Attachment 4 - FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing Project - Map an List of Streets (PDF) 9 Packet Pg. 273
TASK ORDER NO. 1

CITY OF PACIFICA AND
NCE
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct NCE 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 NCE (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated October 21, 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 One Hundred Forty-Seven Thousand and no/100 ($147,000.00) (“Cost Ceiling”).

SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed within 90 days or as extended in writing by the City Engineer.

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

Approved this 26th day of September 2022.

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date: _________________
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By: Date: __________________
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
CONSULTANT: NCE
By: Date: _______________________
J. Ryan Shafer, P.E., G.E. Principal
ATTACHMENT 1 9.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 ATTACHMENT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES

9.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
FY 23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Scope of Work
Revised Date: September 13, 2022
Page | 1

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND

APPROACH
NCE has had the privilege of working with the City on
its 5-year work plan in 2020 and have completed the
FY 2020/21, FY 2021/22 and FY 2022/23 pavement
resurfacing project in early 2022. The 5-Year Plan was
developed based on City’s budget, the desire to have
resurfacing projects for each year, grouping and
aggregating by neighborhoods for efficiency of
design, construction (less mobilization), future
maintenance, and to be able to resurface more
streets with a limited pavement resurfacing annual
budget. The City indicated they wanted to utilize cape
seals or double slurry seal with base repairs in lieu of more costly conventional overlays as a stop gap interim measure until additional funding sources can be identified.

Cost-effective cape seal/rubber cape seal/double slurry seal will be considered and applied on residential and collector streets in generally fair to very poor condition and slurry seals will be applied on residential and collector streets in generally fair to good condition in an effort extend pavement life, address moderately cracked pavement, and improve ride quality. In addition, one collector street in generally poor to fair condition is identified for rehabilitation.

The City would like to complete the FY 2023/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project with total construction cost of $1.5 million, including $0.5 million for concrete improvements and $1.5 million for street resurfacing. The resurfacing street list is attached herein and includes the street sections, limits, and other pertinent street attributes. Please note that pavement design, plans, specifications & estimates on Heathcliff Drive (two sections), Inverness Drive, Manor Drive and Monterey Road were completed in FY 2022/23 pavement resurfacing project but not constructed due to City’s budget limitations. NCE will merge those sections into FY 2023/24 resurfacing project. We understand that the City would like to begin design to complete construction documents for bidding in early 2023 and begin construction in Summer 2023. Optional tasks of professional service supports and bicycle/pedestrian improvements on Esplanade Avenue and Palmetto Avenue are also included per City’s request.

Key Assumptions
In order to deliver the most cost-effective design strategy, we have made the following key assumptions:

City’s Responsibilities
NCE has assumed that the City will be able to provide the following to the extent available:

1. Provide information regarding utilities (i.e., water, sanitary sewer, electrical, and storm drain), boundary, right-of-way, and property limits, and existing construction as available.

2. Provide aerial maps for base-mapping information.

3. Provide project requirements, including design objectives, budget, constraints, and criteria.

4. Provide existing technical specifications as the basis for developing new technical specifications.

9.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
FY 23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Scope of Work
Revised Date: September 13, 2022
Page | 2

5. Provide City Standard Provisions and Standard Design Criteria.

6. Provide electronic files of City’s cover sheet template, if preferred.

7. Provide Front End specifications.

8. Provide bike path and pedestrian master plan for reference.

Pavement Testing and Design

1. Pavement design will be based on Caltrans Standards with a combination of coring, pavement condition surveys, laboratory testing of subgrade, and observed field conditions depending on rehabilitation strategy.

2. Pavement coring will be performed with spacing criteria and bulk samples as follows:
a. Pavement cores will be obtained approximately every 1,500 feet and a minimum of two cores per rehabilitation street section. Pavement cores will also be obtained on cape seal streets with lower Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Pavement cores will not be obtained on other cape seal or slurry seal streets.
b. Bulk samples of subgrade for laboratory testing will be limited, and only obtained within areas of observed fatigue cracking and pumping, for which typically up to one bulk sample location has been allocated per street section identified for rehabilitation, as rehabilitation is expected with no reconstruction.

3. Pavement cores on Glasgow Drive, Glencourt Way and Lorry Lane were performed in FY 2022/23 design project. NCE will utilize coring information for design on those sections in FY 2023/24 resurfacing project.

4. Base repairs will be measured in length and width to estimate base repair bid quantities for all street sections. It is the intent that base repair quantities will be for bidding quantity purposes only and that actual locations will be re-marked by NCE with the City’s inspectors prior to construction as an optional task. In addition, a field calibration meeting will be setup to identify the best approach to address fatigue cracking, rutting, more severe longitudinal/transverse and block cracking, and poor ride quality. It might include:
a. Base repair depth (agree on depth and discuss experience of City staff with likely thickness of existing pavement, agree on 3-inch, 4-inch, or 6-inch base repairs). b. Skin patches, spot repair or thin mill and fill (Type III microsurfacing spot repair) to address more severe areas of block and longitudinal, transverse cracking, and/or bad pavement seams. c. Microsurfacing leveling course to address ride quality and localized distortions/irregularities. d. HMA leveling course to address ride quality and localized distortions/irregularities.

5. A no-fee encroachment permit will be pulled with the City for all pavement testing if required.

Topographic Surveying, Base Maps, and Right-of-Way

1. To provide a cost-effective design, NCE’s scope assumes rehabilitation and preventive maintenance plan sheets will be placed onto City and/or County base/aerial base maps. Preventive maintenance (surface seals) and rehabilitation street sections will only include vicinity maps delineating limits of treatment with accurate field inventories for bid quantities and appropriate detail sheets. Plan sheets will include curb and gutter replacement, and base repair schedules only, but will not show individual locations on design plans.

9.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
FY 23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Scope of Work
Revised Date: September 13, 2022
Page | 3
Base repair and curb repairs will be marked in the field on the pavement in white paint and numbered and verified prior to construction.

2. A critical assumption is that all street resurfacing and improvement work will be within City right-of-way, as this has impacts to the level of effort required to completion of design.

3. Design sheet information will be based on field inventories and approximate field measurements to verify items, such as utility covers, cross-slope, street widths and lengths, medians, repair candidates for curb and gutter.

4. Again, to provide cost-effective design, our scope does not include any topographic surveys with the assumption that the project will not include significant drainage improvements, complex changes in street geometry or intersection improvements, or full pavement section reconstruction. Should we determine that aerial base maps are not sufficient and topographic information is required for developing drainage improvements and/or for more complex pavement geometries and/or streets that may need to be reconstructed, we can provide topographic survey work at an additional cost.

Utility Coordination and Location

1. Assumes no significant roadway reconstruction requiring lowering or relocation of utilities.

2. NCE will prepare and distribute utility notification letters to collect facility maps and as-builts, confirm utility planned work, and notify utilities of the City’s utility cut moratorium on improved streets.

3. The subject street sections are expected to be candidates for rehabilitation and preventive maintenance, utility location is currently not included in our scope of work. If significant roadway reconstruction is required, we will discuss with the City utility location options (e.g., GPR) and can provide for additional scope and fee, and striping.

4. Utility covers will be field located approximately and inventoried for the purposes of placing onto plan sheets and developing bid quantities for adjustment of utility covers.

Traffic Striping

1. Traffic striping is assumed to match existing striping.

2. No significant traffic striping changes or design requiring traffic studies or assessment of traffic impacts is planned or included as a part of this scope, except for Manor Drive and Inverness Drive.

3. Striping for Manor Drive and Inverness Drive will be shown on plan only for the intersections where improvements are identified, such as cross walk type change or other traffic engineering improvement items that are identified in field data collection with the City.

4. NCE can provide an additional scope and fee for improvements requiring traffic studies or changes in lane configuration or geometry that require a traffic engineer design.

5. No striping plans will be developed for other rehabilitation or resurfacing street sections.

6. Bike and pedestrian improvement plan on Esplanade Avenue and Palmetto Avenue is separated from annual resurfacing project. More details are included in optional Task 5 below.

Traffic Control Plans

1. Traffic control plans are not included in scope of work. We have assumed as is typical to have contractor prepare traffic control plans in accordance with project technical specifications and requirements and submit to the City traffic engineering group for review.

9.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
FY 23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Scope of Work
Revised Date: September 13, 2022
Page | 4
Curb Ramps

1. It is assumed that all non-compliant curb ramps will be replaced or retrofitted (e.g., detectable warning surface embedded in concrete) in accordance with Caltrans standards, which we have estimated to be approximately 35 locations. Curb ramps will be replaced or retrofitted based on guidance from the Department of Justice/Department of Transportation Joint Technical Assistance on the Title II of the ADA Requirements to Provide Curb Ramps when Streets, Roads, or Highways are altered through Resurfacing dated July 8, 2013. For the purposes of developing this scope of work, we have assumed that surface seal streets that will receive slurry seal or double slurry seal applications will not require assessment and/or replacement of curb ramps. Further clarification on curb ramp replacement included in this scope of work is as follows:
a. Replaced/retrofitted/added curb ramps are assumed to be readily constructed with only minor grade adjustments.
b. Utility relocations (e.g. utility poles, utility boxes, and drainage inlets, for example) required to construct curb ramps are not included in this
scope of work.
c. All ramp construction shall be within City ROW.
d. For curb ramps within hills or steepened grades,
curb ramp design shall only extend up to 15 feet
in the uphill direction, beyond which is
considering chasing the grade.

