Agenda — Pacifica City Council, August 14, 2023 (part 3 of 5)

OAK #4849-6631-0203 v1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Second Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Second Amendment") is made and entered into this 14
th day of August, 2023, by and between THE
CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and EOA, INC., a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2017, CITY and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled “Agreement for Consultant Services” (“Agreement”) to provide Commercial and Industrial Stormwater Inspection and Related services; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2022, CITY and Consultant entered into that certain First Amendment to extend the term of the Agreement.

WHEREAS, City and Consultant now desire to enter into this Second Amendment to extend the term of the Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1. Amendment to Section 3.1. The second and third sentences of Section 3.1 of the Agreement are hereby amended to read as follows:

CONSULTANT agrees to complete all services by July 31, 2024. This Agreement may be renewed annually for an additional three years to 2025 unless terminated earlier as provided for herein or extended by mutual agreement of the parties.

2. Agreement in Effect. Except as amended by this Second Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

3. Counterpart Signatures. This Second Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]

16.a
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment 1: Second Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

Page 2 ends

OAK #4849-6631-0203 v1

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: _______________________ Date ________
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager

CONSULTANT
By: _______________________ Date ________
Ray Goebel, Vice President
Attest:

By: _______________________ Date _______
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:

By: _______________________ Date ________
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

16.a
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment 1: Second Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

16.b
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Attachment 2: First Amendment and Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and EOA (5418 : Second

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/14/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Annual Agreements for the Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division for FY 2023-2024 for Polydyne, Inc. for $200,000; Trojan Technologies for $100,000 and Synagro West, LLC for $171,960
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt the following resolutions to approve Annual Agreements for the Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division for FY 2023-2024:

1. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase Agreement with Polydyne, Inc. In The Amount Of $200,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2023-24 Annual Supply of Polymer.

2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase Agreement with Trojan Technologies Group, ULC in The Amount Of $100,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2023-24 Annual Supply of Trojan System UV4000 Original Replacement Parts.

3. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Master Agreement for Biosolids Services and Task Order No. 1 with Synagro West, LLC In the Amount Of $171,960 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2023-24 Annual Biosolids Hauling and Disposal.

STAFF CONTACT:

Louis Sun, P.E., Plant Manager
(650) 738-4660
[email protected]
Maria Aguilar, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works (Wastewater) (650) 738-4660
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

During the FY 2023-24 budget approval process, the Council approved funding for Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division (WW) Operations and Maintenance Expenditures (Fund 18). The Council approved funding for the WW chemical expenses for the purchase of the polymer supply, the WW UV supplies and services for the ultra-violet disinfection system equipment, and the WW Sludge Hauling expense for biosolids hauling and disposal services.

Each fiscal year, WW estimates the quantity of services, equipment, supplies and materials that will be needed for recurring maintenance, repairs, and operations during the fiscal year. Items 17 Packet Pg. 402
Pacifica City Council 2
August 14, 2023
that are proprietary and sold only through the manufacturer, have only one authorized distributor in the area, or have proven to be the only product/service acceptable are sole-sourced.

The following are supplies, materials or services that were deemed by staff to be sole source procurement, or the least cost compared to known vendors:

Polymer Chemical Supply:

Polymer is used in gravity belt thickeners and centrifuges at the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (Plant) to thicken and dewater sludge during wastewater treatment process. It is imperative that the polymer dosed in the centrifuge reacts well with the wet sludge to produce a clear centrate (wastewater liquid and polymer byproduct) that goes back to the Plant’s headworks to be retreated. Having a clear centrate is an indication that the sludge has been dewatered well, thus producing a dryer bio-solid cake. Moreover, the centrate should be clear of solids prior to going back to the headworks for retreatment so as not to clog and/or damage the pumps and other equipment.

Up to the late 2009, the Plant used various types of polymers but ended up clogging the pumps, and the biosolids produced were not the desired dryness. Because of constant equipment breakdown more manpower was needed to keep the Plant in operation. These on-going issues prompted staff to invite polymer manufacturer representatives to run their polymer through our system. Clarifloc WE-2123 (Clarifloc) polymer supplied by Polydyne, Inc. and Zetag 8818 (Zetag) supplied by Kubwater have similar and excellent performance. However, the cost of Zetag is $2.18 per pound or $5,014 per tote while the cost of Clarifloc is $1.75 per pound or $4,025 per tote - a net saving of $991 per tote or $44,595 annually for 45 totes if Clarifloc is used. Based on Clarifloc being the lesser cost per pound, a Purchase Order with Polydyne is recommended.

Approval of the Purchase Agreement with Polydyne, Inc. in the amount of $200,000 is recommended and will cover the polymer chemical expenditure for WW for Fiscal Year 2023- 2024, as projected by staff.

Trojan System UV 4000 Original Replacement Parts:

The Plant uses ultra-violet (UV) to disinfect its effluent prior to discharging to Calera creek. UV disinfection is a physical process that instantaneously neutralizes microorganisms as they pass by ultraviolet lamps submerged in the effluent. The process adds nothing to the water but UV light, and therefore, has no impact on the chemical composition or the dissolved oxygen content of the water. For this process, the Plant utilizes the Trojan System UV4000 manufactured and trademarked by Trojan Technologies Group, ULC (Trojan).

The following are reasons why Trojan System UV4000 Original Replacement Parts from Trojan Technologies have been determined to be Sole Source commodities:
• In the Engineered Submittal Package for the Trojan System UV4000. Trojan provided an equipment performance guarantee stating that the system will meet the required level of disinfection provided that the system is operated and maintained in accordance with recommendations made by Trojan.
• In order for this equipment guarantee to be maintained, it is imperative that the appropriate components and replacement parts be used in the system. There are key replacement parts and system components that directly influence the performance and reliability of the system. Among these critical replacement parts are the UV lamps, 17 Packet Pg. 403
Pacifica City Council 3
August 14, 2023
sleeves, electronic ballasts, wiper seals, printed circuitry etc. • Without using lamps, ballasts, and other components that are approved and validated by Trojan, they cannot guarantee that the system will provide the required germicidal output. Subsequently, they cannot guarantee that the required UV dose is being delivered, if lamp output, ballast efficiency and system programming is unknown. • In order to keep the equipment performance guarantee intact, it is recommended that specialized system components be purchased and contracted from Trojan Technologies which has propriety rights to Trojan System UV4000 original replacement parts.

Approval of the Purchase Agreement with Trojan Technologies Group, ULC in the amount of $100,000 is recommended and will cover the UV replacement parts expenditure for WW for Fiscal Year 2023-2024, as projected by staff.

Synagro West LLC Biosolids Hauling and Disposal Services:

Biosolids are nutrient-rich organic materials resulting from the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment facility. When treated and processed, theseresiduals can be recycled and applied as fertilizer to improve and maintain productive soils and stimulate plant growth. The Plant produces mostly Class "A" but a minimum Class "B" biosolids at an average of 100 wet tons (25 dry tons) per month during dry season and an average of 150 wet tons during winter.

The Plant is required to manage the disposal of the biosolids according to EPAStandard 40 CFR Part 503, which says that biosolids that are to be land applied must meet these strict regulations and quality standards. The Part 503 rule governing the use and disposal of biosolids contains numerical limits, for metals in biosolids, pathogen reduction standards, site restriction, crop harvesting restrictions and monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements for land applied biosolids as well as similar requirements for biosolids that are surface disposed or incinerated. Most recently, standards have been proposed to include requirements in the Part 503 Rule that limit the concentration of dioxin and dioxin like compounds in biosolids to ensure safe land application. Due to the complexities and specialized knowledge needed to manage the program, a third party with this expertise is needed. The third party must also keep up with current regulations and know how to direct biosolids into clean and safe materials for land applications. Synagro West, LLC has such expertise to provide biosolids hauling and management services.

The following are reasons why Synagro West LLC have been determined to be Sole Source services:
• Synagro provides turnkey residuals management services that includes hauling, agronomic management, permitting and monitoring, which other haulers don't provide.

Their proprietary Residuals Management System sets the industry standards for tracking, monitoring and compliance activities.
• Because of Synagro's unique expertise in biosolids disposal, the Plant is able to divert its biosolids to land application, composting and to landfill as a last resort. During 2022, the Plant produced 1,245.54 wet tons (356.70 dry tons) of biosolids which were land applied in farms in Sacramento County.
• This is proven to be the most cost-effective way to remove this biohazardous material from the City's property and to meet mandated environmental requirements. 17 Packet Pg. 404
Pacifica City Council 4
August 14, 2023
Approval of Master Agreement for Biosolids Services and Task Order No. 1 in the amount of $171,960 with Synagro West, LLC are recommended and will cover the biosolid disposal expenditure for WW for Fiscal Year 2023-2024, as projected by staff.

For the above reasons, the City Manager is recommending the approval of the Purchase Agreement with Polydyne, Inc. in the amount of $200,000; approval of the Purchase Agreement with Trojan Technologies Group, ULC in the amount of $100,000; and approval of the Master Agreement for Biosolids Services and Task Order No. 1 with Synagro West, LLC in the amount of $171,960, for the purchases of equipment, supplies, materials and services in amounts over $50,000 for FY 2023-2024 for routine and recurring maintenance, repairs and operations of Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division from Operations and Maintenance Expenditures (Fund 18) for a total of $471,960.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may choose not to approve the Annual Agreements; however, doing so would delay the treatment of wastewater and is likely to violate the Plant’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The City Manager does not recommend this alternate action.

RELATION TO CITY GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Annual Agreements is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure and Maintaining a Safe Community: The Annual Purchase Agreement for the polymer, biosolids dewatering and disposal, and UV supplies will ensure continuous treatment of wastewater at the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant and compliance with its NPDES permit.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Source and Use of Funds spreadsheet is shown below:

Vendor/Goods and
Services
Total Use
of Funds
Funds Total
Project
Source
Estimated
Project End
Balance
Polydyne, Inc. $200,000 Enterprise Fund (Fund 18) $309,320 $109,320 Polymer Chemical Account No.

Supply 18.940741.52342.0000.000
Trojan Technologies $100,000 Enterprise Fund (Fund 18) $102,400 $ 2,400 UV4000 Original Account No.

Replacement 18.940741.52341.0000.000
Parts
Synagro West, LLC $171,960 Enterprise Fund (Fund 18) $171,960 $ 0 Biosolids Hauling Account No.

And Disposal 18.940741.52344.0000.000
Total $471,960 $583,680 $111,720
No additional budget authority is necessary as sufficient funds have been allocated in the Wastewater Enterprise Fund FY 2023-24 budget for these purchases.

ORIGINATED BY:
17 Packet Pg. 405
Pacifica City Council 5
August 14, 2023
Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Purchase Agreement Polydyne FY 2023-24 signed (PDF)
master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) (PDF) task order 1 for biosolids services synagro_fy23-24 - signed (2) (Temp) (Converted) (PDF) TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed (PDF)
17 Packet Pg. 406
Pacifica City Council 6
August 14, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH POLYDYNE, INC.

IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 FOR THE CALERA CREEK WATER RECYCLING PLANT’S FY 2023-24 ANNUAL SUPPLY OF POLYMER
WHEREAS, each fiscal year, Wastewater Division estimates the quantity of services, equipment, supplies and materials that will be needed for recurring maintenance, repairs, and operations during the fiscal year. Items that are proprietary and sold only through the manufacturer, have only one authorized distributor in the area, or have proven to be the only product/service acceptable are sole-sourced; and
WHEREAS, during the FY 2023-24 budget approval process, the Council approved sufficient funding for Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division (WW) Operations and Maintenance Expenditures (Fund 18) that includes these purchases; and WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica Administrative Policy #76, Purchasing Policy, section 7.4, authorizes the City Manager to waive bidding requirements for sole source purchases if he/she determines sufficient justification exist; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to approve the Purchase Agreement with Polydyne, Inc. in the amount of $200,000 for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2023-24 annual supply of polymer; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager to execute the Purchase Agreement with Polydyne, Inc. in the amount of $200,000 for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2023-24 annual supply of polymer.
• • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 14th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 17 Packet Pg. 407
Pacifica City Council 7
August 14, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH TROJAN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, ULC IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FOR THE CALERA CREEK WATER RECYCLING PLANT’S FY 2023-24 ANNUAL SUPPLY OF TROJAN SYSTEM UV4000 ORIGINAL REPLACEMENT PARTS
WHEREAS, each fiscal year, Wastewater Division estimates the quantity of services, equipment, supplies and materials that will be needed for recurring maintenance, repairs, and operations during the fiscal year. Items that are proprietary and sold only through the manufacturer, have only one authorized distributor in the area, or have proven to be the only product/service acceptable are sole-sourced; and
WHEREAS, during the FY 2023-24 budget approval process, the Council approved sufficient funding for Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division (WW) Operations and Maintenance Expenditures (Fund 18) that includes these purchases; and WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica Administrative Policy #76, Purchasing Policy, section 7.4, authorizes the City Manager to waive bidding requirements for sole source purchases if he/she determines sufficient justification exist; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to approve the Purchase Agreement with Trojan Technologies Group, ULC in the amount of $100,000 for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2023-24 annual supply of Trojan System UV4000 original replacement parts; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager to execute the Purchase Agreement with Trojan Technologies Group, ULC in the amount of $100,000 for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2023- 24 annual supply of Trojan System UV4000 original replacement parts. • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 14th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 17 Packet Pg. 408
Pacifica City Council 8
August 14, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE MASTER AGREEMENT FOR BIOSOLIDS SERVICES AND TASK ORDER NO. 1 WITH SYNAGRO WEST, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $171,960 FOR THE CALERA CREEK WATER RECYCLING PLANT’S FY 2023-24 ANNUAL

BIOSOLIDS HAULING AND DISPOSAL
WHEREAS, each fiscal year, Wastewater Division estimates the quantity of services, equipment, supplies and materials that will be needed for recurring maintenance, repairs, and operations during the fiscal year. Items that are proprietary and sold only through the manufacturer, have only one authorized distributor in the area, or have proven to be the only product/service acceptable are sole-sourced; and
WHEREAS, during the FY 2023-24 budget approval process, the Council approved sufficient funding for Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division (WW) Operations and Maintenance Expenditures (Fund 18) that includes these purchases; and WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica Administrative Policy #76, Purchasing Policy, section 7.4, authorizes the City Manager to waive bidding requirements for sole source purchases if he/she determines sufficient justification exist; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to approve the Master Agreement for Biosolids Services and Task Order No. 1 with Synagro West, LLC In the Amount Of $171,960 for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2023-24 Annual Biosolids Hauling and Disposal; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager to execute the Master Agreement for Biosolids Services and Task Order No. 1 with Synagro West, LLC In the Amount Of $171,960 for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2023-24 Annual Biosolids Hauling and Disposal. • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 14th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

17.a
Packet Pg. 410
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Polydyne FY 2023-24 signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.a
Packet Pg. 411
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Polydyne FY 2023-24 signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.a
Packet Pg. 412
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Polydyne FY 2023-24 signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.a
Packet Pg. 413
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Polydyne FY 2023-24 signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.a
Packet Pg. 414
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Polydyne FY 2023-24 signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.a
Packet Pg. 415
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Polydyne FY 2023-24 signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.a
Packet Pg. 416
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Polydyne FY 2023-24 signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

MASTER AGREEMENT FOR BIOSOLIDS SERVICES
This Master Agreement for Biosolids Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and SYNAGRO WEST, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR"). CITY and CONTRACTOR may be referred to ind

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY invited Proposals for providing biosolids services in connection with the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant biosolids disposal process; WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR is qualified to perform such services; and WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR has agreed to provide CITY with such services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.

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

ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.1. Scope of Services. CONTRACTOR 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. CONTRACTOR agrees to diligently prosecute the Services. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence.

1.4. Professional Competence. CONTRACTOR 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. CONTRACTOR represents that it has all the necessary licenses to perform the Services and shall maintain them throughout the term of this Agreement.

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

17.b
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1

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

1.6. Confidentiality. CONTRACTOR 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. CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR.

1.8. Documentation. CONTRACTOR shall keep and maintain full and complete documentation and accounting records, employee time sheets, and correspondence pertaining to the performance of the Services, and CONTRACTOR 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. CONTRACTOR agrees to testify at CITY's request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with the Services. Unless the action is brought by CONTRACTOR or is based upon CONTRACTOR's negligence, CITY will compensate CONTRACTOR for the preparation and the testimony at CONTRACTOR's standard hourly rates.

ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION

2.1. 2.2.

Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with the rate and schedules specified in a Task Order. However, in no event shall the amount the CITY pays to CONTRACTOR for work done under a Task Order exceed the total .

Invoices. CONTRACTOR 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

17.b
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over month. CONTRACTOR shall submit time and cost records as necessary to substantiate performance of the ServicesNo payment hereunder shall be construed as evidence of acceptance of any of CONTRACTOR's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONTRACTOR on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in CONTRACTOR's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder.

CONTRACTOR shall not stop or delay performance of the Services under this Agreement on account of payment disputes with CITY.

2.2.1.Terms of Payment. City shall pay Contractor the full amount due under any invoice within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice. Any invoice amount not paid in full within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice shall bear interest at the lesser of: (i) one and one-half percent (1.5%) per month; or (ii) the maximum legally permissible interest rate on any unpaid balance thereof. Interest shall be computed from the date of the invoice. In the event of a dispute of any charges, City shall pay Contractor any amounts not in dispute in accordance with the provisions herein,

2.3. Status Reports. Together with each monthly invoice, CONTRACTOR 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. CONTRACTOR shall notify CITY in writing when payments have reached 90 percent of 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 CONTRACTOR. 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 CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon ninety (90) days written notice to the CITY. Should City elect to terminate this agreement for convenience, or without cause, City shall pay Contractor for expenses incurred because of early termination. These expenses include, but are not limited to, recovery of capital costs, percent of lost profits, demobilization, employee severance payments and costs to terminate subcontractors and equipment leases

3.2.1 Force Majeure. Neither Party shall be liable to the other Party for breach or for failure or delay in the performance of its obligations hereunder caused by any act or occurrence beyond its reasonable control, including, but not limited to: fires; floods; strikes (except any strikes involvi
ordinance; orders or judgments of any Federal, State or local court, administrative agency or governmental body; change in permit conditions or requirements; accidents; extreme weather conditions including, for example, hurricanes, tornadoes, unusually high amounts of precipitation, unusual extremes of temperature or wind, or unusually extended periods

17.b
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over of adverse weather conditions; acts of war, aggression or terrorism (foreign or domestic); equipment failure (other than due to the inadequate maintenance thereof); and acts of God.

It is specifically understood that, without limitation, none of the following acts, events or circumstances shall constitute an act or occurrence beyond a Party reasonably anticipated weather conditions normal for the region in which the work is performed or (ii) any failure to pay any sums in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Whenever the provisions of this Section are believed to apply, the Party relying thereon shall give prompt notice to the other Party of the circumstances, the basis for applicability of this Section and the time required to cure such breach or delay and Contractor and City shall use reasonable best efforts to agree on appropriate mitigating actions under the circumstances. This provision provides performance (including performance

3.3. Final Payment. CONTRACTOR 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. 4.2.

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

CONTRACTOR Contact. CONTRACTOR designates John Pugliaresi 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 CONTRACTOR's designated contact shall be subject to written approval by CITY.

ARTICLE 5 - INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

5.1. Indemnification. CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR, 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. CONTRACTOR shall defend the CITY Parties as required by California Civil Code Section 2778, and with counsel reasonably acceptable

17.b
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over to those parties. CONTRACTOR shall have no right to seek reimbursement from the CITY Parties for the costs of defense.
defined in California Civil Code Section
2782.8(c), CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Indemnitees harmless against Liability only to the extent such Liability arises out of, pertains to, or relates to r willful misconduct. In such an event, the
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. CONTRACTOR may perform part of the Services at sites which contain unknown working conditions and contaminated materials. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for the health and safety of CONTRACTOR's employees during the performance of the Services.

5.3. Insurance. CONTRACTOR and all of CONTRACTORS 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.

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 CONTRACTOR 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.

17.b
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over 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 CONTRACTOR under this Agreement.

D. Workers Compensation Insurance. Workers Compensation insurance, required with minimum limits as required by law, covering all workplaces involved in this Agreement.

