Agenda — Pacifica City Council, August 28, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck
Mayor pro Tem Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 August 28, 2023

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
August 28, 2023 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Off-street parking is allowed by permit for attendance at official public meetings.

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

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

The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is in-person at the meeting location published in the meeting agenda. However, there are alternative ways to observe and participate:
• Join Zoom Webinar: https://pacifica-gov.zoom.us/j/81156158241 • Watch on TV on Comcast channel 26
• Watch a Live Stream of the meeting by following https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream or www.pacificcoast.tv
• Live Remote Public Comments (offered on a pilot basis):
• Join Zoom Webinar: https://pacifica-gov.zoom.us/j/81156158241 • OR Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | Webinar ID: 811 5615 8241 o Press * 9 to raise your hand to request to speak.
o Press * 6 to unmute when called upon to speak by the last 4-digits of your phone #. • When the Mayor announces the Agenda Item on which you would like to comment, raise your hand in Zoom. You will be called upon my screenname or last 4-digits of phone number if dialing in. Please mute any background sound and state your full name at the start of your comment.

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

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

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

City Council Regular Meeting 2 August 28, 2023
5:30 PM - JOINT STUDY SESSION - CITY COUNCIL AND OPEN SPACE & PARKLAND

ADVISORY COMMITTEE
00a. Joint Study Session of City Council and Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee (OSPAC) to discuss committee survey results and consideration of revisions to OSPAC's authorizing resolution.

PROPOSED ACTION: Provide direction to the City Manager after consideration of survey results and OSPAC's request.

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

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation by San Mateo Resource Conservation District (RCD) - Kellyx Nelson B. Proclamation - Recovery Happens Month - September 2023 C. Proclamation - Suicide Prevention Month - September 2023 D. Proclamation - National Preparedness Month - September 2023

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

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

City Council Regular Meeting 3 August 28, 2023

1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on August 14, 2023.

2. Award of Contract to R V Stich Construction, Inc. for the removal of the soil nail wall at 330 Esplanade Avenue
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Construction Contract with R V Stich Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $190,576.00; Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $220,000.00, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed twenty-seven percent (15%) of the Construction Contract amounts; Authorize staff to Execute Future Change not to exceed the contingency amount; and Authorize the City Manager to sign Contract Documents related to the 330 Esplanade Soil Nail Wall Project.”

3. Amendment No. 4 to the Inter-Agency Agreement with the San Mateo Resource Conservation District and Agreement with San Mateo County for the Pacifica State Beach Bacteria TMDL Special Study Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Amendment No. 4 to the Inter-Agency Agreement with the San Mateo Resource Conservation District and Approve Agreement with San Mateo County for the Pacifica State Beach Bacteria TMDL Special Study Services; and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents.”

4. Response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?”
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?”

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
This portion of the Agenda is available for the public to address the City Council on any issue that is not on the Agenda. Any person wishing to address the Council shall be recognized by the Mayor during this time, provided, however, that only items not on the agenda for that meeting may be addressed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member thereof. Councilmembers shall not enter into debate with speakers under Public Comments on Items Not on the Posted Agenda. A maximum time of three minutes will be allowed for any speaker. Persons addressing the City Council shall adhere to time limits and not disrupt the conduct of the meeting, and not make threats against any person or the public order. The Mayor, or their designee, may remove or cause the removal of an individual for disrupting the meeting, after providing the necessary warning pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.95 with confirmation from the City Attorney that removal is appropriate.

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

City Council Regular Meeting 4 August 28, 2023

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.

CONSIDERATION

5. Meeting Minutes Format for City Council, Planning Commission and Other City Committees / Commissions
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Creation of Administration Policy No. 84 Establishing Format of Action Minutes for City Council, Planning Commission and Other City Committees / Commissions” to transition from the preparation of Semi-Verbatim Minutes to Action Minutes.

6. Introduction of Ordinance and Policy on Pacifica Police Department Militarized Equipment and 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to take the following actions:

1. Waive the First Reading of and Introduce by Title an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and Replacing Chapter 19, “Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment” of Title 4 “Public Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code Renewing the Military Equipment Policy; and

2. Approve the Pacifica Police Department 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report. (CEQA: The Ordinance and Policy are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because they will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a “project,” as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.)

7. Appointment of Members to the Library Advisory Committee PROPOSED ACTION: Move to (1) appoint a minimum of seven (7) and maximum of nine (9) applicants to at-large positions on the Library Advisory Committee, specifying the terms for each; (2) designate one Councilmember to serve as Primary Liaison to the Library Advisory Committee and one Councilmember to serve as an Alternate Liaison; and (3) provide direction to staff and make specific determinations with regard to the selection of three to five non-voting ex-officio members of the Library Advisory Committee.

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

City Council Regular Meeting 5 August 28, 2023
[email protected] if you need sign language assistance or written material printed in a larger font or taped, advance notice is necessary. All meeting rooms are accessible to the disabled.

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

HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:

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

View on the Internet:

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

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

Agendas are available at the City Council meeting

HOW TO REACH YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
• Governor Gavin Newsom, State Capitol Building, Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 445-2841 • State Senator Josh Becker, 1528 So. El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 212-3313 • Assembly Member Marc Berman, 721 Colorado Ave, Suite 101, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 324-0224 • Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, 698 Emerson Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 323-2984 • Senator Alex Padilla, B03 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3553 • Senator Dianne Feinstein, #1 Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco CA 94104 (415) 393-0707 • President Joseph R. Biden, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500

CITY COUNCIL
• Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck, tbigstyck@ pacifica.gov
• Mayor pro Tem Sue Vaterlaus, [email protected]
• Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer, [email protected]
• Councilmember Mary Bier, [email protected]
• Councilmember Christine Boles, [email protected]

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/28/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Joint Study Session of City Council and Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee (OSPAC) to discuss committee survey results and consideration of revisions to OSPAC's authorizing resolution.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Provide direction to the City Manager after consideration of survey results and OSPAC's request.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

The City Council’s Priority Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 included Item No. 13 – Review City Commission and Committee Charters. Staff’s efforts on this item started in the third quarter of FY 2022-23 and have continued into FY 2023-24. The following is a brief outline of efforts on this work plan item both generally and specific to consideration of the “charter” (i.e., authorizing resolution) for the Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee (OSPAC):
• April 11, 2022: Adoption of FY 2022-23 Priority Work Plan. This action established a review of all commission and committee charters as a priority for the City Council. • March 27, 2023: City Council discussion and direction on order of commission/committee reviews and approach to gathering information from commission/committee members about their work.
• April 10, 2023: City Council creation of an ad hoc subcommittee to work on the review of commission/committee charters. The ad hoc subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Bigstyck and Councilmember Bier, has assisted staff with the creation of survey questions for the OSPAC members to gauge their responses on various topics related to their work.
• July 17, 2023: Consistent with the City Council ad hoc subcommittee’s input, staff launched an online survey to seek individual OSPAC member input. • July 19, 2023: Discussion of collective survey questions by committee members at the monthly OSPAC meeting.
• August 16, 2023: OSPAC vote on draft resolution (i.e., charter) for City Council consideration (Attachment A).

I. OSPAC’s Requested Modifications to Its Charter
The OSPAC voted 7-0 (with one absence and one vacant seat) at its regular meeting on August 16, 2023, to transmit the draft resolution in Attachment A to City Council. The draft resolution is the OSPAC’s preferred new authorizing resolution to replace the existing authorizing resolution adopted in 2015 (discussed further, below). Key provisions in the draft resolution not in the current authorizing resolution are summarized as follows:
• A statement that “equitable access to Parklands and Open Spaces is an important component of addressing systemic injustices and inequalities.” Packet Pg. 6
Pacifica City Council 2
August 28, 2023
• Key issues for the OSPAC’s advice in the open space context include “equity, access, safety, connectivity, economics, scenic beauty, and effects on adjacent neighborhoods.”
• The OSPAC’s unique qualifications to “engage the public, to provide valuable recommendations on [open space issues], and provide input in a community forum to safeguard the benefits of Open Spaces and Parklands for current and future generations.”
• Addition of California Coastal Conservancy lands to those within the OSPAC’s purview.
• Engagement and collaboration with other City Committee’s and the Pacifica Land Trust to “protect Open Space lands described in the City’s General and Coastal Plans.”
• Members may assist staff with identifying sources of funding for open space preservation, acquisition, enhancement, and maintenance. Funding sources could be as varied as grants, bond or parcel tax measures or community fund raising resources.
• A requirement for development project applicants to participate in a public study session during the OSPAC’s monthly meetings
o The requirement would apply to vacant parcels in the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and vacant parcels adjacent to existing parklands, or existing and proposed trails (the current authorizing resolution only applies to properties listed in the Open Space Task Force report)
o The purpose of the study session is for the applicant to share their design and vision, to establish an opportunity for the public to have a voice, and for the OSPAC to work with the applicant collaboratively in the early conceptual stage, as soon as practicable after the initial application package is submitted and as a condition of an application being deemed “complete” for further processing, to bring stakeholders together to identify opportunities to bring value to the project and for open space preservation, natural resource protection, and public benefit.
o Recommendations and comments from the OSPAC would be incorporated into the Planning Department’s staff report to the Planning Commission on the project proposal.

City Council Creation of the OSPAC
In 2013, the City Council decided to combine two prior committees with varying responsibilities to advise City Council on open space matters – the Open Space Advisory Committee and Golden Gate National Recreation Area Advisory Committee – to create the OSPAC. The City Council directed the work of the OSPAC by resolution in 2013 and again by rescinding the 2013 resolution and adopting Resolution No. 44-2015 on November 23, 2015 (the “Resolution”; Attachment B). The Resolution provides the stated objectives of the OSPAC, which are to make recommendations to the City Council on: (1) the policy and procedures of the National Park Service (“NPS”) as they relate to areas of the GGNRA within the City of Pacifica and adjacent communities; (2) Issues surrounding the transfer of ownership of Cattle Hill and the Pedro Point Headlands to the NPS; (3) access and operation of the San Mateo County Parks in the City of Pacifica including the San Pedro Valley County Park and the Devil’s Slide Trail County Park; and (4) ways in which these areas can contribute to the economy of the City.

Packet Pg. 7
Pacifica City Council 3
August 28, 2023
The Resolution also states that the OSPAC may advise applicants1 on properties listed in the Open Space Task Force (OSTF) Report2 and specified that the OSTF Report should “remain the basic reference” for the OSPAC.

Open Space Task Force Report
The First Edition of the Open Space Task Force Report (OSTF) was published in 1988, with an updated Second Edition published in 2000. The OSTF included 34 recommendations to City Council. Many of the recommendations contained in the OSTF Report have been implemented since 1988. A number of recommendations recognized the role of the Planning Commission in development review and setting land use policy, and were structured as recommendations to the Planning Commission on General Plan, zoning, and other land use regulation amendments that would further the purposes of the OSTF Report. Notably, review of development projects by an open space committee was not one of the 34 recommendations to City Council contained in the OSTF Report. In fact, Recommendation 14.a states that the OSTF Report “should be used as a reference by the City Council, the Planning Commission, the PB&R Commission and City staff to identify issues of concern when evaluating land use proposals and when considering issues relating to open space.”
In recent years, the OSPAC has generally performed work consistent with the Resolution.

Notable efforts have included assisting the community with neighborhood impacts from increased visitation to Mori Point since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The OSPAC has also led the annual Preservation Award nomination process, and OSPAC Members have organized social clean-up events on Cattle Hill to improve/restore trails on that City-owned open space.

II. Survey of OSPAC Members
The City Council has directed that the charter update process include a survey of the commission/committee members. The process outlined by the ad hoc subcommittee includes a survey of the commission/committee collectively, discussed at a regular meeting thereof, and an individual member survey completed privately using an online survey tool. The surveys are intended to gauge the opinions of commission/committee members about their service to the City and opportunities to improve the functioning of their commissions/committees. A summary of each survey is provided below:

Collective Survey
The OSPAC discussed the collective survey questions at its regular meeting on July 19, 2023.

The collective survey included seven questions addressing various aspects of the OSPAC’s work including the types of activities the OSPAC should undertake and advice the OSPAC should provide to City Council. A summary of the discussion is included as Attachment C.

Eight of the OSPAC’s nine members were present for the discussion.

Some common themes in the OSPAC’s discussion included members’ beliefs that the OSPAC provides an important community engagement function, that it could provide a role to facilitate funding for open space stewardship and transfers to other management agencies, that the OSTRF Report may be due for an update, and that the OSPAC’s charter should be expanded to provide a formal role in development project review.
1 This provision in Resolution No. 44-2015 reads as follows: “…the committee may also advise applicants on properties listed in the Open Space Task Force report and on other open space issues.

Recommendations of the committee will be solely advisory.” 2 The OSTF Report is comprised of Volume 1 and Volume 2.

Packet Pg. 8
Pacifica City Council 4
August 28, 2023
Individual Survey
The individual OSPAC member online survey was available for over one month prior to the joint study session. Detailed responses to the individual survey are included as Attachment D.

Some responses have been modified to preserve the confidentiality of respondents. The survey asked seven questions about the feelings of each OSPAC member related to their service on the committee, and about ways the OSPAC’s operations could be improved.

Six of the nine OSPAC members responded to the individual survey. In general, the OSPAC members seemed satisfied with their work and with their initial training upon joining the committee. Some common themes included members reporting their perceptions the meetings could be run in a way to increase participation and collaboration among members, and that online participation options could expand public involvement/participation. Some members also reported their belief that the OSPAC should have an expanded charter, such as to provide a formal role in development project review, and to ensure alignment with established City Council priorities. Members also provided individual input on various other items.

III. Staff Analysis
The OSPAC’s request to City Council in Attachment A involves five key topic areas:

1. Policy statements and clarifications, such as the importance of equity as an open space consideration, and the importance of the OSPAC’s role as a community forum for discussion and consideration of open space issues.

2. Expansion of the OSPAC’s purview to advise on open space matters for lands owned by an additional public agency, the California Coastal Conservancy.

3. Creation of a coordination role for the OSPAC with other City committees and the Pacifica Land Trust, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

4. Authorization of the OSPAC to consider funding sources related to open space.

5. Expansion of the OSPAC’s role in the development review process, including the types of properties subject to its review.

Staff is generally supportive of the OSPAC’s requests in #1, 2, 3, and 4, and believes they generally align with the recommendations in the OSTF Report. However, as summarized below, staff has numerous concerns related to OSPAC’s requests in #5.

Development Review Process
The development project review process is highly regulated by Federal, State, and local law.

Significant experience and expertise is required to effectively administer this process, and the City faces legal exposure if irregularities occur. The Planning Commission is the City body primarily charged with administering the development review process. It has attained a sufficient level of experience and expertise by meeting twice monthly to consider development projects and land use policy items, and is aided with significant staff support from the Planning Department and City Attorney’s Office as well as legislative documents such as the City’s General Plan and Zoning Regulations. Currently, the OSPAC is an advisory body only and meets once per month and infrequently3receives presentations from development project applicants, and the Resolution provides that the OSTF Report remains the “basic reference” for 3 Since 2020, the OSPAC has received presentations from four applicants for projects within the OSTF Report. By contrast, the Planning Commission has considered 38 development project applications between 2020-2022. Both the Planning Commission and the OSPAC receive staff support from the Planning Department.

Packet Pg. 9
Pacifica City Council 5
August 28, 2023
the OSPAC. Amending the OSPAC’s charter to change from an advisory body to the Council to making recommendations on development projects would be a significant change. As the Planning Commission has historically and regularly performs this development review function, commissioners are well versed in the complex areas involved in planning reviews, such as California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Subdivision Map Act, and other legal land use principles.

The OSPAC’s request in #5, if granted by City Council, would be to effectively establish the OSPAC as an additional planning agency component of the City’s development review process which is closely governed by State Law. Empowering the OSPAC to consider development projects will create another layer of administration. Another consideration is that to perform the duties of another development review body, the OSPAC would need additional education and training to effectively perform the duties described in the draft resolution (Attachment A). Such additional training would include topics such as the City’s relevant legislative and policy documents (e.g., the General Plan, Local Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, etc.), due process principles under U.S. and State Constitutions, limits on governmental exactions on private property such as nexus and rough proportionality, the CEQA, the Subdivision Map Act and other fundamental laws that restrict government regulation on private development permits.

While the OSPAC Members could certainly be trained on these additional areas of expertise, this would require a major commitment of Planning Department and City Attorney’s Office staff resources to train and advise OSPAC members. Planning Department and City Attorney’s Office staff resources are already significantly committed to execution of the City Council’s FY 2023-2030 Strategic Plan and other routine departmental functions. For example, staff and the City Attorney’s office would need to spend considerable effort in amending the Municipal Code to include OSPAC as an additional planning body in the City’s development review process.

Additionally, the City Clerk’s Office staff would also need to become involved to ensure annual completion of Form 700 financial conflict of interest disclosures and periodic Assembly Bill (AB) 1234 ethics training that would be required for an expanded OSPAC role in the development review process.

An expanded role for the OSPAC in the development review process would also increase costs for project applicants. Staff estimates that, at minimum, review by the OSPAC would add at least $1,000 to processing costs for Planning Department staff time alone, and potentially significantly more when City Attorney’s Office assistance is required. Projects within the OSTF Report presented to the OSPAC have included not only larger multi-unit development projects, but also single-family residential projects. Cost increases of this sort can be impactful to individual applicants for smaller projects.

Providing the OSPAC an expanded role in the development review process also calls into question the appropriateness of such an action relative to other City commissions/committees.

Economic development issues are of increasing importance to the City, and the Economic Development Committee could follow the OSPAC’s example and request review of development projects to advise on matters related to revenue generation and economic development. Or, the Emergency Preparedness & Safety Committee could request review of development projects in areas perceived to be hazardous. Similar examples could be provided for other commissions/committees. A process requiring hearings by multiple commissions/committees to consider development projects would be untenable under current staffing conditions. The City’s current development review process recognizes the need for a reasonable level of review and centralizes the responsibility to consider all relevant factors of a development with the Planning Commission.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there may be legal impediments to adding this level of review as part of the application review process. For example, the OSPAC would not be able to consider ministerial projects that are not subject to a discretionary review hearing (e.g., ADUs or Packet Pg. 10
Pacifica City Council 6
August 28, 2023
SB 9 projects). In addition, for those projects that are subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), which requires, among other things, that certain housing development projects be reviewed for completeness within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the application against an established list of items necessary for a determination of completeness,4 adding this additional layer of review which is not a part of the City’s established checklist could interfere with the City’s ability to make the determination of completeness within the PSA timelines.

Moreover, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) would likely reject any completeness item that requires a developer to have a hearing with the OSPAC. The HCD is the state agency charged with administering state housing laws. Adding processes and costs for residential development projects may not withstand increasing scrutiny of local development review processes by the HCD. The agency has taken an aggressive approach in recent years to oppose local land use regulations that add processing time, vague procedural hurdles, and cost to processing of residential projects. Indeed, HCD’s comment letter on the City’s draft 2023-2031 Housing Element already calls into question some of the City’s existing development review procedural requirements5.

It is with consideration of the factors outlined above that the City Manager recommends against additional procedural requirements for housing projects at this time. Similarly, the City Manager recommends against expanding the site eligibility criteria for review by the OSPAC to include vacant parcels in the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and vacant parcels adjacent to existing parklands, or existing and proposed trails. It is challenging to define these parcels without specific, extensive analysis. Furthermore, inclusion of these criteria could potentially add hundreds of sites to the requirement for review by the OSPAC, further burdening staff and increasing processing costs for affected applicants. A major increase in the number of projects required to be heard by the OSPAC could also limit the ability of the committee to focus on other priority work identified by the City Council.

IV. City Manager Recommendation
The City Manager recommends the following in relation to the OSPAC charter:

1. Validate the ongoing relevance of provisions in the existing OSPAC authorizing Resolution.

2. Consider the addition of OSPAC’s requests in #1, 2, 3, and 4 but provide more clarity on the extent of the authority and new roles of the OSPAC.

3. Direct OSPAC to focus on implementation of one or more recommendations in the OSTF Report that have not been completed.

4. Add coordination of trail improvement social “work days” to the OSPAC’s list of responsibilities.

5. Direct staff to incorporate these revisions into an updated draft resolution to be considered by City Council at a future meeting.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

In analyzing this issue, staff identified a narrowly expanded role for the OSPAC in the development review process that might be feasible for the Council to consider, but still carries staff resource and development review timeline impacts and costs, and potential legal concerns:
4 Government Code § 65943(a).
5 See comments in the “Local Processing and Permit Procedures” section of the HCD’s comment letter dated August 8, 2023. The comments call into question “highly discretionary” processes with “subjective findings and minimal guidance to promote certainty and objectivity” in relation to approval of multifamily housing.

Packet Pg. 11
Pacifica City Council 7
August 28, 2023
• Establish a requirement for Planning Department staff to present to the OSPAC prior to application completeness, but not as a requirement for completeness for certain development projects subject to discretionary review.
o Staff bears the responsibility to present, with notice of the opportunity to participate provided to applicants.
o Limit site eligibility criteria to only those sites identified in the OSTF Report. o Due to Permit Streamlining Act time constraints on project processing and other legal mandates for project review, limit Planning Department staff analysis to attachment of the existing project plans as submitted, with a brief summary of the key project characteristics (e.g., number of residential units and commercial floor area proposed), and summary of OSTF Report site narrative. o Provide specific criteria to be evaluated by the OSPAC, as follows:
▪ Evaluate the relationship of the project to the key site features identified in the OSTF Report.
▪ Identify opportunities to create or expand public access, or prevent loss of existing public access, on or through the site to existing publicly-owned open space areas surrounding the project site.
• Establish a two-year sunset after which the expanded development review provisions shall expire unless extended by the City Council.
• Require the OSPAC annual report before the two-year sunset to describe the specific input provided for each project reviewed, a summary of Planning Department and City Attorney’s Office staff time utilized to support the project reviews, and a calculation of costs to project applicants associated with the reviews.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

