Agenda — Pacifica City Council, October 24, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 October 24, 2022
October 24, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Off-street parking is allowed by permit for attendance at official public meetings.

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

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

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

Please mute any background sound and listen through your phone to be called upon by the last 4-digits of your phone number. State your full name at the start of your public comment. • Dial-in: 1-650-898-6965 | Conference ID: 383 609 442 # o Press * 5 to raise your hand in the call queue.
o Press * 6 to unmute when called upon to speak by the last 4-digits of your phone #.

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

BEFORE THE MEETING: Written public comments may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date by email to: [email protected]. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Oral Communications” in the Subject Line for items not on the agenda
• Include the submitter’s full name
Written public comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date will be provided in their entirety to the City Council and posted to the City’s website prior to the meeting but will not be read verbally at the meeting.

AT THE MEETING: Materials in writing provided at the meeting should provide seven (7) copies to provide for each Councilmember, City Clerk and City staff.

City Council Regular Meeting 2 October 24, 2022
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Arbor Day 2022
B. Proclamation - Pacificans Care 40th Anniversary

CONSENT CALENDAR
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to address the Council on any item listed on the agenda should submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.

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

1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 9/01/22 through 9/15/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 9/01/22 through 9/15/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Meeting held on September 27, 2022 and the City Council Regular Meeting held on October 10, 2022.

3. Resolution In Recognition and Observation of Arbor Day PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution in Recognition and Observation of Arbor Day on the Second Saturday in November and State Pacifica’s Intent to Maintain Membership in the Tree City USA Program and Show Appreciation to Tree City Pacifica for Holding an Arbor Day Celebration Each Year in Partnership with the City City Council Regular Meeting 3 October 24, 2022

4. Response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled "A Delicate Balance Between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public's Right to Know"
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled "A Delicate Balance Between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public's Right to Know".

5. Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving the Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography for the premises located at 1220-C Linda Mar Boulevard (located in the Pacifica Center for the Arts) and finding the lease categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving the Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography for the premises located at 1220-C Linda Mar Boulevard (located in the Pacifica Center for the Arts); authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement and finding the lease categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

6. Resolution in support of the SMCTA Cycle 6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution next in order, “A Resolution Supporting the Palmetto & Esplanade Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project and Submitting an Application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Cycle 6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding” for the Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project; Adopt the resolution next in order “A Resolution Supporting the Pacifica Mid-Block Crosswalk Safety Project and Submitting an Application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Cycle 6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding” for the Pacifica Mid-Block Crosswalk Project; and authorizing the City Manager to execute any documents required for the grant.

7. Resolution authorizing a Side letter agreement between the City of Pacifica and Teamsters Management 350 regarding labor representation and compensation for Deputy Fire Chief and Paramedic Coordinator classifications.

PROPOSED ACTION:

1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a side letter between the City of Pacifica and Teamsters Local 350 to move the Deputy Fire Chief and Paramedic Coordinator classifications to the Unrepresented Management and Confidential Employees Group.

2. Amend the benefit structure for these positions to include holiday pay compensation consistent with other fire classifications to make total compensation for these positions closer to market and make the positions more attractive for future recruitment.

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 City Council Regular Meeting 4 October 24, 2022
not to any member thereof. Councilmembers shall not enter into debate with speakers under Oral Communications. A maximum time of three minutes will be allowed for any speaker. Pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 1, Section 2-1.118 any person making impertinent, slanderous, or profane remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the Council shall be called to order by the presiding officer and, if such conduct continues, may, at the direction of the presiding officer, be ordered barred from further audience before the Council during the meeting.

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

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.

CONSIDERATION

8. Discussion of 2022 California Building Code triennial update and proposed local amendments including building electrification requirements (i.e., Reach Codes), geotechnical hazard analysis requirements, and utility undergrounding.

PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation and provide direction to confirm local amendments to be included in an ordinance to be introduced on 11/14/2022.

9. Rejection of Bids for the Pacifica Pier Handrail Repair Project & Award of Agreement with GHD, Inc. for structural inspection of Pacifica Pier PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Reject the Bid for the Pacifica Pier Handrail Repair, Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 1 with GHD, Inc. (Attachment A) in the amount not to exceed $167,252, and allocate $217,252 in budget for the pier structural assessment from the pier handrail repair project.

10. Appointments to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission; Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee; Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission; and Economic Development Committee
PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Move to appoint applicant(s) to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission for one full term to expire May 2026 and one partial term to expire May 2024; 2) Move to appoint applicant(s) to the Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee for one full term to expire May 2026, one partial term to expire May 2024, and one partial term to expire May 2025;
3) Move to appoint applicant(s) to the Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission for two full terms to expire October 2026;
4) Move to appoint applicant(s) to the Economic Development Committee for one full term to expire October 2026, one partial term to expire October 2023, two partial terms to expire October 2024, and one partial term to expire October 2025.

City Council Regular Meeting 5 October 24, 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

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
10/24/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for Dated 9/01/22 through 9/15/22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 9/01/22 through 9/15/22.

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 9/01/22 through 9/15/22 in the amount of $708,806.63 as written on regular checks numbered 61712-61801 & 61803-61900 (Attachment 1). These disbursements are for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

FISCAL IMPACT:

These disbursements are within budgeted appropriations.

ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61712-61801 & 61803-61900-9-1 to 9-15-22 (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 6
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: MONDAY OCT0322 9:56 Page: 1

REPORT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
ORGANIZATION : 001
BANK : 1
PRINT BY : CHECK #
SORT OPTION : CHECK #
PRINT DETAILS : N
ORG NAME FOR EXTRACT FILE : PACIFICA
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: MONDAY OCT0322 9:56 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61712 - 61801
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61712 $263.96 09/02/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 61713 $353.00 09/02/22 05679 0 ADDI PETE S OUTSTANDING 1 61714 $36276.95 09/02/22 04584 0 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61715 $365.99 09/02/22 00122 0 AIRGAS USA, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61716 $148.93 09/02/22 00136 0 ALHAMBRA S OUTSTANDING 1 61717 $53.24 09/02/22 05514 0 ALICE GARIBALDI S OUTSTANDING 1 61718 $1502.81 09/02/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61719 $542.00 09/02/22 05556 0 AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVICE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61720 $1529.65 09/02/22 03895 0 AMERICAN FIDELITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61721 $53.58 09/02/22 00056 0 ARAMARK S OUTSTANDING
1 61722 $39.00 09/02/22 05680 0 ASHRUF EDAM S OUTSTANDING 1 61723 $95.49 09/02/22 00009 2 AT&T MOBILITY S OUTSTANDING 1 61724 $300.00 09/02/22 04561 0 AVINA, ANGEL S OUTSTANDING 1 61725 $947.99 09/02/22 01579 1 AXON ENTERPRISE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61726 $12208.16 09/02/22 05484 1 BAY VIEW FUNDING S OUTSTANDING 1 61727 $1565.39 09/02/22 00293 0 BEARING AGENCIES INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61728 $291.00 09/02/22 05682 0 BRIAN L. PERKINS S OUTSTANDING 1 61729 $33.26 09/02/22 03402 1 BSN SPORTS, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61730 $228.00 09/02/22 01690 0 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 61731 $151.28 09/02/22 00001 361 CAMARGO, SUZANNE S OUTSTANDING 1 61732 $4251.38 09/02/22 03814 1 CAPPSTONE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61733 $19279.39 09/02/22 02655 0 CAROLLO S OUTSTANDING 1 61734 $12097.00 09/02/22 04757 1 CATHOLIC CHARITIES CYO OF THE ARCHDIOCESE S OUTSTANDING 1 61735 $2733.30 09/02/22 00507 0 CHILDCARE CAREERS S OUTSTANDING 1 61736 $754.98 09/02/22 00510 1 CINTAS S OUTSTANDING
1 61737 $1595.94 09/02/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 61738 $1710.00 09/02/22 05058 0 CLIENTFIRST CONSULTING GROUP, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61739 $2043.00 09/02/22 03246 0 COAST COUNTIES PETERBILT & COAST COUNTIES PAC S OUTSTANDING 1 61740 $216.91 09/02/22 00541 0 COLE-PARMER S OUTSTANDING 1 61741 $85.00 09/02/22 00001 346 COLES-BUSSE, MAX S OUTSTANDING 1 61742 $855.52 09/02/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 61743 $12581.24 09/02/22 00595 0 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61744 $3589.25 09/02/22 00022 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO S VOIDED 1 61745 $840.00 09/02/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61746 $4196.37 09/02/22 00025 0 DALY CITY/CITY OF S OUTSTANDING 1 61747 $6800.00 09/02/22 02201 0 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61748 $146110.00 09/02/22 02130 1 DRYCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61749 $9180.00 09/02/22 00703 0 E & M ELECTRIC & MACHINERY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61750 $646.69 09/02/22 02793 0 EAST PENN MANUFACTURING CO., INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61751 $9337.84 09/02/22 00741 1 ENGINEERING DATA SOFTWARE, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61752 $7.00 09/02/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 61753 $96.02 09/02/22 00773 0 FEDEX S OUTSTANDING
1 61754 $4529.02 09/02/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61755 $356.09 09/02/22 05429 0 FRANK VELLA S OUTSTANDING 1 61756 $100.00 09/02/22 03823 1 GIBSON JR, EUGENE S OUTSTANDING 1 61757 $6482.10 09/02/22 00870 0 GOVCONNECTION, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61758 $1329.97 09/02/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 61759 $329.20 09/02/22 05681 0 GREG JONES ROOFING S OUTSTANDING 1 61760 $7000.00 09/02/22 02602 0 H & R PLUMBING AND DRAIN CLEANING S OUTSTANDING 1 61761 $170.99 09/02/22 00907 0 HARRISON & BONINI, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61762 $1111.17 09/02/22 00927 0 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: MONDAY OCT0322 9:56 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 1 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 10/3/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61712-61801 & 61803-61900-9-1 to 9-15-22 (5149 : Disbursements - Dated 9/01/22 through 9/15/22) 1 61768 $128.28 09/02/22 03522 0 MACKAY METERS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61769 $1905.37 09/02/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61770 $2000.00 09/02/22 04513 0 MCWHERTER, GARY S OUTSTANDING 1 61771 $1000.00 09/02/22 00001 374 MEEHLEIB, AUDIE S OUTSTANDING 1 61772 $15633.63 09/02/22 03955 0 MOFFATT & NICHOL S OUTSTANDING 1 61773 $580.03 09/02/22 01179 1 MOTION INDUSTRIES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61774 $2679.11 09/02/22 04549 0 NAF SERVICES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61775 $178.20 09/02/22 01194 0 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61776 $920.00 09/02/22 02283 0 NORCAL SOUND CO INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61777 $807.26 09/02/22 04166 2 NORTH BAY PERMIT SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 61778 $335.65 09/02/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 61779 $15807.00 09/02/22 01249 0 PACIFICA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE S OUTSTANDING 1 61780 $39312.00 09/02/22 01261 0 PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT S OUTSTANDING 1 61781 $1289.92 09/02/22 01297 0 PARS S OUTSTANDING
1 61782 $65.46 09/02/22 01295 1 PETERSON S OUTSTANDING
1 61783 $2203.91 09/02/22 01322 0 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 61784 $719.63 09/02/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61785 $139.47 09/02/22 01337 0 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61786 $3894.00 09/02/22 03115 0 RMI MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61787 $2920.00 09/02/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 61788 $5609.90 09/02/22 00055 0 SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 61789 $164.51 09/02/22 00022 9 SAN MATEO COUNTY INFORMATION SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 61790 $156.16 09/02/22 05197 0 SAN MATEO COUNTY MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL S OUTSTANDING 1 61791 $150.00 09/02/22 01540 0 STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE S OUTSTANDING 1 61792 $5069.52 09/02/22 01592 1 TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER S OUTSTANDING 1 61793 $1129.00 09/02/22 01029 2 THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61794 $9026.82 09/02/22 04670 0 U.S. TELEPACIFIC CORP. S OUTSTANDING 1 61795 $3717.40 09/02/22 01653 1 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) S OUTSTANDING 1 61796 $3240.63 09/02/22 01663 0 URBAN FARMER STORE, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 61797 $550.52 09/02/22 05678 0 VALLEY TOOL & MFG. CO, INC. S VOIDED 1 61798 $1020.14 09/02/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 61799 $1761.93 09/02/22 01673 0 VWR INTERNATIONAL S OUTSTANDING 1 61800 $1100.00 09/02/22 01729 0 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61801 $317.48 09/02/22 00001 363 YEUNG, CHRISTIE S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 90 TOTAL AMOUNT: 461,269.28
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 3 TOTAL AMOUNT: 4,850.93 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 0
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: MONDAY OCT0322 9:56 Page: 4

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 165,374.94 3,589.25
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 3,897.51 711.16
014 MANOR DRIVE IMPROVEMENT FUND 36,276.95 0.00
016 NPDES STORMWATER FUND 2,629.59 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 36,143.45 0.00
019 PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE FUND 19,279.39 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 150,004.00 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 7,000.00 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 128.28 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 28,393.07 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 7,291.17 550.52
================ ================
TOTAL - 456,418.35 4,850.93
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: MONDAY OCT0322 9:56 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 2 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 10/3/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61712-61801 & 61803-61900-9-1 to 9-15-22 (5149 : Disbursements - Dated 9/01/22 through 9/15/22) 1 61820 $92.00 09/02/22 01758 4 SMC FIREFIGHTERS PAC S OUTSTANDING 1 61821 $1071.00 09/02/22 01768 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #350 S OUTSTANDING 1 61822 $2606.50 09/02/22 01764 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 S OUTSTANDING 1 61823 $64963.00 09/02/22 01771 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856 S OUTSTANDING 1 61824 $3216.61 09/02/22 01766 0 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA S OUTSTANDING 1 61825 $17.32 09/02/22 01766 0 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA S OUTSTANDING 1 61826 $6207.50 09/09/22 03874 0 4LEAF INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61827 $127.82 09/09/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 61828 $148.49 09/09/22 00136 0 ALHAMBRA S OUTSTANDING 1 61829 $3.07 09/09/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61830 $4410.00 09/09/22 00217 3 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS S OUTSTANDING 1 61831 $45.03 09/09/22 00009 1 AT&T LONG DISTANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 61832 $21.95 09/09/22 04666 0 B & D DONOR RECOGNITION S OUTSTANDING 1 61833 $1000.00 09/09/22 05547 0 BERND K.E. BUETTNER S OUTSTANDING 1 61834 $432.73 09/09/22 00311 0 BERONIO LUMBER COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61835 $95.00 09/09/22 05127 0 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61836 $2072.42 09/09/22 00365 0 BROADMOOR LANDSCAPE SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 61837 $502.04 09/09/22 04524 0 BRUECK, CYNTHIA S OUTSTANDING 1 61838 $2107.56 09/09/22 02502 0 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP S OUTSTANDING 1 61839 $320.00 09/09/22 00014 5 CALIFORNIA STATE OF S OUTSTANDING 1 61840 $2441.00 09/09/22 03814 1 CAPPSTONE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61841 $11330.63 09/09/22 00507 0 CHILDCARE CAREERS S OUTSTANDING 1 61842 $913.66 09/09/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 61843 $1869.74 09/09/22 05552 1 CIVICPLUS, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61844 $516.00 09/09/22 05296 0 CLAIRE BREES S OUTSTANDING 1 61845 $5300.25 09/09/22 03246 0 COAST COUNTIES PETERBILT & COAST COUNTIES PAC S OUTSTANDING 1 61846 $623.23 09/09/22 00630 0 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61847 $6481.25 09/09/22 05141 1 DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61848 $825.00 09/09/22 00672 0 DIAL GLASS AND WINDOW CO S OUTSTANDING 1 61849 $850.00 09/09/22 02201 0 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61850 $109.95 09/09/22 00489 0 ENTERSECT S OUTSTANDING 1 61851 $794.52 09/09/22 00745 0 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61852 $7.00 09/09/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 61853 $3200.00 09/09/22 05684 0 FIRST SERVE PRODUCTIONS S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: MONDAY OCT0322 9:56 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61803 - 61900
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61854 $10793.17 09/09/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61855 $112.50 09/09/22 00001 301 FRY, HAYDEN S OUTSTANDING 1 61856 $328.13 09/09/22 02213 0 GARRATT CALLAHAN S OUTSTANDING 1 61857 $64.00 09/09/22 03804 0 GODSOE, LIZ S OUTSTANDING 1 61858 $1309.08 09/09/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 61859 $750.00 09/09/22 03947 0 GRANICUS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61860 $2897.34 09/09/22 04131 0 HDL SOFTWARE, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61861 $4974.19 09/09/22 00919 1 HERC RENTALS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61862 $15875.00 09/09/22 02414 0 HOME PRIDE CONSTRUCTION S OUTSTANDING 1 61863 $4443.81 09/09/22 03203 0 HYGRADE BUSINESS GROUP, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61864 $6026.14 09/09/22 04083 1 INTERNATIONAL DIOXCIDE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61865 $156.00 09/09/22 04494 0 ISIDRO, ALLEN S OUTSTANDING 1 61866 $58.50 09/09/22 05532 0 JOAN ARTHUR S OUTSTANDING 1 61867 $98.44 09/09/22 01014 0 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61868 $2555.84 09/09/22 01027 0 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA S OUTSTANDING 1 61869 $75.72 09/09/22 01812 4 KBA DOCUSYS S OUTSTANDING 1 61870 $960.00 09/09/22 03137 0 KOFFLER ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL S OUTSTANDING 1 61871 $563.48 09/09/22 01055 2 KONE INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61872 $2865.62 09/09/22 01070 0 LAURETTA PRINTING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61873 $526.82 09/09/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61874 $284.22 09/09/22 01154 0 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS S OUTSTANDING 1 61875 $315.00 09/09/22 01378 0 MUSCIO SECURITY S OUTSTANDING 1 61876 $775.95 09/09/22 04549 0 NAF SERVICES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61877 $490.00 09/09/22 03801 0 NAPIER, NORA S OUTSTANDING 1 61878 $252.22 09/09/22 05575 0 NATIONAL TELEPHONE MESSAGE COPR S OUTSTANDING 1 61879 $603.65 09/09/22 03981 0 NORTHERN SAFETY CO. INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61880 $1514.64 09/09/22 02486 0 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS S OUTSTANDING 1 61881 $106.00 09/09/22 03803 0 ORTEGA, SHIRLEY S OUTSTANDING 1 61882 $17.69 09/09/22 04418 0 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61883 $75.00 09/09/22 01257 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOC S OUTSTANDING 1 61884 $571.95 09/09/22 00054 2 PAPE MACHINERY S OUTSTANDING 1 61885 $140.00 09/09/22 03802 0 PATINO, JOE S OUTSTANDING 1 61886 $72.00 09/09/22 02539 0 PITTSINGER, R JANE S OUTSTANDING 1 61887 $292.34 09/09/22 01317 0 PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61888 $1133.95 09/09/22 03160 0 PUBLIC PARKING ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61889 $822.02 09/09/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61890 $118.01 09/09/22 00001 261 RILEY, TOMAS S OUTSTANDING 1 61891 $3560.00 09/09/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 61892 $26.26 09/09/22 01422 0 SAN MATEO ELECTRONIC SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 61893 $88.00 09/09/22 05524 0 STEVEN MICHAEL EVANS JR S OUTSTANDING 1 61894 $610.71 09/09/22 02642 2 T-MOBILE CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61895 $6000.00 09/09/22 05487 0 THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP S OUTSTANDING 1 61896 $600.00 09/09/22 01615 0 TOM'S AUTO BODY & PAINT S OUTSTANDING 1 61897 $5597.03 09/09/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61898 $2468.86 09/09/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 61899 $166.45 09/09/22 01701 0 WECO INDUSTRIES S OUTSTANDING 1 61900 $7375.59 09/15/22 05686 0 CHEFS TOYS LLC S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 98 TOTAL AMOUNT: 247,537.35
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00

Page 3 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 10/3/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61712-61801 & 61803-61900-9-1 to 9-15-22 (5149 : Disbursements - Dated 9/01/22 through 9/15/22) Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: MONDAY OCT0322 9:56 Page: 7

CITY OF PACIFICA

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 151,484.79 0.00
005 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 21.95 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 502.04 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 22,010.10 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 13,121.48 0.00
027 PB&R - R DAVIES TRUST 3,200.00 0.00
028 PB&R SPECIAL REVENUE 5,175.59 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 4,974.19 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 5,577.76 0.00
065 SELF-FUNDED DENTAL PLAN FUND 22,998.22 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 18,471.23 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 247,537.35 0.00

Page 4 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 10/3/2022 NO FY 2022-2023 CHECKS ISSUED ON 9/1/22.

TOTAL = $461,269.28 + $247,537.35 = $708,806.63

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61712-61801 & 61803-61900-9-1 to 9-15-22 (5149 : Disbursements - Dated 9/01/22 through 9/15/22)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/24/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Meeting held on September 27, 2022 and the City Council Regular Meeting held on October 10, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Meeting held on September 27, 2022 (Attachment A) and the City Council Regular Meeting held on October 10, 2022 (Attachment B).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (PDF) Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 11

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82393393262
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 823 9339 3262
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 September 27, 2022

SPECIAL MEETING
September 27, 2022 (TUESDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on September 27, 2022 at 6:00 PM 6:00 PM - OPEN STUDY SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present, and announced the business to be discussed.

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; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgement.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember O'Neill
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.

2.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 2 September 27, 2022

CONSIDERATION

1. Study session to discuss potential future adoption of local amendments to the 2022 California Building Code to require specified buildings in Pacifica to exceed state minimum energy efficiency and electric vehicle charging requirements (i.e., Reach Codes).

PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation and provide direction regarding further analysis of Reach Code options.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he would be assisted by consultant Mayra Vega of TRC, Blake Herrschaft of Peninsula Clean Energy, and Doug Rider of CSG and then began the presentation of the staff report. He then turned the presentation over to Ms. Vega and/or Mr.

Herrschaft.

Consultant Vega continued the presentation.

Councilmember O’Neill asked her to define what she means when she said a higher ventilation rate for gas stoves.

Consultant Vega stated that she didn’t have the numbers off the top of her head but the fume hood is going to require higher CFM.

Planning Director Murdock stated that was cubic feet per minute - the volume of air it moves per unit of time needs to be higher, essentially a stronger blower.

Consultant Vega agreed.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if the existing hoods that are over ranges aren’t going to pass the new building codes.

PCE member Herrschaft stated that specifically, if you choose to use a gas range, and when you cook the emissions in the breathing zone would be from the food you cook that smokes a bit and if you are using gas, you have 20% of the gas you’re trying to burn escapes without being burned and the new energy code requires a higher ventilation rate if you install a gas stove than if you put an electric stove in the same location.

Consultant Vega continued the presentation.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that she didn’t mention water heaters and asked if they are coming up.

Consultant Vega asked what his question is about the water heaters.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to the slide that shows heat pumps, climate zone 12, and he asked what climate zone is Pacifica in and what are the carrot and stick approaches for water heating.

Consultant Vega asked if he was asking what the carrot and stick approach is for water heating.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have some carrots and also have some sticks for the

2.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 3 September 27, 2022
different choices, and he asked what climate zone 12 is, and is that the zone Pacifica is in.

PCE member Herrschaft stated that Pacifica was in climate zone 3 and in new construction the new energy code pushes them towards using a heat pump for space heating by making it a baseline and an energy modeling exercise that happens in new construction. They also require pre-wiring and that is a bit of a stick. If you decide to put in a gas water heater, you have to wire for the electric water heater. He thinks the hope from the energy commission is that, if you are already going to run a wire, maybe you would also install the heat pump water heater at that point. He stated that their recommendation for the Reach Code would be to require the water heater to be electric as well. He asked if that answered his question.

Councilmember O’Neill thought it did, explaining that he missed the water heating on the slide.

He stated he also answered the question about zone 3, etc.

Consultant Vega continued the presentation.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked what the first line “extension of any existing gas infrastructure” means.

Consultant Vega stated, if there is a development on a piece of land that already has gas infrastructure and the home itself is required to be all electric, they can’t extend that gas line to any external uses, such as a pool heater or gas barbecue.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that is for new construction on property that already has existing buildings.

Consultant Vega was thinking of a situation of infill development where there is some infrastructure already there. That was the best example she can come up with to explain that.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, if there is a small, dilapidated home, completely demolished, and an entirely new building is constructed, and that site might already have gas infrastructure beyond the property line from the public right-of-way into the property that served the old building, but you may not be able to extend that gas infrastructure to any new connection, new piping, to service the new building being constructed. Similarly, if the building was demolished sometime in the past and the property is now being developed, there will be similar limitations on extending gas infrastructure.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that 90% of the houses in Pacifica have gas and, if they want to put an ADU in the backyard, then they can’t extend the gas space heating, etc., to the ADU.

Consultant Vega stated that, without an ADU exception, yes that is the case.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that right now we have an ADU exception.

Consultant Vega agreed and, under the current code, you could extend the gas to the ADU, but she will be providing additional information about all electric construction for ADUs for Council’s consideration. She stated that, if they decide to remove that ADU exemption, then they wouldn’t be able to extend the gas line from the home to the ADU.

Consultant Vega continued the presentation.

2.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 4 September 27, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that public emergency center is an abstract and he wondered if city staff could give him an idea if they currently have public emergency centers. He asked if there were public emergency centers we might be building in the conceivable future.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he is going to check to see if they have a definition for this term. His understanding is that it would apply to our emergency operation center, EOC, which is a critical piece of infrastructure where the city needs to be able to operate and have all the relevant utilities operating under a variety of circumstances. He thought the exception would apply at a minimum to the emergency operation center at the police station.

City Manager Woodhouse added that he wondered if it would also apply to the Community Center which they are under agreement with as a comfort center during heat waves or other electricity outages.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked them as he has a better idea of what they currently have built.

He understands these are new construction exemptions as he is reading it and he would love to get rid of probably every exemption but, when it comes to public safety, he asked if there are examples of public emergency centers that might be built in the future. Then, he can weigh his desire to start eliminating exemptions against the needs that the city might have.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, on the same topic, she asked about fire stations and libraries.

Consultant Vega asked if that was a question for her or Council.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated the question was for anybody. She knows libraries have been public emergency centers in terms of evacuation and cooling centers.

Consultant Vega thought that goes back to Planning Director Murdock’s comment about looking up a definition for public emergency centers because they don’t want to remove any emergency centers or safe havens or critical infrastructure that needs to run for the sake of going all-electric and they want to be sure that these buildings are able to continue to run and operate and she thinks it comes down to how they define public emergency centers. She agreed that, if you are using libraries as shelter, they need to remain operable.

Councilmember Beckmeyer knows there are some exemptions because of the education department, and she thought Councilmember O’Neill could weigh in on this. She also wonders about school district facilities and the district office in terms of evacuation centers.

Planning Director Murdock stated he did not see a definition in the 2019 energy code for emergency centers and they may be working with a common understanding. Council would have discretion to create that definition in its adoption of a Reach Code or a relevant exception for 2022.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they don’t need to belabor the point, but she wants them to understand that our facilities in Pacifica are old. They are talking about new construction, but the fact is that we live with very old public infrastructure and have to consider these issues.

Consultant Vega continued the presentation.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to the charging stations and asked if it was a universal charger

2.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 5 September 27, 2022
head that goes in or like VHS and Beta, which aren’t compatible.

Consultant Vega stated that she didn’t think they got into the specifics of the type of chargers that they are requiring the developer to install but leaving it to the developers’ discretion as to what kind of cars they expect will charge at their building. She stated that, in their recommendations, they mostly require EV readiness for single family, they do quite a bit for multi-family and some for non-residents. She stated that, in requiring a full EV charging station, they do require some of that in multi-family to extend beyond what the state code is requiring as the state is going to require some level of EV charging stations installed in the next code cycle.

She stated that she didn’t have a good answer yet.

PCE member Herrschaft stated that they don’t have a specific requirement and when it’s an EV ready circuit, it means the outlet is there and they can buy EV charging stations that plug into that outlet from multiple manufacturers. Neither the energy code nor the model code specifies the type, but it would always be their recommendation to use the universal charger which is typically what they see developers install if they install a charging station. He stated that Tesla is the main proprietary charger, but they do accept the universal standard plug type CCS. He stated that is their general recommendation, but they don’t list the plug type that has to be used within the code.

Councilmember O’Neill clarified if there was some way that they are compatible, you carry your cord, plug it in the station that fits your car, and confirmed that his question was answered.

Consultant Vega continued the presentation.

Councilmember O’Neill asked who is the “we” who are recommending.

Consultant Vega stated that, when she says we in this context, she is talking about the Reach Code team, i.e., Peninsula Clean Energy, and all the CCAs represented on the slide, East Bay, Silicon Valley, etc., as the team that is putting these recommendations together.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it doesn’t at this point in time reflect city staff’s recommendation. This is information for Council to decide at some point what the city’s position ought to be on these particular issues.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated, if they have the level 1, EV 2, EV ready circuits, how simple or complex is it to upgrade to a level 3 if one were to want to.

PCE member Herrschaft stated upgrading to level 3 would likely be very difficult for a singlefamily home and would require a service upgrade to your house. A level 3 charging station is typically 50 kw. The peak a house will draw in a given year is maybe 10 kw if it has an EV charger. A typical house that provides a 200 amp service to the house would not fit a level 3 charger on it. He stated that level 3 is very rarely used in a residential application.

Consultant Vega continued the presentation.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked her to define multi-family, such as two or five units.

Consultant Vega stated that she didn’t have the definition.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that the previous slide showed single-family homes and

2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 6 September 27, 2022
family townhomes. She was thinking that they mean everything that is not single-family homes and two-family townhomes.

Consultant Vega was trying to remember if a four-plex would be, but she can’t remember what category it falls into.

PCE member Herrschaft stated that he will pull it up.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, in the meantime, if they would define “ready and capable.” He stated that “ready” means they are capable of doing and “capable” means it’s ready to do it. He asked what the difference is.

Consultant Vega stated that EV capable level of infrastructure includes the conduit or the raceway and reserved space in the panel. It doesn’t require a breaker, or the actual circuit to be installed. EV ready space does - so an EV ready space has the addition of having the conduit installed and also has a circuit installed with a breaker and a receptacle for the charger that can be plugged in at a future time.

Councilmember O’Neill got the slide and now he understands it with the picture.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that Consultant Vega’s words helped because what she wrote down is that Consultant Vega stated that there was no need to tear into a wall at EV capable.

Consultant Vega stated that is the case with EV ready as well. She thinks that is the greatest motivator to install at least EV capable spaces. Even if you’re not installing the circuit, you’re not putting in the breaker yet; you at least are going to save a future homeowner or future property owner money because they’re not going to have to tear into any walls by running the raceways.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if she had any data on how much it would cost to make something capable, to make it ready. He asked if you are adding a couple of feet of conduit and a plug, and then you need to add a circuit breaker, how much you are talking about and why not just make it ready right away.

Consultant Vega stated that they don’t recommend any EV capable. The state does have the minimum requirement as to have EV capable spaces, but the Reach Code team is recommending exactly what he stated. She stated that it isn’t going to cost that much more to run the wires and install the receptacle - you might as well just do it.

PCE member Herrschaft added that while you have the electrician there and he stated he now has the definition on the question. He stated when they are talking multi-family, they are saying buildings that are bigger than the following: One- and two-family dwelling units and townhouses with private garages. It isn’t just the number of units touching each other but whether there is a private garage attached to that townhome. In that case, they are saying the single-family requirement applies and every garage will get a 240-volt outlet and for multi-family there would be anything larger than that, i.e., an apartment where you walk to a parking space outdoors.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated attached garage is a big thing here as our townhouses have detached garages.

2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 7 September 27, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have townhouses that have a private car port and he asked what their definition of a garage, or does each car port need the plug.

PCE member Herrschaft stated that it is up to each city but they have written private garages to also mean detached private garages. His mother had a townhouse like that so he knows the type of setup Council is talking about. When they are talking about car ports, it depends on the size and the scale, whether they want to require all those 240-volt chargers, and how many units are they talking about in such a development.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he is thinking of Creekside, where there must be at least 30 or 40 units there.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated there are way more, maybe 130.

Councilmember O’Neill then states that you have 130 townhouses that are clustered and they all go outside and walk to a car port which is assigned to their unit. There is basically just a roof over it with no walls on any side. He then asked who pays for that and the retrofit and the monthly electric bill.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they are talking about new construction.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he is curious about the car port because that is not a garage.

Planning Director Murdock stated that these are very important questions and he thinks the answer ends up being what Council thinks is appropriate. He stated that what Ms. Vega and Mr. Herrschaft are talking about is a recommended model ordinance that the Bay Area Reach Code team has put together. If it fits, great, and if there is something Council doesn’t like or wants to modify, that is the type of feedback they can get into at this meeting and certainly during the course of any hearing to consider adoption of these requirements.

Mayor Bier thought it was going to be very important for them to really understand what it means for Pacifica, what is it going to look like for our residents, because every city is different.

She stated that, when watching the slides, she was also trying to understand how it would pan out in Pacifica.

Consultant Vega stated that she is thinking about a new townhome development, which is going to have dedicated parking spot for each dwelling unit. She thought it seems to align more with the multi-family definition because in that situation it might not be cost-effective at the time of construction to require a charging station at every single parking stall. She stated that the way they are describing it to her seems like the multi-family recommendation might fit best and she will introduce another term. She stated that they encourage automatic load management and that would mean that a charger could potentially provide charging for 2-4 parking stalls at once and there is a lot of software out there that communicate with the cars to determine what is the appropriate level of charging for the cars and the appropriate level of sharing. That is a strategy to keep construction costs low while providing a suitable level of charging for residents.

Planning Director Murdock stated that Council knows that, as these types of questions come up, he is taking notes about the various motives Council thinks of so they can determine how best to address these various points depending on how Council wants to move forward.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that load management to him means that something like PG&E

2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 8 September 27, 2022
has premium pricing if you use electricity from 4-9. He asked if there was a program or methodology that it doesn’t start charging cars until 9:15 but will people get a full enough charge to get to Sacramento if necessary.

Consultant Vega thinks, regarding those questions, if a developer wants to pursue automatic load management, it will be one of those questions at the design stage to look at different options.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if PCE would not want everyone charging at 7 pm because they must have some sort of load management and high energy usage time that they would rather have it at 2 am. He would think they would be thinking about load management for their whole system.

Planning Director Murdock thought he was raising a number of important points about EV charging overall. It is not likely that a Reach Code that City Council will consider will get to that level of refinement in terms of operation of individual charger and time of day usage. He stated that there are charging units and certainly EV vehicles that you can indicate the time of desired charging, such as to manage a particular home’s electrical usage or achieve the most costeffective charging time. Individual operators will have the ability to control their charging, but other dimension of load management that Ms. Vega is talking about is making the most efficient use of a single charger to charge multiple vehicles. He thought the old-fashioned conventional way would be split 50-50 (the power going to two vehicles that are plugged in at the same time) and that may or may not be the most efficient method to charge the vehicle. Mr. Herrschaft may be able to explain further, but he thought there were more efficient ways or alternative ways to split that power. They are essentially charging two vehicles with only one set of infrastructure for a particular charger.

PCE member Herrschaft stated, in this case, automated management means it’s a way to get more charging ports out of less electrical infrastructure, and there is a balance happening. He stated the preference would be a charging station already installed at every single parking space and what you are seeing on the slide with 2019 Calgreen is that costs too much electrical infrastructure and the charging stations are incentives so let’s make some parking spaces level to EV capable. He stated that their model code is trying to be a balance by using technology and different levels of charging to minimize the impact on the cost of site electrical infrastructure while providing charging access to every resident on the day that it is built. He stated that Planning Director Murdock was correct that with every vehicle you can set when it charges. He stated as it is clean energy, you would set it to start charging at midnight as long as you didn’t have a long drive the next day and your battery is pretty full. He stated that they would like to get more involved in automotive charging, but first and foremost, it is important that people’s cars have the fuel in them that they need to go where they are going the next day. He stated that it is a sticky situation.

Consultant Vega continued the presentation, and Planning Director Murdock completed the presentation.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated she had a lot of questions but would wait until after public comment.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they did have some written public comments before the meeting and they distributed to Council and posted on the city’s website.

2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 9 September 27, 2022
City Clerk Coffey introduced the speakers.

Dashiell Leeds, stated he is the conservation organizer for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter. They were pleased that staff was recommending electric Reach Codes for construction and they agree with that, expressing his thoughts on the issue.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that he was glad that the city was looking at the Reach Codes and expressed his thoughts on what was discussed and added more thoughts on further things to be included.

Bruce Naegle, Pacifica, appreciated Council’s enthusiasm on what is needed for the future and agreed with the comments of the previous speakers and shared his thoughts on this important issue.

Margo Meiman, Pacifica, thanked Council for taking up the issue on Reach codes and shared her thoughts on this major factor in climate change and encouraged Council to approve all staff’s recommendations.

Diane Bailey, Silicon Valley, stated she is with the campaign for fossil free buildings in Silicon and shared her thoughts on this issue, and that she agreed with all staff’s recommendations and encouraged other actions as well.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, thanked Council for bringing up this important issue, agreed with the previous speakers, and urged Council to approve all staff’s recommendations shared her thoughts on the need to do all we can to reduce emissions immediately.

John Keener, Pacifica, stated he agreed with the previous speakers who urged Council to answer all questions affirmatively and shared his thoughts on moving on to the next step in an expeditious manner.

Dr. Robert Gould, San Francisco, stated he was the president of San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility and wanted to provide the help of his organization which represents hundreds of health professionals throughout the Bay Area in support of Reach Codes to deal with our climate emergency.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wanted to circle back to the question about water use and ask experts if now was the time to factor this into the conversation or will it be outside the scope of the Reach Code conversation they are having.

PCE member Herrschaft stated they are not a water utility. They focus mainly on the carbon emissions side of it, but Portola Valley is including grey water ready language in their proposed Reach Code, which will also include some existing building measures and it will come to their City Council on October 12. He stated he can forward that language to staff if they direct staff to include grey water.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck would like to see what that looks like and, if possible, include it.

Planning Director Murdock stated he will make a note.

2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 10 September 27, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if PG&E has been contacted to determine if they have the capacity to supply the electricity to everyone. They talked about emergency centers, and in an emergency, all these electric houses would have no power. She stated that people indicated that there were only 23 new housing units built in the last five years, but she thought it was more than that. She referred to the question of carbon emissions from houses. She looked at the EPA and they say all buildings together have a 16% carbon emission and a letter they got today said 35% and a speaker said 25%. She stated that she was in a meeting several weeks ago where they said housing itself is 6%. She asked what it is.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he doesn’t have an answer to the third question and possibly Ms. Vega or Mr. Herrschaft can address that. Regarding PG&E, they were among the key stakeholders staff will need to engage depending on Council’s guidance and the availability of electrical infrastructure and capacity is a relevant consideration before adopting this. It will require time and staff resources to engage and they haven’t undertaken that without knowing Council’s direction. Regarding number of housing units per year, the staff report cites an average of 23 units per year constructed between 2015 and 2021, not a total of 23 units.

Consultant Vega asked if he wanted her to chime in on the PG&E question.

Planning Director Murdock stated yes if she was prepared.

Consultant Vega stated that she had a couple of slides. She stated that grid reliability is an important concern. Some important things to note, to put it into context, is that, when they talk about capacity, they are talking about cooling loads in the summer (when our summer peaks).

That is primarily driven by temperature and climate change, and they will continue to see those peaks as our climate continues to warm up. She stated that she found an article in the LA Times that we increased our utility skill battery storage capacity by 27 times the past year and during the last heat wave it prevented some rolling blackouts. She stated that battery storage and solar is going to be part of grid reliability and hopefully with the elimination of state gas subsidies that can free up some funds for additional grid hardening efforts.

Mayor Bier asked if anyone had a response to carbon emissions from buildings.

PCE member Herrschaft stated that he has done climate action planning for a lot of cities in the county in his previous job and he has a good idea on that. He stated that there are a lot of assumptions made in a climate action plan that can change the numbers slightly. He thought what they might be seeing in the difference in those numbers is a difference in the boundary condition. He stated that homes in the United States where 25% of them are all-electric is going to have a different emissions profile percentage than the homes in all of San Mateo County where buildings represent 30% of carbon emission. He doesn’t have Pacifica’s numbers in front of him but he thought he could find them and send them to them; Pacifica will be a different number depending on if there is a landfill in the territory, which the County has but he didn’t know if Pacifica has a land fill. He said that, nationwide, they have airplanes and a lot of things that aren’t included in local government inventories and that is a big difference in the numbers.

Mayor Bier thought that information would be great to have.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he wanted to respond to one of Councilmember Vaterlaus’ points, i.e., one of the code options available to them is for new buildings making them at least ready to have battery backup, if not requiring certain ones to have the batteries installed, and he thought, when we were having the outages a couple of years ago, it seemed that a lot of people

2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 11 September 27, 2022
were investing in gas generators so, should it happen again, they are ready with their gas generator and he thought it was equivalent to battery backup and he didn’t know if the battery backup is going to be as reliable or not, but he thought what they are requiring of new construction is to get people ready to have that battery backup so, instead of throwing more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere because of the gas generators they’re buying and that is one of the Reach codes we adopt and that might satisfy at least part, if not all the concern she was raising on that point.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to circle back to the issue of grid impact. Even though Pacifica has cooler weather in the summer, she didn’t understand about the grid and how it works in terms of possible outages that affect our residents due to high temperatures in other places. She stated that, while we have cooler weather, we may be having the cool weather but also no power. She wanted to hear more about that, if anyone has any information or add that to Planning Director Murdock’s list.

PCE member Herrschaft stated he wanted to add about the PG&E question in general, as they are primarily talking about new construction at this meeting. They do have a support letter from PG&E that says they can handle the increased load of all electric new construction, which is only a portion of buildings they are talking about. He stated that, regarding the cold weather impacts, a better grid is going to be important as they move forward. PCE does not manage the grid, but they work with PG&E and the transmission distribution authority. He stated that, during the peak events, one thing that is nice about electrification, both on the vehicle and the hot water heater side, is that they are starting to build grid responsiveness into the items so they can call on them to pause when there is a flex in that as happened previously. He knows that PCE also called around the cities to see if there were ways they could help produce loaded city buildings. He stated that the local distribution network if the next town over starts using a lot of air conditioning, that creates bottlenecks in some parts of the system and they were seeing in the flex event was including a statewide bottleneck and constraint on generation. He stated that electrification, as they put in the technologies that can be responsive to the grid should be able to help with those issues going forward and it is something they think about a lot and will continue to.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she doesn’t have a problem with the new construction.

She 100% does not want to get into existing because she has gone to a lot of meetings about it and listened to the entire eight hours of Half Moon Bay talking about it. She stated that it was an interesting meeting but it is funny to her that, when they have the grid outages, they say don’t charge your electric car and that means people are stuck. She stated that it didn’t seem like it should happen. She stated that, if PG&E runs out of clean energy, they still have to provide energy so where does the energy come from.

Mayor Bier thought that was a good question that a lot of our community members have as well.

She didn’t know if there were any responses to the EV charging stations and the backup batteries for those and how that could work.

PCE Herrschaft stated that he would agree with her that, on the electrical vehicle side, in the case of an emergency, he would tend to want to keep his tank full and there is an important ability to escape in an emergency. He stated that one thing he didn’t know on the power outage side is that a gas furnace doesn’t work during a power outage because it has an electric fan and depending on the furnace. He stated that the gas fireplace would work, but most central furnaces with fans do not. He stated that instantaneous gas water heaters often have electric sensors and will often not work in a power outage and, since these are the appliances they are

2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 12 September 27, 2022
thinking about, he wanted them to be aware of that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck recalled that his water heater gives him hot water during a power outage. He stated that these are important questions they will have to grapple with as our overarching infrastructure becomes modernized, not by tomorrow, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take as large a step as we can in that direction, appreciating that they have to account for the realities as exist. He thanked Margo Meiman for reaching out to him and helping with his understanding. He has been buddying with Councilmember Beckmeyer on this topic and he knows she might have some more feedback. He stated that, with existing building codes, he agrees that now is probably not the ideal time to have the conversation but he is interested in having the conversation. He loves staff’s notion that, during goal setting is the time they put it on the work plan as he thinks it will take substantial staff resources to sort out the large number of options we will have so we can have a conversation that doesn’t evolve into a lot of concern from our community but give is so many options that we will be able to choose those that are easier and find something that looks like middle ground. He favors having staff bring that up during goal setting regarding existing. He just didn’t think we have the resources now.

Planning Director Murdock agreed that it is a focused intensive effort and that is why staff’s recommendation is to consider it as part of the goal setting process among all the various priorities for city resources and staff time. He stated, if acceptable to the mayor, it sounds like the questions have somewhat tapered off in the deliberations and Council’s direction is somewhat beginning and he would like to put the four questions on the screen to hopefully guide them through in a structured manner to ensure that staff gets input on all the questions they have.

Mayor Bier thought that would be great.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed with Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck and she thanked Margo Meiman in advance as she was sure the conversations will be ongoing. She would favor working on some kind of educational informational process, outreach, articles, and there will be a mix, and she thinks we need to have the community understand what the issues are well in advance of Council deliberation and discussion on adopting codes regarding existing and that may be, in hindsight, from the point of view of decision makers in Half Moon Bay, as something they would have benefitted from and she would like to learn from that experience.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he knows that San Mateo also recently passed some existing construction Reach Codes between now and whenever we have our discussion he would love to see where they are. They may not get very far in implementation, but he would love to track where they are and what the community response was and if their model might not be appropriate for what they wind up looking at.

Mayor Bier stated she would also like to thank Margo Meiman for meeting with her and helping her understand and showing them examples of what they can be looking at now. She stated that they can begin with question No. 1.

Planning Director Murdock asked if staff should prepare the existing Reach Code for readoption where they have not been superseded by 2022 California building code requirements.

Councilmember O’Neill thought so.

Mayor Bier stated that they have consensus there.

2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 13 September 27, 2022
Planning Director Murdock stated that was an easy one and the starter question.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, for clarification, he was along with everyone else but he thought that doesn’t preclude them going after models and adding on. He asked if he is correct.