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

5.3. The Certificates shall be on forms acceptable to CITY. CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR by United States mail;
Providing that CONTRACTOR 's insurance shall apply separately to each except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability (cross-liability endorsement);
its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and Providing that for any claims relating to CONTRACTOR 's services hereunder, CONTRACTOR '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 CITY for itself, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents shall be in excess of CONTRACTOR '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 CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR resulting from said breach. Alternatively, CITY may purchase the required insurance coverage, and without further notice to CONTRACTOR, may deduct

17.b
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over from sums due to CONTRACTOR any premium costs advanced by CITY for such insurance. These remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies available to CITY.

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

If to CITY: City Manager
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 738-7409
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038
Email: [email protected]
If to CONTRACTOR: John Pugliaresi
Synagro West, LLC
3110 Gold Canal Drive Suite E,
Rancho Cordova, CA, 95670
Phone: 650-219-6380
[email protected]
ARTICLE 7 - MISCELLANEOUS

7.1. Conflict of Interest Prohibition. CITY and CONTRACTOR will comply with the 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. CONTRACTOR 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

17.b
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over CONTRACTOR 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 Agreement. CONTRACTOR 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 ursuant to this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR 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. CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of CITY in the previous twelve months, CONTRACTOR warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et seq., the entire Agreement is void and performance of the Services, including reimbursement of expenses, and CONTRACTOR will be required to reimburse CITY for any sums paid to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR of the requirements of this provision will constitute a material breach of this Agreement, and the CITY reserves all its rights and remedies at law and equity concerning any such violations.

7.2. Subcontracting. CONTRACTOR may subcontract portions of the Services upon the prior written approval of CITY. CONTRACTOR will be solely responsible for payment of such subcontract Services. No contractual relationship will exist between any such to be bound to CONTRACTOR and CITY in the same manner and to the same extent as 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 subcopy of the CITY indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to

7.3. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of CITY and CONTRACTOR 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.

17.b
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.9. Mediation. In the event the parties are unable to resolve a dispute arising under this Agreement through good faith negotiations, the parties agree to submit the matter to mediation with a mutually agreeable mediator. Prior to the mediation, the parties shall exchange any documents reasonably necessary to resolve the matter to be mediated.

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

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

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

7.13. Third Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with, or cause of action in favor of, a third party against either the CITY or

17.b
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over the benefit of CITY. CITY shall be an express third-party beneficiary of all contracts between CONTRACTOR and any subcontractors or subconsultants in connection with any services performed in connection with, or in furtherance of, this Agreement.

7.14. Relief for Force Majeure/Uncontrollable Circumstances; Change in Law. Neither Party shall be liable to the other Party for breach or for failure or delay in the performance of its obligations hereunder caused by any act or occurrence beyond its reasonable control, including, but not limited to: fires; floods; strikes (except any strikes involving a judgments of any Federal, State or local court, administrative agency or governmental body; change in permit conditions or requirements; accidents; extreme weather conditions including, for example, hurricanes, tornadoes, unusually high amounts of precipitation, unusual extremes of temperature or wind, or unusually extended periods of adverse weather conditions; acts of war, aggression or terrorism (foreign or domestic); riot, insurrection; equipment failure (other than due to the inadequate maintenance thereof); and acts of God. It is specifically understood that, without limitation, none of the following acts, events or circumstances shall constitute an act or occurrence beyond a region in which the work is performed or (ii) any failure to pay any sums in accordance with the terms of this Contract. Whenever the provisions of this Section are believed to apply, the Party relying thereon shall give prompt notice to the other Party of the circumstances, the basis for applicability of this Section and the time required to cure such breach or delay. Contractor shall promptly provide notice of the need, if any, for additional compensation or for renegotiation of terms in order to mitigate the effects of such event or to comply with a change in law or regulation or interpretation thereof.

Contractor shall be entitled to additional time and compensation if such event delays performance into a season different from that assumed when this Contract was executed.

Contractor and City shall use reasonable best efforts to agree on appropriate mitigating actions under the circumstances.

7.15. Mutual Waiver of Consequential Damages. Neither party shall be liable for consequential or punitive damages on any claims arising out of the performance or non performance of obligations under the Contract.

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

CITY OF PACIFICA
By:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager

CONTRACTOR
Date
By:

Date Attest:

17.b
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over By: ___________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

17.b
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over

EXHIBIT A

TASK ORDER
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 Biosolids Servi
SECTION 2 SCOPE OF WORK
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 Compensation, which is
attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided 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]

17.b
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over

CITY OF PACIFICA
By:
___________, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT

SYNAGRO WEST, LLC
Date
By: Date
By: Date

17.b
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over

SCOPE OF SERVICES

17.b
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over Scope of Service.

TRANSPORTATION AND LAND APPLICATION OR OTHER BENEFICIAL USE OF CLASS B OR CLASS A

ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED BIOSOLIDS
City Materials.

City Materials shall consist of the following:

Anaerobically digested class b or class a bisolids
Method of Delivery of City Materials. The City Material shall be delivered to Contractor in the following manner:

Biosolids will be loaded into staged trailers provided by Synagro An empty trailer will be exchanged for a full trailer on an oncall basis.

City Facility(ies) " shall mean the following locations where City Material(s) are generated or stored:

1. City of Pacifica Wastewater Treatment Plant located in Pacifica, CA, Contractor right to refuse loads. If trucks or containers are loaded by City or its agents, Contractor has the right to refuse loads that are not within legal weight restrictions, are defective, or are not filled to mutually agreed-upon minimums or maximums.

17.b
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over

COMPENSATION
PRICE
The Agreement Price(s) shall be as follows:

Unit price line items will be billed on the actual units removed per the proposal dated

RATE QUANTITY UNIT SERVICE
$84.50 1500 Wet Ton Transportation and Land Application of Class B or Class A biosolids $1,325.00 12 Month Trailer rental
$445.00 12 Month Laboratory analysis
$1,804.00 TBD Minimum load
charge
Transportation and Land Application of Class B or Class A biosolids $117.00 TBD Wet Ton

17.b
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over CPI. All Agreement Prices shall be adjusted as follows:

All Agreement Prices shall be adjusted annually beginning on July 1, 2024__ based on the Non-Seasonally Adjusted Consumer Price Index established by the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for _San Francisco Bay Are with the CPI immediately preceding the Commencement Date being the base index. Said adjustment shall apply to all fees contained herein, and shall be based on the following formula:

New Price = (Price Adjustment) x First Year Agreement Price Current CPI - Base CPI
Price Adjustment = 1 + (---------------------------------) Base CPI
CPI = ______________________.

Base CPI = ______________________.

Once the CPI is available, the price adjustment shall take effect retroactively, where applicable, as of the dates specified above for price adjustments. No New Price shall ever be lower than any existing current Agreement Price in effect immediately before the annual adjustment.

17.b
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over Fuel Surcharge Adjustment
change in diesel fuel prices, in accordance with the table below, if the cost of retail on-highway diesel fuel (Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration California____________) is at, or exceeds, $_5.00___________ per gallon (Base Price).

The Fuel Surcharge Adjustment will be based on the following chart and the Retail On-Highway Diesel Price California as California_________________________
and will be applied to the then current fixed or unit fee, as applicable. The Fuel Surcharge Adjustment will be no more than once a calendar month beginning with the second calendar month following the Commencement of Services and shall be adjusted as of the first day of each month. Fuel Surcharge Adjustment will then be applied as follows:

Diesel Price $/Gallon -
Note1
Fuel Surcharge
Adjustment %
< $(Base Price) None
Base Price to Base Price plus
$.049

0.5 %
Base Price plus $0.05 to
Base Price plus $0.099

1.0 %
Base Price plus $0.1 to Base
Price plus $.0149

1.5 %
For each $0.05/gallon increase thereafter add 0.5
EXAMPLE:

Base Price = $5.01 / Gallon
Diesel Price $/Gallon -
Note1
Fuel Surcharge
Adjustment %

5.00 (Base Price) None
$5.01 - $5.049 0.5 %
$5.05 - $5.099 1. %
$5.10 - $5.149 1.5 %
Note 1 - Fuel Rate based on DOE EIA monthly retail on-highway diesel prices (_California-ultra low sulphur 15 ppm or less_____)

17.b
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over

17.b
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over

17.b
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: master agreement for biosolids services synagro_updated_7-6-2023 - signed (2) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over

EXHIBIT A

TASK ORDER
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 Biosolids Servi
SECTION 2 SCOPE OF WORK
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 Compensation, which is
attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided
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]

17.c
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: task order 1 for biosolids services synagro_fy23-24 - signed (2) (Temp) (Converted) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over

CITY OF PACIFICA
By:
___________, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT

SYNAGRO WEST, LLC
Date
By: Date
By: Date

17.c
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: task order 1 for biosolids services synagro_fy23-24 - signed (2) (Temp) (Converted) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over

SCOPE OF SERVICES

17.c
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: task order 1 for biosolids services synagro_fy23-24 - signed (2) (Temp) (Converted) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over Scope of Service.

TRANSPORTATION AND LAND APPLICATION OR OTHER BENEFICIAL USE OF CLASS B OR CLASS A

ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED BIOSOLIDS
City Materials.

City Materials shall consist of the following:

Anaerobically digested class b or class a bisolids
Method of Delivery of City Materials. The City Material shall be delivered to Contractor in the following manner:

Biosolids will be loaded into staged trailers provided by Synagro An empty trailer will be exchanged for a full trailer on an oncall basis.

City Facility(ies) " shall mean the following locations where City Material(s) are generated or stored:

17.c
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: task order 1 for biosolids services synagro_fy23-24 - signed (2) (Temp) (Converted) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over

COMPENSATION
PRICE
The Agreement Price(s) shall be as follows:

Unit price line items will be billed on the actual units removed per the proposal dated

17.c
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: task order 1 for biosolids services synagro_fy23-24 - signed (2) (Temp) (Converted) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over CPI. All Agreement Prices shall be adjusted as follows:

New Price = (Price Adjustment) x First Year Agreement Price Current CPI - Base CPI
Price Adjustment = 1 + (---------------------------------) Base CPI
CPI = ______________________.

Base CPI = ______________________.

17.c
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: task order 1 for biosolids services synagro_fy23-24 - signed (2) (Temp) (Converted) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over Fuel Surcharge Adjustment
change in diesel fuel prices, in accordance with the table below, if the cost of retail on-highway diesel fuel (Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration California____________) is at, or exceeds, $_5.00___________ per gallon (Base Price).

Diesel Price $/Gallon -
Note1
Fuel Surcharge
Adjustment %
< $(Base Price) None
Base Price to Base Price plus
$.049

0.5 %
Base Price plus $0.05 to
Base Price plus $0.099

1.0 %
Base Price plus $0.1 to Base
Price plus $.0149

1.5 %
For each $0.05/gallon increase thereafter add 0.5
EXAMPLE:

Base Price = $5.01 / Gallon
Diesel Price $/Gallon -
Note1
Fuel Surcharge
Adjustment %

17.c
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: task order 1 for biosolids services synagro_fy23-24 - signed (2) (Temp) (Converted) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over

17.c
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: task order 1 for biosolids services synagro_fy23-24 - signed (2) (Temp) (Converted) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over

17.c
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: task order 1 for biosolids services synagro_fy23-24 - signed (2) (Temp) (Converted) [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over

17.d
Packet Pg. 446
Attachment: TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.d
Packet Pg. 447
Attachment: TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.d
Packet Pg. 448
Attachment: TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.d
Packet Pg. 449
Attachment: TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.d
Packet Pg. 450
Attachment: TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.d
Packet Pg. 451
Attachment: TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.d
Packet Pg. 452
Attachment: TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.d
Packet Pg. 453
Attachment: TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.d
Packet Pg. 454
Attachment: TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.d
Packet Pg. 455
Attachment: TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.d
Packet Pg. 456
Attachment: TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.d
Packet Pg. 457
Attachment: TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.d
Packet Pg. 458
Attachment: TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

17.d
Packet Pg. 459
Attachment: TrojanPartsFY2023-24PurchaseAgreement signed [Revision 1] (5390 : Annual Agreements over $50,000 for DPW-WW FY 2023-24)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/14/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution Authorizing Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Schaaf and Wheeler, Inc. for Engineering Design Services for the Wastewater Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation and Repair Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to Approve a Resolution Authorizing a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Schaaf and Wheeler, Inc. for engineering design services in the amount of $440,000 for the Wastewater Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation and Repair Project; Approve budget authority in the amount of $506,000 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $66,000; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.

STAFF CONTACT:

Daniel Patten, P.E., Senior Engineer (Wastewater)
(650) 922-7248
[email protected]
Maria Aguilar, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works (Wastewater) (650) 738-4660
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On June 26, 2023, during the FY 2023-24 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget approval process, the Council approved funding for the Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation and Repair Project (Project).

Improvements to the collection system in the Lower Linda Mar area were identified in the City’s Collection System Master Plan Update 2021. This project will include replacing existing sewer mains with new pipe and rehabilitating manholes to improve system reliability and reduce the risks of overflows as well as inflow and infiltration (I&I).

The Project will be financed thru the Installment Sale Agreement in the amount of $21 Million with IBank which was approved by Council on May 8, 2023. The Sale Agreement will finance wastewater system improvements projects which also includes the Ultraviolet Disinfection Replacement Project.

On May 24, 2023, the City advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from engineering design teams (Consultants) to design and develop construction bid documents for the Project. Then on July 5, 2023, four consultants bid the Project: Wilsey Ham, Freyer and Laureta (F&L), EKI and Schaaf and Wheeler, Inc. (Schaaf & Wheeler). The table below summarizes the fee and level of effort for each consultant. 18 Packet Pg. 460
Pacifica City Council 2
August 14, 2023
Proposer Fee Level of Effort (Hours)
Freyer and Laureta $421,310 1,775
EKI $548,180 1,872
Schaaf and Wheeler $438,706 892
Wilsey Ham $425,299 1,139
As required by state Public Contracts Code, the RFP utilized a qualifications-based selection (QBS) approach to ensure the City selected the most qualified Consultant for this critical Project. From July 6 to July 20, Staff reviewed the proposals based on the following criteria:
• Fees and Level of Effort
• Project Understanding and Approach
• Project and Team References
• Project Schedule Delivery
Schaaf & Wheeler’s Proposal is 4% higher than the lowest fee, however, the selection process is not based on the lowest fee alone, but what is outlined above. Upon staff review, staff found that Schaaf and Wheel provided an accelerated design schedule, with estimated bidding in the Spring of 2024. This schedule will result in more rapid critical improvements to the City’s Collection System in the Lower Linda Mar neighborhood.

Moreover, Schaaf & Wheeler has provided a team experienced in pipe-bursting and sewer improvement projects. Their proposed team has recently designed similar projects for the City of Belmont, Town of Corte Madera, and the San Rafael Sanitation District. These projects included elements which will be critical to the success of the Project, including:
• Field investigation and base mapping
• Pipe-bursting
• Manhole rehabilitation
• Traffic plan development
• Public outreach
Because of the above reasons, City staff ranked Schaaf & Wheeler first and determined that they are the most qualified to perform the engineering design of the Project.

The following table summarizes the schedule anticipated for the Wastewater Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation and Repair Project:

Description Date
Council Approval of Engineering Agreement August 14, 2023 Notice to Proceed Mid-August 2023
65-Percent Design November 2023
95-Percent Design December 2023
100-Percent (Final) Design February 2024
Bidding March - April 2024
This proposed schedule will allow Project Construction to commence in Summer 2024.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
18 Packet Pg. 461
Pacifica City Council 3
August 14, 2023
Council may choose not to approve the Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1; however, this will result in project delays, and possible increases of construction costs. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Annual Purchase Orders is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure and Maintaining a Safe Community:

The Project will improve the reliability of the collection system in the Lower Linda Mar neighborhood. This work is anticipated to reduce I&I, the risks of sanitary sewer overflows and the costs of maintaining the system.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost of Task Order No. 1 is $440,000. City staff recommends including a 15% contingency to the Task Order for any additional design work due to the complexity of the project. The Source and Use of Funds spreadsheet is shown below.

Use of Funds
Task Order No. 1 - Engineering Design Services $ 440,000 Contingency (15%) $ 66,000
Total Use of Funds $ 506,000
Project Fund Source
Enterprise Fund (Fund 34) $3,500,000
Account No 34.900000.52800.C044.000
Total Project Fund Source $3,500,000
Estimated Project Fund End Balance $2,994,000
No additional budget authority is necessary as sufficient funds have been allocated in the Wastewater Enterprise Fund FY 2023-24 budget for this project.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (PDF)
Schaaf_and Wheeler Task Order 1_GMA (PDF)
18 Packet Pg. 462
Pacifica City Council 4
August 14, 2023
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

AUTHORIZING A MASTER AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICE AND TASK ORDER NO. 1 WITH SCHAAF AND WHEELER, INC. FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN

SERVICES FOR THE WASTEWATER LOWER LINDA MAR REHABILITATION AND REPAIR

PROJECT
WHEREAS, during the FY 2023-24 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget approval process, the City Council approved funding for the Wastewater Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation and Repair (Project); and
WHEREAS, the Project includes but not limited to the engineering design and construction of the Project; and
WHEREAS, improvements to the collection system in the Lower Linda Mar area were identified in the City’s Collection System Master Plan Update 2021. The Project will include replacing existing sewer mains with new pipe and rehabilitating manholes to improve system reliability and reduce the risks of overflows as well as inflow and infiltration (I&I); and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023, the City advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from engineering design teams (Consultants) to design and develop construction bid documents for the Project. Then on July 5, 2023, four consultants bid the Project; and
WHEREAS, as required by state Public Contracts Code, the RFP utilized a qualifications-based selection (QBS) approach to ensure the City selected the most qualified Consultant for this critical Project; and
WHEREAS, City staff ranked Schaaf and Wheeler, Inc. first and determined that they are the most qualified to perform the engineering design of the Project; and WHEREAS, The City Council has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to authorize a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Schaaf and Wheeler, Inc.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica authorizes the City Manager to execute a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Schaaf and Wheeler, Inc. for engineering design services in the amount of $440,000 for the Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation and Repair Project and approves budget authority in the amount of $506,000 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $66,000; and Authorizes the City Manager to execute all documents related to the Project. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on August 14, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:
18 Packet Pg. 463
Pacifica City Council 5
August 14, 2023
NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

CITY OF PACIFICA
_________________________________
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 18 Packet Pg. 464
OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1

MASTER AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Master Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 15th day of August, 2023, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Schaaf and Wheeler Inc. a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY requires professional design services in connection with the Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation and Repair Project;
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.

18.a
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation

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

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

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

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

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

ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION

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

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

18.a
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation performance of the Services. Within 35 days after receipt of each such invoice, CITY shall verify the accuracy of the invoice, correct the charges where appropriate and as discussed and mutually agreed with CONSULTANT, and make payment to CONSULTANT in an amount equal to the amount of such invoice, as verified or corrected by CITY. No payment hereunder shall be construed as evidence of acceptance of any of CONSULTANT's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONSULTANT on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in CONSULTANT's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder. CONSULTANT shall not stop or delay performance of the Services under this Agreement on account of payment disputes with CITY.

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

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

ARTICLE 3 - TIME OF PERFORMANCE

3.1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the second signature and shall remain in full force and effect until August 14 2025 (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.

ARTICLE 4 - DESIGNATED CONTACTS

4.1. CITY Contact. CITY designates Daniel Patten, its Senior Engineer, 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

18.a
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation wishes to make a change in CITY 's representative, CITY will notify CONSULTANT of the change in writing.

4.2. CONSULTANT Contact. CONSULTANT designates Ben Shick 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.

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.

18.a
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation automobile at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit and $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall apply to hired and non-owned autos.

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

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

18.a
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation  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 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.

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.

If to CITY: City Manager
540 Crespi Dr.

Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 738-7409
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038
Email: [email protected]

18.a
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation If to CONSULTANT: Glen M. Anderson, P.E.
4699 Old Ironsides Drive
Suite 350
Santa Clara, Ca 95054
Phone: 408-246-4848 Ex. 217
Email: [email protected]
ARTICLE 7 - MISCELLANEOUS

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

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

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

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

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

18.a
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation material breach of this Agreement, and the CITY reserves all its rights and remedies at law and equity concerning any such violations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

18.a
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation mediation with a mutually agreeable mediator. Prior to the mediation, the parties shall exchange any documents reasonably necessary to resolve the matter to be mediated.

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

7.13. 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
CONSULTANTBy: Date
Glen M. Anderson, V.P.

Attest:

By: ___________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
7/28/2023

18.a
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation Approved As To Form By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

18.a
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation

EXHIBIT A

TASK ORDER

18.a
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation 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]

18.a
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation

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

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
_______________________________
By: Date By: Date

18.a
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

18.a
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation ATTACHMENT “B”

COMPENSATION

18.a
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Agreement_Schaaf_and Wheeler_07272023_LowerLindaMarRandRDesignServices_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation TASK ORDER NO. 1

CITY OF PACIFICA
AND
SCHAAF AND WHEELER INC.

SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct Schaaf and Wheeler 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 Schaaf and Wheeler Inc (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated August 15, 2023 (“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 four hundred forty thousand dollars ($440,000) (“Cost Ceiling”).

SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed by June 30, 2024 or as extended in writing by the City Manager.

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

Approved this 15th day of August, 2023.

OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1

18.b
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Schaaf_and Wheeler Task Order 1_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation And Repair Project - Design Services) [Signatures on Next Page]

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

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
Schaaf and Wheeler Inc.

By: Date
Glen Anderson, V.P.
7/28/2023

18.b
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Schaaf_and Wheeler Task Order 1_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation And Repair Project - Design Services) ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

18.b
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Schaaf_and Wheeler Task Order 1_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation And Repair Project - Design Services) Project Understanding and Approach
Schaaf & Wheeler 1
Project Understanding and Approach
Narrative Description of the Project
The City of Pacifica’s Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation and Repair Project consists of preparing bid documents for pipe bursting and manhole rehabilitation/replacement. The bid documents will be established to provide base scope and additive bid items as listed in the table below and detailed in the RFP. The design will include preparation of bid documents for the base scope and additive bid items.

Base Scope 17,900 LF of Pipe Bursting
Additive Bid Item 1 7,500 LF of Pipe Bursting
Additive Bid Item 2 3,500 LF of Pipe Bursting
Total 28,900 LF of Pipe Bursting
Schaaf & Wheeler’s proposed approach for key scope items is detailed below. Schaaf & Wheeler will complete the scope of work detailed in the RFP.

Task 1.1 Project Management
Schaaf & Wheeler has a 10+ year working relationship with the proposed subconsultants for this project. All necessary project data including budgeting, schedule, and technical requirements will be coordinated between all team members. Schaaf & Wheeler will review all data and reports received from subconsultants and will identify issues with missing data, incomplete data, poor quality, etc.

Schaaf & Wheeler will prepare and submit status updates to the City with each monthly invoice.

The updates will include status of the project budget, schedule, and scope updates along with any issues that arise throughout the project.

Task 1.2 Kickoff and Progress Meetings
Schaaf & Wheeler will attend the project kickoff meeting, and three progress meetings, each assumed to be four hours in duration. Meeting agenda and minute preparation will be performed by Schaaf & Wheeler, and circulated to all attendees in PDF or MS Word format. Additional, short duration conference calls are anticipated throughout the project and are included in this scope.

Task 1.3 Public Outreach
Public outreach is a critical task for a successful project. The project will be disruptive to the residents, and it will be necessary to convey the details and importance of the project to all residents that will be impacted by the project. Site specific outreach and meetings may be necessary in locations where excavations will be required on private property or within easements.

18.b
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Schaaf_and Wheeler Task Order 1_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation And Repair Project - Design Services) Project Understanding and Approach
Schaaf & Wheeler 2
Schaaf & Wheeler has extensive experience performing public outreach for large scale sewer rehabilitation projects throughout the Bay Area. Schaaf & Wheeler will assist the City with preparing and distributing door hangers, conducting public meetings, and drafting project schedules and writeups for public outreach documents.

18.b
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Schaaf_and Wheeler Task Order 1_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation And Repair Project - Design Services) Project Understanding and Approach
Schaaf & Wheeler 3
Task 1.4 Project Schedule
Schaaf & Wheeler’s proposed design and construction schedule is included below.

18.b
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Schaaf_and Wheeler Task Order 1_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation And Repair Project Understanding and Approach
Schaaf & Wheeler 4
Task 2.1 Base Map Development
Schaaf & Wheeler’s subconsultant, Kier + Wright
(K+W), will perform surveying services to develop a
project base map for the base scope and additive bid
item locations. The proposed methodology is detailed
below:
▪ Utility Research: Utility research will consist of
contacting all franchise utility providers for their
utility plans within the project limits.
▪ Utility survey: Utility survey will include the
surface evident utilities and the approximate
locations of the subsurface utility lines in the
project area. Utility lines and gravity flow
information will be plotted to scale and shown
on the orthophoto described below. Utility
information will be obtained from utility records
from local utility companies and the City.
▪ MH Dips: All accessible sanitary sewer and
storm drain structures will be measured to obtain rim and invert elevations and to confirm pipe sizes.
▪ Drone Orthophoto Background: K+W will perform a drone flight to prepare an orthorectified photo for the entire project area which will be used as a background for the project base map.

K+W will review recorded assessor maps from these easement stretches to identify the limits of existing recorded Public Utility Easements along the existing SS alignment for incorporation into the base map.

Task 2.2 Potholing and Utility Location
Schaaf & Wheeler’s subconsultant,
Subtronic, will provide potholing for
critical utilities that could be impacted
by the proposed sewer main
rehabilitation work.

Schaaf & Wheeler will identify the
proposed utility potholing locations
and will present the locations to the
City on a utility potholing plan prior to
proceeding with the work. The
proposed scope of services assumes
the following:
▪ Utility potholing of 60 utilities is
included in the proposed fee.
▪ Subtronic will provide traffic control during utility potholing. ▪ Backfill and compact with Class 2 AB and re-surface with hot mix asphalt in paved areas.

18.b
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Schaaf_and Wheeler Task Order 1_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation And Repair Project - Design Services) Project Understanding and Approach
Schaaf & Wheeler 5
▪ Install PK nails or high visibility whiskers or stakes directly above the utility. ▪ Prepare utility potholing report.

Schaaf & Wheeler will manage the potholing process and will have staff on site during critical potholing activities. Schaaf & Wheeler will record all marked utilities within the USA limits and will update the project Base Map as necessary.

Task 3, 4, and 5 Design Documents
Schaaf & Wheeler’s proposed team has recently completed several large-scale sewer rehabilitation projects throughout the Bay Area. The bid documents will be prepared in an efficient and accurate manner to provide the City with a constructible project. Schaaf & Wheeler has identified the following tasks and processes that will minimize unforeseen conditions and changes during construction:
▪ Thorough document research and review to identify existing conditions. ▪ Detailed utility investigation to identify and document existing conditions and potential conflicts.
▪ Accurately identify all lateral connections. Prepare exhibits and tables identifying lateral locations, and surface improvements that will be impacted by Construction. ▪ Confirm suitability of the proposed pipe rehabilitation method (pipe bursting). If there are locations with dense utilities or very shallow pipes, alternate construction methods may be necessary.
▪ Prepare detailed construction documents to identify existing conditions, constraints, and to outline the contractor’s responsibilities.
▪ Perform constructability reviews to identify potential issues or conflicts during the design process.

Specifications:

Schaaf & Wheeler will utilize the City’s standard specifications to develop a complete set of front end and technical specifications. Schaaf & Wheeler has an extensive library of technical specifications from recent pipe bursting projects throughout the Bay Area to draw upon. The City’s standard specifications will be tailored to provide a concise, detailed, and constructible set of bid documents.

Construction Drawings:

Construction drawings will be developed in AutoCAD 2023 format. Plan view sheets will be prepared at 1:40 scale to accurately identify the proposed pipe bursting alignments, pipe sizes, lengths, and manhole locations.

Schaaf & Wheeler’s design staff will perform field investigations to become familiar with the area, confirm existing utilities shown on the project base map, and to identify potential conflicts/issues. Construction drawings will include title sheet, notes sheets, plan view improvement plans, and construction details.

Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost:

Schaaf & Wheeler has multiple recent bid results for similar pipe bursting projects throughout the Bay Area. Engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost will be developed based on previous bid results, estimated quantities and production of work, and quotes from material suppliers.

18.b
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Schaaf_and Wheeler Task Order 1_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation And Repair Project - Design Services) Project Understanding and Approach
Schaaf & Wheeler 6
Design Review Workshops:

Schaaf & Wheeler will conduct design review workshops with the City to discuss the draft construction documents and specifications. Schaaf & Wheeler will prepare meeting agendas and minutes to be distributed to all attendees.

Unique Approaches and Strengths
Efficient project management will play a critical role in providing a quality service that meets the City’s needs. Schaaf & Wheeler’s project manager, Ben Shick, PE will be the City’s point of contact throughout the project. All project staff and subconsultants will report to Ben to expedite coordination and deliverables for the City.

Schaaf & Wheeler’s proposed design team works almost exclusively on sewer rehabilitation projects within the Bay Area. The relevant experience projects presented in this proposal were all completed by the proposed project team. Schaaf & Wheeler has a close working relationship with the proposed subconsultants for base map development and utility potholing, which will help keep the project on schedule and within budget.
▪ Consistent Communication: Bi-weekly conference calls allow Schaaf & Wheeler team to communicate with the City’s project staff on a consistent, prescheduled basis. This allows the City staff to be aware of progress made, needed input and keeps them involved in the project and decision making. Similar to construction progress meetings, these conference calls are typically very short, providing an update to both parties. If an issue arises, it can be dealt with quickly, limiting the potential impact to schedule and budget.
▪ QA/QC: Our designated principal-incharge, Glen Anderson, PE, is on board to provide quality control review of all
deliverables. With each quality control
review, a detailed comment and response
form will be filled out and submitted to the
City with the associated submittal. A typical
iteration of our quality review procedure is
shown in the adjacent figure.
▪ Dedicated Staffing: Ben Shick and Glen
Anderson are both principal owners and
vice presidents at Schaaf & Wheeler. As
such, they are committed to completing the
project for the City.

18.b
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Schaaf_and Wheeler Task Order 1_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation And Repair Project - Design Services) Estimate of Hours and Fee
Schaaf & Wheeler 16Estimate of Hours and Fee
Principal Project
Manager
Senior Engineer
Associate
Engineer
Assistant
Engineer
$275 $235 $210 $195
Task 1 Project Management 80 40 8 0 $33,080 $0 $0 $0 $33,080 40 $11,000 $11,00016 16 8 $9,840 $9,84016 24 $10,040 $10,040 8 $2,200 $2,200
Task 2 Base Map Development 12 0 24 40 $16,140 $40,380 $178,880 $21,926 $257,326 4 40 $8,900 $40,380 $4,038 $53,3188 24 $7,240 $178,880 $17,888 $204,008 Task 3 65% Construction Documents 36 50 48 134 $57,860 $0 $0 $0 $57,860 32 40 48 120 $51,680 $51,680
2 2 12 $3,360 $3,3602 8 2 $2,820 $2,820
Task 4 95% Construction Documents 28 42 48 106 $48,320 $0 $0 $0 $48,320 24 32 48 96 $42,920 $42,920
2 2 8 $2,580 $2,5802 8 2 $2,820 $2,820
Task 5 100% Design - Bid Documents 16 24 36 84 $33,980 $0 $0 $0 $33,980 12 16 24 60 $23,800 $23,800
4 8 12 24 $10,180 $10,180
Task 6 Bid Support 8 12 0 16 $8,140 $0 $0 $0 $8,140
4 8 $2,980 $2,9804 4 16 $5,160 $5,160
Total 180 168 164 380 $197,520 $40,380 $178,880 $21,926 $438,706

1. The approximate cost per utility pothole is $3,400. The cost per pothole may vary based on number of potholes scheduled per day, depth of utility, ground cover, etc.

1.3 Public Outreach1.4 Project Schedule
Hourly Rates
10% Subconsultant
Markup
Total

1.1 Project Management1.2 Kickoff and Progress Meetings Estimate of Hours and Fee
Schaaf & Wheeler
Total
Kier & Wright -
Surveying
Subtronic -
Potholing

2.1 Base Map Development2.2 Potholing and Utility Location (60 Potholes @ $3,400/ea1)

3.1 Construction Documents3.2 Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost - 65%3.3 65% Design Review WorkshopPrebid MeetingAddenda (three)4.1 Contruction Documents4.2 Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost - 95%4.3 Design Review Workshop5.1 Prepare Draft Bid Documents5.2 Prepare Final Bid Documents

18.b
Packet Pg. 489
Attachment: Schaaf_and Wheeler Task Order 1_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation And Repair ATTACHMENT “B”

COMPENSATION
(Documented in Attachment A)

18.b
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Schaaf_and Wheeler Task Order 1_GMA (5427 : Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation And Repair Project - Design Services)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/14/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Increase of Contingency Budget for New Walk-in Refrigerator/Freezer for the Pacifica Community Center
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving an Increase in the Payment Allocation by $2,904.08 for a Total Budget Authority of $118,356.83 for Services and Equipment Provided by Bay Area Mechanical LLC for the Purchase and Installation of a New Walk-In Refrigerator/Freezer for the Pacifica Community Center" and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the agreements.

STAFF CONTACT:

Bob Palacio, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Director
650 738-7382
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

At the regular meeting of the Pacifica City Council held on 2/27/23, the Council approved the construction and purchase of a new walk-in refrigerator/freezer for the Pacifica Community Center main Kitchen. The initial estimate for that service was $104,956.23 with a 10% contingency which brought the approved total to $115,451.85.

Unfortunately, as the old unit was removed there were a number of very serious issues associated with the surrounding walls of the unit. In fact, the southern most wall supports were entirely rotted and needed to be replaced. There was also considerable concrete support and surface work that was needed as a result. The additional work required an additional week of construction and temporary refrigerator and freezer unit storage to be rented. That additional work came to a total of $13,400.60.

The additional work and associated cost was necessary and has been completed. The department is requesting $2904.98 be added to the already approved $115,451.85 in order to finalize payment to Bay Area Mechanical LLC. The funding will come from the same PB&R Special Revenue Fund 28.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

No feasible alternative action has been identified.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“An Engaged Community” includes creating opportunities to expand public participation, increase communication, and build community post-COVID. 19 Packet Pg. 491
Pacifica City Council 2
August 14, 2023
FISCAL IMPACT:

The project will be funded by the Sirkka Niukkanen Trust Fund (PB&R Special Revenue Fund 28) dedicated to senior programs and services. The total of $118,356.83, which included the additional $2904.98, will be appropriated from the available fund balance in the Fund 28 to cover the cost of this purchase. The current fund balance of the Fund 28 is over $2.1 million and is sufficient to accommodate this emergency purchase.

ORIGINATED BY:

Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
19 Packet Pg. 492
Pacifica City Council 3
August 14, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING AN INCREASE IN THE PAYMENT ALLOCATION BY $2,904.08 FOR A TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY OF $118,356.83 FOR SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT PROVIDED BY BAY AREA

MECHANICAL LLC FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW WALK-IN

REFRIGERATOR/FREEZER FOR THE PACIFICA COMMUNITY CENTER
WHEREAS, the City provides a Senior Hot Lunch and a Meals on Wheels program that requires the use of a working Walk-in Refrigerator/Freezer unit; and WHEREAS, the City desires to increase the amount previously allocated by City Council by $2,904.98 to fund the additional work necessary for the purchase and installation of the new Walk-in Refrigeration/Freezer for the Pacifica Community Center located at 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044 with the use of the Sirkka Niukkanen Trust Fund which is dedicated for senior services and its’ programs; and
WHEREAS, because the City encountered these additional issues with the walls supporting the structure of the unit, and deemed these repairs necessary, there is a need of these additional funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize an increase to the payment allocation by $2,904.98 for the new Walk-in Refrigerator/Freezer for the Pacifica Community Center for a final total budget authority of $118,356.83 for services and equipment provided by Bay Area Mechanical LLC. These funds will be allocated from the PB&R Special Revenue Fund (Fund 28). • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 14th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/14/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Rescind the Resolution No. 04-2023 and Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates DBA HdL Companies to Examine Confidential Information for the City of Pacifica Transactions and Use Tax.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Rescind the Resolution No. 04-2023 and Adopt a New Resolution to Authorize Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates DBA HdL Companies to Examine Confidential Information Related to the City of Pacifica Transactions and Use Tax approved by Pacifica voters on November 8, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

On November 8, 2022 a General Election was held where a majority of voters approved an Ordinance to establish a ½ Cent Transactions and Use Tax (TUT) in the City of Pacifica.

On January 9, 2023, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute agreements with California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) to set up, administer and operate the TUT Ordinance. The Council also approved a resolution authorizing HdL Companies, the City’s tax consulting firm to Examine Confidential Tax records for the purposes of audit.

The ½ Cent Transactions and Use Tax went into effect on April 1, 2023, and the tax quarter that ended on June 30, 2023 should have the first allocation of the TUT tax available to review now.

On August 8, 2023, the City was informed by the HdL that CDTFA notified them that they would require a corrected resolution that would spell out HdL as Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates DBA HdL Companies.

Although, the HdL Companies is the correct legal name according to the Secretary of State Records and stated as such on their website, the CDTFA insisted that the resolution must match the contract language and include the corrected spelling for them to allow HdL to examine the sales, transactions and use tax records.

Therefore, staff recommends that the Council approves a resolution rescinding the Resolution No. 04-2023 and authorizing Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates DBA HdL Companies to examine confidential transaction and use tax records.

FISCAL IMPACT:
20 Packet Pg. 494
Pacifica City Council 2
August 14, 2023
There is no fiscal impact related to this action.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
20 Packet Pg. 495
Pacifica City Council 3
August 14, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA RESCINDING THE RESOLUTION NO. 04-2023 AND AUTHORIZING EXAMINATION OF SALES OR

TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX RECORDS
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica (City) has previously entered into a contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (Department) to perform all functions incident to the administration and collection of sales and use taxes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 7270, the City entered into a contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (Department) to perform all functions incident to the administration and collection of transactions and use taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica deems it desirable and necessary for authorized officers, employees, and representatives of the City to examine confidential sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales or transactions and use collected by the Department for the City pursuant to that contract; and WHEREAS, Section 7056 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code sets forth certain requirements and conditions for the disclosure of Department records, and Section 7056.5 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code establishes criminal penalties for the unlawful disclosure of information contained in, or derived from, the sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Deputy Finance Director, Economic Development Manager, Management Analyst, or other officer or employee of the City designated in writing by the City Manager to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration is hereby appointed to represent the City with authority to examine sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales or transactions and use taxes collected for the City by the Department pursuant to the contract between the City and the Department.

Section 2. The information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of City sales or transactions and use taxes by the Department pursuant to that contract, and for purposes related to the following governmental functions of the City:
(a) Budget Preparation, Revenue Estimates and Financial Reporting (b) Economic Development Analysis and Reporting
The information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for those governmental functions of the City listed above.
20 Packet Pg. 496
Pacifica City Council 4
August 14, 2023
Section 3. That Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates DBA HdL Companies is hereby designated to examine the sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales or transactions and use taxes collected for the City by the Department. The person or entity designated by this section meets all of the following conditions, which are also included in the contract between the City and the Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates DBA HdL Companies :
a) has an existing contract with the City to examine those sales or transactions and use tax records;
b) is required by that contract to disclose information contained in, or derived from, those sales or transactions and use tax records only to the officer or employee authorized under Section 1 of this resolution to examine the information.
c) is prohibited by that contract from performing consulting services for a retailer during the term of that contract;
d) is prohibited by that contract from retaining the information contained in, or derived from those sales or transactions and use tax records, after that contract has expired.

The information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of City sales or transactions and use taxes by the Department pursuant to the contract between the City and the Department and for those purposes relating to the governmental functions of the City listed in section 2 of this resolution.