City Council’s Priority Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 included Item No. 13 – Review City Commission and Committee Charters.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No direct fiscal impact from this study session item. Fiscal impacts to the City and/or project applicants could result from an expanded role for OSPAC in the development review process.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft new authorizing resolution for the OSPAC (DOCX) Attachment B - City Council Resolution No. 44-2015 (PDF) Attachment C - Summary of responses to OSPAC collective survey questions (DOCX) Attachment D - Summary of responses to OSPAC individual survey questions (DOCX) Packet Pg. 12
DRAFT Authorizing Resolution suggested by OSPAC to replace Resolution 44-2015 (Transmitted by OSPAC majority vote for discussion with Pacifica City Council at a Study Session – 8/28/2023)
1 WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the function of the Open Space and Parkland Advisory 2 Committee (OSPAC) and held a study session on _____________, 2023; and 3 4 WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica has had a long history of open space committees with the latest 5 being OSPAC, a result of combining the Open Space Advisory Committee and the Golden Gate 6 National Recreation Area Advisory Committee via City Council Resolution 44-2015 on 7 November 23, 2015; and
8 9 WHEREAS, Pacifica’s Open Spaces and Parklands and associated prominent hills, ridgelines, 10 bluffs, beaches, recreational opportunities, and viewsheds are fundamental to Pacifica’s 11 essence. The beauty, character, economy, history, and the quality of life for the citizens of 12 Pacifica attracts residents and visitors to Pacifica, and provides them with mental and physical 13 health benefits; and
14 15 WHEREAS, the Opens Spaces and Parklands of Pacifica support a unique coastal flora and fauna 16 that require intact and connected habitats to thrive, and this biodiversity is essential to 17 ecosystem diversity and resilience which is critical to maintaining the community and public 18 benefits derived from Open Spaces and Parklands; and 19 20 WHEREAS, significant Parklands and Open Spaces in and around Pacifica are owned and 21 managed by the
22 • National Park Service as part of the Golden Gate National Recreational Area (GGNRA), such 23 as Mori Point, Milagra Ridge, and Sweeney Ridge;
24 • San Mateo County through its Parks Department (SMCP), such as San Pedro Valley Park and 25 Devil’s Slide Trail
26 • the City of Pacifica, including Cattle Hill and lands on Pedro Point Headlands 27 • the California Coastal Conservancy such as lands on Pedro Point; and 28 29 WHEREAS, some of the recommended actions of the Open Space Task Force Report have been 30 completed, the report will remain the fundamental reference for the Open Space and Parkland 31 Advisory Committee; and
32 33 WHEREAS, equitable access to Parklands and Open Spaces is an important component of 34 addressing systemic injustices and inequalities; and 35 36 WHEREAS, an Advisory Committee whose sole focus of consideration is Open Space and 37 Parklands, including advisement on issues of equity, access, safety, connectivity, economics, 38 scenic beauty, and effects on adjacent neighborhoods. OSPAC is uniquely qualified to engage 39 the public, to provide valuable recommendations on these topics, and provide input in a 40 community forum to safeguard the benefits of Open Spaces and Parklands for current and 41 future generations; and
42 a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment A - Draft new authorizing resolution for the OSPAC (5452 : Joint Study Session with OSPAC to Discuss Work Plan and DRAFT Authorizing Resolution suggested by OSPAC to replace Resolution 44-2015 (Transmitted by OSPAC majority vote for discussion with Pacifica City Council at a Study Session – 8/28/2023)
43 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby 44 reauthorize the creation of the Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee (OSPAC) 45 consisting of nine (9) members selected from the community at large and appointed by the City 46 Council with goals and objectives as stated in this resolution; and 47 48 BE IT RESOLVED that the committee shall continue to advise the City Council on open space 49 issues, making recommendations to the City Council on:
50 (1) issues related to lands owned or managed, or considered for ownership or 51 management, by the GGNRA and SMCP within and adjacent to the City of Pacifica; and 52 (2) issues related to Open Space owned by the City of Pacifica and the Coastal Conservancy 53 associated considerations such as transfer of ownership to an appropriate long-term 54 owner; and
55 (3) opportunities for existing and potential future Open Space and Parklands to provide 56 public benefit and continue to enrich the well-being of Pacifica’s residents and visitors. 57 Including consideration of Open Space and Parkland related issues of access, use, 58 connectivity, safety, economics, scenic beauty, preservation and effects on adjacent 59 neighborhoods; and
60 61 BE IT RESOLVED that OSPAC will engage and collaborate with other City Committees and 62 Pacifica’s Land Trust to protect Open Space lands described in the City’s General and Coastal 63 Plans; and
64 65 BE IT RESOLVED that planning project applicants shall be required to participate in a public 66 study session during OSPAC’s monthly meetings for properties listed in the Open Space Task 67 Force report, as well as vacant parcels in the Hillside Preservation District (HPD), vacant 68 adjacent to existing parklands, or existing and proposed trails. The purpose of the study session 69 is for the applicant to share their design and vision, to establish an opportunity for the public to 70 have a voice, and for OSPAC to work with the applicant collaboratively in the early conceptual 71 stage, as soon as practicable after the initial application package is submitted and as a condition 72 of an application deemed “complete”, to bring stakeholders together to identify opportunities 73 to bring value to the project and for open space preservation, natural resource protection, and 74 public benefit. Recommendations and comments from OSPAC would be incorporated into the 75 Planning Department’s staff report on the project proposal; and 76 77 BE IT RESOLVED, that Committee members may assist staff with identifying sources of funding 78 for open space preservation, acquisition, enhancement, and maintenance. Funding sources 79 could be as varied as grants, bond or parcel tax measures or community fund raising resources; 80 and
81 82 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica on 83 ___________, 2023 by the follow vote of the members thereof:
84 a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment A - Draft new authorizing resolution for the OSPAC (5452 : Joint Study Session with OSPAC to Discuss Work Plan and b
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment B - City Council Resolution No. 44-2015 (5452 : Joint Study Session with OSPAC to Discuss Work Plan and Survey b
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment B - City Council Resolution No. 44-2015 (5452 : Joint Study Session with OSPAC to Discuss Work Plan and Survey

OSPAC MEMBER COLLECTIVE SURVEY RESPONSES
JULY 19, 2023
OSPAC Members Present: JoAnne Arnos, Sarah Cardona, Lauren Goodmiller, Ian McDermod, Ellen Natesan, Arlene Patton, Aaron Read, and Amanda Skaggs.

Council Liaison present: Sue Beckmeyer
Staff Liaison: James Lin

1. What has OSPAC worked on that has been most valuable to the community? • Trail maintenance project valuable (visibility, making connections w/ community), good contribution of time and connecting to open spaces
• Facilitating communication b/w GGNRA and residents at Mori Point • Linked to community; mentioned when on Zoom – instrument for community to come to OSPAC with concerns; forms of communications to public; concerns about Housing Element mentioned • Bringing charter review question to Council; workdays; review of a few properties that come before OSPAC; Preservation Award; agree w/ Arnos & Natesan comments re: being a facilitator with the public, esp. Mori Point

2. In your experience as a Committee, what open space and parkland advice does the City Council need that OSPAC should be providing, but isn’t? How should OSPAC be providing this advice? • Pacifica owns open space & does not have funding for maintaining & controlling it; OSPAC assistance to finding a “home”. Mentioned Mori Point ; Cattle Hill things needed to be eligible for County Parks or other stewards of the land; City staff does not have time to research grant funding, etc. – re: disposition of land
• Acquisition of land – would like City Council and OSPAC to have more fruitful discussion & collab. around that / advice on approach from Planning / Council • Would like to be a conduit for the public as soon as application submitted for development of parcel in Open Space Task Force Report or HPD; tool to achieve consensus with thoughts on the project; when they put in proposed resolution, learned a lot about OSPAC – mentioned comments by Councilmember Boles that by the time they have a complete application by applicant, the applicant has spent so much time / money that they are not open to adjustments; OSPAC wants to get in earlier in the process; City staff has done a great job with info on development applications on website – but need to find a better venue for interpreting information
• OSPAC can develop an endorsement process for developers to approach OSPAC for feedback on consistency w/ Open Space Task Force Report; voluntary endorsement could benefit developer in the process
• Some direct way of having communication on a project before it is approved. • We want to review before they submit the complete application so there is no impinging on the process / legality
c
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment C - Summary of responses to OSPAC collective survey questions (5452 : Joint Study Session with OSPAC to Discuss • Want to make it mandatory that applicants come to OSPAC before application is complete if project is in Open Space Task Force Report or HPD.

3. Are there specific projects OSPAC should work on, such as updating the Open Space Task Force Report, expanding the open space work days, or addressing Mori Point trailhead space issues? • All those are really important
• OSTF Report is 35 yrs old, a lot is obsolete. Property owners included in there had an option to opt out. So many property owners didn’t respond; of 52 properties looked at, 2 opted out. Have a feeling it might be different today. Maybe amend it? But it would be a lot of staff work to update.
• What would be gained by updating it?
• Experimented w/ bringing it to MidPen’s attention. Look at it from outside agency perspective – what do you want? Origin – come up with a list of properties that are desirable for saving.

What managing agency is most likely to take it? GGNRA has updated boundary studies, so more of the properties are in it; their philosophy has changed. It would be a multi-year project to update.
• Great to update, but it would be the only thing to work on & not sure of the value • Maybe an addendum to report
• Zoning has changed, some parcel numbers wrong; it could use some care and feeding • Expanding workdays? Tapped out
• Should continue but not expand
• We are at the top of what we can do with workdays
• Once a month is fine (for workdays)
• Friends of San Pedro Valley workdays; in a way we are competing • Mentioned several other agency workdays that are competing • Could we collaborate with others on workdays?
• We do avoid the days of other organization workdays
• Working with Pacifica Land Trust – borrowing tools and getting advice from Lynn Adams (Pacific Beach Coalition) has been helpful
• Explore youth corps group that comes out regularly so they can get volunteer hours to get younger folks out to workdays; expand by getting different people on existing workdays • Agree; we could do better on that end communication and outreach and have a real mailing list • Schools a good outreach and productive
• Have a docent led or talk-walk to hit a different part of the community that may not want to do physical labor
• So focused on repairing trail and dealing with invasive weeds, but it doesn’t have to be that way • Mori Point Trail head issues – could we submit a letter of support for MTC Capital project for diagonal parking at Mori Point road?
• Making progress on Mori Point issues and probably at the point of what OSPAC can do on the issue
• Should leave it on our rolling agenda (Mori Point issues) and have GGNRA reps at meetings sometimes
c
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment C - Summary of responses to OSPAC collective survey questions (5452 : Joint Study Session with OSPAC to Discuss

4. Is OSPAC’s membership size (9) appropriate and effective to accomplish its work, considering quorum and Brown Act requirements, subcommittee work, etc? • Seems like a good size;
• Agree; need a larger type committee to get some of the work done • It is tight sometimes to do all the work and we have subcommittees; have some of same people on multiple subcommittees; could discuss more

5. Are there any specific qualifications OSPAC members should have to ensure they are effective as a member?
• There is a lot of reading material – make sure to be familiar with the documents and making sure you are coming prepared; have a good diversity
• Discuss having a buddy system – someone on the committee “adopting” someone new to go over handbook and how to do things; could give different points of view, also; creates nice collaboration more comfortable asking questions one-on-one • Not sure what the charter amendment will look like yet, so hard to say what qualifications / expertise is needed, but enthusiasm goes a long way

6. What City Council strategic plan goals and strategies could OSPAC help support and how? • It would help to be more proactive on the Housing Element • Open Space & parkland fruitful role on pursuing Climate adaptation and mitigation – a natural connection; how to shape our workplan to support further research and implementation of Climate Action Plan
• #5 open forum for developers to discuss the things they want to do. #5 leads into #3. #3, 4 and 5 involved.
• Add #2 as well. Improve & steward city infrastructure, streets and facilities. Think of city facilities including trails and open space and infrastructure. • Add #1 – fiscal sustainability –having open / green space is a critical part of our economy that should not be overlooked; manage open spaces appropriately and long-term stewardship so it is not a drain on city resources; it is under appreciated at the moment • Green space is what makes Pacifica
• Moved away from Pacifica and came back. Talked about comments about Pacifica and how it changed from comments re: foggy vs. beautiful and outside views us as a jewel. • Health and well-being of community – green space is our biggest resource; public / community link she talked about today (#5)

7. What changes to OSPAC’s charter do you think should be made, if any? • Did a draft resolution and would like to tweak it more and revisit at Study Session • Should revisit resolution at Study Session and incorporate the answers from above • Biggest change is being more involved with communications with developers • We can ensure the open space to remain and stewardship of them; keeping abreast of developments and levels of stewardship and maintenance, which could direct us more to specific projects we can take on
c
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment C - Summary of responses to OSPAC collective survey questions (5452 : Joint Study Session with OSPAC to Discuss

INDIVIDUAL OSPAC MEMBER ONLINE SURVEY RESPONSES
JULY-AUGUST 2023
The City Council is also interested in learning how individual members of committees/commissions feel about their experience. The following questions are for individual committee member input and can either be discussed and provided at OSPAC’s July meeting, or provided separately and directly to staff for compilation into the staff report in preparation for the August 28th joint study session.

1. How do you feel about your work on the OSPAC?
• Committee has accomplished some good work but hopefully Committee will be more involved with City Council and developments with a new mandate. The present one is outdated plus much of the work completed. Committee meetings could be space for community involvement with auto link or zoom.
• It feels like a good way to participate in the community. • It is a great group of people, I would like to do more, my work schedule limits my attendance at times.
• It is a lot of fun but not always meaningful. I enjoy the people and am passionate about the topic, but the current charter/authorizing resolution is so limited in scope that OSPAC is not a particularly effective committee at the moment. • The work we do can be challenging, but also rewarding. It's an honor to be able to represent the cities Open Spaces as we have some of the best in the entire Bay Area. • It's been very interesting. I have learned a lot, especially about the planning process.

2. How do you feel like you could make a greater contribution on the OSPAC? • Enhanced leadership could expand collaboration and be an example to members to participate more. The committee members as well as chairs. [A portion of this response has been omitted, and remainder lightly edited, to preserve confidentiality] • I value how I am contributing now.
• Supporting more of the trail maintenance work days and interacting with other open space agencies regarding OSPAC Task Force parcel stewardship • OSPAC needs to be given a charter and authority that allows its members to contribute more meaningfully to Pacifica and City Council. Open space is an essential component of the character and economic value of Pacifica and should not be taken for granted. These lands require funding and thoughtful management to continue to provide these values to the residents of Pacifica. Pacifica owns open spaces that are vulnerable to fire, landslides, degradation through neglect, unmanaged recreational use, and risks to recreational users and associated risk of lawsuit. It would behoove Pacifica to invest in a d
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment D - Summary of responses to OSPAC individual survey questions (5452 : Joint Study Session with OSPAC to Discuss process to turn these lands over to entities like GGNRA or San Mateo County Parks.

However, GGNRA and SMCP have expressed reservations because of the condition of these properties and lack of long-term funding. These are issues that could be addressed – there are grants available through CalFire for example for fuels reduction projects (fuels and eucalyptus were the primary reason SMCP was reluctant to take on Pedro Point Headlands many years ago and is likely still a significant consideration). If authorized to do so, OSPAC could lead discussions with GGNRA and SMCP and learn under what conditions they would accept these properties and then seek grant funding to address shortcomings.
• Becoming more familiar and/or updating the Open Space Task Force Report • We need to connect with applicants sooner in the planning process. Now they are so vested (fiscally and emotionally) they aren't listening.

3. Do you feel able to express your opinions and beliefs as a member of OSPAC? • Most of the time.
• Yes.
• A different leadership structure would be more inclusive and equitable to all members and would lead to more participation by our talented members who seem to hold back now. More collaboration and encouragement to share ideas and thoughts.

Collaboration.
• Yes.
• Somewhat. The extremely limited scope of the OSPAC resolution means that for the most part OSPAC is not allowed to provide input on the sorts of matters that are relevant to Open Space and Parklands in Pacifica.
• In a limited way, yes, however we are substantially limited by our current charter in terms of topics we can advise Council on. In particular, it would make a lot of sense to have OSPAC be an official and required participant in the application process for development proposals that are referenced in the Pacifica Open Space Task Force Report. At the moment, the public comes to OSPAC to express their concerns about development proposals expecting that OSPAC is able to provide input to Council.

However, we cannot. This situation is confusing for the public and leads to quite a lot of frustration.

4. Are there any ways you believe OSPAC’s meetings could be structured or operate more efficiently?
• Answers above. Plus a quarterly meeting of all members to discuss work of the committee without City leadership or City employees and to get to know each other. • Arrange tables to not have our backs to the public during meetings. • At times, better time-keeping to keep on target schedule d
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment D - Summary of responses to OSPAC individual survey questions (5452 : Joint Study Session with OSPAC to Discuss • No – I think 9 is a good number for OSPAC and monthly meetings are fine.

Subcommittees are essential to keeping work moving forward. • A virtual option could perhaps make it more inclusive • I'd like the planning liaison report to go into more detail and discussion.

5. Do you feel like you received sufficient onboarding and initial training to function effectively as a commission/committee member?
• No. Maybe pairing of a seated member with the new member, "big sister/brother" to answer questions, give background and create a comfort level to share within the committee etc.
• The Brown Act training was very helpful. I feel more comfortable understanding the rules.
• Could have been more thorough onboarding.
• Yes
• Yes
• Yes

6. What would help you to fully bring your voice to the table? • I feel like I can now.
• A deeper understanding of the Task Force report current state of play of parcels • A new charter that is more relevant to the significant challenges relevant to Open Space in Pacifica.
• More time to prep for meetings items on the agenda beforehand. Sometimes we may not know what is happening at a meeting until at least few days before. • Not sure. Not just my voice but to create an atmosphere where all members feel comfortable to express ideas for Committee work and projects they believe we should pursue within our mandate. What are their interests, why did they join, etc. • Some members speak more than others. I would like more committee members to come prepared before the meetings. [A portion of this response has been lightly edited to preserve confidentiality]

7. What role do you feel the City Council liaison should play to make OSPAC most effective?
• Create an atmosphere of creativity, collaboration and support of the work committee ideas/work/potential projects. More approval and appreciation, we are all volunteers . • The liaison dynamic seems great now, sharing updates. d
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment D - Summary of responses to OSPAC individual survey questions (5452 : Joint Study Session with OSPAC to Discuss • Continue to express areas where the city seeks support that OSPAC can directly assist with
• Continue to represent us to Council and update OSPAC on Council's priorities. • I think it’s great that the liaison brings back information from the City Council. • I like where we are. It would be good to have some more presence at the workdays. d
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment D - Summary of responses to OSPAC individual survey questions (5452 : Joint Study Session with OSPAC to Discuss

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/28/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on August 14, 2023.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on August 14, 2023 (Attachment A).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 24

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck
Mayor pro Tem Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 August 14, 2023

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
August 14, 2023 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck called the meeting to order on August 14, 2023 at 5:45 PM 5:45 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bigstyck called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m., and announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session.
00a. Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): North Coast County Water District v. City of Pacifica, Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, Case No. 22-CIV-03493.
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bigstyck reconvened the meeting at 7:06 p.m.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Present
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor pro Tem Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Bob Palacio, PB&R Director; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director (Field Services/Engineering); Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Raymund Donguines, Sr. Civil Engineer; Vicente Romero, Sergeant; Nelson Schlater, Engineering Manager-Wastewater; Stefanie Cervantes, Sr. Planner; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.

1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 August 14, 2023
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bigstyck read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Bigstyck
Closed Session Report
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there was no reportable action.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he would like to move public comment and the rest of the agenda until after the public hearings if acceptable to Council. He acknowledged that they found that acceptable.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if any councilmember wanted to pull any consent items, and seeing no one, he opened up public comments. Seeing none, he closed public comments.

CONSENT ITEMS #1-21
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles

1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 7/01/23 through 7/31/23.

PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of July 2023

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on July 10, 2023.

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

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

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

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

5. Quarterly Financial Reports for the quarters ending March 31, 2023 and June 30, 2023.

PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Reports for the quarters ending March 31, 2023 and June 30, 2023.

1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 August 14, 2023

6. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarters ending March 31, 2023 and June 30, 2023.

PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarters ending March 31, 2023 and June 30, 2023.

7. Approve a new Senior Code Enforcement Officer Job Classification PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution approving a new Senior Code Enforcement Officer Job Classification and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a side letter to include and be recognized by the Teamsters Management 350 Unit.

8. Rescinding Resolution No. 30-2019 and Approving Resolutions to Appoint Directors to the Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA), and the Pooled Liability Assurance Network Joint Powers Authority (PLAN JPA) to Represent the City of Pacifica PROPOSED ACTION:

Adopt the attached resolutions of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to:

1. Rescind Resolution No. 30-2019 and Appoint Directors to Municipal Pooling Authority of Northern California to represent the City of Pacifica".

2. Appoint Directors to the Pooled Liability Assurance Network Joint Powers Authority (PLAN JPA).

9. Memorandum of Understanding with Teamsters Local 856 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and City of Pacifica for the period of July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2025.

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pacifica and (WWTP) Teamsters Union Local 856; for the period of July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2025, including the revised salary schedule effective August 14, 2023 and July 1, 2024.

10. Notice of Completion for the Anza Storm Water Pump Station – New Gas Service Line PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Anza Storm Water Pump Station - New Gas Service Line (C036) and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

11. Resolution Approving the Renewal of General Lease Agreement No. 8438 between the City of Pacifica and the California State Lands Commission for Lease of State Sovereign Lands for the existing rock revetment adjacent to the 500 Block of Esplanade Avenue PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Renewal of General Lease Agreement No. 8438 between the City of Pacifica and the California State Lands Commission for Lease of State Sovereign Lands for the existing rock revetment adjacent to the 500 Block of Esplanade Avenue and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents.”

12. Approval of New Pierce Fire Engine Lease Purchase Agreement PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution entitled "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the Community Leasing Partners to Finance a New Front Line Fire Engine" and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents related to this purchase.

1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 August 14, 2023

13. Agreement with Tyler Technologies, Inc for the purchase and implementation of Munis Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Tyler Technologies, Inc. for the Munis Enterprise Resources Planning (ERP) System and Implementation Services for the City of Pacifica.

14. Approve the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement renewal between the City of Pacifica and Dell Marketing L.P.

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution Authorizing Renewal of the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement for a three-year term through the reseller Dell Marketing L.P. in the amount of $261,097.56 ($87,032.52 annually); and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents related to this project.

15. Fifth Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for On-Call Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Good City Company PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve the Fifth Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Good City Company, by increasing the contract amount by $150,000 with a total not to exceed amount of $610,000 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.

16. Second Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Eisenberg, Olivieri & Associates Inc. for Commercial and Industrial Stormwater Inspections and Related Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Second Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Eisenberg, Olivieri & Associates Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents.”

17. 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
PROPOSED 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.

1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 August 14, 2023

18. 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
PROPOSED 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.

19. Approval of Increase of Contingency Budget for New Walk-in Refrigerator/Freezer for the Pacifica Community Center
PROPOSED 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 WalkIn Refrigerator/Freezer for the Pacifica Community Center" and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the agreements.

20. 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.

PROPOSED 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.

21. 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
PROPOSED 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”.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Tyler Hawes, Palo Alto, stated he was present on behalf of CivicBell, a locally owned and operated civic technology social platform connecting local level government officials like Council to their verified constituencies. They have a couple key distinctions that make them a better alternative way to productively engage with local constituencies. They use a verification system to ensure that all people using CivicBell are real humans and do reside factually within their district, the goal being to create a higher quality community engagement and deliberation amongst the community. It is a way that people in the community can give verified vetted feedback on surveys in a bulletin board format formerly the Council could disseminate information. The have an established presence in the coastside, are based out of Palo Alto,

1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 August 14, 2023
and have presence in Santa Clara County, Mountain View and now on the coastside, with Assemblymember Mark Berman using CivicBell. He stated that this is a public invitation to the Council, to other community members and community government officials, that CivicBell is and will be free for the coastside.

Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, shared PRC's business hours as well as back-toschool program data, grocery distribution program, and Temporary Safe Parking Program. She thanked Pacifica’s Police Department for extra support to reduce harassment toward those in the Temporary Safe Parking Program.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated she went to a lot of places but the most important place was Relay for Life. She suggested to everyone to do self-exams and mammograms.

Councilmember Boles states she went to several meetings. The Airport Roundtable had a discussion about the FAA reauthorization and one of the things they are fighting for is local control for decisions about drone package delivery air taxis. She attended the San Mateo County Democrats picnic and they are going to be doing voter registration at Fog Fest.

Councilmember Bier encouraged everyone to see the Broadway play, Tina, or to Aladdin or Lion King because a portion of the proceeds is going to Coast Pride as they have a partnership with SF Broadway. They are bringing lots of programs into our city from Pescadero to Pacifica, and she asked them to support Coast Pride.

Councilmember Beckmeyer traveled to a conference called California Adaptation Forum and she had the honor of participating in a panel discussion on adaptation and sea level rise and phased approaches. She is working on a number of stakeholder meetings with different cities and counties on their experiences and needs around determining how they will approach sea level rise.

Mayor Bigstyck attended the following meetings and events: PRC meeting, Relay for Life, PCE surplus money subcommittee, LAFCO, the Bruce Latimer Show's 1000th episode, Peninsula Clean Energy, the Council of Cities in East Palo Alto and in San Mateo, and CalCities Mayors' Roundtable. They released the first episode of The Mayor’s Office. He went to a meeting at the Free Masons Lodge honoring first responders, and he was grateful to attend that with Captain Clements and fellow officers.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse had a couple of brief updates. One is that he attended Rotary last week and presented on project updates, budget and strategic plan. They issued a press release today about the new Economic Development Manager Tara Schiff, who will begin next Monday with the city.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

22. 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 UP-130-22 and Parking Exception PE-194-22 to demolish and replace portions of the existing North Coast County Water District Headquarters site, and

1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 August 14, 2023
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).

PROPOSED 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 UP-130-22 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.

Mayor Bigstyck asked Councilmembers to disclose any conflicts of interest or ex parte communications.

Councilmember Bier stated that she has had ex parte conversations partly as an ad-hoc committee member and then discussions with Adrianne Carr and Tom Piccolotti and most people at the Water District.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated she visited the Water District, walked around their site, and talked to them about the improvement.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she visited the site also and met with General Manager Carr and with Board Director Anne DeJarnatt and had a phone call with Board Vice President Joshua Cosgrove.

Councilmember Boles stated that she also toured the project with Adrianne Carr and Anne DeJarnatt and spoke on the phone with Joshua Cosgrove and some email communications back and forth with Adrianne Carr.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that, along with Councilmember Bier as an ad-hoc member, they have had extensive conversations with members of the North Coast County Water District board. He also spoke with former member Tom Piccolotti, Adrianne Carr, Jack Burgett, Josh Cosgrove and various members of the community.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he was going to turn it directly to Senior Planner Cervantes and Planning Director Murdock. Mayor Bigstyck also welcomed Planning Commissioner Wright.