2. Curb ramps will be field verified to determine the appropriate standard case ramp and NCE will develop a curb ramp detail for those that will require a custom curb ramp. Curb ramp details will not be to survey accuracy and not contain elevations, and therefore some adjustments may be required during construction.

3. Curb ramp improvements on Manor Drive were completed by the City in previous projects. Assume no curb ramps will need to be upgraded on Manor Drive in this project.

Drainage

1. The project will, to the extent possible, and within the context of proposed rehabilitation and preventive maintenance, address visible drainage issues or settled curb. However, it should be noted that no topographic survey data will be obtained and therefore drainage improvements will not include detailed flow line surveys.

2. No major drainage improvements are assumed for this project requiring significant stormwater drain and pipe alteration and/or reconstruction.

Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk

1. Curb and gutter sections will only be replaced to the extent that it affects pavement treatment (e.g., tree root uplift or settlement) or to improve drainage.

2. Sidewalk replacement is not included in this scope of work, but can be added if required for additional scope and fee.

9.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
FY 23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Scope of Work
Revised Date: September 13, 2022
Page | 5
Encroachment Permit

1. NCE will apply for no-fee City encroachment permits for all field work, including pavement coring work, if required.

Deliverable Package

1. NCE will prepare two separated Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E) deliverable packages on concrete repairs and pavement resurfacing, including the striping improvements in the resurfacing package.

The purpose of our services will be to provide pavement and civil engineering design in support of the planned project by the City. To accomplish the stated purpose, we propose the following scope of services.

Project Scope
Task 1 – Project Management & Meetings
1A) Project Kick-off Meeting/Progress Meetings:

NCE’s Project Manager will arrange a Kick-Off Meeting with the City to initiate work on the project. The objectives of the Kick-Off Meeting will be:

Review of the Scope of Work
Establish Lines of Communication
Confirm Deadlines
Establish Project Schedule and Milestones
Define Design and Operation Criteria
Whether a simple preventive maintenance project or a complex reconstruction project, it is critical to establish effective lines of communication with, and coordination amongst, the various stakeholders from the start to ensure the delivery a high quality project within budget and on schedule.

In addition to City staff (Engineering, Maintenance, etc.), NCE will research and coordinate, as-needed, with other agencies such as PG&E, AT&T, North Coast County Water District, Sewer and Stormwater, Schools, etc., to identify any potential conflicts, requirements, or design issues early to help minimize delays (and costs) later in the design process or during construction. At the Kick-Off Meeting, key deliverables for each Task and the Project Schedule would be reviewed and adjusted accordingly to meet City needs.

NCE is very sensitive to construction costs, particularly the volatile price of materials, which have affected the scope of many similar projects. In order to keep the City aware of overall project costs, NCE will begin developing Preliminary Engineering Cost Estimates as soon as we have developed our engineering design recommendations to closely monitor any potential funding issues, which may develop. During the course of the project, NCE will be seeking to develop the most appropriate and cost-effective pavement surface seal alternatives as we completed in FY 2020/21 to FY 2022/23 pavement resurfacing program to stay within the planned project budget and schedule.

Throughout the project, NCE staff will be available to attend regularly scheduled progress meetings with the City (maximum of 2), to maintain good communications for this project to offer up efficiency and reduce the number of design review and coordination meetings. Therefore, we have assumed up to two (2) meetings for FY 2023/24 resurfacing project. The purpose of the progress meetings will be to identify and resolve any design or funding

9.a
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
FY 23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Scope of Work
Revised Date: September 13, 2022
Page | 6
issues that may surface in a timely manner, present design alternatives and recommendations to City staff, and continue coordination with project stakeholders as necessary.

Deliverables: Kick-off/Progress Meeting Agendas and Minutes 1B) Utility Coordination:

NCE will coordinate with utility agencies early in the design process to help avoid potential construction delays and unnecessary disruptions to public services. Utility coordination will be a critical item to keep utility providers informed about the project and schedule. One of the first and earliest items that NCE will complete is sending notification letters to applicable utility providers with a preliminary project schedule for street rehabilitation and surface seal projects for each year of projects. This will allow for the earlier notification to allow utility providers to perform maintenance on their facilities prior to moratorium on the street paving area.

NCE will also carefully document all utility coordination notifications, conversations, and meetings with utility contacts and information in a matrix format with dates of contacts and mailing detailed in this matrix. Follow-up calls will be made for each of the above notifications to confirm receipt. NCE will also keep the City informed of any project delays related to utilities.

Deliverables: Utility notification letters
Task 2 – Pavement Design
The scope of work we would perform under this task consists of the following:
2A) Pavement and Curb & Gutter Condition Survey:

NCE will perform a pavement condition survey of each street section based on distresses.

The surveys will generally cover the travel and parking lanes. Pavement condition surveys serve the purpose of further refining the appropriate pavement surface treatments.

This condition survey will generally note the presence of load related and environmental distresses, such as alligator cracking, longitudinal and transverse cracking, rutting, patches and utility cuts, distortions and depressions as they pertain to developing appropriate pavement treatments. In addition, potential base repairs will be identified in the condition survey. Our scope of work and condition surveys do not address issues including but not limited to traffic, safety and road hazards, geometric issues, or shortterm maintenance that should be performed (i.e. pothole that should be repaired).

A visual assessment of all curb and gutters will be included to identify areas where drainage or the adjacent pavement has been compromised. Our scope will limit repair recommendations to only those sections of curb and gutter that are damaged to the extent that they will affect pavement surface seals or cause ponding water or tripping hazard (i.e., tree root damage extending into pavement). If damaged curb and gutter areas are more extensive than anticipated, it may require additional time to complete, and we will notify the City if more time is required to complete these surveys.

Prior to looking at curb and gutter, NCE will meet with the City and establish condition criteria for assessment and replacement. Based on the criteria established with the City, NCE will then determine what level of curb and gutter replacement will be pursued for design plans and documents.

9.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
FY 23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Scope of Work
Revised Date: September 13, 2022
Page | 7
2B) Pavement Coring:

NCE will collect pavement section core samples (4” – 8” diameter cores) on streets identified under key assumptions at locations determined by NCE. All coring locations will be marked with white paint for utility location by Underground Service Alert (USA). Our current fee estimate assumes up to 20 core locations that we estimate will take two (2) day to complete. For each core sample, NCE will measure and record the thickness and material type of each layer encountered in the pavement section, including the presence of any pavement reinforcing fabric.

Bulk samples of subgrade will be obtained at two (2) location on Manor Drive (from Lockhaven Road to Skyline Boulevard) and Monterey Road (from Hickey Boulevard to 600 ft south of Hickey Boulevard) in accordance with stated key assumptions. We will collect bulk samples of subgrade materials at the core locations for laboratory testing such as R-value, moisture content and Atterberg Limits (plasticity index) determinations. Our current fees assume only two bulk samples will be obtained for testing. The thickness of aggregate base (AB) will be measured at the bulk sample location.

The core holes will penetrate through the pavement section, and will then be backfilled with the excavated materials and capped with AC cold patch on asphalt streets. NCE will then compile the coring and laboratory data and append it to its pavement design memorandum. Each core sample will be logged and stored at NCE’s office and retained through the duration of the project including construction before they are disposed. Additionally, NCE will apply for and obtain a no-fee encroachment permit from the City prior to starting the coring and provide traffic control in accordance with the same standards discussed in pavement deflection testing. 2C) Pavement Design Recommendations:

Using the data obtained in Tasks 2A and 2B, NCE will perform pavement analysis and design services, and develop pavement rehabilitation and preventive maintenance recommendations for each street section. NCE will perform its analysis in accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. NCE will develop pavement structural section recommendations expressed in the form of a Traffic Index (TI) that will be provided by the City. NCE will develop recommendations including, but not limited to, the following:

Conventional Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (RHMA)
Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA)
Locations and treatments of failed pavement sections (base repairs) Full-width milling and wedge grinding requirements
Surface seal treatments including but not limited to slurry seals, double slurry seal, microsurfacing, and conventional cape seals.

NCE will then summarize its recommendations in a pavement design tables to the City that, at a minimum, will include street inventory, pavement structure thickness, base repair percentage, recommended treatments, and lab testing results.

9.a
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
FY 23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Scope of Work
Revised Date: September 13, 2022
Page | 8
NCE will submit the draft pavement design tables to the City for initial review. Upon receipt of any comments from the City, NCE will then prepare its final pavement design tables and submit to the City.

Task 2 Deliverables: Draft & Final Pavement Design Tables.