Section 4. That Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates DBA HdL Companies is hereby designated to examine the sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to any petition or appeal for the reallocation/redistribution of sales or transactions and use taxes that was filed by Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates DBA HdL Companies on behalf of the City pursuant to the contract between the Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates DBA HdL Companies and City. The entity designated by this section meets all of the following conditions, which are also included in the contract between the City and the Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates DBA HdL Companies.
a) has an existing contract with the City to examine those sales or transactions and use tax records;
b) is required by that contract to disclose information contained in, or derived from, those sales or transactions and use tax records only to the officer or employee authorized under Section 1 of this resolution to examine the information.
c) is prohibited by that contract from performing consulting services for a retailer during the term of that contract;
d) is prohibited by that contract from retaining the information contained in, or derived from those sales or transactions and use tax records, after that contract has expired.

Section 5. That this resolution supersedes all prior resolutions of the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Revenue and Taxation Code section 7056. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on August 14, 2023, by the following vote:
20 Packet Pg. 497
Pacifica City Council 5
August 14, 2023
AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/14/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Adoption of Ordinance to amend Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-17.03 to remove provision for allocation of funds within thirty days and replace the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce as the Managing Agency of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District (BID) with the City of Pacifica
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Waive the second reading and adopt by title only the Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Section 3-17.03 (Administration) of Chapter 17 (Hotel Business Improvement District) Within Title 3 (Finance) of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Remove Provision for Allocation of Funds Within Thirty Days and to Replace the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce as the Managing Agency of the BID with the City of Pacifica”.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

The attached Ordinance was introduced at a duly noticed public hearing held at the regular meeting of the City Council on July 10, 2023. The City Council conducted the public hearing for the BID amendment, as detailed further below, to determine if there was a majority of the BID members that oppose the amendment and to consider any oral and written protests pursuant to the requirements of Section 36524 of the Streets & Highways Code. There were no oral or written protests received, and the Ordinance to amend the BID was introduced as proposed.

The City Council also held a public meeting on June 12, 2023, to allow public testimony regarding the amendment. The City Council did not receive any public testimony or public comments at the meeting on June 12.

The proposed Ordinance is now in order for adoption.

Background:

Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District
The Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District (BID) was established in 2004 pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code sections 36500 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 714-C.S creating the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District and levying an annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels within the City.
21 Packet Pg. 499
Pacifica City Council 2
August 14, 2023
The intent of creating the BID was to develop a mechanism of funding for the hotels in the City to self-fund activities that would promote occupancy through funds derived from the annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy. Business Improvement Districts are selfbenefiting assessment districts where business owners voluntarily self-impose a fee to fund their daily business-related activities, advertising, or promotional opportunities. By California law, it is not a tax. Therefore, BIDs are most commonly encouraged and supported because they allow the business to self-fund and self-promote. Additionally, unlike Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT), which go into the City's General Fund, the participating hotels allocate and control BID assessment funds.

The assessment from the funds levied by the businesses must be used "to promote lodging at the hotels within the district, administer marketing programs that increase overnight lodging, and to fund related activities, staffing, and administration for the district." (Pacifica Municipal Code § 3-17.02(b)). The revenue from the levy cannot be used to provide improvement or activities outside the district or for any purpose other than those specified in the resolution of intent.

The Pacifica BID was established under the authority of the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, which does not require identifying a "managing agency." Therefore, many Bay Area Cities with BIDs established under the same law manage their BID operations internally (e.g., the City of South San Francisco and Brisbane). However, the Pacifica City Council previously appointed the Chamber of Commerce as the BID Managing Agency.

Currently, the Advisory Committee comprises one representative from each hotel, the managing director of the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center, and one from the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors.

The BID funds are solely managed by the Chamber of Commerce, which represents the interests of each BID member. The City collects the BID assessments with the Transient Occupancy Taxes and remits the BID funds to the Chamber monthly as a pass-through.

Therefore, the City has no control over the BID funds.

The assessment generated approximately $75,000 per year (pre-COVID), dropping as an average to a little under $50,000 over the last three years. This year's assessment is projected to return to the pre-COVID level.

Council Direction to Staff in 2022
During 2022, and as part of the broader Vision 2025 & Beyond Strategic Financial Sustainability project, the City presented to Council a two-year Marketing Plan to help improve the local economy and facilitate post-COVID recovery. Marketing efforts focused on programs such as Shop Pacifica and Workation. The Workation program is designed to improve hotel occupancy rates mid-week and off-season to ultimately benefit the hotels and the City, as higher occupancy rates would lead to higher TOT and Sales Tax revenues generated by Pacifica visitors. During the development and launch of these programs, City staff reached out to the Chamber of Commerce to communicate these programs to BID members and collaborate with the Chamber on implementation. However, after months of unsuccessful attempts at collaboration, the City had to proceed with the program launch without the Chamber's cooperation and only using Cityowned social media channels. In addition, the City had to create its own website landing pages for the Shop Pacifica and Workation marketing programs instead of using the Visit Pacifica platform administered by the Chamber, as was initially planned, due to the inability to reach support and cooperation from the Chamber for the use of the Visit Pacifica website.

These multiple issues related to the BID program management by the Chamber prompted City Council discussions in May-June 2022 about how to proceed. During the City Council public hearing on June 27, 2022, City Council adopted a resolution continuing to levy the assessment 21 Packet Pg. 500
Pacifica City Council 3
August 14, 2023
for FY 2022-23. However, City Council also directed staff to hold quarterly meetings with the BID members, Chamber representatives, and Council liaisons to try to build collaboration between the City and the BID, ensure compliance with the BID regulations, review performance measures and BID budget, unify marketing efforts and report back to Council at mid-year with recommendations.

On September 30, 2022, the City held the Q1 meeting, where the City Manager and Council liaisons communicated the Council's direction for quarterly BID meetings to the BID members.

In addition, city staff presented the Workation campaign, a City-sponsored marketing program directly benefitting hotels. The Chamber of Commerce also reported on marketing programs and the use of BID funds to date. The meeting revealed that the BID members were unaware of the City's marketing programs and were generally confused about the purpose and benefit of the BID.

In January 2023, two BID members expressed concerns over the effectiveness and value of the BID. In response, City staff placed the BID governance structure item for discussion at the Q2 BID meeting that was held on February 3, 2023, with BID representatives from Fairfield Inn & Suites; Inn at Rockaway; Lighthouse Hotel; Anchor Inn; Sea Breeze Motel; and the Chamber of Commerce present at the meeting. The Council liaisons, Sue Beckmeyer and Mary Bier, and staff also attended the meeting. Representatives from America's Best Value Inn and Pacifica Beach Hotel were absent.

During the meeting, City staff presented the Workation program details and the marketing materials in preparation for the program launch the following week. The majority of the meeting discussion was spent on the BID Governance structure and whether the BID program and assessment should continue. After the open discussion, the majority of the BID hotel representatives voted for option two and expressed their desire to: 1) continue the assessment at the current rate, 2) for the City of Pacifica to assume the role of the Managing Agency for the BID moving forward, and 3) for the City to safeguard the assessed funds until the BID decides how it would like to proceed.

Council Direction to Staff on May 8, 2023
At the Council meeting on May 8, 2023, the Council considered various options relating to the BID including dissolving the BID, continuing the assessment but changing the BID governance structure, and continuing with the current assessment and governance structure. Based on the recommendation of the majority of BID members and staff’s recommendations, the Council adopted a resolution of intent (Resolution No. 45-2023) to amend the City's Municipal Code to remove provision for allocation of funds within thirty days and transition the Managing Agency role of the BID to the City of Pacifica.

Amending the BID
In order to amend the BID, the City must amend the Pacifica Municipal Code in the same way that the Ordinance establishing the BID was originally adopted by the City Council (i.e., resolution of intent, notice, public hearing) as identified in Streets and Highways Code section 36500 et. seq. This requires amending Section 3-17.03 (Administration) of Chapter 17 (hotel business improvement district) within Title 3 (Finance) of the Pacifica Municipal Code to remove provision for allocation of funds within thirty days and to replace the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce as the Managing Agency of the BID with the City of Pacifica.

The chart below provides more detail on the process and timeline that the City has followed to amend the BID governance structure set forth in section 3-17.03 of the Pacifica Municipal Code:
21 Packet Pg. 501
Pacifica City Council 4
August 14, 2023

1. The City Council adopted a resolution of intention setting forth the details of the BID - May 8, 2023 program, a date and time for a public hearing. (S&H 36522)

2. Within seven days of adopting the resolution of intention, a complete copy of the May 15, 2023 Resolution of Intention was mailed to each business owner in the territory of the proposed BID. (S&H 36523(b))

3. The City mailed to each business a joint notice of public meeting and public hearing. (S&H 36523.5 and Gov. Code 54954.6(a)(2),54954.6(c))
by May 26, 2023
The Joint Notice was mailed along with a copy of the Resolution of Intention.

4. No earlier than ten days after mailing the joint notice, the City Council held at least June 12, 2023 one public meeting at which the City Council allowed public testimony regarding the proposed amendment. (Gov. Code 54954.6(a)(1), 54954.6(c)(1))

5. No earlier than forty-five days after mailing the joint notice, and no earlier than seven days after the public meeting, the City Council will hold a public hearing. (Gov't Code 54954.6(a)(2), 54954.6(c)(1))
July 10, 2023

6. At the public hearing, the City Council must consider oral and written protests. If written July 10, 2023 protests meeting the requirements of Section 36524 of the Streets & Highways Code are received (and not withdrawn) from the owners of businesses in the proposed area which will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied, then proceedings must be abandoned for no less than one year (S&H 36525(a))

7. If a 50%/+ protest is not received, the City Council may adopt an ordinance amending the BID. (S&H 36527)
July 10, 2023
(introduction of the
Ordinance) August
14, 2023 (adoption
of the Ordinance)
The City mailed the Resolution of Intention (Resolution No. 45-2023) to all BID members on May 12, 2023. The City mailed the Joint Notice to all BID members on May 24, 2023.

The City Council also held a public meeting on June 12, 2023 to allow public testimony regarding the amendment and held a public hearing to introduce the proposed Ordinance on July 10, 2023.

Proposed Ordinance
The proposed Ordinance would amend Pacifica Municipal Code Section 3-17.03 to remove provision for allocation of funds within thirty days and replace the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce as the Managing Agency of the BID with the City of Pacifica. If adopted at this meeting, the City will implement the amendments 30 days after the adoption of the ordinance or by September 13, 2023.

CEQA:

Adoption of the proposed Ordinance is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et. seq.), including without limitation, Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of Regulations 15378 as this is not a “project” that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council may elect not to proceed with amending the BID governance structure.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
"Enhance Organizational and Fiscal Stability" includes investing in economic development 21 Packet Pg. 502
Pacifica City Council 5
August 14, 2023
to increase revenues, funding a reserve/emergency funds, and being well-prepared for grant opportunities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No significant fiscal impact is associated with this action, except for savings related to eliminating the administrative cost of processing BID pass-through payments. The City currently collects no fee for administering the BID.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
21 Packet Pg. 503
Pacifica City Council 6
August 14, 2023
ORDINANCE NO. (ID # 5416)
ORDINANCE NO. ______

A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AMENDING SECTION 3-17.03 (ADMINISTRATION) OF CHAPTER 17 (HOTEL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT) WITHIN TITLE 3 (FINANCE) OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REMOVE

PROVISION FOR ALLOCATION OF FUNDS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AND TO REPLACE THE

PACIFICA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AS THE MANAGING AGENCY OF THE BID WITH

THE CITY OF PACIFICA
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code sections 36500 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 714-C.S. in 2004, creating the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District and levying an annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City; and WHEREAS, the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District ("BID") has been operating and levying an annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City continuously since 2004; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 714-C.S. is codified in Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) Chapter 17, “Hotel Business Improvement District” within Title 3, “Finance”; and WHEREAS, at a meeting of the BID on February 3, 2023 a majority of the BID hotel representatives voted for option two and expressed their desire to: 1) continue the assessment at the current rate, 2) for the City of Pacifica to assume the role of the Managing Agency for the BID moving forward, and 3) for the City to safeguard the assessed funds until the BID decides how it would like to proceed; and WHEREAS, at a City Council meeting on May 8, 2023, the Council considered various options relating to the BID including dissolving the BID, continuing the assessment but changing the BID governance structure, and continuing with the current assessment and governance structure; and
WHEREAS, based on the recommendation of the majority of BID members and staff’s recommendations, the Council adopted a Resolution of Intention (Resolution No. 45- 2023) to amend the City's Municipal Code to remove provision for allocation of funds within thirty days and transition the Managing Agency role of the BID to the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 36523(b) the City Clerk mailed each business owner in the territory of the BID a complete copy of the Resolution of Intention on May 15, 2023, within seven days of adopting the Resolution of Intention; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk mailed to each business in the BID a joint notice of the public meeting and public hearing along with a copy of the Resolution of Intention in accordance with Streets and Highways Code section 36523.5 and Government Code sections 54954.6(a)(2) and 54954.6(c) by May 26, 2023; and WHEREAS, no earlier than ten days after the mailing of the joint notice, the City Council held one public meeting on June 12, 2023 at which the City Council allowed public 21 Packet Pg. 504
Pacifica City Council 7
August 14, 2023
testimony regarding the proposed amendment in accordance with Government Code sections 54954.6(a)(1) and 54954.6(c)(1); and
WHEREAS, no earlier than forty-five days after mailing the joint notice, and no earlier than seven days after the public meeting, the City Council held a public hearing on July 10, 2023 in accordance with Government Code sections 54954.6(a)(2), 54954.6(c)(1)); and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to the Resolution of Intention and Streets and Highways Code section 36500 et seq., on July 10, 2023 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, at City Council Chambers at 2212 Beach Boulevard, Pacifica California and heard and considered all oral and written protests and considered all correspondence, staff reports and other materials presented; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Clerk did note for the record that written protests meeting the requirements of Section 36524 of the Streets & Highways Code from the owners of businesses in the BID did not total more than fifty percent (50%).

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Amendment. Section 3-17.03 (Administration) of Chapter 17 (Hotel Business Improvement District) within Title 3 (Finance) of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing and replacing Section 3-17.03, in its entirety to read as follows:
“Sec. 3-17.03. Administration.
(a) The funds will be collected by the City of Pacifica on the same schedule as, but independently from, the collection of transient occupancy taxes. Funds shall be allocated from the City to the district annually.
(b) The cost to establish the district shall be paid by the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce and will be reimbursed by funds from the district. (c) The Pacifica City Council is designated as the managing agency for district related activities and Pacifica City staff shall provide staffing and administration for the managing agency.
(d) The Pacifica City Council appoints an Advisory Committee consisting of, but not limited to, one representative from each of the hotels, the managing director of the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center, and one representative from the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors.”
Section 3. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et. seq.), including without limitation, Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of Regulations 15378 as this is not a “project” that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. 21 Packet Pg. 505
Pacifica City Council 8
August 14, 2023
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________________, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 21 Packet Pg. 506
Pacifica City Council 9
August 14, 2023
* * * * *
(ID # 5416) at 8/14/2023 5:45 PM City Council Regular Meeting 21 Packet Pg. 507

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/14/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval with conditions of Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22, Permit for Site Development PSD-857-22, Use Permit UP130-22 and Parking Exception PE-194-22 to demolish and replace portions of the existing North Coast County Water District Headquarters site, and construct a new two-story administrative building and other site improvements at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) (File No. 2022-007); and finding that North Coast County Water District, acting as lead agency, has determined the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD Planning Commission approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22, Permit for Site Development PSD-857-22, Use Permit UP130-22 and Parking Exception PE-194-22 and finding that North Coast County Water District, acting as lead agency, has determined the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution.

STAFF CONTACT:

Stefanie Cervantes, AICP, Senior Planner
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

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

A. BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2023-009 by a vote of 3- 1 1 approving the demolition and replacement of portions of the existing North Coast County Water District (“NCCWD”) Headquarters site, and construction of a new two-story administrative building and other site improvements at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) (“Project”), finding the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving, with conditions, Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22, Permit for Site Development PSD-857-22, Use Permit UP-130-22 and Parking Exception PE-194-22 (“Development Permits”) (Attachment B). The staff report and minutes of the Planning Commission hearing on June 13, 2023, are included as Attachments C and D, respectively. The project plans are included as Attachment E.
1 Chair Hauser, Vice Chair Leal, Commissioner Ferguson, and Commissioner Berman were determined to have conflicts of interest under the Political Reform Act. In order to ensure the item had a quorum, the rule of necessity required one commissioner with a conflict to participate, as selected by a random draw.

Commissioner Berman was selected to participate.
22 Packet Pg. 508
Pacifica City Council 2
August 14, 2023
As background, the existing on-street parking abutting the project site allows six (6) spaces on Brighton Road, seven (7) spaces on Francisco Boulevard, and two (2) spaces on Clarendon Road for a total of 15 spaces. NCCWD proposed the following:
• angled parking on Francisco Boulevard
• closing the existing driveway on Francisco Boulevard
• adding a third driveway on Clarendon Road
The resulting changes provides for a total of 16 spaces along the project frontage, with parking on Brighton Road to remain as is, three (3) more spaces on Francisco Boulevard, and the removal of two (2) spaces on Clarendon Road for the proposed third driveway.

The Planning Commission conditioned the project to prohibit angled parking on Francisco Boulevard and keep the existing driveways on Clarendon Road. The Project, as approved by the Planning Commission, would provide for 16 on-street spaces.2 The Planning Commission added Condition of Approval No. 51, which requires the NCCWD to coordinate with SamTrans to temporarily relocate the Clarendon Road bus stop prior to the start of construction and requires written approval from the City Engineer, CalTrans, and any other necessary agency, prior to the permanent relocation of the Clarendon Road bus stop. Condition of Approval No. 51 accounts for the fact if the permanent relocation of the Clarendon Road bus stop is approved by SamTrans and other regulatory agencies, this will allow the addition of two (2) spaces to the existing parking on Clarendon Road, resulting in a total of 18 parking spaces along the Project frontage. The two additional on-street parking spaces result from the elimination of existing red curb “no parking” areas needed to facilitate safe servicing of the existing bus stop. This project design, if eventually implemented pending all required approvals for permanent relocation of the existing bus stop, would result in the greatest number on-street parking spaces from construction of the Project.

B. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
On June 22, 2023, NCCWD (hereafter “Appellant”) timely submitted a City of Pacifica Appeal Form, letter, and applicable fee to the City Clerk’s office to appeal the Planning Commission imposition of Conditions No. 11, No. 12, No. 21, No. 24, and No. 32 on the approval of the Development Permits for the Project (Attachment F). The Appellant cited several reasons for the appeal in the appeal form and attached letter, which are summarized and addressed by staff below.

Basis 1. Condition No. 11 should be removed or revised.

Appellant challenges the Planning Commission’s decision to require Condition of Approval No. 11, which requires Appellant to submit a request to the City Manager’s Office to relocate the Temporary Safe Parking Program (“TSPP”) space, located on Francisco Boulevard adjacent to the Project site, to another location prior to the commencement of construction and preparation activities. The Appellant argues that they do not have the power to move the TSPP space, and accordingly, the conditions should be revised such that the City should relocate the space by September 30, 2023.

Staff Analysis:
2 This is the same number proposed by NCCWD through their preferred angled parking configuration.

The Planning Commission’s action added one on-street parking space by requiring the removal of the existing driveway on Francisco Boulevard that NCCWD had proposed to remove in its preferred on-street parking configuration.
22 Packet Pg. 509
Pacifica City Council 3
August 14, 2023
The condition requires Appellant to submit a request to the City Manager to relocate the TSPP space prior to the commencement of construction activities, or any site preparation work requiring access to the physical location of the TSPP space. Staff determined that construction noise, vibration, and other impacts from construction of Appellant’s project could adversely affect the occupant of the TSPP vehicle utilizing the space at the time of construction.

Additionally, Appellant indicated that pre-construction activities and utilities work may require access near to or within the TSPP space. In order to meet the findings in Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) Section 9-4.3303 for approval of use permit that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, staff determined that temporary relocation of the TSPP space prior to construction and preparation activities was warranted. Accordingly, the Planning Commission approved a condition of approval to require Appellant to obtain City approval of an alternative location for the TSPP space prior to any construction activity or pre-construction that require access to the space.