Senior Planner Cervantes presented the staff report.

Mayor Bigstyck stated two main concerns, that of the diagonal parking and the third driveway.

The first question of concern on his mind is to establish whether or not diagonal parking there is safe. He asked staff, in the simplest terms possible, why should he think it is either safe or unsafe to put diagonal parking in that spot.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they will invite PW Dep. Director Yip to explain the analysis from the Public Works Department related to the proposed angle parking configuration for the project.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, in staff’s opinion, recommendation against angled parking is due to the limited visibility while backing out onto oncoming traffic; as previously mentioned,

1.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 August 14, 2023
regardless of the classification, they have cited some numbers from AASHTO that show that angled parking is determined to be unsafe. The city’s most comparable street with angled parking is Palmetto and Manor. Due to the dynamics of the city, a lot of traffic runs north to south; traffic on highway 1 will get diverted onto the north/south bound streets in which Francisco and Palmetto are similar and have connections to the highway. Thus, they felt Palmetto was comparable and it is on the high injury network whereas Francisco is not. They have data regarding the angle parking in Pacifica with the collisions within our city and citing the Fehr & Peers report. From the Oregon Department of Transportation as well as AASHTO, the increased number of collisions occur because of angled parking.

Ingrid Ballús Armet, Fehr & Peers Consultant, added that research in the industry has shown that, when you convert on-street parking from parallel to angled parking, the risk of crashes increases by more than 50% and that is regardless of the type of roadway they are discussing or any other conditions.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that he thought it seems like the difference between arterial and collector might have something to do with the speeds by which a car is going down the road. He asked her to confirm that accidents in general go up by 51% percent no matter what kind of road it is because of limited visibility when engaging in parallel parking.

Consultant Ballús Armet agreed and stated PW Dep. Director Yip mentioned some of the studies that have shown that, such as the Oregon Department of Transportation and AASHTO.

Mayor Bigstyck stated he now has a simple understanding from his perspective that accidents occur over 51% consistently, no matter what type of road it is, because of limited visibility.

Consultant Ballús Armet responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Bier asked PW Dep. Director Yip to confirm the classification of the street.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated, in their Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (PTAP) where they have the assessment of the pavement and the pavement condition indexes in the city, as well as the street saver management system, the classification is an arterial; it is also arterial by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and by the California Road System (CRS). There are some classifications within our General Plan classifying it as a collector but regardless of what is in the General Plan and the use of the General Plan, the collector and arterial systems still recommend multi-modal uses for this street. For the purposes of P-TAP, the classifications are used for roadway reconstruction treatment.

Councilmember Boles asked what the typical speed on an arterial versus a collector street.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the speed limit posted on Francisco is 25 mph. He referred to applicant’s traffic study on the higher ranges of the speed on the road, which shows that 68% of drivers drive above the posted speed limit and the speeds were 40-45 mph on Francisco.

Councilmember Boles thought that might indicate they need some traffic calming measures.

She has read that angle parking can be considered a traffic calming measure, and she asked if that is correct.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated he would like to clarify the traffic study and recommendation and summary. He read it verbatim, and then it does not explicitly say the angle parking is a traffic

1.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 August 14, 2023
calming measure.

Councilmember Beckmeyer followed up by asking if a 12-foot lane is from the end of the parking places to the center line.

PW Dep. Director Yip responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles wanted to ask more about the studies they are quoting. She asked if he has any information on what data was used for the AASHTO study.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated he would have to defer to Consultant Ballús Armet if she has that information. Consultant Ballús Armet stated she would need to go back and read the study again in detail.

Councilmember Boles wanted to follow up with a question about the other Oregon study. She thought it seems to be saying that it’s based on increased use that there are more accidents, not that one type of parking is more dangerous than the other necessarily, and she asked if they can confirm that.

Senior Planner Cervantes stated that the study mentions that it is likely due to the increase of parking rather than the characteristics; essentially, with angled parking, you can fit more parking space in that same space than parallel parking and thus there is more parking available and because it is used more, there is an increase in higher rates of crash. That is essentially what is being proposed on Francisco Blvd., now, i.e., trying to increase the number of on street parking spaces which will increase the chance of collisions if the angled parking is in place.

Councilmember Boles concluded that it is frequency and not based on the type of parking. She thought the bikes are a different question.

Planning Director Murdock understands that statement in the report regarding vehicular collisions, not necessarily related or limited to bicycle-related collisions. He thought, regardless of the causation, the outcome is the same which is less safe conditions and that has been the focus of staff’s analysis in that regard and whatever the causation, the condition is less safe than with a parallel parking condition.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus referred to the angled parking and stated, if she is driving a big truck, the sidewalk access is very small there. She asked if the angled parking make the sidewalks much smaller so people in wheelchairs don’t have as easy access.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the Water District responded to this concern and said they were willing to move the project limits further in to allow them to have a 5-foot wide sidewalk.

Planning Director Murdock stated that wheel stops could be installed, they are a stationary feature and they may not accommodate vehicle types of all sizes in the same fashion. While it may work for a typical vehicle, a potential would remain for a particularly large vehicle to encroach into the sidewalk even with the adjustment that PW Dep. Director Yip mentioned.

Councilmember Boles asked if, other than Manor and Palmetto, are there other areas in the city with angled parking that were identified in the high injury network.

Senior Planner Cervantes stated that the appellant provided several examples of angled parking

1.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 August 14, 2023
on existing streets and the city looked at all the examples provided and they determined that of all the streets provided, only two were not on the high injury network, Bill Drake Way and Beach Boulevard; Palmetto, Manor and Clarendon are on the high injury network.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if Rockaway was also on the high injury network, and Council asked clarification questions regarding the high injury network figures. Councilmember Boles stated that, if you decide that one section of the street is a high injury, the whole street is marked red and that doesn’t give specific information about what the injuries are at the parking areas.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought the term might be street segments, and is there a more refined figure. Councilmember Bier asked if it was possible to see this map zoomed in.

Councilmember Boles stated she has some more questions about the bicycles. She referred to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that was approved by Council in 2020 does not show Francisco as a future bike route. She asked if they can explain why they think Francisco should be a bike route when it isn’t identified as such on the map.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, when the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was created in 2020, the Sharp Park area had not yet become a priority development area. Had it been, then it would have been under consideration for them to make it more accessible for multi-modal. It is a living document, and they are constantly going to have more bike routes that change around the city. The General Plan notes that we want to have multi-modal within the city.

Planning Director Murdock added that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is prioritizing certain projects which helps for pursuing funding and guiding certain decision making but, as an overarching policy matter, as mentioned, the General Plan requires what they call complete streets, requiring development projects to ensure that their design incorporates all modes of transportation, not simply vehicles, which has been the tradition for many decades. That includes ensuring routine accommodation that fits the language used in our General Plan of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In this instance, staff’s analysis is that the construction of angled parking would almost certainly preclude future construction of bicycle lanes which would not result in the routine accommodation of multiple modes of transportation. He stated that it is with that overarching General Plan policy that they are trying to implement the intent of longterm vision for all modes of transportation being accommodated.

Councilmember Boles stated that she looked at San Francisco’s map and their bike routes.

They have a grid so they alternate. She asked if not having a bike path meant that we aren’t meeting the multi-modal definition.

Planning Director Murdock thought the answer to her question is no, every street does not need to have a dedicated bike lane or be mapped in a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. He stated that the General Plan has demonstrated by policy that the effort still must be made for the routine accommodation of multiple modes of transportation. To take a key project element and to preclude future bike lanes, in staff’s assessment, would not be consistent with the General Plan. He added that, regarding her point about identification in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for a particular type of improvement, even without a dedicated bike lane, it would still result in a less safe accommodation of bicycles operating in the vehicle travel lane with the angled parking design. From those two angles, it would not uphold that General Plan policy related to multi-modal accommodations.

Councilmember Boles stated that she met with a member of Public Works to discuss the possibility of bike lanes on Francisco in terms of the street itself. Staff was suggesting that we

1.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 August 14, 2023
could add separate bike lanes so they would not be in the path of travel if they went to 10-foot travel lanes with 5- and 4-foot bike lanes on the road. She asked if this was something they would consider if they were to put bike lanes here in the future.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that was the configuration they were considering, the 5-foot/4-foot bike lanes and reducing the travel lanes to 10 feet which would be a traffic calming measure to reduce speeds at this location by narrowing lane widths; this would be within the 50 foot right-ofway and something doable because of the landscaping that is on the East side of Francisco Blvd.

Councilmember Boles stated that, as part of the Local Roadway Safety Plan, on Crespi, instead of having two lanes of bikes in opposite directions that went with the flow of traffic, they put the two lanes together. She asked if it would not be possible to put the two bike lanes on the east side of Francisco where there are no buildings and no driveways as it seems it would be a safer place for bikes to have two-way travel on one side of the street.

Councilmember Bier stated she also had that question and if it could be a sharrow.

Consultant Ballús Armet referred to the question of the two-way bike lane on one side and putting it on the side that is not fronting the site; the biggest challenge with something like that is access to that bike facility. Of someone is biking on a perpendicular street and trying to access it, that connection becomes really difficult; cyclists who are using that facility are not getting direct access to any land uses and it would only be going north/south and accessing those connections to land uses would be difficult. She stated the major concern she would have would be cyclists trying to access land uses mid-block and when they are halfway down the block and trying to cross two lanes of travel from that two-way bike facility that is on the opposite side of the street from where they want to be going.

Councilmember Boles stated that was interesting because they didn’t talk about that at Crespi.

Mayor Bigstyck thought they were talking about hypothetical bike lanes. He asked if any discussion of bike lanes appear in any plan on the books at this time.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that bike lanes are not on the plans for Francisco at this time. He stated that it is on the General Plan and the introduction of the angled parking would prevent any future bike lanes behind the angled parking if they want to put it on the west side.

Mayor Bigstyck and asked, when he says it is on the General Plan, what that means.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the General Plan designates the classification of a collector or arterial street and Francisco is designated as those streets on the General Plan. For those classifications, it designates that all uses of modes of transportation are equal and none shall dominate; pedestrian, bicyclist and vehicle travel should all be accessible and it has to have multi-modal transportation on that street.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if he has the policy number from the General Plan readily available.

City Clerk Coffey provided an image of the high injury network from the Local Roadway Safety Plan per earlier request.

Councilmember Boles asked if they could also see where the collisions were on the street, and

1.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 August 14, 2023
Councilmember Bier noted difficulty with reading the map.

Planning Director Murdock clarified the image. In addition, he pointed specifically to Circulation Element Policy CII3 from the General Plan, in response to Mayor Bigstyck’s question. It talks about complete streets in the project development process and it includes the language “routine accommodation” of bicyclists and pedestrians in planning and design for projects. In staff’s assessment, the construction of angled parking would preclude that routine accommodation of bicycles in particular. He added that there is a table in the General Plan from the circulation element; the boxes, squares, and X’s talk about different levels of accommodation of the mode of transportation on a particular type of roadway. He stated that, for both arterials and collectors, bicycles and pedestrians must be accommodated, along with automobiles, so none of those modes are intended to have priority but they are required to be accommodated in those roadway segments. He stated that the table combined with the complete street policy of the General Plan provides an overarching framework for thinking about transportation in relation to the development project, ensuring that no project feature is going to preclude the routine accommodation of any of those required modes of transportation.

Councilmember Bier asked if bikes can be accommodated on an arterial or collected street with a sharrow.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that coalitions and people are encouraging local agencies to put in something better than sharrows, such as bike boulevards. It is becoming more and more a preference to bike in the bike lane versus sharing the road with a sharrow. They still would not be able to introduce a sharrow if the angled parking were there as the visibility would be prevented from the angled parking and they would still be backing up onto an oncoming bicyclist with that limited visibility. He stated that the safety concerns would be the same whether or not there is a bike lane or sharrow there.

Councilmember Boles stated that as they expanded the bike paths in the master plan, she asked if the side residential streets would also have shared bikes.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that local streets would have sharrows.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if he could give a quick definition of what complete streets means and why these General Plan policies are something they might consider at this meeting.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, in the General Plan glossary, there is a description of complete streets as a term, i.e., complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe, attractive and comfortable access and travel for all users, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, seniors, individuals with disabilities and users of public transportation. He stated that, taking that as a framework and concept, applying the table to help delineate between different road classifications, recognizing that for purposes of bicycle and pedestrian accommodation, there is no functional difference in the General Plan between arterial and collector street. Drilling down to the specific implementing policy and the circulation element for development projects to ensure the routine accommodation of those various modes of travel, they have multiple points in the General Plan that point to ensuring that there is no project characteristic, for example, that would preclude the routine and safe accommodation of any of those prescribed modes of transportation.

Mayor Bigstyck thanked him and asked Council if they have further questions on diagonal parking at this time.

1.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 August 14, 2023
Councilmember Boles stated that she has seen in some cities where they are putting the bicycle path next to the sidewalk and then the parking outside that. She asked if it was possible to have a separate bike path that could be inside the parking.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that it was more common to have parallel parking to be the buffer between a bike lane. They would have to do more research, and some of the overhang is also still a concern. He stated another concern would be, if they wanted to do a bulb out at that location, they would need to do a cutout across the bulb out and that would prevent bioretention area and there would be a conflict zone between pedestrians and bicyclists. He stated that those are some of the challenges and they haven’t looked at that design that closely yet, but it has been done with parallel parking a lot more commonly.

Planning Director Murdock added that, even in that circumstance, that wouldn’t be the angled parking arrangement that is proposed and hypothetically would be constructed if the project were approved as the appellant has proposed it. He thought it was a hypothetical that would require multiple reconfigurations of that parking design to shift it in the manner she is describing and could add cost and complexity to that hypothetical future project.

Mayor Bigstyck asked Commissioner Wright if he had any recollections from the Planning Commission that he wants to share regarding deliberations around diagonal parking.

Commissioner Wright stated that his role at this meeting is to be a liaison between the Planning Commission and Council. He stated that the Commission gathered input from multiple sources prior to consideration of any motions. They had a lot of public input, heard a presentation from the petitioner, and they had a presentation from staff as well. After that process, the Commission went through a lengthy question and answer period where the Commission had multiple questions for the petitioner who had additional time to have additional input and additional clarifications into what their concept was. They also questioned staff. After that process, they went into deliberation where they tried to prioritize and figure out what was important. Some of those considerations were things such as parking, safety, and a number of different conditions to be applied to this project. Eventually, there was a motion that was made and seconded and all those conditions in the document passed.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that he was wondering if he had any particular recollection of dialogue around the parallel parking issue specifically.

Commissioner Wright stated a number of them, and it seemed to him that safety was the big concern. He stated that he can only speak for himself and it seemed it was set up as there were two conflicting opinions and there was consideration of those two conflicting opinions and it appears that the Planning Commission sided with staff’s opinion on that matter.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if any Councilmember would like to ask a question not having to do with diagonal parking or should he ask another general overview question.

Councilmember Beckmeyer would like to have some reminder about the equity priority development area, as she thinks that overlays with this, and how that does or does not pertain to this particular appeal.

Planning Director Murdock thought she was referring to priority development area (PDA) and that is a nomenclature through the Association of Bay Area Governments, our region wide

1.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 August 14, 2023
planning agency. It is a tool that they offer to local governments to designate particular areas within their jurisdictions where development and investment is intended to be focused. The city has a couple of different PDAs, the Sharp Park area being one of them, and it is a model through which regional transportation and planning funding can be directed to help prioritize those kind of regional planning priorities like infill development, affordable housing, reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions through funding projects such as bicycle lanes, roadways, retrofits and other projects to improve pedestrian and roadway safety. He stated that, in and of itself, it is not a particular reason not to allow angle parking for example, but another layer on which to understand that, through the Council’s designation of a priority development area in this location, General Plan policies, Sharp Park Specific Plan policies, all aimed at improving safe non-vehicular transportation-walkability, bike-ability-that, precluding the construction of a dedicated bike lane by allowing angled parking would not fit, in staff’s assessment, within that framework.

Councilmember Beckmeyer had another clarifying question, i.e., on the map that showed the angled parking, there is an indicator that says electronic charging stations, but she could not tell if there was one or two or all of them or how many there were. In terms of greenhouse gas reduction, she asked that they clarify that for her.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they will try to confirm the site planning and number.

Councilmember Bier asked if the Sharp Park Specific Plan was an equity priority area or equity focus area or equity priority community.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he isn’t familiar with that term.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated, with confirmation from Consultant Ballús Armet, that the name equity priority areas were changed to communities of concern.

Councilmember Bier stated she will look out for the new name.

Councilmember Boles stated that, on the Local Roadway Safety Plan, this area is an equity priority area.

PW Dep. Director Yip mentioned the fiscal significance of being a PDA or a EPA is that it opens up, as mentioned in the previous Planning Commission meeting, a lot more grant opportunities in the area.

Mayor Bigstyck doesn’t want to belabor projects that may or may not be in the future except to say that they comport with the General Plan policies.

Councilmember Boles stated, in response to the map of collisions from the Local Roadway Safety Plan, if staff could opine on the location of collisions as well as the location of the high injury network for Francisco Blvd.

Mayor Bigstyck wanted to ask staff the questions around the third driveway as it seemed like, at the Planning Commission meeting, staff was trying to find solutions up to and potentially including the third driveway. He asked staff if there are any recommendations at this time.

Senior Planner Cervantes stated that, during the Planning Commission hearing, they had a lot of discussion regarding different potential design options for the third driveway. As was

1.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 August 14, 2023
mentioned in the report as well as her presentation at this meeting, staff did meet with SamTrans on June 12, which was the day prior to the Planning Commission hearing, to discuss the potential permanent relocation of that bus stop. It is a possibility, as last week the appellant stated that they had engaged with Caltrans to obtain approval for the permanent relocation of that bus stop but that has not occurred. At this point, staff evaluated the different potential options that would be available if the third driveway was allowed, as well as the permanent relocation of the bus stop. They have determined that it would allow additional on-street parking to be located on Clarendon Road, but they have not received an official resubmittal of the project plans at this time or an approval for the permanent relocation of the bus stop.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if condition of approval No. 51 was the consideration of moving that bus stop only in terms of allowing two extra parking spots or if it would make it easier to include the third driveway.

Senior Planner Cervantes stated that one of the main concerns with the third driveway was the line-of-sight issue with a parked bus located at the existing bus stop. She stated that, with removal of that potential bus stop, there is a possibility that the line-of-sight issue is no longer an issue. There would still be parked vehicles there, and they would need to make sure there is sufficient distance between the driveway and the first parking spaces. She added that they do have sufficient space between the existing and proposed driveways that would allow for additional parking. That is one of the things that staff was concerned about with the third driveway as proposed by the appellant: Having the bus stop removed all the on-street parking on that road because they did need space for the bus stop to be able to safely exist there. If the bus stop is removed, it does allow for on-street parking to be located on that roadway.

Mayor Bigstyck asked, if they want that third driveway, whether an additional approval make it contingent on Caltrans giving approval.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles stated, if Caltrans does not give approval, the analysis was based on a car exiting in front of the bus and, if the circulation was changed where it entered where the bus is and came out behind the bus, was that a safer line of sight.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that would be a safer alternative and was proposed during the Planning Commission meeting.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to make sure they answered questions about the Local Roadway Safety Plan diagram. He noted they can see in more detail the types of accidents or injuries that have occurred along Francisco and Clarendon and this data is based on the current conditions of Francisco which don’t include angle parking.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that it was helpful and noted if, sometime in the future, a similar map could be drawn with more visual clarity.

City Manager Woodhouse understood, adding to that point that they have worked with Fehr & Peers, as well as responding a Council question regarding actual injury data which is a much bigger research project to pull all that together and present that information.

Councilmember Boles wanted to confirm, based on the maps, they couldn’t say the injury network is because of the angled parking necessarily based on this data.

1.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 August 14, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck asked if staff stated earlier that, thus far, Francisco is not considered a part of the injury network.

PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, stating that Francisco currently is not on the high injury network but Palmetto and Manor are.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that there is not angled parking on Francisco and this report shows the existing conditions without angled parking.

Mayor Bigstyck wanted to confirm that what they are suggesting is that, where there are angled spots, there are injuries that are occurring in those spots.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated the data for Palmetto and Manor included a vehicle fatality at that intersection and the angled parking did contribute to Palmetto being on the high injury network.

Mayo Bigstyck noted that business sites on Palmetto and Manor and asked about injuries associated with additional locations along the streets.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated there are angled parking spaces in those frontages and there appear to be collisions on Manor in that area as well.

Mayor Bigstyck suggested that they go through the awning over the gas fueling station. He would like them to repeat why it is that they are asking the Water District to add that.

Senior Planner Cervantes stated, based on staff’s calculation of the impervious surface areas proposed, the site is affecting over 50% of the existing area which triggers the C3 requirements based on the municipal regional permit. She referred to the June 2022 submittal showing the total impervious surface replaced or created and stated that after this submittal, there were additional changes to the site plan inside the corporate yard. She pointed out the comparisons over the summer, showing the different areas where they are proposing compared to the site plan that was submitted in September 2022 which showed additional site area that will be affected. That is what staff based their calculation and is over 50% of the project site.

Mayor Bigstyck thought the project site is their entire property.

Senior Planner Cervantes responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bigstyck stated, if it is more than 50%, which law or code requires them.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it is essentially law at every level, as this is falling from the Clean Water Act which goes to the state and goes to the regional water board and goes to county level permits of which each local agency in San Mateo County is a permittee. It is hard to give a simple answer other than that it is the law and those are the permit guidelines that implement those storm water quality improvement measures.

Mayor Bigstyck understood it doesn’t matter that the area is not being touched by construction but merely a matter of the fact that exists on the land that is substantially being developed.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating that it is essentially a trigger. Once you go over the 50% threshold, you need to redevelop the whole site in the currently compliant manner; if less

1.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 August 14, 2023
than 50%, you are allowed to only design the portion they altered to meet the current requirements. He stated that, in the event the appellant gets to a building permit level design on this, assuming the project is approved at this meeting, and they come in at 49.9%, they would reevaluate and ensure that only the 49.9% of the area is required. If this fuel-covered area was not within that area of alteration, they could potentially remove that as a requirement. Currently, it is a requirement because the entire site needs to be designed to meet the current storm water control requirements.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she was correct that the recommendation which would cover the fueling area was the mitigation for the larger amount of impervious surface.

Planning Director Murdock stated if you were to build this project from scratch today, you would have to cover the fueling area to meet the storm water permit requirement. Because this project would exceed 50% of removed or replaced or new impervious surface, they have to treat it like it’s a new development project and meet all the current criteria.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated covering the fueling thing is one way to handle it, and she asked if there were alternatives to handling the storm water requirements.

Planning Director Murdock was not aware if there is another readily available way to satisfy this requirement. The requirement to cover the fuel area is an explicit provision in the permit and it’s not clear what latitude the city would have unless there was some question of infeasibility. He stated that it appears feasible to cover this and thus they haven’t explored alternatives further than that.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that he noticed that the COA says that, prior to final inspection, they will install the cover, and it doesn’t say contingent on whether or not that, in the final analysis, the 50% threshold has been crossed. He asked if the COA needs to be amended to indicate that, if there is a shift, they do not need to do it.

Planning Director Murdock didn’t think it needs to, but it would probably be advisable to do that to provide some clarity. That is a post-approval, reasonable discretion kind of interpretation that he and the city engineer would need to make when evaluating and attempting to approve a building permit application.

Mayor Bigstyck referred to the asphalt to the center line, and he asked if they asked the school district to accommodate that condition of approval when they permitted the Oddstad development.

PW Dep. Director Yip agreed that it is a standard condition of approval from the Engineering Division. He stated that it was not an accommodation for the Oddstad school project, and was an oversight by the Engineering Division on this one due to the lack of staffing during this time for the project approvals. He stated that the Oddstad Road is in better condition than Francisco Blvd., and Francisco’s PCIs is in the 50s and they also imposed this condition on the city’s own project for the Civic Center; that project will also be repaving the roads on all the frontages for their own project.

Mayor Bigstyck thought they had every intention to do so with the school district project, and when it came to their own Civic Center project, the compiled with the exact same thing they ask every other applicant to do.

1.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 August 14, 2023
PW Dep. Director Yip responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was also hearing that the PCI in the vicinity of the Oddstad project is different than the PCI in the vicinity of the city’s project and NCCWD’s project, and she asked if that is correct.

PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, adding that the PCI at the NCCWD’s project is in the 50s and there is a threshold when you drop below 50 where the treatment is different. When you are above 50 in the PCI, you are still able to do maintenance like slurry seals. The utility cuts and the construction trucks that will be used for the project will drop the PCI below that threshold for them to be able to do slurry seals.

Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that it already started lower anyway.

Councilmember Boles asked if they have an idea of approximately when the Manor area would be scheduled to be repaved.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they are still working on the five-year master plan and they don’t have a schedule as of this date.

City Manager Woodhouse responded the new five-year master plan would come in 2025.

PW Dep. Director Yip responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that he had one last question for Planning Commissioner Wright. He recalled that he was the dissenting vote when the vote was taken at the Planning Commission meeting and asked for his perspective.

Planning Commissioner Wright stated that that was outside his role as liaison.

City Attorney Kenyon stated, for the record, Commissioner Wright was about to say that his role here as liaison was to represent the majority position of the Planning Commission.

Mayor Bigstyck understood and retracted the question. He then stated, with no other questions, he would begin the public hearing. Mayor Bigstyck welcomed Adrian Carr and asked, before her time began, if they can allow her the opportunity for introductions.

Adrian Carr, NCCWD, introduced their Board President Jack Burgett, VP Joshua Cosgrove, Director Anne DeJarnatt, Director Ron Ash and Director Will Hauser. She stated that they also have their architect team, Scott Salge and Amy Watson; traffic engineering team, Ron Sanzo on Zoom and Jeff Setera in person; and their attorney, Patrick Miyaki.

General Manager Carr thanked everyone for attending their district meetings at their district.

She stated that they are asking City Council to remove condition No. 12, explaining their proposed plan to narrow the roadway and safer crosswalks for pedestrians, and encouraged angled parking, etc.

Councilmember Bier suggested that they take a five-minute recess, in response to technical difficulties.

Mayor Bigstyck agreed. Following the recess, he reconvened the meeting.

1.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 August 14, 2023
General Manager Carr compared the various locations with angled parking. She then explained the importance of their recycled water fill station and referred to the possibilities of the Caltrans bus stop change and their input on additional driveway proposal. She then turned it over to President Burgett.

Jack Burgett, NCCWD, shared their reasons for this new headquarters for employee safety, helping Pacificans with potable water, safety of diagonal parking, and safety of a third driveway.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if Council has any questions for the appellant.

Councilmember Boles asked for an explanation of why the diagonal parking is important to the district safety in terms of customers.

General Manager Carr stated that it beautifies the neighborhood and adds parking along Francisco. They are moving their entrance from Brighton Road to Francisco Blvd., as that is the commercial center. They are currently in the residential area, and they have a lot of customers that park on Brighton when they arrive to pay their bills; it would be best if they parked on Francisco and not disturbing the residential neighborhood as Brighton doesn’t have the same capacity and safety considerations as Francisco. They feel it is a convenience to customers and residents in the neighborhood to have that parking moved to Francisco.

Councilmember Boles asked about the short-term parking on Brighton.

General Manager Carr thought those will only be the three parallel spots on Francisco.

Councilmember Boles concluded that those on Brighton would no longer be short-term.

General Manager Carr responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles wanted to hear from the traffic engineer about studies referenced.

Jeff Setera, Engineer, stated that they looked at many studies comparing parallel parking and angled parking conditions, and there is no difference. The movements are similar when backing in and out of a spot, and the potential conflict with door opening between bicycles and the car door exists with parallel but not with angled.

Councilmember Boles stated that the report she is most concerned about is the AASHTO that over 50% is more dangerous to have diagonal parking. She would like to hear his rebuttal and if he has a specific report that says otherwise.

Mr. Setera stated that, in that 2001 Oregon report, it states specifically that, when you include the fact that angled parking is favored and more highly used, and you look at those in comparison, there is no difference between angled. He stated that he knows of no study by AASHTO that says angled parking increases accident rates by over 50%.

Councilmember Boles stated that she is hearing vague information that their studies say it is not more dangerous, and she would like comments particularly on the AASHTO percentage.

Ron Sanzo, Engineer, referenced the Oregon report which, by and large, was what was used.

He stated that the two key takeaways were that none of the studies included sites where the

1.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 August 14, 2023
parking was changed from parallel to angled; all the data was either going from angled to parallel, the opposite way, or just looking at cross sections. He stated that the other key information noted is that recent research of a before and after study was conducted and the researchers found no evidence of the difference between crash rate of angled and parallel parking when the increased parking was included in the analysis. He thought they were seeing apples and oranges where there may be a higher volume of accidents because the angled parking is seeing higher volumes.

Councilmember Boles asked if he can tell her what AASHTO is and is it an important design standard that they typically look at for analysis.

Mr. Sanzo stated that AASHTO is the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, and they have a series of design guidelines and regulations.

Councilmember Boles asked if he can talk about bicycles behind angled parking versus parallel.

Mr. Sanzo said he could, adding that General Manager Carr touched on it in her presentation.

He agreed that it could be tough to get a class 2 bike lane into this area, and a class 3 bike facility is the sharrow where the bike and vehicle are using the same area. He thought that would be possible as there is nothing restricting those two types of facilities, and there is nothing that says they can’t have diagonal parking and a class 3 facility. He stated that, at some point, if a bike facility was desired in this area, a class 3 would likely be what would be, and the type of roadway it is would be consistent what they potentially see at this type of facility.

Mayor Bigstyck asked which studies Water District referenced that state diagonal parking could be used as traffic calming measures.

Mr. Sanzo stated that he thought these tend to be similar to the 2001 Oregon study. They can provide a list of reference studies that would look at the benefits of angled parking, and that is generally going to be the overall transportation environment where you are seeing lower speeds and slow down with traffic. In addition, the particular location where this angled parking is going to be is right before a stop sign.

Councilmember Bier asked if they could talk a little bit more about the conversations they had with SamTrans and if they have anything in writing.

General Manager Carr stated she had confirmation in writing that they met and it would be feasible. She stated that PW Dep. Director Yip and Senior Planner Cervantes were there at their meeting and they heard what they can move the bus stop and it is a fine location and would meet the ADA requirements. She stated that they brought a bus and parked it there and there was plenty of room with even two lanes of traffic room and if a bike lane were to be on Clarendon in that location, they could definitely accommodate a bus stop, bike lane and a traffic lane in that location. She also shared some figures of the data on accidents from the Local Roadway Safety Plan.

Councilmember Boles asked if the architect could speak to the C3 calculations.

Scott Solge, architect, stated the spirit of the strategy for the site was to repair and replace portions of the site as best they could and to be below the 50% calculation. He stated that obviously the city’s calculation versus theirs are very close and they were happy to go back and look at the area they touched to preserve that they are under that 50% threshold, but overall,

1.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 August 14, 2023
their spirit is to maintain as much as they can on the site and rebuild the pieces that will benefit the district.

Mayor Bigstyck asked how onerous is the cover on the fuel station, i.e., cost, work, design.

Mr. Solge stated that it depends on the overall size of the area they need to cover for the fueling station and adjacent to cover vehicles. They would have to build a structure foundation support that is tall enough for large vehicles to get underneath it and is a significant structure that they weren’t looking at as part of their scoping for the project. They have to consider seismic impact of building a free-standing cover on the site as there are a lot of calculations and structural analysis that they would have to perform.

Councilmember Boles asked about condition of appeal No. 11 about the temporary parking space and, from what she understands, it is the city’s responsibility to move it and the staff report said that. She understood NCCWD’s only responsibility would be to write a letter to let the city know about their pre-construction activities.

General Manager Carr thought that it was confusing about when and how that process occurs.

They believe it is just the city’s responsibility and the city has before it the use permit and perhaps the city could say, as part of the permit approval, they approve the moving of the vehicle and it moves when the construction begins. She stated it was confusing about the way they have to ask for it in a legal framework and they didn’t understand how they have responsibility for that.

Patrick Miyaki, NCCWD attorney, stated that they have been asking to try to relocate the RV spot for a long time and it is clear that it isn’t within their authority because, if it were, they would have moved it. He stated that the concern about the condition is that they need to ask and it is up to the city in their sole discretion as to whether they are going to move it or not, which could potentially delay the construction for an unspecified time and every delay costs the district and the citizens of Pacifica a lot of money as the delays continue to add up. They would like it moved by a certain date so that they can plan their construction activities if it’s not way out in the future. That is their concern with that condition.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked about charging stations.

Senior Planner Cervantes stated that, based on the site plan, they are proposing five EV chargers within the corporate yard and on their site.

Amy Watson, architect, stated that it is potentially five double chargers and one single charger and are all inside the corporation yard.

Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments.

Bart Pantoja, San Mateo, stated he is the business manager of San Mateo County Building Construction Trades Council and is representing 10,500 men and women working in construction trades, many who reside in Pacifica. He expressed their support of the upgrade project appeal.

Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated that he supports the Water District’s appeal and shared his thoughts on the various aspects of the project appeals.

1.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 August 14, 2023
Jennifer Barba, Pacifica, stated that she offered her full support for the Water District’s upgrade and shared her thoughts on the various aspects of the project appeals.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated that he thought Councilmembers got his emails with his stance on the appeal, and he felt Condition 24 was the only negotiable condition.

John Keener, Pacifica, stated that he was in support of the Water District’s appeal, especially the drive-through recycled water driveway and angled parking.

Brent Turner, Pacifica, stated he urged Council to uphold the Water District’s appeal and approve the project without conditions.

Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated that she encouraged Council to uphold the appeal and she shared her thoughts on the various aspects of the appeal.

Mayor Bigstyck closed the public comment portion.

City Attorney Kenyon reminded them that they have three minutes for rebuttal.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if General Manager Carr could elaborate on Labor’s being tasked with creating this building.

General Manager Carr stated that they are going to be collaborating with Labor in order to build the building and they recently reached out. They don’t have an agreement yet, but they are working towards that.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if the Water District wanted to take their three minutes.

VP Joshua Cosgrove appreciated the opportunity to present their project and thanked them for considerations, questions, comments, and he appreciated what he heard as he wanted to see this as a partner which they wanted from the beginning. He wanted to emphasize that this project, as designed, was driven by the Board of Directors as they live in this community and care about the community and would not present a project that was not safe and this improves the community. He stated that they reached out to the community and talked to them, as it is so important focusing on the diagonal and third driveway which is so critical to this project as they are moving parking from the residential area. He thanked them for their consideration.

Mayor Bigstyck asked the City Attorney, if they have questions for the appellant on the other side of public hearing, whether they will have to reopen the public hearing.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they can reopen the public hearing to ask questions of the appellant.

Mayor Bigstyck then closed the public hearing.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, before Council enters into deliberation, he wanted to take the opportunity to have staff talk about a couple of points they heard during the presentation as well as to reiterate what staff’s job is here, related to development projects and to appeals. He stated that Council and city staff are very excited about the Water District’s reconstruction of their headquarters. To have Francisco Blvd., with a new Civic Center and a new Water District is a key collaborator for water as former Councilmember Digre mentioned; the collaboration that

1.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 August 14, 2023
staff has in the operational aspect is critical to the community. They are very excited about this project. He then stated that the city’s role is to provide Council with their best professional and technical expertise and recommendations about conditions on projects with public health and safety of the entire community taken into consideration. He stated that what they hear are staff’s technical and professional expertise to provide information to Council who then deliberate about decisions on the basis of the appeal. He stated that there is no position other than providing that technical expertise for consideration. He stated that, at times, on complex projects, there may be professional disagreement. He stated that one point he wants to make and will turn to staff to clarify is, the traffic reports that were cited.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that he has some clarifying questions for staff.

Planning Director Murdock referred to the ongoing contention that there is a key distinction between the collector versus arterial distinctions. The General Plan has indicated that the requirement to accommodate the multiple modes of transportation is the same modal accommodation between the two, and there is not a difference for multi-modal accommodation.

He thought the appellant was trying to draw a distinction of arterial versus collector in the sense of the supposed travel speeds, but they have data showing that, the posted speed limit on Francisco is 25 mph, well over half of the observed vehicles on Francisco were traveling above the posted speed limit and, in some instances as high as 40-44 mph. He stated that there are other interventions that could be taken, but the reality is those measures are not fully in place and that is the existing condition with respect to the construction of angled parking, were it to occur today if the project were approved. He stated that those safety conditions as identified by staff are and will continue for the foreseeable future to be present. He added that, regarding the question of the appellant identifying many studies showing the safety of angled parking, he stated there were comparisons about parallel versus angled parking and is one safer than the other, but he thought what they have demonstrated through staff’s citations is that angled parking is less safe than parallel parking and he doesn’t know that they have had any compelling data that says parallel parking is less safe than angled parking. He stated that they want to keep pointing back to the studies that staff has identified that shows increased safety risks with respect to the angled parking configuration.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated he would like to address some of the differing opinions that they are hearing from staff and the Water District. In the previous meeting, he made a statement that NCCWD’s traffic study has only stated that it was safe to physically come out of the angled parking without entering the northbound lane and this was not rebutted in the last meeting or in their appeal letters. He stated that the applicant’s traffic engineer did say during that meeting that there are safety concerns with the angled parking similarly to the bike lane if you were to put a class 2 bike lane behind the angled parking. He stated that the report doesn’t specifically say that in the report that the angled parking is a traffic calming measure. He stated that staff has provided significant data and has provided data to address the concerns about the classification of the street. Regardless of the classification, there is still going to be safety concerns and Francisco falls within the daily trips in the staff report and that falls into the concern for safety for angled parking. They mentioned top speed for the street is 44 mph and the sharrows they mentioned before was best for 25 mph. He stated that typically, cars don’t stop until they get close to the stop signs and there are parking spaces along the frontage of the street and they aren’t going to be slowing down until they get closer to the stop signs. There are no accidents on Francisco and it confirms their data that was used from TIMS for our Local Roadway Safety Plan that Francisco is not on the high injury network but Palmetto is. There are collisions on Palmetto in front of the angled parking.

1.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 August 14, 2023
Consultant Ballús Armet stated that Francisco is currently not on the high injury network, but Palmetto and Manor Drive are currently on the high injury network, and the angled parking is one of the contributing factors. She stated that, professionally, they avoid repeating roadway characteristics from high injury network corridors on streets that are not on the high injury network and that is one of the main reasons they would not be recommending angled parking on Francisco Blvd. unless it is absolutely necessary.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, on that point, as City Manager Woodhouse pointed out, to some extent there are different expert opinions and it is Council’s job to weigh the evidence.

He stated that staff has tried to make a compelling argument that their position and opinions that angled parking would be unsafe is supported by substantial evidence and, if Council were to reach that conclusion, there would be sufficient evidence to support that action. They may consider other viewpoints and data as presented by the appellant as well.

Consultant Ballús Armet stated that they made a statement that angled parking is a traffic calming measure and, as a professional, she has never seen that on the list of traffic calming measures. Traffic calming measures are like a speed hump or a median island or raised crosswalks which force people to slow down that are traveling on the corridor.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that the comparison between that intersection on Palmetto and Manor doesn’t resonate with him as similar circumstances. He stated that a point was well-taken by one of the speakers that another difference is that you are actually speeding up when you are going past that intersection behind those diagonal spots whereas on Francisco, if there are diagonal spots there, you would be slowing down because there is a stop sign that you are going toward. He thought he heard staff say that you wouldn’t be stopping or slowing down until too late and he was hoping they could elaborate. He stated that the point was well taken by the commentor that somebody heading in that direction would be slowing down rather than the intersection where one would be speeding up. He asked staff to help him navigate that.

Consultant Ballús Armet stated that the speed survey showed top speeds of 40-45 mph even though there is currently a stop sign there. She thought that would show you that people will not stop or slow down until they are close enough to the stop sign and the angled parking is proposed for the entire curbside.

City Manager Woodhouse believed the point was that, even though there is a stop sign at Francisco and Clarendon, the speed survey data shows speeds over 40 mph, despite there being a stop sign that cars need to stop.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that there is another comparison which would be Mazzetti’s because those people are slowing down to stop and that is angled parking there. It would be similar to this in the angled parking with people also making U-turns and people would do the same there on Francisco.

Councilmember Boles stated that they don’t know if the accidents are because of the angled parking or the intersection.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that the Mazzetti’s angled parking is before the intersection.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, regarding that comparison, on Manor, you have a stop sign at each end of that block so people are coming off of a stop sign, going one block and then a stop sign and most of the speeds are going to be a lot lower on that one particular block,

1.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 August 14, 2023
whereas on Francisco, cars get up to a high speed.

Councilmember Bier stated that people are driving down that street to go onto the on-ramp.

She didn’t think it was a very good comparison.

Councilmember Boles stated that the other issue there is that those are all compact spaces.

She asked if Consultant Ballús Armet could tell her more about AASHTO. She asked what the report was studying, such as what types of roads and types of applications. She is hoping for more detail and she is trying to understand what is 50% more dangerous about the angled parking in that report.

Consultant Ballús Armet stated that the report is from AASHTO highway safety manual, which encompasses all types of roads. It is used for a national guiding document that they use to calculate the effects of different types of designs and different types of roadway characteristics on crashes. It looks at, if you put angled parking instead of parallel parking, how it will affect your crashes.

Councilmember Boles thought it was a general recommendation.

Consultant Ballús Armet stated that it does have a lot of details and has different factors and numbers for different types of streets and different land uses, and you can do the calculations for your specific location to get to a final number.

Councilmember Boles stated that this particular street, with 2,000-3,000 cars a day, up to 45 mph, would be 50% plus more dangerous, according to what you’re reading.

Consultant Ballús Armet believes that is the calculation from her colleague.

Mayor Bigstyck had a concern when he heard the notion that the Water District never got feedback on their first three applications, specifically in terms of the third driveway.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated in April, July and September of 2022, NCCWD had received an incompleteness item asking them to remove the angled parking.

Mayor Bigstyck specified the third driveway.

Senior Planner Cervantes stated that Planning staff that reviewed the application during that time is no longer here and she can only speak to what she sees as part of the official record.

She stated that during the first and second review, Planning staff only provided items that were needed to deem the application complete or other similar items regarding design or policies that were not needed to deem the application complete but were still of concern. The third driveway was put as a condition of approval from the first review in April 2022 and it doesn’t seem that the draft conditions of approval were provided to the applicant as staff was reviewing each review.

She isn’t sure as to why that was done and why the draft conditions of approval were not provided to the applicant during those first two reviews but that is what occurred.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that, in other circumstances, it would be preferred to give feedback then.

Senior Planner Cervantes stated that typically, if staff had conditions of approval from other departments, they put them on those completeness letters for the applicant to know as soon as possible what their draft conditions of approval may be, but unfortunately that did not occur.

1.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 August 14, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck stated that there was some question around condition of approval, No. 11, which has to do with moving of the RV spot, and there seemed to be some confusion around it and he wanted to give staff an opportunity to clarify that condition of approval.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, in his assessment, this condition clarifies that there is a connection between the project and the existence of the temporary safe parking space and it acknowledges that a construction of the project would have adverse impacts on the occupants of that space and the conditions are met to need to relocate the space during the course of construction or pre-construction activities that may need access to the area around the vehicle that is parked in that space. The appellant needs to write a letter to the City Manager requesting the space to be relocated. He thought the way it is written is appropriate and flexible enough so the city doesn’t need to monitor the progress of the Water District’s project if it were to be approved, but when the Water District knows it is about to commence on any of these qualifying activities it can submit the request the City Manager. He thought it strikes the right balance of addressing the project-related impacts on the space and giving the Water District control of the timing of when they would be ready to proceed to preconstruction or construction activities to ensure that the request is timely filed at that point in time.

Mayor Bigstyck reopened the public hearing to ask a question of the appellant.

Councilmember Bier stated in her question for the Water District that it appears to her that they have deliberately moved in the angled parking. She asked if General Manager Carr can explain why and how far and what does that do to the sidewalk.

General Manager Carr stated that the end of the vehicle would align with the same kind of side door of the vehicle in a parallel space and that is the distance that they moved the sidewalk in.

Councilmember Boles stated that the back edge of the car is, whether they are parallel parked or angled park, it is the same line up and down.

General Manager Carr agreed, stating that the back of the car wouldn’t be sticking out any further than a car that was parallel parked would be sticking out.

Councilmember Bier asked if it gives it more room when it backs out.

General Manager Carr agreed, stating that giving it a more generous length than required would most likely be further off the street than the other cars that are parallel parked.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus referred to her concern earlier about the sidewalk.

General Manager Carr stated that the sidewalks are the pinch point at each corner of the diagonal parking and would be 4.5-feet wide and the current sidewalk is 6-feet wide in that location and would be pinched down just at the corner where that spot is located. The mandated width for a sidewalk would be 4-feet and 3-feet is the pinch point for an accessible wheelchair. She stated that, at the corners, they are going to get a lot more pedestrian space because they have those bulb outs and it will be really friendly at the intersection and they make it a lot safer for pedestrians. She is sure people in a wheelchair would appreciate the larger places to get across the street and is something that doesn’t currently occur at that intersection.

Councilmember Boles stated that, if you don’t think about the bulb outs, especially the one by

1.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 August 14, 2023
the entry, she was looking at exactly how the cars lay out. She asked if they approve the angled parking today and it became an issue, it seems like it would be fairly easy to convert back to parallel parking. She didn’t know, from a legal point of view and project approval, thought of it physically and architecturally.

General Manager Carr didn’t think it would be precluded.

Mayor Bigstyck closed the public hearing, and asked if any further staff questions or deliberation. He had a question about reverting it to parallel spots if they find there is an issue.

City Attorney Kenyon asked if he means whether or not the city could revert it.

Councilmember Boles clarified the question about process.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that the city would have no control over that and if the discretionary permit were approved at this meeting and they allowed angled parking, the only way that condition would be changed is if the applicant unilaterally voluntarily came in to change it. The city would have no control over whether or not it would be modified at a future date.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that, if there are no further questions for staff, they can feel free to go on to deliberation. He stated that Councilmember Bier suggested they go item by item.

Councilmember Bier began with No. 11. She thought what they are talking about here is not just moving a vehicle but moving a person who is in one of our safe parking spots that we are responsible for. She stated that the Water District has been great at considering various places, and she appreciated all their ideas and willingness to do that. She feels it is very important that, in order to make sure that they are taking care of this person who is our responsibility, we work together as a team. Whatever the language is that needs to be included in this condition, she would love to hear what her colleagues have to say about it. She feels they have worked incredibly hard to create a partnership with the Water District and she thinks all of the things that created all of this issue gave them an opportunity to have a relationship with them that they never had before, and she is very grateful for that.

Mayor Bigstyck noted that he has been engaging with her in that ad-hoc committee and he can share her perspective. He stated it seems that they have put into words in order to make happen ultimately the safety of someone who otherwise will be impacted by this construction.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed with Planning Director Murdock that it is clear and she doesn’t believe it is vague or ambiguous.

Councilmember Bier asked if they can discuss a more collaborative approach.

Councilmember Boles stated that it doesn’t seem to say that it’s the city’s responsibility to move the space and their contention is that they can’t move the space and the city has to do that.

Mayor Bigstyck asked the City Attorney if she would like to help clarify it.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that, normally, when talking about conditions of approval on a project by a developer, it is the developer’s responsibility to address all impacts associated with that project and this clearly is the only reason the city has to move that spot is because of the district’s construction or remodeling of the headquarters. This condition is drafted as it would

1.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 August 14, 2023
with any other project that came before the Council. If the Council chooses to treat this project differently than all others, for whatever reason, they can do that. It is normally not the responsibility of the city, but if the Council feels that it should be, then provide that direction.

The reason it’s not in there is because that is not the normal practice or the city’s responsibility to fulfill conditions of approval but is the responsibility of the applicant.

Councilmember Boles understands for more construction related things, but they would not have the ability to move the space on their own without Council saying it was okay.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that is what the condition of approval says is that Council will say it is okay and the mechanism by which they will have the opportunity to say it is okay is the letter they are asking them to write when the time is right.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the condition as it’s written provides flexibility. Either party could end up accomplishing the relocation, but it does need to start with the request by the Water District to the City Manager so that the timing and need for the relocation is clear and known. As City Manager Woodhouse mentioned, the city staff is very much supportive of this project. As they would with any other public agency, they will do everything they reasonably can to make their project successful when they get to this point in terms of a need to relocate this space. As the City Attorney mentioned, in the first instance the burden is on the applicant for the development project that is causing the impact, and from there the city can work with the applicant to result in the best outcome for the relocation.