Planning Director Murdock stated, if he understands the question, he thought that may get into questions 2 and 3, going beyond what the prior Reach codes were. He stated, per question 2, should staff modify any of the 2019 Reach codes. He thought most likely that focuses on questions related to the exceptions. He stated that they can go back to the exception slides if that would be a good time to do that now. He stated that a lot of discussion came up from our colleagues at PCE and TRC about their opinions on the appropriateness of exceptions and the impacts of those exceptions. He thought their opinions in many cases the exceptions probably aren’t necessary and maybe don’t advance the overall desire to electrify buildings.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if he can refresh her memory if the codes adopted in 2019 required electric ready, such as under residential buildings may include a non-electric cooking appliances and fireplaces, and she asked if that means that they have to have electric ready.

She asked if that had that included.

Planning Director Murdock stated she was correct. He stated that the exception to that prewiring was for restaurants and the other types of uses are required to pre-wire, for example a single-family residence, new construction, all-electric building requirements, follow the exception for cooking appliances and fireplaces also need to prewire the space where those gas-powered appliances are installed.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked, if it was possible and not arduous to determine, with these exceptions in place back in 2019, how many of the new buildings that were constructed opted for these options, and she asked if it was a hard thing to determine that.

Planning Director Murdock responded that it was not as staff already did that work. He didn’t have specific numbers but has qualitative descriptions and that is what he asked for. He stated an enactment of the 2019 Reach Codes are not in any particular order, but he will try the systematize it a little bit. He stated they can start with multi-family residential. He stated that there was one main project of 24 units, and it has both gas and electric and it did utilize the exceptions allowable for cooking and fireplaces. He then referred to mixed use which is allelectric, multi-family residential ADUs, 42 of those at the Villages at Pacifica that were permitted, and were all electric. He stated that there are three categories of ADUs, detached, attached and conversion of existing space. For detached ADUs, most are all-electric. For attached ADUs ,which is basically an addition to an existing home, most used is the exception to allow gas and for conversion of existing space, most use the exception to allow gas. For new single-family residents is most use of the exception. He stated that there was one category that was plain commercial and all electric in the examples that are cited and there was a commercial example as mentioned was mixed use, also electric without exceptions.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if he cited the example of commercial uses.

Planning Director Murdock stated he did, adding that there wasn’t a lot, but the examples that staff found was that they were electric.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if the commercial uses were restaurants or not.

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 14 September 27, 2022
Planning Director Murdock stated that he doesn’t have that information.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked because he was okay with getting rid of the exception for the residential buildings that may include non-electric cooking appliances and fireplaces and he was okay with getting rid of the exemption for the ADUs. He stated that his question still stands about the public agencies do not operate emergency centers as he feels like that is a conversation and he wasn’t sure how he feels about it now for the reasons stated earlier.

Planning Director Murdock asked if he would allow him to share a couple of observations on that topic and he can mull it over and figure out if there are more questions. He thought one approach to that is to say that they want their emergency operation centers to be able to operate in a variety of conditions, have gas, make sure that, if the power goes out, service is provided. As they are thinking about that in the context of new building construction, keep in mind that over the long term, many people are forecasting that the gas network will be shut off and that may have a counterproductive outcome for the resiliency of those facilities. If they think about the long term for any emergency center in Pacifica to construct, it is likely to be there for 50, 75, or 100 years, given our track record of finances and ability to replace facilities. He stated that they may want to think of other alternative resiliency options such as generators, whether diesel or battery backup systems that might actually somewhat counter-intuitively provide greater resilience than a gas fall back.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked him as it made that decision a lot easier for him. He is still mulling over the idea of commercial kitchen appliances. When he last spoke with his advocate, to the best of his ability, for stronger Reach Codes, the nomenclature he can recall best to draw was commercial kitchens may be approved for combustion equipment and that leaves the question in his mind that it might not be a bad thing. He also is wondering how businesses are dealing with it and do they know of recent businesses that have been putting electric kitchens in instead of commercial businesses. He asked if they have data of whether or not recently restaurants are putting electric kitchens in.

Planning Director Murdock thought that is something he will need to drill down further, trying to get information for the study session across all the building categories, commercials lumped into a single category. Before Council moves forward with adoption of any of these, he can get that break out since the 2019 Reach code adoption and what types of commercial uses were they and were they all electric. His guess is, based on the data he has, they have been all electric, given the summation for commercial and mixed use which was electric without triggering exceptions and we will want to be certain of that to give them that comfort.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was inclined in that direction, but he would love to have that data and he also has time to circle back to his advocate and ensure his understanding is correct before he has a strong feeling one way or the other. He then asked if there is any discussion in any of this about no existing electrified buildings being converted to a mixed fuel building.

Planning Director Murdock stated that was a level of specificity they didn’t tee up for Council as this time, but it was a relative consideration. If there is Council direction on that, it falls within the more general provisions rather than specific requirements. They can study that further and make a recommendation if Council wants to move forward.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that was his predilection and he will leave it to Council to decide.

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 15 September 27, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that would fall under the third question.

Planning Director Murdock felt like questions 2 and 3 blend together a little bit. He stated that, if they want, he can bring the question slide back up.

Mayor Bier stated that it was important for her to see the slide now before he does that. She stated she is very comfortable with getting rid of all the exceptions except for the operated emergency center.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she would need to talk with some restaurants first about the actual cooking without gas because she thinks that is huge, the flat tops, as she thought most restaurants have gas and, before they went into that one, she would like to talk to some restaurant owners regarding that. She knows they have new induction cooking which is electric and they are supposed to be great, but she keeps thinking about the cost but if they are building new, the cost factors aren’t as high. She stated that trying to switch over after you have something is very high.

Mayor Bier agreed, and that is why she was comfortable with the new construction. She appreciated that, and if there is any other information that they can get from our experts about the electric combustion or induction cooking.

Consultant Vega was going to respond to the question about all-electric restaurants. She stated that the poster child now is the French Laundry in Napa. She stated that every cuisine type is different and, as of now, it is anecdotal as there are different types of cooking needs and we are constantly looking for other examples to add to our list.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he was okay to eliminate the exception for the ADUs in residential buildings, non-electric cooking applies as in fireplaces, and he thinks the public agency owned and operated emergency centers. He was more comfortable that they have gas access to use for a generator but when we replace the buildings, he is okay with a battery or something like that. He imagined that the battery technology is going to get better and better and at some point, when they get around to replacing the buildings, the batteries will be there.

He stated that he does believe schools are considered emergency centers as when they remodeled the schools, they have to through the department of state architecture because they are considered evacuation centers. If we put a mandate to the school districts, you have to have battery power and that is an unfunded mandate on our part to the school districts, and both of them are funded lowest in the county or second lowest in the county, he didn’t think it was fair for Council to do.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that her question earlier was along the same lines.

Councilmember O’Neill thinks they have gas now or boilers. He would think owned and operated emergency centers, schools, community center and police department as is and then if they find battery technology that is cheap or solar power can be put on them, he wants to be sure they can run a generator for our citizens in an emergency.

Planning Director Murdock was thinking about the structure of the questions and focusing first on new buildings, and if he understood his feedback correctly, he is open to eliminating the exception for new emergency operation centers that are constructed to require them not to have gas and to have some other form of backup such as a diesel generator or battery-backed and

2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 16 September 27, 2022
he asked if that was correct.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was correct as he agrees with him that, at some point, they are probably going to shut off the gas valve and we might as well build a new building to the new reality.

Planning Director Murdock thought Mr. Rider or Asst. City Attorney Bazzano can confirm his statement but, to the extent of alterations to existing school buildings, those would not be subject to the Pacifica’s building permit review and, as a result, he thinks the base of 2022 California building code would apply to those facilities. If a non-school use was proposed, it may be subject to the city’s permitting authority without being a new building and would be subject to the new building requirements approved by Council.

Councilmember O’Neill admits he is mixed on the restaurants because even San Francisco put an exemption in for gas for their restaurants in their Reach Codes.

Mayor Bier stated that she is okay with all these exemptions listed for new construction. She will take back what she said before about public agency owned.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to make sure they are considering the private schools which are the two parochial schools.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are Pacific Bay and Good Shepherd.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they also have the Montessori and also the faith-based community buildings. Typical for Pacifica, those are older construction - are those even potentially included in that category of shelter or the emergency shelter category? Councilmember O’Neill stated that it says public agency owned and those are all private.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wonders how they function, and she didn’t want to put them in a bind because they aren’t public agencies.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they would be subject to Pacifica’s building code requirements. He stated that the question is do you carve out an exception for new buildings for those types of uses or do they conduct this detailed discussion as part of an existing buildings Reach Code discussion. He thought those were the two paths to consider for those types of uses.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they go under the same category: New construction is new construction and would have certain requirements but the existing buildings is a different animal.

Planning Director Murdock agreed.

Mayor Bier stated that he is getting a lot of information from their future conversations.

Planning Director Murdock thought Council was reflecting the fact that it is a very complicated discussion as there are many what ifs and hypotheticals to consider and tradeoffs to be made.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that is what she is going to talk about. If you are building a new ADU, and you have enough electricity in your main to handle the ADU with gas heat but

2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 17 September 27, 2022
when you have to put in a heat pump and all electric, are you going to have to redo your whole panel and do all of your electricity again, does that mean you may not build the ADU because of that as they would have had the buildings before and we may not if they are required to be all electric. She stated that was another thought and consideration.

Planning Director Murdock stated that her point is well taken about if the gas service has capacity it may be a cost effective option to extend it, particularly for an addition or a conversion of existing space. He offered, and others can supplement, is that they are already going to have an electrician there to run a number of new circuits for all of the domestic electric needs of the new ADU. When you think about that, it is probably not a great incremental cost to also run the circuits necessary for electrification of heat pump for heating or for water heating or other electrification uses.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that except if you have to get a totally new electrical service, which she did at her house and was very expensive, and she has been hearing lately that people won’t put in new electrical services with knob-and-tube. Most of the houses have knoband-tube wiring. She just heard it a couple of times that they don’t want to upgrade the electrical service with knob-and-tube as they don’t think that is safe so then you have another huge issue.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he is not aware of those issues about the knob-and-tube wiring and it is something they can look into before bringing back the codes for further consideration. He thought it was possible, and in many cases it will happen already that a service panel upgrade will be required to account for an ADU, given the number of dedicated circuits that would be required within that unit. Again, he thinks in most cases, they will end up in the same place. Do you add an extra circuit and run a cable for the heating and water heating or do you do that through gas if capacity exists and that is what he thinks is the crux of the question in his mind.

Mayor Bier stated that they can always say they’re deemed or except when it is deemed infeasible. She thought they could add that.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the infeasibility is going to be an umbrella consideration in all scenarios as there are instances where an unforeseen technical issue will prevent accomplishing the electrification. PG&E may not be able to provide the service when they get to a very site-specific level. Certainly, infeasibility will be there in the background in all these areas.

Mayor Bier asked if that will include hardship.

Planning Director Murdock thought hardship would be a different conversation if they are talking about financial hardship or timed delay hardship. Those are different factors than infeasibility, as infeasibility is an absolute circumstance, and hardship is something else that Council will need to consider.

Mayor Bier asked about further information.

Planning Director Murdock asked what type of hardship, as there are various types of delays that can occur during construction. It is hard to know if that is actually a hardship or just commonplace for construction - financial infeasibility or hardship.

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 18 September 27, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she is thinking income or talking about means-based hardship.

Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer was thinking along the lines of instances where people have inherited assets and may not have current assets themselves and they are like the house rich notion that you have this property but the fiscal ability in terms of income and means is creating a hardship. She assumed it was a pretty narrow band of people but she wasn’t sure.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thought an existing construction hardship is a huge deal, not so much in new construction in her mind.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed with her, and that is what she is thinking. She appreciated everyone continuously reminding her.

Mayor Bier stated that everyone is popping up now.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he was going to ask that same question as it seems that, with new construction, someone who is building a new ADU or a new facility is not going to fall into the hardship category financially.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought he was right. She added, in terms of the points Councilmember Vaterlaus was making about knob-and-tube, etc., is she is going to guess that there are certain areas in the town where they’re going to see, based on the historical nature of when houses were built and what the style and infrastructure would have been in those homes.

She stated that, in her neighborhood, they know approximately when they were all permitted and the way in which the construction was being done at that time but in areas like in Vallemar and Sharp Park, they are probably going to see a wider variety so that may be where that exception issue will come into play more frequently.

Mayor Bier asked if he has enough for Number 2 and perhaps Number 3.

Planning Director Murdock thought so, but he asked that he get back to the questions to make sure they have covered all the categories. He received a lot of feedback on question 4, but they could maybe see if there are other dimensions to that which Council wants to discuss.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he would like to look at the grey water issue. He thought they should consider putting that not on the reach codes but something to study because he didn’t know if staff could come up with all the options there might be if this has to be adopted by January 2023.

Planning Director Murdock stated possibly not all the options. He stated that PCE member Herrschaft has identified a starting point for them to look at, with Portola Valley, and they can see if that might provide a relative range of options for Council without significant time delay.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was open to having that as part of the Reach codes providing they see them and they look doable and he was more than willing to put the water into the Reach codes. He thinks that they should consider think about that at a minimum, and he thought the pipe was purple if it is recycled water and he thinks they should have the two pipes so that, at some point if they ever build the infrastructure to have grey water or recycled water to

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 19 September 27, 2022
go through. He asked if he followed what he means. He stated that we have a water treatment plant, water in Sharp Park Golf Course and there is a separate pipeline for that. He stated that, if they ever get to that point, maybe it would be nice to allow new construction to tap into that.

Planning Director Murdock understood, and he stated that was a separate set of issues, particularly with respect to permitting considerations through the regional water board and with respect to access to recycled water and that is its own basket of considerations and not likely to affect a lot of properties in the near future, given the limited infrastructure for that. He stated that grey water options are available for potentially every home depending on the circumstances. He stated that they can consider that. He stated that, as he looks at the questions, he feels that they got a lot of feedback on Number 2 with respect to the exceptions in the 2019 Reach codes. There are other options for new construction, for instance the electric vehicle parking and charger requirements that they probably need to spend a moment on to see where Council may want to go with those. He stated that it may be best if Ms. Vega wants to bring up the slides and discuss those options to guide the Council through them. He will give her a minute to prepare for that and he will go back to his summation of some of the additional 2022 Reach code options for Council at a high level. He thought it basically gets into the EV parking requirements.

Consultant Vega asked him to remind her if the direction of Item 2 or having moved on.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it is for question Number 3 and additional Reach code options for new buildings for the 2022 code update.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that the higher is capable.

Consultant Vega stated that the higher is ready.

Councilmember O’Neill acknowledged that the higher is ready.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was going to say he favors the model codes that were presented and he wanted to start there.

Mayor Bier agreed.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if there were exceptions because her house doesn’t have a two-car space so she couldn’t put two.

Consultant Vega stated that, if it is just a one-car space, they would recommend just a level 2 EV circuit.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it says two.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they can harken back to where feasible nomenclature is strewn throughout.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was important to think of this through the new construction lens at this point in time. In many cases, if not all cases, new single-family residences will have a two-car garage under the city’s zoning regulations so the space ought to be available. In the multi-family context, that is where they may get into situations where a one-car garage is allowed or perhaps in some cases no garage at all and that may be fork in the road of the

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 20 September 27, 2022
discussion when they get to the multi-family context.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thought that the last new construction house that they approved on Santa Rosa or Salada has no parking garage at all. She asked if they will have to put in the two EV chargers in that new construction.

Planning Director Murdock doesn’t know the complete answer to that but his inclination, and would value the input from Ms. Vega and Mr. Herrschaft, is that the garage doesn’t appear to be the requirement and it seems to be the number of spaces.

PCE member Herrschaft stated that the garage is not the requirement so they can take a singlefamily home and ignore the townhouse special case with the detached garage. For a singlefamily home with an attached garage, with one car and no other parking space, they have it written in there that, if a second parking space is provided, it shall be provided with a level 1 EV ready space. He read that one parking space provided shall be a level 2 EV ready space. If a second parking space is provided, it shall be provided with a level 1 EV ready space. He stated that surface parking is a driveway and would get an EV ready outlet and if there were two, there would also be a level 1 EV ready outlet for the second car, whether in or outside a garage.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he would like to bring up another question, i.e., how many people you know actually use their garage with the EV charger. He stated that most garages are used for storage and he asked if it was possible that it has to be in the driveway as they usually require a driveway. He asked if an extension cord be used for a car charger.

Planning Director Murdock thought the functionality of the outlet in question would be left to the designer for the unit and in many cases he has seen EV chargers installed on the exterior of residences so the cord can reach into the driveway and possibly into the garage if it is used for parking.

PCE Herrschaft stated that, if he had a garage, he would put the outlet near the garage door and that would be the smart place to put it.

Mayor Bier stated that’s where she’s seeing a lot of it in her neighborhood.

Planning Director Murdock asked if it is the Council’s consensus is to support the model code recommendation.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she heard a majority as she counted three.

Mayor Bier stated three, four, five.

Planning Director Murdock thought multi-family residential is probably the next discussion and he thinks it gets more complicated. He stated that the 2022 code requirement baseline that will be in place has several different requirements and Ms. Vega can elaborate what the recommendation from the Bay Area Reach code team would be for that.

Consultant Vega stated that she has the multi-family slide and she asked Planning Director Murdock to let her know if he wants her to dive into the details of the different low power and high power option at this time or in general what the Reach Code team recommend and they can dive into the nuances of the code before they come back to Council with the actual ordinance.

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 21 September 27, 2022
Planning Director Murdock stated that his suggestion is to take it in chunks. He asked if there was an appetite to go beyond the method of the 2022 code which is percent of parking spaces.

He asked if they want to think of it in a different way based on dwelling units with parking spaces. He thought the idea is to provide a more direct correlation with occupants of units to charging station rather than generally percent of parking spaces which may not correlate to the dwelling units themselves and the ability of a particular unit occupant to have access to a charger. He asked if that was a fair assessment of the intent of that.

Consultant Vega responded positively and added that their push for this year is to advocate for 100% access on the multi-family side for EV charging. She stated that they will notice that the whole pie chart is full and, within that pie chart, it could be a mix of EV charging stations and level 2 or level 1 EV ready spaces as well.

Mayor Bier asked if there were exceptions for low income housing development or incentives.

Consultant Vega stated that there are incentives. She stated that affordable housing new construction is eligible for PCE incentives. She asked Mr. Herrschaft if he had those figures with him by any chance.

PCE member Herrschaft stated that he will look them up now.

Consultant Vega stated, as he is looking them up, she is going to stop sharing her screen for a second to switch over to her computer audio before her headset dies.

Planning Director Murdock stated, while they are in this transition point, he stated that it would help to think about whether they support 100% access for multi-family and is that important for supporting the deployment and regular use of electric vehicles and supporting the climate change goals of getting away from internal combustion engine vehicles towards EVs. If they support wider accessibility, perhaps not 100% but perhaps more than the baseline of what the 2022 code is and is there a different point of calibration, such as 60, 80 or 90%. He stated that they note that, even in 30 years, not everyone is going to own an electrical vehicle and it may not be necessary for every space to have access even though that is a laudable goal. He thought those are factors that Council can consider when figuring out where to draw the line on this, recognizing this is for the next three years and then there is another opportunity and another opportunity to ratchet it up, recognizing that once a building is constructed, it is going to be there for decades to come and it is much more expensive after the fact to retrofit it and install the utilities.

Councilmember O’Neill thought this might be an instance where you have it ready or capable of they need to have someone come in and do the rest. He thought the market is going to drive whether or not everyone needs an EVC charger. He stated that, at some point, multi-family housing might be detrimental if they don’t have their own charger. He asked what all the cars that park in the street in San Francisco are going to do. He thinks they should have 100% ready and then percentage capable. He clarified that capable means there is a plug and it goes right in.

Planning Director Murdock stated that capable means the conduit is there but you don’t have the wiring and the circuit and outlet. That is the good. The ready is where you actually run the wire, you have the circuit breaker in the box and you have the plug at the end and that is better and the EV charging station is the best where you actually have the charger installed.

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 22 September 27, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill thought you would want 100% capable and a high percentage of ready.

Consultant Vega pointed out that, on January 1, the state is requiring that 5% of multi-family parking spaces have charging stations and there will be at least that minimum.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he saw Mr. Herrschaft’s hand up.

PCE member Herrschaft stated that he has the answer on the incentives if they would like that for the EV charging.

Mayor Bier thought that would be good.

PCE member Herrschaft stated that they have an incentive program called EV Ready to help cover EV charging in multi-family, specifically from multi-family. He stated that applies to existing market rate multi-family and then, for affordable housing, it also applies for new, both new and existing affordable housing which is like a custom incentive that is case by case in the building and the goal is to provide for existing buildings, as much EV charging as you can without requiring a service upgrade from PG&E for affordable to cover the extra cost of the EV charging has because affordable housing often does not see a high uptake of the EV electrical vehicles yet, but they believe they deserve access to an electric vehicle charging as well.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he will start that, again, he favors the model code but, if they were to go with the model code, would he be choosing between the low-power option and the high-power option.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was going to ask for that.

Consultant Vega qualified it by saying yes, but they can also customize the options to what the needs are to Pacifica. Some added background is that the difference between the two options here is provide cities with some flexibility. These options have costs associated with them; the high-power option is a little more expensive, but there are also that some people think that level 1 might be obsolete someday and they still want to get jurisdiction for flexibility to prepare for solely level 2. She stated that the answer to his question was yes, but with modifications that are appropriate for Pacifica.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, if they went with the low power option and how simple or complex is it to, in that future scenario that she just alluded to, upgrade to level 1 EV ready to a level 2 EV ready. He asked if it is simple.

Consultant Vega stated that she didn’t know off the top of her head the details involved in the retrofits but they would be talking about upgrading all those circuits so she imagines there is quite a bit of work there. They were at easy capable space and would it be difficult at the ready level, she thought there was quite a bit of retrofit dollars there. She stated that they can look into those but she doesn’t have that at the top of her head.

PCE member Herrschaft thought it would be difficult to do that. He stated that there is a city, that allows either option depending on what the developer would prefer. As far as level 1, some people really do not like level 1 which is why they provided level 2 option and many people charge on a level 1. He stated that he charged on a level for five years at a beach town and got along just fine as there are a lot of opinions there and that is typically, from experience, how a

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 23 September 27, 2022
city will tend to select numbers together.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was almost embarrassed to say that he is not yet an electric vehicle owner but, within that context, when he believes that it is charging at a 3-4 mile for every hour, internally he scoffs a little bit as that seems to him way too low and as somebody who likes to go on long trips occasionally, that makes him very nervous and that’s his sensibility.

He was erring toward the high-power option on the model code. He stated that they had that conversation earlier about those townhomes conceivably have 130 spots and if they were going to do that, would they truly want every one of those 130 spots which to him, as the person who does not have the money to develop that, his idea in that scenario is that maybe they go with the model code high power option up to a certain number of units after which they make the capable but not ready. His opinion for the moment is that they go toward the high-power option on the model code.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that connects at a minimum and she is wondering why it is this way. She stated that it feels like the difference between the low and the high and the variance between those is made even greater by the fact that, with the low, 60% is at level 1 and 40% is at level 2 and she wondered about flipping those. She stated she knew it was incremental, but she agreed with Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck that level 1 is really low and to have the majority of the low-power option B, the lowest category, and when you compare that, and look over to the high-powered option, it seems like the division between those two is so great.

Consultant Vega stated that she was going to emphasize that they can tailor the percentages, for example the 40% level to EV chargers and 60% level 1 EV ready. They were recommending a lower percentage at level 2 - those are the ready to go and install EV charging station, leaving the other 60% for chargers to be installed in the future whereas the high-power option… Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she was getting confused between capable and ready.

Consultant Vega stated that one thing she didn’t point out before and she thinks it is important to point out now is that these two also have a different level of amenities. She stated that the low power option has a higher level of amenities, meaning they are recommending 40% on lowpower options that have EV chargers and in the high-power option, it is a level 2 but that package is a lower amenity because only 15% of the space have chargers.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked her for that clarification.

Consultant Vega stated that there is a lot of details and definitions and where they spend most of their time is on the EV charging recommendations.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, with that clarification, she wants to withdraw what she just said and agree with Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck and is leaning toward the model code.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that in 100% of spots, these Reach codes will be reassessed in three more years, and to her 100% seems excessive but she understands it will be harder to put in the systems later. She just thought it seemed excessive to have 100% at this time when it is going to be a really long time before everyone has electric vehicles, long past when she is alive.

Planning Director Murdock asked Mayor Bier if he can ask a clarification from Ms. Vega and Mr.

Herrschaft to explain again how the application of the percent of loan units works. He thought it

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 24 September 27, 2022
was easy to understand the percent of parking spaces, but with percent of dwelling units with parking spaces, does this mean each dwelling unit only needs to have one EV component and if it has more than one space for that dwelling unit, that second or third or extra space does not have to have anything and he asked if that is the correct application of the percent of dwelling units with parking spaces.

PCE Herrschaft responded affirmatively. He stated that in a 20-unit apartment where there are 40 spaces, two dedicated spaces for each unit, and ten guest spots and they are talking 50 spaces, but only 20 units so there would only be 20 required. Each dwelling unit has access to one way to charge because if there were two per unit, it would be very expensive.

Planning Director Murdock concluded that the idea was to ensure coverage for all dwelling units but not necessarily all parking spaces.

Consultant Vega agreed.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was an important but confusing distinction. He stated where a percent of parking won’t necessarily ensure that every dwelling unit has access to electric vehicle charging options.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if that convinced Councilmember Vaterlaus to the other side or is she still wrestling with it.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it made a huge difference as she is looking at a thing with 100 units and 100 charging stations which she thought was excessive but now she gets it.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it seemed to him a reasonable balance where each household in a dwelling unit can manage its access to a single piece of charging infrastructure where there are chargers installed or they have to add their own charger to a plug that is already installed rather than dictating for them how much of the site is going to have access rather than a household basis.

Councilmember Vaterlaus states she would go for the high power option.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it was an important distinction and he thanked Planning Director Murdock for helping them navigate that.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he may not have captured Mayor Bier’s preference. He thought there was focus on a clearer desire for her to understand and try to make accommodation for financial incentives for affordable housing, and he asked her to clarify where she is if she has an opinion on this issue.

Mayor Bier stated she desires to have incentives for low-income housing and she thinks she needs more information about that, but she does favor the high power options.

Planning Director Murdock appreciated that. He then stated that it was now a good time to go to the non-residential, i.e., commercial.

Consultant Vega stated that the way they have this structured, and can customize it, is that every city’s commercial building slots look different: Some are retail, some are office space.

They currently have for offices requiring 20% level for EV charging stations with 30% of the

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 25 September 27, 2022
parking spaces, and they are going back to the parking space definition as now they are dealing with individual residential dwelling units. She stated that 30% of the parking spaces be level to EV capable for offices and other non-resident 10% level 2 charging stations and 10% level 2 EV capable.

Planning Director Murdock asked if some of the thought behind this is that offices have a different dwelling time for those parking at the building for the use whereas if they consider all other very likely in Pacifica to be retail with a lot of people coming and going and a lot of turnover and multiple people can more readily utilize fewer charging spaces. He asked if that is the logic.

Consultant Vega stated that was correct, and she was guilty of admitting she doesn’t have any yet and what she hears is that for people who go into their offices and who have EVs they use their EV chargers at the office and those spaces tend to fill up pretty quickly whereas retail is not as high utilization.

Planning Director Murdock told Ms. Vega or Mr. Herrschaft that he wants to be clear for Council and asked if there is anything in either residential or non-residential EV charging model code requirements that addresses how the electricity is paid for during the charging, such as is there anything that would prevent a property owner from charging commercial visitors from having to pay for the charging for non-residential.

Consultant Vega stated that they don’t get into any business models and they leave that to the discretion of the developer and whoever the future property owner will be.

Planning Director Murdock thought, in both instances, a property owner could provide the amenity and decide to pay for residential or non-residential charging or allow the stations to charge individual users of those for the charging costs.

Consultant Vega responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier stated that they talk about it in the Economic Development Committee.

Councilmember Vaterlaus was thinking about redid Rockaway and the city owns the parking lot there. She thought, if the city put in chargers in that parking lot, which is a good idea, it would seem that the city would charge people to use that, and that is a mix of offices and commercial in the center and they would have to decide which of those you want to do as it is a mix, but she thought the city would charge which makes sense to her.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it is a policy question as the city could charge to recover costs or it could make them free or low cost to incentivize the use or as an economic development strategy but that decision would have to be made on a facility by facility basis by the city manager.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, for most public parking lot services, there is a third party provider and a business arrangement between whomever is paying that utility bill and the third party provider where the public costs are covered for providing that electricity and, if I drive an EV, pull into the back of Linda Mar Shopping Center to charge up, I’ve got the account that I am paying for that charging so there is not a cost to the landlord, and in a public parking lot that would be the city.

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 26 September 27, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they would want to have a higher percentage for specific things like a hotel. He stated that the person might be driving with a one-night stay and they want to drive 200 miles the next day, they will need the full time for framing and can they set a higher percentage of EV charging for hotels.

Planning Director Murdock thought that was an interesting concept and something they can consider and see if other communities have addressed it in that fashion, as he doesn’t have any first hand expertise now on that particular issue.

City Manager Woodhouse had a question that Ms. Vega or Mr. Herrschaft might be able to answer, which is kind of a technical and construction one. He stated that they are talking about new construction and, in the multi-family models, the model doesn’t include anything about EV capable. It is either ready or charging station and it would seem to him that, in constructing a new building, there is a very small marginal cost between EV ready and EV capable. If you are putting in charging stations that making other spots EV ready is a very small marginal cost, and he asked if they have any data about that. He stated that there are running stuff for EV charging stations. He stated that another way of asking the question is, for the model code, why is there not any percentage of EV ready.

PCE member Herrschaft stated that, regarding the cost, he doesn’t have the numbers in front of him, but it is highly dependent on the length of the wire run. The extra cost between EV capable and EV ready is basically the wire. He stated that you could argue that the outlet as well, but on an EV capable space, you have to put a cap on that which costs about the same as an outlet and it is really the length of that wire and they have gotten expensive because of Covid, like most things, or inflation. He stated that you could make that ready and the reason they left it as capable is that it is hard to predict the type of retail or office and how much it will be used as different retails see the EV charging stations always filled and some may never be used and that is why they left capable there. He stated that the city could strike capable and make that into ready which he thought was a good point.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck favors the model code and he thought that was a great question form the city manager about making it ready rather than capable and it sparked his follow-up question. He stated, if the developer puts in the capable, might it be incumbent on whomever is pulling a permit for the business itself, and can they add a condition of approval whereby they have to make it ready or install the charging station itself for them to get their permit approved for their business.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was a possibility worth considering and one factor to keep in mind is that the language in a particular lease might limit a business occupant from making improvements beyond the lease space and that could be a complication that presents a practical problem for a particular tenant, i.e., if the landlord wants them to open their restaurant but not go meddling in the parking lot and you would have to prepare for the potential that they may run into feasibility issues and a qualifying exception and there is some complexity there to his thinking.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if the city attorney wanted to add to that.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that her recommendation would be that these requirements stay within the building code as these are the standards that are paced against projects and they want all those standards to be kept within the building code rather than imposed as a condition of approval which could get challenged.

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 27 September 27, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he is charmed by the idea of raising the capable to ready status on those model codes if there is Council buy in, but either way he is favoring the model codes.

Mayor Bier is also favoring the model codes and likes the idea of moving it from capable to ready.

Councilmember O’Neill and Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed.

Mayor Bier followed up with Planning Director Murdock.

Planning Director Murdock stated he did, and to put another spin on the question from Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck, this is new construction and the assumptions will need to be made on the use at the time of construction and that burden is on the property owner developing. He stated that the other question falls within the existing building category and there is another chance to think more about it on whether there is a way to heighten the requirement. If they go with what the Council majority seems to want of requiring upgrade from ready to charger under certain circumstances, and they can think about what opportunities may exist in the existing building options depending on the answer to Number 4 which they will move on to momentarily.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated, since they brought up the existing construction codes, it sounds like they will likely be having a discussion about a goal setting and he asked that they factor into the ongoing list that he is writing down the notion that tabletop discussions if and when it is time to start planning. He is listening to the conversation they are having and he imagines that community feedback will be robust and that might be a nice way to start whittling down some of that robust community feedback when the time comes.

Mayor Bier stated they were ready to move on to Number 4.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, and stated that the question of the night largely is if there is interest by City Council to formalize for consideration during the fiscal year 2023-2024 Council goal setting and work plan development process an item that would involve evaluation of existing building Reach code options for City Council to consider, separate and apart from staff’s recommendation, the ongoing effort to update the 2022 California building code that they are obligated to do in the various new building Reach code that they have spent a lot of time talking about at this meeting. He stated that, while it would be very challenging to package it as part of the current process, but the Council does have the option to package that as part of the current process but there are some practicals as well some political considerations with respect to that combination.

Mayor Bier stated her answer is yes.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated her answer is no.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if he can ask a clarifying question on option 4 as he doesn’t have the language in front of him. He asked to understand that the idea is that they are pushing off consideration of making a Reach codes changes for existing construction for Council to bring up the idea of addressing that during goal setting. He wants to understand that there is no work that is going to be done on analyzing existing construction variables and Council can talk about anything they want to talk about in goal setting and decide and adopt a goal for the following

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 28 September 27, 2022
fiscal year to start analyzing whether there should be Reach codes for existing construction. He wanted to make clear the sequence and timing of that.

Mayor Bier stated that was her understanding.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, as she reads item 4 as worded, there really isn’t specific statement about the scope but it says development process to study potential adoption of Reach codes that are applicable to existing buildings. She stated that it is not saying what the scope of that might be, as it could be very small or very broad, and that sounds to her, based on the City Manager’s comment, that is within Council’s discretion.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, as he is reading Number 4, he was trying to get at in clarifying it is that there is nothing for staff to prepare for consideration during goal setting because, although it says prepare an item for consideration, but they know the way goal setting works is you raise an idea which is they want to start looking at Reach codes for existing construction and Council says they want to do that, and the first step in that work plan for that goal for the 2023-24 fiscal year is probably a study session like they are having at this time to talk about the possibilities for existing construction. He felt they wanted to be really clear what they are saying in Number 4.

Councilmember Beckmeyer understood and stated that her answer to that question is yes.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that what is really being said, if all Councilmembers agree, is that Reach codes for existing construction will be on the table for Council to talk about during goal setting as to whether to take that up during the following fiscal year. They are not going to include it in this package of building code and Reach code upgrades to adopt before December.

Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.

Planning Director Murdock imagined the City Manager would expect him to come to the goal setting with a number of considerations identified that would assess the potential level of effort, depending on if it is a small or large level of interest from Council or expansive or minimal interest in existing building Reach codes because they need to understand to use the graphic in the last goal setting as to is it a big ball or little ball that they are fitting in the box and they need to come to the goal setting with staff with some of those considerations so Council can shape the size of that work plan item when prioritizing.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that, as Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck mentioned, if it is going to involve community roundtable discussions and a lot of education and outreach and multiple community workshops, etc., and it is a big ball.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, if it is just tackling water heater replacements, that is a smaller ball than a major threshold for remodels to be new construction.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, when he has been having conversations with PCE staff about existing construction Reach codes, he think the example that is used frequently is the heat pumps and how they specifically the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to existing construction in terms of replacing the old one upon its burnout at virtually no additional cost. He favors conversations so there are three of them and he is okay talking with them in real time rather than doing the wait thing if they want to respond.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated he can finish.

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 29 September 27, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck acknowledged that there is an expert available if he is remembering the wrong thing, but that’s his understanding going into it. He is comfortable appending something that is obvious on to the existing Reach codes they are about to do but he thought it would be a better idea to actually sort out what all of their options are instead of just below hanging fruit to see if there is a package they can put together of things that are relatively simple to introduce to the community that are not of a contentious nature or a best case scenario for him is finding middle ground, which is the preferred way to go. He loves to reach for the stars but, if he can find a path of medium, that is his goal. He feels like he will bringing it up at goal setting regardless of whether there is consensus now and he feels that this way it give staff the opportunity, if they have a moment of pleasure time where they are doing nothing else, and look at what a handful of possibilities are that they can throw at Council when goal setting time comes, and consider that it is not the worst idea.

Mayor Bier stated that their community really wants to do it.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he is already hearing that it sounds like a substantial chunk of our community is interested in following up also and that is the reason he will be bringing it up.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if it was the community that spoke at this meeting that were not from Pacifica.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that some of those who spoke were from Pacifica and he is saying a substantial chunk but not all of.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thought that was a small chunk and to install a new heat pump is a huge ball because it requires so much work to do even one burnout item. She stated that she has a gas stove and to put in an electric stove, she has to rerun her electric service. She has a new service, but her service may not be able to handle it and she will have to put in a new service and that requires other things and some of the burnouts in the studies have ended up costing $40,000 or $50,000 for one burnout item. She stated that, if you watched Half Moon Bay, it was interesting because some of the people who were totally in favor of the burnout ordinance totally switched in the end and decided that it just wasn’t feasible to do and the equity issue because you want someone who is barely making it and living with 20 people in their house trying to make it and you tell them their stove goes out and they can’t buy a gas stove and it will cost them $40,000 or $50,000, what happens there. She stated that there is a huge amount involved in that.

Mayor Bier thought that is why it is important that they have a discussion.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.

Mayor Bier stated that they have all that information out on the table so everyone can understand it.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought that is why he thinks, if there is discussion, because having watched what Half Moon Bay did, knowing what San Mateo just did, he thinks we have an opportunity to see what our version looks like. He wants facts in front of him, see what options are and see if they can put together something that takes us one more step or two steps in that direction but not a marathon to see if they can take themselves further on the journey.

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 30 September 27, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill thought they are all jumping the gun because this is just a discussion of whether they are going to put it on the work plan and they have a councilmember yet to be elected for them to give input. He thought this is something to be talked about in March when they have the goal setting. He asked if they can get back to the topic they are supposed to be talking about.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was the topic as she thinks they are talking about is Item Number 4 and the question is to be answered at this meeting.

Mayor Bier stated that they are basically saying that they are not going to talk about existing construction now.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that his opinion is that it is a huge discussion item with no facts in front of them and needs to be talked about separately.

Mayor Bier agreed. She asked Planning Director Murdock if he has enough to go on now.

Planning Director Murdock stated that is terrific from his perspective and he will confirm that City Manager Woodhouse feels the same. He thanked Council for a very informative and helpful study session for him, and he is sure that Ms. Vega and Mr. Herrschaft feel the same.

Mayor Bier provided her thanks.

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 9:09 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of City Council Special Meeting on 09-27-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84059733437
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 840 5973 3437
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 October 10, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
October 10, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on October 10, 2022 at 6:00 PM 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present, and announced the business to be discussed and that the Council would meet in Closed Session.
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION – Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2)(e)(1): (One Potential Case)
Mayor Bier opened public comments.

City Clerk Coffey introduced the speaker.

Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, expressed his thoughts on what Council would be discussing in closed session, and all the specifics and ramifications to the city.

Mayor Bier closed public comments and recessed to Closed Session. 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting 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

2.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 October 10, 2022
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Kirk Stratton, Interim Police Chief; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief; Maria Aguilar, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Bonny O’Connor, Sr. Planner; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Alyssa Barranti, Management 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. She 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
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there was no reportable action, but she has received a lot of public questions or comments about not disclosing the particular fact and circumstances that would allow the closed session they held earlier. She stated that the Brown Act provides for several exceptions to holding open and public meetings, detailing what the facts and circumstances are regarding the subject matter. She stated that one of the exceptions is found in Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)(e)(1), which is noted on the agenda. That section specifically provides that no disclosure of facts or circumstances surrounding the need for the closed session need be disclosed when the subject could result in litigation against the local agency but which the local agency believes are not yet known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs.

This is the circumstance they had and there are no legal requirements that they disclose particular facts and circumstances. To do so would be a violation of the Brown Act.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Special Presentation - California Department of Insurance Mayor Bier introduced Mary Beth Bykowsky with the California Department of Insurance who will be making a presentation.

Ms. Bykowsky thanked her for the opportunity to be present. She is a panelist in the community relations and outreach branch of the Department of Insurance (aka CDI) and she is happy to update them on what they have been doing for their constituents. She referred to California’s wildfires which have been a call to action. They have prioritized meetings with victims of wildfires as it is no longer a Northern California issue but a statewide issue. She stated that they have met with more than 25,000 people to help fix the events and hear all their concerns regarding availability and affordability of homeowners insurance and look for solutions. She reported on how they have worked with the state to help survivors, as well as updating regulations for better protection to the public and making their community safer.

2.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 October 10, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill thanked her for coming. He had a call from a Linda Mar resident, whose insurance was being cancelled because he has knob-and-tube wiring, and he was concerned that this is a new industry standard for knob-and-tube as he thought 90% of the houses in Pacifica were knob-and-tube wiring.

Ms. Bykowsky stated that she was not sure about the knob-and-tube, but she will get back to him tomorrow and send it to the City Clerk or one of their specialists.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that sounds good.

Ms. Bykowsky stated that, if he has any questions, he can send to her and she will get an answer back to him.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked her for the explanation as she has provided them good information they didn’t know.

Ms. Bykowsky stated that they are having a town hall with Senator Becker on Wednesday. The City Clerk has the information. There will be a speaker from FEMA and someone from a fire safe council. She stated that Pacifica has the ocean with climate change and water rising as well as the fires. She even feels for the insurers after seeing what happened in Florida. She stated that they are in it together and they all have to do their part to take as many steps as they possibly can.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked her.

B. Proclamation - Fire Prevention Week
Mayor Bier then stated that they have a proclamation for Fire Prevention Week, and they have Dep. Fire Chief Sean Kavanaugh from North County Fire Authority. She appreciated having him present. She then read the proclamation.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh thanked them for having him, adding that it was important to note that this year marks 100 years of Fire Prevention Week. It is the longest public health observance in the country which started after a Chicago fire in 1871, and he thought it was important to note that anniversary. He stated that the theme is all about fire won’t wait and to plan your escape. He stated a couple of focuses this year is to talk with family about the escape plans and meeting place outside the home. He stated the main focus is always about smoke alarms. He stated that they should check the smoke alarms once a month to be sure they are working properly and the batteries are good, and to change the batteries at least once a year and check the smoke alarms every month to make sure they are working properly. He stated that they can always go to North County Fire Authority for safety tips and they have them on their website. They appreciated and thanked them for the proclamation.

Mayor Bier thanked him for being present.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked him for being here. He has made a great deal of effort to learn as much as he can over the last couple of years. He thought it was a good opportunity to mention Zone Haven and SMC alerts. He was glad to have that tool on his phone and glad he has the magnet on his refrigerator that tells him what his zone is to plug it in. He asked if he can remind them more deeply about what he is alluding to.

2.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 October 10, 2022
Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated that it was a great point. He stated that for the Zone Haven, they can go to the North County Fire site and asked them to sign up for Zone Haven. They have the magnets mentioned by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck which are zoned specifically for Pacifica; they can write their zone on that, put it on the refrigerator, and they get their zone alert, it will pop up on your phone. He stated that it was important so they can use it throughout the communities. They can call or go to their website for more information.

Councilmember O’Neill thanked him for coming and thanked the Fire Department for the great job they do for Pacifica and North County.

Mayor Bier thanked him for coming and she wanted to give a shout out to their firefighters as they have done a wonderful job of creating relationships with us and keeping us updated. She felt that they have a partnership and she didn’t feel that before and she was happy as it makes her feels so good when they show up at events and she feels connected.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked him and appreciated everything that they do.

Councilmember Beckmeyer added that it was enjoyable to be on the Mack 49 vehicle and have a perspective from a different point of view. She thanked him for that availability at the Fog Fest parade. She also thanked him for the public information they are continually providing, such as news to her that she should check the alarms monthly and not just when it starts chirping, etc.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if any councilmember wanted to pull anything off the consent calendar and, seeing none, she opened up public comment.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti stated she did not see any hands raised.

Mayor Bier gave them a little time, and then seeing no one, closed public comment.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

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 Dated 8/16/22 through 8/31/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 8/16/22 through 8/31/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on September 12, 2022 and the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on September 26, 2022.

2.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 October 10, 2022

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

PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.

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

PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.

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

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

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

7. Resolution approving the contract amendment with Regional Government Services for Financial consulting services
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to extend the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Regional Government Services for Financial Services at the estimated additional cost of up to $80,000 to cover services through the end of the current fiscal year.

8. Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Approving Execution of Settlement Agreement among the City of Pacifica, Sierra Mountain Construction, Inc. (“SMCI”) Walter C. Smith Company, Inc. (“W.C. Smith”), Blocka Construction, Inc. (“Blocka”), Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”), Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”), and First Specialty Insurance Corporation (“First Specialty”) arising out of the Wet Weather Equalization Basin Project (“Project”), CIP # C030.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the resolution approving execution of Settlement Agreement among the City, SMCI, W.C. Smith, Blocka, Travelers, Scottsdale, Hartford, and First Specialty arising out of the Project.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she was grateful that we have new district elections. She stated that, in campaigning in a small area, it gives them the opportunity to speak in depth with

2.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 October 10, 2022
potential constituents and understand their issues. She then shared input from various groups in various areas of the city on some issues of concern and possible solutions.