Because Appellant’s Project has a direct impact on the occupant of the Francisco Boulevard TSPP spot, and the Appellant has control over the timing of commencement of construction and preparatory activities, staff’s opinion is that it is the responsibility of the Appellant to mitigate the impact of their Project, as is the case with impacts to streets, infrastructure, or other health and safety impacts. While Appellant is correct that they do not have the power to move the space, this is not directly relevant to the terms of the condition, which requires the Appellant submit a request to the City Manager’s office to move the space and requires Appellant not to commence construction activities until an alternative space is operational.

After consideration of all the information materials included in the public hearing record, staff concludes, consistent with the Planning Commission’s findings, that Condition of Approval No. 11 is necessary to make the required findings for approval of a Use Permit. Therefore, there is substantial evidence to support the Planning Commission’s findings in this regard. For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject these grounds of appeal.

Basis 2. Condition No. 12 which eliminates angled/diagonal parking should be removed because diagonal parking is safe and consistent with the City’s General Plan.

Appellant challenges the Planning Commission’s decision to eliminate angled or diagonal parking from the Project as provided Condition of Approval No. 12. The Appellant provided four points in support of their contention that angled parking is safe and consistent with the City’s general plan. First, Appellant argues that the City’s analysis and research regarding the safety issues associated with angled parking is flawed. Second, Appellant states that the City erroneously categorized Francisco Boulevard as an arterial road. Third, Appellant contends that the City’s analysis regarding bicycle safety is without grounds because Francisco Boulevard is not a bicycle route. And Fourth, Appellant argues that angled parking is consistent with the Pacifica General Plan. These contentions are without grounds.

Staff’s assessment is that angled parking on Francisco Boulevard is unsafe. This is because head-in angled parking is associated with a higher rate of collisions, due to the blind reverse drivers must maneuver to exit the parking space, thereby presenting safety risks to vehicles and cyclists. With Francisco Boulevard’s connection to Highway 1 and the volume of traffic and speed that vehicles travel at the location, head-in angled parking is particularly hazardous. City streets with existing angled parking are more likely to be on the High Injury Network, per the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan. Staff also concludes that angled parking does not conform to the City’s General Plan policies to encourage multiple modes of travel, including because headin angled parking takes up more public right-of-way and limits the space for bike lanes. In addition, for all roadway types except Freeways and Multilane Highways, Table 5-3 of the 2040 22 Packet Pg. 510
Pacifica City Council 4
August 14, 2023
General Plan indicates that bicycles are a mode of transportation that must be accommodated on the roadway network.
a) City’s analysis and research regarding safety issues and angled parking is accurate.

First, Appellant contends that the City used irrelevant, as well as “outdated and inapplicable studies” to support the position that angled parking is not safe, referencing a 2001 Oregon Department of Transportation (“ODOT”) study that was cited in the City’s peer review traffic analysis. Second, Appellant contends that since that study was released, automobiles today have back up cameras and sensor signals, which diminishes risks of angled parking when cars back out from angled parking in current times.

Staff Analysis:

Accuracy of Research & Analysis Supporting the City’s Conclusions Regarding Angled Parking
Appellant’s contentions --that the City used outdated and inapplicable studies to reach the conclusion that Appellant’s preferred changes to the City’s right-of-way are not safe-- are without grounds. As background, Appellant proposed an angled parking configuration to provide a total of three parallel parking spaces and seven angled parking spaces, for a total of 10 parking spaces. This would result in an increase of two parking spaces over the current frontage configuration. The City’s traffic consultant, Fehr & Peers, conducted a peer review of the Appellant’s January 10, 2023 Traffic Evaluation prepared by Sandis for the Project. Fehr & Peers’s peer review report concluded that angled parking should not be installed along the Francisco Boulevard frontage and that the existing parallel parking configuration should be retained. Fehr & Peers’s report relied on expert knowledge and industry resources, and cites a 2001 report from ODOT, discussing a safety comparison of angled and parallel parking.

Although ODOT does not have jurisdiction in California, the 2001 report was informative, and was cited as one of several sources of information, including a detailed site-specific analysis3.

Fehr & Peers’s site-specific analysis notes that:

Concerns about conflicts between parked vehicles exiting angled parking spaces and cyclists traveling in the travel lane, due to limited visibility of the vehicle driver to the rear, have resulted in cities replacing or installing back-in angled parking spaces instead of angled parking spaces to improve visibility and increase the driver field of vision. Back-in angled parking would not be feasible at the project site given the proximity of the parking spaces to Clarendon Road.

Citations to the ODOT study and other such documents informing site-specific conditions is consistent with industry practice, and supports staff’s assessment that angled parking is not safe at the Project location. That the ODOT study describes certain drawbacks of parallel 3 Moreover, it is common for State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) to share information and research to help inform practices, regardless of state jurisdiction. National research informs industry standards of practice such as the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, and numerous Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance documents, including the On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and Bikeway Selection Process cited by the Appellant, which all use data and information from different states that is then synthesized into various forms of documentation that state and local agencies can use to inform local decisions. 22 Packet Pg. 511
Pacifica City Council 5
August 14, 2023
parking does not lead to the Appellants preferred conclusion that angled parking is safe at the Project site.

There are several credible recent industry resources that support the conclusion that on-street parallel parking results in fewer collisions than angled on-street parking. In addition to the ODOT study, the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (2010)4indicates on-street angled parking increases collisions by 54% compared to on-street parallel parking in urban/suburban contexts.

The On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and Bikeway Selection Process (2021) cited by the Appellant also notes that converting on-street angled parking to parallel parking is a countermeasure identified by FHWA to reduce collisions. Furthermore, during the public hearing, the Appellant’s traffic engineer, Nat Levine, spoke and confirmed that there are safety concerns with angled parking.

In addition, during the Planning Commission hearing, the Appellants brought up that there are existing angled parking spaces on several City streets as support for the contention that angled parking is safe. Specifically, Appellant cites to the following streets as examples of places in the City with angled parking: (1) Palmetto Avenue, near Manor Drive; (2) Manor Drive; (3) Bill Drake Way; (4) Beach Boulevard; and (5) Clarendon Road. Manor Drive, Bill Drake Way, and Clarendon Road are east/west corridors and are shorter linear length streets. While Beach Boulevard runs north/south, it does not directly connect to State Highway 1 and is also a shorter linear length street, similar to Manor Drive, Bill Drake Way, and Clarendon Road.

The most comparable street with existing angled parking to Francisco Boulevard is Palmetto Avenue near the Manor Drive location because they are similar types of streets in terms of traffic volumes, traffic speeds, are north/south corridors, and both connect directly to State Highway 1. However, both Palmetto Avenue and Manor Drive are on the Local Roadway Safety Plan’s High Injury Network, a classification given to corridors with the highest concentrations of fatal and serious injury collisions. This is notable because Francisco Boulevard, which does not have existing angled parking, is not on the High Injury Network. Staff concludes that the presence of angled parking on Palmetto Avenue is a factor contributing to this High Injury Network designation as a higher concentration of collisions on Palmetto Avenue, near Manor Drive, has occurred as shown in Figure 1 of the Local Roadway Safety Plan, where angled parking does exist. Moreover, of all the examples brought up by the Appellant, only one has been established in the last 20 years: the angled parking on Palmetto Avenue near Manor Drive. As stated above, this area of the City’s roadway contains a high concentration of fatal and serious injury collisions.

Staff notes that the Appellant only quotes a portion of the ODOT report, and failed to include the entire sentence which reads: “The researchers concluded that while angle parking clearly has a higher crash rate and frequency it is more likely due to the increased activity of parking rather than the characteristics of either type of parking and that if ample parking supply exists, parallel parking should be used.” As the Appellant stated “there is a statistical higher incidence of crashes primarily because more vehicles use angled parking.” By the Appellant’s reasoning, the proposed angle parking, as well as the increase in the number of spaces on Francisco Boulevard the Appellant proposes, serves to increase the risk of collisions on Francisco Boulevard. Thus, in staff’s assessment, allowing angled parking would mean that the finding in PMC Section 9-4.3204(a)(1)5(that the proposed project would create a hazardous vehicular traffic pattern) can be made resulting in the disapproval of the Site Development Permit for the project.
4 The City cited this source at the June 13, 2023 Planning Commission hearing. 5 PMC Section 9-4.3204(a)(1) states That the location, size, and intensity of the proposed operation will create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, taking into account the proposed use as compared with the general character and intensity of the neighborhood. 22 Packet Pg. 512
Pacifica City Council 6
August 14, 2023
Appellant provides another source of research to inform the City’s conclusions about the adverse safety outcomes resulting from angled parking: the U.S. Department of Transportation guidelines for On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and the Bikeway Selection Process. This document provides a general summary of the pros and cons for multiple parking types. The document clearly states that the main challenge with head-in angle parking is the blind reverse into traffic increasing crash risk, which is one of the primary concerns raised by City staff.

Additionally, the document states that with head-in angle parking drivers and bicyclists cannot see each other, rear loading and unloading happens in the street, and passengers are channeled toward the street.

Appellant’s Sandis Report evaluated potential installation of an all-way stop sign located on Francisco Boulevard at Brighton Road. However, the report found that an all-way stop sign does not meet any of the primary warrants as outlined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”) set of guidelines, which is an authoritative industry standard. The Sandis Report only provides that optional Warrant C related to Line of Sight is met, but this is not sufficient to conclude that Appellant’s proposed parking configuration is safe. Moreover, in their analysis of the angled parking, Sandis determined that the design is “adequate from a circulation standpoint,” which means that a driver can physically maneuver out of the angled space without interfering with northbound traffic. But just because it is physically possible does not mean that it is safe. The report does not provide an analysis of how the all-way stop sign will improve the safety of the angled parking. The report does not provide any analysis of additional safety risks, such as traffic volumes or speeds on Francisco Boulevard, nor does it address new potential safety risks from installation of a stop sign that does not meet applicable warrants, and the conclusion that angled parking is safe from a traffic collision standpoint was not reached. As previously mentioned, during the public hearing, the Appellant’s traffic engineer, Nat Levine, spoke and confirmed that there are safety concerns with angled parking. No further analysis has been provided by Appellant.

In sum, the City’s analysis relies on industry research (including from 2010 report) and sitespecific analysis. Accordingly, Appellant’s assertion that the City relied on outdated studies is erroneous.

Appellant’s Arguments Regarding Car Safety Improvements Appellant claims that safety improvements to cars, such as sensors and backup cameras, mitigate safety risks posed by angled parking. Appellant’s argument rests on the flawed premise that most vehicles (or a sufficient number of them) traveling in Pacifica have these safety features, which are included on some newer vehicles. Appellant provides no data to support this contention. That these safety features exist, alone, does not lead to the conclusion that angled parking at this location is safe. Additionally, Staff notes that backup cameras commonly include disclaimers and warnings to drivers to not solely rely on the backup camera when determining whether it is safe to reverse. And, even if at some point a high proportion of cars traveling in Pacifica will have these safety features in the future, that is not sufficient to address staff’s concern regarding the safety of angled parking in the immediate future at this location.
b) City’s categorization of Francisco Boulevard as an arterial road.

Second, Appellant contends that the City incorrectly classified Francisco Boulevard as an arterial road. According to Appellants, the fact that Francisco Boulevard is not an arterial equates to angled parking being safe at that location.
22 Packet Pg. 513
Pacifica City Council 7
August 14, 2023
Staff Analysis:

Staff notes that the road classification of Francisco Boulevard is not relevant to staff’s conclusion that angled parking is not safe at that location6. Staff’s conclusion is supported, regardless of road classification, as head-in angled parking requires drivers to exit parking spaces without the ability to see oncoming traffic, thereby presenting a risk to motorists and cyclists.

Findings from previous studies have found that converting on-street parallel parking to angled parking consistently increases collisions across a wide range of street and land use characteristics. The estimated increase in collisions due to on-street angled parking documented in the AAHSTO Highway Safety Manual is applicable to urban/suburban streets ranging from two to five vehicle lanes with average daily trips up to 32,600 for two-lane streets and up to 66,000 for five-lane streets. It is also applicable to residential as well as commercial areas. Francisco Boulevard falls within the range of those characteristics. Accordingly, staff’s assessment regarding the safety of angled parking is supported even if Francisco Boulevard is not classified as an arterial.
c) Possible Bicycle Lanes on Francisco Boulevard
Third, the Appellant states that Francisco Boulevard is not an existing or proposed bikeway in the 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and that accordingly, the City does not have proper basis to determine that angled parking is not safe for bicycles, nor can the City eliminate angled parking based on the potential future addition of bicycle lanes on Francisco Boulevard.

Staff Analysis:

Appellant’s argument is meritless. In staff’s assessment, cyclists presently utilize Francisco Boulevard7. Based on the street widths at this location, in conjunction with parallel parking, cyclists currently are able to ride safely because individuals who park in the present parallel configuration can clearly see an oncoming cyclist before traveling into the roadway. With angled parking, that visibility is diminished in a manner that presents a hazard to cyclists.

Additionally, because Appellant’s preferred angled parking configuration would take up more space in the roadway, the City would be unable to implement dedicated bike lanes at this location in the future. Keeping the parallel parking configuration allows the City to install bike lanes in the future because a dedicated bike lane could be implemented within the existing rightof-way width.

Additionally, the Project site is within the City’s Sharp Park Specific Plan and is a Priority Development Area, which increases the City’s opportunity to receive funding for multi-modal transportation projects, such as new bike lanes.
6 Staff’s conclusion that Francisco Boulevard is an arterial roadway is based on the road classification of Pavement Management Technical Assistant Program (“PTAP”) and the California Road System (“CRS”) Map, by the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”). Contrary to Appellant’s statements, the classification of an arterial roadway is not only based on speeds, it is based on traffic volumes and connections to highway systems. The CRS Map indicates that Francisco Boulevard, abutting the Project site, is a Minor Arterial and they classify Minor Arterial as “provides services for trips of moderate length, serve geographic areas that are smaller than their higher Arterial counterparts and offer connectivity to the higher Arterial system. In an urban context, they interconnect and augment the higher Arterial system, provide intra-community continuity and may carry local bus routes.” Francisco Boulevard provides direct connection to State Highway 1, which is classified as Other Principal Arterial. 7 Data from 2021 shows that an average daily of 24 cyclists and 163 pedestrians on Francisco Boulevard.

Source: https://www.streetlightdata.com/
22 Packet Pg. 514
Pacifica City Council 8
August 14, 2023
Moreover, the accommodation of multiple modes of transportation is supported by the City’s General Plan. As analyzed in the Planning Commission staff report, in order to approve a Site Development Permit none of the findings contained in PMC Section 9-4.3504(a) can be found to exist and to approve a Use Permit the findings in PMC Section 9-4.3303 must be made. Both PMC sections contain findings regarding the Project being consistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan or other applicable laws in the City. As stated in the report, the City’s 1980 Local Coastal Plan8, and as it relates to the 1980 General Plan Circulation Element, states that the City should encourage alternatives to automobile transportation and that “safety shall be a primary objective in street planning and traffic regulations9.” The Project’s design of angled parking does not align with the City’s General Plan policy to provide multi-modal uses in the public right-of-way. The inclusion of angled parking at this location will increase the risk of collisions between vehicles and cyclists. It will create an unsafe environment and reduce the ability of existing and future cyclists to use this portion of the existing roadway. Thus, allowing the proposed head-in angle parking is not in compliance with the City’s Local Coastal Plan and General Plan and the findings necessary to approve the required permits cannot be made.

Additionally, the City’s 2040 General Plan contains several policies, including CI-I-3 Complete Streets in the Project Development Process, that require the City to look at ways that Complete Street principles can be incorporated into all projects. Part of the Complete Street principles include providing bicycle facilities (i.e. bike lanes). At the hearing, staff reiterated that the design of angled parking will not allow future bike lanes behind the angled parking due to safety risk and limited right-of-way. If the angled parking were to be implemented at this location, it could impede the City’s ability to build a robust bicycle network by leaving a gap.

Thus, the Planning Commission’s findings regarding bicycle lanes and bicycle safety are supported.
d) Discussion Regarding the City’s General Plan
Fourth, Appellant contends that the Planning Commission was incorrect in their determination that angled parking was not in conformity with the City’s General Plan10 because angled parking is safe.

Staff Analysis:
8 While the City adopted the 2040 General Plan in 2022, the City has not yet adopted a certified Local Coastal Plan amendment. Thus, the 1980 Local Coastal Plan provisions remain in effect for purposes of coastal development permit and other required findings that reference the local coastal plan. 9 1980 General Plan Circulation Element Policy No. 11.
10 The project site is within the City’s coastal jurisdiction. The 2040 General Plan contains policy LU-I-3, which states that development that requires a coastal development permit shall continue to require written findings that it is consistent with all LCLUP policies and Implementation Plan provisions of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”). If there is a conflict between a provision of this LCP and a provision of the General Plan, or any other City-adopted plan, resolution, or ordinance not included in the LCP, and it is not possible for a the development to comply with both the LCP and such other plan, resolution, or ordinance, the LCP shall take precedence and the development shall not be approved unless it complies with the LCP provision. The City’s 2040 Local Coastal Land Use Plan is not yet certified by the California Coastal Commission and thus the project must comply with the 1980 LCP, which states that the “two plans should be treated as one.” It is staff’s opinion that the 1980 General Plan and the 2040 General Plan both support the City’s goals and policies for safe street planning and multimodal design, and that there is no conflict between their provisions in this regard. 22 Packet Pg. 515
Pacifica City Council 9
August 14, 2023
As previously noted in this report, staff’s assessment is that the angled parking configuration is not consistent with the 1980 Local Coastal Plan Circulation Element and 2040 General Plan policy CI-I-3 Complete Streets in the Project Development Process due to the interference with bicycle lanes and bicycle safety. Moreover, with respect to safety, the Appellant’s traffic engineer only commented on the ability of a driver to physically reverse out of the parking space within the proposed 12-foot wide travel lane without crossing into northbound traffic and did not determine angled parking was safe from a traffic collision standpoint. The Appellant has provided no further safety analysis. In fact, the Appellant has confirmed that increasing the number of on-street parking spaces proposed to be added to Francisco Boulevard in the headin angle parking configuration creates statistical higher incidences of crashes resulting in a traffic hazard. Thus, the Project is not in compliance with the City’s 1980 Local Coastal Plan Circulation Element Policy No. 11.

Additionally, the City’s 2040 General Plan encourages multi-modal uses in the public right-ofway. The Appellant has not demonstrated how the angled parking is safe with existing and future users of Francisco Boulevard.

Furthermore, other studies on the subject rely on back-in angled parking, which is not the configuration Appellant proposed and is therefore not applicable, and/or protected bike lanes to make the claim, and this circumstance is also not present here1213.

Staff notes that well-settled law provides that the City has deference in determining whether a project is consistent with its General Plan. (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 816 [“the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity” (internal citations omitted).]) After consideration of all the information materials included in the public hearing record, the Planning Commission adopted staff’s recommendation to impose Condition No. 12 to ensure that Project is in compliance with Pacifica Municipal Code, Local Coastal Plan, and the General Plan. For the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

Basis 3. Condition No. 21 should be revised to require patch paving and repairs.

The Appellant has provided no additional information other than stating that Condition of Approval No. 21 should be revised to require patch paving and repairs. 11 Moran, M. E. (2021). What’s your angle? Analyzing angled parking via satellite imagery to aid bikenetwork planning. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(7), 1912–1925. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320954205
12 Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates (2005) Back-in/Head-out Angle Parking. http://pcpb.net/traffic/1902ReverseDiagonalParking.pdf. Assessed on August 8, 2023 13 On-street Parking Design. https://www.vta.org/cdt/parking-design-home-page/street-parking-design.

Accessed on August 8, 2023.
22 Packet Pg. 516
Pacifica City Council 10 August 14, 2023
Staff Analysis:

As background, Condition of Approval No. 21 requires the Appellant to conduct repairs on the roadway based on impacts from the construction of the Project. This is a standard condition that the City imposes on all private development projects, including on City projects such as the Civic Center Campus Facilities Project, along Francisco Boulevard. The requirements imposed for repaving are based on road conditions. The current Pavement Conditions Index (“PCI”) of Francisco Boulevard is 52 in the City’s pavement management system software, StreetSaver.