Task 3 – Plans, Specifications & Estimates
The work that will be performed during developing design PS&E are outlined in the subsequent Tasks. 3A) Design Data Gathering:

NCE will review relevant available data and records from the City as listed in the previous section, public and private utility providers, and other sources that may be appropriate to support the preparation of project contract documents. These may include, but are not limited to, the City drainage structure inventory maps, aerial photographs of the City; as-built street improvement and infrastructure plans, striping, signage, and markings, asbuilt plans from utility providers, including any preliminary plans for future work that may conflict with this project.

The gathered information will be compiled and included in the base map used for design. It shall be noted that available record data (e.g., utilities, right-of-way) used to prepare the base map for streets undergoing rehabilitation will only be shown in their approximate location and that the depth of utilities will not be indicated. Based on our review we will identify any data gaps or missing information and provide this information to the City for review and discussion.
3B) 60% PS&E:

NCE will prepare the 60% PS&E for the planned street rehabilitation and surface seal street sections. The 60% plans for subject street sections will incorporate schematic design elements, localized base repairs (digouts) quantities, striping quantities, striping viewports of the intersections on Manor Drive and Inverness Drive if any striping improvements are identified, curb and gutter repair schedules, and limits of work. On subject street sections to offer the most cost-effective approach, plans will only include vicinity maps delineating limits of treatment with accurate field inventories for bid quantities and appropriate detail sheets with exceptions noted under key assumptions. Plan sheets will include curb and gutter replacement and base repair schedules only, but will not show individual locations on design plans. Base repair and curb repairs will be marked in the field on the pavement in white paint and numbered, and verified prior to construction. Separated striping viewports of the intersections will be developed on Manor Drive and Inverness Drive with crosswalk type change, missing traffic signage or other traffic engineering improvement items to meet current MUTCD standard are identified in field data collection and discussed with the City. Additionally, a table summarizing major work items (e.g. surface seal area, base repair area, etc.) and their estimated quantities will be developed and included on the respective plan sheets. We find that this information is particularly useful to contractors when assembling construction bids and schedules, thus resulting in more competitive bids, and to the City for verifying pay quantities during construction.

NCE understands that the City will provide the “Front End” documents and Special Provisions. The technical specifications will be prepared in MS Word format and will follow the City’s formatting conventions. The technical specifications and details will reference the City’s standard provisions and Caltrans 2018 Standards (including subsequent updates). NCE will, however, recommend deviating from Caltrans standards where, from our experience, such changes will improve the likelihood of achieving a successful construction project without compromising the integrity of the design. NCE recognizes the value of incorporating Caltrans Standard Specifications in projects such as these, both because these specifications have been developed by an agency that designs and

9.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
FY 23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Scope of Work
Revised Date: September 13, 2022
Page | 9
builds a vast amount of highway work, and because most contractors performing public works construction in Northern California are familiar with them. Caltrans, however, has the resources to administer projects quite differently than most local agencies, so NCE advocates modifying the Caltrans Standard Specifications to better fit the abilities, needs, and budgets of municipal agencies.

NCE also believes that an efficient yet thorough Quality Control/Quality Assurance program is essential for getting the maximum value out of every dollar spent on construction. Projects designed by NCE therefore, contain technical specifications that attempt to optimize the balance between using rigid, but time-tested, specifications and meeting local agency needs, with the ultimate goal of obtaining the very best value for its clients.

The Engineer’s Cost Estimate will be prepared in MS Excel format and will be based on the most recent construction cost data available to NCE for projects of this type. Because of NCE’s involvement in the design and construction of numerous similar projects throughout California, we are confident in our ability to estimate the construction cost of the City’s project. This initial estimate will then be updated and refined as the design effort progresses.

It is assumed that the City will require a 5 to 10-day review/comment period once the 60% PS&E package is submitted.

Deliverables: One reproducible copy of 60% plans, technical specifications, and engineer’s estimate. 3C) 90% PS&E:

The 60% PS&E will be revised to incorporate comments received from the City. NCE will meet with the City to review these comments, from which the 90% PS&E will be prepared. NCE will provide a response to each comment that is included in a comment table provided by the City. The 90% PS&E will include additional design information and details typically expected at this stage of completion. The 90% PS&E will then be packaged and submitted similar to the 60% PS&E unless directed otherwise.

The technical specifications will be further refined and at this stage of the design. We will review and comment on the City’s Front End documents (bid and contract forms, General Provisions, Special Provisions, etc.), which the City will prepare and provide. The Engineer’s Cost Estimate will also be updated to reflect the revised quantities of work depicted on the plans.

It is assumed that the City will require a 5-day review/comment period once the 90% PS&E package is submitted.

Deliverables: One reproducible copy of 90% plans, technical specifications, and engineer’s estimate. 3D) Final (100%) PS&E:

The 90% PS&E will be revised to incorporate comments received from the City. NCE will again meet with the City to review these comments, from which the final (100%) PS&E will be prepared. NCE will provide a response to each comment that is included in a comment table provided by the City. The final (100%) PS&E will include all notes and details necessary for construction. One reproducible copy of the final (100%) PS&E will then be packaged and submitted similar to the 90% PS&E unless directed otherwise. It is assumed that the City will require a 5-day review/comment period once the final (100%) PS&E package is submitted.

Upon receipt of the City’s final review comments, the project documents will be finalized for bidding purposes.

9.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
FY 23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Scope of Work
Revised Date: September 13, 2022
Page | 10
A final quantity calculation will be tabulated, and this will be entered into the final Engineer’s Cost Estimate for the project. All final documents will be reviewed, stamped and signed by NCE’s registered civil engineer, and the final PS&E will be delivered to the City in both hard copy and electronic formats.

Deliverables: One wet-signed and one electronic file of the final plans, technical specifications, and engineer’s estimate. The electronic files for the final construction plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimate will be in AutoCAD, Microsoft Word, and Microsoft Excel, respectively.

Task 4 – As Needed Professional Services (Optional)
NCE will assist the City with as needed professional services that may include surveying additional curb ramps if needed, marking base repairs with the contractor during construction, advising the City during construction regarding pavement treatments, and other items that may come up during the course of design and construction.

Task 5 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement (Optional)
NCE will provide transportation engineering design services to address bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Esplanade Avenue and Palmetto Avenue. Project scope includes installing 1.4 centerline miles of Class II bike lanes and 0.5 centerline miles of Class III bike routes with additional features to operate as a “bicycle boulevard” along Pacifica’s northern coastal corridor of Esplanade Avenue and Palmetto Avenue. Pedestrian improvements will focus on two intersections at Esplanade Avenue/Manor Dr and Highway 1 On-Ramp at Palmetto Avenue. This optional task includes additional meetings to discuss design details with the City, reviewing existing traffic data or other documents, conducting site visits to document existing lane configuration, street parking, bicycle facilities, pedestrian crossing locations, or other roadway features that may affected by the project improvements, and complete striping sheets with all recommended improvements. Assume no pavement treatment (surface seal or rehabilitation) will be involved in this project. Based on project descriptions and review, NCE will develop up to 12 striping plan sheets that consist of proposed signing and striping improvements. Plan sheets, specifications, and cost estimates will be incorporated with street resurfacing project and submitted for City to review with 60% PS&E, 90% PS&E and Final (100%) PS&E package described in Task 3.

SCHEDULE
NCE will provide a detailed design schedule to achieve delivery of construction documents for bidding in early 2023 once we have a notice to proceed and agreement on the revised scope of work. We will discuss further the level of effort and time to complete construction documents given the significant number of curb ramps that may require replacement and/or retrofit.

9.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
FY 23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Scope of Work
Revised Date: September 13, 2022
Page | 11

FEE ESTIMATE
NCE will provide the defined scope of work for a not to exceed fee of $130,600 and $191,500 with optional Task 4 ($16,400) and 5 ($44,500) in accordance with the attached schedule of charges. Further cost detail is provided in the attached fee estimate.