Jeremy Stafford, Pacifica, stated he was a member of the Pacifica Firefighters group. He appreciated the comments on the relations which they feel is mutual and that their voices are being heard. He informed them about their labor group meeting with other labor councils in the county at Linda Mar parking lot on Sunday in support of Measure Y and encouraged anyone interested to join them.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has been very busy, starting with the Council meeting in closed session, followed by the informative Reach Code Study Session to delve more deeply into those issues. She also met with a constituent who is knowledgeable about traffic and transportation issues; the constituent has been a font of knowledge with insightful, useful information and suggestions on partnering with south coastline neighbors. She attended a housing element meeting, which was very positive with a lot of engagement by the attendees; it is not the same as an in-person meeting, but she was glad there will be that opportunity coming up later in the process but she thought it was well-handled. She was at another study on Reach Codes provided by PCE and intended for elected officials in the county; a portion of that was recorded, and thought Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck can tell if it is or will be available on PCE’s website. She attended a Business Improvement District meeting involving members of the Business Improvement District, our hotels and their representatives, city staff as well as staff from the Chamber of Commerce, and the mayor and herself. She thought it was enlightening and useful to have the conversation of where they are moving forward with the goals when the reviewed the BID report; they were having success in collaborating and they are ready to start some challenges and resolve those issues together. She stated that, on the weekend, there were two community-based things for the environment. She had the opportunity on the first Saturday to become involved with the San Pedro Creek cleanup. She loved doing that: She ran into so many people on the trail and going in and cleaning different areas of the creek; she ran into some students and their families from where she works. She stated that the next day Cabrillo School had its green team community workday. They tried to reach out but weren’t able to this time, but they try to address some of the weeds that build up in the bioswales that are in front of Cabrillo School on Crespi Drive. Then, on Tuesday, it was a great opportunity to have a Pride meeting that the mayor led; they are getting ready and launching into planning for Pride 2023, and that is great as it takes a long time to coordinate some things for a community wide celebration. They had a Rotary dinner meeting, and she was pleased to report that Rotarians do what they love to do, which is supporting the community but in a fun and slightly competitive way. The Rotarians divide into two teams and have a competition over a period of weeks on which team is going to obtain most of the items on the list that the Resource Center needs for clients. She stated that they had a candidate briefing for a couple of hours on Wednesday and she was able to leave and catch the last bit of the Beautification Advisory Committee meeting. She stated that there is a community workday being planned at the Community Center to work on the planters that are located in front of the Community Center near the highway and the edge of the parking lot. That date is October 22, 10 am to noon. She stated that, if they have enough volunteers to spread out, they will go up Crespi and hit bioswales a little bit there as well.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he will pass as he had only one meeting for Roundtable and nothing took off.

2.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 October 10, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she had the opposite of Councilmember Beckmeyer, i.e., very few meetings. She stated that she did the Reach Codes and she was not able to attend the housing because there were only two people allowed. She had a meeting with some people on Prop. 1 which is an important topic on the ballot. She attended a fundraiser for Caminar, a non-profit mental health corporation. She learned so much about Caminar and the services they have for people, and it warms her heart how amazing they are. She talked to a lot of people, including constituents, about their concerns, and she worked a lot.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck began, stating his heart is with Ukraine as they struggle for their freedom. He heard an interesting radio program talking about how Taiwan is being emboldened to not necessarily give away their freedom to China as a result of Ukraine and he thought that was interesting. He attended the housing element kickoff meeting with Councilmember Beckmeyer. He jumped around between the various breakout sessions which was fun and listening to the community give input going into the process and giving that initial feedback; it was a very nice way to begin this process that will take a little way. He looks forward to one of the two meetings scheduled later in October. He attended the Reach Code meeting with Councilmember Beckmeyer that PCE put on. He stated that it was a nice review after the robust Council discussion they had a couple of nights prior. They were not telling him new things, but it was nice reinforcement of the discussion they had. He stated that, to answer Councilmember Beckmeyer’s question about where to find that video, he suggested you go to BayAreaReachCodes.org where they will be able to find videos toward the bottom of the page at BayAreaReachCodes.org. He also got a little information from PCE community outreach specialist who lives in Pacifica that, as a result of being members of PCE, they have saved approximately $421,000 annually as a city; they have reduced the greenhouse gas emissions by 98% since 2016; and they taken approximately 48,000 metric tons of C02 out of the atmosphere, which is about 5.4 million gallons of gas. He had a lovely meeting with Carol Groom about a week previously, and he wanted to gain insight about Coastal Commission from an actual coastal commissioner. He was delighted when they were discussing it to discover that the relationship between Pacifica and Coastal Commission isn’t always as contentious as the conversation might lend itself, depending on which item they are discussing. He stated that it was helpful for him to know that they are working with, rather than against, more often than not; that was a nice way for him to break the ice with the Coastal Commission at all so he can look forward to deepening his understanding and whatever relationships he might be able to do so he can more deeply understand the city’s relationship with the Coastal Commission and head in that direction accordingly. He watched the Planning Commission meeting that evening and today is Indigenous Peoples’ Day. He got to reflect on that a little bit as the mayor was reading the land acknowledgement, and he internally expressed some gratitude that they do that every week. He stated that the following day, there is a Boys and Girls Club meeting which he thought was at the clubhouse in person not by Zoom.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he wasn’t aware of it. Then, he remembered it’s a parent meeting, and they are going to try it in person as they only had one person show up in Zoom.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they will see how many show up but he was looking forward to that meeting at the Yosemite Clubhouse.

Mayor Bier referred to all Councilmember Beckmeyer’s meetings and mentioned that Fog Fest actually led into all those meetings, and she was feeling exhausted the week after. She attended the Business Improvement District meeting with Councilmember Beckmeyer. She thought it was good to learn about the importance of the relationship between the hotels, the Chamber and the city, and she looks forward to continuing to learn more about that and help the

2.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 October 10, 2022
collaboration move forward. She had a lot of interaction with Coast Pride, attending their board meeting. They attended the Pacifica Collaborative meeting and presented all their information to them, which was in person at the school district office. She thanked Superintendent Heather Olson for having them. She stated that they had the Pacifica Pride planning meeting and were able to debrief last year, talking about the pros and cons from that and what they can improve, etc., and she thanked City Manager Woodhouse attending to show his support. She watched the Planning Commission meeting later in the week. She attended the Mayor’s Mental Health Initiative meeting where they were talking about what the work will look like in the next year.

She met at the Council Chambers; she thanked Cindy Abbott from the Sanchez Art Center for meeting them and helping them look around the room and figure out how they could display art.

She was glad Cindy Abbott was there because she taught them differently about how to highlight pictures, etc., and Mayor Bier was excited on what that will look like. She thanked PB&R Director Perez and Cindy Abbott for that work. She was looking forward to Arbor Day in November, and she hopes to hear more about that. She helped deliver the gifts for Pacifica Resource Center Palma-Palooza event on Saturday with her 7.5-year-old neighbor who went with her. He knocked on the doors and they talked to people and thanked them for supporting the Resource Center. She thanked the community for their continued support of the Pacifica Resource Center and asked for their continued support as we need each other.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if your house is bare of Halloween decorations, the Pacifica Historical Society has an overabundance of ghouls, goblins, pumpkins and ghosts; it will be part of the regular rummage sale, but they are also having a special exclusively Halloween two-day sale. He suggested they check their website as they might get a good deal on a goblin.

Mayor Bier asked if he had a date.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he will check his email and let her know.

Mayor Bier thanked him, adding that she knows people who would love to do that.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he has great news about a couple of awards the city administrative services department under Asst. City Manager Yulia Carter have received recently. For the first time to his knowledge, in recent decade history, for their annual comprehensive financial report for the year ending June 30, 2021, the city has received the highest award from the Government’s Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. He stated that it is a difficult award to get, and the significance of that is that the ACFR's are really a transparency statement about the city’s finances and that award is a great achievement. He stated hats off to the finance team and Ms. Carter for that. He stated that the next item from the administrative services department is an Information Technology award that they received and they received the news on both of these the previous week. He stated that IST Manager Tommy Yu and staff were down at the Municipal Information Systems Association of California, called MISAC, conference and found out that the city received the Quality IT Practices award for the first time for Pacifica. He stated that there are future tiers of awards to receive on the IT front and they will be striving for those as well, and he thanked the IT staff, Finance staff and the whole Administrative Services Department and Department Director and Asst. City Manager Carter. He referred to another item mentioned by Councilmember Beckmeyer: On Wednesday night, prior to Council elections, they conducted a city candidate orientation presentation for all the candidates. They had the entire executive team there to take two hours and talk about the

2.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 October 10, 2022
city organization and answer questions from all of the candidates. He reminded them that, while they are on Zoom at this meeting, their goal is to return to in person at the next City Council meeting on October 24. He stated that there are some final technology improvements and other cosmetic improvements being made to the Council Chambers. He is optimistic that they will be back in person on the 24th, adding that he didn’t want to definitively promise it because you don’t know what might happen, but they will keep everyone posted diligently about that status. They are shooting to be back in person and implementing their telephone for public comment hybrid model.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that on Friday the 14th and Saturday the 15th from 10-4 pm they can go by the Little Brown Church Historical Museum and get the Halloween stuff. He also forgot to congratulate PCT Channel 26 between the efforts of Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, and now the County of San Mateo who has helped them out; they are in escrow to purchase their site in the Crespi Business Center. He stated that they will be a truly community-owned TV station, and he thanked them for doing that as it has been a hurdle.

Mayor Bier thought it was amazing.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.

CONSIDERATION

9. Resolution Approving a Second Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with Recology of the Coast to extend the Term an additional ten years, with an option to extend an additional five years, approve the rate schedule set by Recology for single family residential and commercial rates for 2023, revise City fees to comply with applicable law, and other various amendments; and Finding approval of the Second Amendment exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act; and Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution:
1) Approving a Second Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with Recology of the Coast to extend the Term an additional ten years, with an option to extend an additional five years, approve the rate schedule set by Recology for single family residential and commercial rates for 2023, revise City fees to comply with applicable law, and other various amendments; and 2) Finding approval of the Second Amendment exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act; and
3) Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment.

PW Director Petersen stated that they have Rick Simonton from HF&H Consultants and Special Legal Counsel Megan Burke from the City Attorney’s office who will be available to answer questions. She then presented the staff report.

Councilmember O’Neill thought the bulky items pickup was three times under the existing contract.

PW Director Petersen stated that she thought they have been doing that for residents but the actual agreement currently says two times.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that this was clarifying actual practice.

2.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 October 10, 2022
PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.

PW Director Petersen completed the staff report. She stated that they were ready to answer questions, adding that Gen. Manager Chris Porter and Controller Rich Lanser from Recology of the Coast were also present should Council wish to ask them questions.

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

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, mentioned rates having risen recently and asked if the city had put out an RFP and had different waste management companies throughout the Bay Area bid on it; he expressed his concerns on their schedule.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she had a question regarding their location and erosion and possible plans for them to move to another location.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had some questions on behalf of the community. He referred to bluff erosion and long-term strategies that might currently be in place to find a better place, and he asked if there was anyone available to speak on that, adding that he understood that it was outside the purview of their discussion.

Mayor Bier asked if they can bring Chris Porter up as she was sure they will include her in the conversations.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he will start and PW Director Petersen can chime in and he thought it might be a question for Recology as he didn’t think the city has control over the lease they have for that private property.

PW Director Petersen agreed with him and thought Ms. Porter might have more information.

She asked if she had anything to add.

General Manager Porter stated that they don’t own the property where the recycling yard is and they have not lost any area off that yard in the last four years. They have recently rented the additional lot next door and the trucks are parked in the lot next door which is at 910 Palmetto and the recycling yard operation with the drop off of recycling materials is at 1046 Palmetto.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, generally speaking, circadian rhythms are established after two weeks of a regular sleep pattern, but there was a question about why they are offering early hours rather than the middle of the day.

PW Director Petersen stated that they discussed that a little bit in the presentation, stating that it is more cost-effective for Recology for their rates to operate at that time, and Ms. Porter has also mentioned the issue related to safety issues with her operators and problems they have had in the past related to operating when there is traffic. She wasn’t sure if there was a particular time in the middle of the day that Recology could find that they wouldn’t have traffic but she would refer that to Ms. Porter.

2.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 October 10, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse added that, regarding greenhouse gas emissions for idling trucks, and when they are caught in traffic, there is that impact as well and the early hours and less traffic is more efficient. He also had a conversation with Police Chief Stratton about safety issues and a notable point is that the early morning hours are timed where Recology drivers in the early morning hours are eyes on the street in the community at a time when there could be other criminal activity happening. He stated that there was nothing specific about that, but anecdotally Chief Statton, in his previous city’s experience, has had numerous times, as well as Pacifica, where they have a good working direct connection with Recology and our PD and they call in issues when they see them.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there are many occasions when he goes to work at 5:00 in the morning and come home at 2:00 in the afternoon, with the difference is that at 5:00 in the morning, there is almost no cars on the street whereas, at 2:00 in the afternoon there are and that point is well-taken. He referred to the last question from the community as to why they aren’t putting this out for an RFP.

Mayor Bier asked if Ms. Porter wanted to respond to the time of day.

City Manager Woodhouse referred to the different purchasing processes is that this is an agreement amendment and not a new franchise agreement and it would be atypical to put an agreement amendment out to bid.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if the mayor was waiting for a response from Ms. Porter.

Mayor Bier stated only if they feel necessary.

Ms. Porter stated that she thanked City Manager Woodhouse for stating that he has discussed with the Police Chief because it was the Recology driver that caught the person breaking into the Chase ATM about a year ago, and they have caught numerous catalytic converter thefts.

They have also caught break-ins so she thinks her employees need to be deputized as they are very alert. She stated that 80% of the staff live in Pacifica and they are members of the community.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the point is well-taken that this is an amendment to the current agreement and not a new agreement and Recology has been an amazing community partner over the course of their time with the city. He thought, in 2016, they reduced rates when they had the opportunity to and becoming crime fighters now is a sign of the time that we all have to watch out for each other in such a way that our people do watch out for our community in this way on top of everything else and looking for opportunities to reduce rates when able to, and the service is good. He thought it might be more costly to put out requests for proposals to look at different combinations of service and give Recology the opportunity to ask why they keep rates as low as they do. He has read this report and had experience with Recology over decades and they look good to him.

Councilmember Beckmeyer echoed some of what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was saying on that point. She stated that one thing she is very sensitive to is the changes that we make as a body that end up impacting Recology’s cost structures and how that factors into the cost of doing business. She stated that, while they are cognizant of and concerned about our pavement condition index and make a global decision around heavy trucks using our roads, pavement cuts for such things as sewer laterals, and this is the proof where it comes in and that is one of

2.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 October 10, 2022
the impacts they saw in the slides that factors into the franchise fee that is charged and the city approved it for a reason, as we need our roads to be brought up. She stated that her point is that you can’t have it both ways. She stated that the community needs to understand that. It is hard because it is a complicated thing, with all the factors going into the rate cost over time.

She stated that the other area which she believes is a huge impact is that Recology has been a strong partner for us and will continue to be because they are experts. With the implementation of Senate Bill 1383 and related state laws that have gone into effect prior to that and since then, those are huge lifts for the city and having a partnership and the expertise of someone like Chris Porter and Recology that has been in this business for decades and understands our community and the amount of organic waste material we actually generate, to have the notion of some other firm coming in and assess it, they could do it or we can rely on 20 or 40 years of personal expertise, which is immense and to have that brain trust involved in helping us as we come up with strategies to address the state laws and requirements of organic waste and removing it from the waste stream is acute and she can’t speak highly enough for Ms. Porter and all of her staff as they truly feel like partners and part of the city and she is so grateful and she is very comfortable with the rate increase structure as put forward.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that probably not a lot of the public has read the staff report. He stated that, what is good about Recology is that, when asked, they have stepped up to the plate and they are collecting the waste cans at the beach for the city seven days a week and it is a lot cheaper than it is for us to have city staff members doing that. He is proud of the fact that 80% of their workforce lives in Pacifica, a union company providing a living wage and benefits to their employees versus other companies that just hire someone who doesn’t have a class B license to drive a commercial truck. He thinks that is also important. He stated that, to time shift it from early morning to afternoon, they have to remember that, once you pick up that garbage, it has to go somewhere and the other side of the plate is that they will be sitting behind garbage trucks going to Ox Mountain when you come home at the commute hour as they can’t store the stuff in their place overnight. He stated that Ms. Porter can correct him if he is wrong, but he thought it was important to realize about the time.

Ms. Porter stated that he is right, as they would be stuck in the traffic going on Devil’s Slide and then going up 92 to Ox Mountain. Most of those roads are one lane roads and the traffic is getting to be horrendous. Since the tunnel opened, that traffic has increased drastically and going in the afternoon would be a huge addition to time, overtime, fuel, etc.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that Recology is a community partner as everyone has mentioned, and when they do the beach cleanups, they are there so the debris that people clean up from the beach goes to them and they are a huge participant in keeping this town clean. She stated that she called once when someone had dumped some mattresses, and the person was there to pick them up before she even got off the phone. She stated that they are always responsive and a great company to work with. She thinks they need to go forward.

Mayor Bier echoed all of that. She stated that the partnership we have with Recology is so important for our community in so many different ways. She referred to rate increases and stated Recology put a cap on the rate increases. She stated that they are paying for the recycling to keep it out of the landfill and there are all these extra things going on, and she doesn’t think our community understands. She stated that, if there are complaints at the beach, she calls and Ms. Porter answers her right away and her employees are out there emptying the cans. She stated she was able to send a picture of the empty cans to the person that complained to her, and they were emptied immediately on a Saturday or a Sunday, which is how they respond to our community and it is so important. She asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck

2.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 October 10, 2022
to talk and she would continue.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was just going to make a motion when she was done.

Mayor Bier stated that there were two more things she wanted to say. She understands that there are issues on Esplanade, and they all understand that, and they are going to work together to help the people on Esplanade by providing them resources so they know where they can take their trash and they are going to help them. She stated that they all know there is an issue out there. She then stated that she has not received any complaints about abandoned waste since Recology started emptying the city’s cans every day. She thanked Recology for that. She stated that she has heard about full trash cans at the beach, but she stated that they are on it right away and she appreciated that Recology also offers garbage drop-off where our permitted parking holders can empty their gray waste as there is also a garbage drop-off there.

She thanked them for always going the extra mile.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there is a time for every purpose under heaven which is a rendition of Ecclesiastes because there is nothing new under the sun.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to adopt a resolution approving a Second Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with Recology of the Coast to extend the Term an additional ten years, with an option to extend an additional five years, approve the rate schedule set by Recology for single family residential and commercial rates for 2023, revise City fees to comply with applicable law and other various amendments; and finding approval of the Second Amendment exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

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

10. Short-term Rental Program Update and Discussion of Options for Future Amendments to Existing Regulations
PROPOSED ACTION: Discuss the City’s existing Short-term Rental (STR) Program and information about residential property sales resulting in subsequent STR use and provide direction on whether amendments to the STR Program regulations are warranted at this time.

City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to his definition of residential and asked if it is single family homes or multi-family units.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that PW Director Carter might know from HDL on the data point and, if so, asked her to chime in for that question. He stated that these are talking about residential units that are sold and it would be a change in ownership.

Councilmember O’Neill understood but asked if a residential unit was a single-family home or a

2.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 October 10, 2022
four-unit complex that they converted and that would be one residential sale but four units that converted to STR. He stated that it would not account for any ADUs that might have been built for this purpose. He knows they don’t allow it but he was sure it happens.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the report for the latter question that they gave in June talked about some ADUs that they were aware of that are being short-term rented and they are working on bringing those into compliance because that is not allowed as part of the ADU program. He stated, in terms of the multi-family or four-unit type of apartment complex being sold and converted, he did not have that data point in front of him as to whether that was included in this, but he thought it was not. He stated that they can find out that information. He doesn’t know if that has actually occurred, i.e., a sale of an entire 4-unit apartment complex and conversion.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has been anecdotally told of at least a couple of buildings:

One was a six-unit apartment building that was not sold but was converted entirely to Airbnb.

City Manager Woodhouse was aware of that situation, but this is about properties being sold and converted which was the driver for this inquiry.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated, while they are on the present slide, he wondered if they analyzed any data by region and if they knew if, in any given district or the Coastal Commission jurisdiction or particular neighborhoods, there is a concentration of properties being bought and turned into SDRs and compared to other areas in town.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he didn’t have that data by district. He stated that they are all excellent questions and speaks to the point he wants to make sure Council is aware that this is the initial conversation about this issue to see if there is interest from Council in directing them to do anything further at this time. The geographical analysis of conversions could occur in the future.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was the point she wanted to make as well. She asked for this and isn’t the only Councilmember who had an interest in it; she is hearing from a lot of constituents on this matter, and she wanted to say that these specific kind of questions are the actual further study that is needed. While she didn’t expect staff to have answers, they may have some insight, as mentioned by City Manager Woodhouse, that HDL may have provided at this point, and what would be really helpful as they are thinking of these questions is to speak to them and then they can be noted and they are hearing what each other’s concerns are in this regard. They will certainly hear from the public shortly, but it would inform their later decision on this issue about whether they pursue it, move forward, etc. She wanted to echo what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was saying regarding regional. She was thinking regional as in bigger than Pacifica but also neighborhoods within Pacifica. So she thinks of two things. If they look at the heat map, they see the dots, and in areas by the beach, they see a lot of dots. There is the in Pacifica neighborhood analysis and the issue of what the situation is in other communities in San Mateo County. We often compare ourselves with them and how are they looking, what are we doing, what goes on there, and the other cut is what is happening with other coastal communities. She thought there may be some opportunity to learn something about that from the coastal cities group, to ask the question, and they have the facility to push out surveys statewide to other coastal communities. She knows anecdotally, we are not the only ones experiencing these increasing introspection between residents and visitors occupying short-term rentals. She wanted to put that coastal city comparison out there. She noted what Councilmember O’Neill is saying about the number of units versus the number of sales and she

2.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 October 10, 2022
thought that was an important issue as well. She knows that the City Manager has a lot more to tell them. She thanked him for the present slide as she thought it was enlightening and the very bottom, 2022, completely reflects what we are hearing from our community.

City Manager Woodhouse completed the staff report.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was recommending that the cap on new permits would be the low hanging fruit in terms of doing something immediately. He asked, if they were to sign off on that at this time, how soon would they be able to implement that.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, with any amendments, the difficulty is the Coastal Commission approval of the ordinance and he doesn’t have an answer to that timeline. He stated that the actual work for option 1 is a fairly easy ordinance amendment for the city to consider, for Planning Commission and Council to consider and according to the City Attorney and their involvement, once the direction is given, they can prepare something within a few weeks. Right now the Planning Department staffing is very impacted with three vacancies and working on some significant undertakings so preparing the ordinance and bringing it to Planning Commission and Council is an impact to their current workload.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he will have comments during deliberation about the need to work closely with Coastal Commission but they will be able to implement it within a few weeks everywhere that is not in the coastal zone. The Coastal Commission piece would be the other component and they don’t know how long that will take. He asked if that is what he heard him say.

City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively, adding that City Attorney Kenyon might wish to chime in on this. He stated that, if you are implementing a cap program that addresses the whole program, he didn’t know if they thought through how they would divide the cap allocations between non-coastal zone and coastal zone. He thought it could get complex quickly to implement it in half the city and not in the other half because it allows half of the city to take up the cap allocations.

City Attorney Kenyon stated she was not anticipating that this fix would, in any way, be applicable in non-coastal zone areas but not in coastal zone areas. She thought they would have to make sure that the Coastal Commission either felt this was not a significant enough change that required more input from the Coastal Commission or they would have to go to the Coastal Commission to make sure that, if they need a cap, that they will be open to it.

Councilmember O’Neill stated, for the public’s reference, he would like them to know that the Coastal Commission does not want to limit the number of short-term rentals in a coastal zone.

They look at any limit as infringing upon the rights of people to visit the beach. He stated, in one case which he thought was in Santa Barbara, they actually banned short-term rentals in the entire city but the Coastal Commission forced them to have short-term rentals in the coastal zone. He stated that, basically, any ordinance they are discussing, the Coastal Commission may throw it out for the coastal zone.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if anyone has looked into the unintended consequences of putting a limit on the short-term rentals because she is aware that, in South Lake Tahoe, they limited the amount of short-term rentals to what was already existing and, it might be good for some people, but the prices dropped tremendously: More than 30% drop in price for purchases and people who already own their houses were affected also, even if they weren’t doing short2.b Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 October 10, 2022
term rentals because of that limitation that they put on the short-term rentals. She wondered if anyone had looked into that yet. She stated that there are other things she will talk about during deliberation.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that staff has not done that sort of analysis or inquiry with other cities that have implemented caps about unintended consequences and such.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated he was concerned about this ordinance being brought up at this time, as staff’s time should be completely focused on the housing element update as, if the city misses the January 31 deadline, there are some serious consequences, and expressed his concerns about priorities.

Jen Hansen, Pacifica, referred to collecting data off Airbnb and shared her data, thoughts and concerns on this issue.

Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, stated that she lives in West Sharp Park, and there are as many properties operating as unhosted STRs as there are properties occupied by residents, and she shared her serious concerns on this issue.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that she submitted written public comment regarding appreciation for this being on the agenda, and shared her concerns and suggested options on addressing this serious issue.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she appreciated having this put back on the agenda, and shared her concerns on consequence to the city and suggested options on addressing this serious issue.

Erin Macias, Pacifica, shared her concerns on consequences to the city and suggested options to address this serious issue, and requested a temporary moratorium.

Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, acknowledged that this is a problem and shared his concerns on this issue impacting housing for residents and appreciated the last two speakers and agreed on the need for a moratorium on this issue.

Julie Hong, Pacifica, appreciated having this on the agenda, and shared her thoughts and concerns on this serious issue impacting possible residents and supported a moratorium.

Cassandra Jones, Pacifica, stated that she has an Airbnb in Pacifica, and shared her thoughts on positive impacts for her on this issue.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to clarify an inadvertent mistake in his PowerPoint presentation. He stated that option 3 on the slide it repeated the wording of option 2 and he wanted to clarify for Council and the public that option 3 talks about limiting the number of STR permits that can be issued to each person. He stated that it is a more complex option but it gets to the point that a single owner of multiple STRs.

Mayor Bier noticed that and appreciated his clarification.

2.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 October 10, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it was helpful to hear that last commenter’s perspective as a host and is an onsite host. He stated that it makes the third option look more attractive to him.

He stated that he has a question that may be for City Attorney Kenyon regarding an emergency moratorium. He appreciated that they would need to make findings and, if they were to do that, they probably wouldn’t have the findings on hand. He asked what kind of findings would be required or the time to make those findings if they were to do an emergency moratorium, rather than a cap.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they did discuss as one of the options to perhaps recommend a moratorium. She stated that there were a couple of reasons they didn’t include that but, if that is the direction from Council, they will do it. She stated that, for this type of moratorium, it has an initial duration of 45 days; to adopt that ordinance in the first instance, they would make a finding that there is an immediate threat to public health safety or welfare. She stated that the data collected so far may not suggest that, but there is anecdotal evidence that they have heard from the speakers that they could arguably make that finding. She stated that the concern is that, after 45 days, they have to make another finding which is the threat still exists and there is nothing they can do to mitigate it. She stated that is why they put the option of the cap in because it has the effect of essentially doing the same thing as a moratorium. That cap would limit future residential properties from becoming STRs as there would be a cap on the permit.

She stated that they can discuss what that cap should be but they must understand that the manager and staff have told them is that the ability to create this wholesale revamp of our STR ordinance in light of the concerns raised, it will take longer than 45 days and it is going to most likely be months. Because of the statements made earlier regarding the housing element, that does need to be taken. It is not a January 1 deadline, but there is a deadline they will have to meet and it has to take priority. Her concern is whether they will be able to maintain the moratorium and it may be that, at the end of 45 days, they may have to go back and adopt a cap and the question for Council is do they want to have immediate impact: The immediate impact of a cap which practically serves the same purpose as a moratorium would be easier to accomplish and faster than a moratorium which would require a more detailed process; and after they adopt the initial ordinance, they will have to come back after 45 days to adopt another one, and they will have another extension, assuming they can make those findings, which she has a concern about because they are going to have to make a finding after 45 days that there is no way to mitigate it and that is the concern. She thinks they can mitigate it by imposing a cap.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked her for the answer, and he thanked Councilmember Beckmeyer for bringing this up. He likes the cap idea. More than the cap idea, he thinks it is going to take substantial time to develop those other ideas and why they need to discuss it at goal setting. He stated that they talked about the Coastal Commission on the other side, and he asked staff to respond to his comments when he is done. He stated that when they were at CalCities in Long Beach, he stated that they did a series of updates for lawyers and he attended an interesting last year and this year regarding housing development and one of the cases stuck out to him, i.e., Keene versus Manhattan Beach. He stated that the conclusion of that was because Manhattan Beach hadn’t vested their STR program with the Coastal Commission ahead of time and they took years to find out that they really should have. He then referred to the discussion earlier on this item; he thought it was important to our success that they make sure they reach out to the Coastal Commission sooner rather than later. If they are going to be successful even with a cap, they need to make sure that is their next phone call after they say yes to going forward with the cap as he doesn’t want that to undermine them.

2.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 October 10, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated he is supportive of a cap but he would like to hear from City Attorney Kenyon if they can at least pass an ordinance that, if you buy a house or a building of multi-units, it is a year before you can make it a short-term rental. He stated that, when he was at the League of Cities, he went to one for Truckee. It had been operating about a year or so, and they had a plan where, if you buy something, it is certain amount of time before you make it an STR and then that just gets you on the list because they put an 8.5% cap on all their housing stock being STRs. He stated that you could conceivably be a couple of years after buying a house and not being able to make it an STR. He asked if they could pass an ordinance in an expeditious manner to get that done, and at least stop the purchasing of houses and units.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that she didn’t believe that would be as expeditious as just imposing a cap because that issue of prohibiting STRs for even a year would create a bit more concern with the Coastal Commission. She wasn’t certain, but that would be her concern, as that might be something that could create more discussions with the Coastal Commission which could delay it. She didn’t know of Sr. Planner O’Connor has anything to add with regard to a cap in the Coastal Commission. She saw her turn on her video and, if she has any input, she stated now would be the time to provide that with regard to anything she may know about the Coastal Commission’s position on a cap.

Sr. Planner O’Connor just wanted to add that there are examples that they can point to where the Coastal Commission has been supportive of a cap in certain instances. She thought Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s idea of a consultation with the Coastal Commission and coordination with them, understanding where the balance is, will be an important step in moving forward.

Regarding Councilmember O’Neill’s idea of the waiting period, she stated that was mentioned in their staff report, and as detailed, the effects of the immediate transition to STR versus a yearlong transition doesn’t seem like it would address the overall concern by itself which is why it wasn’t a focus of one of the options that staff wanted to present at this time.

Councilmember O’Neill thought it would create a disincentive for someone to buy a house for that because, if you can flip it in a month, so you are getting $500 a night a month after close of escrow so he thought it created a disincentive for newer ones. He also feels strongly that, if an entire apartment building is converted to STRs, it is then a hotel and needs to go through the planning process of either changing to commercial or installing sprinklers, etc.

City Attorney Kenyon stated, for clarification, she thought the cap will address the issue that he just stated, i.e., you don’t want properties to be...

Councilmember O’Neill thought they needed to say units, not properties.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they don’t want units to be turned into STRs and not used for housing - a cap does that. She stated that is why staff’s recommended option is just to include a cap because it addresses all of these issues because nobody will be able to secure another permit if they have a cap and the cap has been met. She stated that she didn’t know what the number should be on the cap but she thought that, at this time, the most expeditious way to get something to address all of the concerns they heard at this meeting is not going through a moratorium, but imposing a cap. She stated that they can do that in the quickest fashion possible. She thinks it will create less concern by the Coastal Commission as Ms. O’Connor stated, as they have generally allowed cities to impose caps. She has some concerns with creating more questions.

Councilmember O’Neill thought they also need to address, if they do a cap, the difference

2.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 October 10, 2022
between hosted and not hosted.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she mentioned a friend who was going to lose his house and it was suggested to him that he do Airbnb. He lived in his house when people weren’t renting, and he is a part of the community but he rented the whole house out. It saved his house for him and there are such circumstances. She stated that there are a lot of rules in a lot of cities and the number of people in the unit is a big deal, as well as the number of cars that they can have in the units. She stated that she stayed in a lot of Airbnbs and she owned an Airbnb; the purpose for her owning it was because it was in Arizona where her daughter and granddaughter lived and she could go there and stay there for vacations for Christmas and birthdays and have a house yet rent it out as Airbnb when she wasn’t there. She stated that it was the way that she could afford to have that house and visit them often instead of staying in hotels. She looked at all of the sales of those 16 houses, and they were all purchased by different individuals and there was never a duplicate and, when saying that they would limit it to one purchase of a house per person, they couldn’t do that as it is illegal for them to decide who we sell the house to. She stated that they can’t discriminate against a corporation but every one of those was purchased by an individual. When they say they are writing an offer on a property, they say they are going to live there with their family and we can’t discrimination against that either, whether they live there or don’t live there, as it is illegal. She stated that a lot of times people say they are going to live there and in the county records it will say owner-occupied and they turned it around and made it into an Airbnb. She stated that it cannot be controlled by the real estate, and if you limit them, are the people going to go underground and not pay fees and they will try to do everything they can to get around paying fees because now there is a cap whereas in the past, they might have paid the fees but now they limit them and they can’t do it.

She understands the problem, as there are definitely problems with these houses and she gets it. She understands being a neighbor to an Airbnb and the difference in renting out rooms or renting out whole houses. She doesn’t live in Arizona so she rents out her whole house. She has more to say but she won’t now.

Mayor Bier thanked the callers who provided them with all this data. She wants to see the data and talk with them. She thought, in order to create an ordinance that we need, we will need the time to study it properly, by neighborhood, hosted versus unhosted, and there are so many pieces of the ordinance that they will need to look at, but she feels very strongly that they can’t allow this to go on while they’re taking the time to do all of that. They know that, technically, they aren’t going to be able to look at this ordinance until next year. They will have to talk about it, introduce it at goal setting to see if that flies, and there is going to have to be steps we take before we are going to be able to look at it again. Until then, she thought they need to have a moratorium, which she understands might not be the best route, or cap it as tightly as they possibly can so there is enough time for staff to move through the housing element and put some money and time towards it for the next work plan. She feels strongly about this and she referred to Erin’s comments on the RHNA numbers and asked what it is doing to our numbers.

She stated that there was a lot to think about and they needed time to do that and allow staff time to do it as thoroughly as they possibly can with all the things they want to talk about.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she has so much she wants to say, but she feels that she cannot collect her thoughts in a coherent way. She agreed with what Mayor Bier just said and she wants to see the data as well and speak with people. She stated that, with some of the speakers they heard from at this meeting, she wasn’t aware of the situations that they’re living with and others that she didn’t hear from at this meeting, she already heard from already and they live in some of the same neighborhoods. She stated that it multiplies the number of people who are being impacted by this. She stated that a number of individuals who reached out

2.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 October 10, 2022
weren’t present at this meeting, but it doesn’t minimize their stories, just that they didn’t have it in public at this time. She was most interested in stopping the harm. She stated that they didn’t pass a short-term rental ordinance to create harm for our community. They need to analyze all of the aspects as the Mayor said, and there is an aspect they heard from our last speaker that it is more nuanced and will be harder to address. She thinks the idea of an unhosted house that was intentionally remodeled with the idea of making it an STR because it is a great party house is pretty straightforward, but the instances that are more nuanced like a long-term resident family who needs to have this option to be able to hold onto their home, as Councilmember Vaterlaus brought up - those are also ideas that need to be factored in and that can also create harm to our community if we are too swift or too extensive in what they immediately stop or how they immediately stop it as it can have unintended consequences. She stated that, in this instance, she will trust our legal counsel in terms of how she is advising them. She liked the word moratorium - it sounds strong and clear in sending a message - but if the impact isn’t getting us what we want, then she is willing to do something that is called something else such as a cap. She needs to understand from staff more about how that would work and what kind of a cap that they suggest and those details. She stated that she didn’t expect them to have those at this time, but if so, she would love to hear it. She stated that she will need some guidance from staff to help her to formulate a motion and support a motion of others formulated and that is important to her, but she definitely wanted to say that she brought this up and other councilmembers have interest in this. She wants to take action on this, and she wants to stop harm to our community. She asked how they do that which is where she is at on this issue at this time. She welcomed any thoughts from anyone on the matter.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked her again for bringing it to them. He stated that it was extraordinary to him the way our community has networked around this issue and he has heard so many comments that they would like a collaborative approach between their work and the city. He thought that was the value of making sure they are discussing this at goal setting as he thought that wasn’t necessarily an easy thing to accomplish at this meeting, but they can figure out what they can do. He stated that, to see the networking they are already doing, the data they are already collecting, that they already have information to present to Council. He stated that, before he came to this meeting, he had a nice discussion with City Manager as he wants to do on any given issue, but he read all the emails and that formed so much of his perspective in terms of how he was listening and what he was looking for as he was going forward. Even as they stop short of formalizing it this evening, it was impressive to see the work the community is already doing and it was having an effect on how he is looking at it. He asked the community to keep reaching out and that is a testament to Councilmember Beckmeyer who saw this, tapped into it, and brought it to them at this meeting. He feels like they are heading in the cap direction so they can place the growth of STRs on hold; they can make it to March to discuss more robustly the staff time it will take to put together a robust program that is going to fit our community. He stated that his only question comes from something Councilmember O’Neill said which is, if they place a cap at this time, he imagined it would take a lot of work to figure out how to cap unhosted, rather than hosted. He wants to confirm that before they move forward if it would be a substantial work or something they can differentiate as of this meeting - if they are caping unhosted STRs, rather than hosted ones.

City Manager Woodhouse thought that discerning a divided cap like that would be more work.

He will turn to Asst. City Manager Carter as she has some data. Most of Pacifica’s STRs are unhosted. He knows from Malibu’s experience that the Coastal Commission has concern about limiting STRs to just hosted - that wasn’t what they are talking about exactly. Given complexity, conversation, and what the Coastal Commission says and how would they discern licenses between hosted and unhosted, he didn’t know if HDL tracks that information.

2.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 October 10, 2022
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, when they prepared the staff report, they looked at the data. At that time, last week, there were no hosted leases. There was not a single unit offered as a hosted unit last week. She asked HDL to do some research and see how recent history was and they told her it was about 1% of listings. As far as how they differentiate, some cities actually do exactly what Mayor pro Tem said: They cap the unhosted only, and unlimited hosted permits are allowed. They are very prepared to assist and know how to track it and the system already allows to track it. As far as accounting, it shouldn’t be the problem.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he heard her say that it is easier than he thought it was when he first asked the question, and he would favor caping unhosted and keeping hosted uncapped.

He was looking forward to reaching out to the Coastal Commission sooner than later to make sure they are partnering so they can get the job done.

Mayor Bier thought they need time to work on that piece; they need to cap everything to give them time to see what that will look like before they make a decision about unhosted versus hosted. That is how she sees it, and they just need to cap it.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, if it helps and Council wants to move into a conversation about what that cap direction should be, i.e., just the number of caps on STR licenses, regardless of hosted or unhosted, in the staff report, the suggestion was thrown out as a starting point but that could be 175 units. If they look at the city’s history, and add up the current registered and compliant ones, the ones after HDL worked with them, closed or ceased their operation and the ones they continued to work with to bring into compliance, that is about 175.

He stated that, alternatively, the bottom end would be a cap at about 125 which is the combination of the 101 that are registered and compliant STRs plus the 24 that are unregistered currently that HDL is working to bring into compliance. He stated, as reference, the city is working through HDL on trying to get operating STRs into compliance and, if the cap were lower than that amount, the city would be going back to them and saying they are out of luck and can’t do it. That is why he would suggest that administrative component to it that a floor would be 125 and you could look at up to 175. Coastal Commission staff would probably have something to say about where the cap falls based on the history of the number, etc. If tonight, 1) direction from Council about whether they are going to work towards implementing caps and 2) what that cap number should be… would be helpful.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he would be fine with the 175 and that includes everyone already there in all the other two categories and that is the existing people and they’re done.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he heard that 125 is what is currently existing and 175 was basically before they take out those 47 properties that were not in compliance and they had to go away.

Mayor Bier asked if that was correct.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the number that went away is not that they weren’t in compliance but that they weren’t doing it anymore or they weren’t doing it at that time. He reiterated the point that STR listings are very seasonal and they fluctuate a lot, and some of that category might be thinking that they want to get a license and run theirs next spring and summer, but he can’t tell them how many would want to do that.

Councilmember O’Neill added during the holidays.

2.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 October 10, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse agreed that during the holidays as well, and it is a point in time data point.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, when they issue a license, how long is the license good, such as a year, six months.

City Manager Woodhouse thought it was a year and he asked Asst. City Manager Carter if that was correct.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, as part of the permit, they have to apply for the business license and the STR permit. The business license is an annual thing; every year they will have to renew. She referred to the City Manager’s point, the 175 is the snapshot in time and that data was based on one of peak season STRs a few months ago and that is why he used it as a guiding point, but they change every day. In the springtime, they may be back to 175, but now it is a lower number so that is why they gave them the range.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if someone who wants to do this needs to get two licenses, one is a business license and the other is an STR license.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it is if they are a permit but it starts with a business license and then they change.

Councilmember O’Neill asked how long a permit is good for, such as a year or six months.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it is at least a year. She can double check with HDL with all their internal process and how it works, but her guess is that it is an annual process. When the October renewal for business license comes around, and if she is still doing the STRs they have to apply and do the same process again.

Councilmember O’Neill was concerned about the dichotomy of someone having a business license and then being denied a short-term permit. He stated, if they limit it to the 125, someone might have a permit that wasn’t active anymore but if they were issuing them at the same time and length, they would be good and choose to go offline for Christmas, etc.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the permit is tied to the business license and STR is the business.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to briefly mention a couple of other points that were brought up. He referred to a question about RHNA, and he thought Sr. Planner O’Connor could clarify it, but they were talking about existing homes. He stated that someone could build a new home and could try to convert it, but when you are talking about existing homes, you aren’t talking about RHNA allocations or compliance. He stated that there were numerous comments more along the regulations and enforcement in the program, i.e., trash, noise, hot tubs, etc. He thinks in a broader and more holistic review of the STR ordinance, they can look again at those types of regulations and understand more specifically what Airbnb and VRBO are doing about enforcing their regulations and what the cities will do.

Mayor Bier appreciated that, as when they pass the STR ordinance they have to give it time before they actually reviewed it. She stated that this isn’t the first time that they have thought about this or brought to their attention and they have been thinking about this for a long time

2.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 October 10, 2022
and just have to work on it together.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated the hot tub one is funny as you can really outlaw a hot tub in a short-term rental versus a regular house. She stated that she could have seven kids living next door and they could be in the hot tub making noise until 2:00 a.m. and she asked what the difference was from making noise in a short-term rental and how do you outlaw it for one and not the other. She would go for a cap on the 175, but she would like to see more research done as they don’t have that. She thought they could put more rules on them, not a hot tub, but some of the ones she has seen in other places, like the number of people, number of cars, etc., but she also heard you can work around the number of cars by renting two 15-person vans and bringing those in. She thinks they need to do both cars and people at the same time. She knows it is a problem in neighborhoods and she didn’t think you can pick your neighbor anytime or anywhere, but she doesn’t think there should be problems with it either.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, if they do the 175, she wanted to explore what happens if someone falls out and decide they aren’t going to do it anymore. She stated that they are allowing someone else to come in and take that spot, so it isn’t like 175 now and falling. She thought they pick a number and that would allow new people to come in while they are figuring this out.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed that was the cap concept.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, essentially, it is going to be a management of a wait list and managing it effectively, depending on when you got on the waitlist, for someone to drop out, and the next eligible permit user will take that place.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, within that, they have also been talking about the unhosted whole home versus hosted renting out a portion of their home. She stated that would count as one within the 175. She presented the scenario that she is doing a hosted, rent out a room in her house and now she decides she doesn’t want to do it anymore, she falls out, and somebody who is renting a whole home could fall into that spot. She stated that they may not fully agree and they could ask each other, but she thought they were leaning toward the whole house unhosted that they aren’t in favor of and Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck brought up focusing on that versus the hosted. She is trying to figure out how they control that with a cap. She thought the answer is they can’t.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to throw out one idea for the sake of discussion and get input from everyone, including staff. He stated that the mayor didn’t feel they had enough information to go down this road at this meeting, but he proposed that the cap was 175 but Council wanted to identify 10% of that 175 and reserve it for hosted spots which would be 18 units that could be allowed for hosted spots. If you have a hosted site and are within that 18 category and you fell out, someone else within that 18 could go in and that would reduce whatever 175 minus 18 is, and that is the cap for unhosted. He is throwing it out there as an idea and he asked everyone to chime in on what the potential administrative challenges be with that. He stated that it was a concept they could bounce off Coastal Commission as well.

Sr. Planner O’Connor stated one thought she would add to that proposal he suggested is that maybe it is a minimum of 10% for hosted and there is at least that 10% that is available for hosted STRs but should one of the other 90% spaces become available, they could be filled by either and you are at least maintaining that minimum. She is hearing that Council is at least leaning toward supporting the hosted units, rather than the unhosted. She stated that, in terms

2.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 October 10, 2022
of management, she thought it would be the creation of two lists through their consultant. She thought Ms. Carter may speak to that more but it might be a second list.

Asst. Cit Manager Carter agreed that they can certainly do the second list and once they get Council’s direction they can meet with HDL and see what practically they can do for us. She stated that, regardless of how they are going to manage this list, they will be relying on the data from HDL and she knows the system allows to track hosted versus unhosted and they are definitely very quick to do it for us. She stated that, as she mentioned before, the number or percentage of hosted listings is so small that they will never get to 10% of total STR business.

She stated that many communities do the same count and they choose not to even track the hosted listings, in other words allow them without the cap. She stated that they can certainly cap all of them together.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that Ms. Carter mentioned an idea that would be you don’t cap hosted at all and you just decide to cap for unhosted and it only applies to unhosted. He thought City Attorney Kenyon can jump in, but he had a nagging thought in the back of his head that the hosted situation could be somehow difficult to practically track where someone says that it’s hosted but their gone for the weekend and their whole house is available. He thought those are things that they ask how they figure this out.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that she doesn’t have a comment on that, but she was saying in hearing the discussion and if that is the direction of Council, she would like to explore the concept of just making the cap on non-hosted STRs. She thinks that may be an easy fix that is in line with all the comments they received from all five councilmembers. She can’t think of a concern with that approach and she would like to explore it if that’s the direction of Council.

Mayor Bier asked what the definition is of hosted and non-hosted, and how long do you have to stay in a house for it to be hosted. She didn’t know these things.

City Attorney Kenyon asked Ms. Carter if she was familiar with it, as she can give a general idea.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that she can only give general ideas and the idea is you rent the portion of the house with the residents living in the house and you rent a room.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that it generally means that the host is present during the stay.

Mayor Bier assumed all the time.

Asst. City Manager Carter agreed.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they do not regulate all the time, but it is fair.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that you will advertise this way.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed that it would be advertised as you are renting a room, not the whole house without a host.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was basically room versus whole house, and it doesn’t mean you’re going to be there every minute because you probably aren’t but you generally live in the house and rent a room.

2.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 October 10, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that was why she was seeking more information. She wants to cap them all so they can get all the information they need as well as they can. She stated, if you are talking about 175, the floor is 125 and the middle of the road person says they will have a 150 and she feels that they are negotiating but she wants to do it at tight as they can.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated someone used the analogy earlier that somebody goes to their vacation in Spain and while their house is available for that two weeks, that is when they rent it out and otherwise they are there full time, which strikes him as a definition of hosted, but more to the point, if they’re putting the cap on, he thought it has to come back to them as an ordinance.