The utility cuts being proposed with the project will drop the PCI from a “good” rating to a “poor” rating. The PTAP report requires a mill and thick overlay for a pavement in a poor PCI rating.

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

Basis 4. Condition No. 24 regarding the elimination of a third driveway should be removed to allow a dedicated driveway for the proposed recycled water drive-thru.

The Appellant contends that Condition No. 24 should be removed so that Appellant may add a third driveway for the proposed recycled water drive-thru.

Staff Analysis:

Staff agrees that the proposed recycled water service is a benefit to the community. Staff’s concern with the proposed design of the drive-thru recycled water station is the number of driveways and their proximity to the existing Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection. As proposed, the Project would create a sight distance hazard when a bus is stopped at the existing bus stop. A secondary concern was the removal of on-street parking opportunities. On June 12, 2023, staff met with SamTrans staff and the Appellant on-site.

During that meeting, the permanent relocation of the bus stop was discussed and possible relocation was identified. However, staff did not have all the facts needed to make a determination on whether the chosen relocation space met all the needed criteria. It was also determined that the right-of-way was most likely under the authority of Caltrans. As such, staff recommended and the Planning Commission agreed that a new condition of approval be placed on the Project regarding the possible permanent relocation of the bus stop. Condition No. 51 states that the Appellant shall coordinate with SamTrans to temporarily relocate the Clarendon Road bus stop prior to commencement of construction and permanent relocation of the bus stop after completion of the Project shall be subject to City approval, as well as other necessary agencies such as Caltrans. To date, staff has not received any additional information regarding the permanent relocation of the bus stop from the Appellant, SamTrans or Caltrans.

Basis 5. Condition No. 32 should be removed because it is outside of the Project scope.

Appellant contends that Condition of Approval No. 32 to require the installation of a fuel cover should be removed because it is not within the scope of the proposed project.

Staff Analysis:

This contention is without grounds. Municipal Regional Permit (“MRP”) Section C.3.b.ii.3.a. requires projects that alter 50 percent or more of the impervious surface of a previously existing development that was not subject to Provision C.3, as is the case with this project site, consisting of all existing, new, and/or replaced impervious surfaces, must be included in the treatment system design. Over 50% of the site is being disturbed and resurfaced which triggers the need for a cover over the existing fueling station as required by Section C.3.c.i.1.b of the MRP.
22 Packet Pg. 517
Pacifica City Council 11 August 14, 2023
For the reason provided above, staff recommends that the City Council reject this basis of appeal.

CITY COUNCIL’S ROLE
Pursuant to PMC section 9-4.3208, the Council may approve, deny or modify the Development Permits, after considering the appeal. In the event that the Council determines that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s approval of the Development Permits, the Council should deny the appeal by adopting the attached Resolution.

In the event that the Council decides to uphold the appeal and modify and/or remove conditions of approval, Council will need to provide staff with the basis for those findings that are supported by substantial evidence which would be inserted into a Resolution upholding the appeal by staff and brought back to Council at a later date.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
Staff analysis of the Project supports the City Council finding that the Project qualifies for a categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Guidelines Section 15051(a) provides criteria for identifying the Lead Agency when more than one public agency is involved with a Project. Appellant will carry out the project, and therefore Appellant appropriately identified themselves as the Lead Agency. The City of Pacifica, due to its role in considering a discretionary permit is acting as a Responsible Agency pursuant to Section 15050(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Appellant, acting as Lead Agency, has determined that the proposed project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption and filed a Notice of Exemption with the County of San Mateo on April 28, 2022. The Project qualifies as a Class 1 and Class 2 exemptions provided in Section 15301 and 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 states in part:

Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. Examples include but are not limited to:
* * * * *
(d) Restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment to meet current standards of public health and safety, unless it is determined that the damage was substantial and resulted from an environmental hazard such as an earthquake, landslide, or flood.

The proposed project would enhance the existing Appellant’s headquarters site which does not meet current federal laws and has access issues. The buildings would be upgraded to meet current structural codes and would meet safety standards, including for a seismic event. The upgrades would help the site achieve current public health and safety regulations and therefore meets the criteria of a Class 1 exemption.

Section 15302 states in part:

Class 2 consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structures replaced, including but not limited to:
22 Packet Pg. 518
Pacifica City Council 12 August 14, 2023
(b) Replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose, and capacity.

The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing administrative building and a maintenance building and construction of a new two-story office building in the same location.

Appellant states that although the administrative building will be expanded by square footage, the overall capacity and purpose will not change and therefore meets the criteria of a Class 2 exemption.
* * * * *
Additionally, none of the exceptions to application of a categorical exemption in section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines would apply:
• Sec. 15300.2(a): This exception is not applicable to a Class 1 and Class 2 exemption. • Sec. 15300.2(b): There is no evidence in the record that cumulative projects of the same type would occur within the same place to create a significant cumulative impact. • Sec. 15300.2(c): There is no evidence that the activity would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
• Sec. 15300.2(d) through (f): The project is not proposed near an officially designated scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and, does not affect any historical resources. Therefore, the provisions of subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this project.

Therefore, the project is consistent with the requirements for a Class 1 and Class 2 exemption and none of the exceptions to the exemptions in Section 15300.2 apply; there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

STAFF SUMMARY
Staff believes there is substantial evidence to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval as discussed above. Staff also believes there is substantial evidence to support the application of a Class 1 and Class 2 categorical exemptions from CEQA to the Project. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

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

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The Project is not directly associated with an item on the City Council’s Work Plan. It is the City Council’s normal governance process to hear and determine appeals of Planning Commission actions under the Pacifica Municipal Code.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No direct impact since all costs would be borne by the Appellant.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
22 Packet Pg. 519
Pacifica City Council 13 August 14, 2023
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Resolution (DOCX)
Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (PDF) Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (PDF) Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (DOC) Attachment E - Project Plans (PDF)
Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (PDF)
Attachment G - Sandis Traffic Evaluation (PDF)
Attachment H - Letter from City of Pacifica Public Works re: Proposed Angled Parking from March 20, 2023 with Fehr & Peers Report Attached (PDF)
Attachment I - Public Comments (PDF)
22 Packet Pg. 520
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP-435-22, PERMIT FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PSD-857-22, USE PERMIT UP-130-22 AND PARKING EXCEPTION PE-194-22 (FILE NO. 2022-007), SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR

DEMOLITION AND REPLACEMENT OF PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTER AT 2400 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD (APN 016-322-230) LOCATED BETWEEN BRIGHTON ROAD AND

CLARENDON ROAD, AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
________________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: North Coast County Water District
WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to demolish portions of the existing North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) Headquarters site, and construct a new two-story administrative building and other site improvements located at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) in Pacifica (File No. 2022-007)(“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a site development pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.3201(b) prior to the issuance of a building permit; and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a coastal development permit pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.4303(a) on the basis that the project site is located within the Coastal zone; and
WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a use permit pursuant to PMC Section 9-

4.2101 because the proposed office use requires a use permit in the Public Facilities District; and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a parking exception per PMC Section 9-

4.2818 because the project does not provide the required off-street parking spaces on-site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on June 13, 2023, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 2023-009, finding the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22, Site Development Permit PSD-857-22, Use Permit UP-130-22 and Parking Exception PE-194-22 on June 13, 2023; and WHEREAS, North Coast County Water District (“Appellants”) filed an appeal (“Appeal”) of the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt Resolution No. 2023-009 on June 22, 2023; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on August 14, 2023, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:

22.a
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
2 A. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby deny the Appeal based upon all of the reasons set forth in the Staff Report and upholds the Planning Commission’s Approval on June 13, 2023 of the project, and makes the following findings pertaining to this denial of the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s action:

Basis 1. Condition No. 11 should be removed or revised.

Finding: The condition requires Appellant to submit a request to the City Manager to relocate the TSPP space prior to the commencement of construction activities, or any site preparation work requiring access to the physical location of the TSPP space. Construction noise, vibration, and other impacts from construction of Appellant’s project could adversely affect the occupant of the TSPP vehicle utilizing the space at the time of construction. Additionally, Appellant indicated that preconstruction activities and utilities work may require access near to or within the TSPP space. In order to meet the findings in Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) Section 9-4.3303 for approval of use permit that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, temporary relocation of the TSPP space prior to construction and preparation activities was warranted. Because Appellant’s Project has a direct impact on the occupant of the Francisco Boulevard TSPP spot, and the Appellant has control over the timing of commencement of construction and preparatory activities, it is the responsibility of the Appellant to mitigate the impact of their Project, as is the case with impacts to streets, infrastructure, or other health and safety impacts. While Appellant is correct that they do not have the power to move the space, this is not directly relevant to the terms of the condition, which requires the Appellant submit a request to the City Manager’s office to move the space and requires Appellant not to commence construction activities until an alternative space is operational.

After consideration of all the information materials included in the public hearing record, the City Council finds that Condition of Approval No. 11 is necessary to make the required findings for approval of a Use Permit. Thus, the City Council denies this ground for appeal.

Basis 2. Condition No. 12 which eliminates angled/diagonal parking should be removed because diagonal parking is safe and consistent with the City’s General Plan.

Findings: The City Council finds that the proposed angled parking on Francisco Boulevard is unsafe. This is because head-in angled parking is associated with a higher rate of collisions, due to the blind reverse drivers must maneuver to exit the parking space, thereby presenting safety risks to vehicles and cyclists. With Francisco Boulevard’s connection to Highway 1 and the volume of traffic and speed that vehicles travel at the location, head-in angled parking is particularly hazardous. City streets with existing angled parking are more likely to be on the High Injury Network, per the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan. The City Council also finds that angled parking does not conform to the City’s General Plan policies to encourage multiple modes of travel, including because head-in angled parking takes up more public right-of-way and limits the space for bike lanes. In addition, for all roadway types except Freeways and Multilane Highways, Table 5-3 of the 2040 General Plan indicates that bicycles are a mode of transportation that must be accommodated on the roadway network.

22.a
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
3 a) City’s analysis and research regarding angled parking.

Accuracy of Research & Analysis Supporting the City’s Conclusions Regarding Angled Parking
The City Council finds that Appellant’s contentions--that the City used outdated and inapplicable studies to reach the conclusion that Appellant’s preferred changes to the City’s right-of-way are not safe--are without grounds. As background, Appellant proposed an angled parking configuration to provide a total of three parallel parking spaces and seven angled parking spaces, for a total of 10 parking spaces. This would result in an increase of two parking spaces over the current frontage configuration. The City’s traffic consultant, Fehr & Peers, conducted a peer review of the Appellant’s January 10, 2023 Traffic Evaluation prepared by Sandis for the Project. Fehr & Peers’s peer review report concluded that angled parking should not be installed along the Francisco Boulevard frontage and that the existing parallel parking configuration should be retained. Fehr & Peers’s report relied on expert knowledge and industry resources, and cites a 2001 report from ODOT, discussing a safety comparison of angled and parallel parking. Although ODOT does not have jurisdiction in California, the 2001 report was informative, and was cited as one of several sources of information, including a detailed site-specific analysis1. Fehr & Peers’s site-specific analysis notes that:

Citations to the ODOT study and other such documents informing site-specific conditions is consistent with industry practice, and supports the City’s assessment that angled parking is not safe at the Project location. That the ODOT study describes certain drawbacks of parallel parking does not lead to the Appellants preferred conclusion that angled parking is safe at the Project site.

There are several credible recent industry resources that support the conclusion that on-street parallel parking results in fewer collisions than angled on-street parking. In addition to the ODOT 1 Moreover, it is common for State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) to share information and research to help inform practices, regardless of state jurisdiction. National research informs industry standards of practice such as the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, and numerous Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance documents, including the OnStreet Motor Vehicle Parking and Bikeway Selection Process cited by the Appellant, which all use data and information from different states that is then synthesized into various forms of documentation that state and local agencies can use to inform local decisions.

22.a
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
4 study, the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (2010)2indicates on-street angled parking increases collisions by 54% compared to on-street parallel parking in urban/suburban contexts. The On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and Bikeway Selection Process (2021) cited by the Appellant also notes that converting on-street angled parking to parallel parking is a countermeasure identified by FHWA to reduce collisions. Furthermore, during the public hearing, the Appellant’s traffic engineer, Nat Levine, spoke and confirmed that there are safety concerns with angled parking.

Appellants raised the fact that there are existing angled parking spaces on several City streets as support for the contention that angled parking is safe. Specifically, Appellant cites to the following streets as examples of places in the City with angled parking: (1) Palmetto Avenue, near Manor Drive; (2) Manor Drive; (3) Bill Drake Way; (4) Beach Boulevard; and (5) Clarendon Road. Manor Drive, Bill Drake Way, and Clarendon Road are east/west corridors and are shorter linear length streets. While Beach Boulevard runs north/south, it does not directly connect to State Highway 1 and is also a shorter linear length street, similar to Manor Drive, Bill Drake Way, and Clarendon Road.

However, both Palmetto Avenue and Manor Drive are on the Local Roadway Safety Plan’s High Injury Network, a classification given to corridors with the highest concentrations of fatal and serious injury collisions. This is notable because Francisco Boulevard, which does not have existing angled parking, is not on the High Injury Network. The presence of angled parking on Palmetto Avenue is a factor contributing to this High Injury Network designation as a higher concentration of collisions on Palmetto Avenue, near Manor Drive, has occurred as shown in Figure 1 of the Local Roadway Safety Plan, where angled parking does exist. Moreover, of all the examples brought up by the Appellant, only one has been established in the last 20 years: the angled parking on Palmetto Avenue near Manor Drive. As stated above, this area of the City’s roadway contains a high concentration of fatal and serious injury collisions.

Appellant only quotes a portion of the ODOT report, and failed to include the entire sentence which reads: “The researchers concluded that while angle parking clearly has a higher crash rate and frequency it is more likely due to the increased activity of parking rather than the characteristics of either type of parking and that if ample parking supply exists, parallel parking should be used.” As the Appellant stated “there is a statistical higher incidence of crashes primarily because more vehicles use angled parking.” By the Appellant’s reasoning, the proposed angle parking, as well as the increase in the number of spaces on Francisco Boulevard the Appellant proposes, serves to increase the risk of collisions on Francisco Boulevard. Thus, allowing angled parking would mean that the finding in PMC Section 9-4.3204(a)(1)3(that the proposed project would create a hazardous vehicular traffic pattern) can be made resulting in the disapproval of the Site Development Permit for the project.

Appellant provides another source of research to inform the City’s conclusions about the adverse safety outcomes resulting from angled parking: the U.S. Department of Transportation guidelines for On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and the Bikeway Selection Process. This document provides a general summary of the pros and cons for multiple parking types. The document clearly states that the main challenge with head-in angle parking is the blind reverse into traffic increasing crash 2 The City cited this source at the June 13, 2023 Planning Commission hearing. 3 PMC Section 9-4.3204(a)(1) states That the location, size, and intensity of the proposed operation will create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, taking into account the proposed use as compared with the general character and intensity of the neighborhood.

22.a
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
5 risk, which is one of the primary concerns of the City. Additionally, the document states that with head-in angle parking drivers and bicyclists cannot see each other, rear loading and unloading happens in the street, and passengers are channeled toward the street.

Appellant’s Sandis Report evaluated potential installation an all-way stop sign located on Francisco Boulevard at Brighton Road. However, the report found that an all-way stop sign does not meet any of the primary warrants as outlined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”) set of guidelines, which is an authoritative industry standard. The Sandis Report only provides that optional Warrant C related to Line of Sight is met, but this is not sufficient to conclude that Appellant’s proposed parking configuration is safe. Moreover, in their analysis of the angled parking, Sandis determined that the design is “adequate from a circulation standpoint,” which means that a driver can physically maneuver out of the angled space without interfering with northbound traffic. But just because it is physically possible to exit a space does not mean that it is safe. The report does not provide an analysis of how the all-way stop sign will improve the safety of the angled parking. The report does not provide any analysis of additional safety risks, such as traffic volumes or speeds on Francisco Boulevard, nor does it address new potential safety risks from installation of a stop sign that does not meet applicable warrants, and the conclusion that angled parking is safe from a traffic collision standpoint was not reached. As previously mentioned, during the public hearing, the Appellant’s traffic engineer, Nat Levine, spoke and confirmed that there are safety concerns with angled parking. No further analysis has been provided by Appellant.

In sum, the City’s analysis relies on industry research (including from 2010 report) and site-specific analysis. Accordingly, Appellant’s assertion that the City relied on outdated studies is erroneous.

Appellant’s Arguments Regarding Car Safety Improvements Appellant claims that safety improvements to cars, such as sensors and backup cameras, mitigate safety risks posed by angled parking. Appellant’s argument rests on the flawed premise that most vehicles (or a sufficient number of them) traveling in Pacifica have these safety features, which are included on some newer vehicles. Appellant provides no data to support this contention. That these safety features exist, alone, does not lead to the conclusion that angled parking at this location is safe. Backup cameras commonly include disclaimers and warnings to drivers to not solely rely on the backup camera when determining whether it is safe to reverse. And, even if at some point a high proportion of cars traveling in Pacifica will have these safety features in the future, that is not sufficient to address the City’s concern regarding the safety of angled parking in the immediate future at this location.
b) City’s categorization of Francisco Boulevard as an arterial road.

The road classification of Francisco Boulevard is not relevant to the conclusion that angled parking is not safe at that location4. This conclusion is supported regardless of road classification, as head4 The conclusion that Francisco Boulevard is an arterial roadway is based on the road classification of Pavement Management Technical Assistant Program (“PTAP”) and the California Road System (“CRS”) Map, by the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”). Contrary to Appellant’s statements, the classification of an arterial roadway is not only based on speeds, it is based on traffic volumes and connections to highway systems. The CRS Map indicates that Francisco Boulevard, abutting the Project site, is a Minor Arterial and they classify Minor Arterial as “provides services for trips of moderate length, serve geographic areas that are smaller than their higher Arterial counterparts and offer connectivity to the higher Arterial system. In an urban context, they interconnect and augment the higher Arterial system, provide intracommunity continuity and may carry local bus routes.” Francisco Boulevard provides direct connection to State Highway 1, which is classified as Other Principal Arterial.

22.a
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
6 in angled parking requires drivers to exit parking spaces without the ability to see oncoming traffic, thereby presenting a risk to motorists and cyclists.

Findings from previous studies have found that converting on-street parallel parking to angled parking consistently increases collisions across a wide range of street and land use characteristics.

The estimated increase in collisions due to on-street angled parking documented in the AAHSTO Highway Safety Manual is applicable to urban/suburban streets ranging from two to five vehicle lanes with average daily trips up to 32,600 for two-lane streets and up to 66,000 for five-lane streets.

It is also applicable to residential as well as commercial areas. Francisco Boulevard falls within the range of those characteristics. Accordingly, the City’s assessment regarding the safety of angled parking is supported even if Francisco Boulevard is not classified as an arterial c) Possible Bicycle Lanes on Francisco Boulevard
Appellant’s argument is meritless. Cyclists presently utilize Francisco Boulevard. Based on the street widths at this location, in conjunction with parallel parking, cyclists currently are able to ride safely because individuals who park in the present parallel configuration can clearly see an oncoming cyclist before traveling into the roadway. With angled parking, that visibility is diminished in a manner that presents a hazard to cyclists. Additionally, because Appellant’s preferred angled parking configuration would take up more space in the roadway, the City would be unable to implement dedicated bike lanes at this location in the future. Keeping the parallel parking configuration allows the City to install bike lanes in the future because a dedicated bike lane could be implemented within the existing right-of-way width.

Moreover, the accommodation of multiple modes of transportation is supported by the City’s General Plan. As analyzed in the Planning Commission staff report, in order to approve a Site Development Permit none of the findings contained in PMC Section 9-4.3504(a) can be found to exist and to approve a Use Permit the findings in PMC Section 9-4.3303 must be made. Both PMC sections contain findings regarding the Project being consistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan or other applicable laws in the City. As stated in the report, the City’s 1980 Local Coastal Plan5, and as it relates to the 1980 General Plan Circulation Element, states that the City should encourage alternatives to automobile transportation and that “safety shall be a primary objective in street planning and traffic regulations6.” The Project’s design of angled parking does not align with the City’s General Plan policy to provide multi-modal uses in the public right-ofway. The inclusion of angled parking at this location will increase the risk of collisions between vehicles and cyclists. It will create an unsafe environment and reduce the ability of existing and future cyclists to use this portion of the existing roadway. Thus, allowing the proposed head-in angle parking is not in compliance with the City’s Local Coastal Plan and General Plan and the findings necessary to approve the required permits cannot be made.