Councilmember Bier asked if they can add that language.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they have been working with the District cooperatively to resolve this. In those discussions, she would say that both the district and the city have made it clear that the responsibility to move it is not entirely with the district. Her suggestion is, if Council wants to have the responsibility to move this vehicle, they can put that language in there and there is nothing preventing them from doing that, but to talk about how they are going to work together, that is not appropriate unless they have vague language. They could have some vague language that would say that the city will work with the district to determine how best to relocate. As the Planning Director says, this condition is flexible to allow that. They have been working cooperatively with the district in separate discussions. They could put more language in there that says the city will work with the district in relocating this spot. She stated that, if that satisfies Council, they can add that to the condition.

Councilmember Bier stated that, because our community isn’t understanding how much we have been working with the Water District, it does not appear that has been happening. She also wants our community to understand how hard they have been working to work with them.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, for her, the most salient reasoning that made a lot of sense to her about why the letter needs to come from NCCWD was made by Planning Director Murdock when he stated that it would be removing what would otherwise be a requirement of the city to track the project timeline, to know and make a decision about when is the exact right time to do this. That is the basis for writing the letter of request. She stated that was the justification for why this is necessary. She stated that they can amend it, but allowing it to stay is her position, whether amended or not.

Councilmember Boles agreed that a letter is necessary so they know the schedule and they are very optimistic about their building permits but things can take a lot longer and they don’t want

1.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 August 14, 2023
to move someone until they have to as it is an expense and disruption. She wondered if it would be possible to clarify the exact objection to the condition of approval.

Mayor Bigstyck felt they had the opportunity to hear what the objection was and he thought what he heard was they were asking for clarity. He is of a similar mind with Councilmember Beckmeyer and would vote to deny that part of the appeal. If there is more confusion, he can reopen the public hearing to try and alleviate it.

Councilmember Bier stated that the letter is fine, but she asked how they can address NCCWD’s concern about having power to move the space.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that he hears the Water District’s concern but he believes they are suggesting the mechanism by which they are empowering the process of moving that space, which begins with a letter from the Water District and ends with the approval of City Manager.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus wondered about the relationship between the angled parking and the Temporary Safe Parking Program.

Mayor Bigstyck suggested that gauging intentions may not be helpful for Council’s deliberative process. He stated that so far, Councilmember Beckmeyer and he are coming to the conclusion that it is worth denying that particular basis of appeal because, after addressing the concern they heard from them tonight that there was confusion over the wording, they think that it makes sense to Council at this point.

Councilmember Bier stated that the City Attorney did say that there was a possibility of adding some language if others were agreeable to that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer proposed adding a few words to clarify the actions: “Applicant shall submit a request to the City Manager’s office for the city to work with the district to relocate the TSPP space to another location deemed suitable in the City Manager’s sole discretion.” City Manager Woodhouse stated that her proposed language is fine.

City Attorney Kenyon thought that language is fine and provides more clarity.

Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m., seconded by Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus.

MOVE TO EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Mayor Bigstyck stated that this brings them to No. 12, the angled parking. He is trying to understand in a clear way whether he thinks diagonal parking is safe because he cares and it weighs heavily on him. He stated that limited visibility is the simple version. They have clear General Plan policy that suggests that we are trying to have bicycles go down that road. What concerns his sensibility is that he hasn’t heard a compelling argument that our safety concerns from the city level are to be easily disregarded.

1.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 August 14, 2023
Councilmember Boles stated this is the hardest one for her, and she didn’t think she got enough data from either side. She stated, on reading that Oregon study, she didn’t think there was a difference between the safety between the two but just a little more unsafe because there is more people and it has nothing to do with the safety of the spaces themselves. She stated, in terms of the beautification, she appreciates the bulb outs and the landscaping, etc., that came with the angled parking scheme. They talked about adding separate bike lanes and the possibility on that block where they have a little bit more width, but if they pull up a map of all of Francisco, as they head further north, they don’t have that extra width and maybe Public Works can comment on that.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that it would take some time to figure out where exactly the roadway is in this location once they are northbound of Paloma. He believes, if Caltrans were in this area, they would have to seek approval in order to continue to extend that and get some public access.

Councilmember Boles is looking at the north part of Francisco, right before Paloma, and didn’t think there is room for separate bike lanes there.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they would need time to look at the dimensions there but the right of way on Francisco is consistent at 50 feet. If it is in the center line, they will have 50 feet on both sides.

Councilmember Boles thought the property line in the right of way may be the same, but the bridge guardrail restricts the width.

Councilmember Bier stated this is the hardest one. She sits on City and County Association of Government Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), and the data that she saw wasn’t enough for her to really see how dangerous it is. She stated that, when it does come to future funding, all the scores and the points for One Bay Area Grant (OBAG), you lose points for places that aren’t as safe. She stated that there would be a concern that, in the future, we could lose points on grant applications. She stated that future funding for a priority development area could be affected by that, but when she looks at the renderings, she feels that there was space that was created to make more room to pull out. She stated that she was leaning towards being in favor of the angled parking.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus agreed that, on the renderings, it looked like the people had the same amount of space to back up as you would if you paralleled parked. She agrees with Sue Digre that she has issues with the angled parking. She is concerned about safety and furthermore apologized for her earlier comment. She stated that it was not in the sense of cooperation.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she likes the look of the angled parking. She struggled because she didn’t feel that she had enough to go on. She referred to Councilmember Boles’ point about the frequency of the number in the Oregon study which makes sense to her. She favors angled parking. She also has a question for the City Attorney regarding the language in the resolution.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that the Council doesn’t need to worry about that, just how they want to rule on the specific appeal items. Once they rule on the items, they will take a break and she will work with the Planning Director to see what kind of revisions need to be made to the resolutions. Until they know exactly where Council is going on all of these issues, they can

1.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 August 14, 2023
deal with the resolution language later. She stated the first task they are doing now is giving them a straw vote on how they are going on each one of the appeal items.

PW Dep. Director Yip referred to Councilmember Boles’ question about the bike lanes on Francisco. He stated that, in this scenario, they would remove the parking in order to get a dedicated class 2 lane in there.

Councilmember Boles stated that parking is really well-used on that corner at Paloma and Francisco. She asked if that was in the coastal zone.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it has a potential to implicate a Coastal Development permit requirement but does not mean the city couldn’t approve it, but it may be more complex than areas outside of the coastal zone.

Councilmember asked if PW Dep. Director Yip was saying that they would not do a sharrow on this street.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they would not be able to just because of the traffic speeds there and the sharrows are more appropriate for 25 mph, but there are speeds are approaching 40-44 mph potentially on Francisco.

Councilmember Boles stated that leads her to believe this would be a much more expensive and complicated approval process to put any bike lanes on the street.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated he is in agreement with Councilmember Bier that the grant opportunities here would be impacted, potentially not being able to do projects without the bike lane. The bike lane types of projects are the most abundant out there; they could potentially get grants to do this project, and they have been able to get grants for their Sharp Park Resurfacing Project and Sharp Park Pedestrian Improvement Project after they were designated as a PDA.

Mayor Bigstyck had a clarifying question. He stated that, one of the data points they have is the reported and they are about the speed limit. He asked, at what point on the road, the Francisco frontage of the Water District building, was the speed recorded.

PW Dep. Director Yip assumed that it is near Brighton and Francisco as that is where they were trying to use the warrants for a stop sign and they needed that speed for a line-of-sight distance.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that they have a nod from the Water District Manager suggesting it was at Brighton and Francisco.

Councilmember Boles stated that the bike lane is leading her to say okay to the angled parking.

Mayor Bigstyck stated, what they are understanding is that, with or without the angled parking, it would be a really hard to put a bike lane of any kind there. He counted three in support of the angled parking and two who are having difficulty but have not clearly made a statement.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to clarify the line of discussion on this last question.

Councilmember Boles stated that PW Dep. Director Yip was saying that a sharrow lane that the bike would share the traffic lane was not acceptable there because of the speeds and there isn’t room at that lot by Paloma without taking out parking. There is not another way to put bikes.

1.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 August 14, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck stated he was trying to clarify it. His understanding is that, as it is, with parallel parking, it is already fairly dangerous for bikes down that road and it would preclude ever developing a bike lane there. He stated that it is still the question that he can’t see the car coming toward him, but, on the other hand, that is where the conversation about arterials and collectors, as our traffic study clearly shows that we’re going too fast and the damage going to be done is not 25 mph damage.

Planning Director Murdock stated that several councilmembers referred to the beautification component that they perceive in relation to the angled parking configuration. Based on the renderings, a lot of that flush landscaping density is coming from those small square plantar areas in which the appellant has proposed to plant trees. He is not seeing anything that would preclude those planters to be there in essentially that configuration while retaining the sidewalk.

He stated that there is currently a planter area that runs in parallel to the Water District’s property in that location. The same landscaping effect could result from keeping that small planter area as proposed and the parallel parking spaces.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if he is saying that those planters there are proposed to be trees.

Planning Director Murdock confirmed, based on the proposed landscaping plan, and that is what he thinks is demonstrating the visual lushness of the landscaping as part of the beautification component. He thought that seems like a notable one that could be in either configuration without much difficulty.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if there is a COA necessitating that it be trees.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there is a landscaping plan proposed and based on the angled parking configuration. If the project were ultimately approved as approved by the Planning Commission where the parallel parking spaces would be there, the applicant would still need to put together a landscaping plan substantially consistent with this, meeting the minimum zoning landscaping requirements. He thought something substantially similar with multiple tree plantings would be there.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if there was a condition to the satisfaction of the Planning Director\.

Planning Director Murdock stated he would check as typically there is a final landscaping plan improvement or submission requirement. He thought it was condition approval No. 9.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that, if they keep the angled parking, he would love to tweak it to make sure foliage doesn’t become an issue. He stated, if any suggestion to make sure that there is a bump or something for most average tires so the length of the car doesn’t go over the sidewalk would be helpful if that language is needed to do their best effort. He then referred to mention of final landscaping plan for approval by the Planning Director.

Planning Director Murdock asked him if his concern was about including language about maintenance relative to sidewalk accessibility.

Mayor Bigstyck responded affirmatively.

Planning Director Murdock could add language in the last sentence of condition No. 9.

1.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 August 14, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck asked about directly putting what kind of landscaping is supposed to be there.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it is within the Council ‘s purview to specify that as long as there is some relationship to a project component or impact.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that that would make it easier on everyone.

Planning Director Murdock asked for time to determine the language specific to the tree.

Mayor Bigstyck wanted to check with Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus regarding angled parking.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated she has shifted quite a bit from her original thoughts on it. The lack of being able to use it for bikes makes a big difference. She still thinks there is a safety issue with angled parking and the speeds people are going. She noted that she would agree with the third driveway as long as they have approval to move the bus.

Mayor Bigstyck agreed with her wholeheartedly as long as Caltrans signs off on it.

Planning Director Murdock stated, going into the Planning Commission’s staff report that was published, the main concern was the conflict between the new driveway and the SamTrans bus stop. SamTrans at that time had commented on their objection to the third driveway.

Subsequent to that comment, the day prior to the hearing, city staff met on the site with SamTrans staff, determined they were open to a relocation of the bus stop. That addresses staff’s significant concerns and, if all appropriate written approvals could be granted, including from Caltrans to relocate the stop, staff has no objection to that. They just ask that the city receive proof of that in written approval before construction of the third driveway.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that they are conditioning the third driveway on Caltrans signing off on it.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it is all public agency approvals, including Caltrans.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that the reason he jumped straight to Caltrans as they seem to be the main one to get the approval.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it is in the CalTrans right-of-way. He stated that, to effectuate that, they would need to delete condition of approval No. 24. They would then need a new condition of approval No. 51 regarding written granted approvals: “Applicant shall demonstrate to the city in writing that all required approvals to relocate the bus stop have been granted prior to construction of the new third driveway on Clarendon Road.” Mayo Bigstyck stated, if Caltrans doesn’t sign off on it, if it would revert to two driveways.

Planning Director Murdock stated, as that condition is written, he believes it would. There may be other ways to design the project to provide a self-service recycled water access with the two existing driveways. The appellant noted that, at the Planning Commission hearing, they weren’t in favor of that and they hope that Caltrans will write the approval.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if they need to consider which direction the driveway goes.

Councilmember Boles stated she was going to ask, if the flow changed and Caltrans did not say they can move the bus stop, is the bus stop okay there. If it is, maybe the condition can just be

1.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 August 14, 2023
that they change the flow and they can move Caltrans and they get two more parking spaces, but it isn’t necessarily a part of the condition.

Mayor Bigstyck thought that was a good question.

Planning Director Murdock stated that reversing the travel flow was one of the options discussed at the Planning Commission to help address some of the concerns and was just one of several topics discussed.

PW Dep. Director Yip believes there is still a desire to have the third driveway regardless. The proposal to reverse the flow was to reverse it so they can have two driveways.

Councilmember Boles stated that she is asking for a third option, i.e., leave three driveways but reverse the flow. She asked about site line issues if the bus stop stayed with the flow reversed.

Mayor Bigstyck concluded that the driveway would go east rather than west but would still be a third driveway.

Planning Director Murdock suggested additional language for condition No. 9 in the meanwhile:
“Specifically trees shall be installed along the Francisco Blvd. sidewalk to ensure disabled access is maintained” and condition would end “landscaping on the site shall be adequately maintained in healthful condition and replaced when necessary as determined by the Planning Director.”
Mayor Bigstyck approved and asked if they need to get those wheel bumps in front of the spaces and do they need a COA for that.

Planning Director Murdock didn’t know and would need the city engineer’s input on that. He doesn’t know what other potential right-of-way issues those could present if installed.

Councilmember Boles stated the repaving across the street was a condition of approval at her house and when they got to that point in the project, she met with Public Works and found out they were just about to repave Monterey and they didn’t make her do it. She stated that was why she kept asking when it might come up and it might still come up but it is a typical condition of approval.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that the Water District was suggesting that it might be a breach of agency to agency, given that the school district was a place they dropped the ball. On the other hand, it has a new road next to it and, at the end of the day, what sways him is that they aren’t asking the Water District what they don’t ask of ourselves as we do the remodel of our campus.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that there was a question about the wheel stops if they are needed or not. He believes they will still be needed regardless of how much they are going to push in, unless they provide so much space that is going to push in for them to know that, no matter what size vehicle is parked there, it will not overhang even with the wheel stop. They will have to do a calculation to see what that dimension would need to be in order for them to not need a wheel stop there, but he thought it would be significant.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if they are saying that they need a condition of approval to ensure that PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they will need to condition it.

1.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 35 August 14, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck concluded that they will need a condition of approval.

PW Dep. Director Yip responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles asked if the condition can be that they work with him to find an acceptable solution in dimension.

PW Dep. Director Yip agreed that they can.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that there is definitely a wheel stop and if they have a consensus.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there was one other minor revision needed to accommodate the third driveway and noted language for condition No. 26: “Applicant challenged all new driveway approach” would need to be modified to read as follows, “applicant shall install new driveway approach on all driveways (the three driveways on Clarendon Road) which must be ADA compliant with no more than 2% cross slope for width of at least 48 inches.

The transition from 2% out slope to the in slope on the driveways shall be sufficiently gradual to avoid vehicle bodying out where the vehicle undersized scraped the pavement at the grade breaks.”
Mayor Bigstyck asked why they are modifying the driveways that are already there.

Councilmember Boles added are they potentially compliant already.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated the current standards are going to require certain width behind the driveway apron and it doesn’t look that they are going to meet that with the current existing driveways now.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if there are particular laws they are following by necessitating that.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they would at least have to meet the minimum width for ADA path of travel behind the driveway so the driveway is not considered ADA and will have close to 15-18% slopes on it and the area behind it needs to be at least 3-feet, but in our standards we require more than that.

Mayor Bigstyck asked for the legal triggers that necessitate it.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated they would trigger that for the new driveway.

Planning Director Murdock thought the connection that staff identified when preparing the condition was the significant project on the site and trying to increase disabled accessibility through and around the project site. A lot has been said about ensuring access for their customers to the new modified building and improving accessibility with replacing those driveway approaches would expand accessibility in line with the city’s standard plan. He stated he didn’t know if we had a quantitative trigger to offer to them now.

Mayor Bigstyck concluded that there is enough nexus that they can put the COA in.

Planning Director Murdock stated that was their opinion and they are making a readily achievable improvement there relative to the overall project to improve accessibility.

1.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 36 August 14, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck stated he was okay with it.

Councilmember Boles stated, since they don’t know exactly what is there and are guessing a little bit with looking at pictures, etc., and instead of saying that they have to replace the two driveways, can they say work with Public Works to ensure they meet car standards and accessibility standards.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that works for him.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that they have not discussed No. 32 which is the covering for the fuel station. He understands that there are state, county, local laws.

Councilmember Boles thinks they need to leave it in there because it is a requirement generally of building code and through the process there is possibly the opportunity of altering their current plan to reduce the coverage and then letting the Water District work it out through the building permit phase with the approval of Planning.

Mayor Bigstyck stated he suggested earlier making sure to put it clearly in No. 32 that that is what necessitates No. 32.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was what she was going to say.

Planning Director Murdock understood, adding that in relation to that, if Council wanted clarity, he would propose adding to the end: “Prior to final inspection, applicant shall install a cover for the fuel area, however, if the city engineer determined during building permit review that new and replaced impervious surface is less than 50% of exiting impervious surface, this condition shall not apply.”
Mayor Bigstyck asked if they have fully given direction at this point.

Councilmember Boles thought they were still waiting on the driveway site line answer if the bus is still there.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, if the bus is still there, there will still be a site distance issue unless they reverse the flow of the traffic.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that, either Caltrans approves or they reverse the flow of traffic, is what he is hearing.

Councilmember Boles stated that they were okay reversing the flow of traffic.

Mayor Bigstyck said that the one slight concern is the idea that if the bus stop remains, that is two parking spots that are not there.

Councilmember Boles stated that they all want the bus stop to move, but she doesn’t want them to lose their drive-through if the bus has to remain.

Mayor Bigstyck really likes that amenity and thinks it is brilliant.

Councilmember Boles thought she heard that the corner buildout needed to be amended.

1.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 37 August 14, 2023
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that there is a concern with the bulb out also as it is preventing parking there. If they were to amend it and remove the bulb out, that means that parking returns to that location. He stated that, if they were to amend it and remove that bulb out, that parking space would potentially return and now a vehicle parked there is preventing some line of sight to the vehicles that are coming out.

Councilmember Boles asked if we would allow a parking space there so close to the corner.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they would have to review.

Councilmember Boles thought it could be sorted out between staff and Caltrans.

Mayor Bigstyck understood that, once they give the fullness of their direction, staff will need a few moments to figure out the conditions and the findings.

City Attorney Kenyon stated she would like to go back over all of them to get clarity on exactly what Council is directing in terms of modifying conditions of approval. Once they get clarity, they will take a break and she can work with the Planning Director to determine what amendments need to be made to the resolutions and conditions of approval.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if he should go through and tell her to deny, modify, hold.

City Attorney Kenyon stated to go through the way they started, i.e., condition No. 11.

Mayor Bigstyck stated, for No. 11, they have to deny.

City Attorney Kenyon stated “deny” with added language to that condition of approval to state:
“Applicant shall submit a request to the City Manager’s office which requests that the city work with the applicant” and then go back to the other language “to relocate the TSPP space.” Mayor Bigstyck agreed.

Planning Director Murdock stated condition No. 9, the last sentence just preceding, they would add a new second to last sentence: “Specifically trees shall be installed along the Francisco Blvd. sidewalk to ensure disabled access is maintained” and the condition would conclude as written, “currently landscaping on the site shall be adequately maintained in healthful condition and replaced when necessary as determined by the Planning Director.” City Attorney Kenyon stated that sounds good.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that, on No. 12, they are upholding the modifying.

Planning Director Murdock stated that condition currently required removal of angled parking from the plan set and they would simply delete that condition of approval.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that it would be deleted entirely.

Mayor Bigstyck moved on to No. 21, and he stated just flatly denying 21. He stated No. 24 was the one that they were deleting and there is going to be a new condition on the back end.

Because they are deleting No. 24, they are also modifying No. 26 to make it for all three

1.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 38 August 14, 2023
driveways rather than just the new driveway.

Planning Director Murdock stated he has the language but he isn’t sure he completely grasped Councilmember Boles’ requested modification about working with the applicant.

Councilmember Boles thought, when he first read it, he said replace all the driveways and she wanted to leave room that they may not need replacing if they are found to be compliant.

Planning Director Murdock understood.

Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested to the satisfaction of the engineer.

City Attorney Kenyon asked if the only change to No. 26 is what Councilmember Boles is suggesting, which is applicant shall ensure that all driveways meet accessibility standards.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there are two parts. They need to update condition 26 to reflect that there are going to be three driveways, and he will read that first: “Applicant shall install new driveway approach on all driveways (the three driveways on Clarendon Road) which must be ADA compliant with no more than 2% cross slope or a width of at least 48 inches. The transition from 2% out slope to the in slope on the driveways shall be sufficiently gradual to avoid vehicles bottoming out where the vehicle underside scrape the pavement at the grade breaks.” They would add another sentence: “However, new driveway approaches shall not be required at the existing driveways if they meet ADA requirements as determined by the city engineer.”
Mayor Bigstyck noted changes to No. 32.

Planning Director Murdock added a new sentence after the conditions as it is written: “However, if the city engineer determined during building permit review that new and replaced impervious surface is less than 50% of existing impervious surface, this condition shall not apply.” Councilmember Beckmeyer thought he said there needed to be a new condition about outside agencies approving moving the bus stop.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there would be a new condition: “Applicant shall demonstrate to the city in writing that all required approvals to relocate the bus stop have been granted prior to construction of the new third driveway on Clarendon Road. In the event all required approvals cannot be obtained, applicant shall reverse the traffic flow in the recycled water filling area.” There was also a new condition of approval related the angled parking:
“Applicant shall install and maintain wheel stops at all angled parking spaces to the satisfaction of the city engineer.”
Mayor Bigstyck stated that is everything he had.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that now they need a break.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that, before they take the break, he wanted to say that he is truly charmed by the efforts made by the Water District and the city. He thinks that they did due diligence listening to one another by the end of the day and that they made a good faith effort to ensure that all of their mutual concerns were addressed to the best of their individual capabilities. He stated that, before they take a recess, their last motion was to extend until

1.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 39 August 14, 2023
midnight and he didn’t know if they need help from staff as to whether or not our other items can be pushed off to a different meeting.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he needs to check with Chief Sarasua about the police military equipment in case there are specific notification requirements but the meeting minutes item can be pushed to a later date and during the break he can check with her.

Mayor Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:30 AM; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

MOVE TO EXTEND MEETING TO 12:30 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Mayor Bigstyck called the break and then reconvened the meeting.

City Attorney Kenyon thanked them for their deliberation and clarity, and she and the Planning Director have worked and come up with some amendments. She will be reading the amendments to the general part of the resolutions and Planning Director Murdock will recite the actual changes to the conditions of approval which are in the resolution. She stated that this is all one motion that somebody will be making and the motion will just be as amended per staff and city attorney. With regard to the resolution, they will be amending the title slightly to say, “A resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica denying in part and upholding in part the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the Coastal Development Permit” and the rest of the language stays the same. When they go to the second “be it further resolved,” they have all those bases for denial, they will be retaining basis 1, will be striking basis 2 in its entirety, retaining basis 3, eliminating basis 4, retaining basis 5, and adding an additional resolve clause: “Be it further resolved that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby grants the appeal with regard to conditions of approval Nos. 12 and 24.” The remainder of that portion will stay until they hit the actual conditions of approval.