City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, when the ordinance comes back to them and they look at an ordinance, within the context of that ordinance, there is a clear definition. He also concluded that, at that time, they have the ability to redefine it if they don’t like the definition that has been brought to them. He stated that, while they don’t necessarily have a crystal clear understanding of what the definition of hosted is at this moment, when it is brought back to them, there will be a definition there, and if they don’t like that definition, they can tweak it to their desire. He thought that lends itself to caping the unhosted and leaving the hosted un-caped and sending that direction for the ordinance they would like to see.

City Manager Woodhouse referred to his point about definitions and stated that the basic understanding of hosted versus unhosted at this point in time is that the host is there. He stated that, if you are gone for a month or two weeks and someone is renting your place, that is an unhosted rental.

Commissioner O’Neill thought this was an important discussion but he thought the next item is also going to be an important discussion and he wondered if staff feels they have the direction they need and they might want to move on to the next item.

City Attorney Kenyon stated she needs more clarity from the Council in drafting. She needs a clear consensus on what Council is looking to see back in a month in terms of an ordinance.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that she needs to ask specific questions she wants answered and they poll each other then.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he can start. He stated that one is the number of the cap and there are a couple of options, i.e., whether that is a cap for both hosted and unhosted or is that just a cap for unhosted and hosted is not caped. He felt those were the two variables for which they need to get direction. He added that they need clear direction whether Council is interested in taking a larger, more holistic review of the program and discussing that at goal setting and, depending on the outcome of that, setting the future for that work.

Mayor Bier stated that is the easier one for consensus and she will start with that one regarding goal setting and a larger holistic view and she asked if they were all in agreement with that.

All commissioners responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier stated that they will go back to the number and the unhosted or hosted. She was for

2.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 October 10, 2022
150 cap for all.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he would say 175 but he was okay with 150.

Councilmember Vaterlaus was in favor of 175.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that the mayor also asked if it applied to both hosted and unhosted.

Councilmember O’Neill stated it would apply to hosted and unhosted.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they have two councilmembers who want the cap applied to all STRs.

Mayor Bier agreed.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated unhosted only.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if Councilmember Vaterlaus stating unhosted so cap only unhosted.

Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked about the number.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated 175.

Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded 175 only unhosted and 150 all of it. She asked if Councilmember O’Neill agreed that 150 is all of it.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he was either 175 both kinds, but he is was okay with 150 also.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she can live with 150 and she was okay with caping all of it.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, if the definition of hosted is someone is living in the house at all time, he would rather just cap the unhosted. He was okay with 175 or 150.

Mayor Bier asked if that was enough information.

City Manager Woodhouse was not sure they have consensus on that.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they have three councilmembers who have said that they want the cap on all STRs and the number she believes is 175.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer said 150, Mayor Bier said 150 and he said he was okay with 150.

City Attorney Kenyon apologized and concluded that it was 150. That is her understanding of the direction of a majority of the Council. If that is correct, she asked Mayor Bier to confirm that with the majority.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked what they do about the ones who have their existing licenses.

2.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 October 10, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they’re currently not listed or active.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, as far as they know, there are 101 that are currently licensed and in compliance and 24 that they are trying to bring into compliance and the other balance had stepped out of the game after HDL contacted them.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they could be back and forth because it could be the seasonal issue and that is why the 175 number made sense. She stated that it wouldn’t contribute to any additional ones.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, based on these numbers, there would be a waiting list of 25 spots, first come, first serve, if people want to get back into the program, and if they are able to bring the uncompliant ones into compliance and they stay in compliance.

Mayor Bier concluded that there would still be a waiting list.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that there would be a waiting list of 25 versus, if they decided to cap at 175, as that would sort of be a waiting list of 50, speaking in rough numbers.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked Councilmember Vaterlaus if she was thinking of someone, referring to her example about her own personal experience, and she is out for the time being but then she wants to get back in and then finds out the Council made a decision that doesn’t allow her to do that anymore.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she bought her house specifically for that purpose. She stated that there needs to be an education process because people need to know about this.

She stated that is an important factor. If you are purchasing and then you don’t know that you no longer are allowed to have a short-term rental.

Mayor Bier thought that was what they are trying to cap until they can figure it all out as they don’t want whole houses going up. That is how she feels.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he doesn’t support people buying it specifically to make it an Airbnb.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed with him.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they can’t affect that without a law. She stated that they can’t say that.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are passing an ordinance saying they will limit it to 150 units. That is the law. If they go there and they go down to 540 Crespi and find out that they are 151 and they should have done their due diligence, their realtor should have told them, they then can make it a long-term rental.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that is the education piece.

Councilmember O’Neill stated it was up to the realtor to tell them.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that you have to let the realtor know.

2.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 October 10, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that was fine, and send a letter to SAMCAR and tell them that Pacifica now has a maximum Airbnb number of 150.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the speaker, Cassandra Jones, and her case sounded like a hosted STR, but what he doesn’t know about her case is whether or not she does it seasonally and if that is one of those 25 that will be left out because of seasonal reasons. He stated that his preference is that this applies to unhosted, not hosted, in which case she would be fine. If they are doing this in terms of everybody, then he will change his preference to 175, specifically because in her case, he doesn’t know if she is going to be one of the ones left out If they move it back to 150 and they are caping it on everyone.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it sounded, from what she said, that she would be an unhosted STR because she tries to be in town three months of the year and he doesn’t know her operation but if she is currently renting, she should be one of the 101 that are licensed and in compliance.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated, if that is not the case, he would like her to tell them before they pass the ordinance and otherwise he is okay with what he just said.

Mayor Bier thought they still have the consensus at 150 cap on both.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they have a majority.

Mayor Bier agreed that was what she meant.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they need any other direction from Council.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, unless there is further discussion about that, there is a majority suggesting 150 cap, whether hosted or unhosted, and they would bring back an ordinance based on that.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, for the public, that means it will come back at probably the second Council meeting in November and that ordinance would be an emergency ordinance which would need four votes.

City Attorney Kenyon stated it would not be an emergency ordinance. They would have a regular ordinance adopted and they would introduce it at the first meeting and at the next meeting they would adopt it and it would become effective 30 days thereafter.

Councilmember O’Neill just wanted to be sure the public understood what that meant.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that there are two members of the public with their hands raised. She stated, for the public to know, that once the public has the opportunity to speak and it comes back to deliberation, they really don’t have another opportunity to speak on this subject.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they can when they introduce the ordinance.

Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed that they can speak again.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that at times in the discussion some of them have asked that

2.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 October 10, 2022
the public reach out to them.

Mayor Bier thought one of them was Jen Hansen who supplied all that data.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked everyone for the time spent on this item.

Mayor Bier called a five-minute break then reconvened the meeting.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

11. Adoption 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); Adoption of Resolution Approving the Outdoor Permit Guidelines with standards for development relating to Outdoor Commercial Areas; and Adoption of Resolution Approving Maximum Application Deposit Fee for Outdoor Commercial Permits
PROPOSED ACTION:

1. Move to waive the second reading and adopt an Ordinance entitled “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 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),”

2. Adopt Resolution Approving the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines and Finding the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(File No. 2022-017) included as Attachment A to this staff report.

3. Adopt Resolution Approving a Maximum Application Deposit Fee for Outdoor Commercial Permits (File No. 2022-017) included as Attachment B to this staff report.

Sr. Planner O’Connor presented the staff report.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to her saying that there was a potential $15,000 deposit with the Coastal Commission, and he asked if she would be applying for a local coastal plan amendment to try to get rid of that cost. He asked if there is a way for a business to get that outside space without having to put that $15,000 on deposit.

Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that, in the staff report, they identified that a typical coastal development permit application requires a deposit of $15,000 and that money is intended to cover the staff time to process a CDP and that is what is represented in the staff report, i.e., our typical deposit for a coastal development permit. She stated that, based on staff’s conversation with Coastal Commission staff, staff is proposing prepare an umbrella CDP which would obtain that coastal development permit authorization for more than one outdoor commercial space that met the specifications of what is described in the umbrella CDP. Staff’s hope would be to design it in a way that captures as many applicants that they are aware of at the time to remove that cost burden from the applicant and get it done in an efficient effort by the city. If an applicant’s outdoor commercial space was to be outside of the scope of their umbrella CDP, those costs may be associated with that applicant. She reiterated that their intention is to do

2.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 October 10, 2022
their best to capture as many as they can, which may require multiple umbrella CDPs, specifically for each commercial district neighborhood in the coastal zone but they are hoping to do that work for the applicant.

City Manager Woodhouse added that, for part of what he is asking, city staff’s work to develop the umbrella CDPs is going to take quite a while. In the interim, if a business is going to get permitted and get their own CDP, that deposit would be required because it will be processed as a stand-alone CDP until in the future when they can hopefully achieve an umbrella CDP with the Coastal Commission, but they don’t know how complex that will be.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if the governor’s waivers during Covid have all expired at this point.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they have not, and they are still in a state of emergency and still operating under that same allowance for the outdoor permit activity.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are not paying $15,000 now.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they are not.

Sr. Planner O’Connor added that they would not be able to process that CDP until they have completed the certification stuff for the ordinance by Coastal Commission. Once Council has approved the ordinance, they need to bring it to the Coastal Commission to certify the ordinance and then they will be able to issue CDPs that address this permit.

Mayor Bier asked if there were questions, and seeing none, she opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speaker.

Kimberly Williams, Pacifica, stated that, on behalf of Surf Rider, she commended them for the steps they are taking to work more closely with the Coastal Commission and expressed her thoughts and appreciation on this issue.

Mayor Bier closed public comments. Then asked if there was any deliberation.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he can make the motion if there is no further deliberation.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to waive the second reading and adopt an Ordinance entitled “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 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)”; Adopt Resolution Approving the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines and Finding the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (File No. 2022-017) included as Attachment A to this staff report; and Adopt Resolution Approving a Maximum Application Deposit Fee for Outdoor Commercial Permits (File No. 2022-017) included as Attachment B to this staff report; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

2.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 October 10, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier stated that it was time to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting on 10-10-2022 (5166 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/24/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution In Recognition and Observation of Arbor Day
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution in Recognition and Observation of Arbor Day on the Second Saturday in November and State Pacifica’s Intent to Maintain Membership in the Tree City USA Program and Show Appreciation to Tree City Pacifica for Holding an Arbor Day Celebration Each Year in Partnership with the City.

STAFF CONTACT:

Lisa Petersen
Director of Public Works
(650) 730-4948
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

In 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees and the holiday called Arbor Day was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska. Arbor Day is now observed at various times throughout the nation and the world and has been celebrated in Pacifica on the second Saturday of November each year.

The City has maintained membership in the Tree City USA program and believes it is important to continue to maintain membership to support and increase the City’s urban forest. To maintain membership each year the City must hold an Arbor Day celebration, have a community tree ordinance in place, spend at least $2 per capital on urban forestry and maintain a board/commission that overviews tree issues, such as the City’s Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission.

Tree City Pacifica is a non-profit group that serves to celebrate, enhance, and protect the City’s urban forest. Each year since 2019, Tree City Pacifica has partnered with the City to hold an Arbor Day celebration. The City supports and assists with the celebration each year through purchase of trees and assistance with tree planting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City typically purchases up to 30 trees for the Arbor Day event and uses City staff to complete work related to planting of trees. These costs are in the range of $8,000.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:
3 Packet Pg. 73
Pacifica City Council 2
October 24, 2022
3 Packet Pg. 74
Pacifica City Council 3
October 24, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA IN RECOGNITION

AND OBSERVATION OF ARBOR DAY AND COMMITMENT TO TREE CITY USA

MEMBERSHIP AND APPRECIATION FOR THE TREE CITY PACIFICA PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, in 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees and the holiday called Arbor Day was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska; and WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed at various times throughout the nation and the world and has been celebrated in Pacifica on the second Saturday in November each year; and
WHEREAS, the City has maintained membership in Tree City USA by holding an Arbor Day celebration, having a community tree ordinance, spending at least $2 per capital on urban forestry and maintaining a committee that oversees tree issues, such as the City’s Parks, Beaches and Recreation Committee; and
WHEREAS, Tree City Pacifica is a non-profit group that serves to celebrate, enhance and support the City’s urban forest; and
WHEREAS, the City partners with Tree City Pacifica on Arbor Day celebrations each year and supports and assists the celebration through purchase of trees and assistance with tree planting; and
WHEREAS, the City supports the partnership with Tree City Pacifica in holding the Arbor Day Celebration each year and appreciates their dedication to Pacifica’s trees.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Pacifica does hereby recognize the second Saturday in November as Arbor Day in the City of Pacifica and urges all citizens to celebrate Arbor Day and to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands; and
FURTHERMORE, the City of Pacifica acknowledges the City’s commitment to maintaining membership in Tree City USA and appreciation of the City’s partnership with Tree City Pacifica.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 24th day of October, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
3 Packet Pg. 75
Pacifica City Council 4
October 24, 2022
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 3 Packet Pg. 76

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/24/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled "A Delicate Balance Between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public's Right to Know" RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled "A Delicate Balance Between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public's Right to Know".

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Early in California’s history, the California Constitution established grand juries in each county.

The California Penal Code provides for the formation of civil grand juries and their powers and duties. With respect to public agencies, grand juries are authorized to “Investigate and report upon the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments, functions, and the method or systems of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit” (California Penal Code Section 925a).

Within 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a report regarding the operations of any public agency, the “Governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body…” (California Penal Code Section 933 (c)).

On August 18, 2022, the City of Pacifica received the formal Grand Jury Report entitled, "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s Right to Know" dated August 9, 2022 (Attachment A). The City of Pacifica's response is due no later than November 9, 2022 and requires approval by the City Council at a public meeting. The city's response for Council consideration is attached in Attachment B.

The California Public Records Act (PRA) requires that inspection or disclosure of governmental records be available to the public upon request. The PRA’s purpose is to promote government transparency in California.

The San Mateo County Grand Jury researched how the cities in San Mateo County meet the requirements of the California Public Records Act. The 2021-2022 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury sought to understand how San Mateo County’s 20 cities respond to PRA requests, including: cities’ policies and procedures for handling requests; the types of records requests they receive; the training of key employees, elected officials and appointed officials about PRArelated matters; and how legal changes may impact cities with regard to fulfilling PRA requests. 4 Packet Pg. 77
Pacifica City Council 2
October 24, 2022
The Grand Jury began by sending a survey to the 20 cities managers in the County with questions related to the processing of public records requests and conducted follow-up interviews with representatives of all 20 cities to gather additional information. The Grand Jury reviewed city websites with respect to information and provisions made for submission and response to public records requests. They reviewed the workflow and methods of tracking of public records requests used by cities, volumes of public records requests received by cities, subjects of requested records, and the burden on cities of time-consuming requests. They also reviewed methods used by cities for increasing efficiency in records requests processing and records management policies and practices that facilitate effective compliance with the PRA.

Through their research, the Grand Jury found that the City of San Mateo reported a unique method for encouraging city staff in one element of the effective management of public records by holding a “Records Clean Up Day” which tasked employees with reducing the number of duplicate records, preparing records for off-site storage, imaging and indexing electronic records, and identifying electronic records eligible for destruction in accordance with the city’s records retention schedules. The Grand Jury concluded with one of their recommendations to all other cities in San Mateo County that by June 30, 2023, the city council should direct city staff to review and consider adopting a records management practice analogous to the City of San Mateo’s “Records Clean Up Day.”
Further detail on the background, investigation and conclusions of the Grand Jury related to this topic are included in the copy of the Grand Jury Report entitled, “A Delicate Balance Between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s Right to Know” attached as Attachment A.

At the conclusion of the Grand Jury’s investigation and report, they made five categories of Findings and five categories of Recommendations and provided a table to indicate which findings and recommendations were applicable to each city within the County.

The Findings of the Grand Jury were detailed as follows:

F1. The city has no written documentation of its PRA policy and internal procedures, making it more likely that requests could be handled inconsistently. (not applicable to Pacifica)
F2. The City uses a commercially available software application that includes a web portal enabling the public to easily request records and track their disposition. (Response requested from Pacifica)
F3. Information about how to access public records requires multiple clicks to find on the city’s website, which hinders the public’s access to public records. (not applicable to Pacifica)
F4. The City of San Mateo implements a Records Cleanup Day with the purposed of increasing employee understanding of the need to effectively maintain public records, thereby improving PRA request responsiveness. (not applicable to Pacifica) F5. The city has no PRA request form online, making public access to public records less efficient. (not applicable to Pacifica)
The Recommendations of the Grand Jury were detailed as follows:

R1. The city council should direct city staff to consider and report back by June 30, 2023, 4 Packet Pg. 78
Pacifica City Council 3
October 24, 2022
on the creation of a written PRA policy or procedures document for circulation to all relevant staff. (not applicable to Pacifica)
R2. The city council should direct city staff to consider performing a cost/benefit analysis and report back by September 1, 2023, on the purchase of commercially available public records request software. (not applicable to Pacifica)
R3. By June 30, 2023, the city council should consider directing city staff to place information about how to access public records on the home page of the city’s official website. (not applicable to Pacifica)
R4. By June 30, 2023, the city council should direct staff to review and consider adopting a records management practice analogous to the City of San Mateo’s “Records Cleanup Day.” (Response requested from Pacifica)
R5. By June 30, 2023, the city council should direct city staff to create, on the city clerk’s page of its website, a submittable PRA request form. (not applicable to Pacifica) The following are the City's responses to the Grand Jury Report Findings and Recommendations that are applicable to Pacifica.

Response to Grand Jury Findings:

Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requested a response from Pacifica for the following Finding:

F2. The City uses a commercially available software application that includes a web portal enabling the public to easily request records and track their disposition.

Response to F2. The City agrees with the finding.

Response to Grand Jury Recommendations:

Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requested a response from Pacifica for the following Recommendation:

R4. By June 30, 2023, the city council should direct staff to review and consider adopting a records management practice analogous to the City of San Mateo’s “Records Cleanup Day.”
Response to R4. This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by June 30, 2023, with the city council directing staff to review and consider adopting a records management practice analogous to the City of San Mateo’s “Records Cleanup Day.” Thereafter, city staff would review a records management practice consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Administrative Policy No. 8 “Records Management and Information Management Program Policy” in which the City Clerk leads outreach to city departments and staff to emphasize a commitment to educate and facilitate coordinated activities to document the annual clean-up, organization and purging of records in accordance with the City of Pacifica Record Retention Schedules.

The City of Pacifica’s goal will be analogous to the City of San Mateo’s “Records Cleanup Day” as illustrated in Appendix F of the Grand Jury Report, “A Delicate Balance 4 Packet Pg. 79
Pacifica City Council 4
October 24, 2022
between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s Right to Know.” The City of Pacifica agrees that the practice of an annual “Records Cleanup Day” and related activities emphasizes the importance of effective records management practices in a supportive environment that the agency conducts annually while also encouraging practices in routine records management activities that make the annual practice less burdensome.

The response letter to the Grand Jury for Council’s consideration for approval and authorization to transmit is attached in Attachment B.

Conclusions Based on Grand Jury Report Findings and Recommendations:

Based on the above findings and recommendations by the Grand Jury and how they are applied to Pacifica, the city notes that the Grand Jury did not find any significant areas of concern with respect to the areas researched regarding the City of Pacifica’s processes and accessibility with respect to public records requests. The city has explored and made process changes to more efficiently manage the increasing volumes of requests, including launching the NextRequest public records request portal in September 2021 for submission, tracking, processing and responses to public records requests. The increased volume of public records requests and the scope of some requests that are complex and/or time-consuming in nature have presented challenges and required rolling responses to requests in some instances; however, the city strives to review and respond to all public records requests in a reasonable timeframe and to comply with the requirements under the California Public Records Act and has taken steps to improve upon the efficiency of processing, tracking and responding to public records requests through the use of a commercially available web-based platform (NextRequest).

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Decline to accept the response to the San Mateo Civil Grand Jury and provide additional direction to staff.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the response is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• An Engaged Community: includes taking actions to restore trust in city government, expanding communication and building community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of accepting this report and implementing the recommendations are minimal and can be addressed with budgeted resources.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power:

Government Transparency and the Public’s Right to Know"(PDF) Attachment B: City's Response to Grand Jury Report (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 80
This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 1
A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power:

Government Transparency and the Public’s Right to Know
Release Date: August 9, 2022
Issue Summary Background Discussion Findings Recommendations Request for Responses Methodology Bibliography Appendices Responses ISSUE
The California Public Records Act requires that inspection or disclosure of governmental records be available to the public upon request. How do the cities in San Mateo County meet the requirements of this Act?

SUMMARY
The California Public Records Act (PRA) is an essential tool for the public to find out what their government agencies are doing. It’s one of the freedom of information laws enacted in every state in the Union to ensure that the public can witness the actions of their governments. The PRA’s purpose is to promote government transparency in California.

Fifteen years ago, the 2006-2007 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury’s report, “Electronic Communication Among City Officials: A Valuable Tool in Need of Careful Guidance,” addressed the rise in local governments’ use of electronic forms of communication between elected and appointed officials.
1 As it observed, these valuable and efficient tools can quickly disseminate information, and they can constitute public documents subject to public disclosure.

Reviewing that Grand Jury’s report alerted the 2021-2022 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury to the potential that cities may be facing increased complexity and potential burdens in the processing of requests for public records.

The Grand Jury sought to understand how San Mateo County’s 20 cities respond to PRA requests, including:
 Cities’ policies and procedures for handling requests;  The types of records requests they receive;

1 2006-2007 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, Electronic Communication Among City Officials: A Valuable Tool in Need of Careful Guidance
https://sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2006/ElectronicCommunicationfinal.pdf, retrieved June 9, 2022.

4.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2
 The training of key employees, elected officials, and appointed officials about PRArelated matters; and  How legal changes may impact cities with regard to fulfilling PRA requests.

While the PRA does not require cities to adopt a formal policy, the Grand Jury sought to identify the cities that have written policy or procedure documents and the methods cities use to process the public’s requests. It also wanted to learn how key staff keep up to date with changes in PRA law. Failing to comply with these laws can subject a city to litigation and, more importantly, lead to erosion of the public’s trust.

The Grand Jury recommends that city councils of the subject cities should:

1. Consider directing staff to create a written PRA procedures document for circulation to all relevant staff.

2. Consider directing staff to perform a cost/benefit analysis regarding the purchase of commercially available public records request software.

3. Consider directing staff to place information about how to access public records on the home page of their official website.

4. Consider directing staff to create a submittable online PRA request form.

5. Consider directing staff to review and consider adopting a records management practice analogous to the City of San Mateo’s “Records Cleanup Day.”

BACKGROUND
Two centuries ago, James Madison wrote these words:
“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”2
He further asserted, “Knowledge [is] the only Guardian of true liberty.”3 John Moss, a California member of the U.S. House of Representatives, used Madison’s quote to generate support for a bill he was introducing in Congress. In 1967, after a 12-year struggle, he

2 Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (August 4, 1822), in The Writings of James Madison (Gaillard Hunt ed.).
3 Letter from James Madison to George Thomson (June 30, 1825) (on file with The James Madison Papers at The Library of Congress).

4.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 3
was finally successful in passing the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It served as the model for California’s similar Public Records Act enacted one year later.

The California Public Records Act was signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1968 and acknowledges one simple concept – that secrecy is contrary to a democratic system of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Specifically, the PRA declares that “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state”.4
Every state has some form of freedom of information law that governs public access to state and local government documents.5 In addition, every state has some form of a “Sunshine Law” or “Open Meetings” law that requires public access to meetings of public legislative bodies.

California’s Ralph M. Brown Act is such a Sunshine Law.6 Passed in 1953, it guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies. The PRA and the Brown Act are California’s primary laws intended to promote government transparency.

What are Public Records?
The PRA defines the term “public records” as any “writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business that is prepared, owned, used, or retained by a state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.”7 Thus, a “writing” is not simply a handwritten or printed document; writings include an ever-broadening range of communications including audio and video recordings, emails, photos, drawings, computer data, and more.8 The agencies that hold these public records, and are subject to the PRA, include every county, city, town, school district, special district, police and fire department, commission, and board in California.9 Certain private entities that carry out public functions using funding from a local agency may also be subject to the PRA. The PRA applies to nearly every public agency one can imagine except for the Legislature and the courts.10
A public record refers to information that has been recorded or maintained by a public agency.

Typical examples of records that the public might request include:
 Property records
 Building permits

4 California Government Code, Section 6250 (2021).
5 FOIA Advocates, State Public Records Laws. http://www.foiadvocates.com/records.html Retrieved May 11, 2022 6 CA Govt Code § 54950 et seq.
7 CA Govt Code § 6252(e).
8 CA Govt Code § 6252(g).
9 CA Govt Code § 6252(f). Excluded from the definition of state agency are those agencies provided for in article IV (except section 20(k)) and article VI of the Cal. Constitution. 10 The Legislature has its own sunshine law, Gov. Code, § 1070. Most court records are disclosable under a number of legal decisions and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

4.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 4
 Business registrations
 Employee compensation information
 Financial documents
 Code enforcement records
 Public works documents, and
 Police records.

Merely addressing a question to a local agency official or employee is not sufficient to constitute a public records request under the PRA. “What time do the lights go off at the neighborhood park?” Or “Why are there so many potholes on my street?” are not public records requests.

However, a request to see the contract for the vendor who installed the lights or paved the street would be a public records request.

The Form of PRA Request
The PRA ensures that all persons must receive equal access to public records. “Persons” can be corporations, partnerships, homeowners’ associations, and the media.11 Simply put, every person has the right to inspect public records, and no one type of person has a greater right of access to public records than any other person.12
Because the intent of the law is to enable easy access to public records, it is expansive in the available ways requests may be made. The request can be made in writing or orally, by physical or electronic means, remotely or in person. Persons making a PRA request are not required to explain the reason for the request.13
Public records are to be open for inspection during office hours at the local agency. To preserve the orderly function of their offices, agencies may establish reasonable policies for the inspection and copying of records. If the request asks for copies of documents, the agency is required to respond within ten days to determine whether they have disclosable records in their possession and to notify the person making the request of that determination. The agency must then make the records “promptly” available.14
An agency may extend the normal ten-day requirement for responding whether it has any disclosable documents for up to 14 additional days under certain circumstances. 15 For example,
if the agency needs to search through and collect a voluminous number of records or to consult with another agency with an interest in the requested records, such an extension is available.

11 CA Govt Code § 6252(c); Connell v. Superior Court (Intersource, Inc.) (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 601. 12 CA Govt Code § 6252.5; Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 759; Dixon v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1271, 1279.
13 CA Govt Code § 6250; California. Constitution, Article. I, Section 3. 14 CA Govt Code § 6253(c).
15 CA Govt Code § 6253(c)(1-4).

4.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 5
The agency is required to assist the requester who is having difficulty making a focused and effective PRA request.16 And while the request may be burdensome, that burden alone is not sufficient to justify noncompliance. However, the agency is also not required to perform a “needle in a haystack” search for records.17 Additionally, a PRA request only applies to records that exist at the time of the request, not for records to be created in the future.

Widespread Use of Electronic Communications
The public’s business increasingly relies on electronic communications. Email, social media postings, video and audio recordings, and the use of personal devices have created enormous volumes of public records for cities. In a case with broad consequences related to PRA requests, City of San Jose v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2017), the California Supreme Court ruled that communications carried out using a personal account or device were disclosable if the communication was related to the conduct of public business.18 For example, such a PRA request might be for all communications between city officials and a vendor that was granted a city-awarded contract. The search for responsive records could include reviewing all the emails, voice mails, and texts between the parties for relevant material, including on officials’ personal devices. This can be problematic since this communication, especially if voluminous, could require attorneys to determine what might be non-disclosable for reasons of privacy or privilege. In Getz v County of El Dorado (2021), a California appeals court ruled that El Dorado County’s unsubstantiated claim that a PRA request was overly broad and burdensome was not a valid reason for denial of records. The court explained that establishing that a request is overly burdensome requires more than the vague prospect of having to review lots of records. The County was ultimately compelled to produce over 40,000 email records.19 Law Enforcement Records
In recent years the most publicized form of an electronic record has been police body-cam footage. Landmark legislation has broadened PRA access to law enforcement records, including a limited subset of these audio and video recordings. On January 1, 2019, SB 1421 became law.

Called the Peace Officers: Release of Records bill, it requires law enforcement agencies to make records (including body-cam footage) related to certain serious officer use of force incidents, sexual assault, and acts of dishonesty available under the PRA.20 Police unions have filed multiple challenges to the law asserting concerns about officers’ privacy, retroactivity of the law,

16 CA Govt Code § 6253.1.
17 Cal. First Amend Coalition v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4 th 159, 166.
18 Latham & Watkins, Client Alert Commentary, https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/california-supreme-courtgovernment-communications-on-private-accounts-are-public, retrieved May 11, 2022. 19 Getz v. The Superior Court, 72 Cal.App.5th 637, 287 Cal. Rptr. 3d 722 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2021/c091337.html, retrieved June 1, 2022. 20 CA Penal Code § 832.7 and § 832.8.

4.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 6
and the cost of producing records.21 These challenges have been consistently denied by courts.22 And in January 2022, SB 16, became effective. This new law now requires additional police disciplinary records, involving allegations of discrimination, unlawful arrest, and cover-ups of excessive force by fellow officers, to be made available under the PRA. 23 Methods of Handling Requests
The PRA does not mandate any specific method for agency handling of records requests. Some local agencies simply monitor the process manually using an internally created document. Many other agencies now use commercially available software that links to information on their public websites. Often marketed to city clerks through professional organizations, such as the City Clerks Association of California, these software applications offer solutions to manage large portions of the PRA request process.

These applications can:
 Manage intake of requests through a public portal;
 Provide an automated response of receipt to the person making a request;  Alert agency staff to deadlines;
 Promote coordination across departments;
 Gather records and track their production to person making a request;  Provide tools to redact information; and
 Display and store responsive records.

The software enables anyone making a PRA request to see the status of their request through a portal. It also enables cities to make both the request and the records responsive to the request visible to the public.

Fees
An agency may charge a fee for costs of complying with the PRA, but only for the direct costs of making copies of responsive records – typically a nominal fee per page of paper copies. Since today most records are produced and delivered to the requester electronically, many responsive records are cost-free to the requesting party.

In National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward (2019), the California Supreme Court held that an effort by the city to charge $3,000 for labor related to redacting requested bodycam footage was

21 Voice of San Diego, A Brief History of Police Challenges. https://voiceofsandiego.org/2019/06/10/brief-historyof-police-challenges-and-losses-sb-1421/, retrieved March 18, 2022. 22 JD Supra, Another SB1421 Decision Against Law Enforcement. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/another-sb1421-decision-against-law-45114/, retrieved March 18, 2022. 23 BBK Attorneys at Law, SB 16 Compliance Expanded Public Access. https://www.bbklaw.com/NewsEvents/Insights/2021/Legal-Alerts/12/SB-16-Compliance-Expanded-Public-Access-to-Law-Enf, retrieved March 18, 2022.

4.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 7
not permissible as a “data extraction” cost.24 With this decision, the Court reaffirmed that local agencies may not charge for ancillary costs such as the labor required to retrieve documents or the inspection and handling of files.25
Voter-approved Propositions Affecting the PRA
In 2004, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 59, the “Public Records, Open Meetings Legislative Constitutional Amendment.” It essentially adds a “sunshine” amendment to the Declaration of Rights section of the California Constitution (similar to the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights) stating, “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.”26 Proposition 42, the “Public Records. Open Meetings. State Reimbursement to Local Agencies.

Legislative Constitutional Amendment” was approved by voters in 2014. It was the result of a dispute over a controversial bill that would stop local governments from being required to follow key provisions of the PRA. The State legislature had considered the bill to be a budget move, since at that time it was required to reimburse local governments for complying with some aspects of records requests. The backlash over the signing of this bill caused the legislature to rescind it and put the matter before the voters as a constitutional amendment. When it passed, by a 62% yes vote, it required local governments to comply with the PRA without being reimbursed by the State for the cost of public access to records.”27 The full financial burden of compliance with the PRA now falls entirely on local governments.

Exemptions
While the PRA states that “the people” have the right to know what their government is doing, clearly circumstances arise where a balance must be achieved between the public interest and individual privacy rights. The PRA contains at least 76 express exemptions, for matters as diverse as library circulation records, copyright protected building plans, and medical and personnel records.
28 In some instances a public document may not be considered exempt but may contain private information such as social security numbers and home addresses. Those specific portions will be redacted before release to the public.

24 Reporters Committee, National Lawyers Guild v City of Hayward. https://www.rcfp.org/briefscomments/national-lawyers-guild-v-hayward-california-supreme-court, retrieved June 14, 2022. 25 BBK Attorneys at Law, California Public Records Act Update. https://www.bbklaw.com/news-events/insights/2021/legal-alerts/01/california-public-records-act-update, retrieved March 16, 2022.
26 Cal. Const., Art I, § 3, subd. (b)(1)
27 Cal. Const., Art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(7)
28 CA Govt Code § 6254

4.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 8
Government Code section 6254 specifies a large number of exemptions under the PRA. Several of the more notable exemptions are listed below:
 Records Not in Existence
The agency is under no obligation to create records where none exist; agencies are not required to provide records that may be produced in the future relevant to the original request.  Disclosure of records exempted by Federal or other State law Records shielded from disclosure by existing state or federal law, such as individual health records, are not accessible using the PRA.
 Public Interest Test and Deliberative Process Privilege Agencies may withhold certain records if they can demonstrate that the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by its disclosure.  Preliminary Drafts
Preliminary drafts, notes, or memos not normally preserved in the course of business are exempt.
 Attorney Client Communications
Confidential communications between lawyers and clients, and attorney work product, are exempt from disclosure.
 Pending Litigation
Records pertaining to pending litigation or claims to which a public agency is a party until the litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.  Personal Information
This exemption is intended to protect the confidentiality of personnel, medical or other similar files which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.  Trade Secrets
Businesses engaged in public contracts are not required to disclose their trade secrets in response to a PRA request.

Recourse When Responsive Documents Are Not Produced
If a local agency has unlawfully refused to disclose a public record, a person may ask a judge to enforce their rights under the PRA. This enforcement is primarily through a special, expedited civil judicial process.29 The PRA provides specific relief in the form of court costs and attorneys’ fees when an agency unlawfully denies access or copies of public records.

29 CA Govt Code § 6258 and 6259.

4.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 9
Conversely, a local agency cannot bring an action for relief to determine its obligation to disclose records.30 That would require the person requesting documents to defend a civil action and discourage them from requesting records in the first place. It would frustrate the central purpose of the act and the constitutional amendments specifically designed to provide access to information.

The PRA is an indispensable tool for the responsible exercise of democracy in California.

Government transparency, accountability and effectiveness depend on how our local agencies handle the information they create and are entrusted with maintaining. A changing legal framework, the ubiquity of electronic records, new communications technologies and the treatment of their related records, and the public’s demonstrated desire for “open government” present significant challenges to the efficient handling of PRA requests for the cities in our county.

DISCUSSION
As stated above, the PRA applies to all of the public agencies in San Mateo County. To narrow the focus of our investigation, the Grand Jury opted to concentrate on the 20 cities, including their police and other departments, and the committees and commissions formed by those cities.

Survey Respondents
The Grand Jury began by sending a survey to the 20 city managers in the County (a copy of the survey appears in Appendix A). It asked six questions related to the processing of public records requests, policies and procedures used, and the PRA training of staff and officials. In most cases (13 of 20) the responses came from city clerks who are responsible for maintaining a city’s public records. Some of the clerks perform multiple roles for their cities, reflected in some cases (15%) by an additional job title. The following graphic illustrates the various job titles of survey respondents.

30 Filarsky v. Superior Court (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419, 426.

4.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 10
In two cities, the city clerk position is determined by public election; in the remainder of the cities, clerks are appointed by the city manager. Our investigation found that the city clerk is typically the official primarily responsible for the acknowledging receipt of a PRA request, tracking it through the city’s internal processes, and delivering correspondence and responsive records to the person submitting the request.31
The Grand Jury conducted follow-up interviews with representatives of all 20 cities, confirming their survey responses and gathering additional information. We asked the cities to provide written documentation of their PRA policies and procedures, if any exist. Fourteen cities replied that they had existing policies or procedures and supplied them to the Grand Jury. We also conducted in-depth interviews with five selected cities.32 These cities were chosen to give us a cross section sample based on city population, method of tracking, and volume of requests. The Grand Jury notes that respondents from all 20 cities were entirely cooperative and knowledgeable about their city’s PRA request procedures.

Documentation of PRA Policies and Procedures
The PRA does not require local agencies to create policies or documentation of how they receive, route, track, and fulfill records requests. When the Grand Jury asked respondents and interviewees to provide documentation describing how they handled PRA requests, we learned that six cities had no such documentation.33 In some cases, the documentation received from the remaining 14 cities was simply a description of the PRA’s requirements (perhaps supplied to staff for training for information). The Grand Jury also received documents such as the city’s internal procedures, as well as some that were formal policies signed and dated by the city manager. In interviews, all respondents could describe their processes.

31 In one city, the city attorney assumed most of this role, but even there the city clerk was involved in the process. 32 Belmont, Daly City, San Bruno, San Mateo, and South San Francisco 33 Grand Jury survey (December 2021) Belmont, Daly City, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, and Woodside.

4.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 11
The documentation received and reviewed by the Grand Jury varied widely. Atherton’s document is a colorful presentation defining the PRA and describing what is and isn’t a public record.

4.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 12
It generally outlines city staff’s role in responding to a request. In contrast, Redwood City’s document is an administrative policy detailing the purpose and scope of how they respond to PRA requests. It notes specific types of records such as political reform act records and requests for electronic communications. It also specifies that the document will be reviewed every two years. Copies of the PRA documentation provided by Atherton and Redwood City can be found in Appendix B.

The Grand Jury noted that some cities relied on an individual staff member (city clerk or city attorney) to respond to records requests. In the event of illness, vacation, resignation or other interruption of service, no documentation exists to guide replacement personnel.

Written PRA policies or procedures provided to the Grand Jury typically covered subjects such as:
 The purpose of the PRA;
 Resources for PRA training;
 The steps in processing a request; and
 Specific staff responsibilities.

Website Portals
The Grand Jury found that while cities do receive PRA requests in various ways - submitted inperson at city offices, by telephone, and postal mail - they are most frequently submitted via email. We found that 16 of the 20 city websites included a portal containing a submittable form for the filing of a PRA request and four cities had no such form.34 Every city website somewhere provides instructions on how to make a PRA request. Some have links to those instructions on the home page, but most require steps to navigate to it. In some cases, the Grand Jury found broken links indicating inconsistencies in the level of maintenance of the PRA related pages. Some city websites simply instruct the public to send a public records request to the city clerk and provide contact information including an email address, a phone number, or a physical address at which to file.

34 Belmont, Brisbane, Hillsborough, and Portola Valley.

4.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13
Example of Easy and Accessible PRA-Information on a City Website The website for the City of South San Francisco provides easily accessible information regarding PRA requests. The home page includes a “Public Records Request” link.

Clicking on the link brings up a page full of useful titles including how to make a request, the city’s PRA policy, who can make a request, and tips to expedite requests.

4.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 14
Clicking on “Public Records Request” takes the user to a third-party public records web application where they can search by request reference number, track the status of a previous request, view a public archive, and submit a new request.

4.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15
Tracking a Public Records Request
Since the PRA mandates specific deadlines for public agencies to respond to a public records request, the ability to track submissions is vital in order to ensure legal compliance. 35 All cities
informed the Grand Jury that they track PRA requests, utilizing a variety of methods to do so.

Regardless of the specific method used by a city, the workflow is generally as follows.

35 CA Govt Code § 6253(c).

4.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 16
Ten cities, which were generally smaller and field fewer requests, reported that they track PRA requests manually using an Excel spreadsheet or similar internal document.36 These documents require manual data entry and maintenance by staff. For example, see San Bruno’s spreadsheet at Appendix C. While these cities indicated general satisfaction with their current methods of tracking, one city was actively seeking proposals from commercial software vendors and others were considering doing so. Appendix D shows such a vendor’s proposal.

The ten other cities, including most of the larger ones, use third-party software that automates the handling of PRA requests.37 These cities use one of two software applications.38 In interviews, staff generally expressed satisfaction with both products, citing their effectiveness and efficiency. Pricing of these applications will vary based on the configuration and storage options selected. One city indicated a desire to purchase software but cited the city’s budget constraints.

Another city noted that the cost was prohibitive for a city of their size and volume of requests.

Volume of Requests
Thirteen cities reported receiving more than 100 PRA requests in the past year. Two cities reported receiving fewer than 50 requests, while one city indicated that it received more than 1,600 requests for records. Another city noted a 500% increase from the previous year. All cities reported significant increases in the volume of requests received since the outset of the Covid pandemic.

Subjects of Requested Records
All 20 cities reported that the majority of the PRA requests they received were for routine records such as property-related documents, police records, public works documents, and business registrations. For example, in San Mateo, the City Clerk’s office recorded 1,695 PRA requests in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. The largest percentage (46%) were directed to the Community Development Department and typically asked for property records of some kind, including planning applications, building permits, blueprints, inspections, and code violations.

Requests for police records (35%) were the next most frequently requested type of record. The clerk’s office noted that the police department directly receives substantially more requests than come to the clerk through their PRA request software.

36 Atherton, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, San Bruno, and Woodside as of May 16, 2022.
37 Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, and South San Francisco as of May 16, 2022.
38 GovQA, If You Have a Public Records Problem. https://www.govqa.com/solutions/public-records-software/ Retrieved May 16, 2022, and NextRequest, The All-In-One Open Records Request Platform. https://www.nextrequest.com/, retrieved May 16, 2022.

4.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 17
Time-Consuming Requests
The Grand Jury learned that a relatively small number of records requests are disproportionately time-consuming to fulfill. In particular, requests for communications records may fall into this category. The request may require a broad search of all relevant communications created and stored on electronic devices, including employees’ cell phones and laptops. Recently, Portola Valley received what was characterized as a “massive” PRA request for “all town communications regarding the housing element since July 1, 2021, including communications among elected officials, staff, consultants or members of the committee, like emails and text messages, including on personal devices.”39 The request was the result of a potential change to the town’s zoning laws to allow for more dense housing in one residential neighborhood.

Several cities reported to the Grand Jury that on rare occasions a disgruntled citizen or exemployee has intentionally crafted a detailed records request intending to be time-consuming and annoying for the city. One respondent reported that the search and review of electronics communications in response to one request took months to complete, due to the number of responsive records and the broad search of multiple devices.

39 Angela Swartz, “‘Massive’ public records request escalates battle over Portola Valley's housing element,” Almanac, March 21, 2022.
https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/03/21/massive-public-records-request-escalates-battle-over-portolavalleys-housing-element, retrieved June 9, 2022.

4.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 18
Training
State law does not mandate training for those implementing its provisions. City clerks often attend training through annual City Clerks Association of California conferences and other professional associations.

Half of the cities interviewed by the Grand Jury mandate formal PRA training for their key employees. Others offer training but do not mandate it, while some cities have no formal arrangements for PRA training at all.40 Training, if offered, is conducted by the city attorney. In our investigation, respondents agreed that formal training for key city employees would make the handling of records requests more efficient and consistent.

Twelve cities informed the Grand Jury that they provide PRA training for their appointed and elected officials. This training is also typically provided by the city attorney, sometimes with the assistance of the city clerk. Eight cities reported that they do not offer specific PRA training to such officials, but some noted that their training in Brown Act compliance includes PRA training content.41
While the PRA does not include criminal penalties for noncompliance with its provisions, civil actions, as described earlier, may be filed and cities can be liable for court costs and attorneys’ fees.

40 Burlingame, Portola Valley, and Woodside.
41BBK, Attorneys at Law, Summary of the Major Provisions and Requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. https://www.bbklaw.com/bbk/media/library/pdf/major-provisions-and-requirements-of-the-brown-act.pdf, retrieved June 9, 2022.

4.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 19
Increasing Efficiency in Records Request Processing
Some cities have demonstrated how commonly requested records can be made available to the public without formal PRA requests.

Making public records available online is a convenient and efficient mechanism for both the requester and the municipality. Cities generally do this for many common records, such as meeting agendas for public meetings (which are legally required to be posted publicly).42 At the time of this investigation, some cities, such as San Carlos, also posted many records online.

Using the search term “public records” on the San Carlos city website brings up “Records Available Online for Your Easy Access,” which connects to records such as budgets, building permits, and public works documents.

42 CA Govt Code § 54954.2.

4.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20
The Half Moon Bay website offered a “Document Center” containing more than 2,000 city documents going back a decade.

Several cities noted that they often receive requests for the same records repeatedly. For example, this can occur when a sought-after property is offered for sale and brokers, architects, attorneys, and potential buyers are doing their due diligence. Cities using commercially provided software applications, or that post public records as do San Carlos and Half Moon Bay, can reduce the number of such duplicative PRA requests.

Records Management
Proper records management policies and practices facilitate effective compliance with the PRA.

Having better control of these records makes their timely and appropriate production more accurate and efficient. All cities in the County reported having records retention schedules that determine what documents must be retained and for how long. For example, in South San

4.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 21
Francisco, leases for city owned properties must be kept in hard copy for the current year plus two-years. Board and commission resolutions must be kept permanently (a copy of the records retention schedule for South San Francisco is at Appendix E).

The City of San Mateo reported a unique method for encouraging city staff in one element of the effective management of public records. There, the city clerk held a “Records Clean Up Day” (related materials are contained in Appendix F). During this event employees are tasked with:
 Reducing the number of duplicate records;
 Preparing records for off-site storage;
 Imaging and indexing electronic records; and
 Identifying electronic records eligible for destruction.

The retention life cycle of various records determined how different categories of documents are handled. The program was designed to create an enjoyable environment around these tedious tasks by employing a food truck, encouraging casual dress, creating contests with prizes, and printing T-shirts commemorating the day. The program included an on-site shred truck, and the city attorney was available for consultation.