Additionally, the City’s 2040 General Plan contains several policies, including CI-I-3 Complete Streets in the Project Development Process, that require the City to look at ways that Complete Street principles can be incorporated into all projects. Part of the Complete Street principles include 5 While the City adopted the 2040 General Plan in 2022, the City has not yet adopted a certified Local Coastal Plan amendment. Thus, the 1980 Local Coastal Plan provisions remain in effect for purposes of coastal development permit and other required findings that reference the local coastal plan. 6 1980 General Plan Circulation Element Policy No. 11.

22.a
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
7 providing bicycle facilities (i.e. bike lanes). The design of angled parking will not allow future bike lanes behind the angled parking due to safety risk and limited right-of-way. If the angled parking were to be implemented at this location, it could impede the City’s ability to build a robust bicycle network by leaving a gap.

Moreover, the U.S. Department of Transportation guidelines for On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and the Bikeway Selection cited by the Appellant clearly state that with head-in angle parking drivers and bicyclists cannot see each other, a concern that the City has raised repeatedly. Thus, Appellant’s argument on this point lacks merit.
d) Discussion Regarding the City’s General Plan
The City Council finds that the angled parking configuration is not consistent with the 1980 Local Coastal Plan Circulation Element7and 2040 General Plan policy CI-I-3 Complete Streets in the Project Development Process due to the interference with bicycle lanes and bicycle safety.

Moreover, with respect to safety, the Appellant’s traffic engineer only commented on the ability of a driver to physically reverse out of the parking space within the proposed 12-foot wide travel lane without crossing into northbound traffic and did not determine angled parking was safe from a traffic collision standpoint. The Appellant has provided no further safety analysis. In fact, the Appellant has confirmed that increasing the number of on-street parking spaces proposed to be added to Francisco Boulevard in the head-in angle parking configuration creates statistical higher incidences of crashes resulting in a traffic hazard. Thus, the configuration proposed by the Appellant is not in compliance with the City’s 1980 Local Coastal Plan Circulation Element Policy No. 11.

Additionally, the City’s 2040 General Plan encourages multi-modal uses in the public right-of-way.

The Appellant has not demonstrated how the angled parking is safe with existing and future users of Francisco Boulevard.

Moreover, the Appellant claims that the Sandis report demonstrates that narrow travel lanes due to angled parking and installation of center lane stripe will promote traffic calming and encourage slower rates of speed. However, the report does not provide analysis of how narrow travel lanes and installation of center lane stripe will result in traffic calming or encourage slower rates at this particular location. While angled parking had in the past been considered a traffic calming measure, this notion is outdated. Recent studies show that there is no difference in travel speeds when compared to parallel parking in the City of San Francisco8. Furthermore, other studies on the subject rely on back-in angled parking, which is not the configuration Appellant proposed and is therefore 7 The project site is within the City’s coastal jurisdiction. The 2040 General Plan contains policy LU-I-3, which states that development that requires a coastal development permit shall continue to require written findings that it is consistent with all LCLUP policies and Implementation Plan provisions of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”). If there is a conflict between a provision of this LCP and a provision of the General Plan, or any other City-adopted plan, resolution, or ordinance not included in the LCP, and it is not possible for a the development to comply with both the LCP and such other plan, resolution, or ordinance, the LCP shall take precedence and the development shall not be approved unless it complies with the LCP provision. The City’s 2040 Local Coastal Land Use Plan is not yet certified by the California Coastal Commission and thus the project must comply with the 1980 LCP, which states that the “two plans should be treated as one.” The 1980 General Plan and the 2040 General Plan both support the City’s goals and policies for safe street planning and multi-modal design, and that there is no conflict between their provisions in this regard.
8 Moran, M. E. (2021). What’s your angle? Analyzing angled parking via satellite imagery to aid bikenetwork planning. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(7), 1912–1925. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320954205

22.a
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
8 not applicable, and/or protected bike lanes to make the claim, and this circumstance is also not present here910.

Well-settled law provides that the City has deference in determining whether a project is consistent with its General Plan. (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 816 [“the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity” (internal citations omitted).])
For the foregoing reasons, the City Council denies this basis of appeal.

Basis 3. Condition No. 21 should be revised to require patch paving and repairs.

Finding: As background, Condition of Approval No. 21 requires the Appellant to conduct repairs on the roadway based on impacts from the construction of the Project. This is a standard condition that the City imposes on all private development projects, including on City projects such as the Civic Center Campus Facilities Project, along Francisco Boulevard. The requirements imposed for repaving are based on road conditions. The current Pavement Conditions Index (“PCI”) of Francisco Boulevard is 52 in the City’s pavement management system software, StreetSaver. The utility cuts being proposed with the project will drop the PCI from a “good” rating to a “poor” rating. The PTAP report requires a mill and thick overlay for a pavement in a poor PCI rating.

For these reasons, the City Council denies this basis of appeal.

Basis 4. Condition No. 24 regarding the elimination of a third driveway should be removed to allow a dedicated driveway for the proposed recycled water drive-thru.

Finding: The City agrees that the proposed recycled water service is a benefit to the community.

The City’s concern with Appellant’s proposed design of the drive-thru recycled water station is the number of driveways and the proximity of the driveways to the existing Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection. As proposed, the Project would create a sight distance hazard when a bus is stopped at the existing bus stop. A secondary concern was the removal of on-street parking opportunities.

For the foregoing reasons, the City Council denies this basis of appeal.

Basis 5. Condition No. 32 should be removed because it is outside of the Project scope.

Finding: This contention is without grounds. Municipal Regional Permit (“MRP”) Section C.3.b.ii.3.a. requires projects that alter 50 percent or more of the impervious surface of a previously existing development that was not subject to Provision C.3, as is the case with this project site, consisting of all existing, new, and/or replaced impervious surfaces, must be included in the treatment system design. Over 50% of the site is being disturbed and resurfaced which triggers the need for a cover over the existing fueling station as required by Section C.3.c.i.1.b. of the MRP.

For the foregoing reasons, the City Council denies this basis of appeal. 9 Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates (2005) Back-in/Head-out Angle Parking. http://pcpb.net/traffic/1902ReverseDiagonalParking.pdf. Assessed on August 8, 2023. 10 On-street Parking Design. https://www.vta.org/cdt/parking-design-home-page/street-parking-design.

Accessed on August 8, 2023.

22.a
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
9 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica, hereby:

1. Finds that the City of Pacifica is a Responsible Agency under CEQA in relation to review of the Project;

2. Concludes that it has independently reviewed, analyzed, and considered NCCWD’s environmental determination, and the conclusion reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

3. Concludes that a Class 1 and Class 2 exemption under CEQA is applicable because:

Examples include but are not limited to:
* * * * *
(d) Restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment to meet current standards of public health and safety, unless it is determined that the damage was substantial and resulted from an environmental hazard such as an earthquake, landslide, or flood.
* * * * *
The proposed project would enhance the existing NCCWD headquarters site which does not meet current federal laws and had access issues. The buildings would be upgraded to meet current structural codes and would meet safety standards, including for a seismic event. The upgrades would help the site achieve current public health and safety regulations and therefore meets the criteria of a Class 1 exemption.

Section 15302 states in part:

Class 2 consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structures replaced, including but not limited to:
(b) Replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose, and capacity.

The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing administrative building and a maintenance building and construction of a new two-story office building in the same location.

The Appellant states that although the administrative building will be expanded by square footage, the overall capacity and purpose will not change and therefore meets the criteria of a Class 2 exemption.

Additionally, none of the exceptions to application of a categorical exemption in section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines would apply:

Sec. 15300.2(a): This exception is not applicable to a Class 1 and Class 2 exemption.

22.a
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
10 Sec. 15300.2(b): There is no evidence in the record that cumulative projects of the same type would occur within the same place to create a significant cumulative impact.

Sec. 15300.2(c): There is no evidence that the activity would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

Sec. 15300.2(d) through (f): The project is not proposed near an officially designated scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and, does not affect any historical resources. Therefore, the provisions of subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does make the following findings pertaining to Site Development Permit PSD-857-22 as required by PMC section 9-3204(a):

1.That the location, size, and intensity of the proposed operation will create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, taking into account the proposed use as compared with the general character and intensity of the neighborhood.

The project, with proposed conditions as discussed below, would not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, taking into account the proposed use as compared with the general character and intensity of the neighborhood. The proposed project will expand and improve the existing North Coast County Water District Headquarter site. The new buildings will be in character with the existing residential and commercial development in the area because the proposed project is designed in a modern architecture style that is used on other recent projects in the area. The project design includes improvements to the outdoor yard area and vehicle access to the site. Improvements include removing a driveway from Francisco Boulevard, which improves traffic conditions on Francisco Boulevard by removing the potential for queuing to enter and cross traffic maneuvers to exit the site. Appellant’s preferred project design consists of adding diagonal parking on Francisco Blvd and an all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road.

The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department sent a letter dated March 20, 2023 to NCCWD requesting for the angled parking to be eliminated from the project. The request was due to the recommendations within a Fehr & Peers peer review, and adverse impacts to multi-modal use of the public right-ofway that do not align with the City’s adopted General Plan.

The following traffic safety issues were identified in the Fehr & Peers peer review:
• Angled parking has a higher crash rate and frequency and should never be considered when on-street is sufficient. The City’s Sharp Park Specific Plan study of parking in the area shows adequate on-street parking in the area.
• Back-in parking is not feasible in the area given the proximity of the parking spaces to Clarendon Road because of conflicts between queued

22.a
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
11 vehicles waiting at the stop sign and the cars backing into the angled parking.
• The Appellant’s request for an all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road does not meet any of the necessary criteria (warrants) required by the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Fehr & Peers does not recommend a multi-stop sign at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road based on the traffic volumes, the lack of crashes at the intersection, none of the criteria required by the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices is met, and installation of a multi-way stop at this intersection may result in non-compliance by motorists traveling on Francisco Boulevard.

Appellant’s preferred project design also includes adding a third driveway on Clarendon Road, two of which flank an existing bus stop. The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department has identified that new proposed driveway would create a site distance hazard when a bus is parked at the designated bus stop.

The existing on-street parking abutting the project site allows six (6) spaces on Brighton Road, seven (7) spaces on Francisco Boulevard, and two (2) spaces on Clarendon for a total of 15 spaces. The proposed design of angled parking on Francisco Boulevard, closing the existing driveway on Francisco Boulevard, and the addition of a third driveway on Clarendon Road, allows a total of 16 spaces along the project frontage, with parking on Brighton Road to remain as is. The net increase of one (1) on-street parking space is the result of adding three (3) more spaces on Francisco Boulevard from the angled parking reconfiguration, and the removal of two (2) spaces on Clarendon Road for the third driveway. As conditioned to prohibit angled parking on Francisco Boulevard and to prohibit a new driveway on Clarendon Road, the on-street parking totals will allow for 16 on-street spaces, the same number as proposed by the Appellant. By proposing removal of the Francisco Boulevard driveway, the Appellant has indicated that the existing driveway on Francisco Boulevard is not necessary for NCCWD operations and thus can be removed. This will allow an additional parallel parking space to be added to Francisco Boulevard. Please see the table below for a summary of this on-street parking information. The conditions of approval will allow the project site to provide the same number of on-street parking spaces as currently proposed.

On-Street Parking Analysis
The totals under scenario with the conditions of approval assume that the existing driveway on Francisco Boulevard will be removed, curb and gutter will be restored, and an additional parallel on-street parking space will be added.

Existing Proposed by
Appellant
With Conditions
of Approval
Brighton Road 6 6 6
Francisco Boulevard 7 10 8
Clarendon Road 2 0 2
Total 15 16 16

22.a
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
12 The City Council imposes Condition # 12 to prohibit angled parking and restore the curb, gutter, and sidewalk to enable parallel parking on Francisco Boulevard, Condition # 13 to prohibit all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road, and Condition # 24 to reduce the number of driveways to two (2) on Clarendon Road. Angled parking and an all-way stop would create a hazardous and inconvenient traffic situation on Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road and the third driveway will create a site distance conflict on Clarendon Road. With the addition of the conditions of approval, the finding cannot be made.

2.That the accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on adjacent streets will create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses.

The project, as conditioned, would not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses pertaining to parking areas and traffic on adjacent streets. The proposed project will remove an existing driveway from Francisco Boulevard and direct all employee access to an existing driveway on Clarendon Road. The existing driveway will be fitted with a new gate. The proposed off-street parking access will improve traffic on Francisco Boulevard and will not create a hazard or inconvenience. The language above and conditions imposed on the project related to on-street parking areas. For these reasons, this finding cannot be made.

3.That insufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas.

The project, as conditioned, would not reserve insufficient landscaped areas for the purposes of separating or screening service or storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas. The proposed project will overall add roughly 650 square feet of landscaping to the project site. The project proposal will remove some existing landscape areas, while maintaining or enhancing other existing landscaping along Brighton Road and Clarendon Road.

The additional landscaping will break up the existing hardscape in the parking area and will add additional buffer along the proposed public water filling station. The proposed landscaping along the project site perimeter will also enhance the public right-of-way and create a better pedestrian experience along Clarendon Road. For these reasons, this finding cannot be made.

4.That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof.

The project, as conditioned, will not unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, nor will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof. The proposed addition is located away

22.a
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
13 from the existing residential use to the west. The area directly abutting the existing single-family residence is not proposed to be changed. The second story addition will be located on the northeastern corner of the project site along Francisco Boulevard, away from the existing single-family residence on the abutting sites, and therefore is not anticipated to hinder nor discourage the appropriate development and use of land and building in the neighborhood. The project proposes to bring an existing building into code compliance and upgrade the exterior façade and outdoor area of the project site and will therefore not impair the value of the neighborhood.

5.That the improvement of any commercial or industrial structure, as shown on the elevations as submitted, is substantially detrimental to the character or value of an adjacent R District area.

The project, as conditioned, is not substantially detrimental to the character or value of an adjacent R District area. The proposed project elevations are a substantial improvement to the existing exterior façade of the existing public facility. The proposed building design incorporates modern architecture and uses materials and colors that are compatible with the existing neighborhood.

Therefore, this finding cannot be made.

6.That there is insufficient variety in the design of the structure and grounds to avoid monotony in the external appearance.

The project, as conditioned, will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site, except as provided in the subdivision regulations as set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 10 of this Code. The proposed project is located on a site within an area that is substantially developed. The site does not contain any natural features and is relatively flat. For these reasons, this finding cannot be made.

7.That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.

There is not insufficient variety in the design of the structure and grounds to avoid monotony in the external appearance. The proposed project is designed with a variety of materials and colors, as well as architectural articulation to avoid a monotonous exterior façade. Although only a portion of the existing site will be replaced, the project proposes exterior modifications to the building that will be remain and will add a decorative trellis to break up the existing blank wall plane.

The proposed new administrative building will use large windows to break up the proposed facades on Brighton Avenue and Francisco Boulevard. The new administrative building also uses flat and slanted roof types for articulation of the roofline. For these reasons, this finding cannot be made.

8.That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City.

The City has adopted Design Guidelines which are intended to accomplish the following purposes:

22.a
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
14 o Ensure at least a minimum standard of design through the application of consistent policies.
o Encourage new construction which exceeds minimum standards and discourage construction which falls short of those standards.
o Provide a framework for review and evaluation of design proposals. o Implement applicable General Plan and Local Coastal Plan goals and policies. o Expedite and facilitate the planning permit process.
o Provide direction for design and redesign of projects.

The Design Guidelines are advisory in nature and, unlike zoning, do not contain explicit standards for determining strict compliance. Rather, they address significant elements of project design that, when balanced overall, result in the best possible site layout and building architecture for a project. An applicant may propose a project which complies with some but not all guidelines and the City Council may still find the project consistent with the Design Guidelines. It is up to the Commission’s discretion to determine the appropriate balance and relative priority of the guidelines for a particular project when considering whether a project has achieved Design Guidelines consistency. The proposed project complies with the following Design Guidelines:
a. Building Design: The style and design of the new buildings should be in character with that of the surrounding neighborhood. Additions to an existing structure should also retain and be consistent with the positive architectural features of the original structure.
b. Scale: An important aspect of design and compatibility is scale. A development can be out of scale with its surroundings due to its relative height, bulk, mass, or density. A structure which is out of scale with its site and neighborhood threatens the integrity of the overall streetscape, and residential projects, particularly single-family dwelling which are much larger than neighboring structures are therefore discouraged. c. Materials: Compatibility of materials is an essential ingredient in design quality. Consistency and congruity of materials and design elements on individual structures is also important.

The West Sharp Park neighborhood contains an eclectic mix of architectural styles, containing a range from beach cottages to modern styles. The Appellant proposes to use a modern architecture style that is used on other recent projects in the area.

The proposed two-story office building is modest in size and scale compared to the existing structure to remain. As such, the proposed structure will maintain the existing character of the site and surrounding area. The proposed structures are not massive or bulky and the materials, colors design and architectural features will match and therefore be compatible with the existing structure. Furthermore, the Appellant proposes to use similar color and materials to integrate the proposed mechanical equipment, at a height of 35’9”, into the building design. The height of the proposed mechanical equipment does exceed the maximum allowance of a commercial district; however, the PMC Section 9-4.2501 allows mechanical appurtenance to exceed the height limits with the approval of a site development permit. The proposed height is in scale with the proposed structure and other site improvements. For these reasons, the proposed project is consistent with the Design Guidelines and this finding cannot be made.

22.a
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
15 9.That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City.

The subject site’s 1980 Local Coastal Plan land use designation General Plan land use designation are North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) and High Density Residential (HDR) and a 2040 General Plan land use designation of Public and Semi-Public. The 2040 General Plan contain policy LU-I-3, which states that development that requires a coastal development permit shall continue to require written findings that it is consistent the City’s certified Local Coastal Program. As the City’s 2040 Local Coastal Land Use Plan is not yet certified by the California Coastal Commission, the project must be in compliance with the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

The HDR land use designation permits residential uses. Neither the 1980 Local Costal Land Use Plan nor the 1980 General Plan contain a description of land uses allowed in the NCCWD land use designation; however, the City has determined that it allows the North Coast County Water District use and other similar public facilities.

However, the City’s 1980 General Plan Circulation Element states that City should encourage alternatives to automobile transportation and that safety shall be a primary objective in street planning and traffic regulation. As currently proposed, the project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element as the three (3) driveways on Clarendon Road, angled parking on Francisco Boulevard, and all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road are traffic safety concerns in the opinion of the City Engineer that have not been satisfactorily addressed by the Appellant.

The City Council imposes Condition # 12 to prohibit angled parking and restore the curb, gutter, and sidewalk to enable parallel parking on Francisco Boulevard, Condition # 13 to prohibit all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road, and Condition # 24 to reduce the number of driveways to two (2) on Clarendon Road. Angled parking and an all-way stop would create a hazardous and inconvenient traffic situation on Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road and the third driveway will create a site distance conflict on Clarendon Road. With the conditions of approval, the finding cannot be made. With the conditions of approval, the project will be consistent with General Plan.

According to available records, the project site is not a single legally created lot and contains a lot that was most likely intended for a single-family residence and is zoned R-3. The NCCWD has used both of these lots for many years and the current proposal contains improvements that would cross legal property lines but be within the NCCWD site. The Commission does not have any concerns regarding the existing property lines. Any building and fire code requirements related to distance to property lines will be addressed during the building permit review. The R-3 district portion of the site will continue to be used for outdoor storage and site access for NCCWD. The R-3 zoning district does not contain any language regarding outdoor storage; however, there are other uses, such as churches, parks, and crop and tree farming, allowed in residential districts that often require outdoor storage of materials. Furthermore, this area of the site will be continued to be used in the same manner as it has historically been used. The proposed project is consistent with the present use of this portion of the site.