Planning Director Murdock stated the condition No. 9 is the first condition that would be modified by the City Council and they would add a second to last sentence: “Specifically trees shall be installed along the Francisco Blvd. sidewalk to ensure disabled access is maintained.” Condition of approval No. 11 would amend the sentence at the beginning: “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 Blvd., adjacent to the project site, applicant shall submit a request to the City Manager’s office for the city to work with the applicant to relocate the TSPP space to another location deemed suitable in the City Manager’s sole discretion.” The remainder of the condition would remain as drafted. Condition No. 12 will be deleted in its entirety. Condition No. 24 would be deleted. Condition No. 26 would be modified to read as follows: “Applicant shall install new driveway approaches on all driveways (the three driveways on Clarendon Road) which must be ADA compliant with no more than 2% cross slope for a width of at least 48 inches. The transition for 2% out slope to the in slope on the driveways shall be sufficiently gradual to avoid vehicles bottoming out where the vehicle’s undersides scrape the pavement at the grade breaks. However, new driveway approaches shall not be required at the existing driveways if they meet ADA requirements as determined by the City Engineer.” Condition No. 32 would be modified to add a new sentence: “However, if the City Engineer

1.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 40 August 14, 2023
determines during building permit review that new and replaced impervious surface is less than 50% of existing impervious surface, this condition shall not apply.” Then there would be a new condition of approval: “Applicant shall demonstrate to the city in writing that all required approvals to relocate the bus stop have been granted prior to construction of the new third driveway on Clarendon Road. In the event all required approvals cannot be obtained, applicant shall reverse the traffic flow in the recycled water filling area.” There would be a new condition of approval: “Applicant shall install and maintain wheel stops at all angled parking spaces to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.” There would be a new condition of approval: “Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall execute an agreement with the city to provide public access rights for the realigned sidewalk and angled parking spaces along Francisco Blvd. to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney.” City Attorney Kenyon stated that the explanation for that is now they are actually moving the sidewalk onto district property so they need to continue to allow right-of-way access to the public in order to use the sidewalk.

Mayor Bigstyck thanked her for the explanation.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that the motion would be as follows: “Move to deny the appeal in part and uphold the appeal in part which upholds Planning Commission’s 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 by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A as amended, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution as amended.

Councilmember Bier so moved; seconded by Councilmember Boles.

AGENDA ITEM #22
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Mayor Bigstyck asked the City Attorney if they shall amend their agenda for the last two agenda items before they continue.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they don’t need a motion if they aren’t going to take any action unless they want to move it to a date certain which she understands from the City Manager that they don’t have a date.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that they are going to do public comment and they will not be taking action on the consideration items at this meeting but they will have public comments, any Council comments and staff comment.

ADJOURN
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to acknowledge all that Rudy Mazzetti did in building Mazzetti's Bakery and what an impact it has on so many Pacificans, regarding birthdays, weddings, etc. She stated that the spirit he used to create that business will go on, and it is a tragic loss at a young age and their hearts go out to his family.

1.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 41 August 14, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the meeting at 12:29 a.m. in honor of Rudy Mazzetti.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor

1.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 08-14-2023 Council Meeting (5453 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/28/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Award of Contract to R V Stich Construction, Inc. for the removal of the soil nail wall at 330 Esplanade Avenue
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Construction Contract with R V Stich Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $190,576.00; Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $220,000.00, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Construction Contract amounts; Authorize staff to Execute Future Change not to exceed the contingency amount; and Authorize the City Manager to sign Contract Documents related to the 330 Esplanade Soil Nail Wall Project.”
STAFF CONTACT:

Roland Yip, P.E., DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

In 2011, a soil-nail and shotcrete wall was constructed on the bluff face near 330 Esplanade Avenue by the property owners. The wall consisted of reinforced shotcrete secured with 30 to 50-foot-long soil nails embedded in the bluff. Most of the wall has since fallen off of the bluff.

On October 14, 2019 the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the acquisition of 330 Esplanade (APN 009-413-030) by eminent domain for the 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project.

Since that time, the City’s geotechnical consultant, Cotton, Shires and Associates (CSA), has continued to monitor the bluff condition and perform site inspections. Recent storm driven waves have accelerated bluff erosion and the potential for the soil nail wall remnants falling is a public safety concern. Based on CSA’s expert opinion and out of concern for the public, City staff is recommending removal of the soil nail wall remnants.

The contractor’s scope of work includes a base bid to cut off the tiebacks and demolish and remove 30’ of the soil nail wall that is broken and about to fall for $59,885.00. The contractor has also provided an alternate to remove 80’ of the soil nail wall for an additional $130,691.00, City staff will need to evaluate this alternate and impacts to the neighboring property after the removal of the first 30’ of the soil nail wall.

In Spring 2023, Public Works staff solicited bids from three (3) contractors who specialize in these types of urgent coastal bluff projects. A list of the bids received is provided in the table 2 Packet Pg. 66
Pacifica City Council 2
August 28, 2023
below.

Company Bid
R V Stich Construction, Inc. $190,576.00
Drill Tech Drilling & Shoring, Inc. $192,052.00
SVG Contractors, Inc. No response
After a review of the bid documents, staff found that R V Stich Construction, Inc., is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. R V Stich Construction, Inc. has performed projects in City in the past and their work has been satisfactory. R V Stich Construction, Inc. licenses were also checked by staff and found in good standing order.

An emergency Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for this work will be requested from the Coastal Commission. The City Manager recommends authorizing a budget authority for construction in the amount of $220,000, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Construction Services Agreement amount for any unforeseen conditions and/or additional work stated above.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to adopt the resolution and not approve the construction contract.

However, the bluff will continue to erode and ultimately cause the soil nail wall to fall resulting in public safety hazards. Staff does not recommend this alternative action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the construction contract is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise.

Approving the construction contract will eliminate public safety hazard.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Disaster Accounting Fund 38 $220,000.00
Total Source of Funds $220,000.00
330 Esplanade Soil Nail Wall $220,000.00
Total Use of Funds $220,000.00
Fiscal impact will be $220,000.00 from the Disaster Accounting Fund 38(Earmarked 3/17/17).

Staff will request reimbursement from California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding, however in discussing with the grantor, grant funds may not be allowed due to the federal procurement requirements. City will continue working with the grantor to see if the City can be reimbursed for this cost.

ORIGINATED BY:
2 Packet Pg. 67
Pacifica City Council 3
August 28, 2023
Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (PDF) Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (PDF)
2 Packet Pg. 68
Pacifica City Council 4
August 28, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. __-2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH R V STICH CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $190,576.00; AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AUTHORITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $220,000.00, WHICH INCLUDES CONTINGENCIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN PERCENT (15%) OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AMOUNTS; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE FUTURE CHANGE NOT TO EXCEED THE CONTINGENCY AMOUNT;

AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL PROJECT
WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Purchasing Policy (Administrative Policy No. 76 – Article 7), the City of Pacifica procured bids under the exemption from competitive pricing procedures in order to protect health and safety.; and WHEREAS, recent winter storms combined with extreme high tides and waves have caused additional erosion directly behind soil nail wall at 330 Esplanade Avenue (“Property”), further eroding the bluff and the soil nail wall.; and
WHEREAS, it is predicted that additional winter storm events this winter combined with high tides and waves could cause further severe bluff erosion and subsidence, and it is thus imperative that the soil nail wall is removed at the Property before further significant bluff erosion occurs causing the soil nail wall to fall.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager to entering into the construction contract and agreement for the removal of the soil nail wall with Stich Construction, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to sign the project contract documents for the Governing Board.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 28th 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 2 Packet Pg. 69
330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 1

CITY OF PACIFICA
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT
330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION PROJECT
DATE: AUGUST 14, 2023

1. IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR:

CONTRACTOR: Stich Construction Inc.

CALIFORNIA LICENSE NO: 938969 CLASS: A, B, C21

2. SCOPE OF THE WORK
See Scope of Work attached as Appendix A.

COMPENSATION FOR WORK. Contractor’s total compensation for the Work performed under this Agreement (Contract Sum) is $169,831 to be paid as (check one): (1)  lump sum; (2)  lump sum with progress payments; (3) per attached schedule of rates and charges, up to a guaranteed notto-exceed amount of $169,831.00. All payments (check one): shall  shall not be subject to a five percent (5%) retention.

3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE FOR THE WORK. Contractor shall commence and complete the Work by the following dates:

Commencement Date shall be on the date established in the Notice to Proceed. Owner reserves the right to modify or alter the Commencement Date of the Work.

Substantial Completion Date: Within 15 working days of Commencement Date.

Final Completion Date: Within 15 working days of Substantial Completion.

3.01 Liquidated Damage Amounts.

A. As liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay Owner Three Thousand Two Hundred dollars ($3,200.00) for each Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work, until achieved.

B. As liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay Owner Three Thousand Two Hundred dollars ($3,200.00) for each Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Final Completion of the entire Work, until achieved.

3.02 Scope of Liquidated Damages
Contractor and Owner agree that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix the amount of such actual damages incurred by Owner because of a delay in completion of all or any part of the Work. Contractor and Owner agree that specified measures of liquidated damages shall be presumed to be the amount of such damages actually sustained by

ATTACHMENT A

2.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 2 Owner, and that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damages.

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

4. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

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

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

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

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

City of Pacifica, Department of Public Works,
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044
CONTRACTOR: STICH CONSTRUCTION INC, OWNER: CITY OF PACIFICA _______________________________ __________________________________ Signature Signature
_______________________________ Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager Print Name & Title
______________________________ __________________________________ Date Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_______________________________ __________________________________ Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney Sarah Coffey, City Clerk

2.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 3
Addresses for Notices: Addresses for Notices:

Stich Construction Inc. City of Pacifica
3511-F Newark Blvd #224 540 Crespi Drive
Newark, CA 94560 Pacifica, CA 94044

2.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 4 Appendix A to Construction Services Agreement

SCOPE OF WORK
The project will demolish approximately 30’0” to 110’ length of the 20’0” High of Concrete at 330 Esplanade Blvd and cut tiebacks at the cliff. Length will be determined at time of construction.

2.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) February 23, 2023
** This Proposal is Based on Prevailing Wage Labor Rates ** Dated: N/A
Dated: N/A
Dated: N/A
Dated: N/A
Dated: N/A
A. BASE BID - Itemized Scope of Work:

1.) $ 9,995.00

2.) $ 39,140.00
-
-
-
-

3.) $ 10,750.00
TOTAL BASE BID: $ 59,885.00
B.

ALTERNATES:

1.) $ 149,939.00
We have examined the site for the project entitled:
(2) Gradall's - 4 day rental - With Basket
Attn: Ryan Marquez
Demolition - Break Approximately 110'0" X 20'0" High of Concrete and Cut Tiebacks at Cliff Demolition - Break Approximately 30'0" Long X 20'0" High of Concrete and Cut Tiebacks at Cliff Demolish & Remove Broken Concrete Wall - Approx. 600 Sq. Ft. of Concrete Wall

CONCRETE REMOVAL WITH TILTING BOX AND ROLLOFF TRUCK
City of Pacifica
151 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA
(650) 738-3769
[email protected]
Ryan,
2 Operator, 2 Spotter , 3 Laborers W/ Fall Protection
DEMO NOTE: We Perform No Work at any Hazmat Remediation that is Naturally Occuring or in Building Materials or the Existing Building Renovations Soil Nail Wall Demolition
330 Esplanade Dr., Pacifica, CA
Architectural Drawings by: N/A
Structural Drawings by: N/A
Project Specification Manual: N/A
Cut off Tiebacks and Remove from wall -
License No. 938969 - A, B, C21
35111-F NEWARK BLVD #224, NEWARK, CA 94560
P.O. BOX 1707, RICHMOND, CA 94802 PH. (510) 412-9070 FAX (510) 412-9077 Civil Drawings by: N/A
Geotechnical Investigation by: N/A
We propose to furnish all labor, materials, transportation and services as per the itemized scope of work as listed below:

Job Mobilization -
We Acknowledge Addenda #'s: N/A
1 R.S.________

2.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) -
-
-
-

2.) $ 19,892.00
C. GENERAL NOTES:

1.)

2.)

3.)

4.)

5.)

6.)

7.)

8.)

9.)

10.)

11.)

12.)

13.)

14.)

15.)

16.)

17.)

18.)

19.)

20.)

22.)
(2) Gradall's - 4 day rental - With Basket
2 Operator, 2 Spotter , 3 Laborers W/ Fall Protection
Drilling less than 12" Horizontally or Vertically in a 5 minute period will be considered rock and will be billed as extra work. Caving holes, casing or de-watering will be an additional charge to be determined.

Demolish & Remove Broken Concrete Wall - Approx. 2,200 Sq. Ft. of Concrete wall Cut off Tiebacks and Remove from wall -
DEMO NOTE: We Perform No Work at any Hazmat Remediation that is Naturally Occuring or in Building Materials or the Existing Building Renovations

CONCRETE REMOVAL WITH TILTING BOX AND ROLLOFF TRUCK
General Contractor shall locate/mark sub-drainage Cleanout and rain water leader risers.

Subject work area to be clear of concrete or material and/or other obstructions before work commences.

Work performed on a Time and Materials basis will be billed as per SCI Exhibit "B" for Prevailing Wage work Surveyors shall be identified prior to move on and they will locate & elevate all points at the building base Lines, building corners & all pier locations.

All concrete in this proposal is bid assuming non-architectural finishes.

Salvage value of materials removed by Stich Construction for disposal shall remain with SCI This proposal is subject to changes prior to ratification by signed contract and upon receipt / review of project specifications & plans other than those indicated above.

This proposal is to be referenced in Contract Agreement and included in the Contract between Stich Construction, Inc. and the General Contractor or Owner. Should there be conflicts between the conditions and the conditions of the general contract, these conditions shall prevail and control any confliction and ambiguous language in the contract docs.

Pricing on AC Paving is good for 20 days. Thereafter, market rate applies for raw materials cost adjustments.

We have relied on owner's plans and specifications for bidding purposes. We shall be entitled to compensation for extra cost incurred as a result of erroneous plans or specifications. Should conditions be encountered in the performance of work which differs from (a). Those indicated by the construction documents or soils data furnished, or (b). Those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherit in work of the character provided in the contract documents, an equitable adjustment will be made to cover the resulting costs.

Demolition, excavation, drilling, export or import, removal of material other than what is specified above and/or quantities over the amounts specified will be billed as extra work at normal unit prices as per our Previaling wage Rate Sheet .

General Contractor shall locate and identify all existing utilities prior to start of work by SCI We have NOT reviewed the soils report.

Truck volume (capacity) of 10 wheeler dump trucks is equal to 10 Cu. Yds., & End-dumps or Super dumps is equal to 15 Cu. Yds. per truck load.

Indemnity: General Contractor agrees to hold Contractor harmless from any and all liability, losses, damages, expenses, costs, claims and penalties which they may suffer as a result of or in connection with the work or services supplied by contractor except if the sole negligence or fault is on the part of SCI
Reasonable access to the work site and on the work site is assumed. Access difficulties will be billed as extra work.

All underground utilities stubbed to within 5’0” of foundation.

This proposal (labor, equipment & materials) is based on prevailing-wage and union wage rates For waterproofing, we Specified Para-seal only. All surfaces to be waterproofed shall be free of form ties and rough edges. Voids grouted by others prior to move on. Allow 5 working days free from obstructions for Para-seal & sub-drainage work.

General Contractor shall mark H20 heights/locations/termination & location of future P.G.&E. service points prior to scheduling of installation.
2 R.S.________

2.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

23.)

24.)

25.)

26.)

27.)

28.)

29.)
D.

1.)

2.)

3.)

4.)

5.)

6.)

7.)

8.)

9.)
F.

1.)

2.)

3.)

4.)

5.)
Structural excavation, pier spoils, footings, thickened edges, slabs or planters, curbs & gutters and work required at any concrete construction.

Landscaping & irrigation; hydroseeding; tree protection; construction fence/temp fence Modifications to these conditions or exclusions must be specifically described in the description of the work or initialed by an authorized representative of the drilling subcontractor.

Backfill of the structual foundation is only included when Contract includes doing foundation subdrainage.

No charges of any kind are to be charged unless they are agreed to and signed for by a properly authorized representative.

Terms of payment: 95% of monthly progress payments shall be paid within 30 days of reciept and full payment, including all retainage, shall be made within 25 days of substantial completion of our work. Interest will be charged on all past due accounts at 2% per month.
1a) Unless clearly stipulated otherwise, all bids are subject to material, labor, fuel, and equipment price increases after 30 days SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS (work indicated in bid documents but not included in this proposal):

Excavation which is not removable by equipment initially mobilized on this project for demolition or dirt excavation, any cut volume that would require a larger machine or hoe-ram or blasting would be charged on a T&M basis.

Over-excavation and re-compaction of original ground or sub or pad grade, finish grading, work at existing piers, unusual or abnormal concrete footings, burried concrete or objects, foundations or retaining walls, work in the street or at any existing utilities unless otherwise specified.

Aggregate base rock at all areas other than A.C. Paving & Flatwork Paving as Noted Above The parties agree that all claims and disputes by and between then shall be submitted to mediation by a mediator mutually agreeable to the parties. The cost of such mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. The foregoing agreement to mediate shall be specifically enforceable. If mediation is not successful, any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or to the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the construction industry arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award
rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any must be instituted to enforce payment, contractor or client agrees to pay for all attorney fees and court costs.

Cutting, Demolition, Trenching, Bedding, Shading, Backfill, Compaction, Pavement Patching, and Off-haul of Spoils for OTHER TRADES, inlcuding but not limited to Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, M.E.P.s, Structural Excavation, Pier Spoils, and Irrigation.

No liquidated damages may be assessed.

Fencing - Tree protection; construction fence; temporary fence Cost and installation of any filter inserts on any storm drain structures such as area drains, catch basins, drop inlets and Cleanouts.

Demolition or Excavation in: a.) Filled ground, b.) Ground of inadequate bearing capacity for typical construction vehicles and equipment, c.) Water saturated areas, d.) Expansive or caving soils, e.) Rock, concrete or other material not removable by ordinary hand tools or tractors initially mobilized on this project for demolition or dirt excavation, f.) Unforseen conditions G.) Serpentine Rock or any other material unacceptable at dump sites.

GENERAL EXCLUSIONS (potentially required work excluded from RVS scope, unless specifically included in Itemized Scope of Work above):

We have included in our proposal the following insurance coverage's: Worker's compensation as required by law General liability limits of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence, General Aggregate $2,000,000.00, and $2,000,000 umbrella. We have $1,000,000.00 auto & $1,000,000 umbrella. We have made no provision for indemnification's of contractor, owner, architect or other engineer and we exclude all forms of insurance other than listed herein.

Inspections, removal, remediation, or any other work involving hazardous materials, including lead and asbestos, toxic waste, or underground hazardous materials tanks is by others.

Any locating and/or identification of utilities, relocating existing utilities, fixing/repairing existing utilities, and preparations for crossing existing utilities.

Cost of any fee's, permits, bonds, engineering, tests, inspections, water meters, sanitary district drawings, fire dept. drawings.

Shoring, Underpinning, Utilities, Utility Vaults, Erosion Control (installation & maintenance), Construction Fencing, Temporary Power, Landscaping, Planting Soil, Soil Sterilant, Sod, Irrigation, Concrete Work, Pavers, A.C. Pavement, Subbase Prep (sand, base rock), Structural Excavation, Layout and Surveying, Waterproofing.

Disconnection of electric at items to be removed/demolished/relocated 3 R.S.________

2.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

6.)

7.)

8.)

9.)

10.)

11.)

12.)

13.)

14.)
This proposal is good for 30 days.

Thank You
Stich Construction CONSTRUCTION INC.

Brett Stich
Authorized Officer
Dewatering
Installation, Relocation, reinstallation, or salvage of miscellanous site items; included but not limited to signs, bollards, street lights, parking meters, bike racks, and site lighting Water proofing
Surveying
All Permit Fees - SCI can aquire must be paid by owner or general contractor.

All concrete work
Retaining Walls
Pavement striping, signs & painting; truncated domes & wheel stops Shoring and Underpinning
Countersinking of trench plates
4 R.S.________

2.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) Phone: (510) 412-9070 Fax: (510) 412-9077
MOVE IN or OUT SMALL MACHINES EACH WAY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….$ 595.00 EA $115.00 PER /HR. IF MOVE EXCEEDS LOCAL MILEAGE WILL BE APPLICABLE MOVE IN or OUT LARGE MACHINES EACH WAY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$ 895.00 EA $130.00 PER /HR. IF MOVE EXCEEDS LOCAL MILEAGE WILL BE APPLICABLE CAT 416 A OR B - CASE 580 SK 580 4 - WHEEL DRIVE RUBBER TIRE BACKHOE…...………………………………………………………………………………………………………$ 155.00 HR CAT 416 2 WHEEL DRIVE RUBBER TIRE BACKHOE LOADER …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$ 145.00 HR CAT 4WD SKIP LOADER $ 165.00 HR
KOMATSU D-31 E- ANGLE DOZER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$ 165.00 HR KOMATSU D-31 SMALL TRACK LOADER 1.0 YARD……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. $ 165.00 HR KOMATSU D-66, D-68, D-7 SIZE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $ 225.00 HR

DUMP TRUCKS (PORTAL TO PORTAL)
- 5 YARD BOB TAIL……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$ 98.00 HR - 10 YARD 3 AXLE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$ 110.00 HR - 15 YARD 5 AXLE END DUMP………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$ 115.00 HR - 10 WHEEL ROLL-OFF TRUCK………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. $ 125.00 HR - 15 YARD 4 AXLE SUPER DUMP or TRANSFER……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$ 120.00 HR - WATER TRUCK BOBTAIL…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$ 135.00 HR (ADDITIONAL CHARGES FOR TRUCKING ON WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS.) GRADE ALL……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$ 165.00 HR SKID STEER - BOB-CAT 753 OR BOB-CAT 190 OR MUSTANG 2050 OR MUSTANG 2060 (WITH ATTACHMENTS $205.00) $ 145.00 HR DEERE 210 SKIP LOADER $ 165.00 HR
$ 155.00 HR
$ 185.00 HR
$ 195.00 HR
$ 150.00 HR
WITH BREAKER OR OTHER ATTACHMENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$ 215.00 HR $ 155.00 HR
$ 155.00 HR
$ 170.00 HR
KOMATSU PC-50 SMALL EXCAVATOR, SK-50, TB-145 B - 10,000 lbs - WITH HAMMER, THUMB, PUSH BLADE……………….… $ 195.00 HR $ 195.00 HR
$ 215.00 HR
MUSTANG ME 8002 EXCAVATOR (19,500 lbs), WITH PUSH BLADE……………………………………………………………………………………….. $ 220.00 HR $ 295.00 HR
$ 225.00 HR
KOMATSU PC-128 EXCAVATOR 30,000 LBS (WITH PUSH BLADE & KNUCKLE BROOM)………………………………………….. $ 225.00 HR KOBELCO SK 120 MEDIUM EXCAVATOR WITH THUMB 30,000 LB………...…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. $ 225.00 HR $ 235.00 HR
KOMATSU PC88MR-8 MID SIZE EXCAVATOR/ YANMAR EXCAVATOR $ 225.00 HR $ 245.00 HR
$ 325.00 HR
$ 295.00 HR
KOBELCO 310- LARGE EXCAVATOR 75,000 LBS. WITH THUMB ( $2,240.00 MIN.)………………………………………………………………………….. $ 325.00 HR $ 350.00 HR
$ 375.00 HR
VOLVO 300DL LARGE EXCAVATOR $ 375.00 HR
$ 155.00 HR
$ 155.00 HR
$ 185.00 HR
$ 220.00 HR
DITCH WITCH FX30 VACUUM TRAILER $ 140.00 HR
FREIGHTLINER STREET SWEEPER $ 60.00 HR

UN-OPERATED
$ 595.00 /DAY
WACKER #100 OR FLAT PLATE WACKER OR WALK BEHIND SAW $ 165.00 /DAY SHORING AND TRENCH PLATES ARE QUOTED PER JOB- APPROX….$35.00 - $100.00 EACH DAY PROJECT MANAGER - $131.96/HR. SUPERVISORS- $126.21/HR. TEAMSTER-$107.53/HR OPERATORS- $114.71/HR. LABORERS- $97.46/HR. CARPENTERS- $114.71/HR. *ALL BILLING EQUIPMENT RATES ABOVE AND MATERIAL COSTS-ARE PLUS 15% FOR PROFIT, FUEL SURCHARGE & OVERHEAD * * SATURDAY WORK WILL BE CHARGED AT TIME AND A HALF - SUNDAY WORK WILL BE CHARGED AT DOUBLE TIME * R.V. STICH CONSTRUCTION INC
P.O. BOX 1707
RICHMOND, CA 94802
CA #530135 A, B, C-21
EXHIBIT "B"
R.V. STICH CONSTRUCTION, INC. (OPERATED EQUIPMENT RATES Rev. 12/1/19) KOBELCO 200 SMALL ARTICULATED RUBBER TIRE LOADER 1.0 YARDS…………………………………………………………………………… KOMATSU 250- LARGE ARTICULATED RUBBER TIRE LOADER 2.5 YARDS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… TAKEUCHI TL-150 RUBBER TRACK LOADER (WITH ATTACHMENTS $195 HR )………………………………………………………………………………………………………… TAKEUCHI TL-26 SMALL RUBBER TRACK LOADER………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....