In an email to the Grand Jury, a city staffer wrote, “In addition to elevating the employee understanding that these public records are an asset of the city (just like the vac truck, fleet, and streets) …we have a duty to manage and maintain them well; reinforce the policy and procedures we have adopted; and let’s face it, maintaining records can become back burner in the flurry of day-to-day needs and requests. Setting aside time to honor the need, accomplish an objective and

4.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 22
then celebrate it – keeps it more in the forefront of the mind and honors the importance of the public’s records.” 43
Law Enforcement Records
Some cities reported receiving significant numbers of requests for police records. All such requests were forwarded directly to city police departments or the County Sheriff’s Office (for those cities contracting for police services).44 Law enforcement agencies typically employ a records manager tasked with responding to public records requests. In some cities the disposition of these requests was reported back to the city clerk for inclusion in their tracking systems; in others, the city clerk had no knowledge of the status of a police records request. The Grand Jury did not investigate how these requests for law enforcement records were handled in compliance with the PRA. It is of note that most law enforcement records are exempted from the Public Records Act pursuant to Government Code Section 6254(f).

FINDINGS
F1. The city has no written documentation of its PRA policy and internal procedures, making it more likely that requests could be handled inconsistently.

F2. The city uses a commercially available software application that includes a web portal enabling the public to easily request records and track their disposition.

F3. Information about how to access public records requires multiple clicks to find on the city’s website, which hinders the public’s access to public records.

F4. The City of San Mateo implements a Records Cleanup Day with the purpose of increasing employee understanding of the need to effectively maintain public records, thereby improving PRA request responsiveness.

F5. The city has no PRA request form online, making public access to public records less efficient.

43 Grand Jury correspondence April 26, 2022.
44 Contracting cities are Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, San Carlos, Woodside, and Portola Valley.

4.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 23

RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. The city council should direct city staff to consider and report back by June 30, 2023, on the creation of a written PRA policy or procedures document for circulation to all relevant staff.

R2. The city council should direct city staff to consider performing a cost/benefit analysis and report back by September 1, 2023, on the purchase of commercially available public records request software.

R3. By June 30, 2023, the city council should consider directing city staff to place information about how to access public records on the home page of the city’s official website.

R4. By June 30, 2023, the city council should direct city staff to review and consider adopting a records management practice analogous to the City of San Mateo’s “Records Cleanup Day.”
R5. By June 30, 2023, the city council should direct city staff to create, on the city clerk’s page of its website, a submittable PRA request form.

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses from the selected city and town councils as follows (x):

City F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Atherton x x x x x
Belmont x x x x x x x x
Brisbane x x x x x x
Burlingame x x
Colma x x
Daly City x x x x
East Palo Alto x x
Foster City x x
Half Moon Bay x x x x x
Hillsborough x x x x x x x
Menlo Park x x x x x
Millbrae x x

4.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 24
City F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Pacifica x x
Portola Valley x x x x x x
Redwood City x x x
San Bruno x x x x x
San Carlos x x
San Mateo x x
South San Francisco x x
Woodside x x x x x
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
California Penal Code Section 933.05, provides (emphasis added):
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This

4.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 25
timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

METHODOLOGY
Through examination of surveys, interviews, the documentation provided by the cities, a demonstration of third-party software, and a site visit, the Grand Jury studied how cities respond to public records requests, and how they keep up with changes in the law.

Survey
 The Grand Jury developed an online survey consisting of six questions and a request for copies of their PRA policies and procedures.
 The survey was sent to all 20 city managers in the County and various respondents completed the survey.
 We then followed up with a brief phone interview to confirm the responses received from those completing the survey, and to request written policy and procedures documents and records retention policies.

Documents
The Grand Jury reviewed:
 Policy and procedure documents from all cities that indicated having them.  Records retention policies from several cities.
 Proposals and contracts for third-party software received from various vendors  Marketing material of third-party software vendors
 Research on best practices in records management
Site Tour
 GJ conducted a site visit to the San Bruno City Attorney’s office.  San Mateo conducted a virtual demonstration of their third-party software.

Interviews
 The Grand Jury conducted further interviews with city attorneys, city clerks and city managers based on those with written policies or procedures documents, training of key employees and elected and appointed officials (advisory bodies), number of public records requests received per year, and those with an elected city clerk.

4.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 26
Web Sites
 The official websites of the 20 cities in the County were reviewed to assess the ease in locating information relating to public records, the methods of submission of a public records request, as well as users’ direct access to commonly requested public records.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 League of California Cities (Revised April 2017). The People’s Business: A Guide to the California Records Act. Sacramento, CA.
 League of California Cities. “Open and Public V: A Guide to the Ralph M. Brown Act.” Accessed May 24, 2022. https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/cityattorneys/open-public-v-revised-2016.pdf?sfvrsn=995414c9_3.  Best Best & Krieger. “The Engineering of Public Records Processing.” December 2021 Accessed May 24, 2022. https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/city-clerks-newlaw-and-elections-seminar---session-materials/the-engineering-of-public-recordsprocessing.pdf.  Californians Aware (2004). Top 10 Points to Remember about Exemptions from the California Public Records Act. Carmichael, CA.
 GovQA. “Best Practices for Fulfilling Public Records Requests.” Accessed May 11, 2022. www.GovQA.com-best-practices-fulfilling-public-records-requests.  NextRequest. “Current Issues Affecting Public Records Request Management.” https://www.nextrequest.com/blog/current-issues-affecting-public-records-requestmanagement, accessed May 11, 2022.  Stephan A. Barber. “The California Public Records Act: The Public’s Right of Access to governmental Information.” 7 Pac.L.J. (1976). Accessed May 24, 2022. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2423&context=mlr  California Government Code – GOV Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 3.5, Sections 6250 - 6276.50 Inspection of Public Records.
 Ballotpedia. “Transparency Checklist”. https://ballotpedia.org/Transparency_checklist.

Accessed June 7, 2022

4.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 27

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – The Grand Jury Survey Results
Appendix B – PRA Policies and Procedures: Atherton and Redwood City Appendix C – San Bruno PRA Request Log
Appendix D – GovQA Proposal for Services
Appendix E – South San Francisco Retention Schedule
Appendix F – City of San Mateo’s Clean-Up Day Staff Plan and Flyer

4.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 28

APPENDIX A
The Grand Jury Survey Results

4.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 29

4.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 30

4.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 31

4.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 32

APPENDIX B
PRA Policies and Procedures: Atherton and Redwood City
Atherton: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2021/Appendix B - PRA PAP Atherton.pdf
Redwood City: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2021/Appendix B - PRA PAP Redwood City.pdf

4.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 33

APPENDIX C
San Bruno PRA Request Log
(sample page with requester names removed)

4.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 34

APPENDIX D
GovQA Proposal for Services

4.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 35

4.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 36

APPENDIX E
South San Francisco Records Retention Schedule 2016
https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2021/Appendix E - SSF Retention Schedule 2016.pdf

4.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 37

APPENDIX F
City of San Mateo’s Clean-Up Day Staff Plan and Flyer

4.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s This is an advance copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on August 9, 2022. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 38

4.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment A: Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s

CITY OF PACIFICA
540 Crespi Drive • Pacifica, California 94044-3422
www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Mary Bier

MAYOR PRO TEM
Tygarjas Bigstyck

COUNCIL
Mike O’Neill
Sue Vaterlaus
Sue Beckmeyer
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
October 24, 2022
The Honorable Amarra A. Lee
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Jenarda Dubois
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
Email: [email protected]
Subject: City of Pacifica’s response to “Grand Jury Report: ‘A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s Right to Know’” Dear Judge Lee:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above-referenced Grand Jury report filed on August 9, 2022. Pursuant to Penal Code § 933(c), the City of Pacifica’s response to the findings and recommendations contained in the report and indicated in the “Request for Responses” selected for the City of Pacifica are provided below. The Pacifica City Council, including the Mayor, reviewed and approved the responses at a public meeting held on October 24, 2022.

Responses to Grand Jury Findings Selected for Pacifica:

F2. The city uses a commercially available software application that includes a web portal enabling the public to easily request records and track their disposition.

Response to F2. The City agrees with the finding.

Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations Selected for Pacifica:

R4. By June 30, 2023, the city council should direct city staff to review and consider adopting a records management practice analogous to the City of San Mateo’s “Records Cleanup Day.” Response to R4. This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by June 30, 2023, with the city council directing staff to review and consider adopting a records management practice analogous to the City of San Mateo’s “Records Cleanup Day.” Thereafter, city staff would review a records management practice consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Administrative Policy No. 8 “Records Management and Information Management Program Policy” in which the City Clerk leads outreach to city departments and staff to emphasize a

4.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment B: City's Response to Grand Jury Report (5167 : Response to SMC Civil Grand Jury Report - Government Subject: City of Pacifica’s response to “Grand Jury Report: ‘A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s Right to Know’” October 24, 2022
2 commitment to educate and facilitate coordinated activities to document the annual clean-up, organization and purging of records in accordance with the City of Pacifica Record Retention Schedules. The City of Pacifica’s goal will be analogous to the City of San Mateo’s “Records Clean-up Day” as illustrated in Appendix F of the Grand Jury Report, “A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s Right to Know.” The City of Pacifica agrees that the practice of an annual “Records Cleanup Day” and related activities emphasizes the importance of effective records management practices in a supportive environment that the agency conducts annually while also encouraging practices in routine records management activities that make the annual practice less burdensome.

Sincerely,

KEVIN WOODHOUSE
City Manager
cc: Pacifica City Council

4.b
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment B: City's Response to Grand Jury Report (5167 : Response to SMC Civil Grand Jury Report - Government

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/24/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving the Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography for the premises located at 1220-C Linda Mar Boulevard (located in the Pacifica Center for the Arts) and finding the lease categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving the Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography for the premises located at 1220-C Linda Mar Boulevard (located in the Pacifica Center for the Arts); authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement and finding the lease categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

STAFF CONTACT:

Michael Perez, Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department Director (650) 738-7381
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Stephen Johnson Photography has been leasing the premises at 1220-C Linda Mar (“Premises”) for 18 years, functioning as an upscale photography studio, gallery, and teaching facility.

The initial term of the current Lease, which was signed on October 28, 2019, was for a period of one (1) year with two (2) options to renew for additional one (1) year periods, for a total of three (3) years. The monthly Base Rent was $2,079.35 per month for a total of $24,952.20 per year.

During the Initial Term of the Lease and the first extension, a portion of the Base Rent was adjusted based on professional photographic services rendered by Mr. Johnson to the City thereby reducing the Base Rent by a total amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) per year. (“Base Rent Adjustment”). This Base Rent Adjustment option was exercised by the City in year two. A lease amendment (First Amendment) became effective as of November 1, 2021, to allow for the continuation of an offset to rent via photographic services through the final year of the lease, which expires on October 31, 2022.

The City and Stephen Johnson Photography wish to extend the Term of the Lease Agreement for an additional one-year term from the Effective Date of the Second Amendment, which is November 1, 2022. The monthly Base Rent will be $2,186.22 per month for a total of $26,234.64 per year. Although this Second Amendment no longer includes the Base Rent Adjustment, Stephen Johnson Photography will also continue to provide photographic services still owed and outstanding to the City as part of the initial Lease and First Amendment.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council may choose not to approve the Second Amendment, in which case, City staff will continue to work with Mr. Johnson to enter into a new lease or locate a new tenant. 5 Packet Pg. 121
Pacifica City Council 2
October 24, 2022
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

This action helps to support Fiscal Sustainability and Stewardship of City Infrastructure. “Fiscal Sustainability” includes investing in economic development to increase revenues, funding a reserve/emergency fund, and being well prepared for grant opportunities.
“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.

Approving the proposed Second Amendment would allow the City to receive income to offset the cost of maintenance of the Pacifica Center for the Arts.

CEQA:

Approval of the Second Amendment to the Lease is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the statute (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et. seq.), under Section 15301 as a Class 2 Categorical Exemption as there will be no expansion of previous use beyond that existing at the time of the City’s determination.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Annual revenue in the amount of $26,234.64
ORIGINATED BY:

Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Exhibit A: Second Amendment to Tenant Lease.Stephen Johnson (PDF) Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (PDF) Attachment C: FIRST AMENDMENT TO TENANT LEASE.v2 (003) with exhibit Jan 2022.docx (PDF)
5 Packet Pg. 122
Pacifica City Council 3
October 24, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

CITY OF PACIFICA AND STEPHEN JOHNSON PHOTOGRAPHY FOR THE PREMISES LOCATED AT 1220-C LINDA MAR BOULEVARD (LOCATED IN THE PACIFICA CENTER FOR THE ARTS FACILITY).

WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica is the owner of the property located at 1220 Linda Mar Boulevard, Pacifica, California, depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto (“Premises”); and WHEREAS, Stephen Johnson Photography has leased the Premises located on this property for 18 years, functioning as an upscale photography studio, gallery and teaching facility; and
WHEREAS, the City and Stephen Johnson Photography wish to amend the current lease to allow for the continuation of the current lease for an additional year; and WHEREAS, the City desires to implement a Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Stephen Johnson Photography for use of the Premises for one additional year.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:

1. The City Council hereby finds that the approval of the Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the statute (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et. seq.), under Section 15301 as a Class 2 Categorical Exemption as there will be no expansion of previous use beyond that existing at the time of the City’s determination.

2. The City Council herby approves the Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography, attached hereto.

2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, with minor revisions that may be approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, and to execute any other necessary documents to effectuate the terms of the Second Amendment and take all steps necessary to carry it into effect.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 24th day of October, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
5 Packet Pg. 123
Pacifica City Council 4
October 24, 2022
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 5 Packet Pg. 124
OAK #4884-8182-7128 v2

SECOND AMENDMENT TO TENANT LEASE
By and Between

CITY OF PACIFICA
a municipal corporation of the State of California
(“Landlord”)
And

STEPHEN JOHNSON PHOTOGRAPHY
a sole proprietorship
(“Tenant”)
Dated: November 1, 2022

5.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Exhibit A: Second Amendment to Tenant Lease.Stephen Johnson (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) OAK #4884-8182-7128 v2
The City of Pacifica, a municipal corporation of the State of California (“Landlord”) and Stephen Johnson Photography, a sole proprietorship wholly owned by Stephen Johnson, an individual (“Tenant”) entered into a Lease Agreement on October 28, 2019 (“Lease Agreement”).

A First Amendment to the Lease Agreement was effective as of November 1, 2021. This Second Amendment to Tenant Lease (“Second Amendment”) was effective as of November 1, 2022 (“Effective Date”)
Section 1. The Parties agree to extend the Term of the Lease Agreement for an additional one year term from the Effective Date of this Second Amendment.

Section 2. Subsection 3.2 of that certain Lease Agreement is amended to read as follows:
“3.2 Base Rent; Rent. The monthly Base Rent shall be Two Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars and 22/100 cents ($2,186.22) per month, for a total of Twenty-Six Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Four Dollars and 64/100 cents ($26,234.64) per year.

Section 3. A new subsection 3.2.5 shall be added to read as follows:
“3.2.5 No Base Rent Adjustment for Photographic Services Rendered After November 1, 2022. The Base Rent Adjustment described in section 3.2.1 shall not apply to reduce the Base Rent as of November 1, 2022.

Section 4. The Parties agree that the Tenant shall continue to provide Photographic Services in addition to the Base Rent after November 1, 2022 in the amount of $26,191.91 currently owed and outstanding to Landlord based on Base Rent Adjustments in prior years calculated in accordance with section 3.2.1 of the Lease Agreement and outstanding Rent owed to Landlord.

Section 5. Except as otherwise amended herein, all terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement, including Exhibits attached thereto, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. [Signatures are set forth on following page.]

5.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Exhibit A: Second Amendment to Tenant Lease.Stephen Johnson (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment)

5.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Exhibit A: Second Amendment to Tenant Lease.Stephen Johnson (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

TENANT LEASE
By and Between

CITY OF PACIFICA
a municipal corporation of the State of California
(“Landlord”)
and
Stephen Johnson Photography
(“Tenant”)
Dated: October 28, 2019

5.b
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) OAK #4818-5113-5913 v4 2
OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

1. Tenant: Stephen Johnson Photography
1220 C Linda Mar Boulevard
Pacifica, California 94044
Phone: (650) 355-7507
Facsimile: (650) 355-0232

2. Landlord: City of Pacifica, a municipal corporation of the State of California
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
Phone: (650) 738-7301
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038
Attention: City Manager

3. Premises: An approximately 3,966 contiguous square foot portion of the Building located at 1220 Linda Mar Boulevard, Pacifica, California 94044 as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto.

4. Use: The premises shall be used as an upscale photography studio, gallery, and business. Tenant shall conduct fee-based
instructional and educational classes for the public, and host related public events as a resource for Landlord and the Community.

5. Term: One (1) year, with two options to extend for additional one (1) year terms.

6. Lease November 1, 2019 (“Commencement Date”).

Commencement
Date:

7. Rent Commencement November 1, 2019 (“Rent Commencement Date”).

Date:

8. Base Rent: The monthly Base Rent will be $2,079.35 per month for a total of $24,952.20 per year. A Base Rent Adjustment for Photographic Services rendered will be offered by Landlord during the Initial Term and may be offered in the First Extended Term for services rendered, by a total amount of $12,000. To the extent one or more options to extend are exercised, the Base Rent will be increased 2% annually.

5.b
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 3 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

9. Rentable Square Footage of Premises and Building:

Site Measurements
Room Measurements Square Footage
A. Boys Restroom
B. Lobby

17.5 x 10

22.5 x 14
175
315
C. Girls Restroom 11.5 x 17.5 201.25
D. Classroom 29.5 x 32 944
E. Office Area 9 x 15 135
F. Classroom 29.5 x 32 944
G. Hallway 9 x 28 252
H. Classroom 29.5 x 32 944
I. Wrap around Storage 7.5 x 7.5 56.25
Total 3966.50
The Basic Lease Information set forth above and the Exhibits attached hereto are incorporated into and made a part of the following Lease. Each reference in this Lease to any of the Basic Lease Information shall mean the respective information above and shall be construed to incorporate all of the terms provided under the particular Lease section pertaining to such information. In the event of any conflict between the Basic Lease Information and the provisions of the Lease, the latter shall control.

5.b
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) OAK #4818-5113-5913 v4 4
OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
This Lease Agreement (this “Lease”) is made and entered into effective as of November 1, 2019 (“Effective Date”) by and between the City of Pacifica, a municipal corporation of the State of California (“Landlord”) and Stephen Johnson Photography, a sole proprietorship wholly owned by Stephen Johnson, an individual (“Tenant”).

1. PREMISES.

1.1 Premises. Landlord is the owner of property located at 1220 Linda Mar Boulevard, Pacifica, California 94044 as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”). The defined term “Property” includes the Building in which the Premises are located, the Common Area, and the asphalt parking area located on the Property adjacent to the Building (the “Parking Area”).

The building located on the Property is referred to herein as the “Building.” Landlord hereby leases to Tenant, and Tenant leases from Landlord, an approximately 3,966 contiguous square foot portion of the Building (the “Premises”). The Premises are leased to Tenant in their “as is” condition. A legal description of the Property is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A. A drawing depicting the general location and layout of the Premises and the Parking Area is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit B. Neither the Common Area defined in Section 1.2 below nor the Parking Area is part of the Premises.

1.2 Common Area. Tenant may, subject to rules made by Landlord, and on a nonexclusive basis, use those areas on the Property exterior to the Building designated by Landlord from time to time for the common use of Landlord and all tenants of the Building, including but not limited to common corridors, hallways, restrooms, lobbies, telephone areas, utility or telephone rooms, parking, sidewalks and other public areas (the “Common Area”). Landlord has sole discretion to determine the design and location of the Common Area and to determine the manner in which the Common Area is maintained and operated. The Common Area does not include space within Tenant’s Premises.

1.3 Tenant’s Share; Rentable and Usable Area. The “Tenant’s Share” is the rentable square footage of the Premises divided by rentable square footage of the Building, expressed as a percentage. This shall be adjusted each time Tenant leases or relinquishes any additional space in the Building or substantial completion of a Building Alteration occurs, at which time Landlord and Tenant shall execute an Addendum to this Lease whereby Item 3 and Item 9 of the Basic Lease Information will be amended to reflect the new Premises or Building size and/or configuration, as the case may be. The rentable and usable area of the Premises and the rentable area of the Building are for all purposes under this Lease, stipulated to be as specified in Item 9 of the Basic Lease Information. As of the Effective Date, Tenant’s Share is 12.2%. Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant, nor shall Tenant have any claim against Landlord or defense to the enforcement of this Lease, if it is determined that the actual rentable or useable area of the Premises or the rentable area of the Building differs from that specified in the Basic Lease Information.

1.4 Reserved Rights.

1.4.1 Landlord’s Right of Entry. Landlord reserves the right to enter the Premises upon reasonable notice to Tenant (except that advance notice shall not be required in case of an emergency) for the following purposes: (i) to inspect the condition of the Premises;

5.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 5 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
(ii) to ascertain the performance by Tenant of the terms and conditions hereof; (iii) to respond to an emergency at the Premises; (iv) to maintain, inspect and repair the Premises to the extent required or permitted under this Lease; (v) to post notices of non-responsibility for alterations, additions or repairs undertaken by Tenant; and (vi) to show the Premises to prospective tenants or purchasers or persons acting on their behalf; (vii) to post a leasing sign in or about the Premises; and (viii) to perform any other right or duty of Landlord under this Lease. Landlord may exercise this right of entry without any rent credit to Tenant for any loss of occupancy or quiet enjoyment of the Premises.

1.4.2 Building Alteration. Landlord reserves the right to redesign, reconstruct, expand, enlarge, reconfigure, or otherwise alter the Building during Tenant’s occupancy (“Building Alteration”). Landlord shall provide Tenant with no less than ten (10) days’ prior written notice of the expected start date for the Building Alteration, together with a copy of the general contractor’s construction schedule. Landlord will also provide Tenant with updated construction schedule(s) as received from the general contractor. Landlord and Tenant acknowledge that the Building Alteration and related work will result in such noise, dust, debris, and other inconveniences normally associated with construction projects of that type. In order to diminish such inconveniences, Landlord will add language to the Building Alteration construction contract requiring the general contractor to use its good faith best efforts to minimize disruptions to Tenant, and to require its subcontractor(s) to do the same. Building Alteration or related work shall not constitute a default of Landlord under this Lease, nor be considered or construed as an unreasonable interference with Tenant’s use, enjoyment or occupancy of the Premises. This section does not create any obligation on Landlord’s part to make any efforts to undertake, construct, substantially complete, market or lease the Building Alteration premises, or any portion thereof

1.4.3 Additional Reserved Rights. In addition, Landlord reserve(s) the right upon reasonable notice to Tenant (except that advance notice shall not be required in case of an emergency) to undertake the following: (i) install, use, maintain, repair, alter, relocate or replace any improvements in the Common Area; (ii) grant easements encumbering the Property which do not unreasonably interfere with Tenant’s use of the Premises and dedicate for public use portions thereof; (iii) record covenants, conditions and restrictions (“CC&Rs”) affecting the Property which do not unreasonably interfere with Tenant’s use of the Premises; and (iv) affix reasonable signs and displays. Landlord further reserves all the rights reserved to it by the provisions of this Lease, by the CC&Rs, or by operation of law.

2. TERM.

2.1 Lease Commencement Date. The initial term of this Lease shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing on the Effective Date (“Initial Term”). Any reference to “Term” in this Lease shall include the Initial Term and Extension Terms pursuant to Section 2.2.

2.2 Option to Extend.

2.2.1 Terms of Option. Provided that (i) Tenant is not in default under the terms of this Lease at the time each renewal option is exercised or at the commencement of the applicable Extension Term (as hereinafter defined), and (ii) Tenant has not been in default more

5.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 6 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
than twice in any twelve (12) month period, Tenant shall have two (2) options to renew this Lease for an additional one (1) year period (each, an “Extension Term”). The first Extension Term shall commence, if at all, upon the expiration of the Initial Term and end twelve months later (“First Extended Term”). The second Extension Term shall commence, if at all, upon the expiration of the First Extended Term and end twelve months later (“Second Extended Term”).

There shall be no additional extension terms beyond the two (2) Extension Terms set forth herein.

2.2.2 Each Extension Term shall be on all the terms and conditions of this Lease.

2.2.3 Base Rent for each Extension Term shall be determined as set forth in section 3 below.

2.2.4 Tenant must exercise its option to extend this Lease by giving Landlord six (6) months written notice prior to the end of the Initial Term, First Extended Term of Tenant’s election, if any, to exercise its extension option. If Tenant fails to give notice in a timely manner, Tenant shall lose the ability to exercise its extension option. Landlord may in its discretion waive such failure. If any Extension Term does not commence, then all further options to extend shall automatically terminate.

2.2.5 The extension option set forth herein is personal to Tenant and shall not be included in any assignment of this Lease.

3. RENT.

3.1 Rent Commencement Date. Tenant’s obligation to pay Rent under this Lease shall commence as of the Effective Date. Rent shall be paid as set forth in this Section 3.

3.2 Base Rent; Rent. The monthly Base Rent for the Initial Term shall be Two thousand seventy nine dollars and 35/100 cents ($2,079.35), for a total of Twenty four thousand nine hundred fifty two dollars and 20/100 cents ($24,952.20) per year

3.2.1 Base Rent Adjustment for Photographic Services Rendered. During the Initial Term, a portion of the Base Rent shall be adjusted based on professional photographic services rendered by Tenant to Landlord reducing the Base Rent by a total amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) per year (“Base Rent Adjustment”). (i) The Tenant shall render the photographic services based on the hourly rates and Terms of Use identified in Exhibit C, attached hereto and hereinafter incorporated by reference (“Photographic Services”). Landlord shall request specific Photographic Services from time to time either through a written or verbal request to Tenant and Tenant shall provide those Photographic Services to Landlord in the manner and timeframe requested by Landlord.
(ii) Tenant shall perform the requested Photographic Services in a timely and professional manner and Tenant shall, at Landlord’s request, provide an accounting of

5.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 7 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
Photographic Services rendered to determine the amount of Photographic Services rendered for the period requested.
(iii) Tenant shall at all times provide the Photographic Services as an independent contractor and shall at no time be considered an employee, volunteer or agent of the Landlord.
(iv) Except to the extent caused by Landlord's sole or active negligence, Tenant shall indemnify, defend and hold Landlord harmless from any claims, causes of action, liabilities, losses, damages, injunctions, suits, fines, penalties, costs or expenses (including attorneys' fees and expenses) caused or alleged to have been caused by Tenant’s Photographic Services, including, without limitation, any personal injury, death, property damage, caused or alleged to have been caused by Tenant’s Photographic Services, whether such claims, causes of action or liabilities are first asserted during the Term or thereafter, and including without limitation, claims made against Landlord with respect to personal injury, death or property damage sustained by third parties caused or alleged to have been caused by Tenant's obligations under this Lease to provide Photographic Services. Tenant's obligations under this Section 3.2 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease.

3.2.2 If the Landlord exercises its option to extend the Initial Term, the Landlord may, in its sole discretion, offer to Tenant a Base Rent Adjustment during the First Extended Term. If a Base Rent Adjustment is not offered by Landlord for the First Extended Term, the Landlord shall provide the Tenant with written notice of the Landlord’s decision thirty (30) days prior to the termination of the Initial Term. (i) If Landlord agrees to offer in writing a Base Rent Adjustment pursuant to 3.2.2 during the First Extended Term, the Tenant shall provide the Photographic Services identified in Exhibit C in accordance with sections 3.2.1(i-iv).

3.2.3 There will be no Base Rent Adjustment offered for the Second Extended Term. During the Second Extended Term, Tenant shall pay the total Base Rent on a monthly basis commencing on the first day of the Second Extended Term.

3.2.4 Landlord may terminate the Base Rent Adjustment during the Initial Term or the First Extended Term, if offered, if the Landlord, in its sole discretion, determines that the Photographic Services are unsatisfactory or unnecessary, and may terminate the Base Rent Adjustment upon providing thirty (30) days written notice to Tenant. If Landlord terminates the Base Rent Adjustment pursuant to this provision Tenant shall receive a Base Rent Adjustment for those photographic services rendered up to the written notice date and commence paying the full Base Rent on the first day of the month following said written notice unless otherwise identified. Tenant shall also have the option to terminate the Agreement pursuant to Section 19.1 upon written notice from Landlord of termination of the Base Rent Adjustment.

3.3 Security Deposit. Intentionally omitted.

3.4 Base Rent Annual Increase. Beginning on the commencement of the Extended Terms, if any, the Base Rent for the ensuing twelve (12) month period shall increase two percent from the prior term as follows:

5.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 8 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

3.4.1 First Extended Term: $2,120.93 for a total of $25,451.24 per year.

3.4.2 Second Extended Term: $2,163.35 for a total of $25,960.18 per year.

3.5 Rent Credit. Intentionally omitted.

3.6 Total Rent Concessions. Intentionally omitted.

4. UTILITIES.

4.1 Utilities and Services. Tenant shall be solely responsible for contracting for, and shall promptly pay all charges for telephone, computers and cable lines, wiring, materials, security, and all utilities other than the Services (defined below) consumed or provided in, furnished to or attributable to the Premises at the rates charged by the supplying companies. Except as provided in Section 4.2, Landlord shall be responsible for contracting for and supplying heat, air conditioning, water (except as set forth in Section 4.2), gas, sewer, electricity, refuse, sewage, garbage, and pest control services for the Premises (collectively, the “Services”). In no event shall Landlord be liable for any interruption or failure in the supply of any such utility services to Tenant. Landlord in no way warrants the adequacy of any existing utility systems serving the Premises. Landlord reserves the right to charge Tenant for use of Services which exceed the amount required for use of the Premises for general commercial purposes or exceed any limits established in this Lease, and Tenant shall pay such sums to Landlord as a component of Additional Rent.

4.2 Tenant Utility Costs. In addition to Base Rent, Tenant will be responsible for payment of twelve and two tenths of one percent (12.2%) of utility and water costs associated with the Property. Water costs exclude Landlord’s cost to irrigate playfields on the Property.

4.3 Exculpation of Liability. Landlord shall not be liable for any loss or damage suffered by Tenant or others, by reason of Landlord’s failure to furnish any of the Services, or furnishing reduced Service; no such failure or reduction shall constitute or be construed as a constructive or other eviction of Tenant, nor shall Landlord be liable for loss of business or injury to property however occurring, through or in connection with or incidental to such failure to furnish or reduction of any of the Services. Should Landlord elect to provide a security patrol or system, Landlord shall not be responsible for any damage or injury to Tenant, Tenant’s officers, agents, employees, independent contractors, invitees, customers, visitors, licensees, assignees or subtenants (individually and collectively, “Tenant’s Parties”), or the Premises or property due to failure, action or inaction of such patrol or system. Landlord reserves the right to stop Services when necessary, by reason of accident or emergency or for inspection, repairs, alterations, decorations, additions or improvements which, in the judgment of Landlord, are desirable or necessary to be made, until same shall have been completed, and shall further have no responsibility or liability for failure to supply any Services in such instance. Landlord shall use reasonable efforts to minimize the inconvenience to Tenant from such disruptions or interruptions of Services and shall provide Tenant with reasonable notice of such disruptions or interruptions to the extent that Landlord is aware of or has been provided with advance notice of the disruptions or interruptions. The exculpation of liability under this Section 4.3 shall not apply to the extent claims are caused by Landlord’s sole or active negligence.

5.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 9 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

4.4 No Representation. Landlord makes no representation with respect to the adequacy or fitness of the heating, air conditioning or ventilation equipment in the Building to maintain temperatures which may be required for, or because of, any equipment of Tenant other than normal fractional horsepower office equipment, and Landlord shall have no liability for loss or damage suffered by Tenant or others in connection therewith.

4.5 Conservation and Use Policies. In the event of imposition of federal, state, or local governmental controls, rules, regulations, or restrictions on the use or consumption of energy or other utilities during the Term, both Landlord and Tenant shall be bound thereby. In the event of a difference in interpretation by Landlord and Tenant of any such controls, the interpretation of Landlord shall prevail, and Landlord shall have the right to enforce compliance therewith, including the right of entry into the Premises to effect compliance.

5. TAXES.

5.1 Taxes. As used in this Lease “Taxes” means Possessory Interest Taxes and Personal Taxes. Tenant’s obligations for Taxes for the last full or partial year of the Term and for any prior unpaid Taxes shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease.

5.2 Statement Regarding Possessory Interest Tax. This Lease creates a possessory property interest in Tenant. Tenant’s property interest may be subject to property taxation, and Tenant or the party in whom the possessory interest is vested may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on the interest. Such taxes are referred to herein as “Possessory Interest Taxes”.

5.3 Personal Taxes. Tenant shall pay directly to the taxing authority all taxes and assessments levied upon trade fixtures, alterations, additions, improvements, inventories and other personal property located and/or installed on the Premises by Tenant. Such taxes are referred to herein as “Personal Taxes”.

5.4 Payment of Taxes. Tenant shall pay all Taxes prior to delinquency. To the extent any such taxes are not separately assessed or billed to Tenant by the taxing authority, Landlord shall deliver to Tenant copies of the assessment and tax bill together with Landlord’s proposed allocation between Landlord and Tenant. Tenant shall pay the amount reasonably allocated to Tenant no later than ten (10) business days prior to the date on which such Taxes are due. Taxes attributable to any of Tenant’s personal property situated within the Common Area shall be charged to Tenant. Should Tenant fail to pay its Taxes, Landlord may elect to do so on Tenant’s behalf Tenant will thereafter be required to reimburse Landlord for such Taxes together with interest at the Applicable Interest Rate, from the date Landlord tendered payment, until the date Tenant fully reimburses Landlord. The Parties agree that Tenant shall pay Tenant’s Share (as defined in Section 1.3) of Taxes attributable to the Building.

6. INSURANCE.

6.1 Landlord. Landlord may elect to maintain insurance or an insurance equivalent (including but not limited to, e.g., that offered to a municipality through and by a joint powers authority, a self-insurance pool of liability coverage authorized pursuant to California Government Code Section 6500, or similar collective) insuring the Building on an occurrence

5.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 10 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
basis against fire and extended coverage (including, if Landlord elects, “all risk” coverage, earthquake/volcanic action, flood and/or surface water insurance) similar in type and coverage limits to that carried by Landlord on its other properties. Landlord may also carry such other insurance as Landlord may deem prudent or advisable, in such amounts and on such terms as Landlord shall determine.

6.2 Tenant. Tenant shall, at Tenant’s expense, obtain and keep in force at all times the following insurance, and shall be liable for all premiums, deductibles, and self-insured amounts, if any, in connection therewith:

6.2.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance (Occurrence Form). Tenant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, blanket contractual liability. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. Tenant’s general liability policies shall be primary and shall not seek contribution from the City’s coverage, and be endorsed using Insurance Services Office form CG 20 10 (or equivalent) to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents shall be additional insureds under such policies.

6.2.2 Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance. Tenant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000). Tenant shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a waiver of subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers

6.2.3 Property Insurance. “All risk” property insurance including boiler and machinery comprehensive form, if applicable, covering damage to or loss of any improvements, personal property, fixtures and equipment, including use and disposal of photograph developing chemicals and other hazardous materials, of Tenant (collectively “Tenant’s Property”) (and coverage for the full replacement cost thereof including business interruption of Tenant), together with, if the property of Tenant’s invitees is to be kept in the Premises, warehouser’s legal liability or bailee customers insurance for the full replacement cost of the property belonging to invitees and located in the Premises.

6.3 General.

6.3.1 Insurance Companies. Insurance required to be maintained by Tenant shall be written by companies licensed to do business in California and having a “General Policyholders Rating” of at least A:VIII (or such higher rating as may be required by a lender having a lien on the Premises) as set forth in the most current issue of “Best’s Insurance Guide.”

6.3.2 Certificates of Insurance. Tenant shall deliver to Landlord certificates of insurance for all insurance required to be maintained by Tenant pursuant to this Lease, in the form of the ACORD standard certificate of insurance, prior to the Commencement Date. Tenant shall, at least ten (10) days prior to expiration of the policy, furnish Landlord with certificates of

5.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 11 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
renewal or “binders” thereof. Each certificate shall expressly provide that such policies shall not be cancelable or otherwise subject to modification except after sixty (60) days’ prior written notice to the parties named as additional insureds as required in this Lease (except in the case of cancellation for nonpayment of premium in which case cancellation shall not take effect until at least ten (10) days’ notice has been given to the parties named as additional insureds). If Tenant fails to maintain any insurance required in this Lease, Tenant shall be liable for all losses and cost resulting from said failure.

6.3.3 Umbrella/Excess Insurance. Any umbrella liability policy or excess liability policy (which shall be in “following form”) shall provide that if the underlying aggregate is exhausted, the excess coverage will drop down as primary insurance. The limits of insurance maintained by Tenant shall not limit Tenant’s liability under this Lease.

6.3.4 Notification of Incidents. Tenant shall notify Landlord within twenty four (24) hours after the occurrence of any accident or incident in/at Property or any portion thereof which could give rise to a claim against Landlord, its coverage, Tenant or Tenant’s insurance. Tenant’s notice shall be accompanied by a copy of any accident/incident form prepared by Tenant, reporting and/or relating to the accident/incident.

7. INDEMNITY; LIABILITY EXEMPTION.

7.1 Indemnity. Except with respect to claims solely caused by Landlord’s active negligence or willful misconduct, Tenant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless Landlord and its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, volunteers, lenders, agents, and contractors and each of their successors and assigns from and against any and all claims, judgments, causes of action, damages, penalties, costs, liabilities, and expenses, including all costs, attorneys’ fees, expenses and liabilities incurred in the defense of any such claim or any action or proceeding brought thereon, arising at any time during or after the Term directly or indirectly as a result of or in connection with (i) any default in the performance or the performance of any obligation on Tenant’s part to be performed under the terms of this Lease; (ii) Tenant’s use of the Premises or the Property, including the conduct of Tenant’s business or any activity, work or things done, permitted or suffered by Tenant in or about the Building, the Premises, the Common Area, or other portions of the Property; (iii) any act, error or omission of Tenant or of any invitee, licensee or guest of Tenant, in or about the Building, the Premises, the Common Area, or other portions of the Property; (iv) loss of, injury, or damage to or destruction of property (including loss of use resulting from that loss, injury, damage or destruction); (v) all resulting economic losses, consequential and/or exemplary damages; and (vi) any subleases, assignments and related activities, (all of the foregoing, collectively, the “Indemnification”).

Tenant shall provide such Indemnification by and through counsel reasonably acceptable to Landlord. The obligations of Tenant under this Section 7.1 shall survive the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease.

7.2 Exemption of Landlord from Liability. Tenant, as a material part of the consideration to Landlord, hereby assumes all risk of damage to property including, but not limited to, Tenant’s fixtures, equipment, furniture and alterations or injury to persons in, upon or about the Building, the Premises, the Common Area, or other portions of the Property arising from any cause, and Tenant hereby waives all claims in respect thereof against Landlord, except to the

5.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 12 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
extent such claims are caused by Landlord’s sole or active negligence or willful misconduct.

Tenant hereby agrees that Landlord shall not be liable for injury to Tenant’s business or any loss of income therefrom or for damage to the property of Tenant, or injury to or death of Tenant, Tenant’s Parties or any other person in or about the Building, the Premises, the Common Area, or the Property, whether such damage or injury is caused by fire, steam, electricity, gas, water or rain, or from the breakage, leakage or other defects of sprinklers, wires, appliances, plumbing, air conditioning or lighting fixtures, or from any other cause, whether said damage or injury results from conditions arising upon the Building, the Premises, the Common Area, or other portions of the Property or from other sources or places, and regardless of whether the cause of such damage or injury or the means of repairing the same is inaccessible to Tenant, except damage or injury caused solely by Landlord’s sole or active negligence or willful misconduct. Landlord shall not be liable for any damages arising from any act or neglect of any other tenant, if any, of the Building, the Premises, the Common Area or other portions of the Property or Landlord’s failure to enforce the terms of any agreements with parties other than Tenant.

8. REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE.

8.1 Landlord’s Obligations.

8.1.1 At Landlord’s Election on Tenant’s Behalf. Landlord shall not be required to make or bear the costs of any repair resulting from (i) any alteration or modification to the Premises or to mechanical equipment within the Premises performed by, for or because of Tenant or to special equipment or systems installed by, for or because of Tenant, (ii) the installation, use or operation of Tenant’s property, fixtures and equipment, (iii) the moving of Tenant’s property in or out of the Premises, the Building, or the Property, or in and about the Premises, (iv) Tenant’s use or occupancy of the Premises in violation of Section 10 of this Lease or in the manner not contemplated by the parties at the time of the execution of this Lease, (v) the acts or omissions of Tenant or Tenant’s Parties, (vi) fire and other casualty, except as provided by Section 12 of this Lease, (vii) condemnation, except as provided in Section 13 of this Lease, or (viii) or any condition which might require repair. If Landlord elects to undertake repairs and maintenance necessitated by causes set forth in the preceding sentence, then Tenant shall pay as Additional Rent, Landlord’s actual costs paid or incurred in connection therewith.

8.1.2 Tenant’s Waiver. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, whether stated or implied in this Lease, Tenant waives and releases its rights to make repairs at Landlord’s expense or deduct such expenses from Rent, except as expressly stated in this Lease.

8.2 Tenant’s Obligations. Tenant, at Tenant’s expense, shall maintain the Premises in good order, condition and repair, including, without limitation, interior floor surfaces and floor coverings, interior walls and wall coverings, Signs and Graphics, and any items required for compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations. In the event Tenant fails, in the reasonable judgment of Landlord, to maintain the Premises in good order, condition and repair, Landlord shall, upon five (5) days’ written notice to Tenant, have the right to perform such maintenance, repairs or refurbishing at Tenant’s expense, provided Tenant fails to do so within that five-day period.

5.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 13 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

9. ALTERATIONS.

9.1 Condition of Premises. Tenant acknowledges that Landlord has made no representation or warranty regarding the condition of the Building, Premises, Common Area, or Building except as specifically stated in this Lease.

9.1.1 Current Condition of Premises. The Premises currently contain men’s and women’s restrooms, three classrooms, connecting hallways, and discrete entryways.

9.1.2 Landlord Improvements to Premises. The Premises are leased in an asis condition.

9.2 Tenant Improvements to Premises. Tenant, at Tenant’s sole cost and expense, shall have the right to install track lighting, temporary walls, telecommunications and alarm systems, and other interior improvements subject to Landlord’s prior written approval (“Work”). The location of telephones, call boxes, wires, and other office equipment affixed to the Premises shall be subject to Landlord’s prior approval. Plans, specifications, and drawings for the Work shall be subject to prior written approval by Landlord’s Public Works Director and Tenant shall be responsible for obtaining any and all required permits. Tenant may perform those components of the Work which constitute minor cosmetic alterations (i.e., painting), are non-structural, do not require a permit, and are not typically performed by a licensed contractor or tradesperson. All other Work shall be performed by licensed contractors and in accordance with all applicable laws, including without limitation, any applicable State laws regarding prevailing wage requirements. In no event shall Tenant undertake any structural, electrical or plumbing work in connection with, or work on the exterior of, the Building, the Property or the Premises without Landlord’s advance written consent.

9.3 Trade Fixtures: Alterations. Subject to Section 9.6, Tenant may install necessary trade fixtures, equipment and furniture in the Premises, provided that such items are installed and are removable without structural or material damage to the Premises. For purposes of this Lease, the term “trade fixture” shall mean specialty fixtures or equipment used in Tenant’s trade or business as identified by Tenant and agreed to by Landlord in writing. Tenant shall not construct, or allow to be constructed, any alterations or physical additions in, about or to the Premises without the prior written consent of Landlord.

9.4 Standard of Work. All work to be performed by or for Landlord or Tenant pursuant hereto shall be performed diligently and in a first-class, workmanlike manner, and in compliance with all Laws applicable to the Premises and insurance carrier requirements. Landlord shall have the right, but not the obligation, to inspect periodically the Work. and Landlord may require changes in the method or quality of the Work. In no event shall the Work obstruct access to the Property, Building, Premises and/or Common Area or interfere with the operations of the Building Alteration activities, or related work.

9.5 Damage; Removal. Tenant shall repair all damage to the Property, the Building, and the Premises caused by the installation or removal of Tenant’s fixtures, equipment, furniture and alterations. Upon the termination of this Lease, Tenant shall remove any or all alterations, additions, improvements and partitions made or installed by Tenant and restore the Premises to

5.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 14 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
their condition existing prior to the construction of any such items and perform any closure work, investigation and environmental remedial work required by any Hazardous Materials Laws (as hereinafter defined) or by any other applicable laws, ordinances, regulations or permits by any governmental authority having jurisdiction; provided, however, Landlord may require, upon written notice to Tenant no less than fifteen (15) days before the expiration of the Term, any such items (except trade fixtures) designated by Landlord to remain on the Premises, in which event they shall be and become the property of Landlord upon the termination of this Lease. All such removals and restoration shall be accomplished in a good and workmanlike manner so as not to cause any damage to the Building, the Premises, the Common Area, or the Property whatsoever and in strict accordance with all applicable laws, regulations and governmental orders.

9.6 Liens. Tenant shall promptly pay and discharge all claims for labor performed, supplies furnished, and services rendered at the request of Tenant and shall keep the Property, the Building, and the Premises free of all mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens in connection therewith. Tenant shall provide at least ten (10) days’ prior written notice to Landlord before any labor is performed, supplies furnished or services rendered on or at the Premises and Landlord shall have the right to post on the Premises notices of non-responsibility. If any lien is filed, Tenant shall cause such lien to be released and removed within ten (10) days after the date of filing, and if Tenant fails to do so, Landlord may take such action as may be necessary to remove such lien, without the duty to investigate the validity of it (unless Tenant has commenced an action to contest, dispute or defend the claims of lienholders and has provided Landlord with written notice of the pendency of the action), and Tenant shall pay Landlord such amounts expended by Landlord together with interest thereon, at the Applicable Interest Rate, from the date of expenditure. If Tenant fails to cause such lien to be released and removed within ten (10) days after the date of filing, Landlord may seek any remedies identified in section 14.2.

9.7 Satellites and Antennae. Notwithstanding anything in this Lease to the contrary, Landlord and Tenant agree that it shall be reasonable for Landlord to withhold its consent to (i) installation in or about the Premises, Building, or Property of equipment comprising or relating to relays, monopoles, satellite dishes, antennae, wireless telecommunications devices, transmitters, roof mounts, two-way radios, or similar apparatus (collectively, “Transmission Devices”) or (ii) any assignment or subletting which permits or contemplates installation of such Transmission Devices.