22.a
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
16 PMC Section 9-4.2102 contains criteria that shall be considered in the review of proposed projects in the P-F district. That criteria states that the proposed use shall be of such size, design, and operating characteristics as will make it compatible with surrounding uses with respect to bulk, scale, design, coverage, density, noise, the generation of traffic, and other environmental impacts; will enhance the successful operations of the community or will provide a service to the community; and attention shall be given to provision of buffering of uses from the surrounding neighborhood, and significant adverse impacts shall be mitigated. The proposed project will provide a service to the community by continuing to provide adequate water service to the City. As mentioned above, a portion of the site abutting a residential use will continue to be used for outdoor storage and vehicle access for the rest of the site and all improved areas, such as the shop area, will be buffered from the existing residential use.

The addition would meet all applicable zoning development regulations, except parking which is discussed below and height as discussed above. Additionally, the findings for Local Coastal Plan consistency are included below and incorporated herein by reference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does make the following findings pertaining to Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22 as required by PMC section 9-4.4304(k):

1. The proposed development is in conformity with the City's certified Local Coastal Program.

The certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) includes a Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP), which contains policies to further the City’s coastal planning activities. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies of the LCLUP, as discussed below.
• Coastal Act Policy No. 24: The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by:
o (a) Facilitating the provision or extension of transit service. o (d) Providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation.

The Appellant’s proposal to add a third driveway on Clarendon Road impacts the existing bus stop. The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department has identified that new proposed driveway would create a site distance hazard when a bus is parked at the designated bus stop. SamTrans has also expressed concerned regarding servicing the bus stop between two driveways and the additional curb extension at the intersection, which may make it difficult for SamTrans’ buses to get parallel with the curb. There is also no immediate suitable location to relocate the bus stop on Clarendon Road.

As further discussed below, the Appellant’s preferred project design does not meet the required number of off-street parking spaces. Their preferred project design does not comply with Coastal Policy No. 24(d), in that it does not provide adequate parking facilities off-street and it creates a potentially hazardous and inconvenient situation for the existing public transportation service that is provided.

Furthermore, removal of the Francisco Boulevard driveway and restoration of

22.a
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
17 sidewalk, curb, and gutter is necessary to enable additional on-street parallel parking to provide adequate parking facilities that maintain and enhance public access to the coast.

The City Council imposes Condition # 24 to reduce the number of driveways to two (2) on Clarendon Road. With the condition of approval, public transit will continue to be provided in this area and the finding can be made. In addition, imposing Condition # 12 will ensure sufficient on-street parking facilities are provided to maintain and enhance public access to the coast. • Coastal Act Policy No. 26: New development shall:
o (a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazards.
o (d) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled.

The applicant proposes to demolition portions of the existing North Coast County Water District’s Headquarters, construct a new administrative building, construct a new maintenance building, and retrofit the existing buildings proposed to remain. The proposed improvements will minimize the risk to life and property because they will bring the building into compliance with new regulations pertaining to safety and building codes. The modernizations will also include meeting new energy codes, which will reduce the existing energy consumption on site. As such, the proposed project is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.

Additionally, the City’s certified Local Coastal Program includes an Implementation Plan (IP) to implement the policies contained in the LCLUP. The IP generally consists of the City’s zoning provisions and other PMC provisions relating to the regulation of development and coastal resources protection. As summarized in the Zoning Conformance Table above, in the project description, the proposed project would comply with applicable requirements except for parking and height. The project includes a parking exception, as discussed below, and the project may exceed the height requirement with approval of site development permit, as discussed above.

2. Where the Coastal Development Permit is issued for any development between the nearest public road and the shoreline, the development is in conformity with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.

The subject site is not located between the nearest public road and the shoreline; therefore, this finding is not applicable to the Project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does make the following findings pertaining to Use Permit UP-130-22 as required by PMC section 9-4.3303:

1. That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstance of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

The proposed use is an office use and related corporate yard for the NCCWD headquarters site. The site is currently used for the same purpose and the only additional office use related to the project is the addition of a multi-purpose room. The

22.a
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
18 proposed upgrades to the site will bring the building up to code requirements, include safety and energy standards. The updates to the NCCWD headquarters will also ensure that the water district is able to provide adequate water service to the City. The off-site improvements, such as moving the public sidewalk onto private property, angled parking along Francisco Boulevard and in the City’s public right-of-way, and addition of third driveway along Clarendon Road will be detrimental to safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood by creating unnecessary traffic and pedestrian hazards. The proposed off-site improvements along Francisco Boulevard will also be detrimental to the general welfare of the City as the improvements do not align with the City’s right-of-way uses and multi-modal goals of the City. The addition of the third driveway on Clarendon Road will also impact bus service to people residing and working in the area that relay on public transit, and there is not a formal approval from SamTrans and other regulatory agencies to move the bus stop.

The City Council imposes City Council Condition # 12 to prohibit angled parking and restore the curb, gutter, and sidewalk to enable parallel parking on Francisco Boulevard, Condition # 13 to prohibit all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road, and Condition # 24 to reduce the number of driveways to two (2) on Clarendon Road. Angled parking and an all-way stop would create a hazardous and inconvenient traffic situation on Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road and the third driveway will create a site distance conflict on Clarendon Road. With the additions of the conditions of approval, the finding cannot be made.

Adjacent to the project site is one parking space that is part of the City’s Temporary Safe Parking Program (TSPP). The space is located on the west side of Francisco Boulevard in the public right-of-way near the intersection with Clarendon Road.

Construction noise, vibration, and other impacts from construction of the project could adversely affect the occupant of the TSPP vehicle utilizing the space at the time of construction. In addition, the Appellant has indicated to the City that pre-construction activities and utilities work may require access near to or within the TSPP space. This will impact the TSPP space occupant. Therefore, the City has included a condition of approval to require that the Appellant obtain City approval of an alternative location for the TSPP space prior to any construction activity or pre-construction activity that requires access to the space. With inclusion of this condition of approval, the City Council makes the finding that the project would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

2. That the use or building applied for is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan and other applicable laws of the City, and where appliable, the Local Coastal Plan.

As previously discussed in the findings for approval of a site development permit and coastal development permit, the site has a LCLUP designation of North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) and High Density Residential (HDR). The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the NCCWD land use designation as it appears that the site was specifically designated for the intended use. However, the City’s 1980 General Plan Circulation Element states that City should encourage alternatives to automobile transportation and that safety shall be a primary objective in street planning and traffic regulation. As currently proposed, the project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element as the three (3) driveways on Clarendon Road, angled parking on Francisco Boulevard, and all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton

22.a
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
19 Road are clear traffic safety concerns that have not been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant.

Angled parking and an all-way stop would create a hazardous and inconvenient traffic situation on Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road and the third driveway will create a site distance conflict on Clarendon Road. With the conditions of approval, the project will be consistent with General Plan.

As noted in the Table 1 of the staff report, the addition would meet all applicable zoning development regulations, except for parking and height. There is language regarding other applicable laws in the findings for a site development permit above. Additionally, the findings for the Local Coastal Plan are above.

3. Where applicable, that the use or building applied for is consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines.

The proposed office use is consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines as discussed above in the findings for approval of a site development permit.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does make the following findings pertaining to Parking Exception PE-194-22 as required by PMC section 9-

4.2824(a):

1. That the establishment, maintenance, and/or conduction of the off-street parking facilities as proposed are as nearly in compliance with the requirements set forth in Article 28 as are reasonably possible.

Per PMC sec. 9-4.2818(f)(8), the site is required to provide a total of 30 off-street parking spaces on-site. The project is designed to provide 20 off-street parking spaces on-site that will be for employees only, an increase of 5 spaces from the existing condition. However, the site is unable to accommodate all of the off-street parking required for the proposed use.

NCCWD has stated that in order to maintain safe operations within the corporation yard and the security of NCCWD’s critical utility facilities, public parking will not be allowed on-site.

The critical nature of NCCWD’s services as a public utility presents a unique circumstance where excluding public parking at its facilities is justified for public health, welfare, and safety. In addition, the project site is constrained by its existing built condition, existing dimensions, and existing development and public rights-of-way on all sides. Therefore, there is no opportunity to provide additional off-street parking facilities and in particular, appropriately located public parking facilities located outside of NCCWD’s operations area.

For these reasons, the provision of 20 off-street parking spaces (an increase of 5 spaces from the existing conditions) will result in the establishment, maintenance, and conducting of the off-street parking facilities as nearly in compliance with the requirements of Article 28 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the PMC as are reasonably possible.

22.a
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby deny the Appeal and upholds the approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-435- 22, Site Development Permit PSD-857-22, Use Permit UP-130-22, and Parking Exception PE-194- 22 to demolish portions of the existing North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) Headquarters site, and construct a new two-story administrative building and other site improvements located at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) in Pacifica (File No. 2022-007) subject to conditions of approval included in Exhibit A to this Resolution. * * * * *
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 14
th day of August 2023.

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
______________________________
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

22.a
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval: File No. 2022-007 – Site Development Permit PSD-857-22, Coastal Development Project CDP 435-22, Use Permit UP-130-22, and Parking Exception PE-194-22 for demolition and replacement of portions of the existing North Coast County Water District Headquarter site at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) City Council Meeting of August 14, 2023
Planning Division of the Planning Department

1. Development shall be substantially in accord with the plans entitled “North Coast County Water District” and dated September 5, 2022, except as modified by the following conditions.

2. The approval or approvals is/are valid for a period of one year from the date of final determination. If the use or uses approved is/are not established within such period of time, the approval(s) shall expire unless Applicant submits a written request for an extension and applicable fee prior to the expiration date, and the Planning Director approves the extension request as provided below. The Planning Director may administratively grant a single, one year extension provided, in the Planning Director's sole discretion, the circumstances considered during the initial Project approval have not materially changed. Otherwise, the Planning Commission shall consider a request for a single, one year extension. In the event of litigation filed to overturn the City’s determination on the approval or approvals, the Planning Director may toll the expiration of the approval or approvals during the pendency of such litigation.

3. The approval letter issued by the City and all conditions of approval attached thereto shall be included as plan sheets within all plan sets submitted to the City as part of any building permit application.

4. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter "City") from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter "Proceeding") brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City's actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant's Project ("Challenge"). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Applicant's sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney's fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City.

5. Exterior lighting shall include buffering techniques to reduce light and glare impacts to adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

22.a
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
A-2

6. All trash and recycling materials, if stored outdoors, shall be fully contained, and screened from public view within an approved enclosure. The enclosure design shall be consistent with the adjacent and/or surrounding building materials, and shall be sufficient in size to contain all trash and recycling materials, as may be recommended by Recology of the Coast. Trash enclosure and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide construction details for the enclosure for review and approval by the Planning Director.

7. Applicant shall maintain the site in a fashion that does not constitute a public nuisance and that does not violate any provision of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

8. All outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this Project shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.

9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit final landscape plan for approval by the Planning Director. The landscape plan shall show each type, size, and location of plan materials, as well as the irrigation system. Landscaping materials included on the plan shall be coastal compatible, drought tolerant and shall be predominantly native, and shall include and appropriate mix of trees, shrubs, and other plantings to soften the expanded structure. All landscaping shall be completed consistent with the final landscape plans prior to occupancy. In addition, the landscaping shall be maintained as shown on the landscape plans shall be designed to incorporate efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.

Landscaping on the site shall be adequately maintained in healthful condition and replaced when necessary as determined by the Planning Director.

10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall clearly indicate compliance with all conditions of approval on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Planning Director’s satisfaction.

11. With construction on the Project site as a result of the Project, there is a health and safety risk for any individual residing at the physical location of the Temporary Safe Parking Program Space (TSPP) located adjacent to the Project site on Francisco Boulevard.

Accordingly, prior to commencement of any construction activity on the Project site or commencement of any preparatory work prior to construction activity that requires access to the physical location of the TSPP space located on Francisco Boulevard adjacent to the Project site, Applicant shall submit a request to the City Manager’s Office to relocate the TSPP space to another location deemed suitable in the City Manager’s sole discretion. No construction activity or preconstruction activity that requires access to the physical location of the TSPP space located on Francisco Boulevard adjacent to the Project site may begin until an alternate TSPP location deemed suitable to the City Manager has been identified and made operational.

Engineering Division of the Public Works Department

12. Angled parking shall be eliminated from plan set and shall be prohibited along any project frontage unless approved in writing by the City Engineer. As shown on the plan set, the existing driveway on Francisco Boulevard shall be removed. The sidewalk, curb, and gutter will be restored to enable parallel on-street parking on Francisco Boulevard, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

22.a
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
A-3

13. All-way stop at the intersection of Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road shall be eliminated from all project materials and shall be prohibited unless approved in writing by the City Engineer.

14. Construction shall be in conformance with the City of Pacifica Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) shall be implemented, and the construction BMPs plans sheet from the Countywide program shall be included in the Project plans.

15. Applicant shall submit to the Engineering Division the construction plans and necessary reports and engineering calculations for all on-site and off-site improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Such plans and reports shall include but are not limited to:
a. an accurate survey plan, showing:
i. survey marks and identifying the reference marks or monuments used to establish the property lines;
ii. property lines labeled with bearings and distances; iii. edge of public right-of-way;
iv. any easements on the subject property
b. a site plan, showing:
i. the existing and proposed improvements such as, but not limited to, pavement overlay, under-sidewalk drain, driveway approach, sidewalk, curb & gutter, existing underground utilities and trenches for proposed connections, boxes for underground utility connections and meters, existing power poles and any ground-mounted equipment, street monuments, any street markings and signage;
ii. adjacent driveways within 25’ of the property lines iii. any existing fences, and any structures on adjacent properties within 10’ of the property lines.
c. All plans and reports must be signed and stamped by a California licensed professional.
d. All site improvements including utilities and connections to existing mains must be designed according to the City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

16. An Encroachment Permit must be obtained for all work within public right-of-way. All proposed improvements within public right-of-way shall be constructed per City Standards. Landscaping, irrigation and other structures within the City right-of-way shall be covered under a Maintenance Agreement recorded prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and to run with the property. The Maintenance Agreement shall burden the Applicant to maintain all covered improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

17. No structures, including but not limited to fences, mailboxes, or stairs shall encroach into the public right-of-way.

18. All new utilities shall be installed underground from the nearest main or joint pole.

19. Show all utilities on the project plans.

20. Existing curb, sidewalk or other street improvements adjacent to the property frontage that is damaged or displaced shall be repaired or replaced as deemed by the City Engineer.

22.a
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
A-4

21. Prior to final inspection, Applicant shall grind and overlay existing asphalt with minimum 2-inch AC to the limits of all utility connection or to street centerline, whichever is greater, across entire property frontage along Francisco Boulevard, Clarendon Road, and Brighton Road. All pavement markings and markers shall be replaced in kind by Applicant.

22. DELETED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

23. Roadways shall be maintained clear of construction materials, equipment, storage, and debris, especially mud and dirt tracked onto Francisco Boulevard, Brighton Road, and Clarendon Road. Dust control and daily road cleanup will be strictly enforced.

24. Reduce the number of driveways from three (3) to two (2) along Clarendon Road.

25. A traffic control plan shall be submitted for review by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction. Lane closures shall be requested 72 hours in advance of schedule and coordinated with Pacifica Police and Fire Departments and Recology. Through traffic shall be maintained at all times along adjacent roadways.

26. Applicant shall install new driveway approach and must be ADA compliant with no more than 2% cross slope for a width of at least 48 inches. The transition from 2% out-slope to the in-slope driveway shall be sufficiently gradual to avoid vehicles bottoming out where the vehicle undersides scrape the pavement at the grade breaks.

27. Stormwater measures shall be covered under a separate Maintenance Agreement for Stormwater Treatment Measures recorded prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and to run with the property. The Maintenance Agreement shall burden the Applicant to maintain all covered improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

28. Drainage Management Area (DMA) 4 (which is untreated) and portions of the existing pavement to the west are directed into the DMA 2 bio-swale. The bio-swale is not sized to handle this runoff. Applicant shall revise the project plans prior to issuance of a building permit to either increase the bio-swale size to handle these areas, or bypass the runoff around the swale in a closed pipe, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

29. DMA 5 drains onto DMA 6 bio-swale, and the DMA 6 bio-swale is not sized to handle this runoff. Applicant shall revise the project plans prior to issuance of a building permit to either increase in the bioswale size to handle these areas, or bypass the swale in a closed pipe, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

30. Prior to final inspections, Applicant shall provide a concrete valley gutter to channel runoff along the Francisco Boulevard frontage.

31. Prior to final inspections, Applicant shall plumb the proposed wash rack for vehicles to sanitary sewer.

32. Prior to final inspections, Applicant shall install a cover for the fuel area.

Wastewater Division of the Public Works Division

33. Prior to approval of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain a lateral compliance certificate.

22.a
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
A-5
Building Division of the Planning Department

34. The Project requires review and approval of a building permit by the Building Official.

Applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a building permit prior to commencing any construction activity.

35. The Applicant shall submit a soil/geotechnical report and survey as part of the building permit plan review.

North Coast Fire Authority

36. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that there is a fire hydrant within 400’ of all portions of the buildings as measured by an approved route around the buildings.

37. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that fire-flow is adequate for the fire protection requirements per CFC Appendix B; and location and number of fire hydrants conforms with CFC Appendix C.

38. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that all portions of the first story of the buildings are within 150’ of the fire apparatus access road as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the buildings.

39. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that all access roads and required aerial access setbacks are provided as per CFC Appendix D. Building permit plans shall provide fire apparatus turning radii exhibit using NCFA radii of 28’ inside and 52’ outside diameter.

40. Fire sprinkler system is required. Submit plans to NCFA under separate fire permit.

41. Ensure fire appliances are provided with a minimum of 3’ clearance around the circumference of each appliance.

42. Provide fire flow information per CFC, Appendix B.

43. Monitored fire alarm system is required. Submit plans to NCFA under separate fire permit.

44. Knox Key Switch is required for electric gates. Apply for approved hardware at NCFA Administration.

45. Portable fire extinguishers(s) are required. Mount fire extinguishers 3-5 feet above floor.

46. Illuminated address identification is required.

47. Utility identification is required.

48. Elevator shall be sized to accommodate an EMS gurney.

49. Hazardous material use, storage, or operations permit may be required.

22.a
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) File No. 2022-007
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230)
A-6

50. Ensure Emergency Responder Radio Coverage is provided as required by Fire Code Section 510.

Condition added by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2023

51. Applicant shall coordinate with SamTrans to temporarily relocate the Clarendon Road bus stop prior to commencement of construction. Permanent relocation of the bus stop after completion of construction shall be subject to written approval of the City Engineer including review of the proposed new bus stop location and design, and any necessary approval by other agencies, but not limited to Caltrans. *** END OF CONDITIONS ***

22.a
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution [Revision 2] (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 547
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 548
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 549
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 550
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 551
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 552
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 553
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 554
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 555
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 556
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 557
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 558
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 559
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 560
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 561
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 562
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 563
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 564
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.b
Packet Pg. 565
Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-009 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
DATE: June 13, 2023 FILE: CDP-435-22
PSD-857-22
UP-130-22
PE-194-22
ITEM: 1
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of Public Hearing was published in Pacifica Tribune on May 31, 2023 and mailed to 225 surrounding property owners and occupants.

APPLICANT &
OWNER:

North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
PROJECT LOCATION: 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) – West Sharp Park PROJECT DESCRIPTION: File No. 2022-0007 – Demolition and replacement of portions of the existing North Coast Country District Water Headquarters site, and construction of a new two-story administrative building and other site improvements on an approximately 0.8-acre site.

SITE DESIGNATIONS: Local Coastal Land Use Plan: North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) and High Density Residential (HDR)
2040 General Plan: Public and Semi-Public
Zoning: Public Facilities (P-F) & Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) CEQA STATUS: North Coast County Water District, acting as Lead Agency, has determined the project meets Class 1 Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Class 2 Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) ADDITIONAL REQUIRED APPROVALS: None. Subject to appeal to the City Council.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve with conditions.

PREPARED BY: Stefanie Cervantes, AICP, Senior Planner
1 Packet Pg. 3

22.c
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

Pacifica City CouncilAugust 14, 2023

Pacifica City Council
August 14, 2023