9.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 FY 2023/24 PAVEMENT RESURFACING PROJECT STREET LIST

9.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
FY23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project Street List
Year Street ID
Section
ID
Street Name From To Ln FC Length
(ft)
Width
(ft)
Area
(sf)
2018
PCI
Field Treatment
Unit
Cost
(S/sy)
Project Cost
2023/24 MANOR 1550G MANOR DRIVE LOCKHAVEN RD SKYLINE BLVD 3 A 771 38 29,298 36 MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 50.50 $ 164,394 2023/24 MONTER 1620B MONTEREY ROAD HICKEY BLVD 600 FT S/O HICKEY BLVD (COP) 2 A 600 37 22,200 0 MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 50.50 $ 124,567 2023/24 CONCHI 1160 CONCHITA COURT EDGEMAR AVE CUL DE SAC 2 R 195 29 5,655 6 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 7,226 2023/24 CRAGMO 1235A CRAGMONT CT. MANOR DR DEAD END 2 R 613 31 19,003 6 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 24,282 2023/24 DELMAR 1240A DEL MAR AVENUE AVALON DR MANOR DR 2 R 737 25 18,425 33 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 23,543 2023/24 DELMAR 1240B DEL MAR AVENUE MANOR DR NELSON AVE 2 R 700 25 17,500 61 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 22,361 2023/24 FREMON 1360C FREMONT AVENUE AVALON DR MANOR DR 2 R 721 25 18,025 15 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 23,032 2023/24 FREMON 1360D FREMONT AVENUE MANOR DR NELSON AVE 2 R 676 25 16,900 50 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 21,594 2023/24 GLASGO 1410 GLASGOW DRIVE GLENCOURT WAY HEATHCLIFF DR 2 R 891 29 25,839 0 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 33,017 2023/24 GLENCO 1400 GLENCOURT WAY INVERNESS DR SKYLINE BLVD 2 R 991 29 28,739 30 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 36,722 2023/24 HACIEN 1240 HACIENDA COURT MILLER AVE DEAD END 2 R 112 29 3,248 21 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 4,150 2023/24 HEATHC 1440B HEATHCLIFF DRIVE INVERNESS DR KAVANAUGH WAY 2 R 1,167 29 33,843 3 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 43,244 2023/24 HEATHC 1440A HEATHECLIFF DRIVE MANOR DR INVERNESS DR 2 R 2,393 29 69,397 28 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 88,674 2023/24 HIBBER 1445A HIBBERT NELSON AVE CUL DE SAC 2 R 634 25 15,850 0 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 20,253 2023/24 INVERN 1500A INVERNESS DRIVE MANOR DR HEATHCLIFF DR 2 C 2,303 29 66,787 60 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 85,339 2023/24 JOHNSO 1510A JOHNSON AVENUE AVALON DR MANOR DR 2 R 728 25 18,200 56 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 23,256 2023/24 JOHNSO 1510B JOHNSON AVENUE MANOR DR NELSON AVE 2 R 679 25 16,975 17 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 21,690 2023/24 LORRY 1540 LORRY LANE HEATHCLIFF DR CUL DE SAC 2 R 794 30 23,820 4 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 30,437 2023/24 MANOR 1550F MANOR DRIVE MONTEREY RD LOCKHAVEN RD 2 A 1,406 30 42,180 57 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 14.50 $ 67,957 2023/24 MILAGR 1590A MILAGRA DRIVE OCEANA BLVD EDGEMAR AVE 2 R 276 35 9,660 41 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 12,343 2023/24 MILAGR 1590B MILAGRA DRIVE EDGEMAR AVE EDGEMAR AVE 2 R 1,742 30 52,260 50 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 66,777 2023/24 MILAGR 1590C MILAGRA DRIVE EDGEMAR AVE CUL DE SAC 2 R 494 30 14,820 8 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 18,937 2023/24 MILLER 1600A MILLER AVE MILAGRA DR AVALON DR 2 R 724 30 21,720 38 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 27,753 2023/24 MILLER 1600B MILLER AVE AVALON DR MANOR DR 2 R 992 29 28,768 13 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 36,759 2023/24 MONTER 1620C MONTEREY ROAD 600' S/O HICKEY BLVD (COP) MANOR DR 2 A 1,623 37 60,051 58 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 14.50 $ 96,749 2023/24 NELSON 1630A NELSON AVENUE WEST END PERRY AVE 2 R 787 25 19,675 45 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 25,140 2023/24 NORFOL 1640B NORFOLK DRIVE 100 FT N/O NELSON
AVE.

LEWIS LANE 2 R 1,098 29 31,842 30 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 40,687 2023/24 PERRY 1720A PERRY AVE AVALON DR MANOR DR 2 R 820 25 20,500 3 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 26,194 2023/24 PERRY 1720B PERRY AVE MANOR DR NELSON AVE 2 R 606 25 15,150 4 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 19,358 2023/24 VISTAM 1850A VISTA MAR AVE AVALON DR MANOR DR 2 R 948 29 27,492 23 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 35,129 2023/24 VISTAM 1850B VISTA MAR AVE MANOR DR NELSON AVE 2 R 444 25 11,100 44 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR $ 11.50 $ 14,183 2023/24 ARROYO 1010 ARROYO DRIVE EDGEMAR AVE CUL DE SAC 2 R 1,157 25 28,925 83 SLURRY SEAL $ 3.75 $ 12,052 2023/24 AVALON 1020A AVALON DRIVE OCEANA BLVD PERRY AVE 2 R 1,188 30 35,640 65 SLURRY SEAL $ 5.00 $ 19,800 2023/24 AVALON 1020B AVALON DRIVE PERRY AVE MILLER AVE 2 R 562 30 16,860 82 SLURRY SEAL $ 3.75 $ 7,025 2023/24 EDGEMA 1300A EDGEMAR AVENUE MANOR DR AVALON DR 2 R 744 25 18,600 67 SLURRY SEAL $ 5.00 $ 10,333 2023/24 EDGEMA 1300B EDGEMAR AVENUE AVALON DR MILAGRA DR 2 R 420 25 10,500 49 SLURRY SEAL $ 5.00 $ 5,833 2023/24 EDGEMA 1300C EDGEMAR AVENUE MILAGRA DR CONCHITA CT 2 R 1,878 29 54,462 64 SLURRY SEAL $ 5.00 $ 30,257 2023/24 EDGEMA 1300D EDGEMAR AVENUE CONCHITA CT MILAGRA DR 2 R 582 29 16,878 55 SLURRY SEAL $ 5.00 $ 9,377 2023/24 LEWIS 1520 LEWIS LANE MANOR DR CUL DE SAC 2 R 1,289 32 41,248 79 SLURRY SEAL $ 3.75 $ 17,187 1 August 2022

9.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and City of Pacifica
FY23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project Street List
Year Street ID
Section
ID
Street Name From To Ln FC Length
(ft)
Width
(ft)
Area
(sf)
2018
PCI
Field Treatment
Unit
Cost
(S/sy)
Project Cost
2023/24 MANOR 1550C MANOR DRIVE EDGEMAR DR PERRY AVE 2 A 928 30 27,840 92 SLURRY SEAL $ 5.00 $ 15,467 2023/24 MANOR 1550D MANOR DRIVE PERRY AVE CRAGMONT CT 2 A 1,276 30 38,280 71 SLURRY SEAL $ 5.00 $ 21,267 2023/24 MANOR 1550E MANOR DRIVE CRAGMONT CT MONTEREY RD 2 A 1,762 30 52,860 84 SLURRY SEAL $ 5.00 $ 29,367 2023/24 NELSON 1630B NELSON AVENUE PERRY AVE NORFOLK DR 2 R 1,303 25 32,575 86 SLURRY SEAL $ 5.00 $ 18,097 2 August 2022

9.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and ATTACHMENT “
B”

COMPENSATION

9.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24

FEE ESTIMATE

9.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 Task Description Principal
Project
Manager
Project
Engineer
Staff
Engineer
Field
Technician Clerical
Labor
Expenses Coring
Traffic
Control
Laboratory
Testing
Traffic
Engineering
Support
Reimbursable
Expenses Total Cost
Rate $265 $205 $160 $140 $100 $90

1. Project Management & Meetings
1A. Project Kick-off and Progress Meetings 6 16 8 $ 6,150 $ 100 $ 6,300 1B. Utility Coordination 2 4 20 2 $ 4,030 $ 100 $ 4,100 Sub-Total 6 18 12 20 0 2 $ 10,180 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200 $ 10,400

2. Pavement Rehabilitation Design
2A. Pavement and C & G Condition Survey 2 8 56 $ 9,530 $ 300 $ 9,800 2B. Pavement Coring 2 4 10 12 2 $ 3,830 $ 9,000 $ 4,180 $ 1,760 $ 200 $ 19,000 2C. Pavement Design Recommendations 8 4 32 8 $ 9,180 $ 9,200 Sub-Total 8 8 44 74 12 2 $ 22,540 $ 9,000 $ 4,180 $ 1,760 $ - $ 500 $ 38,000

3. Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E)
3A. Design Data Gathering and Utility Coordination 20 80 2 $ 14,580 $ 800 $ 15,400 3B. 60% PS&E 16 12 48 110 2 $ 29,960 $ 100 $ 30,100
3C. 90% PS&E 8 6 48 76 2 $ 21,850 $ 100 $ 22,000
3D. Final (100%) PS&E 8 4 22 56 2 $ 14,480 $ 200 $ 14,700 Sub-Total 32 22 138 322 0 8 $ 80,870 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,200 $ 82,200 Total 46 48 194 416 12 12 $ 113,590 $ 9,000 $ 4,180 $ 1,760 $ - $ 1,900 $ 130,600

4. As Needed Professional Services (Optional) 16 16 40 16 $ 16,160 $ 200 $ 16,400

5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement (Optional) 2 4 12 16 $ 5,510 $ 38,830 $ 200 $ 44,500 Total With Optional Task 62 64 234 432 12 12 $ 129,750 $ 9,000 $ 4,180 $ 1,760 $ - $ 2,100 $ 60,900 City of Pacifica
FY 23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Revised Fee Estimate
September 9, 2022
Labor Hours

9.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services (5132 : FY 2023-24 5-Year Work Plan
FY 2020/21 to DY 2024/25
City of Pacifica
Test
Feature Legend

CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR

SLURRY SEAL
FY 20/21
FY 21/22
FY 22/23
FY23/24
FY 24/25
ATTACHMENT 2

9.b
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Five-year Street Maintenance Program (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing Project) FY 2020/2021 City of Pacifica
Test
Feature Legend

CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR

SLURRY SEAL

9.b
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Five-year Street Maintenance Program (5132 : FY 2023-24 FY 2021/2022 City of Pacifica
Test
Feature Legend

CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

SLURRY SEAL

9.b
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Five-year Street Maintenance Program (5132 : FY 2023-24 FY 2022/2023 City of Pacifica
Test
Feature Legend

CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR

SLURRY SEAL

9.b
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Five-year Street Maintenance Program (5132 : FY 2023-24 FY 2023/2024 City of Pacifica
Test
Feature Legend

CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR

SLURRY SEAL

9.b
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Five-year Street Maintenance Program (5132 : FY 2023-24 FY 2024/2025 City of Pacifica
Test
Feature Legend

CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR

SLURRY SEAL

9.b
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Five-year Street Maintenance Program (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
5‐Year Work Plan
FY 2020/21 to FY 2024/25
Street ID Section ID Street Name Begin Location End Location Ln FC Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (sf) Treatment Year CRESPI 4155I CRESPI DRIVE MANZANITA DR LERIDA WAY 2 C 2,140 35 74,900 MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 ACACIA 4030 ACACIA COURT REDWOOD WAY CUL DE SAC 2 R 252 29 7,308 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 CRESPI 4155J CRESPI DRIVE LERIDA WAY FASSLER AVE 2 C 1,821 35 63,735 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 ELMCT 4240 ELM COURT LERIDA WAY CUL DE SAC 2 R 312 29 9,048 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 ESTELL 3140 ESTELLA DRIVE FASSLER AVE DEAD END 2 R 112 30 3,360 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 EVERGL 4250A EVERGLADES DRIVE TERRA NOVA BLVD PICARDO CT 2 R 1,728 34 58,752 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 EVERGL 4250C EVERGLADES DRIVE PARK PACIFICA AVE ODDSTAD BLVD 2 R 1,322 37 48,914 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 FASSLE 3160D FASSLER AVENUE DRIFTWOOD CIR CRESPI DR 4 A 1,122 43 48,246 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 FASSLE 3160F FASSLER AVENUE TERRA NOVA BLVD DEAD END 2 R 898 37 33,226 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 KENDAL 4380 KENDALL COURT EVERGLADES DR CUL DE SAC 2 R 244 25 6,100 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 LERIDA 4390A LERIDA WAY TERRA NOVA BLVD REDWOOD WAY 2 C 1,092 39 42,588 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 LERIDA 4390B LERIDA WAY REDWOOD WAY 1670 FT N/O SPRUCE CT 2 C 2,457 39 95,823 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 LERIDA 4390C LERIDA WAY 1670 FT N/O SPRUCE CT CRESPI DR 2 C 347 29 10,063 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 MASOND 4420A MASON DRIVE TERRA NOVA AVE 240 FT E/O VICTORIA WAY 2 R 515 29 14,935 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 MASOND 4420B MASON DRIVE
240 FT E/O VICTORIA WAY
(COP)

DEAD END EAST OF VEGA
CT
2 R 721 29 20,909 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21
MIRAND 4475 MIRANDA COURT TERRA NOVA BLVD CUL DE SAC 2 R 216 29 6,264 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 PICARD 4465 PICARDO COURT EVERGLADES DR CUL DE SAC 2 R 339 25 8,475 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 POPLAR 4570 POPLAR AVENUE LERIDA WAY DEAD END 2 R 389 29 11,281 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 REDWOO 4580A REDWOOD WAY BANYAN WAY LERIDA WAY 2 R 582 29 16,878 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 REDWOO 4580B REDWOOD WAY LERIDA WAY CUL DE SAC 2 R 728 29 21,112 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 SPRUCE 4705 SPRUCE COURT LERIDA WAY CUL DE SAC 2 R 692 25 17,300 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 VEGACT 4785 VEGA COURT MASON DR CUL DE SAC 2 R 417 29 12,093 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 VICTOR 4790 VICTORIA WAY TERRA NOVA BLVD MASON DR 2 R 601 29 17,429 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2020/21 ANDORR 4035 ANDORRA COURT CRESPI DR CUL DE SAC 2 R 442 29 12,818 SLURRY SEAL 2020/21 DRIFTW 3100 DRIFTWOOD CIRCLE FASSLER AVE FASSLER AVE 2 R 1,441 36 51,876 SLURRY SEAL 2020/21 DRIFTW 3110 DRIFTWOOD COURT DRIFTWOOD CIRCLE CUL DE SAC 2 R 393 36 14,148 SLURRY SEAL 2020/21 EVERGL 4250B EVERGLADES DRIVE PICARDO CT PARK PACIFICA AVE 2 R 611 37 22,607 SLURRY SEAL 2020/21 ADOBED 4000C ADOBE DRIVE ROSITA RD LINDA MAR BLVD 2 C 1,353 36 48,708 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 ANZADR 4015 ANZA DRIVE ARGUELLO BLVD DE SOLO DR 2 R 1,806 29 52,374 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 CADIZC 4160 CADIZ COURT ESCALERO AVE CUL DE SAC 2 R 427 29 12,383 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 CERVAN 4140 CERVANTES WAY ARGUELLO BLVD ANZA DR 2 R 739 29 21,431 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 CHICO 4165 CHICO COURT ESCALERO AVE CUL DE SAC 2 R 187 29 5,423 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 CRESPI 4155B CRESPI DRIVE LADERA WAY DE SOLO DR 2 C 500 41 20,500 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 CRESPI 4155C CRESPI DRIVE DE SOLO DR PERALTA RD 2 C 1,023 40 40,920 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 CRESPI 4155D CRESPI DRIVE PERALTA RD SEVILLE DR 2 C 1,266 39 49,374 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 CRESPI 4155E CRESPI DRIVE SEVILLE DR LA MIRADA WAY 2 C 706 40 28,240 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 CRESPI 4155F CRESPI DRIVE LA MIRADA WAY TAPIS WAY 2 C 2,005 35 70,175 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 DESOLO 4230A DE SOLO DRIVE
MONTEZUMA DR (EASTINT.) LINDA MAR BLVD 2 R 250 29 7,250 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 1/4 October 2020

9.b
Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Five-year Street Maintenance Program (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
5‐Year Work Plan
FY 2020/21 to FY 2024/25
Street ID Section ID Street Name Begin Location End Location Ln FC Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (sf) Treatment Year DESOLO 4230C DE SOLO DRIVE MONTEZUMA DR (NORTH) MONTEZUMA DR (SOUTH) 2 R 1,470 30 44,100 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 DESOLO 4230B DE SOLO DRIVE LINDA MAR BLVD CRESPI DR 2 R 1,445 40 57,800 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 DELLRD 4235 DELL ROAD PERALTA RD STANDISH RD 2 R 823 31 25,513 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 ENCANT 4275 ENCANTO WAY ARGUELLO BLVD FERNANDEZ WAY 2 R 694 29 20,126 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 FERNAN 4360 FERNANDEZ WAY ARGUELLO BLVD DE SOLO DR 2 R 958 29 27,782 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 FLORES 4290 FLORES DRIVE

MONTEZUMA DR WESTINTERSCTION
MONTEZUMA DR EASTINTERSECTION 2 R 1,914 29 55,506 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 MONTEZ 4480A MONTEZUMA DRIVE DE SOLO DR PERALTA AVE 2 R 1,722 29 49,938 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 NAVARR 4525 NAVARRE DRIVE DE SOLO DR (WEST) DE SOLO DR (EAST) 2 R 479 29 13,891 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 NORIEG 4530 NORIEGA WAY FLORES DR FLORES DR 2 R 753 29 21,837 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 PERALT 4615B PERALTA ROAD SAN PEDRO TERRACE LINDA MAR BLVD 2 C 1,172 29 33,988 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 SERENA 4620A SERENA DRIVE LADERA WAY ESCALERO AVE 2 R 2,074 29 60,146 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 SERENA 4620B SERENA DRIVE ESCALERO AVE LA MIRADA WAY 2 R 891 29 25,839 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 SEVILL 4625A SEVILLE DRIVE LINDA MAR BLVD OVIEDO CT 2 R 1,200 30 36,000 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 STANDI 4665 STANDISH COURT STANDISH RD CUL DE SAC 2 R 169 27 4,563 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 STANDI 4670 STANDISH DRIVE PERALTA RD STANDISH CT 2 R 972 31 30,132 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2021/22 ALTAVI 4050A ALTA VISTA DRIVE CUL DE SAC (WEST)` ESCALERO AVE 2 R 2,190 25 54,750 SLURRY SEAL 2021/22 ALTAVI 4050B ALTA VISTA DRIVE ESCALERO AVE LA MIRADA WAY 2 R 869 25 21,725 SLURRY SEAL 2021/22 ARGUEL 4020A ARGUELLO BOULEVARD ANZA DR DE SOLO DR 2 R 751 29 21,779 SLURRY SEAL 2021/22 ARGUEL 4020B ARGUELLO BOULEVARD DE SOLO DR PERALTA RD 2 R 1,568 29 45,472 SLURRY SEAL 2021/22 ARGUEL 4020C ARGUELLO BOULEVARD PERALTA RD LINDA MAR BLVD 2 R 1,215 29 35,235 SLURRY SEAL 2021/22 ESCALE 4270A ESCALERO AVENUE