TAKEUCHI TB-35S SMALL EXCAVATOR 8,000 LB. (WITH PUSH BLADE) SK-20 W/THUMB…………………………………………………………………………………… TAKEUCHI TB-25 SMALL EXCAVATOR.

KOMATSU PC-50 SMALL EXCAVATOR, KOBELCO SK-50, TAKEUCHI TB-145 B (10,000 lbs) or TB-135…………………………… TAKEUCHI TB-68 SMALL EXCAVATOR 16,000 LB. (WITH PUSH BLADE)………………………………………………………………………………….

HITACHI EX-58 OR KOMATSU PC-75 UU "0" CLEARANCE EXCAVATOR 17,500 LBS. (THUMB & PUSH BLADE)……………………………………….............

EXCAVATOR TB-70 18,000 lbs. W/BREAKER ($1,350.00 min) W/Breaker………………………………………………………………..

HITACHI 100- MED. EXCAVATOR 28,000 lbs…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

KOMATSU PC-180 EXCAVATOR 38,000 LBS - ADD $60.00 HR. FOR DRILLING……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… SMALL VIBRATORY SHEEPSFOOT COMPACTOR 36"OR 48" OR 56" ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

LARGE VIBRATORY SHEEPSFOOT COMPACTOR 66" OR BOMAG 84"…... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… CAT 815 REX OR BOMAG K-301 LARGE STATIC COMPACTOR ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… AIR COMPRESSOR AND HOSE / JACKHAMMER / POINT-BITS…………………………………………………………………………………………… CAT E200- B LARGE EXCAVATOR 42,000 LBS, ( $1,840. MIN. )……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

HYUNDAI LC-200 LONG STICK EXCAVATOR…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… KOBELCO 909- LARGE EXCAVATOR 55,000 LBS. WITH THUMB ( $2,000.00 MIN. )…………………………………………………………...

KOBELCO 350-LARGE EXCAVATOR 80,000 LBS. WITH THUMB ($2,520.00 MIN)……………………………………………………………….

KOMATSU 360 LARGE EXCAVATOR 86,000 LBS. WITH THUMB ($2,850.00 MIN) DYNA PAC ROLLER - 48"(2) VOLVO DOUBLE DRUM COMPACTOR…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 5 Appendix B to Construction Services Agreement

GENERAL CONDITIONS
ARTICLE 1 TERMS OF PERFORMANCE
Construction Services Agreement (Agreement) Force and Effect. The provisions of the Agreement and other Contract Documents constitute the entire agreement between the Contractor and Owner regarding the Work described herein. No representation, term or covenant not expressly specified in the Contract Documents shall be a part of the parties’ agreement. The Agreement and other Contract Documents shall govern the Work (whenever performed), and shall supersede all other purchase orders and agreements between Contractor and Owner, and any proposal, with respect to the Work.

Construction Performance Bond; Construction Labor and Materials Payment Bond; Securities in Lieu of Retention Escrow Account.

If Contract Sum under the Agreement exceeds (or is expected to exceed) $25,000, Contractor shall provide (i) a construction labor and material payment bond, in accordance with Civil Code Section 9550 and in form attached hereto Appendix D – Construction Labor and Materials Payment Bond, and (ii) a construction performance bond in form attached hereto as Appendix E – Construction Performance Bond. Contractor may not substitute cash in lieu of the required bond(s).

If the Agreement specifies performance retention, Contractor may elect to substitute securities or direct payment to an escrow account, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22300 (incorporated herein by this reference).

Records and Payment Requests. Contractor shall submit all billings with all necessary invoices or other appropriate evidence of proper performance, after which Owner shall make payment within 30 days. Upon Owner’s written request, Contractor shall make available to Owner, its authorized agents, officers, or employees, any and all ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, cancelled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to the Work or the expenditures and disbursement charged to Owner, and all correspondence, internal memoranda, calculations, books and accounts, records documenting its Work under the Contract Documents, and invoices, payrolls, timecards, records and all other data related to matters covered by the Contract Documents.

Contractor shall furnish to Owner, its authorized agents, officers, or employees, such other evidence or information as Owner may require with regard to the Work or any such expenditure or disbursement charged by Contractor. Contractor shall maintain all such documents and records prepared by or furnished to Contractor during the course of performing the Work for at least five years following completion of the Work, except that all such items pertaining to hazardous materials shall be maintained for at least 30 years. Contractor shall permit Owner to audit, examine and make copies, excerpts and transcripts from such records. The State of California or any federal agency having an interest in the subject of the Contract Documents shall have the same rights conferred to Owner by this section. Such rights shall be specifically enforceable.

Use of Contract Documents and Other Information. Drawings, Specifications, and other Contract Documents are made available to Contractor solely for Contractor’s use under the Contract Documents. Further, all tangible and intangible property developed, produced and/or provided by Contractor under the Contract Documents, and all such items (other than Contract Documents) provided by Owner to Contractor in connection with the Contract Documents including, without limitation, drawings, specifications, sketches, models, samples, tools, computer programs, technical information, confidential business information, scripts, customer or personnel information and data, whether written, oral or otherwise (all hereinafter referred to as Information) shall be Owner’s sole property. Contractor may not use Contract Documents or Information for

2.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 6 any purpose unrelated to Contract Documents without Owner’s prior written consent. All copies of Information in written, graphic or other tangible form shall be delivered to Owner upon completion of Work, or earlier if otherwise provided in Contract Documents.

Performance of Work/No Assignment. Time is of the essence in the performance of the Work.

Contractor will perform the Work in a skillful and workmanlike manner; comply fully with criteria established by Owner, and with applicable laws, codes, and all applicable industry standards.

Contractor shall maintain its work area in a clean and sanitary condition, clear debris and trash at the end of each work day, and shall not damage or disrupt any property unless specifically part of the scope of the Contract Documents. Contractor shall not contract any portion of the Work or otherwise assign the Contract Documents without prior written approval of Owner. (Contractor shall remain responsible for compliance with all terms of the Contract Documents, regardless of the terms of any such assignment.) Contractor shall permit Owner (or its designees) access to the work area, Contractor’s shop, or any other facility, to permit inspection of the Work at all times during construction and/or manufacture and fabrication. The granting of any progress payment, and any inspections, reviews, approvals or oral statements by any Owner representative, or certification by any governmental entity, shall in no way limit or relieve Contractor from its obligations under the Contract Documents. Either party’s waiver of any breach, or the omission or failure of either party, at any time, to enforce any right reserved to it, or to require strict performance of any provision of the Contract Documents, shall not be a waiver of any other right to which any party is entitled, and shall not in any way affect, limit, modify or waive that party’s right thereafter to enforce or compel strict compliance with every provision hereof. Owner shall have, at all times, set-off rights with respect to any payment and Contractor’s failure to perform the terms of the Contract Documents.

Defective Work; Warranties. Contractor warrants that all construction services shall be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional standards of good and sound construction practices, all Contract Documents requirements, and all laws, codes, standards, licenses, and permits. Contractor warrants that all materials and equipment shall be new, of suitable grade of their respective kinds for their intended uses, and free from defects. Contractor hereby grants to Owner for a period of one year following the date of completion its unconditional warranty of the quality and adequacy of all of the Work including, without limitation, all labor, materials and equipment provided by Contractor and its Subcontractors of all tiers. If either prior to completion of the Work, or within one year after completion, any Work (completed or incomplete) is found to violate any of the foregoing warranties (Defective Work), Contractor shall promptly, without cost to Owner and in accordance with Owner’s written instructions, correct, remove and replace the Defective Work with conforming Work, and correct, remove and replace any damage to other Work or other property resulting therefrom. If Contractor fails to do so within five days of Owner’s written notice (or other time period specified in the notice), Contractor shall pay all of the Owner’s resulting claims, costs, losses and damages. Where Contractor fails to timely correct Defective Work, or defects are discovered outside the correction period, Owner shall have all rights and remedies granted by law.

Earthwork and Underground Facilities. If the Work involves digging trenches or other excavations that extend deeper than four feet below the surface, Contractor shall notify Owner in writing of any material that Contractor believes may be hazardous waste that is required to be removed in accordance law, subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated by information about the site made available to bidders prior to the deadline for submitting bids, or unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in the Contract Documents, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 7104. For any Work involving trench shoring that costs in excess of $25,000, Contractor shall submit and Owner (or a

2.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 7 registered civil or structural engineer employed by Owner) must accept, in advance of excavation, a detailed plan showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection from the hazard of caving ground during the excavation of such trench or trenches, pursuant to Labor Code Section 6705. If such plan varies from the shoring system standards, the plan shall be prepared by a registered civil or structural engineer. Consistent with Government Code Section 4215, as between Owner and Contractor, Owner will be responsible for the timely removal, relocation, or protection of existing main or trunk line utility facilities located on the Site only if such utilities are not identified in the Contract Documents or information made available for bidding.

LEGAL
Compliance with Laws; Conflict of Interests. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws, regulations and policies, as amended, including those regarding discrimination, unfair labor practices, anti-kick-back, collusion, prevailing wages, labor compliance, and the provisions of the Americans with Disability Act. Contractor, its officer, partners, associates, agents, and employees, shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use the position afforded them by the Contract Documents to influence any governmental decision in which he or she knows or has reason to know that he or she has a financial interest under applicable state, federal and local conflict of interest regulations. Contractor warrants that no person or agency has been employed or retained, or will be employed or retained, to solicit or obtain any contract with Owner, upon an agreement or understanding for a contingent fee, except a bona fide employee or agency.

Licenses, Patents, Permits. Before commencing Work, Contractor shall apply for, obtain and maintain in current status, at its own expense, any license, permit or approval required from any agency for the performance of Work. To the greatest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall not be entitled to any compensation for any Work performed while not properly licensed, etc.

Employee Wages; Records; Apprentices. This Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. Contractor shall post job site notices as prescribed by regulation. Contractor shall pay prevailing wages to its employees on any Order in excess of $1,000.00. Copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at Owner’s principal office. Contractor shall comply with the 8-hours per day/40 hours per week/overtime/working hours restrictions for all employees, pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Contractor and all subcontractors shall keep and maintain accurate employee payroll records for Work performed. The payroll records shall be certified and submitted as required by law, including Labor Code Section 1771.4 and 1776, including (if the Agreement is awarded on or after April 1, 2015 or continues on or after January 1, 2016) to the Labor Commissioner no less frequently than monthly. Contractor shall comply fully with Labor Code Section 1777.5 in the hiring of apprentices for work relating to the Agreement. If Contract Sum exceeds $2,000 and is funded with federal funds, then Contractor shall pay federal Davis Bacon wages and comply with applicable federal requirements.

Mandatory Contractor and Subcontractor Registration. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771(a), Contractor represents that it and all of its Subcontractors are currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5. Contractor covenants that any additional or substitute Subcontractors will be similarly registered and qualified.

Indemnity/Liability. Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Owner and each of its officers, directors, representatives, agents and employees, against all claims, suits, actions, loss, cost, damage, expense, and liability arising from or related to bodily injury to or death of any person or damage to any property, or resulting from any breach and/or Contractor’s negligence in performing the Work pursuant to the Contract Documents.

Notwithstanding any provision of the Contract Documents, Owner shall not be liable to Contractor

2.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 8 or anyone claiming under it, in contract or tort, for any special, consequential, indirect or incidental damages arising out of or in connection with the Contract Documents or the Work. Owner’s rights and remedies, whether under the Contract Documents or other applicable law, shall be cumulative and not subject to limitation.

Worker’s Compensation. Pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1860 and 1861, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, every contractor will be required to secure the payment of compensation to his employees. Contractor represents that it is aware of the provisions of Labor Code Section 3700 that require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Contractor shall comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work.

MISCELLANEOUS
No Modification or Waiver; Severability. The Contract Documents may not be modified, nor may compliance with any of its terms be waived, except by written instrument executed and approved by fully authorized representatives of Owner and Contractor. Contract Documents headings are for convenience only and do not affect the construction of the Contract Documents. Should any part of the Contract Documents be declared invalid, void or unenforceable, all remaining parts, terms and provisions of the Contract Documents shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be invalidated, impaired or affected thereby.

Independent Contractor. Contractor is an independent Contractor and does not act as Owner’s agent in any capacity, whatsoever. Contractor is not entitled to any benefits that Owner provides to Owner employees including, without limitation, insurance, worker’s compensation benefits or payments, pension benefits, health benefits or insurance benefits. Terms within the Contract Documents regarding directives apply to and concern the result of the Contractor’s provision of Work not the means, methods, or scheduling of the Contractor’s Work. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures with respect to its provision of Work under the Contract Documents. Contractor shall pay all payroll taxes imposed by any governmental entity and will pay all other taxes not specifically identified in the Contract Documents as Owner’s responsibility.

Termination; Suspension; Disputes. Owner may direct Contractor to terminate, suspend, delay, interrupt or accelerate Work, in whole or in part, for such periods of time as Owner may determine in its sole discretion. Owner will issue such directives in writing, and may do so, in whole or in part, for its convenience or due to Contractor’s fault. Owner will compensate Contractor for extra costs resulting from such directives only to the extent that Owner issues such directives for its convenience and not due to Contractor’s fault (but Owner shall not compensate Contractor for costs, profit or overhead anticipated to be earned or incurred on Work terminated for Owner’s convenience.) Contractor shall continue its Work throughout the course of any dispute, and Contractor’s failure to continue Work during a dispute shall be a material breach of the Contract Documents. All claims by Contractor against Owner shall be submitted in writing to Owner, and shall be governed by Public Contract Code Sections 20104 – 20104.6, after which time the one year time period in Government Code Section 911.2 shall be, pursuant to Government Code Section 930.2, reduced to 90 days. Should Contractor be terminated for default, and such termination is subsequently determined to be wrongful, such termination will be converted to a termination for convenience as provided herein.

Notices. All notices between the parties hereto shall be in writing and may be served by commercial express/overnight courier service or by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid and certified receipt requested, and addressed as indicated beneath each party’s signature in the Master Agreement, or as either party may otherwise provide to the other.

2.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 9 Dispute Resolution. All Contractor claims not otherwise subject to Public Contract Code Sections 20104 et seq shall, as a condition precedent to litigation thereon, first be mediated. Mediation shall be confidential, non-binding, pursuant to the construction mediation procedures of JAMS in San Francisco, California, and utilize the services of a mediator mutually acceptable to the parties. If the parties are unable to agree, the mediator will be selected by JAMS from its panel of approved construction industry mediators, having a minimum of 10 years’ experience in the construction industry. The cost of mediation shall be equally shared by all parties to the mediation. The parties shall, prior to the commencement of a mediation pursuant to this Paragraph, upon notice of the other party, exchange relevant, non-privileged project documents in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2031.010 et seq. Additionally, the parties may agree mutually to engage in additional discovery prior to mediation. Should the parties proceed with additional discovery, they shall, unless mutually agreed otherwise, comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2019, et. seq. The Mediator will undertake to resolve any discovery disputes relating to the Mediation.

Execution; Venue; Limitations. The Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed in San Mateo County, California. Enforcement of the Contract Documents shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflict of laws rules. Except as expressly provided in the Contract Documents, nothing in the Contract Documents shall operate to confer rights or benefits on persons or entities other than Owner and Contractor. As between the parties to the Agreement, any applicable statute of limitations for any act or failure to act shall commence to run on the date of Owner’s issuance of the final Certificate for Payment, or termination of the Contract Documents, whichever is earlier, except for latent defects, for which the statute of limitation shall begin running upon discovery of the defect and its cause.

2.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 10 Appendix C to Construction Services Agreement

INSURANCE

1. Commercial General Liability Insurance, written on an “occurrence” basis, which shall provide coverage for bodily injury, death and property damage resulting from operations, liability for slander, false arrest and invasion of privacy, blanket contractual liability, broad form endorsement, and completed operations, personal and advertising liability, with limits of not less than [$1,000,000] general aggregate and [$1,000,000] each occurrence, subject to a deductible of not more than [$1,000] payable by Contractor.

2. Business Automobile Liability Insurance with limits not less than [$1,000,000] each occurrence including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, subject to a deductible of not more than [$1,000] payable by Contractor.

3. Workers’ Compensation Employers’ Liability limits not less than [$1,000,000] each accident, [$1,000,000] per disease and [$1,000,000] aggregate. Contractor’s Workers’ Compensation Insurance policy shall contain a Waiver of Subrogation against the City of Pacifica, its officers, directors, officials, agents, employees and volunteers. In the event Contractor is self-insured, it shall furnish Certificate of Permission to Self-Insure signed by Department of Industrial Relations Administration of SelfInsurance, State of California.

4. [If applicable] Builder’s Risk Insurance including, without limitation, coverage against loss or damage to the Work by fire, lightening, wind, hail, aircraft, riot, vehicle damage, explosion, smoke, falling objects, vandalism, malicious mischief, collapse, and other such hazards as are normally covered by such coverage. Such insurance shall be in amount equal to the replacement cost (without deduction for depreciation and subject to stipulated value in lieu of average clause) of all construction constituting any part of the Work, excluding the cost of excavations, of grading and filling of the land. [Alternatively, if applicable] An Installation Floater including, without limitation, coverage against loss or damage to the Work by fire, lightening, wind, hail, vandalism, malicious mischief, and other such hazards as are normally covered by such coverage. Such insurance shall be in amount equal to the replacement cost (without deduction for depreciation and subject to stipulated value in lieu of average clause) of the Work. [If either Builder’s Risk or an Installation Floater is required, continue] Such insurance may be subject to deductible clauses not to exceed [$10,000] for any one loss. Such insurance will not cover loss or damage to Contractor’s equipment, scaffolding or other materials not to be consumed in the performance of the Work. The insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation against Owner.

5. Insurance policies in Appendix C shall contain an endorsement containing the following terms:

5.01 City of Pacifica, its officers, directors, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers, shall be named as additional insureds, but only with respect to liability arising out of the activities of the named insured, and there shall be a waiver of subrogation as to each named and additional insured.

5.02 The policies shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the company’s liability.

5.03 Written notice of cancellation, non-renewal or of any material change in the policies shall be mailed to Owner thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date thereof.

5.04 Insurance shall be primary insurance and no other insurance or self-insured retention carried or held by any named or additional insureds other than Contractor shall be called upon to contribute to a loss covered by insurance for the named insured.

2.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 11

6. Certificates of Insurance and Endorsements shall have clearly typed thereon the Project Name, shall clearly describe the coverage and shall contain a provision requiring the mailing of written notices of cancellation described in clause 5.03 above.

7. All policies of insurance shall be placed with insurers acceptable to Owner. The insurance underwriter(s) must be duly licensed to do business in the State of California and (other than for workers’ compensation) must have an A. M. Best Company rating of [A-,VII] or better. Required minimum amounts of insurance may be increased should conditions of Work, in the opinion of Owner, warrant such increase. Contractor shall increase required insurance amounts upon direction by Owner.

2.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 12

Appendix D to Construction Services Agreement

CONSTRUCTION LABOR AND MATERIAL PAYMENT BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:

THAT WHEREAS, City of Pacifica a general law city and municipal corporation of the State of California (Owner) has awarded to Stich Construction Inc. as Principal a Construction Services Agreement, titled 330 Esplanade Soil Nail Wall Demolition located at the City of Pacifica in the amount of $169,831.00 (Contract Sum), which Agreement is by this reference made a part hereof, for the work described as follows:

The project will demolish approximately 30’0” Long X 20’0” High of Concrete at 330 Esplanade Blvd and cut tiebacks at the cliff.

1. AND WHEREAS, Principal is required to furnish a bond in connection with the Agreement to secure the payment of claims of laborers, mechanics, material suppliers, and other persons as provided by law;

2. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal and ______________________________ as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto Owner in the sum of 100% OF THE CONTRACT SUM ($_________________), for which payment well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

3. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if Principal, or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns approved by Owner, or its subcontractors shall fail to pay any of the persons named in California Civil Code Section 9100, or amounts due under the State of California Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the Agreement, or for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the State of California Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of Principal and subcontractors pursuant to California Unemployment Insurance Code Section 13020 with respect to such work and labor, that Surety will pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees, otherwise the above obligation shall become and be null and void.

4. This bond shall inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in California Civil Code Section 9100, as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond. The intent of this bond is to comply with the California Mechanic’s Lien Law.

5. Surety, for value received, hereby expressly agrees that no extension of time, change, modification, alteration, or addition to the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and agreements of the Agreement, or to the work to be performed thereunder, shall in any way affect the obligation of this bond; and it does hereby waive notice of any such extension of time, change, modification, alteration, or addition to the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and agreements of the Agreement, or to the work to be performed thereunder.

6. Surety’s obligations hereunder are independent of the obligations of any other surety for the payment of claims of laborers, mechanics, material suppliers, and other persons in connection with Agreement; and suit may be brought against Surety and such other sureties, jointly and severally, or against any one or more of them, or against less than all of them without impairing Owner’s rights against the other.

2.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 13

7. Correspondence or claims relating to this bond shall be sent to Surety at the address set forth below.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this __________ day of ____________________, 20___.

CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY
Company: (Corp. Seal) Company: (Corp. Seal)

Signature Signature

Name Name

Title Title

Street Address Street Address

City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code

END OF DOCUMENT

2.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 14 Appendix E to Construction Services Agreement

CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:

8. THAT WHEREAS, City of Pacifica a general law city and municipal corporation of the State of California (Owner) has awarded to Stich Construction Inc. as Principal a Construction Services Agreement, titled 330 Esplanade Soil Nail Wall Demolition located at the City of Pacifica in the amount of $$169,831.00 (Contract Sum), which Agreement is by this reference made a part hereof, for the work described as follows:

The project will demolish approximately 30’0” Long X 20’0” High of Concrete at 330 Esplanade Blvd and cut tiebacks at the cliff.

1. AND WHEREAS, Principal is required to furnish a bond in connection with the Agreement, guaranteeing the faithful performance thereof;

2. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal and _________________________ as Surety are held and firmly bound unto Owner in the sum of 100% OF THE CONTRACT SUM to be paid to Owner or its successors and assigns; for which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

3. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if Principal, or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns approved by Owner, shall promptly and faithfully perform the covenants, conditions, and agreements of the Agreement during the original term and any extensions thereof as may be granted by Owner, with or without notice to Surety, and during the period of any guarantees or warranties required under the Agreement, and shall also promptly and faithfully perform all the covenants, conditions, and agreements of any alteration of the Agreement made as therein provided, notice of which alterations to Surety being hereby waived, on Principal’s part to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify, defend, protect, and hold harmless Owner as stipulated in the Agreement, then this obligation shall become and be null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect.

4. No extension of time, change, alteration, modification, or addition to the Agreement, or of the work required thereunder, shall release or exonerate Surety on this bond or in any way affect the obligation of this bond; and Surety does hereby waive notice of any such extension of time, change, alteration, modification, or addition.

5. Whenever Principal shall be and declared by Owner in default under the Agreement, Surety shall promptly remedy the default, or shall promptly:

5.01 Undertake through its agents or independent contractors, reasonably acceptable to Owner, to complete the Agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions and to pay and perform all obligations of Principal under the Agreement including, without limitation, all obligations with respect to warranties, guarantees, indemnities, and the payment of liquidated damages; or

5.02 Obtain a bid or bids for completing the Agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions, and, upon determination by Owner of the lowest responsible bidder, reasonably acceptable to Owner, arrange for a contract between such bidder and Owner and make available as work progresses (even though there should be a default or a succession of defaults under the contract or contracts of completion arranged under this paragraph) sufficient funds to pay the cost of

2.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 15 completion less the balance of the Contract Sum, and to pay and perform all obligations of Principal under the Agreement including, without limitation, all obligations with respect to warranties, guarantees, and the payment of liquidated damages; but, in any event, Surety’s total obligations hereunder shall not exceed the amount set forth in the third paragraph hereof. The term “balance of the Contract Sum,” as used in this paragraph, shall mean the total amount payable by Owner to the Principal under the Agreement and any amendments thereto, less the amount Owner paid to Principal.

6. Surety’s obligations hereunder are independent of the obligations of any other surety for the performance of the Agreement, and suit may be brought against Surety and such other sureties, jointly and severally, or against any one or more of them, or against less than all of them without impairing Owner’s rights against the others. Surety may not use Contractor to complete the Agreement absent Owner’s written consent.