10. USE.

10.1 Usage. The Premises will be used as a photography studio, gallery, classroom and business and for no other uses without the prior written consent of Landlord, which may be granted or withheld in Landlord’s sole discretion. Tenant acknowledges that neither Landlord nor any of Landlord’s agents has made any representation or warranty with regard to the Premises, the Building, the Common Area, or the Property with respect to their suitability for the conduct of Tenant’s business. Tenant’s execution of this Lease and entry of the Premises hereunder shall conclusively establish that the foregoing were at such time in satisfactory condition. Tenant, at Tenant’s expense, shall comply with all laws, rules, orders, ordinances, directions, regulations and requirements of federal, state, county and municipal authorities now in force or which may hereafter be in force (“Laws”), which shall impose any duty upon Landlord or Tenant with respect to the use, occupancy, or alteration of the Premises. Tenant shall

5.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 15 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
be responsible for obtaining any permit or business license required by any governmental agency permitting Tenant’s use of the Premises. Tenant shall comply with the rules and regulations, including observance of prohibited uses, attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated by reference, together with such reasonable additional rules and regulations as Landlord may from time to time prescribe. Tenant shall not commit waste, overload the floors or structure of the Building, subject the Property or any portion thereof to any use which would damage the same or increase the risk of loss or violate any insurance coverage, permit any unreasonable odors, smoke, dust, gas, substances, noise or vibrations to emanate from the Premises, take any action which would constitute a nuisance or would disturb, obstruct or endanger any other tenants, take any action which would abrogate any warranties, or use or allow the Premises to be used for any unlawful purpose. Landlord shall not be responsible for non-compliance by any other tenant or occupant with, or Landlord’s failure to enforce, any of the rules and regulations or any other terms or provisions of such tenant’s or occupant’s lease. Tenant shall promptly comply with the reasonable requirements of any board of fire insurance underwriters or other similar body now or hereafter constituted. Tenant shall not do any act which shall in any way encumber the title of Landlord in and to the Property or any portion thereof

10.2 Quiet Enjoyment. Tenant, upon paying Rent and performing all of its obligations under this Lease, shall peaceably and quietly enjoy the Premises, subject to the terms of this Lease, and any mortgage, deed of trust, lease, or other agreement to which this Lease may be subordinate or affecting all or any portion of the Building or any of the areas used in connection with the operation of the Building. Tenant acknowledges that the Premises are adjacent to a Cityowned dog park that is open to the public. Tenant acknowledges that Tenant is leasing the Premises with full awareness of this adjacent use and with the understanding that normal use of the dog park may cause noise, dust and related nuisances that will affect the Premises.

10.3 Access. Tenant shall be permitted 24 hour a day access to the Premises. During Building Alteration activities, Landlord shall require its contractor to use good faith efforts to minimize any interference with Tenant’s right of access.

10.4 Parking; Workshop Parking. During Tenant’s normal business hours, Tenant and Tenant’s employees, customers and invitees shall be permitted to park vehicles in the Parking Area on a non-exclusive, non-reserved basis together with members of the public and other tenants of the Building. No overnight parking is permitted. Landlord agrees that, provided that Tenant provides at least thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to Landlord, in order to provide parking for attendees of Tenant’s workshops, eight (8) times per year Tenant may reserve space in the Parking Area in the area depicted in Exhibit B for four (4) days on each occasion to accommodate up to nine (9) vehicles. Tenant shall have sole responsibility for placing signs or markers indicating the reserved spaces. Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant nor shall this Lease be affected if any parking is impaired by moratorium, initiative, referendum, or regulation, or use of parking spaces by other tenants of the Building.

5.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 16 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

11. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS.

11.1 Environmental Compliance. Tenant shall, at its sole cost and expense, comply with all Federal, State and local laws from time to time in effect (“Hazardous Materials Laws”) concerning the management, use, generation, storage, transportation, presence, discharge or disposal of hazardous, toxic, radioactive or carcinogenic materials, substances or wastes (“Hazardous Materials”). Except for materials normally and customarily used in photography businesses and studios, such as photograph developing chemicals and the like, kept in small quantities and stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with all Hazardous Materials Laws, neither Tenant nor its agents, employees, contractors, sublessees, assignees or invitees shall use, handle, store, transport, release or dispose of any Hazardous Materials anywhere in, on, under or about the Premises or the Building. Tenant shall cause any and all Hazardous Materials brought onto, used, generated, stored or discharged in the Premises to be removed from the Premises and transported for disposal in accordance with applicable Hazardous Materials Laws. Landlord shall have the right to enter the Premises from time to time to conduct tests, inspections and surveys concerning Hazardous Materials and to monitor Tenant’s compliance with its obligations concerning Hazardous Materials and Hazard Materials Laws. Tenant shall immediately notify Landlord in writing of any voluntary clean-up or removal action instituted or proposed by Tenant, any enforcement, clean-up, removal or other governmental or regulatory action instituted or threatened, or any claim made or threatened by any person against Tenant, the Premises, or the Building relating to Hazardous Materials or Hazardous Materials Laws. Tenant shall also supply to Landlord as promptly as possible, and in any event within five (5) business days after Tenant receives or sends same, copies of all claims, reports, complaints, notices, warnings or asserted violations relating in any way to the Premises or Tenant’s use thereof and concerning Hazardous Materials or Hazardous Materials Laws.

11.2 Tenant’s Indemnification. Except to the extent caused by Landlord’s sole or active negligence, Tenant shall indemnify, defend and hold Landlord harmless from any claims, causes of action, liabilities, losses, damages, injunctions, suits, fines, penalties, costs or expenses (including attorneys’ fees and expenses) caused or alleged to have been caused by the presence, use or release of Hazardous Materials in or about the Premises, including, without limitation, any personal injury, death, property damage, decrease in value of the Premises or Building, caused or alleged to have been caused by the use, storage, generation, presence or release of Hazardous Materials, whether such claims, causes of action or liabilities are first asserted during the Term or thereafter, and including without limitation, claims made against Landlord with respect to personal injury, death or property damage sustained by third parties caused or alleged to have been caused by the use, storage, generation, presence or release of Hazardous Materials in violation of Tenant’s obligations under this Lease. Tenant’s obligations under this Section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease.

12. DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION.

12.1 Restoration of Building. If, during the Term, the Building and other improvements that are part of the Premises are totally or partially destroyed from any cause, rendering the Premises totally or partially inaccessible or unusable, and at least one (1) year of the Term remains, Landlord shall restore said Building and improvements to substantially the same condition as they were in immediately before destruction, if the restoration can be made

5.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 17 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
under then existing laws and can be completed within 180 working days after obtaining all necessary permits therefore, and if the cost of such repairs does not exceed the amount of insurance proceeds received by Landlord from Tenant’s Insurance pursuant to Section 6 above, on account of such damages. Such destruction shall not terminate this Lease. In case of destruction, there shall be an abatement or reduction of Rent, between the date of destruction and the date of completion of restoration if restoration takes place, based on the extent to which the destruction actually interferes with Tenant’s use of the Premises. Tenant hereby waives the provisions of Sections 1932, Subdivision 2, and 1933, Subdivision 4, of the Civil Code of California. If the restoration cannot be made in the time stated in this paragraph, then within 15 days after the parties determine that the restoration cannot be made in the time stated in this paragraph, Tenant can terminate this Lease immediately by giving written notice to Landlord. If Tenant fails to terminate this Lease and if restoration is permitted under the existing laws, Landlord, at its election, can either terminate this Lease or restore the Building and other improvements that are part of the Premises within a reasonable time and this Lease shall continue in full force and effect. If the existing laws do not permit the restoration, either party can terminate this Lease immediately by giving notice to the other party. In the event of the giving of such notice of termination by Landlord or Tenant as provided herein, this Lease and all interest of Tenant in the Premises shall terminate 15 days after receipt of such notice by the other party.

12.2 Uninsured or Underinsured Casualty. In the event that the Building or the Premises are (i) damaged to the extent Tenant is unable to use the Premises and such damage is not covered by insurance proceeds received by Landlord, (ii) the Building or the Premises are damaged to the extent that the estimated repair cost exceeds the insurance proceeds, if any, available for such repair (not including the deductible(s), if any, on Landlord’s property and other applicable insurance) plus any amount that Tenant is obligated or elects to pay for such repair, (iii) the estimated repair cost, even though covered by insurance, exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the full replacement cost of the Premises, or (iv) in the event that the holder of any indebtedness secured by the Building or the Premises requires that the insurance proceeds be applied to such indebtedness, then Landlord shall have the right at Landlord’s option either (a) to repair such damage as soon as reasonably possible at Landlord’s expense, or (b) to give written notice to Tenant within thirty (30) days after the date of the occurrence of such damage of Landlord’s intention to terminate this Lease as of the date of the occurrence of such damage.

12.3 Tenant’s Fault; Repair Limitation. If the Premises are damaged resulting from the negligence or breach of this Lease by Tenant or any of Tenant’s Parties, Rent shall not be reduced during the repair of such damage and Tenant shall be liable to Landlord for the cost of the repair caused thereby to the extent such cost is not covered by insurance proceeds.

Notwithstanding anything in this Lease to the contrary, and except to the extent caused by Landlord’s sole or active negligence, Landlord shall not be required to repair any injury or damage, by fire or other cause to the property of Tenant or to make repairs or replacements of any decorations, or any improvements installed on the Premises by or for Tenant, unless Landlord has received insurance proceeds from Tenant’s property insurance as provided in Section 6.2.3 above, and neither Tenant nor Landlord have opted to terminate this Lease as provided in Section 19.1.

5.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 18 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

13. EMINENT DOMAIN.

13.1 Effect on Rights and Obligations. If any portion of the Premises is permanently taken by condemnation, this Lease shall remain in effect, except that Tenant can elect to terminate this Lease if 25% or more of the total number of square feet in the Premises is taken or if the remaining portion of the Premises is rendered unsuitable for Tenant’s continued use. If Tenant elects to terminate this Lease, Tenant must exercise its right to terminate by giving written notice to Landlord within 30 days after the nature and the extent of the taking have been finally determined, as of the date of termination, which date shall not be earlier than 30 days nor later than 90 days after Tenant has notified Landlord of its election to terminate; except that this Lease shall terminate on the date of taking if the date of taking falls on a date before the date of termination as designated by Tenant. If Tenant does not terminate this Lease within the 30-day period, this Lease shall continue in full force and effect, except that the monthly Rent thereafter to be paid shall be reduced on a pro-rata basis. Tenant shall notify Landlord in writing of any condemnation or threatened condemnation within ten (10) days after Tenant receives notice of said action or threatened action.

14. DEFAULT.

14.1 Events of Default. When used in this Lease with reference to Tenant, the term “default” refers to any breach of Tenant’s obligations under this Lease, however brief. When any such default continues for the applicable period specified below, such default shall constitute an Event of Default hereunder, entitling Landlord to exercise the remedies set forth in Sections

14.2 and 14.3 of this Lease. The occurrence of any of the following events shall constitute an “Event of Default”:

14.1.1 Failure to comply with Assignment and Subletting provisions as set forth in Section 16.1;

14.1.2 Abandonment of or vacating the Premises for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days;

14.1.3 Failure to pay Rent on the date when due and the failure continuing for a period of ten (10) days after such payment is due;

14.1.4 Failure to perform Tenant’s covenants and obligations hereunder (except default in the payment of Rent) where such failure continues for a period of thirty (30) days;

14.1.5 The making of a general assignment by Tenant for the benefit of creditors; the filing of a voluntary petition by Tenant or the filing of an involuntary petition by any of Tenant’s creditors seeking the rehabilitation, liquidation or reorganization of Tenant under any law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency or other relief of debtors and, in the case of an involuntary action, the failure to remove or discharge the same within sixty (60) days of such filing; the appointment of a receiver or other custodian to take possession of substantially all of Tenant’s assets or this leasehold; Tenant’s insolvency or inability to pay Tenant’s debts or failure generally to pay Tenant’s debts when due; any court entering a decree or order directing the winding up or liquidation of Tenant or of substantially all of Tenant’s assets; Tenant taking any

5.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 19 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
action toward the dissolution or winding up of Tenant’s affairs; the cessation or suspension of Tenant’s use of the Premises; or the attachment, execution or other judicial seizure of substantially all of Tenant’s assets or this leasehold; or

14.1.6 The making of any material misrepresentation or omission by Tenant or any successor in interest of Tenant in any materials delivered by or on behalf of Tenant to Landlord or Landlord’s lender pursuant to this Lease.

14.2 Remedies.

14.2.1 Termination. In the event of the occurrence of any Event of Default, Landlord shall have the right to give a written termination notice to Tenant and, on the date specified in such notice (which date is at least two (2) business days following the date of delivery of such notice), this Lease shall terminate unless on or before such date all arrears of Rent and all other sums payable by Tenant under this Lease and all costs and expenses incurred by or on behalf of Landlord hereunder shall have been paid by Tenant and all other Events of Default at the time existing shall have been fully remedied to the satisfaction of Landlord.

A. Repossession. Following termination, without prejudice to other remedies Landlord may have, Landlord may (i) peaceably re-enter the Premises upon voluntary surrender by Tenant or remove Tenant therefrom and any other persons occupying the Premises, using such legal proceedings as may be available; (ii) repossess the Premises or re-let the Premises or any part thereof for such term (which may be for a term extending beyond the Term), at such rental and upon such other terms and conditions as Landlord in Landlord’s sole discretion shall determine, with the right to make reasonable alterations and repairs to the Premises; and (iii) remove all personal property therefrom.

B. Unpaid Rent. Landlord shall have all the rights and remedies of a landlord provided by applicable law, including the right to recover from Tenant: (a) the worth, at the time of award, of the unpaid Rent that had been earned at the time of termination, (b) the worth, at the time of award, of the amount by which the unpaid Rent that would have been earned after the date of termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of loss of rent that Tenant proves could have been reasonably avoided, (c) the worth, at the time of award, of the amount by which the unpaid Rent for the balance of the Term after the time of award exceeds the amount of the loss of rent that Tenant proves could have been reasonably avoided, and (d) any other amount, and court costs, necessary to compensate Landlord for all detriment proximately caused by Tenant’s default. The phrase “worth, at the time of award,” as used in (a) and (b) above, shall be computed at the Applicable Interest Rate, and as used in (c) above, shall be computed by discounting such amount at the discount rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco at the time of award plus one percent (1%).

14.2.2 Continuation. Landlord shall have the remedy described in California Civil Code section 1951.4 (as amended from time to time, and successor statutes thereto) and Landlord may continue the Lease in effect after Tenant’s breach and abandonment and recover Rent as it becomes due. In the event and for so long as Landlord elects this remedy, Tenant shall have the right to sublet its Premises, assign its interest in the Lease, or both, subject to

5.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 20 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
Landlord’s prior written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. In addition, even though an Event of Default may have occurred, this Lease shall continue in effect for so long as Landlord does not terminate Tenant’s right to possession, and Landlord may enforce all of Landlord’s rights and remedies under this Lease, including the right to recover Rent as it becomes due. Landlord, without terminating this Lease, may, during the period Tenant is in default, enter the Premises and re-let the same, or any portion thereof, to third parties for Tenant’s account and Tenant shall be liable to Landlord for all costs Landlord incurs in re-letting the Premises, including, without limitation, brokers’ commissions, expenses of remodeling the Premises and like costs. Re-letting may be for a period shorter or longer than the remaining Term. Tenant shall continue to pay the Rent on the date the same is due. No act by Landlord hereunder, including acts of maintenance, preservation or efforts to lease the Premises or the appointment of a receiver upon application of Landlord to protect Landlord’s interest under this Lease, shall terminate this Lease unless Landlord notifies Tenant that Landlord elects to terminate this Lease. In the event that Landlord elects to re-let the Premises, the rent that Landlord receives from re-letting shall be applied to the payment of, first, any indebtedness from Tenant to Landlord other than Base Rent and Additional Rent; second, all costs, including maintenance, incurred by Landlord in re-letting; and, third, Base Rent and Additional Rent. After deducting the payments referred to above, any sum remaining from the rental Landlord receives from re-letting shall be held by Landlord and applied in payment of future Rent as Rent becomes due under this Lease. In no event shall Tenant be entitled to any excess rent received by Landlord. If, on the date Rent is due under this Lease, the rent received from the re-letting is less than the Rent due on that date, Tenant shall pay to Landlord, in addition to the remaining Rent due, all costs, including maintenance, which Landlord incurred in re-letting the Premises that remain after applying the rent received from re-letting as provided hereinabove. So long as this Lease is not terminated, Landlord shall have the right to remedy any default of Tenant, to maintain or improve the Premises, to cause a receiver to be appointed to administer the Premises and new or existing subleases and to add to the Rent payable hereunder all of Landlord’s reasonable costs in so doing, with interest at the Applicable Interest Rate from the date of such expenditure.

14.3 Remedies Cumulative. Each right and remedy of Landlord provided for herein or now or hereafter existing at law, in equity, by statute or otherwise shall be cumulative and shall not preclude Landlord from exercising any other rights or remedies provided for in this Lease or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity, by statute or otherwise. No payment by Tenant of a lesser amount than the Rent nor any endorsement on any check or letter accompanying any check or payment as Rent shall be deemed an accord and satisfaction of full payment of Rent; and Landlord may accept such payment without prejudice to Landlord’s right to recover the balance of such Rent or to pursue other remedies.

14.4 Default of Landlord. Except to the extent caused by reasons beyond Landlord’s reasonable control, Landlord’s failure to perform any obligation required of it pursuant to the terms of this Lease within thirty (30) days following written notice from Tenant or, in the case of any obligation which cannot reasonably be performed within thirty (30) days, Landlord’s failure to commence such performance within said thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently pursue such performance to completion, shall constitute a default by Landlord under the terms of this Lease. In the event of a default by Landlord, Tenant shall have the right to seek any and all remedies provided for in this Lease or otherwise existing at law.

5.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 21 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING.

15.1 Landlord’s Consent. Tenant shall not assign, sublet or otherwise transfer, whether voluntarily or involuntarily or by operation of law, the Premises or any part thereof, without Landlord’s prior written approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any sublease or assignment or other transfer agreements shall be subject to Landlord’s prior written approval.

Tenant’s attempted assignment/subletting without first obtaining Landlord’s written consent shall be void at Landlord’s election. Landlord’s consent to one assignment or subletting shall not be deemed a consent to subsequent assignments and/or sublettings. The parties agree that it shall be reasonable for Landlord to withhold its consent to a proposed assignment or subletting if the proposed assignee or sublessee or the nature of its business would require Landlord to incur additional expense in construction work or other work to the Premises that would not otherwise be required if Tenant remained, for example, if the proposed assignee or sublessee is subject to compliance with additional requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) (including related regulations) beyond those requirements which are applicable to the tenant desiring to assign or sublease, if the proposed assignee’s or sublessee’s activities in, on or about the Premises or the Property involve the use, analysis, handling, storage, transport, discharge, release, generation or disposal of any Hazardous Materials, or if the proposed assignment or subletting would violate any Section of this Lease.

15.2 Notice. If Tenant desires to assign this Lease or sublet any or all of the Premises, Tenant shall give Landlord written notice thereof (“Tenant’s Transfer Request”) with copies of all related documents and agreements associated with the assignment or sublease, including without limitation, a description of the space Tenant proposes to assign or sublet, the anticipated effective date of the assignment or sublease, the financial statements of any proposed assignee or sublessee, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the anticipated effective date of the assignment or sublease. A condition to Landlord’s consent to any Transfer of this Lease will be the delivery to Landlord of a true copy of the fully executed instrument of assignment, sublease, transfer or hypothecation, in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to Landlord. Landlord shall have a period of thirty (30) days following receipt of Tenant’s Transfer Request and all related documents and agreements to notify Tenant in writing of Landlord’s election to disapprove the Sublease or Assignment. In any event, if Landlord fails to notify Tenant in writing of Landlord’s election, Landlord shall be deemed to have disapproved such assignment or subletting, nor shall failure by Landlord to approve a proposed tenant shall cause a termination of this Lease. This Lease may not be assigned by operation of law. Any purported assignment or subletting contrary to the provisions hereof shall be void at Landlord’s election and shall constitute an Event of Default hereunder.

15.3 Subject to Lease. Any assignments or sublets must be subject to and in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Lease, and must be consistent with the use requirements provided in Section 10 herein. In no event may any sublessee encumber this Lease.

Tenant shall remain fully liable under this Lease and shall not be released from performing any of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Lease.

15.4 Naylor Act. Tenant shall ensure that any subleases or assignment agreements provide that sublessees or assignees are subject to the Naylor Act provisions as set forth in Section 19.2.

5.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 22 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

15.5 Indemnification. Tenant shall ensure that any sublessees or assigns through their subleases or assignment agreements shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless Landlord and its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, volunteers, lenders, agents, contractors and each of their successors and assigns to the same extent that Tenant shall so indemnify Landlord as set forth in this Lease.

15.6 Relocation Waiver. Each sublease or rental agreement shall contain a relocation waiver in substantially the following form: “Relocation Waiver. Sublessee fully releases and discharges the City of Pacifica (in its capacity as Landlord and otherwise as a municipal corporation) from all and any manner of rights, demands, liabilities, obligations, claims, or cause of actions, in law or equity, of whatever kind or nature, whether known or unknown, whether now existing or hereinafter arising, which arise from or relate in any manner to the sale of the Property, Building, Premises, or the Subleased Premises, the full or partial termination of Sublessee’s leasehold interest as permitted under this Sublease, or the relocation of Sublessee’s business operations or the relocation of any person or persons, business or businesses, or other occupant or occupants located on the Subleased Premises, including, without limitation, the specific waiver and release of any right to any relocation benefits, assistance and/or payments under Government Code sections 7260 et seq. (“Relocation Assistance Law”), notwithstanding that such relocation assistance, benefits and/or payments may be otherwise required under the Relocation Assistance Law or other state or federal law. Sublessee acknowledges and agrees that the release and waiver set forth in this Section is material consideration for Landlord’s consent to the sublease by Sublandlord of the Subleased Premises to Sublessee on the terms set forth herein and that, but for this release and waiver, Landlord would not have consented to the sublease of the Subleased Premises by Sublandlord to Sublessee. It is hereby intended that the above release relates to both known and unknown claims that the Sublessee may have, or claim to have, against the Landlord or the City of Pacifica with respect to the subject matter contained herein or the events relating thereto. By releasing and forever discharging claims both known and unknown which are related to or which arise under or in connection with the items set out above, the Sublessee expressly waives any rights under California Civil Code section 1542, which provides:
“A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE

CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER

FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF

KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS
OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.”

15.7 Liability. Landlord may, without waiving any rights or remedies, collect rent from the assignee, sublessee or occupant and apply the net amount collected to the Rent herein reserved and apportion any excess rent so collected in accordance with the terms of the preceding sentence. Tenant (and successor tenants) shall continue to be liable as a principal and not as a guarantor or surety to the same extent as though no assignment or subletting had been made. In addition, Tenant shall make all legally required disclosures to the proposed assignee or sublessee. Landlord may consent to subsequent assignments or subletting of this Lease or amendments or modifications to the Lease by assignees of Tenant without notifying Tenant or any successor of Tenant and without obtaining their consent; Landlord’s consent shall not be construed as relieving Tenant or any successor tenant of any liability or obligation under the Lease. No transfer shall be effective until there has been delivered to Landlord a counterpart of

5.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 23 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
the transfer instrument in which the transferee agrees to be and remain jointly and severally liable with Tenant (and if applicable, successor tenants) for the payment of Rent pertaining to the Premises and for the performance of all the terms and provisions of this Lease relating thereto arising on or after the date of the transfer. No transfer will release Tenant of Tenant’s obligations under this Lease or alter the primary liability of Tenant to pay the rent and to perform all other obligations to be performed by Tenant hereunder. In the event of default by any transferee of Tenant or any successor of Tenant in the performance of any of the terms hereof, Landlord may proceed directly against Tenant without the necessity of exhausting remedies against such transferee or successor. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this Lease, if Tenant or any proposed transferee claims that Landlord has unreasonably withheld or delayed its consent to a proposed transfer or otherwise has breached its obligations under this Section 15.7, Tenant’s and such transferee’s only remedy shall be to seek a declaratory judgment and/or injunctive relief, and Tenant, on behalf of itself and, to the extent permitted by law, such proposed transferee waives all other remedies against Landlord, including without limitation, the right to seek monetary damages or to terminate this Lease.

16. ESTOPPEL, ATTORNMENT AND SUBORDINATION.

16.1 Estoppel. Within ten (10) days after request by Landlord, Tenant shall deliver an estoppel certificate duly executed (and acknowledged if required by any lender or purchaser) to any proposed mortgagee, purchaser or Landlord, in a form substantially similar to that requested the proposed mortgagee, purchaser or Landlord. Tenant’s failure to deliver said estoppel certificate in such time period shall be an Event of Default hereunder and shall be conclusive upon Tenant that (a) this Lease is in full force and effect, without modification except as may be represented by Landlord; (b) there are no uncured defaults in Landlord’s performance and Tenant has no right of offset, counterclaim or deduction against Rent hereunder; and (c) no more than one month’s Base Rent has been paid in advance. In addition, except to the extent caused by Landlord’s sole or active negligence, Tenant shall indemnify and hold Landlord harmless from and against any and all damages, penalties, fines, taxes, costs, liabilities, losses and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs) which Landlord may sustain or incur as a result of or in connection with Tenant’s failure or delay in delivering such estoppel certificate. Landlord reserves the right to substitute a different form of estoppel certificate upon the request of any proposed mortgagee or purchaser. If any financier should require that this Lease be amended (other than in the description of the Premises, the Term, the Permitted Uses, the Rent or as will substantially, materially and adversely affect the rights of Tenant), Landlord shall give written notice thereof to Tenant, which notice shall be accompanied by a Lease supplement embodying such amendments. Tenant shall, within ten (10) days after the receipt of Landlord’s notice, execute and deliver to Landlord the tendered Lease supplement.

16.2 Subordination. This Lease shall be subject and subordinate to all ground leases, CC&Rs, and the lien of all mortgages and deeds of trust which now or hereafter affect the Premises or the Property or Landlord’s interest therein, and all amendments thereto, all without the necessity of Tenant’s executing further instruments to effect such subordination; provided, however, that Tenant’s rights hereunder shall not be disturbed, except in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Lease. If requested, Tenant shall execute and deliver to Landlord within ten (10) days after Landlord’s request, whatever documentation that may reasonably be required to further effect the provisions of this Section.

5.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 24 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

16.3 Attornment. In the event of a foreclosure proceeding, the exercise of the power of sale under any mortgage or deed of trust or the termination of a ground lease, Tenant shall, if requested, attorn to the purchaser thereupon and recognize such purchaser as Landlord under this Lease. The transferee shall not be liable for any acts, omissions or defaults of Landlord that occurred before the sale or conveyance, or the return of any security deposit except for deposits actually paid to transferee, and except as reduced as expressly provided for by operation of law.

17. RELOCATION.

17.1 Relocation. Tenant fully releases and discharges Landlord (in its capacity as Landlord and otherwise as a municipal corporation) from all and any manner of rights, demands, liabilities, obligations, claims, or cause of actions, in law or equity, of whatever kind or nature, whether known or unknown, whether now existing or hereinafter arising, which arise from or relate in any manner to the sale of the Property, Building, or Premises, the full or partial termination of Tenant’s leasehold interest as permitted under this Lease, or the relocation of Tenant’s business operations or the relocation of any person or persons, business or businesses, or other occupant or occupants located on the Premises including, without limitation, the specific waiver and release of any right to any relocation benefits, assistance and/or payments under Government Code sections 7260 et seq. (“Relocation Assistance Law”), notwithstanding that such relocation assistance, benefits and/or payments may be otherwise required under the Relocation Assistance Law or other state or federal law. Tenant acknowledges and agrees that the release and waiver set forth in this Section is material consideration for Landlord’s lease of the Premises to Tenant on the terms set forth herein and that, but for this release and waiver, Landlord would not have leased the premises to Tenant. It is hereby intended that the above release relates to both known and unknown claims that the Tenant may have, or claim to have, against the Landlord or the City of Pacifica with respect to the subject matter contained herein or the events relating thereto. By releasing and forever discharging claims both known and unknown which are related to or which arise under or in connection with the items set out above, the Tenant expressly waives any rights under California Civil Code section 1542, which provides:
“A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE

CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER

FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF

KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS
OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.”

18. MISCELLANEOUS.

18.1 General.

18.1.1 Entire Agreement. This Lease sets forth all the agreements between Landlord and Tenant concerning the Property, the Premises, the Building and the Common Area; and there are no agreements either oral or written other than as set forth herein. Landlord and Tenant expressly agree, by execution of this Lease that all prior Lease agreements and any subsequent amendments or addendums between the Landlord and Tenant entered into prior to the Date of this Lease are hereby terminated.

5.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 25 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

18.1.2 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Lease.

18.1.3 Attorneys’ Fees. In any action or proceeding which either party brings against the other to enforce its rights hereunder, the unsuccessful party shall pay all costs incurred by the prevailing party, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, which amounts shall be a part of the judgment in said action or Proceeding.

18.1.4 Severability. If any provision of this Lease or the application of any such provision shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable to any extent, the remaining provisions of this Lease and the application thereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected, impaired or invalidated.

18.1.5 Governing Law; Venue. This Lease shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the state of California without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. Any action filed to enforce or interpret this Lease shall be filed and heard exclusively in the Superior Court of San Mateo County or the federal district court for the Northern District of California.

18.1.6 No Option. Submission of this Lease to Tenant for examination or negotiation does not constitute an option to lease, offer to lease or a reservation of, or option for, the Premises; and this document shall become effective and binding only upon the execution and delivery hereof by Landlord and Tenant.

18.1.7 Successors and Assigns. This Lease shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Landlord and, subject to compliance with the terms of Section 15, Tenant.

18.1.8 Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing herein is intended to create any third-party benefit.

18.1.9 Memorandum of Lease. Landlord may elect to have either this either this Lease or a short form memorandum hereof recorded pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code section 37393. Tenant shall cooperate with Landlord in executing and acknowledging any such memorandum of lease. Upon the expiration or other termination of this Lease, Tenant shall immediately execute and deliver to Landlord a quitclaim deed to the Premises, Building, and/or Property, as required, in recordable form, designating Landlord as transferee or grantee.

18.1.10 No Agency, Partnership or Joint Venture. Nothing contained herein nor any acts of the parties hereto shall be deemed or construed by the parties hereto, nor by any third party, as creating the relationship of principal and agent or of partnership or of joint venture by the parties hereto or any relationship other than the relationship of landlord and tenant.

18.1.11 Merger. The voluntary or other surrender of this Lease by Tenant or a mutual cancellation thereof or a termination by Landlord shall not work a merger and shall, at the option of Landlord, terminate all or any existing sub tenancies or may, at the option of Landlord, operate as an assignment to Landlord of any or all of such sub tenancies.

5.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 26 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

18.1.12 Headings. Section headings have been inserted solely as a matter of convenience and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any of the provisions contained herein.

18.2 Signs. All signs and graphics of every kind visible in or from public view or corridors, the exterior of the Premises, the exterior of the Building, or on monuments installed or caused to be installed by, for the benefit of, or at the request of Tenant (“Signs and Graphics”) shall be subject to Landlord’s prior written approval, shall be in keeping with the character of the Building and shall be subject to any applicable governmental laws, ordinances, and regulations and in compliance with Landlord’s signage program. Tenant shall remove all such Signs and Graphics prior to the termination of this Lease. Such installations and removals shall be made in such manner as to avoid injury or defacement of the Premises; and Tenant shall repair any injury or defacement, including without limitation, discoloration caused by such installation or removal.

Tenant shall be responsible for all fees, costs and expenses associated with installation and removal of Signs and Graphics. In the event any such fees, costs or expenses are incurred by Landlord (whether directly or indirectly), Landlord shall deliver to Tenant an invoice, with reasonable supporting documentation, and Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for those amounts within fifteen (15) days after receipt of such invoice. Notwithstanding anything in this Lease to the contrary, Landlord is not required to provide Signs and Graphics beyond the standards set forth in the Rules and Regulations. Under no circumstances shall Tenant install or operate lighted signage.

18.3 Waiver. No waiver of any default or breach hereunder shall be implied from any omission to take action on account thereof, notwithstanding any custom and practice or course of dealing. No waiver by either party of any provision under this Lease shall be effective unless in writing and signed by such party. No waiver shall affect any default other than the default specified in the waiver and then such waiver shall be operative only for the time and to the extent therein stated. Waivers of any covenant shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same.

18.4 Limitation of Liability. The obligations of Landlord under this Lease are not personal obligations of the individual officials, officers, agents or employees of Landlord, and Tenant shall look solely to the Premises for satisfaction of any liability of Landlord and shall not look to other assets of Landlord nor seek recourse against the assets of the individual officials, officers, agents or employees of Landlord. Whenever Landlord transfers its interest, Landlord shall be automatically released from further performance under this Lease and from all further liabilities and expenses hereunder and the transferee of Landlord’s interest shall assume all liabilities and obligations of Landlord hereunder from the date of such transfer.

18.5 Notices. All notices to be given hereunder shall be in writing and mailed postage prepaid by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or delivered by personal or courier delivery, or sent by facsimile (immediately followed by one of the preceding methods), to Landlord’s Address and Tenant’s Address, as applicable, as set forth in Item 1 and 2 of the Basic Lease Information, or to such other place as Landlord or Tenant may designate in a written notice given to the other party. Notices shall be deemed served upon the earlier of receipt or three (3) days after the date of mailing.

5.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 27 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

18.6 Brokerage Commission. Landlord and Tenant each represents that neither has been represented by any broker in connection with this Lease, and that no real estate broker’s commission, finder’s fee or other compensation (“Commission”) is due or payable. Tenant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Landlord from any claims or liability, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in connection with a claim by any person for a Commission based upon any statement, representation or agreement of Tenant.

18.7 Authorization. Each individual or entity executing this Lease on behalf of Tenant represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Lease on behalf of Tenant and that such execution is binding upon Tenant.

18.8 Holding Over; Surrender.

18.8.1 Holding Over. If Tenant holds over the Premises or any part thereof after expiration or earlier termination of the Term, such holding over shall constitute a month-tomonth tenancy, at a rent equal to two hundred percent (200%) of the Base Rent in effect immediately prior to such holding over and shall otherwise be on all the other terms and conditions of this Lease. This Section shall not be construed as Landlord’s permission for Tenant to hold over. Acceptance of Rent by Landlord following expiration or termination shall not constitute a renewal of this Lease or extension of the Term except as specifically set forth above.

If Tenant fails to surrender the Premises upon expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, Tenant shall indemnify and hold Landlord harmless from and against all loss or liability resulting from or arising out of Tenant’s failure to surrender the Premises, including, but not limited to, any amounts required to be paid to any tenant or prospective tenant who was to have occupied the Premises after the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease and any related attorneys’ fees and brokerage commissions.

18.8.2 Surrender. Upon the termination of this Lease or Tenant’s right to possession of the Premises, Tenant will surrender the Premises, together with all keys, in good condition and repair, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Conditions existing because of Tenant’s failure to perform maintenance, repairs or replacements shall not be deemed “reasonable wear and tear.”

18.9 Joint and Several. If Tenant consists of more than one person, the obligation of all such persons shall be joint and several.

18.10 Covenants and Conditions. Each provision to be performed by Tenant hereunder shall be deemed to be both a covenant and a condition. This Lease shall be construed as though the covenants between Landlord and Tenant are independent and not dependent. Tenant expressly waives the benefit of any statute to the contrary, and agrees that even if Landlord fails to perform its obligations under this Lease, Tenant shall not be entitled to make repairs or perform any acts at Landlord’s expense, or to any setoff against Rent or other amounts owing under this Lease against Landlord.

18.11 Force Majeure. For purposes of this Lease, the term “Force Majeure” shall mean and include the following: any delay caused by any action, inaction, order, ruling, moratorium, regulation, statute, condition or other decision of any governmental agency having jurisdiction

5.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 28 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
over any portion of the Property, over the construction anticipated to occur thereon or over any uses thereof, or by fire, flood, inclement weather, strikes, lockouts or other labor or industrial disturbance (whether or not on the part of agents or employees of either party hereto engaged in the construction of the Premises), civil disturbance, order of any government, court or regulatory body claiming jurisdiction or otherwise, acts of terrorism, act of public enemy, war, riot, sabotage, blockade, embargo, failure or inability to secure materials, supplies or labor through ordinary sources by reason of shortages or priority, discovery of hazardous or toxic materials, earthquake, or other natural disaster, or any cause whatsoever beyond the reasonable control (excluding financial inability) of the party whose performance is required, or any of its contractors or other representatives, whether or not similar to any of the causes hereinabove stated.

19. MISCELLANEOUS

19.1 Rights to Terminate. Both Tenant and Landlord may terminate this Lease upon sixty (60) days’ prior written notice, only on the grounds of a material default of the Lease.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Landlord may terminate this Lease absent a material default as set forth in Section 19.2. In the event that Landlord determines that the Premises require repair or restoration, Landlord may terminate this Lease upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to Tenant. In the event that the Lease obligations become a demonstrable financial burden on Tenant, Tenant and Landlord agree to negotiate an alternative rent structure or lease termination.

19.2 Naylor Act. The property is subject to provisions of the Naylor Act, California Education Code Sections 17485-17500 et. seq. Landlord has acquired the Property from the school district, and is required to maintain those portions of the Property which were used for school playground, playing field, or other outdoor recreational purposes and open-space land particularly suited for recreational purposes accordingly. If the Landlord does not do so, the school district may reacquire the site. In such event, Landlord shall have the right to terminate this Lease upon sixty (60) days’ prior written notice, but in no event later than the date the reacquisition occurs.

5.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) 29 OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease as of October 28, 2019.

LANDLORD:

CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
ATTEST: By:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
By:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
TENANT

STEPHEN JOHNSON PHOTOGRAPHY
By:

Stephen Johnson, Owner

5.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) Exhibit A
OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
Exhibit A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Real property in the City of Pacifica, County of San Mateo, State of California, described as follows:

PARCEL I:

Being a portion of the lands described in Parcel I of the Deed from Armando Barsotti, et al., to Sterling Terrace Corporation, recorded November 16, 1953 in Volume 2499 of Official Records at Page 245, Records of San Mateo County, described more particularly as:

BEGINNING at the Southwesterly corner of Lot 8, Block 5, all as shown on that certain map entitled, "TRACT NO. 700, LINDA MAR NO. 11, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", recorded December 9, 1954 in Volume 40 of Maps at Pages 39 and 40, Records of San Mateo County, said point also lying on the Southerly line of above mentioned Parcel I in the Deed from Barsotti to Sterling; thence leaving said Point of Beginning, and said Linda Mar No. 11, and running along said Southerly line of lands of Sterling, North 74° 01' 30" West 210.03 feet to the most Westerly corner of said lands of Sterling, said Westerly corner also lying on the common boundary of said lands of Sterling and the lands described in the Deed from Gabriel and Frances Malavear, to C.J. Grieder, recorded November 26, 1952 in Book 2332 of Official Records at Page 577, Records of San Mateo County, thence leaving said Westerly corner along said common boundary North 33° 45' 15" East 745.30 feet to the Southwesterly line of Linda Mar Boulevard, said line also being the boundary of said Linda Mar No. 11; thence leaving said common boundary of Grieder and Sterling along the Southwesterly line of said Linda Mar Boulevard and said boundary of Linda Mar No. 11, as shown on said Map of Linda Mar No. 11, Easterly on a curve to the right from a tangent bearing South 34° 43' 46" East with a radius of 830 feet, a central angle 2° 43' 46", an arc length of 39.54 feet; thence tangent to the last mentioned curve South 32° East 36.52 feet, thence tangent to the last mentioned course on a curve to the left having a radius of 435 feet, a central angle of 17° 52' 02", an arc length of 136.65 feet; to the most Northerly corner of Lot 1, block 5, as shown on said map of Linda Mar No. 11; thence leaving said Southwesterly line of Linda Mar Boulevard and continuing along said boundary of Linda Mar No. 11, South 33° 44' 15" West 615.13 feet to the Point of Beginning.

PARCEL II:

BEGINNING at a point in the Northwesterly boundary line of the lands shown on the Map of part of The San Pedro Rancho forming the Mahoney Interest filed June 25, 1879 in book "A" of Maps at Page 56, and a copy entered in Book 1 of Maps at Page 25, said point being distant North 29° 45' West 956.40 feet and North 34° 45' East 475.46 feet from an iron pipe set in the most Southerly corner of Lot 12 shown on the Map above mentioned; thence leaving said Northwesterly boundary line, North 45° 24' West 328.06 feet; thence North 34° 45' East

5.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) Exhibit A
OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
810.31 feet to the Southwesterly line of San Pedro Valley Road; thence along the Southwesterly line of San Pedro Valley Road, South 45° 26' East 269.01 feet and South 27° 45' East 65.57 feet to the above mentioned Northwesterly boundary line of the lands shown on the Map above mentioned; thence along the last mentioned line, South 34° 45' West 790.28 feet to the point of beginning.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM property conveyed by deed from C. J. Grieder, et ux., to County of San Mateo, dated October 28, 1954 and recorded in the office of the County Recorder, San Mateo County on January 21, 1955 in Book 2730 of Official Records at page 86, described as follows:

BEGINNING at a point which is the most Northerly corner of said tract of land; thence from said point of beginning along the Northwesterly line of said tract South 33° 44' 15" West 30.36 feet; thence leaving said Northwesterly line South 55° 59' 45" East 22.46 feet; thence on the arc of a curve to the right, tangent to the last mentioned course, said curve having a radius of 830.00 feet and a central angle of 21° 15' 59" a distance of 308.07 feet to the Southeasterly line of said tract; thence along said Southeasterly line North 33° 44' 15" East 12.24 feet to the Northeasterly boundary line of said tract which line is also the Southwesterly line of the Pedro Valley Road, County Road No. 61; thence along the Northeasterly line of said tract North 28° 45' 45" West 65.57 feet and North 46° 26' 45" West 269.01 feet to the point of beginning.

PARCEL III:

Being a portion of the lands described in the Deed from Emilio P. Lombardi to John G.

Castagnetto and Esther Castagnetto, his wife, recorded April 15, 1949 in Book 1649 of Official Records of San Mateo County at Page 150 (85745-H), more particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at a point on the Southeasterly boundary line of the subdivision as shown on the Map entitled, "TRACT NO. 693 LINDA MAR NO. 9, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", which Map was filed in the office of the Recorder of the County of San Mateo, State of California on July 21, 1954, in Book 39 of maps at Pages 38 and 39, said point being distant thereon South 33° 44' 15" West 8.73 feet from the most Southerly corner of Lot 40, Block 4, as said Lot and Block are designated on the above mentioned Map of Linda Map No. 9; thence from said point of beginning along said Southeasterly boundary line and its prolongation Northeasterly North 33° 44' 15" East 243.16 feet to the Southwesterly line of that certain 3.0911 acre tract of land conveyed to Laguna Salada Elementary School District by Deed dated March 10, 1955 and recorded August 19, 1955 in Book 2860 of Official Records of San Mateo County at Page 218 (78660-M); thence Southwesterly along said Southwesterly line South 74° 01' 30" East 10.50 feet; thence leaving said Southwesterly line South 33° 44' 15" West 245.47 feet; thence North 61° 21' 15" West 10.04 feet to the point of beginning.

A.P. No.: 023-281-130 JPN 023 028 281 13 A

5.b
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) Exhibit B
OAK #4818-5113-5913 v4
OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
Exhibit B

DEPICTION OF THE PREMISES AND THE PARKING AREA
[Insert Diagram.]

5.b
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) Exhibit B
OAK #4818-5113-5913 v4
OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

5.b
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
Exhibit C

PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICES
In accordance with
1) Create and organize a portfolio of photographs (all photographs provided in digital format) 2) Create new aerial photograph* of the City of Pacifica 3) Aerial photographs of shopping districts (Approximately 11-12 shopping districts) 4) Various Photographs depicting various scenes occurring within the City of Pacifica:
o Events/crowds in City of Pacifica
o Various recreational activities in City of Pacifica
o Dining/relaxing in City of Pacifica
o Shopping in City of Pacifica
o Photographs of essence/highlights of various neighborhoods (Fairmont East and West, Manor, Sharp Park, Fairway East and West, Rockaway, Vallemar, Linda Mar, Park Pacifica, Pedro Point, etc.
o Photographs of different coastal areas (Cliffs at north end of City, bluffs along Esplanade, Sharp Park sea walls, Sharp Park levee, Mori Point, Rockaway, Linda Mar beach) (possibly taken from a boat**)
o Photographs of City Facilities
o Photographs of City services in action such as Parks, Beaches and Recreation, Public Works, Police, Fire, etc.
o Pictures of Palmetto revitalization
o Photographs as requested by City staff
5) Photography Workshops to City Staff
Rates
Photography Services- $125/hour
Workshop Services-$1,250/day
Terms of Use of Photographs
1) Tenant grants to Landlord a perpetual, non-exclusive license to use the photographs taken and provided to Landlord pursuant to the Agreement and this Exhibit C for any “City Driven Use.” “City Driven Use” shall mean any use which is determined by the Landlord, in its sole discretion, to be for appropriate City purposes. Revocation of said license and termination of the Landlord’s use of the photographs shall only occur if the photographs are utilized for something other than a City Driven Use.
2) Landlord may not intentionally manipulate the content of any photographs provided as part of the Photographic Services.

5.b
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
3) Landlord will make efforts to give photo credit to Tenant when possible and practicable. 4) Landlord will make efforts to preserve the metadata contained within the photographs provided to City as part of the Photographic Services.
5) Landlord shall not be liable for any failure of a third party to comply with these Terms of Use and any failure of a third party to comply with these Terms of Use shall not result in a revocation of the Landlord’s license to use of the photographs.
6) Landlord shall not sell any photographs provided as part of the Photographic Services to any third party for a profit.
*Aerial photographs shall be billed at hourly rate and costs relating to rental of an airplane or helicopter shall be additional and negotiated with the City of Pacifica in advance. **Photographs taken by a boat shall be billed at the hourly rate and costs relating to rental of a boat shall be additional and negotiated with the City of Pacifica in advance.