MARVILLA CIR (EDGECOBBLESTONE
PERALTA RD 2 R 224 37 8,288 SLURRY SEAL 2021/22
LINDAM 4415C LINDA MAR BOULEVARD PERALTA RD ADOBE DR 4 A 1,545 53 81,885 SLURRY SEAL 2021/22 MARVIL 4830 MARVILLA CIRCLE MARVILLA PLACE END OF LOOP 2 R 1,337 37 49,469 SLURRY SEAL 2021/22 MARVIL 4485 MARVILLA PLACE ARGUELLO DR MARVILLA CIR 2 R 233 37 8,621 SLURRY SEAL 2021/22 OVIEDO 4550 OVIEDO COURT SEVILLE DR CUL DE SAC 2 R 760 29 22,040 SLURRY SEAL 2021/22 SEVILL 4625B SEVILLE DRIVE OVIEDO CT CRESPI DR 2 R 951 30 28,530 SLURRY SEAL 2021/22 HICKEY 1460A HICKEY BOULDEVARD MONTEREY AVE INVERNESS DR 4 A 1,799 62 111,538 MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR 2022/23 BEACHV 1070 BEACHVIEW AVENUE HICKEY BLVD CORAL RIDGE DR 2 R 1,788 37 66,156 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2022/23 BROOKH 1140 BROOKHAVEN COURT CATALINA AVE CUL DE SAC 2 R 422 22 9,284 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2022/23 CATALI 1180 CATALINA AVENUE HICKEY BLVD CORAL RIDGE DR 2 R 2,232 37 82,584 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2022/23 CRESTM 1215 CRESTMOOR CIRCLE BEACHVIEW AVE BEACHVIEW AVE 2 R 1,562 29 45,298 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2022/23 FOOTHI 1340 FOOTHILL DRIVE INVERNESS DR FOREST LAKE DR 2 R 1,351 29 39,179 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2022/23 FOREST 1350 FOREST LAKE DRIVE INVERNESS DR FOOTHILL DR 2 R 1,132 29 32,828 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2022/23 HAMILT 1450 HAMILTON COURT CATALINA AVE CUL DE SAC 2 R 381 22 8,382 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2022/23 HORIZO 1470 HORIZON WAY FOOTHILL DRIVE INVERNESS DR 2 R 911 29 26,419 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2022/23 IDLEWI 1480 IDLEWILD COURT HORIZON WAY CUL DE SAC 2 R 434 21 9,114 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2022/23 INVERN 1500B INVERNESS DRIVE HEATHCLIFF DR HICKEY BLVD 2 C 1,535 37 56,795 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2022/23 MELROS 1700 MELROSE COURT CATALINA AVE CUL DE SAC 2 R 303 22 6,666 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2022/23 RUTLAN 1870 RUTLAND DRIVE CRESTMOOR CIRCLE CATALINA AVE 2 R 246 29 7,134 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2022/23 2/4 October 2020

9.b
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Five-year Street Maintenance Program (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
5‐Year Work Plan
FY 2020/21 to FY 2024/25
Street ID Section ID Street Name Begin Location End Location Ln FC Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (sf) Treatment Year HICKEY 1460B HICKEY BOULDEVARD INVERNESS DR FIRECREST AVE 4 A 1,167 62 72,354 SLURRY SEAL 2022/23 MANOR 1550G MANOR DRIVE LOCKHAVEN RD SKYLINE BLVD 3 A 771 38 29,298 MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 MONTER
1620B

MONTEREY ROAD HICKEY BLVD
600 FT S/O HICKEY BLVD
(COP) 2 A 600 37 22,200 MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 CONCHI 1160 CONCHITA COURT EDGEMAR AVE CUL DE SAC 2 R 195 29 5,655 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 CRAGMO 1235A CRAGMONT CT. MANOR DR DEAD END 2 R 613 31 19,003 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 DELMAR 1240A DEL MAR AVENUE AVALON DR MANOR DR 2 R 737 25 18,425 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 DELMAR 1240B DEL MAR AVENUE MANOR DR NELSON AVE 2 R 700 25 17,500 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 FREMON 1360C FREMONT AVENUE AVALON DR MANOR DR 2 R 721 25 18,025 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 FREMON 1360D FREMONT AVENUE MANOR DR NELSON AVE 2 R 676 25 16,900 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 GLASGO 1410 GLASGOW DRIVE GLENCOURT WAY HEATHCLIFF DR 2 R 891 29 25,839 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 GLENCO 1400 GLENCOURT WAY INVERNESS DR SKYLINE BLVD 2 R 991 29 28,739 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 HACIEN 1240 HACIENDA COURT MILLER AVE DEAD END 2 R 112 29 3,248 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 HEATHC 1440B HEATHCLIFF DRIVE INVERNESS DR KAVANAUGH WAY 2 R 1,167 29 33,843 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 HEATHC 1440A HEATHECLIFF DRIVE MANOR DR INVERNESS DR 2 R 2,393 29 69,397 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 HIBBER 1445A HIBBERT NELSON AVE CUL DE SAC 2 R 634 25 15,850 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 INVERN 1500A INVERNESS DRIVE MANOR DR HEATHCLIFF DR 2 C 2,303 29 66,787 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 JOHNSO 1510A JOHNSON AVENUE AVALON DR MANOR DR 2 R 728 25 18,200 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 JOHNSO 1510B JOHNSON AVENUE MANOR DR NELSON AVE 2 R 679 25 16,975 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 LORRY 1540 LORRY LANE HEATHCLIFF DR CUL DE SAC 2 R 794 30 23,820 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 MANOR 1550F MANOR DRIVE MONTEREY RD LOCKHAVEN RD 2 A 1,406 30 42,180 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 MILAGR 1590A MILAGRA DRIVE OCEANA BLVD EDGEMAR AVE 2 R 276 35 9,660 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 MILAGR 1590B MILAGRA DRIVE EDGEMAR AVE EDGEMAR AVE 2 R 1,742 30 52,260 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 MILAGR 1590C MILAGRA DRIVE EDGEMAR AVE CUL DE SAC 2 R 494 30 14,820 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 MILLER 1600A MILLER AVE MILAGRA DR AVALON DR 2 R 724 30 21,720 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 MILLER 1600B MILLER AVE AVALON DR MANOR DR 2 R 992 29 28,768 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 MONTER 1620C MONTEREY ROAD 600' S/O HICKEY BLVD (COP) MANOR DR 2 A 1,623 37 60,051 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 NELSON 1630A NELSON AVENUE WEST END PERRY AVE 2 R 787 25 19,675 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 NORFOL 1640B NORFOLK DRIVE 100 FT N/O NELSON AVE. LEWIS LANE 2 R 1,098 29 31,842 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 PERRY 1720A PERRY AVE AVALON DR MANOR DR 2 R 820 25 20,500 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 PERRY 1720B PERRY AVE MANOR DR NELSON AVE 2 R 606 25 15,150 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 VISTAM 1850A VISTA MAR AVE AVALON DR MANOR DR 2 R 948 29 27,492 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 VISTAM 1850B VISTA MAR AVE MANOR DR NELSON AVE 2 R 444 25 11,100 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2023/24 ARROYO 1010 ARROYO DRIVE EDGEMAR AVE CUL DE SAC 2 R 1,157 25 28,925 SLURRY SEAL 2023/24 AVALON 1020A AVALON DRIVE OCEANA BLVD PERRY AVE 2 R 1,188 30 35,640 SLURRY SEAL 2023/24 AVALON 1020B AVALON DRIVE PERRY AVE MILLER AVE 2 R 562 30 16,860 SLURRY SEAL 2023/24 EDGEMA 1300A EDGEMAR AVENUE MANOR DR AVALON DR 2 R 744 25 18,600 SLURRY SEAL 2023/24 EDGEMA 1300B EDGEMAR AVENUE AVALON DR MILAGRA DR 2 R 420 25 10,500 SLURRY SEAL 2023/24 EDGEMA 1300C EDGEMAR AVENUE MILAGRA DR CONCHITA CT 2 R 1,878 29 54,462 SLURRY SEAL 2023/24 EDGEMA 1300D EDGEMAR AVENUE CONCHITA CT MILAGRA DR 2 R 582 29 16,878 SLURRY SEAL 2023/24 LEWIS 1520 LEWIS LANE MANOR DR CUL DE SAC 2 R 1,289 32 41,248 SLURRY SEAL 2023/24 3/4 October 2020