7. No right of action shall accrue on this bond to or for the use of any person or corporation other than Owner or its successors or assigns.

8. Surety may join in any proceedings brought under the Agreement and shall be bound by any judgment.

9. Correspondence or claims relating to this bond shall be sent to Surety at the address set forth below.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this _________ day of ________________, 20___.

CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY
Company: (Corp. Seal) Company: (Corp. Seal)

Signature Signature

Name Name

Title Title

Street Address Street Address

City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code

END OF DOCUMENT

2.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 16 Appendix F to Construction Services Agreement

SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS

1. Plans
See Plans and Specifications.

2. Shop Drawings
Shop drawings will not be required on this project.

3. Dust Control and Cleanup
During the construction period, the dust level shall be kept at a minimum. The premises shall also be kept free from the accumulation of waste material or rubbish. Failure to meet this requirement may result in project shutdown.

The final cleaning shall leave the facilities ready for use with no additional cleanup. Use no cleaning materials which will contaminate the ocean. At the completion of the contract, the Contractor shall remove all remaining litter, debris, materials, temporary structures and equipment from the site.

The premises shall be left in a clean and orderly condition acceptable to the City Engineer.

In the event Contractor leaves the job overnight in an unclean condition, City may take action to provide necessary requirements and will deduct the cost of doing so from subsequent Contractor payments.

4. Public Safety
Contractor shall be responsible during all phases of work to provide for public safety and convenience. It shall be the Contractor’s responsibility to provide adequate provisions to assure the safety of the general public throughout the duration of the project, including periods when no work is being performed. The site shall be thoroughly fenced-off when work is not actively in progress, and lighted barricades shall be placed around any obstructions not encompassed by this fence.

In the event Contractor leaves the job overnight in an unsafe condition, or fails to provide for public safety and convenience, City may take action to provide necessary requirements and will deduct the cost of doing so from subsequent Contractor payments.

All applicable safety regulations shall be complied with to protect the public and the Contractor’s employees. Strict compliance with Cal/OSHA safety requirements in doing the work is required.

5. Prevailing Wage Rates
The Contractor shall post, in a location on the job site, the prevailing wage rate Determination which is applicable to this project.

6. Discrimination

2.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 17 No discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons upon public works because of the race, sex, age, color, national origin, creed, sexual orientation or marital status of such persons and every contractor for public works violating this section is subject to all the penalties imposed for a violation of Section 1735 of the California Labor Code.

7. Employment of Apprentices
Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 (Chapter 1411, Statutes of 1967) and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him.

The Contractor and any subcontractor shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices.

Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices.

8. Materials and Supplies
All materials and supplies called for by contractor’s scope and proposal and shall be new unless otherwise specified.

9. Protection
The Contractor shall provide adequate protection for the site and surroundings throughout the work.

All damage done to existing property shall be neatly repaired or replaced at the Contractor’s expense. Work shall be executed in a careful and orderly manner with the least possible disturbance to public and occupants of the area.

The Contractor shall conduct his operations in such a manner as to avoid damage to existing improvements and adjacent property. The Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, repair or replace any damage occurring from his operations to pursue completion of the contract. The repairs and replacement shall be to the satisfaction of the Engineer and according to City standards and practices. The minimum repair or replacement shall be equal to surrounding existing conditions or better, and the Engineer’s decision as to acceptable repair or replacement shall be final. The burden of proof as to whether there was existing damage by the Contractor shall rest with the Contractor.

The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. All existing facilities shall be protected and, if they are damaged or destroyed by the Contractor, shall be restored or replaced in kind at his expense, to their original conditions, or better, as approved by the City or other owner thereof. The site shall be secured at the conclusion of each work day.

10. Inspections
Inspectors, employed by the City, shall be authorized to inspect all work done and all materials furnished. Such inspection may extend to all or any part of the work on the project and to the preparation, fabrication or manufacture of the materials to be used. An inspector is not authorized to revoke, alter or waive any requirements of the specifications. He is authorized to call the attention of the Contractor to any failure of the work or materials to conform to the specifications and

2.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 18 contract. He shall have the authority to reject materials or suspend the work until any question at issue can be referred to and decided by the Engineer.

An inspector will in no case act as foreman or perform other duties for the Contractor, nor interfere with the Contractor’s management of the work.

In case the Contractor refuses to suspend operations on verbal order, the inspector giving such verbal order will then issue the order in writing. After placing the order in the hands of the person in charge of the work for the Contractor, the inspector will immediately leave the job. Work done during the absence of the inspector will not be accepted or compensated.

The Contractor shall prosecute work only in the presence of an authorized inspector or authorized representative of the Engineer, and any work done without such inspection shall be at the Contractor’s risk and be subject to rejection.

The Contractor shall furnish the Engineer with every reasonable facility for ascertaining whether or not the work, as performed, is in accordance with the requirements and intent of the specifications and contract. The Contractor shall at all times and for any purpose permit the Engineer and any of his representatives and representatives of the City to have access to the work and the premises used by the Contractor.

11. Defective Materials
Any materials condemned or rejected by the Engineer as not meeting the requirements of these specifications may be branded or otherwise marked by the Engineer and shall, on demand, be at once removed by the Contractor to a satisfactory distance from the work.

If the Contractor does not remove such material within a reasonable time, fixed by written notice, the City may remove and store the materials at the expense of the Contractor. If the Contractor does not pay the expense of such removal and storage within ten days thereafter, the City may, upon ten days’ written notice, sell such materials at auction or at private sale. The City will account for the net proceeds thereof after deducting all the costs and expenses that should have been borne by the Contractor.

No partial payment, inspection, taking possession of, or other act made or done by the Engineer or the City with respect to the work prior to the final completion and acceptance thereof shall relieve Contractor from performing the Work in accordance with this contract, and shall not affect or prejudice the right of the Engineer or the City to reject any defective work or material or to require the Contractor complete fulfillment of all the provisions of the contract.

If the Engineer deems it expedient and not in the best interests of the City to correct work injured or done not in accordance with the contract, the defective work may be accepted subject to an equitable deduction from the contract price which may be made therefor by the City upon certificate from the Engineer.

12. Temporary Suspension of Work and Extension of Time for Performance When conditions at the site of the proposed work are unsatisfactory for the prosecution of a part or all of the work as adjudged by the Contractor and he is forced to suspend such work until reasonable conditions for its prosecution exist, he may request, in writing, that the Engineer authorize such suspension of work. Without the Engineer’s approval, any suspensions violate this specification.

2.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 19 Unsatisfactory conditions may include, but not limited to: inclement weather, excessively high surf and/or tides, strikes, excessive high or low ambient temperature and inability of delivery of materials by suppliers for good reason.

When, in the opinion of the Engineer, suspensions of work are beyond the control of both the Contractor and the City (including, without limitation, adverse weather, conditions, earthquakes, force majeure events), the time of performance as set forth in the Agreement will be extended by the Engineer, in writing, by a period of time equal to that lost due to the delay occasioned by the allowed suspension, all at no additional cost to the City and without waiver of remedies for nonproliferation of the work. Such allowed suspension of work shall not relieve the Contractor of his contractual responsibilities.

13. Laws and Regulations
The Contractor shall comply with all local, regional, State and Federal laws and regulations at all times. In addition, the Contractor shall meet the standards set by the Air Quality Act for Noise and Pollution. If there is any conflict between these specifications and provisions and any laws or regulations, the matter shall be brought to the attention of the Engineer immediately.

14. Sound Control Requirements
The Contractor shall comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, regulations and ordinances which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract.

Each internal combustion engine, used for any purposes on the job or related to the job, shall be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine shall be operated on the project without said muffler.

15. Air Pollution Control
The Contractor shall comply with all air pollution control rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract, involving any air pollution control rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes specified in Section 11017 of the Government Code.

16. Water Pollution
General:

Contractor shall take all measures necessary to prevent debris or contamination from entering the ocean. Best Management Practice (BMP) shall be enforced at all times.

Correction of Inadequate Pollution and Erosion Control Measures:

If the measures being taken by the Contractor are inadequate to control water pollution effectively, the City Engineer may direct the Contractor to revise operations. The directions will be in writing and will specify the items of work for which the Contractor’s water pollution control measures are inadequate. No further work shall be performed on those items until the water pollution control measures are made adequate.

Abatement of Other Water Pollution:

2.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 20 The cleanup of water pollution by chemicals, petroleum products, cement or by the escape of any other material that is harmful or potentially harmful, from the work site as a result of the Contractor’s operations, into drainage systems or the ocean shall be the financial responsibility of the Contractor. The means of cleanup and the party or parties to be engaged to perform the cleanup work shall be determined by the Engineer in consultation with appropriate hazardous materials, pollution control, safety, health and wildlife authorities and officials. The Contractor shall immediately carry out cleanup orders issued to him through or by the Engineer and shall make the work site accessible to personnel and equipment from outside pollution control resources called in by the Engineer. The cost of cleanup action called for by the Engineer and performed by outside resources shall be deducted from any monies due or become due the Contractor.

Compensation:

Full compensation for conforming to the requirements of this section shall be considered as included in the Contract Sum paid for the various items of work and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.

17. Environmental Protection Requirements
Source Reduction and Recycling
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) mandates that 25 percent of the waste stream in the City of Pacifica be diverted from landfill by 1995 and that this diversion increase to 50 percent by 2000. AB 939 also required the City of Pacifica to prepare and adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) outlining recommended programs to meet the above noted diversion goals. One of the approved SRRE programs is to require the utilization of recycled construction materials for City projects. All work performed under this contract and all contractors and their associates and/or employees shall utilize recycled materials and recycle construction materials where feasible. Construction/Demolition Recycling Resources Lists are available from the Pacifica Planning Department and the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

Contractor shall reuse or recycle any useful construction materials generated during the project.

Disposal
At the end of each working day, the Contractor shall collect all scrap, debris and waste material and dispose of such materials properly.

Hazardous Material/Waste Management
A. Storage
The Contractor shall label and store all hazardous materials, such as pesticides, paints, thinners, solvents, and fuels; and all hazardous wastes, such as waste oil and antifreeze; in accordance with the City of Pacifica Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance and all applicable State and Federal regulations.

The Contractor shall store all hazardous materials and all hazardous wastes in accordance with secondary containment regulations, and it is recommended that these materials and

2.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 21 wastes be covered, as needed, to avoid potential management of collected rain water as a hazardous waste.

The Contractor shall keep an accurate, up-to-date inventory, including Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes stored on-site, to assist emergency response personnel in the event of a hazardous materials incident.

B. Disposal
The Contractor shall use secondary containment, such as a drip pan, to catch leaks or spills any time that vehicle or equipment fluids are dispensed, changed or poured.

The Contractor shall keep a stockpile of spill cleanup materials, such as rags or absorbents, readily accessible on site.

The Contractor shall clean up leaks and spills of vehicle or equipment fluids immediately and dispose of the waste and cleanup materials as hazardous waste, as described in the section above.

The Contractor shall not wash any spilled material into streets, gutters, storm drains or creeks and shall not bury spilled hazardous materials.

The Contractor shall report any hazardous materials spill to the City of Pacifica Building Division at (650) 738-7344.

The Contractor shall inspect vehicles and equipment arriving on site for leaking fluids and shall promptly repair leaking vehicles and equipment. Drip pans shall be used to catch leaks until repairs are made.

C. Activity-Specific Requirements
The following requirements shall be met on all projects within the City of Pacifica that include the listed activities.

Concrete, Grout and Mortar Waste Management
Material Management:

The Contractor shall store concrete, grout, and other materials away from drainage areas and ensure that these materials do not enter the storm drain system or the ocean waters.

Concrete Truck/Equipment Wash Out:

The Contractor shall not wash out concrete trucks or equipment into streets or gutters.

The Contractor shall perform washout of concrete trucks or equipment off-site or in a designated area on-site where the water will flow onto dirt or into a temporary pit in a dirt area. The Contractor shall let the water percolate into the soil and

2.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc) 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT – Page 22 dispose of the hardened concrete in a trash container. If a suitable dirt area is not available, then the Contractor shall collect the wash water and remove it off-site.

18. Layout of Work
Layout of work shall be done by the Contractor. Contractor shall mark the work area limits and facilities to be removed and replaced. All layout shall be approved by the City.

19. Substitutions
Substitutions in material or methods of construction, when necessary because of material shortages or in order to avoid serious delay may be made only after they are approved by the City Engineer in writing.

20. Traffic Control and Public Access
The Contractor shall be responsible for proper traffic control to assure public safety and convenience. Continuous safe public access shall be maintained to residential structures at all times.

21. Material and Workmanship
All materials and workmanship are to be the best of their respective kinds. The terms “or equal,” “approved,” “selected” and so forth shall mean as approved, etc. by the City Engineer. All materials and equipment used should be in accordance with the manufacturer’s printed directions.

Use adequate numbers of skilled workmen who are thoroughly trained and experienced in necessary crafts and who are completely familiar with the specified requirements and methods needed for proper performance of work specified. Use equipment adequate in terms of size, capacity and numbers to accomplish work in a timely manner.

22. Drug-Free Workplace
The Contractor is required to comply with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. The requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Policy are described in City of Pacifica Administrative Policy Number

46. 23. Harassment and Discrimination
The Contractor is required to comply with City of Pacifica Administrative Policy Number 33, Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace.

24. Payroll Records
Contractor and each Sub-Contractor shall keep an accurate payroll record, showing the name, address, social security number, work week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by him in connection with the public work. All payroll records shall be certified and maintained by the Contractor and be made available to auditors and managers from the City upon request.

2.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment A_STICH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

CITY OF PACIFICA
540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT
330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION PROJECT
DATE: AUGUST 28, 2023

1. IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR:

CONTRACTOR: RV STICH CONSTRUCTION INC
CALIFORNIA LICENSE NO: 530135

2. SCOPE OF THE WORK
CLASS: A, B, C21
See Scope of Work attached as Appendix A.

COMPENSATION FOR WORK. Contractor's total compensation for the Work performed under this Agreement (Contract Sum) is $190,576.00 to be paid as (check one): (1) □ lump sum; (2) □ lump sum with progress payments; (3) !Elper attached schedule of rates and charges, up to a guaranteed not-to-exceed amount of $190,576.00. All payments (check one): �shall □ shall not be subject to a five percent (5%) retention.

3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE FOR THE WORK. Contractor shall commence and complete the Work by the following dates:

Commencement Date shall be on the date established in the Notice to Proceed. Owner reserves the right to modify or alter the Commencement Date of the Work.

Substantial Completion Date: Within 30 working days of Commencement Date.

Final Completion Date: Within 30 working days of Substantial Completion.

3.01 Liquidated Damage Amounts.

A. As liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay Owner Two Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($2,500.00) for each Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work, until achieved.

B. As liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay Owner Two Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($2,500.00) for each Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Final Completion of the entire Work, until achieved.

3.02 Scope of Liquidated Damages
A. Contractor and Owner agree that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix the amount of such actual damages incu1Ted by Owner because of a delay in completion of all or any part of the Work. Contractor and Owner agree that specified measures of liquidated damages shall be presumed to be the amount of such damages actually sustained by 330 ESPLANADE SOIL NAIL WALL DEMOLITION RV STICH CONSTRUCTION INC. AGREEMENT - Page I

ATTACHMENT B

2.b
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

2.b
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Attachment B_RV STICH AGREEMENT (5421 : Resolution - Award of Contract to Stich Construction, Inc)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/28/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Amendment No. 4 to the Inter-Agency Agreement with the San Mateo Resource Conservation District and Agreement with San Mateo County for the Pacifica State Beach Bacteria TMDL Special Study Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Amendment No. 4 to the Inter-Agency Agreement with the San Mateo Resource Conservation District and Approve Agreement with San Mateo County for the Pacifica State Beach Bacteria TMDL Special Study Services; and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents.” STAFF CONTACT:

Raymund Donguines, P.E.

Senior Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3768
[email protected]
Roland Yip, P.E.

Deputy Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E.

Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City of Pacifica (City) and County of San Mateo (County), in order comply with the Basin Plan Amendment establishing the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for bacteria in San Pedro Creek and at Pacifica State Beach was required to submit a Bacteria Water Quality Monitoring Plan. The Basin Plan Amendment was adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) on November 14, 2012. It became effective on October 1, 2013 following approval by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency on August 1, 2013 and adoption by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on March 19, 2013.

The TMDL required the development of a Bacteria Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMP) Implementation and Monitoring Plan for the San Pedro Creek watershed to reduce discharges of bacteria to the storm drain systems to attain wasteload allocations. The City has jurisdiction over 75% of the drainage basin while the remaining 25% belongs to the San Mateo County. City and County collaborated on developing a single BMP Implementation and Monitoring Plan.

On November 28, 2016, the City and County approved the Inter-Agency Agreement with the 3 Packet Pg. 124
Pacifica City Council 2
August 28, 2023
San Mateo Resource Conservation District (RCD) for Pacifica State Beach Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load Monitoring Services and approved the Agreement with San Mateo County for Reimbursement of the Monitoring Costs. On December 28, 2016, City approved Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $8,886, on August 11, 2020, City Manager approved Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $40,106.93 and on August 9, 2021, City Council approved Amendment No. 3 in the amount of $147,178.50. Amendment No. 2 was for additional required water sampling and Amendment No. 3 continued the Monitoring Plan for the San Pedro Creek and Pacifica State Beach from 2021 through 2025 as required by the Water Board.

San Pedro Creek is a complex system with many potential sources of bacteria including controllable sources such as humans, horses, and dogs, and uncontrollable sources, such as wildlife, and secondary sources such as biofilms and sediment. Bacteria sources were identified based on the results of a bacterial source tracking study and identified the sanitary sewer system as the main human source. However, to date, we have not identified the exact source or sources related to the sanitary sewer system. The upcoming lower Linda Mar sewer rehabilitation project may help address the problem. Water samples from the creek, its tributaries, and stormwater inflows, are analyzed in two ways. First, samples are analyzed for concentrations of fecal indicator bacteria which tells us about the severity of the problem, how much bacteria are in the creek and at which point. Second, samples are analyzed using Microbial Source Tracking (MST) which allows for the DNA analysis of water samples to test for the presence of specific animal markers from, in this case, horses, humans, and dogs. While there is some unquantified background level of bacteria from uncontrollable sources such as wildlife and secondary sources, MST analysis continues to detect bacteria from controllable sources. The three primary controllable sources of bacteria in the watersheds, humans, dogs, horses, are being targeted using three strategies. The San Pedro Creek watershed drains roughly eight square miles and has five major tributaries and moving the existing sampling sites within the watershed will isolate potential sources of human DNA and reduce the overall area of the sewer system required for inspections and possible repairs. Efforts to minimize horse manure entering the creek are focused on equestrian operations. Efforts to control pet waste from dogs takes the form of targeted outreach and education.

The City, County and RCD has been working diligently on reducing bacteria in San Pedro Creek and Pacifica State Beach. These efforts include but are not limited to, public engagement at local events such as Fog Fest and Eco Fest, direct mailers, print advertisements, local television advertisements, sewer lateral grants and various social media post. The City and County also annually inspected the horse and animal facilities and City Wastewater staff inspected and improved miles of sewer main line within the watershed. Unfortunately, these efforts have not significantly reduced the bacteria in San Pedro Creek and Pacifica State Beach.

Since the Waste Load Allocations (WLA) was not met as required by the TMDL, the Water Board is requiring a Special Study Plan for conducting bacteria water quality monitoring along the Pacifica State Beach (Beach). This special study will assess the spatial and temporal extent of bacteria impairment at the beach. Water quality data collected under this effort aims to constrain bacteria sources and determine the safe to swim zone along the beach. Samples collected from the monitoring locations at the creek mouth and distributed north and south along the beach will provide data to isolate bacterial sources and characterize the spatial extent of bacterial impairments along the beach. Grab samples will be collected at the established monitoring sites at the creek mouth, point zero at the mixing zone (LM5), and at designated intervals along the beach and all will be analyzed for fecal indicator bacteria (FIB). Microbial Source Tracking (MST) will be conducted using the human, horse, dog, seagull, and universal markers twice during both the wet and dry season. Salinity data will be collected with each grab sample and these measurements provide an additional water quality parameter that will help characterize the creek discharge plume and potential correlations with bacteria. A separate section of this study will focus on assessing compliance with WLAs at another Linda Mar beach 3 Packet Pg. 125
Pacifica City Council 3
August 28, 2023
sampling station (LM7). This section will analyze all available weekly sampling data at two beach sampling stations and the Creek Mouth to determine if WLAs are being met for the beach. Finally, based on findings of the plume study and of the WLA Assessment, a stormwater best management practices (BMP) analysis using ArcGIS will be developed by the RCD. The objective of the BMP analysis is to identify stormwater BMPs in the watershed. If the plume study identifies significant sources of bacteria along the beach, BMPs will focus on those sources. If the plume study does not identify any significant sources of bacteria along the beach, then BMPs will focus on stormwater management opportunities in the upper watershed.

The City Manager recommends approval of Amendment No. 4. with RCD and the new agreement with San Mateo County.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may choose not to approve the amendment and agreement. This could result in the City not meeting Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements. Staff does not recommend this alternative action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
• Preserve and Enhance Natural Resources: includes mapping out parks and open space, preserving hillsides and beaches, paying attention to flora and fauna needs, and environmental health.

Approving the amendments will assist the City meet statutory requirements and will protect the City’s creeks, beaches and oceans and preserve environmental health.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total cost for Amendment No. 4 is $136,228.00 covering FY 2023 to 2025, which will cost $68,114.10 per year. Pacifica's share of the annual cost is expensed out of NPDES Stormwater Fund ($25,542.75) and Wastewater Fund ($25,542.75). There is no need for additional budget authority at this time as enough funds are budgeted in both NPDES Stormwater fund and WWTP fund during the adoption of the City’s annual fiscal budget. Future cost will also be budgeted as part of the respective annual budgets.

Annual
Breakdown
Cost Funding Source
NPDES
Fund 16
WW Fund
34 SM
County
Special Study $136,228.00 $51,085.50 $51,085.50 $34,057.00 FY 23-24 $68,114.00 $25,542.75 $25,542.75 $17,028.50
FY 24-25 $68,114.00 $25,542.75 $25,542.75 $17,028.50
Use of Funds
Special Study $136,228.00
Total Use of Funds $136,228.00
Source of Funds
3 Packet Pg. 126
Pacifica City Council 4
August 28, 2023
NPDES Fund 16 $51,085.50
Wastewater Fund 34 $51,085.50
San Mateo County $34,057.00
Total Source of Funds $136,228.00
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A_Amendment No. 4 to the Inter-Agency Agreement with the San Mateo Resource Conservation District (PDF)
Attachment B_Agreement Between the County of San Mateo and City of Pacifica (PDF) Attachment C_Pacifica State Beach Special Study Bacteria Water Quality Monitoring Program (PDF)
3 Packet Pg. 127
Pacifica City Council 5
August 28, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE INTER-AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN MATEO

RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH SAN

MATEO COUNTY FOR THE PACIFICA STATE BEACH BACTERIA TMDL SPECIAL STUDY SERVICES; AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL

DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, the Basin Plan Amendment established the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for bacteria in San Pedro Creek and at Pacifica State Beach and was adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) on November 14, 2012.; and
WHEREAS, the TMDL required the development of a Bacteria Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMP) Implementation and Monitoring Plan for the San Pedro Creek watershed to reduce discharges of bacteria to the storm drain systems to attain wasteload allocations.; and
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2016, the City and County approved the Inter-Agency Agreement with the San Mateo Resource Conservation District (RCD) for the San Pedro Creek and Pacifica State Beach Bacteria TMDL Monitoring Services and approved the Agreement with San Mateo County for Reimbursement of the Costs.; and WHEREAS, on December 28, 2016, City approved Amendment No. 1, on August 11, 2020, City Manager approved Amendment No. 2, and on August 9, 2021, City Council approved Amendment No. 3.; and
WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board is requiring a Special Study Plan for conducting bacteria water quality monitoring along the Pacifica State Beach.;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the City of Pacifica authorizes the City Manager to execute Amendment #4 with RCD and Agreement with San Mateo County for the Governing Board.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 28th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
3 Packet Pg. 128
Pacifica City Council 6
August 28, 2023
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 3 Packet Pg. 129

Page 1 ends

Pacifica City CouncilAugust 28, 2023

Pacifica City Council
August 28, 2023