5.b
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
Exhibit D

RULES AND REGULATIONS
Tenant shall comply with the following Rules and Regulations. Landlord shall not be responsible to Tenant for the nonperformance of any of these Rules and Regulations.

Landlord and Tenant acknowledge the provisions of Sections 1.4.3, 10 and 16.2 of the Lease.

1. Locks; Keys. Tenant shall not alter any lock or install any new or additional locks or bolts on any doors or windows of the Premises without obtaining Landlord's prior written consent. Tenant shall bear the cost of any lock changes or repairs required by Tenant. Two keys shall be furnished by Landlord for the Premises, and any additional keys required by Tenant must be obtained from Landlord at a reasonable cost to be established by Landlord.

2. Doors Opening to Public Corridors; Protection of Premises. All doors opening to public corridors must be kept closed at all times except for normal ingress to and egress from the Premises. Tenant shall assume all responsibility, including keeping doors locked and other means of entry to the Premises closed, for protecting the Premises from theft, robbery, and pilferage.

3. Admission to Building. Landlord and its agents shall not be liable for damages for any error concerning the admission to, or exclusion from, the Building of any person. Landlord reserves the right, in the event of invasion, mob, terrorist event, riot, public excitement, or other commotion, to prevent access to the Building or Property during the continuance of that event by any means it considers appropriate for the safety and protection of life and property.

4. Requirements of Tenant. Any special requirements of Tenant not set forth as an obligation of Landlord under the Lease will be considered only upon written application to Landlord at Landlord's address set forth in the Lease. Landlord's employees shall not perform any work or do anything outside their regular duties unless under special instructions from Landlord.

5. No Disturbance of Other Occupants. Tenant shall not disturb, solicit, or canvass any occupant of the Property and shall cooperate with Landlord and Landlord's agents to prevent those actions.

6. Use of Plumbing Facilities; Responsibility for Damage. The plumbing facilities (including but not limited to restrooms, toilets, urinals, wash bowls, drains, and other apparatus) shall be used for no purpose other than that for which they were constructed, and no foreign substance of any kind shall be thrown into them. The expense of any breakage, stoppage, or damage resulting from violation of this rule shall be borne by the tenant who caused, or whose employees or agents caused, the breakage, stoppage, or damage.

7. Inflammable or Combustible Fluids or Materials; Foul or Noxious Gases or Substances; Nontoxic Materials. Tenant shall not use, or keep, or allow to be used or kept, in or on the

5.b
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
Property or any portion thereof, any foul or noxious gas or substance, kerosene, gasoline, or other inflammable or combustible fluid or material, except those used in the normal course of a photography studio and used, stored and disposed of in compliance with all applicable Hazardous Materials Laws. All materials, fabrics, and products used in Tenant's furnishings, wall and floor coverings, and ceiling installations shall be nontoxic and subject to the prior approval of Landlord's architect or engineer. Nothing contained here is intended or shall be construed to alter or diminish any obligations of Tenant under any portion(s) of its Lease addressing environmental matters and compliance, indemnities, Hazardous Materials Laws, Hazardous Materials, or similar matters, or compliance with laws, ordinances, regulations, codes and other governmental requirements.

8. Heating and Air-Conditioning. Tenant shall not use any method of heating or airconditioning, other than that supplied by Landlord, without Landlord's prior written consent.

9. Noninterference with Others. Tenant, its employees or agents shall not take any action which would constitute a nuisance or would disturb, obstruct or endanger any other tenants, or make or allow the Premises to be occupied or used in a manner causing, noise, odors, or vibrations that are offensive or objectionable to Landlord or other occupants of the Property. Tenant, its employees or agents shall not interfere in any other manner with other tenants or those having business in the Building or Property.

10. Cooking; No Use of Premises for Improper Purposes. No cooking shall be done or permitted on the Premises, except that Underwriters' Laboratory (UL)-approved equipment and microwave ovens may be used in the Premises for heating food and brewing coffee, tea, hot chocolate, and similar beverages for employees and visitors. This use must be in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and city laws, codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The Premises shall not be used for lodging, or for any illegal purposes.

11. Exclusion or Expulsion. Landlord reserves the right to exclude or expel from the Property or any portion thereof any person who, in Landlord's judgment, is under the influence of alcohol or drugs or commits any act in violation of any of these Rules and Regulations.

12. Smoking; Illegal Substances. Smoking of tobacco products and use of illegal substances is strictly prohibited in or within 20 feet of the doors of the Property or any portion thereof as per State law.

13. Operation of Electricity, Water and Air-Conditioning. Tenant shall not waste electricity, water, or air-conditioning and shall cooperate fully with Landlord to ensure the most effective operation of the Building's heating and air-conditioning system. Tenant shall not adjust any controls of that heating and air-conditioning system. Landlord shall have the right to control and operate the Common Area and the heating and air-conditioning system in such manner as it deems appropriate for the general benefit of the Building tenants.

14. Compliance With Safety Regulations. Tenant shall comply with all safety, fire protection, and evacuation procedures and regulations established by Landlord or by any

5.b
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1
government agency. Nothing contained here is intended or shall be construed to alter or diminish any obligations of Tenant under any portion(s) of its Lease addressing compliance with laws, ordinances, regulations, codes and other governmental requirements.

15. Extermination. Tenant agrees not to permit the extermination of vermin to be performed in, on or about the Property or any portion thereof except by a person or company reasonably designated by Landlord and at times reasonably designated by Landlord.

16. Obstructions. Tenant and Tenant's employees shall not in any way obstruct the sidewalks, entry passages, pedestrian passageways, driveways, entrances and exits to the Building or Property, and they shall use the same only as passageways to and from the Premises. At no time shall Tenant, its employees or agents be permitted to conduct work activity (except for normal loading and unloading of vehicles) nor store wooden pallets, boxes, goods or other materials outside the confines of Tenant's Premises.

17. Compliance With Insurance Requirements, Warranties. Tenant shall not do anything in the Premises, or bring or keep anything therein, which will in any way increase or tend to increase the risk of fire or the rate of fire insurance or similar coverage carried or available to Landlord as set forth in Section 6.1 of the Lease, or which shall conflict with the regulations of the fire department or the law or with any insurance policy on the Premises or any part thereof, or with any rules or regulation established by any administrative body or official having jurisdiction. Tenant shall promptly comply with the reasonable requirements of any board of fire insurance underwriters or other similar body now or hereafter constituted. Tenant shall not take any action which would abrogate any warranties.

18. Title Encumbrances. Tenant shall not do any act which shall in any way encumber the title of Landlord in and to the Property or any portion thereof Landlord and Tenant acknowledge Section 18.1.9 of the Lease.

19. Disposal of Trash and Garbage. Tenant shall store all trash and garbage within the interior of the Premises. Tenant shall not place or have placed in the trash boxes or receptacles any material that may not or cannot be disposed of in the ordinary and customary manner of removing and disposing of trash in the vicinity of the Building. In disposing of trash and garbage, Tenant shall comply fully with any law or ordinance governing that disposal. All trash, garbage, and refuse disposal shall be made only through routes and at times designated by Landlord.

20. Provision of Information to Tenant's Employees. Tenant shall comply with requests by Landlord that Tenant inform Tenant's employees and agents of items of importance to Landlord.

21. Prohibited Uses and Activities.

21.1 Any use, operation or activity which causes or produces any discharges of noxious, toxic, hazardous or corrosive fumes or gases into the air;

5.b
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment) OAK #4837-0435-8058 v1

21.2 Any use, operation or activity which causes or produces any noise or sound that, because of excessive or unusual volume, duration, intermittence, beats, frequency, or pitch is objectionable to Occupants, customers or visitors to the Property or any portion thereof;

21.3 Any use, operation or activity which causes or produces any excessive smoke emission;

21.4 Any use, operation or activity which causes or produces any the attraction of flies, insects, rodents or other animals, or the creation or emission of dust or dirt;

21.5 Any use, operation or activity which causes or produces any emission of any air pollutants in violation of any state or federal standards, or the discharge of toxic substances or hazardous waste material into any sewer system or storm drain serving the Property in a manner that will result in any leaching into the soil, or release into the atmosphere or water table;

21.6 Hazardous or unsafe uses by reasons of danger of fire or explosion, or uses that will increase the fire hazard rating on the Property or other properties, or uses objectionable or offensive to the Property or adjoining properties;

21.7 Uses in violation of any applicable laws, orders, rules or regulations of any governmental authority, including applicable zoning and land-use laws and ordinances of the City;

21.8 Any construction, erection, or placement of ornamentation or other objects or equipment, permanently or temporarily, on the outside portions of the Property, whether such portion is improved or unimproved, except as specifically permitted by Landlord; and

21.9 Additional prohibited uses as determined by Landlord from time to time.

22. Conflict. In the event of any conflict between these Rules and Regulations or any further or modified Rules and Regulations from time to time issued by Landlord and the Lease provisions, the Lease shall govern and control.

23. Rule Changes; Waivers. Landlord reserve(s) all the rights reserved to it by the provisions of the Lease, by any CC&Rs, and/or by operation of law. No waiver by Landlord shall be construed as a waiver of these Rules and Regulations in favor of any other tenant, and no waiver shall prevent Landlord from enforcing these Rules or Regulations against any other tenant or occupant of the Property. Landlord shall not be responsible to Tenant or to any other person for the non-observance or violation of the Rules and Regulations by any other tenant or other persons. Tenant shall abide by any additional rules or regulations which are ordered or requested by any governmental or military authority. Tenant shall be deemed to have these rules and to have agreed to abide by them as a condition of Tenant's occupancy of the Premises.

5.b
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment B: Stephen Johnson Lease 2019 (Final) (10.28.19) (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Second Amendment)

FIRST AMENDMENT TO TENANT LEASE
By and Between

CITY OF PACIFICA
a municipal corporation of the State of California
(“Landlord”)
And

STEPHEN JOHNSON PHOTOGRAPHY
a sole proprietorship
(“Tenant”)
Dated: November 1, 2021

5.c
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment C: FIRST AMENDMENT TO TENANT LEASE.v2 (003) with exhibit Jan 2022.docx (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography This First Amendment to Tenant Lease (this “First Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of November 1, 2021 (“Effective Date”) by and between the City of Pacifica, a municipal corporation of the State of California (“Landlord”) and Stephen Johnson Photography, a sole proprietorship wholly owned by Stephen Johnson, an individual (“Tenant”).

Section 1. Subsection 3.2 of that certain Lease Agreement, dated as of November 1, 2019 (“Lease Agreement”), by and between Landlord and Tenant, is amended to read as follows:
“3.2 Base Rent; Rent. The monthly Base Rent for the Initial Term shall be Two thousand seventy nine dollars and 35/100 cents ($2,079.35), for a total of Twenty four thousand nine hundred fifty two dollars and 20/100 cents ($24,952.20) per year

3.2.1 Base Rent Adjustment for Photographic Services Rendered. During the Initial Term and each Extended Term, a portion of the Base Rent shall be adjusted based on professional photographic services rendered by Tenant to Landlord reducing the Base Rent by a total amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) per year (“Base Rent Adjustment”).
(i) The Tenant shall render the photographic services based on the hourly rates and Terms of Use identified in Exhibit C, attached hereto and hereinafter incorporated by reference (“Photographic Services”). Landlord shall request specific Photographic Services from time to time either through a written or verbal request to Tenant and Tenant shall provide those Photographic Services to Landlord in the manner and timeframe requested by Landlord. (ii) Tenant shall perform the requested Photographic Services in a timely and professional manner and Tenant shall, at Landlord’s request, provide an accounting of Photographic Services rendered to determine the amount of Photographic Services rendered for the period requested.
(iii) Tenant shall at all times provide the Photographic Services as an independent contractor and shall at no time be considered an employee, volunteer or agent of the Landlord.
(iv) Except to the extent caused by Landlord's sole or active negligence, Tenant shall indemnify, defend and hold Landlord harmless from any claims, causes of action, liabilities, losses, damages, injunctions, suits, fines, penalties, costs or expenses (including attorneys' fees and expenses) caused or alleged to have been caused by Tenant’s Photographic Services, including, without limitation, any personal injury, death, property damage, caused or alleged to have been caused by Tenant’s Photographic Services, whether such claims, causes of action or liabilities are first asserted during the Term or thereafter, and including without limitation, claims made against Landlord with respect to personal injury,

5.c
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment C: FIRST AMENDMENT TO TENANT LEASE.v2 (003) with exhibit Jan 2022.docx (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography death or property damage sustained by third parties caused or alleged to have been caused by Tenant's obligations under this Lease to provide Photographic Services. Tenant's obligations under this Section 3.2 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease.”

3.2.2 Intentionally omitted.

3.2.3 Intentionally omitted.

3.2.4 Landlord may terminate the Base Rent Adjustment during the Initial Term or any Extended Term, if the Landlord, in its sole discretion, determines that the Photographic Services are unsatisfactory or unnecessary, and may terminate the Base Rent Adjustment upon providing thirty (30) days written notice to Tenant. If Landlord terminates the Base Rent Adjustment pursuant to this provision Tenant shall receive a Base Rent Adjustment for those photographic services rendered up to the written notice date and commence paying the full Base Rent on the first day of the month following said written notice unless otherwise identified. Tenant shall also have the option to terminate the Agreement pursuant to Section

19.1 upon written notice from Landlord of termination of the Base Rent Adjustment.

Section 2. Subsection 3.4 of the Lease Agreement is amended to read as follows:
“3.4 Base Rent Annual Increase. Beginning on the commencement of the Extended Terms, if any, the Base Rent for the ensuing twelve (12) month period shall be as follows:

3.4.1 First Extended Term: $2,120.93 per month for a total of $25,451.24 per year.

3.4.2 Second Extended Term: $2,143.35 per month for a total of $25,720.20 per year.

Section 3. Exhibit C to the Lease Agreement shall be replaced in its entirety with the Exhibit C attached hereto.

Section 4. Except as otherwise amended herein, all terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement, including Exhibits attached thereto shall remain in full force and effect. [Signatures are set forth on following page.]

5.c
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment C: FIRST AMENDMENT TO TENANT LEASE.v2 (003) with exhibit Jan 2022.docx (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment to Tenant Lease as of January 10, 2022.

LANDLORD:

CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
ATTEST: By:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
By:

Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
TENANT

STEPHEN JOHNSON PHOTOGRAPHY
By:

Stephen Johnson, Owner

5.c
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment C: FIRST AMENDMENT TO TENANT LEASE.v2 (003) with exhibit Jan 2022.docx (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Revised as of January 10, 2022
Exhibit C

PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICES
In accordance with
1) Create and organize a portfolio of photographs (all photographs provided in digital format) 2) Create new aerial photograph* of the City of Pacifica 3) Aerial photographs of shopping districts (Approximately 11-12 shopping districts) 4) Various Photographs depicting various scenes occurring within the City of Pacifica:
o Events/crowds in City of Pacifica
o Various recreational activities in City of Pacifica
o Dining/relaxing in City of Pacifica
o Shopping in City of Pacifica
o Photographs of essence/highlights of various neighborhoods (Fairmont East and West, Manor, Sharp Park, Fairway East and West, Rockaway, Vallemar, Linda Mar, Park Pacifica, Pedro Point, etc.
o Photographs of different coastal areas (Cliffs at north end of City, bluffs along Esplanade, Sharp Park sea walls, Sharp Park levee, Mori Point, Rockaway, Linda Mar beach) (possibly taken from a boat**)
o Photographs of City Facilities
o Photographs of City services in action such as Parks, Beaches and Recreation, Public Works, Police, Fire, etc.
o Pictures of Palmetto revitalization
o Photographs as requested by City staff
5) From time to time Tenant may provide a selection of photographs and City staff may select individual photographs for City Driven Use, subject to Terms of Use of Photographs at the “per photograph” Rate identified below, which amount shall be credited against the Base Rent Adjustment for Photographic Services Rendered as described in Section 3.2.1. 6) Photography Workshops to City Staff
Rates
Photography Services- $125/hour
Workshop Services-$1,250/day
Per Photograph-$100
Terms of Use of Photographs
1) Tenant grants to Landlord a perpetual, non-exclusive license to use the photographs taken and provided to Landlord pursuant to the Agreement and this Exhibit C for any “City Driven Use.” “City Driven Use” shall mean any use which is determined by the Landlord, in its sole discretion, to be for appropriate City purposes. Revocation of said license and termination of the Landlord’s

5.c
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment C: FIRST AMENDMENT TO TENANT LEASE.v2 (003) with exhibit Jan 2022.docx (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography Revised as of January 10, 2022
use of the photographs shall only occur if the photographs are utilized for something other than a City Driven Use.
2) Landlord may not intentionally manipulate the content of any photographs provided as part of the Photographic Services.
3) Landlord will make efforts to give photo credit to Tenant when possible and practicable. 4) Landlord will make efforts to preserve the metadata contained within the photographs provided to City as part of the Photographic Services.
5) Landlord shall not be liable for any failure of a third party to comply with these Terms of Use and any failure of a third party to comply with these Terms of Use shall not result in a revocation of the Landlord’s license to use of the photographs.
6) Landlord shall not sell any photographs provided as part of the Photographic Services to any third party for a profit.
*Aerial photographs shall be billed at hourly rate and costs relating to rental of an airplane or helicopter shall be additional and negotiated with the City of Pacifica in advance. **Photographs taken by a boat shall be billed at the hourly rate and costs relating to rental of a boat shall be additional and negotiated with the City of Pacifica in advance.

5.c
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment C: FIRST AMENDMENT TO TENANT LEASE.v2 (003) with exhibit Jan 2022.docx (5164 : Stephen Johnson Photography

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/24/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution in support of the SMCTA Cycle 6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the resolution next in order, “A Resolution Supporting the Palmetto & Esplanade Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project and Submitting an Application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Cycle 6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding” for the Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project; Adopt the resolution next in order “A Resolution Supporting the Pacifica Mid-Block Crosswalk Safety Project and Submitting an Application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Cycle 6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding” for the Pacifica Mid-Block Crosswalk Project; and authorizing the City Manager to execute any documents required for the grant.

STAFF CONTACT:

Ryan Marquez, P.E., Project Manager
(650) 738-3769
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On August 4th, 2022, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) released a call for projects for the 2022 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Cycle 6 Grant Program, the largest in history with a combination of Measure A & W funds.

Staff formulated two relevant projects, wrote applications, and submitted them on September 23, 2022. Firstly, the Palmetto & Esplanade Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project, an existing capital project, was submitted with the inclusion of a portion of road resurfacing work and an increase in improvement quantities that may arise during design. The request for this project was an additional $568,504 to match the existing $372,400. Secondly, the Pacifica MidBlock Crosswalk Safety Project, a combination of two existing capital projects, was submitted requesting $234,080. This project looks to replace old and failing in ground roadway lights with standard rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) at five school-front mid-block crosswalks and add three RRFBs and other minor signage and striping improvements in front of or near two senior homes in Park Pacifica on Oddstad and Terra Nova.

As part of the grant application, it is required to submit a resolution in support and committing matching funds. It is therefore the City Manger’s recommendation to adopt these resolutions in support of the two applications submitted for the SMCTA Cycle 6 Pedestrian & Bicycle Program. 6 Packet Pg. 173
Pacifica City Council 2
October 24, 2022
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Alternative Action would be to not adopt the resolution which would disqualify the submitted grant applications.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
· Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise. Adopting the resolution will make the funds available to continue to implement the City’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Plan.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact at this time. However, this action commits the City to provide matching funds to the projects, if the grants are successful. For the Palmetto & Esplanade Bicycle Improvement project, the $372,400 matching funds are already programmed between a combination of the FY 22-23 budgeted Palmetto & Esplanade Bicycle Improvement project and TDA Article 3 grant funds. For the Mid-Block Crosswalk Safety Project, a $58,520 match is required. $40,000 previously allocated under the FY 22-23 budget for school crosswalks will go towards this match. Sufficient funds exist from Measure A and Measure M in Fund 9 to meet the remaining $18,520 needed.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: TA 2022 Cycle 6 PedBike Resolution (PDF)
6 Packet Pg. 174
Pacifica City Council 3
October 24, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA SUPPORTING THE

PACIFICA MID-BLOCK CROSSWALK SAFETY PROJECT AND SUBMITTING AN

APPLICATION TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR CYCLE 6 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM FUNDING
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica (Sponsor) has bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements for the public benefit; and
WHEREAS, the Sponsor has developed the Pacifica Mid-block Crosswalk Safety Project (Project) to install mid-block crosswalk pedestrian improvements adjacent to Schools and Senior Housing; and
WHEREAS, it will cost $292,600 to implement, and Pacifica Mid-block Crosswalk Safety Project; and
WHEREAS, the Sponsor seeks $234,080 for the Pacifica Mid-block Crosswalk Safety Project; and
WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) issued a Call for Projects for the Cycle 6 Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program on August 4, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the TA requires the Sponsor's governing board to adopt a resolution:

1. Supporting the Projects and applications for a $234,080 in TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for Project;

2. Committing the Sponsor to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of $58,520 needed for implementation;

3. Certifying that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and

4. If funds are awarded, authorizing the Sponsor's City Manager, or designee, to sign a funding agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the TA for TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funding for the Project and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the governing board of City of Pacifica:

1. Directs staff to submit an application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for $234,080 for the Pacifica Mid-block Crosswalk Safety Project

2. Authorizes the City Manager or designee, to execute a funding agreement or MOU with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority [and/or other parties, if applicable] to encumber TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds; 6 Packet Pg. 175
Pacifica City Council 4
October 24, 2022

3. Commits to the completing the Project, including contributing $58,520 of matching funds needed for Project implementation, if the requested TA funds are awarded;

4. Certifies that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and

5. Authorizes the City Manager or designee, to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 24th day of October, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 6 Packet Pg. 176
1 18723532.2

A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PALMETTO & ESPLANADE BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT

PROJECT AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR CYCLE 6 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM FUNDING WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica (Sponsor) has bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements for the public benefit, and
WHEREAS, the Sponsor has developed the Palmetto & Esplanade Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project (Project) to install bicycle and pedestrian improvements along critical corridors and intersections and
WHEREAS, it will cost $940,904 to implement the Palmetto & Esplanade Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project and
WHEREAS, the Sponsor seeks $568,504 for the Palmetto & Esplanade Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project, and
WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) issued a Call for Projects for the Cycle 6 Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program on August 4, 2022, and WHEREAS, the TA requires the Sponsor's governing board to adopt a resolution:

1. Supporting the Projects and applications for a combined $568,504 in TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for Project;

2. Committing the Sponsor to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of $372,400 needed for implementation;

3. Certifying that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and

4. If funds are awarded, authorizing the Sponsor's City manager or designee, to sign a funding agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the TA for TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funding for the Project and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the governing board of City of Pacifica:

ATTACHMENT A

6.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment A: TA 2022 Cycle 6 PedBike Resolution (5146 : Resolution in support of the SMCTA Cycle 6 Pedestrian and Bicycle 2 18723532.2

1. Directs staff to submit an application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for $568,504 for the Palmetto & Esplanade Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project;

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute a funding agreement or MOU with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority [and/or other parties, if applicable] to encumber TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds;

3. Commits to the completing the Project, including contributing $372,400 of matching funds needed for Project implementation, if the requested TA funds are awarded;

4. Certifies that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and

5. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 24th day of October, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________

6.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment A: TA 2022 Cycle 6 PedBike Resolution (5146 : Resolution in support of the SMCTA Cycle 6 Pedestrian and Bicycle

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/24/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution authorizing a Side letter agreement between the City of Pacifica and Teamsters Management 350 regarding labor representation and compensation for Deputy Fire Chief and Paramedic Coordinator classifications.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
650-740-2604
[email protected]
Irene P. Camarena, Human Resources Manager
650-738-7303
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Like many Bay Area agencies, the City has been experiencing critical recruitment and retention challenges, having to conduct multiple recruitments for critical professional and management positions. To that extent, another recent recruitment that failed was the replacement of the Deputy Fire Chief, who had rendered his retirement notice to go into effect on October 27, 2022. Due to failed recruitment efforts and in preparation for a new recruitment next year, staff is recommending preparing a side letter to provide the Deputy Fire Chief and Paramedic Coordinator classifications with 7.5% of base salary in lieu of observing City Holidays effective the second full pay period in October 2022 after the adoption of this resolution.

The proposed side letter is in recognition of the essential nature of services provided by these classifications and to coincide with the City’s efforts of bringing consistencies in compensation structure with other fire classifications. Currently, other City of Pacifica Fire classifications, including Firefighters and Battalion Chiefs, receive holiday pay. Extending this benefit to these two classifications will bring consistency and equity within the department and bring the compensation level for these two classifications closer to comparable positions in the recruitment market.

This action may also help retain the incumbent Deputy Fire Chief for another year, provide stability at the Fire Department management level, and benefit the City's future recruitment 7 Packet Pg. 179
Pacifica City Council 2
October 24, 2022
and retention efforts.

Additionally, the affected employees of this side letter will be moved to the Unrepresented Management and Confidential Employees Group and will be subject to compensation, benefits, and specific provisions as currently provided by the Unrepresented Management and Confidential Employees Group benefit resolution.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Do not approve the recommended action and / or provide alternative direction to staff. Not approving this side letter will create operational hardship within the fire department and present future recruitment challenges.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The recommended action is consistent with the following Council goal:
"A Strong City Workforce Infrastructure" includes strategies to address employee retention and attraction challenges, engaging staff in decision-making, and recognizing staff.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The budget impact of adding 7.5% Holiday in lieu pay for the Deputy Fire Chief and Paramedic Coordinator positions and moving them to the Unrepresented Management group will be approximately $45,800 for the full year or $29,900 for the remainder of the current FY 2022-23, which will be absorbed by the savings in the Fire department's budget, so no budget amendment is being requested at this time. If approved, this cost will be factored into the salary and benefits projections for the FY 2023-24 Base Budget.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1: Side Letter (DOCX)
7 Packet Pg. 180
Pacifica City Council 3
October 24, 2022
RESOLUTION NO.

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

THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER IN A SIDE LETTER DISCLAIMING INTEREST IN TEAMSTERS LOCAL 350 AND MOVING THE DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF AND PARAMEDIC

COORDINATOR TO THE UNREPRESENTED MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL

EMPLOYEES GROUP
WHEREAS, Article 4, Section 2-4.401 of the Pacifica Municipal Code establishes a civil service personnel system and procedures for the administration of personnel matters; and
WHEREAS, said side letter agreement between the City of Pacifica and the Deputy Fire Chief and Paramedic Coordinator is detailed in Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, City Manager recommends that the City Council approve the 7.5% Holiday in lieu pay adjustment for Deputy Fire Chief and Paramedic Coordinator classifications effective during the second full pay period of October 2022; and WHEREAS, it is the City's desire to maintain equity within the Fire Department and attract and retain highly qualified employees to staff public safety services; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager to enter into a side letter to move the Deputy Fire Chief and Paramedic Coordinator to the Unrepresented Management and Confidential Employees Group and add a holiday in lieu benefit, with an effective date of October 24, 2022. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 24th day of October, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
7 Packet Pg. 181
Pacifica City Council 4
October 24, 2022
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 7 Packet Pg. 182

SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA
AND

DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF CHUCK POMICPIC

AND PARAMEDIC COORDINATOR MATT POWERS
As you are aware, as of October 1, 2022, the affected employees of this side letter disclaimed interest in Teamsters Local 350 which is consistent in the City's desire to move the Deputy Fire Chief and Paramedic Coordinator to the Unrepresented Management and Confidential Employees Group.

Effective OCTOBER 24, 2022, the City shall incorporate by way of a side letter the following:

The City shall provide for the affected employees of this side letter to include 7.5% Holiday Pay.

It is further understood that the affected employees of this side letter shall be subject to compensation, benefits, and specific language as provided currently within the Unrepresented Management and Confidential Employees Group while retaining any specific public safety language and benefits provided within the Management Employees Teamsters Local 350.

If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding, please indicate your approval and acceptance in the space provided below.

APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY:

KEVIN WOODHOUSE - CITY MANAGER CHUCK POMICPIC - DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF

MATT POWERS - PARAMEDIC

COORDINATOR

7.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment 1: Side Letter [Revision 1] (5168 : Resolution - Side Letter Agreement - Deputy Fire Chief & Paramedic Coordinator)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/24/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Discussion of 2022 California Building Code triennial update and proposed local amendments including building electrification requirements (i.e., Reach Codes), geotechnical hazard analysis requirements, and utility undergrounding.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive a presentation and provide direction to confirm local amendments to be included in an ordinance to be introduced on 11/14/2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

The standards for construction of buildings are contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, more commonly known as the “California Building Code” (CBC). The CBC includes 12 parts addressing a range of regulations that comprehensively address building safety, energy efficiency, and other factors.1 State law requires local agencies including the City of Pacifica to adopt updated versions of the CBC every three years. The City of Pacifica must adopt the next triennial CBC update (2022 CBC) so that it can be effective as of January 1, 2023. State law also allows local agencies to amend the CBC, which is standardized across the state of California, to make changes that are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.2
On September 27, 2022, the City Council conducted a study session to discuss potential local amendments related to electrification of buildings and electric vehicle (EV) charging station requirements, commonly known as “Reach Codes” because they exceed CBC requirements.

The City Council provided direction to staff on certain Reach Codes for new buildings to consider for adoption as part of the 2022 CBC update while deferring consideration of Reach Codes for altered buildings (i.e., renovations and additions) to the future.

For several CBC update cycles, the City has also adopted other local amendments to various components of the CBC. These have included the Building Code, Residential Code, Electrical Code, Plumbing Code, Energy Code, and Green Building Standards Code (codified in Pacifica Municipal Code [PMC] Title 8), as well as the Fire Code (codified in PMC Title 4, Chapter 3).

Staff intends to carry forward these local amendments in largely the same form as in prior updates with minor amendments to eliminate typos, improve organization of sections to align with the 2022 CBC, and other minor amendments.
1 These 12 parts include the Administrative Code, Building Code, Residential Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Energy Code, Historical Building Code, Fire Code, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards Code, and Referenced Standards Code. 2 Health and Safety Code § 17958.5. State law also allows for local amendments to the California Historical Building Code due to local seismic conditions. Health & Safety Code § 18959(f). 8 Packet Pg. 184
Pacifica City Council 2
October 24, 2022
Since adoption of the last CBC update, staff has identified two other local amendments for consideration by City Council:
• Geotechnical hazard assessments
• Underground utility installation
These new local amendments are discussed in greater detail in the following sections of this staff report.

Geotechnical Hazard Assessments
The scope of required geotechnical hazard investigations arose during the General Plan update process. Section 1803 of the CBC, and related provisions in Section R401.4 of the California Residential Code, require an evaluation of the soils present on a development site by a registered design professional such as a civil engineer to determine whether any geological hazards may be present that could cause damage to the proposed structure, for instance from seismic activity. However, these standards are focused on the development site only and do not expressly require consideration of off-site conditions that may also relate to geotechnical hazards.

The local amendment would require evaluation of potential off-site geotechnical hazards, including but not limited to those upslope and/or downslope of a project site, that may have the potential to cause direct injury to persons or damage to property as a result of development of the project. When such hazards are identified, it would also require appropriate design features to minimize them. The proposed local amendment would not require or authorize entry onto neighboring properties such as for the purpose of obtaining soil borings. Rather, the hazard assessment would be limited to data obtained from aerial photos, maps, previously prepared geotechnical reports, and observations able to be made from the project site and other publiclyaccessible areas in the vicinity of the project site, including but not limited to public rights-of-way and public open spaces.

Staff is seeking direction from City Council whether to include this local amendment in the CBC update. Staff recommends City Council inclusion of this local amendment as a citywide requirement to evaluate off-site geotechnical hazards prior to building permit issuance as a complement to similar analyses that are often performed during the discretionary permit review and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis processes. The local amendment would also contribute to implementation of the 2040 General Plan which includes various policies addressing geotechnical hazards in the Safety Element, including but not limited to Implementing Policy SA-I-8 that requires geotechnical studies on certain sites with potential geotechnical hazards. Staff believes there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that this proposed local amendment is reasonably necessary due to local geological and topographical conditions in light of Pacifica’s extensive geotechnical hazard zones identified by the State Geologist, the prevalence of steep slopes in Pacifica, and Pacifica’s history of significant and damaging debris flows and other landslide types.

Underground Utility Installation
The 2040 General Plan requires underground installation of utilities in all new development, as did the 1980 General Plan that preceded it. However, the City does not currently have a generally-applicable ordinance requiring underground utility installation in new development.

This local amendment would create such a citywide requirement that would apply to all new buildings.
8 Packet Pg. 185
Pacifica City Council 3
October 24, 2022
The local amendment would require the following for new structures:
● All on-site utility lines must be placed underground; ● All utility lines between (i.e., connected to and serving) the structure and the point of connection to existing utility lines having the capacity to serve the structure must be placed underground; and
● If any utility lines are being upgraded, the upgraded portions as well as the pre-existing lines shall be placed underground.

The local amendment would also include an exception from the underground utility installation requirements when any of the following three conditions apply:
• The undergrounding of utility lines would require the trenching and repaving of any public right-of-way that has been paved within the last year from the date the building permit application was filed;
• The undergrounding of utility lines would require more than 500 feet of trenching to reach a point of connection to existing utility lines having the capacity to serve the residential structure; or
• The servicing utility carrier has issued written notice indicating that undergrounding is either impractical or impossible given the location of the residence, and that the carrier has refused to provide utilities through undergrounded utility lines.

Staff is seeking direction from City Council whether to include this local amendment in the CBC update. Public Works Department staff has identified the requirement to underground utility installations for new development as an important local amendment for public health and safety in light of Pacifica’s earthquake risk and the presence of wildland-urban interface areas. As a result of these climatic, geological, and topographical conditions, a local amendment would be appropriate. Planning Department staff also recognizes the aesthetic improvement that results when utilities are installed underground. Therefore, staff recommends City Council inclusion of this local amendment.

Reach Codes (Electrification)
The City Council provided direction to staff on certain Reach Codes for new buildings at a study session on September 27, 2022. The tables below summarize the City Council’s direction:
8 Packet Pg. 186
Pacifica City Council 4
October 24, 2022
MODIFICATIONS TO REACH CODES ADOPTED WITH 2019 CBC UPDATE Topic Applicable to New Buildings Direction on 9/27/2022 Exception 1 to All Electric Building
requirement:

All Residential buildings may contain nonelectric Cooking Appliances and Fireplaces.

Eliminate exception.

Exception 2 to All Electric Building
requirement:

Public agency owned and operated
emergency centers.

Eliminate exception.3
However, if the City Council determines to keep
this exception, then revise the local amendment
to define “Emergency Center” to include a broad
range of public facilities used for emergency
operations and services (e.g., emergency
operations center [EOC], fire/police stations,
emergency evacuation/comfort centers, etc.).

Exception 3 to All Electric Building
requirement:

Accessory dwelling units as defined in
Article 4.5 - Accessory Dwelling Units.

Eliminate exception.

Exception 4 to All Electric Building
requirement:

Non-residential buildings containing a forprofit restaurant open to the public may be approved at the discretion of the Building
Official for an exception to install gas-fueled
cooking appliances. This request must be
based on a business-related reason to cook
with a flame that cannot be reasonably
achieved with an electric fuel source.

Examples include barbeque-themed
restaurants and pizza ovens.

There was not clear direction from a majority of
City Council to eliminate this exception. Some
Councilmembers wanted additional information
on the preferences of restaurant operators (gas
vs. electric), as well as information about
restaurants approved since 2020 (when the
current 2019 Reach Codes took effect) and
whether they installed electric cooking
appliances.

Staff has been unable to poll restaurant operators
since the City Council study session on
9/27/2022. However, staff reviewed building
permits issued for new restaurants since the
effective date of the 2019 Reach Codes
(1/1/2020) and determined the following:
- Five new restaurants opened
- Two utilized only electric cooking
appliances
- One utilized only gas cooking appliances
- Two utilized both electric and gas cooking
appliances
Based on the building permit history since
enactment of the 2019 Reach Codes, staff’s
assessment is that the majority of the five new
restaurants (60%) chose to use the exception
and install gas cooking appliances for some or all
3 The City does not currently own or operate any natural-gas powered backup generators at facilities that would be included in the “emergency centers” definition. However, the Public Works Department does operate natural gas-powered backup generators at some stormwater and wastewater pump stations. 8 Packet Pg. 187
Pacifica City Council 5
October 24, 2022
Topic Applicable to New Buildings Direction on 9/27/2022 of their cooking needs.

Staff is seeking direction from City Council
whether to retain or to remove this exception for
certain restaurants.

NEW REACH CODES TO ADOPT WITH 2022 CBC UPDATE
Topic Applicable to New
Buildings
Direction on 9/27/2022
EV parking requirements –
Single-family and two-family
dwellings
Incorporate the model code provisions.

The model code would require two EV spaces total:
- One Level 2 EV Ready circuit 4
- One Level 1 EV Ready circuit 5
EV parking requirements –
Multi-family dwellings (3+
dwelling units)
Incorporate the model code provisions with the “high power” option.

The model code’s “high power” option would establish EV parking space requirements on a dwelling unit basis, as opposed to a proportion of overall parking spaces, to ensure each dwelling unit has dedicated access to EV charging
infrastructure, as follows:
- Level 2 EVCS: 15% of dwelling units with parking
spaces 6
- Level 2 EV Ready (low-power): 85% of dwelling units
with parking spaces 7
-
To minimize costs associated with affordable housing
development, the local amendment would give a developer the discretion to exclude any dwelling unit that is a deedrestricted affordable housing unit from EV parking requirements.

EV parking requirements –
Non-residential
Incorporate the model code provisions, with change of
“capable” to “ready.” 8
The model code includes two categories of non-residential development: Offices and All Other. The City Council also considered establishing new categories for publicly-owned or operated parking lots and overnight accommodations.

With the changes directed by City Council, non-residential EV parking would be required as follows:
4 Level 2 charging refers to a 240-volt circuit and results in faster charging as compared to Level 1 charging which uses a 120-volt circuit.
5 Ibid.
6 EVCS includes the elements of an EV ready configuration plus an EV charging station. 7 A “low-power” Level 2 EV Ready setup includes a minimum 4.1 kVA (240 volt, 20-ampere) circuit, as compared to a standard Level 2 EV Ready setup that includes a minimum 8.3 kVa (240 volt, 40-ampere) circuit.
8 Ibid.
8 Packet Pg. 188
Pacifica City Council 6
October 24, 2022
Topic Applicable to New
Buildings
Direction on 9/27/2022
Offices
- Level 2 EVCS: 20% of off-street parking spaces
- Level 2 EV Ready: 30% of off-street parking spaces
Public Parking Lots9(Staff Recommendation)
- Level 2 EVCS: 15% of off-street parking spaces
- Level 2 EV Ready: 20% of off-street parking spaces
Overnight Accommodations (Staff Recommendation)
- Level 2 EVCS: 30% of off-street parking spaces
- Level 2 EV Ready: 20% of off-street parking spaces
All Other
- Level 2 EVCS: 10% of off-street parking spaces
- Level 2 EV Ready: 10% of off-street parking spaces
Staff’s recommendation for Public Parking Lots reflects an assessment that such lots dedicated to primary use as visitor parking will likely have medium parking durations between those for retail parking (included in the All Other category, with short durations) and Offices (long durations).

Staff’s recommendation for Overnight Accommodations
reflects an assessment that many occupants may drive
significant distances before, during, and after their stays, and as a result will require a greater proportion of Level 2 EVCS parking spaces than other uses.

Reach Codes (Graywater)
The City Council also directed exploration of a potential Reach Code related to use of graywater10 for certain domestic plumbing purposes. The 2022 Plumbing Code contains standards for graywater systems but does not mandate their installation or use.

Staff has evaluated the Town of Portola Valley’s graywater ordinance 11, which was adopted in 2017, and which was mentioned at the September 27 study session. Portola Valley’s ordinance requires graywater ready infrastructure in new buildings to enable future installation of a distributed irrigation system. Graywater ready infrastructure includes:
- installation of additional drain piping to capture the discharge from all clothes washers and all applicable fixtures from bathrooms located above grade; - connection of the additional drain piping to either a separate multiple pipe outlet or a 9 Includes parking lots dedicated to primary use as an off-street parking facility, and does not include offstreet parking areas that are accessory to another primary use such as an office or other public facility. 10 The term “graywater” is defined in the California Plumbing Code as “untreated wastewater that has not been contaminated by any toilet discharge, has not been affected by infectious, contaminated, or unhealthy bodily wastes, and does not present a threat from contamination by unhealthful processing, manufacturing, or operating wastes. ‘Graywater’ includes, but is not limited to, wastewater from bathtubs, showers, bathroom washbasins, clothes washing machines, and laundry tubs, but does not include wastewater from kitchen sinks or dishwashers.”
11 Primarily on page 10.
8 Packet Pg. 189
Pacifica City Council 7
October 24, 2022
diverter valve and an outside “stub-out” installation on clothes washing machine hookups, to allow separate discharge of graywater directly for irrigation; - installation of a building drain(s) for lavatories (i.e., bathroom sinks), showers, and bathtubs segregated from drains for all other plumbing fixtures, connected to the blackwater (i.e., non-graywater) drain pipe a minimum of three feet from the building foundation;
- Installation of a power supply for future graywater treatment system; and - identification of an appropriate location for future installation of a graywater treatment system, including storage tanks.

The graywater Reach Code enacted by Portola Valley requires the installation of plumbing and other improvements during new construction due to the typical location of these components behind finished walls and beneath finished surfaces such as floors and concrete. Because of the limitation to a ready status, the Portola Valley ordinance would not result in graywater reuse for irrigation until such future time as a building owner voluntarily installs the remaining system components to enable a fully functioning system. Portola Valley’s ordinance also would require installation of a separate drain system by a licensed plumber, potentially increasing project costs. The licensed plumber would need to coordinate with a licensed electrician given the requirement to also install a power supply for a future graywater treatment system.

Other alternative ways to reduce water use for irrigation that may be considered more costeffective and impactful than a graywater Reach Code, include restricting installation of high water use landscaping and requiring water-efficient irrigation systems. These alternative methods would have the added benefit of being adaptable to existing buildings, whereas there is not likely to be a cost-effective way to convert existing buildings to a graywater ready status due to the need to access and install plumbing drain pipes that may be located behind finished walls or elsewhere that would require invasive demolition to expose.

Staff is seeking City Council direction on whether to further explore graywater Reach Code options for inclusion in the ordinance adopting local amendments.

Conclusion
The City Manager is seeking City Council confirmation of direction from the September 27 study session regarding carrying forward existing non-Reach Code local amendments, and incorporating Reach Codes addressing building electrification and EV charging for new buildings as detailed in this report. The City Manager also recommends adding requirements to study off-site geotechnical hazards and installation of underground utilities, and seeks Council input on these requirements. Finally, the City Manager requests City Council direction whether to include Reach Codes related to graywater.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

None identified. Staff is only requesting direction by City Council. Any decision to adopt local amendments to the CBC would be considered by the City Council at a future public hearing.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Adoption of local amendments to the CBC is not related to a City Council priority work plan item.

However, adoption of certain local amendments, including Reach Codes, would support the following Council-adopted goals:

Goals
● “Stewardship of City Infrastructure” includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities, improving streets, stormwater and wastewater infrastructure and responding to impacts of sea level rise and other effects of climate change.
8 Packet Pg. 190
Pacifica City Council 8
October 24, 2022
● “Environmental Sustainability” includes stewardship of parks, urban forests and open space, preserving hillsides and beaches, and adaptation to climate change.

In addition, the City of Pacifica’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) Goal 4.1.1 states that the City should “Require Green Building Practices in Both the New Construction and Remodel Market.” FISCAL IMPACT:

The Fiscal Year 2022-2023 adopted budget included $25,000 for costs associated with the 2022 California Building Code update. Staff estimates the budgeted amount should be sufficient for analysis and adoption of all local amendments identified in this staff report. Council direction to analyze other local amendments has the potential to incur additional costs that were not anticipated in the adopted budget.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
8 Packet Pg. 191

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/24/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Rejection of Bids for the Pacifica Pier Handrail Repair Project & Award of Agreement with GHD, Inc. for structural inspection of Pacifica Pier
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to Reject the Bid for the Pacifica Pier Handrail Repair, Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 1 with GHD, Inc. (Attachment A) in the Amount Not to Exceed $167,252, and Allocate $217,252 in Budget for the Pier Structural Assessment from the Pier Handrail Repair Project.

STAFF CONTACT:

Ryan Marquez, P.E., Project Manager
(650) 738-3768
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:

On January 14, 2021, a combination of high tides and large waves damaged a forty-foot section of the Pacifica Municipal Pier’s west facing deck and concrete railing located at the end of the Pier. The City’s Public Works Engineering Division assessed the Pier damage and hired GHD, Inc. to prepare a pier handrail condition assessment report. The report stated that the section of the Pier running parallel to the shoreline, where the railing was broken from the Pier deck, would need to be fenced off and closed to public access. The report also noted that railing sections identified as severely damaged that were within the area of the pier running perpendicular to the shoreline should be repaired within a year period. A subsequent structural report on the Pier railing prepared in the summer of 2022 by GHD has pushed that date out and now recommends replacing the severe panels in the next two years (Attachment B). This is because the new structural report has shown a slower deterioration rate in the railings than anticipated in the first report that was prepared.

During design of the project, the City’s consultant for this project, GHD, Inc., believed there could be a cost and time savings to the project by replacing all the pier railings at one time because all of the railing was shown as needing replacement over a ten-year period. The other option was to replace the most severely deteriorated railings now and then returning several times over a ten-year period to replace the other railings as they reached their failing point.

Consequently, the project was designed for replacement of all of the pier railing while staff looked for grant funding.

Once funding from the California State Parks and California Coastal Conservancy was secured on April 20, 2022, Public Works released a contractor prequalification for the project. Work on piers and over open waters is specialized, and as such, staff needs to ensure the contractors 9 Packet Pg. 192
Pacifica City Council 2
October 24, 2022
receiving the work will be able to perform effectively. On May 16, 2022, three (3) contractors submitted pre-qualifications: Valentine Corporation, Dutra Corporation, and Yerba Buena Engineering and Construction, Inc. All three passed the prequalification requirements. The project was then advertised on May 18th and May 25th for prequalified bids. On June 14, 2022, the bid opening was held via Zoom by the City Clerk and one bid from Valentine came in for $3.2 million, significantly over the Engineers Estimate of approximately $800,000. On June 27, 2022, City Council moved to reject all bids and re-bid the project due to the high bid received.