9.b
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Five-year Street Maintenance Program (5132 : FY 2023-24 City of Pacifica
5‐Year Work Plan
FY 2020/21 to FY 2024/25
Street ID Section ID Street Name Begin Location End Location Ln FC Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (sf) Treatment Year MANOR 1550C MANOR DRIVE EDGEMAR DR PERRY AVE 2 A 928 30 27,840 SLURRY SEAL 2023/24 MANOR 1550D MANOR DRIVE PERRY AVE CRAGMONT CT 2 A 1,276 30 38,280 SLURRY SEAL 2023/24 MANOR 1550E MANOR DRIVE CRAGMONT CT MONTEREY RD 2 A 1,762 30 52,860 SLURRY SEAL 2023/24NELSON 1630B NELSON AVENUE PERRY AVE NORFOLK DR 2 R 1,303 25 32,575 SLURRY SEAL 2023/24CINDY 2150 CINDY WAY CULLIN DR RIDGEWAY DR 2 R 608 29 17,632 MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR 2024/25 LUNDY 2340C LUNDY WAY RIDGEWAY DR SHARP PARK RD 2 A 1,972 29 57,188 MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR 2024/25 BRADFO 2070 BRADFORD WAY MORI`S POINT RD FAIRWAY DR 2 R 944 33 31,152 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2024/25 CLAREN 2140A CLARENDON ROAD BEACH BLVD FRANCISCO BLVD 2 R 1,182 38 44,916 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2024/25 MOANA 2360A MOANA WAY OCEANA BLVD 1423' E/O OCEANA BLVD 2 R 1,423 29 41,267 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2024/25 MOANA 2360C MOANA WAY 100 FT EAST OF RESSA RD CUL DE SAC 2 R 464 29 13,456 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2024/25 PALOMA 2425F PALOMA AVENUE SIERRA TERR CARMEL AVE 2 R 659 24 15,816 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR 2024/25 ARLEEN 2060 ARLEEN WAY CULLEN DR RIDGEWAY DR 2 R 653 29 18,937 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 BRADFO 2070A BRADFORD WAY FAIRWAY DR SHARP PARK RD 2 R 1,796 20 35,920 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 BRIGHT 2080A BRIGHTON ROAD PALMETTO AVE FRANCSICO BLVD 2 R 750 29 21,750 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 BRIGHT 2080B BRIGHTON ROAD OCEANA BLVD 375 E/O SCENIC WAY 2 R 1,780 32 56,960 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 BRIGHT 2080C BRIGHTON ROAD 375 FT E/O SCENIC WAY CUL DE SAC 2 R 932 25 23,300 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 BURNS 2105 BURNS COURT CULLEN DR CUL DE SAC 2 R 283 29 8,207 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 CULLEN 2170 CULLEN DRIVE LUNDY WAY CINDY WAY 2 R 533 29 15,457 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 LAKESI 2310 LAKESIDE AVENUE FRANCISCO BLVD CLARENDON RD 2 R 909 33 29,997 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 LUNDY 2340A LUNDY WAY CULLEN DR WESTPORT DR 2 A 347 33 11,451 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 LUNDY 2340B LUNDY WAY WESTPORT DR RIDGEWAY DR 2 A 312 33 10,296 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 MOANA 2360B MOANA WAY 1423' E/O OCEANA BLVD 100 FT EAST OF RESSA RD1 2 R 917 25 22,925 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 PALOMA 2425D PALOMA AVENUE OCEANA BLVD MIRADOR TERR 2 R 370 50 18,500 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 PALOMA 2425E PALOMA AVENUE MIRADOR TERR SIERRA TERR 2 R 1,355 36 48,780 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 RESSA 2440 RESSA ROAD BRIGHTON RD MOANA WAY 2 R 402 25 10,050 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 RIDGEW 2430 RIDGEWAY DRIVE LUNDY WAY DEAD END (EAST) 2 R 1,112 38 42,256 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 SHARPP 1000 SHARP PARK RD FRANCISCO GYPSY HILL 4 A 4,828 80 386,240 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 SHARPP 2000 SHARP PARK RD GYPSY HILL CITY LIMIT (436 FT E/O 4 A 3,310 54 178,740 SLURRY SEAL 2024/25 OCEANA 1650A OCEANA BOULEVARD CLARANDEN AVE PALOMA AVE 2 A 2,409 31 74,679 SLURRY SEAL/MICROSURFACING 2024/25 4/4 October 2020

9.b
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: Attachment 2 - City of Pacifica Five-year Street Maintenance Program (5132 : FY 2023-24

MASTER AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Master Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 25th of October 2021 by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and NCE (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULT ANT"). CITY and CONSULT ANT may be referred to individually as "Party" and collectively as the "Parties."

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY requires civil engineering, geotechnical engineering, pavement engineering, landscape architecture, biological resources, and water resources consultant services;
WHEREAS, CONSULT ANT is qualified to perform such services; and WHEREAS, CONSULT ANT has agreed to provide CITY with such services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.

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

ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.1. 1.2.

1.3. 1.4.

1.5. 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").

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

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

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. CONSULT ANT represents that it has all the necessary licenses to perform the Services and shall maintain them throughout the term of this Agreement.

CONSUL TANT agrees that the Services shall be performed consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by engineers practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. 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 CONSUL TANT from professional responsibility for the Services performed.

Independent Contractor. CONSULT ANT 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.
- 1 -
OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
ATTACHMENT 3

9.c
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement

1.6. Confidentiality. CONSUL TANT 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 CONSULT ANT or is based upon CONSULT ANT's negligence, CITY will compensate CONSUL TANT for the preparation and the testimony at CONSULT ANT'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 CONSUL TANT 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 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 CONSUL TANT 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 CONSUL TANT's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONSULTANT on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in CONSUL TANT's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder. CONSULT ANT -2-
0AK #4846-8099-69 I 8 v2
05620-0129

9.c
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement 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. CONSULT ANT 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 sign ature and shall remain in full force and effect until December 31, 2022 (the "Term").

Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be extended for successive one-year term(s) upon mutual, written approval by the City Manager or his/her designee and CONSULT ANT. 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 design ates Sam Bautista, P .E., its Deputy Director of Public Works, as its contact who shall be responsible for administering and interpreting the terms and conditions of this Agreement, for matters relating to CONSUL TANT's performance under this Agreement, and for liaison and coordination between CITY and CONSULTANT. In the event CITY wishes to make a change in CITY's representative, CITY will notify CONSULTANT of the change in writing.

4.2. CONSULTANT Contact. CONSULTANT design ates J. Ryan ShaferP.E., GE, its Principal, 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 desi gn ated contact shall be subject to written approval by CITY.

OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
- 3 -

9.c
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement 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. CONSUL TANT 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 except as allowed by law pursuant to Civil Code section 2782.8. 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.

To the extent that CONSULTANT, is a design professional, as that term is defined in Civil Code section 2782.8(c)(3), the 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 (collectively "Claims"), defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officials, officers, employees and agents ("CITY Parties") from those Claims that are caused by the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. In no event shall the cost to defend charged to the Consultant exceed the Consultant's proportionate percentage of fault.

However, notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, the Consultant shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs.

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

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

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

A. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance providing bodily injury liability and property damage, to protect against all liability arising out of the use of any owned, leased, passenger or commercial automobile at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit and $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall apply to hired and non-owned autos. -4-
OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129

9.c
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement B. Commercial General Liabilitv 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 CONSUL TANT 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 Liabilitv Insurance. Professional Liability Insurance protecting against liabilities arising out of or in connection with negligent acts, errors, or omissions of CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants and other agency in connection with this Agreement, at a minimum amount of$1,000,000 combined single limit coverage and $1,000,000 aggregate, on a "claims made basis" with a continuation of coverage extension for liabilities for two years from the date the Services are substantially complete. Such professional liability policies shall include coverage for liability assumed by the CONSULTANT under this Agreement.

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

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

5.3. The Certificates shall be on forms acceptable to CITY. CONSULTANT shall also furnish CITY with original endorsements with the following documentation:
• Precluding cancellation or reduction in coverage before the expiration of thirty (30) days after CITY shall have received written notification thereof from CONSULTANT by United States mail;
• Providing that CONSUL TANT' 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 to CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, - 5 -
OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129

9.c
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement 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:

Ifto CITY:

OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
170 Santa Maria A venue
Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 738-7409
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038
Email: [email protected]. us
-6-

9.c
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement

9.c
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement

9.c
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement

9.c
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement

9.c
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement

9.c
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement

9.c
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement

9.c
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement

9.c
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement

9.c
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and NCE (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement FY 2023/2024 City of Pacifica
Test
Feature Legend

CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR

SLURRY SEAL

9.d
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment 4 - FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing Project - Map an List of Streets (5132 : FY Street Name From To Field Treatment

MANOR DRIVE LOCKHAVEN RD SKYLINE BLVD MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR MONTEREY ROAD HICKEY BLVD 600 FT S/O HICKEY BLVD MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR

CONCHITA COURT EDGEMAR AVE CUL DE SAC CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR CRAGMONT CT. MANOR DR DEAD END CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

DEL MAR AVENUE AVALON DR NELSON AVE CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

FREMONT AVENUE AVALON DR NELSON AVE CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

GLASGOW DRIVE GLENCOURT WAY HEATHCLIFF DR CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

GLENCOURT WAY INVERNESS DR SKYLINE BLVD CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

HACIENDA COURT MILLER AVE DEAD END CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

HEATHCLIFF DRIVE INVERNESS DR KAVANAUGH WAY CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

HEATHECLIFF DRIVE MANOR DR INVERNESS DR CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

HIBBERT NELSON AVE CUL DE SAC CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

INVERNESS DRIVE MANOR DR HEATHCLIFF DR CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

JOHNSON AVENUE AVALON DR NELSON AVE CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

LORRY LANE HEATHCLIFF DR CUL DE SAC CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

MANOR DRIVE MONTEREY RD LOCKHAVEN RD CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

MILAGRA DRIVE OCEANA BLVD CUL DE SAC CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

MILLER AVE MILAGRA DR MANOR DR CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR MONTEREY ROAD 600' S/O HICKEY BLVD MANOR DR CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

NELSON AVENUE WEST END PERRY AVE CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR NORFOLK DRIVE 100 FT N/O NELSON AVE. LEWIS LANE CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

PERRY AVE AVALON DR NELSON AVE CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

VISTA MAR AVE AVALON DR NELSON AVE CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR

ARROYO DRIVE EDGEMAR AVE CUL DE SAC SLURRY SEAL

AVALON DRIVE OCEANA BLVD MILLER AVE SLURRY SEAL

EDGEMAR AVENUE MANOR DR MILAGRA DR SLURRY SEAL

LEWIS LANE MANOR DR CUL DE SAC SLURRY SEAL

MANOR DRIVE EDGEMAR DR MONTEREY RD SLURRY SEAL

NELSON AVENUE PERRY AVE NORFOLK DR SLURRY SEAL
FY23/24 Pavement Resurfacing Project Street List

9.d
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment 4 - FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing Project - Map an List of Streets (5132 : FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/26/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of 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). (Continued from 8/8/22).

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, Planning Director – (650) 738-7341 [email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The following section provides the relevant background of the project.

A. BACKGROUND
Temporary Safe Parking Program
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 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 10 Packet Pg. 320
Pacifica City Council 2
September 26, 2022
solutions. 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 PRC, which details the terms, provisions, and obligations of the PRC and City to implement the Program. The Program was found to be exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Class 1 and 4 exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15304 and the “CommonSense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

The City Council also adopted Ordinance No. 873-C.S. (“TSPP Ordinance”) 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 Planning Commission Review of Francisco Boulevard Program Space 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 (“CDP”) (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.

Appeal by North Coast County Water District
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 CDP for the Project (Attachment F). The Appellant cited several reasons for the appeal in the appeal form and attached letter, which are 3 This location is the subject of an ongoing appeal to the California Coastal Commission. 4 Ibid.
10 Packet Pg. 321
Pacifica City Council 3
September 26, 2022
summarized and addressed in the August 8, 2022 City Council staff report (Attachment G).

City Council Appeal Hearing – July 11 and August 8, 2022 After duly noticing the public hearing for the appeal to occur during 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.

On August 8, 2022, the City Council opened and closed the public hearing and deliberated on the appeal. During the public hearing, the Appellant argued, among other things, that the issuance of a CDP is in violation of the Coastal Act and that City should not take any action on the appeal given the other CDPs for TSPP parking sites in the coastal zone pending appeals before the California Coastal Commission. Appellant also incorporated the California Coastal Commission staff report into its appeal.

City staff continues to maintain that consideration of any alternative sites is outside of the scope of the appeal. (See Attachment G, Appeal Bases 3 and 6).

Staff also continues to maintain that the CDP for the Project was issued in conformance with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) as set forth in the Planning Commission’s Resolution No. 2022-012. (See Attachment G, Appeal Basis 1 and Attachment B, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-012). While Appellant points to the other pending CDP appeals before the California Coastal Commission, the City maintains that those appeals are separate from this appeal and are without merit. Moreover, the City maintains that the Coastal Commission lacks jurisdiction to consider the OSV Ordinance and in any case, the OSV Ordinance is not “development” within the meaning of the Coastal Act. (See Attachment H).

Appellant also argued at the August 8, 2022 hearing that the CEQA exemptions are invalid and that the City unlawfully segmented its issuance of CDPs under CEQA without properly reviewing the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance and the TSPP.

City staff maintains that the CEQA exemptions identified by the City are appropriate (See Attachment G, Appeal Basis 5) and Appellant’s CEQA arguments are without merit.

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. Indeed, the Project merely includes reserving 30’ by 10’ of public ROW for the use by participants of the Program for a period of three years. 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 10 Packet Pg. 322
Pacifica City Council 4
September 26, 2022
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 existing use of the public ROW allows for vehicle parking; therefore, the proposed use is a negligible expansion of the existing use.

Second, 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 as there will be a negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment.

Third, 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 available regardless of the Program status. This negligible temporary change of land use will have no permanent effects on the environment.

Fourth, none of the exceptions applicable to the Class 1 and 4 exemption 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 10 Packet Pg. 323
Pacifica City Council 5
September 26, 2022
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.

Finally, 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)).

Appellant also argued on August 8, 2022 that it did not receive adequate notice of the TSPP Ordinance. As previously indicated in the Staff Report, 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 or the City’s General Plan because the Program Ordinance does not change any allowed land uses. Rather, the TSPP Ordinance was adopted pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22507 and 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.

Although the City was not obligated to comply with the notice requirements in Government Code section 65091, there were numerous ways that the City provided notice to the public of the meetings where the TSPP would be considered. (See Attachment G, Appeal Basis 4). Although the City was not required to provide specific notice under Government Code section 65091, there were opportunities for the Appellant to attend and provide public comment on the Program and the Program Ordinance. Appellant’s District Manager even stated during the August 8, 2022 hearing that she does “… get the notice of the Agenda and things and did see the TSPP was on for that agenda…”5 Thus, members of the public, including Appellant, were provided notice of the Program Ordinance prior to adoption.

Ultimately, the City Council did not make a determination relating to the appeal on August 8, 2022 but rather continued the hearing to September 26, 2022, to provide staff time to conduct a feasibility assessment on alternative Program spaces suggested by the Appellant on Appellant’s properties.6 City staff conducted a joint site visit to one of the alternative sites suggested by the Appellant located near the intersection of Skyline Boulevard and Sharp Park Road. Although staff thought the site had sufficient space, there would be significant barriers to using the site for the Program including completion of necessary improvements to property, zoning review, and access/use agreements, among others.

B. 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 5 See video recording of the August 8, 2022 City Council meeting: https://youtu.be/apT4a6ZwjvA?t=6745 (2:25:23-30).
6 A recording of the August 8, 2022 City Council meeting is available online here:
https://youtu.be/apT4a6ZwjvA?t=6745
10 Packet Pg. 324
Pacifica City Council 6
September 26, 2022
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.

C. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) REVIEW The City Council approved the Program on February 28, 2022 in Resolution No. 12-2022. The Project is an implementation of the Program. Staff recommends that the City Council find, based on its independent judgment and after consideration of the whole administrative record, that the Project was previously assessed on February 28, 2022 in Resolution No. 12-2022, and therein determined exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Existing Facilities, Minor Alterations to Land, and “Common Sense” exemptions. (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15301, 15304(e), 15061(b)(3).) There have not been any changes to the Program, any changed circumstances, or any new information since the City’s adoption of Resolution No. 12-2022 on February 28, 2022 that warrant any supplemental, subsequent, or additional environmental review of the Program or the Project. Accordingly, Staff recommends that the Council find, based on its independent judgment, after consideration of the whole administrative record, that there has been no change to the Program or substantial changes in circumstances or new information that would warrant subsequent or supplemental environmental analysis or review in accordance with CEQA.

D. STAFF SUMMARY
Staff believes there is substantial evidence to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval as detailed in Attachment G. 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.

E. 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:
10 Packet Pg. 325
Pacifica City Council 7
September 26, 2022
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
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (DOCX) Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution 2022-012 - Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd - 2022-05-16 (PDF)
Attachment C - Planning Commission May 16 2022 Staff Report (PDF) Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes 05-16-22 (PDF) Attachment E - Permit Parking Spots Scope - Francisco Blvd. (PDF) Attachment F - NCCWD Appeal (PDF)
Attachment G - City Council August 8, 2022 Staff Report (PDF) Attachment H - City's Coorespondance to California Coastal Commission (PDF) 10 Packet Pg. 326
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 Program was found to be exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Class 1 and 4 exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15304 and the “Common Sense” exception, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); 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

10.a
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd.

File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on August 8, 2022, and continued the public hearing to September 26, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on September 26, 2022, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.

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 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 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:

10.a
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd.

File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
3 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 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

10.a
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution - Safe Parking Francisco Blvd. Appeal (5134 : Temporary Safe Parking Program - Francisco Blvd.

File No. 2022-012
Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22
Safe Parking Program – Francisco Blvd.
4 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 non-automobile 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.

Pacifica City CouncilSeptember 26, 2022

Pacifica City Council
September 26, 2022