Based on escalating construction bid prices during Covid around the Bay Area and limited project funding, staff and GHD worked on rescoping the project to bid out only the most severely damaged railings and clarified plans and specifications as needed to allow for the best possible bid results. The project was reopened for contractor prequalification in July 2022 and after City staff outreach, there were six additional contractors that submitted pre-qualification forms. This resulted in eight total prequalified bidders.

The project was readvertised on July 20th and July 27th for bid opening on August 16, 2022. The Project Plans and Specifications can be found in Attachment D. The bid opening was held via Zoom by the City Clerk and the results were as follows:

Company Base Bid
Power Engineering Construction Co $1,409,937.00
Disney Construction $1,513,333.00
Valentine Corporation $1,759,369.00
The Dutra Group $2,163,394.00
Abhe and Svoboda, Inc. $3,039,193.00
The engineer’s estimate was $1.2M to $1.5M. Power Engineering Construction Company was the identified low bidder at $1,409,937, however, this was above the $960,000 budget for the project. With soft costs, that include contingency, construction management and construction design support, the anticipated total project cost is $1,900,000. The project schedule projects approximately 6 months for the construction work and the pier would need to be fully closed for most or all of the work period.

DISCUSSION:

During project re-bid, a subsequent structural handrail inspection was completed in August of 2022 utilizing the data collected in 2021 as a baseline and GHD concluded that there was more time to complete the handrail repair work than initially thought because the railing deterioration rates were slower than anticipated. The report shows roughly 26% of the panels need to be replaced within two years. Furthermore, it is expected that 85% of the total panels need to be replaced within 5 years and all the panels should be replaced with 10 years (Attachment B).

Costs for total railing replacement are projected to be in the range of $3.5M to $4M, based on the August 2022 bid.

Because the new structural assessment shows slower deterioration of the railings, and because of the need to search for additional grant funding due to the high bid prices, staff has determined getting a full Pier structural assessment, that includes all structural elements of the Pier would be prudent. This would allow the City to understand the full extent of repair work needed on the Pier prior to the railings needing to be replaced and allow for the City to apply for funding for any additional structural work, should that be needed. Completing all necessary structural work at one time would also provide a cost benefit and minimize Pier closures. 9 Packet Pg. 193
Pacifica City Council 3
October 24, 2022
This will also prevent needing to remove any of the new handrail work due to finding other Pier component structural damage in the future. A full pier structural inspection is estimated to be $167,252 (Attachment A) and will take around 6 months, weather permitting. The inspection work may find that further in-depth inspection is needed beyond what is currently scoped. For this reason, it is recommended to allocate approximately $50k in contingency budget bringing the budget to $217,252. Furthermore, Staff would work with a contractor to determine a temporary fix to the fenced off L portion of the Pier to allow this to be opened as soon as feasible with minimal cost.

After the rebid of the pier handrail work, staff reached out to both granting agencies, State Parks and the Coastal Conservancy, to determine flexibility on use of funds and the possibility of using the funds to complete a full structural assessment of the Pier in order to capture all needed Pier structural work. During these discussions, the Coastal Conservancy agreed that a full Pier structural assessment should be completed but noted their $260k grant could not be used for this new structural assessment. They also expressed concern about doing any Pier construction work before a full Pier structural assessment was completed. State Parks provided a verbal confirmation that the City could use the $500,000 state grant towards a full Pier structural assessment, should the City choose to do this. The state parks grant must be used before 2028 and the Coastal Conservancy grant by March 2024 unless extended.

Based on the above discussion, it is staff’s recommendation to reject all bids, enter into an agreement with GHD, Inc (Attachment A) for a full structural inspection of the pier in the amount not to exceed $167,252, authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents for Attachment A, and allocate $217,252 in budget for the pier structural assessment from the pier handrail repair project.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a Construction Services Agreement with Power Engineering Co. (Attachment C) in an amount not to exceed $1,409,937 and allow a 15% contingency for a total construction budget authority of $1,621,427; authorize the City Manager to award contracts for construction management services and design support for up to $278,572; and approve a budget adjustment of $1.2 million from the Disaster Accounting Fund (Fund 34) to the Pacifica Pier Handrail Project to bring the total project budget to $1.9M. As the Coastal Conservancy has expressed concerns related to completing any work without a full structural Pier assessment, the $260k grant from them is not factored in with this alternative action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
· Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise. This action will support stewardship of one of Pacifica’s most treasured assets, the Municipal Pier.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Should council adopt the recommended action the following budget breakdown would apply and would utilize CA State Parks funding:
9 Packet Pg. 194
Pacifica City Council 4
October 24, 2022
Total Project Source and Use of Funds
CA State Parks $ 500,000
CA Coastal Conservancy $ 260,000
General Fund 1 $ 200,000
Total Source of Funds $960,000
Pier Structural Assessment (w/ contingency) $ 217,252
Total Use of Funds $ 217,252
Project End Balance $ 742,748
The remaining budget would be used for construction on the Pier, including completing a temporary fix to open the L section of the Pier.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (PDF)
Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (PDF)
Attachment C - Construction Services Agreement - Pier Handrail Repair Project (PDF) Attachment D - Plans & Specs - Pacifica Handrail Repair Project Add 2 (PDF) 9 Packet Pg. 195
OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1

MASTER AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Master Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 30th day of November, 2021, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and GHD, Inc.[a corporation] (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY requires On-Call Coastal & Marine Engineering Services in connection with the Pacifica Pier;
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified to perform such services; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has agreed to provide CITY with such services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.

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

ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT A

9.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project)

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

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

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

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

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

ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION

2.1. Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with the rate and schedules specified in a Task Order.

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

9.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) discussed and mutually agreed with CONSULTANT, and make payment to CONSULTANT in an amount equal to the amount of such invoice, as verified or corrected by CITY. No payment hereunder shall be construed as evidence of acceptance of any of CONSULTANT's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONSULTANT on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in CONSULTANT's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder. CONSULTANT shall not stop or delay performance of the Services under this Agreement on account of payment disputes with CITY.

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

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

ARTICLE 3 - TIME OF PERFORMANCE

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

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

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

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

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

ARTICLE 4 - DESIGNATED CONTACTS

4.1. CITY Contact. CITY designates Lisa Petersen, P.E. its 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 CONSULTANT's performance under this Agreement, and for liaison and coordination between CITY and CONSULTANT. In the event CITY wishes to make a change in CITY 's representative, CITY will notify CONSULTANT of the change in writing.

9.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project)

4.2. CONSULTANT Contact. CONSULTANT designates Craig Lewis, P.E.

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

ARTICLE 5 - INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) B. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial General Liability Insurance, with limits providing a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage for each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products/completed operations aggregate. The insurance shall cover all operations including but not limited to the following: (1) premises, operations and mobile equipment liability; (2) completed operations and products liability; (3) contractual liability insuring the obligations assumed by CONSULTANT in this Agreement; (4) broad form property damage liability; (5) personal injury liability endorsement, including death; and (6) automobile bodily injury and property damage insurance, including all owned, hired and non-owned equipment.

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

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

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

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

9.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) CITY for itself, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents shall be in excess of CONSULTANT's insurance and shall not be contributory with it.
• It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverages requirements and/or limits shall be available to the Additional Insured, including but not limited to any umbrella or excess insurance.

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

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

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

If to CITY: City Manager
540 Crespi Dr
Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 738-7409
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038
Email: [email protected]
If to CONSULTANT: Craig Lewis, P.E. Principal-in-Charge 655 Montgomery St., Suite 1010 San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 296-3605 [email protected]

9.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project)

MISCELLANEOUS

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

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

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

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

Any violation by CONSULTANT of the requirements of this provision will constitute a material breach of this Agreement, and the CITY reserves all its rights and remedies at law and equity concerning any such violations.

6.2. Subcontracting. CONSULTANT may subcontract portions of the Services upon the prior written approval of CITY. CONSULTANT will be solely responsible for payment of such subcontract Services. No contractual relationship will exist between any such subcontractors of CONSULTANT and CITY. CONSULTANT’s subcontractors agree to

9.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) be bound to CONSULTANT and CITY in the same manner and to the same extent as CONSULTANT is bound to CITY under the Agreement. CONSULTANT’s subcontractors further agree to include the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, with any subsubcontractor to the extent they apply to the scope of the sub-subcontractor’s work. A copy of the CITY indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to CONSULTANT’s subcontractors upon request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.9. Mediation. In the event the parties are unable to resolve a dispute arising under this Agreement through good faith negotiations, the parties agree to submit the matter to mediation with a mutually agreeable mediator. Prior to the mediation, the parties shall exchange any documents reasonably necessary to resolve the matter to be mediated.

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

9.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled.

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

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

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

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

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date ____
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
CONSULTANT: GHD, Inc.

By: Date
Craig Lewis, P.E. Principal-in-Charge
Attest:

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

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

9.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project)

EXHIBIT A

TASK ORDER

9.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project)

EXAMPLE OF
TASK ORDER NO. ________

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

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

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

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

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

9.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project)

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

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
_______________________________
By: Date
By: Date

9.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

9.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) ATTACHMENT “B”

COMPENSATION

9.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1
TASK ORDER NO. 1

CITY OF PACIFICA
AND
GHD, Inc.

SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct GHD, inc. to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below, in accordance with the provisions of the Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica (“CITY”) and GHD, Inc. (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated October 24, 2022 (“MASTER AGREEMENT”)
SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK
The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Attachment “A” – Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT. Compensation for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be as set forth in Attachment “B” – Compensation, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided under this Task Order shall not exceed one hundred sixty seven thousand two hundred and fifty two dollars ($167,252) (“Cost Ceiling”).

SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed by May 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 _______ day of _____, _______.
[Signatures on Next Page]

9.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project)

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

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
_______________________________
By: Date
By: Date

9.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

9.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) GHD Inc.
669 Pacific Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401, USA | www.ghd.com October 19, 2022
Ryan Marquez, PE
Project Manager
City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Scope of Services for City of Pacifica Municipal Fishing Pier Condition Assessment (revised 2022)
Dear Ryan,
GHD is pleased to provide this updated proposal in response to the City of Pacifica’s (City) request to complete a structural condition assessment of the Pacifica Municipal Fishing Pier, including the pier abutment structure. We estimate that GHD can deliver the final report for the condition assessment within 18 weeks of the receipt of a Notice to Proceed.

GHD is in a unique position to provide these services for the City, having recent direct involvement and insight into the 2020/2021 Pier and Pier abutment failures and Pier guardrail condition assessment. GHD is also supporting the City with the design of the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP), which will include design of a new Pier abutment wall and connections to the new Beach Boulevard shore protection structure. GHD’s Maritime & Coastal group includes local specialist marine structural engineers who we propose to complete this work.

An outline of GHD’s proposed scope of services is provided in Section 2 and the estimated T&M fee is provided in Section r.
1 Background
The Pacifica Municipal Fishing Pier (Pier) requires periodic structural condition assessments to evaluate the structural integrity of the Pier and for forward maintenance planning. Recently the Pier and Pier abutment sustained damage in winter storms during December 2020 and January 2021 (Figure 1). It is believed that the damage was caused by large waves and/or strong winds. This recent damage has emphasized the need for an up-to-date structural condition assessment. The Scope of Services is to support the City by completing a structural condition assessment and providing recommendations for next steps.

9.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) 2 Figure 1 – Recent Pier Handrail Failure (Photo January 2021) 2 Proposed Scope of Services for the Pier Abutment Condition Assessment GHD proposes to provide the following scope of services to complete a structural condition assessment and provide recommendations for the Pier abutment and structure, including sub structure above highwater level, superstructure, and underwater structure. The final deliverable will be a comprehensive report that includes the assessment and recommended remediation options.

Task 1 – Project Management
Scope
a. Project and job safety setup
b. Project coordination
c. Progress Meetings and reporting
d. Invoicing
Deliverables
a. Meeting records
b. Project progress memorandums and invoices
Schedule
a. For the duration of the project

9.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) 3 Task 2 – Pier Abutment Site Inspection
Scope
a. Review existing Pier and Pier abutment documents
i. The original “Ocean Fishing Pier & Sewer Outfall” design drawings, pier abutment repairs and pier superstructure and pile repair as-built drawings are available to GHD. We understand the City is in possession of other Pier related design drawings and will request these upon commencement of the project.
b. Perform Visual Inspections
i. Perform in-person visual inspection of the Pier abutment c. Pier Abutment Concrete Inspections
i. Perform coring (up to 8 cores) vertically through the deck surface for the purpose of detecting voids between the underside the concrete deck and the deck bedding material.

Recent failures at the Pier abutment warrant this testing. Coring locations will be spread around the Pier Abutment.
ii. Perform coring/drilling vertically through the Pier abutment deck at the south sheetpile wall for the purpose of detecting voids, or the potential for voids, between the sheetpile wall face and the material behind the wall. Drilling would aim to penetrate until the hard pan founding layer is reached. The number of drill/core penetrations through the Pier wall will be dependent on access. GHD anticipates 2 personnel visiting the site to complete visual inspections and 1 person onsite while subconsultants and subcontractors are completing Pier abutment deck coring (1 day) and Pier abutment south wall drilling (1 day).

Deliverables
a. Field notes, video, and imagery
Schedule
a. Completed within 6 weeks of Notice to Proceed
Task 3 – Pier Structure Site Inspection
Scope
a. Review existing Pier documents relating to the pier structure b. Perform Visual Inspections
i. Perform in-person visual inspection of the Pier deck ii. Perform UAV (drone) high-definition video inspection of exterior faces of the above water Pier structure and Pier abutment
iii. Perform video inspection of box girder interior, to the extent possible (without person-entry to the confined space). GHD will utilize 360-degree video camera mounted on extendable poles to capture box girder interior condition.
iv. GHD anticipates 2 personnel visiting the site to complete visual inspections. c. Pier Deck Delamination Check
i. Chain drag will be performed on the Pier deck top surface to check for concrete surface delamination.

9.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) 4 ii. If any location is suspected to have undergone delamination, concrete will be sounded by hammer to determine the extent of deterioration and measurements will be recorded. d. Pier Deck/Box Girder Concrete Inspections - OPTIONAL i. Perform coring (up to 3 cores) vertically through the deck surface for the purpose of visual inspections and taking core samples for testing. Cores will be tested for unconfined compressive strength and chemical testing. Coring is anticipated to be completed in 1 day. ii. If the Pier Deck Delamination check results give cause for concern, GHD may recommend core sampling of the box girders. It is anticipated, if needed, the cost for this additional task will be in the order of $5,000 - $7,000, which is not included in the fee proposed below.

Deliverables
a. Field notes, video, photographs and aerial imagery
Schedule
a. Completed within 6 weeks of Notice to Proceed, noting conditions may limit UAV/drone flight.

Task 4 – Underwater Inspection
Scope
a. Review existing Pier documents relating to the underwater structure b. Perform underwater inspection of precast concrete piles supporting the Pier i. Level I below-water visual and tactile inspection of 100% of the concrete piles from the mudline to the MHW mark
ii. Level II cleaning and close visual and tactile inspection at mudline, mid-water, and tidal zone on 10% of the piles (approximately 5 piles)
iii. Underwater inspection to be performed by Sea Engineering, Inc. using Surface Supplied Diving personnel, techniques, and equipment. SEI proposes to utilize a four-person dive time for the underwater inspection.
iv. GHD anticipates 1 person onsite while subconsultants and subcontractors are completing the underwater inspection.

Deliverables
a. Underwater inspection report
b. Field notes, video, and photographs
Schedule
a. Underwater inspection to take place over 3 consecutive days, weather and wave conditions dependent.
b. Completed within 10 weeks of Notice to Proceed, noting that completion of the underwater inspection is highly dependent weather and ocean conditions.

9.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) 5 Task 5 – Pier Condition Assessment Report
Scope
a. Describe existing conditions of the Pier abutment and structure b. Describe findings of inspections
c. Discuss structural issues and consequences, if any
d. Provide recommendations
i. including concept level repair sketches
ii. prioritized list for repairs
iii. budgetary opinion of construction cost
iv. Utilize Bill Cooke, maritime construction subconsultant, who was the contractor’s project manager for the original pier construction, for constructability and costing advice.

Deliverables
a. Pier structural condition assessment report
b. Video and photo data from inspections
c. Reports from subcontractors
d. UAV survey outputs, including imagery, video and 3d model in an AutoCAD compatible format e. All deliverables will be provided in digital format only i.e. no hard copies Schedule
a. 4 weeks to complete draft report following completion of all site inspections b. 2 weeks for City review
c. 2 weeks to finalize report
d. 8 weeks total
3 General Assumptions & Exclusions
a. The City will provide GHD with access to the Pier to complete inspections, and will close the Pier and abutment to the public while work is being completed b. The City will provide all pertinent as-built information for the Pier and Pier abutment c. Inclement weather or ocean conditions could cause safety issues for inspection in which case GHD’s schedule may increase in duration
d. Flight conditions will dictate the timing for the UAV/drone inspection work. If unsuitable weather is experienced for a long duration it may affect the schedule for delivery of the final inspection report. e. Ocean conditions will dictate the timing for the underwater inspection work. If unsuitable weather is experienced for a long duration it may affect the schedule for delivery of the final inspection report. f. GHD will adhere to agency guidelines and requirements related to COVID-19. If such restrictions prevent GHD from accessing the Pier, GHD’s schedule may increase in duration g. All deliverables will be provided in electronic format i.e., GHD does not anticipate providing hard copy reports or drawings etc.
h. City will locate and mark location of utilities at Pier abutment prior to deck coring i. GHD’s sub-contractors will fill all cored/drilled holes with low-shrink grout, or similar j. No inspections from the water i.e. no boats will be used

9.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) 6 k. No physical entry into box girders (i.e. OSHA confined space work) l. No concrete rebar X-Ray will be completed
m. No vertical load capacity assessment
n. No seismic evaluation
o. If unforeseen conditions and hardships in coring through existing deck and wall delays the progress, additional time of subcontractor effort (at daily rate) may be required to get the minimum data. While we do not anticipate an increase in effort, we note a minimum of 8 core locations should be completed on the Pier deck. The drilling contractor will dedicate 1 day of drilling to drilling down through the wall, with a minimum of 2 holes anticipated and up to 4 will be sufficient. p. GHD’s subcontractor will fill drilled holes with grout. If existing voids are encountered GHD will coordinate with the City on how, or if, these should be filled. Void filling may require significant material, the volume is unknown at this time, and may require pressure grouting. q. In the case that GHD’s inspection finds significant structural defects during above water inspection GHD may recommend additional inspection and physical testing for spalling and delamination of the pier box girder. To complete inspection and physical testing around and under the box girder a telehandler / under bridge inspection unit and two to four personnel. Additional cost will need to be determined based on the scope of additional inspection, at this time we estimate the additional cost to be in the order of $20,000 to $60,000 for labor, equipment and additional reporting. Breakdown of the estimate of potential additional inspection is provided in Attachment 1. r. In the case that GHD’s inspection finds significant structural defects during underwater inspection GHD may recommend Level II inspection on additional piles. At this time, we estimate the additional cost to be in the order of $25,000 (1/3rd for piles) to $75,000 (all piles) for labor, equipment, subcontractors and additional reporting. GHD dive subcontractor estimates additional Level II inspection can be completed on 5 piles per day, at a cost of $8,834/day, plus GHD supervision of $1,785/day. Breakdown of the estimate of potential additional inspection is provided in Attachment 1.

9.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) 7 4 Proposed Fee
GHD proposes to complete the scope of services outlined in above on a Time and Materials (T&M) basis utilizing GHD’s current standard rates for 2022. If the above tasks are to be completed more than 12 months after the date of this proposal GHD requests the opportunity to increase rates based on our standard annual increases.

GHD will provide the above-described scope of services using City of Pacifica On-Call rates. The estimated fee for each of the project tasks is shown below, with a breakdown of the estimated fee attached.

4.1 Pacifica Municipal Fishing Pier Condition Assessment Fee Proposal Task 1 - Project Coordination $ 4,701
Task 2 – Abutment Site Inspection $ 46,319
Task 3 – Pier Structure Site Inspection $ 21,302
Task 4 – Underwater Dive Inspection $ 61,927
Task 5 – Pier Condition Assessment Report $ 33,003
Total $ 167,252

4.2 Additional Services
Following completion of the above scope GHD structural engineers can also provide repair designs, which can be quantified to develop an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for repairs to assist the City in financial planning and seeking funding, if available. Structural repair design services could potentially be delivered under either of the structural engineering or maritime and coastal engineering on-calls. 5 Closing
We have developed the above scope based on our understanding of the work required. If the City prefers a different or amended scope, we will welcome a discussion to better understand the City’s needs.

As always, we appreciate the opportunity to support the City of Pacifica. Please do not hesitate to contact me via email ([email protected]) or telephone (805-468-9927) if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Paul Henderson
Project Manager
cc: Craig Lewis, GHD Principal & Senior Structural Engineer Satish Chilka, Senior Structural Engineer

9.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) ATTACHMENT “B”

COMPENSATION

9.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) Client: City of Pacifica
Project Name:Prepared by: Paul HendersonReviewed by: Craig LewisJob Number: TBDDate: 10/7/22 LABOR CATEGORY > Proj. Dir. Proj. Man. Proj. Eng. Sr. Struct. Eng. Staff Struct. Eng. CADD Off. Admin.

Personnel > Lewis Henderson Linsley Chilka Brutzman CADD Admin.

RATE > 269.00 $ 207.00 $ 181.00 $ 233.00 $ 166.00 $ 170.00 $ 140.00 $ Phase / Work Item /Hr /Hr /Hr /Hr /Hr /Hr /Hr
Pier Abutment Condition Assessment
1 16 8 25 4,701.00 $ $ 4,701.00
1 16 0 0 0 0 8 25 4,701.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,701.00 $
1 2 4 7 1,337.00 $ $ 1,337.00

2.4 Pier Abutment Inspections (GHD Staff Oversight) 10 22 32 5,982.00 $ $ 5,982.00

2.5 Pier Abutment Inspection (Drill Sub - Eleven Engineering) 0- $ 35,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 38,500.00 $ 0- $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $
0 1 0 12 26 0 0 39 7,319.00 $ 500.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 46,319.00 $ 1 2 4 7 1,337.00 $ $ 1,337.00

3.2 Perform Visual Inspections (UAV Sub - New Age Designs) 16 16 3,728.00 $ 8,275.00 $ 827.50 $ 12,830.50 $

3.3 Pier Deck Delamination Check 16 16 32 6,384.00 $ $ 6,384.00 0- $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 0- $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $
0 1 0 34 20 0 0 55 11,449.00 $ 750.00 $ 8,275.00 $ 827.50 $ 21,301.50 $ 1 2 4 7 1,337.00 $ $ 1,337.00

4.2 Pier Underwater Inspection (Dive Sub - Sea Engineering) 24 24 4,344.00 $ 50,224.00 $ 5,022.40 $ 59,590.40 $ 0- $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $
0 1 24 2 4 0 0 31 5,681.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 50,224.00 $ 5,022.40 $ 61,927.40 $ 8 1 10 19 3,341.00 $ $ 3,341.00

5.2 Describe findings of inspections 4 24 28 4,916.00 $ $ 4,916.005.3 Discuss structural issues and consequences 1 4 12 17 3,193.00 $ $ 3,193.005.4 Recommendations, including concept level repair sketches. 2 2 4 12 22 42 7,616.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 150.00 $ 9,266.00 $

5.5 Budgetary Opinion of Construction Cost 1 8 4 4 17 3,521.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 150.00 $ 5,171.00 $

5.6 Draft Report 1 1 2 8 2 14 2,550.00 $ $ 2,550.005.7 City Workshop via MS Teams/Zoom (1) 2 2 2 6 1,336.00 $ $ 1,336.005.8 Final Report 1 1 2 8 4 2 18 3,230.00 $ $ 3,230.00 8 12 8 23 80 26 4 161 29,703.00 $ - $ 3,000.00 $ 300.00 $ 33,003.00 $ 9 31 32 71 130 26 12 311 58,853.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 96,499.00 $ 9,649.90 $ 167,252 $ NOTES Total Labor Fees 58,853.00 $ 1 - GHD's standard consumables charge of $6.50/hr is waived. Total Consumables & Direct Costs 2,250.00 $ 2 - (Task 2.5) GHD has allowed for drilling sub contractor to be onsite for 2 days. If drilling occurs faster exploration may be accomplished in 1 day, in which case a fee reduction will be applied. Total Subcontractor Fees 96,499.00 $ 3 - (Task 4.2) GHD has allowed for dive inspection sub contractor to be onsite completing dive inspection for 3 days. Sub contractor has a standby rate of $8,834/day and $1,105/hour. Subcontractor Markup (10%) 9,649.90 $ We do not anticipate sub contractor stand by, it will only be needed in unforseen circumstances. Total Fee Estimate 167,252 $ 4 - GHD will aim for a lower low tide to perform inspections5 - Fee assumes any permitting costs will be covered by the CityTask 5 - Pier Condition Assessment Report5.1 Describe existing conditions of the structure Subtotal

PROJECT TOTALS
Chain Drag Equipment
Subtotal
Task 4 - Underwater Dive Inspection4.1 Review existing Pier and Pier abutment documentsTravel Expenses Subtotal
Travel Expenses

SUBTOTAL
FEES
Task 1 - Project Coordination1.1 Project Management
Subtotal
Task 2 - Abutment Site Inspection2.1 Review existing Pier and Pier abutment documentsTravel Expenses Subtotal
Task 3 - Pier Structure Site Inspection3.1 Review existing Pier and Pier structure documents

SCHEDULE OF ESTIMATED FEES
Professional Services for: Pacifica Municipal Pier Condition Assessment

ESTIMATED LABOR HOURS FEE COMPUTATION
TOTAL EST.

HOURS
TOTAL EST.

LABOR Direct Costs Subcontractors Subcontractor Markup
10/7/2022 Page 1

9.a
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) Client: City of Pacifica
Project Name: Professional Services for: Pacifica Municipal Pier Condition Assessment Contingency Estimates
Additional Underwater Inspection Estimates
Number of pile bents 21
Number of Piles (2/bent) 42
Piles included in propsosal for Level II inspection 5
Potential additional piles 37
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
% of piles requiring Level II inspection 33% 50% 100%
Daily Rate 8,834.00 $    $   8,835.00 $        8,834.00 Piles/day 5 6 5
Piles 12 19 37
days 2 3 7
Dive subs total 21,791 $        $       27,241 $           65,372 GHD time 3,572 $          $         4,465 $           10,715 GHD and subs combined 25,362 $        $       31,706 $           76,087 Additional Above Water Inspection Estimates
Qty Rate Unit Amount
Inspection Unit (man lift) 2 4,400.00 $    week 8,800.00 $ Senior Engineer 100 233.00 $        Hours 23,300.00 $
Engineer 100 166.00 $        Hours 16,600.00 $
Operator 80 150.00 $        Hours 12,000.00 $
Expenses 1 1,000.00 $    LS 1,000.00 $
$      61,700.00
Notes:

1. GHD has provided a proposal to inspect the pier based on on current understanding of the pier condition as noted in visual inspections from the pier pedestrian area. As inspections are carried out in locations not previously observed conditions may dictate that GHD recommends further inspection.

2. The amounts for additional above are estimates only. The level of effort that may be needed for additional inspection willl be determined during the proposed inspection, based on extents of unanticipated conditions.

9.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment A - GHD MSA & TO 1 - Pier Structural (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) Technical Memorandum
The Power of Commitment
11223688 | 1
October 3, 2022
To Ryan Marquez, City of Pacifica Contact No. 925 849 1019 Copy to Paul Henderson Email [email protected]
From Satish Chilka PE Project No. 11223688
Project Name Pacifica Pier Handrail Repairs
Subject Condition Assessment of Pier Handrails - 2022

1. Introduction
The Pacifica Municipal Pier, located at 2100 Beach Blvd. Pacifica, CA 94044, is an L-shaped concrete pier supported on concrete piles (Figure 1.1). The pier functioned to support an outfall extending from Beach Boulevard into the ocean. The pier deck are prestressed concrete box girders with cast-in-place concrete handrails.

GHD Inc. conducted a condition assessment of the concrete handrails in March 2021 and developed repair options for damaged handrails along the pier. The collapse of handrails along the pier extension had resulted in the portion of the pier remaining closed to the public. The findings of the assessment were documented in a technical memorandum (March 2021) and included as Attachment A.

The City of Pacifica is evaluating options to undertake priority-based repairs of the handrails with the available funds i.e., repair handrails with severe damage. A revised condition assessment was performed for the handrails in June 2022 to review the current condition and progress of deterioration, and update the quantities required to be repaired in the near-term. The revised assessment utilized the observations from the previous assessment in Year 2021 as baseline in providing the revised ratings and recommended timeline for undertaking repairs.

Figure 1.1 Pacifica Municipal Pier Layout
Main Pier
Gate
Collapsed Handrail
Pier Extension

ATTACHMENT B

9.b
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) 11223688 | Condition Assessment of Pier Handrails – 2022 | 2

2. Methodology
The methodology was consistent with the condition assessment performed in Year 2021.

2.1 Observation methods
A visual observation of inside and outside faces of concrete handrails and deck surfaces was performed to assess current condition, identify areas of significant damage. At locations of observed damage, a 16-oz hammer was used to sound the concrete and determine extent of delamination and closed spall. Photographs and a handwritten record of observed damages were compiled. Results are tabulated with panels numbered starting at the Pier Abutment, with panel #1 being the first full panel starting beyond the gate.

The pier deck (box girder) was not accessible beyond visual observations in some locations, to evaluate the condition of the side walls that will affect the connection of the handrails.

2.2 Damage Ratings
The observed conditions of the guardrails are categorized in conformance with ASCE 130: Waterfront Facilities Inspection and Assessment. For reinforced concrete elements, damage can be described as either minor, moderate, major, or severe as described in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Damage Rating for Reinforced Concrete Elements - ASCE 130 Damage Rating Existing Damage
Not Inspected – Not inspected, inaccessible, or passed by No Defects – Good original hard surface, hard material, sound Minor – Mechanical abrasion or impact spalls up to 1-in in depth – Occasional corrosion stains or small pop-out
– corrosion spalls
– General cracks up to 1/16-in in width
Moderate – Structural cracks up to 1/16-in in width
– Corrosion cracks up to 1/4-in in width
– Chemical deterioration: Random cracks up to 1/16-in in width; “Soft” concrete and/or rounding of corners up to 1-in deep
– Mechanical abrasion or impact spalls greater than 1-in in depth Major – Structural cracks 1/16-in to 1/4-in in width and partial breakage (through section cracking with structural spalls)
– Corrosion cracks wider than 1/4-in and open or closed corrosion spalls (excluding pop-outs)
– Multiple cracks and disintegration of surface layer due to chemical deterioration – Mechanical abrasion or impact spalls exposing the reinforcing Severe – Structural cracks wider than 1/4-in or complete breakage – Complete loss of concrete cover due to corrosion of reinforcing steel with more than 30% of diameter loss for any main reinforcing bar
– Loss of bearing and displacement at connections
– Loss of concrete cover (exposed steel) due to
– chemical deterioration

9.b
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) 11223688 | Condition Assessment of Pier Handrails – 2022 | 3 Damage Rating Existing Damage
– Loss of more than 30% of cross-section due to any cause

3. Condition Assessment
The existing handrails are cast-in-place concrete panels with reinforcement extending from the side walls of the pier deck (box girder) providing a connection between the deck and handrails.

The pier has continued experiences high wind in a harsh marine environment. There were no known instances of high surf (waves) reaching the pier deck or handrails since January 2021. Continuous exposure to seawater or marine spray with recurring wet and dry conditions are detrimental to the concrete structure. Cracks in concrete allow seawater to access the reinforcement, initiating corrosion. As corrosion expands around the circumference of the reinforcement, the bond between concrete and reinforcement weakens and results in delamination. The progressive delamination eventually leads to concrete breaking off from the reinforcement i.e., spalling.

3.1 Damaged Handrail
The pier experienced high surf and/or wind forces in January 2021. A 41-ft portion of the handrail on the west edge of pier extension (deck spanning north to south) collapsed inward onto the deck. The entire extension has remained closed to public access and the condition of handrails on this span were not assessed.

The collapsed panels were previously noted to have severely corroded reinforcement at the joint between the handrail panels and deck. The concrete panels did not show signs of exposed spall hence the weakened connection due to corroded reinforcement and potential delamination in the side walls of the pier deck were determined to be the main cause of failure. The pier deck was visibly damaged as the handrail reinforcement pulled out indicating spall in the pier deck.

Figure 3.1 Collapsed Handrail, Photo 2021

3.2 Typical Damage
The minor and moderate damages, characterized by cracks less than 1/16” in width and spalled concrete of less than 1” depth, are not expected to significantly impact the existing strength of the handrails. The primary cause for the collapsed handrail was due to weakened connection between the panel and deck. Hence, if

9.b
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) 11223688 | Condition Assessment of Pier Handrails – 2022 | 4 cracks, spalls, or rust stains were observed along the length of bottom connection to deck, those damages are categorized as major or severe damage.

More substantial cracks and spalls of concrete result in a significant loss of area in the structural concrete at supports, and generally leave existing reinforcement exposed to weather and subject to corrosion. In several instances, large spalls and reinforcement corrosion at handrails was accompanied by visible corrosion and spalling extending into the concrete below deck level.

Figure 3.2 through Figure 3.5 show the typical damage in handrail panels associated with the damage ratings.

Figure 3.2: Typical Damage Rated Minor
Figure 3.3: Typical Damage Rated Moderate
Cracks
Horizontal
Cracks
Spalls at Top
of Panel

9.b
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) 11223688 | Condition Assessment of Pier Handrails – 2022 | 5 Figure 3.4: Typical Damage Rated Major
Figure 3.5: Typical Damage Rated Severe
A total of 164 panels were assessed on site and the corresponding damage rating for the panels have been summarized in Table 3.1, and include additional details in Attachment B. The condition of the panels and corresponding rating from Year 2021 was used a baseline for current assessment.

The panel ratings were revised accounting for the condition noted in the previous years’ assessment and relative change in deterioration over the year. The reinforcement in the panels continues to corrode until mitigation actions, such as repairing spalled concrete, adding galvanic anodes etc., are undertaken. As a result, some panels previously rated to have “No Damage” or lower damage rating have been reassessed to the next level of damage. On the other hand, some ratings were lowered from “severe” to “major” as the panels did not have significantly different visual damage.

Table 3.1 Summary of Assessment – Damage Ratings
Assessment Year 2022
No Damage 13
Minor Damage 29
Moderate Damage 29
Major Damage 56
Severe Damage 37
Cracks through
Handrail
Spall at
Connection
Section Loss

9.b
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) 11223688 | Condition Assessment of Pier Handrails – 2022 | 6

4. Conclusions and Recommendations
The extent of damage suggests that the corrosion and spalling is concentrated in areas of the pier farthest from shore, and panels closer to shore as well. In handrail panels without major or severe damage, the presence of corrosion staining, minor spalling, and cracking suggests that corrosion of reinforcement has already begun and will continue to progress in current exposure conditions. Field observations and categorization of observed damages have been recorded in detail for each panel, as summarized in the attached Attachment B.

The revised timeline for undertaking the handrail repairs based on the rate of deterioration observed in the handrails is provided in Table 4.1. Year 0 is referenced to the year of assessment (2022). The recommended timeline may be revised with subsequent condition assessment to accommodate the most current condition of the handrails. The repair or replacement of panels rated severe should be prioritized, followed by major and moderate over time.

Table 4.1 Recommended Timeline for Repairs
Damage Rating Time (Years)
Severe 0 to 2
Major 0 to 5
Moderate 0 to 10
Minor 0 to 15
The collapsed handrail at the pier extension should be replaced or the extension should remain closed to the public.

At handrail panels with severe and major damage extending across two or more supports, as well as at the fully collapsed panels, full replacement of the panels is recommended.

The collapsed panels showed extensive loss of rebar at the connection to the pier deck and signs of concrete failure extending into the sides of the box girder. Thus, the condition of the reinforcement at the deck interface (between handrail panels and sides of the box girder) and the condition of the sides of the box girder is critical for the integrity of the panels. The panels with extensive damage along the interface and connection points are rated as severe or major. These panels are anticipated to have limited capacity to withstand the large loads from storm events (wind and wave loads), specifically those in combination with large swells.

At panels with minor to moderate damage, patching superficial cracks and spalled concrete would mitigate further damage. Providing additional supports at panels to supplement existing corroded reinforcement would extend the functional life of the panels and reduce the likelihood of future collapses.

The City of Pacifica should undertake annual condition assessment of the handrails and above deck components until the handrails are repaired, as necessary. The condition of the pier deck (box girder) and supporting piles should also evaluated to assess the integrity of the handrail connections to the pier deck.

The pier should be closed to public when high wind and wave conditions are anticipated in the area. The handrail panels, especially the ones parallel to shore, should be visually checked before opening the pier.

5. Limitations
This technical memorandum has been prepared by GHD for City of Pacifica. It is not prepared as, and is not represented to be, a deliverable suitable for reliance by any person for any purpose other than stated herein. It is not intended for circulation or incorporation into other documents in part. The matters discussed in this memorandum are limited to those specifically detailed in the memorandum and are subject to any limitations or assumptions specially set out.

9.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) 11223688 | Condition Assessment of Pier Handrails – 2022 | 7 Accessibility of documents
If this Technical Memorandum is required to be accessible in any other format this can be provided by GHD upon request and at an additional cost if necessary.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this memorandum are based on information obtained from, and testing undertaken at or in connection with, specific sample points. Site conditions at other parts of the site may be different from the site conditions found at the specific sample points.

Investigations undertaken in respect of this memorandum are constrained by the site conditions and location of the handrails limiting visual and physical access to all the handrail panels. As a result, not all relevant site features and conditions may have been identified in this memorandum.

Attachment A: Memorandum – Assessment of Pacifica Pier Above Deck Components, March 2021.

Attachment B: Field Notes – Condition Assessment July 2022.

9.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) GHD
2300 Clayton Road Suite 920 Concord California 94520 USA T925 849 1000 F925 849 1040 W www.ghd.com
03/29/2021
To: Sam Bautista Ref. No.: 11223688
From: Patrick Brutzman, Satish Chilka Tel: (925) 849-1000 CC: Paul Henderson, Craig Lewis
Subject: Assessment of Pacifica Pier Above-Deck Components - FINAL

1. Introduction
The Pacifica Municipal Pier, located at 2100 Beach Blvd. Pacifica, CA 94044. The structure is an L-shaped concrete pier supported by concrete piles. GHD has been asked to provide a condition assessment and develop repair options for damaged existing handrails at the far end of the pier. The damage to handrails has resulted in the pier being currently closed to the public.

Figure 1: Pacifica Municipal Pier Layout

2. Background
Existing as-built drawings of the pier structure (dated 03/27/1972) are available as a reference for the original condition of the handrail. The handrail consists of cast-in-place concrete wall panels 6-1/2” thick and 42” tall, leaning inward over the deck. Panels are typically 18’-6” long, with shorter 4’-0” long panels occurring aligned with pile locations at 60’-0” on-center. The base of the typical panel has (3) 3’-0” openings with (2) 3’- 0’ supports between them, and the connection to the deck is reinforced with (2) #5 dowels at edge supports and (3) #5 dowels at interior supports. Refer to Figure 2 for a detail view of the existing handrail condition, and Figure 3 for an elevation view.

A condition assessment was performed by engineers from GHD on 2/12/2021 between 9:30 AM and 1:30 PM. Field observations were carried out to determine the current state of deterioration at all concrete Main Pier
Gate
Collapsed Handrail
Pier Extension

9.b
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) Field Observation Summary.docx 2
guardrails and light post connections above the deck of the pier. At elements determined to be significantly damaged, measurements were taken in preparation for design of replacement and retrofit schemes.

Figure 2: Existing Handrail Connection to Deck
Figure 3: Existing Handrail Connection to Deck

9.b
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) Field Observation Summary.docx 3

3. Methodology

3.1 Observation methods
A visual observation of inside and outside faces of concrete handrails and deck surfaces was performed to assess current condition, identify areas of significant damage. At locations of observed damage, a 16-oz hammer was used to sound the concrete and determine extent of delamination and closed spall.

Photographs and a handwritten record of observed damages were compiled. Results are tabulated with panels numbered starting at the Pier Abutment, with panel #1 being the first full panel starting beyond the gate.

3.2 Condition Assessment
The observed condition of the guardrails are categorized in conformance with ASCE 130: Waterfront Facilities Inspection and Assessment. For reinforced concrete elements, damage can be described as either minor, moderate, major, or severe as described in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Damage Rating for Reinforced Concrete Elements - ASCE 130 Damage
Rating
Existing Damage
Not Inspected • Not inspected, inaccessible, or passed by No Defects • Good original hard surface, hard material, sound Minor • Mechanical abrasion or impact spalls up to 1-in in depth • Occasional corrosion stains or small pop-out
• corrosion spalls
• General cracks up to 1/16-in in width
Moderate • Structural cracks up to 1/16-in in width
• Corrosion cracks up to 1/4-in in width
• Chemical deterioration: Random cracks up to 1/16-in in width; “Soft” concrete and/or rounding of corners up to 1-in deep
• Mechanical abrasion or impact spalls greater than 1-in in depth Major • Structural cracks 1/16-in to 1/4-in in width and partial breakage (through section cracking with structural spalls)
• Corrosion cracks wider than 1/4-in and open or closed corrosion spalls (excluding popouts) • Multiple cracks and disintegration of surface layer due to chemical deterioration • Mechanical abrasion or impact spalls exposing the reinforcing Severe • Structural cracks wider than 1/4-in or complete breakage • Complete loss of concrete cover due to corrosion of reinforcing steel with more than 30% of diameter loss for any main reinforcing bar
• Loss of bearing and displacement at connections
• Loss of concrete cover (exposed steel) due to
• chemical deterioration
• Loss of more than 30% of cross-section due to any cause

9.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) Field Observation Summary.docx 4

4. Assessment Results
The pier experiences high wind and wave exposure in a harsh marine environment. Continuous exposure to seawater along with constant wet and dry conditions are detrimental to concrete structures. Cracks in concrete allow seawater access to the reinforcement, initiating corrosion. As corrosion expands the reinforcement, the bond between concrete and reinforcement weakens and causes spalling.

4.1 Damaged Handrail
At the pier extension, an approximately 41’ portion of west-facing handrail panels have collapsed inward onto the deck, probably resulting from high surf and/or wind forces sometime during January 2021. At the collapsed panels, the reinforcement is severely corroded at the joint between handrail panels and deck concrete, weakening the connection. Although the concrete panel itself did not show signs of spalls or delamination, the connections were the main cause of failure.

At the south end of the damaged panel, the reinforcement has pulled out of the concrete deck, indicating that there is a weakened bond within the deck concrete. The damage to handrails has also damaged the side wall of the deck. The underside of the deck was not accessible for further assessment during this inspection.

Figure 4: Photos of Collapsed Handrail

9.b
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) Field Observation Summary.docx 5

4.2 Typical Damage
A total of 164 panels were assessed on site and the corresponding damage rating for the panels have been summarized in Table 4-4-1, and include additional details in Appendix A.

Table 4-4-1: Damage Rating Summary
Damage Rating No Damage Minor Moderate Major Severe
No. of Panels 25 29 30 36 44
The minor and moderate damage, characterized by cracks less than 1/16” in width and spalled concrete of less than 1” depth, is not expected to significantly impact the existing strength of the handrails. The primary cause for the collapsed handrail was due to weakened connection between the panel and deck. Hence, if cracks, spalls, or rust stains were observed along the length of bottom connection to deck, those damages are categorized as major or severe damage.

Figure 5: Typical Damage Rated Minor
Cracks

9.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) Field Observation Summary.docx
6 Figure 6: Typical Damage Rated Moderate
Figure 7: Typical Damage Rated Major
Horizontal
Cracks
Spalls at Top
of Panel
Cracks
through
Handrail

9.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) Field Observation Summary.docx 7
Figure 8: Typical Damage Rated Severe

4.3 Repaired Panel
One panel has been previously repaired. The exterior surface follows the profile of other panels, but the inside face is vertical, creating a wider base for stability. A galvanized steel angle section has been installed at the inside face, with anchors embedded into the panel and presumably into the deck to provide an improved connection.

Figure 10: Repaired Handrail Panel
Spall at
Connection
Section
Loss at
Connection
Wider Base
with Steel
Angle

9.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) Field Observation Summary.docx 8

4.4 Steel Brace Supports
Some panels have a 1/4” thick bent steel plate supports anchored at the inside face and at the deck to provide additional bracing. The anchors and hardware at these plate braces are significantly corroded, and at one location the plate has 100% section loss at mid-height.

Figure 11: Steel Brace at Handrail

4.5 Connections of Light Post
The light posts on the pier are connected to the pier deck using 4 bolts and steel base plate. The base plate and anchor bolts show signs of corrosion. The nuts seem to be stainless steel material, showed some discoloration but didn’t show significant corrosion. There was no visible damage to the connections or grout pad around the base plate indicating movement of the light post due to a weakened connection.

Figure 9: Typical Light Post Foundation

9.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment B - Field Observation Summary (5161 : Reject Bids for Pier Handrail Repair Project) Field Observation Summary.docx 9

4.6 Fish Cleaning Stations
The fish cleaning stations are concrete structures connected to the deck. The stations showed signs of deterioration and spalls. These damages start from the bottom connections due to corrosion of reinforcement and align well with the observations of similar deterioration at handrails.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations
The current extent of damage suggests that the corrosion observed in collapsed railing panels is widespread at areas of the pier farthest from shore, and present in the abutment panels closer to shore as well. In railing panels without major or severe damage, the presence of corrosion staining, minor spalling, and cracking suggests that corrosion of reinforcement has already begun and will continue to progress in current exposure conditions. Field observations and categorization of observed damages have been recorded in detail for each panel, as summarized in the attached Appendix A.

At railing panels with severe and major damage extending across two or more supports, as well as at fully collapsed panels, full replacement of the panels is recommended. At panels with major or severe damage concentrated at supports, a retrofit consisting of repairing damaged concrete, repairing corroded reinforcement, and providing additional support mechanism may be a feasible alternative to full replacement.

Pacifica City CouncilOctober 24, 2022

Pacifica City Council
October 24, 2022