Project: Pacific Schedule
Date: Fri 7/14/23
7.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Consultant Services Agreement CCWRP SCADA PLC Upgrade Project Telstar Rev. 2021v2 signed [Revision 1] (5461 : Resolution - Estimated Level of Effort
Task Sub Task Task Description
EngineerProgrammerPanel BuilderDrafterElectricianElectrician ApprenticeTravel Notes
1 Project Coordination
Kickoff meetings888
Project Management 24 40
Subtotal 32 4800008
2 Preliminary Design
Submittals & Construction Drawings 168 24
Existing SCADA System Review 12 24
Workshop Preparation 12 168
SCADA Development Workshops88
Subtotal 48 560 24008
3 Final Design
3A 60 % PS&E Package
Hardware Procurment and Configuration8 240 40
Submittals & Construction Drawings 848
SCADA, PLC & Alarm Programming 840
SCADA Development Workshops8 128
3B 90 % PS&E Package
Submittals & Construction Drawings 444
SCADA, PLC & Alarm Programming 590
SCADA Development Workshops 128
3C 100 % PS&E Package
Submittals & Construction Drawings 44
SCADA, PLC & Alarm Programming 194
SCADA Development Workshops 168
FAT 16 80
Subtotal 48 1992 40 4000 24
4 Construction-Phase Design Support Services
PLC Hardware and installation 40 64 24 64
SCADA, PLC & Alarm Programming 160 80
Training 168
As builts and final docs 16 16
Subtotal 56 1760 16 64 24 152
Total 184 2272 40 80 64 24 192
7.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Consultant Services Agreement CCWRP SCADA PLC Upgrade Project Telstar Rev. 2021v2 OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
EXHIBIT B
Compensation
CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for the Services on a cost reimbursement basis, up to the Cost Ceiling (as defined in Section 2.1 of the Agreement). CONSULTANT agrees to use appropriate methods to contain its fees and costs under this Agreement. Compensation shall include only the following costs, which shall all count toward the Cost Ceiling:
1. Direct Labor
Direct labor costs shall be the total number of hours worked on the job by each employee times the agreed hourly rate for such employee's labor as set forth on the attached Exhibit B-1. CITY will pay all personnel at their regular straight-time rate, including any work performed on overtime or on holidays or weekends.
2. Subconsultant Costs
Subconsultant services shall be billed at cost plus a 10 percent markup. CONSULTANT shall provide a copy of each subconsultant's invoice for which it seeks payment from CITY with any invoice in which such payment is requested.
3. Other Direct Costs
The following categories of costs are eligible for reimbursement, which shall be made at the actual cost to CONSULTANT without any additional mark-up:
a. Reasonable living and traveling expenses of employees when away from home office on business in its prosecution of the Services. CONSULTANT must have prior approval of CITY to be reimbursed for these expenses.
b. Automobile expenses for personal vehicle use, if necessary, at the IRS approved mileage rate.
c. Reproduction of drawings and specifications by CONSULTANT as required under this Agreement, at rates prevailing in this community for bulk reproduction or at other reasonable rates approved by CITY.
d. Special overnight delivery or messenger services.
Payments to CONSULTANT for reimbursable costs/expenses will be made only after the specific costs/expenses have been incurred and CONSULTANT has submitted substantiating documentation, such as copies of paid invoices or other documentation confirming that such costs/expenses have been incurred.
7.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Consultant Services Agreement CCWRP SCADA PLC Upgrade Project Telstar Rev. 2021v2 signed [Revision 1] (5461 : Resolution - OAK #4823
-2508-6159 v2
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
EXHIBIT B-1
7.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Consultant Services Agreement CCWRP SCADA PLC Upgrade Project Telstar Rev. 2021v2 signed [Revision 1] (5461 : Resolution - Cost Proposal $ 220 $ 214 $ 134 $ 96 $ 192 $ 156 $ 195
Task Sub Task Task Description
EngineerProgrammerPanel BuilderDrafterElectricianElectrician ApprenticeTravelLabor CostMaterial CostVehicle & Tools 1 Project Coordination
Kickoff meetings 8 8 8 $ 5,032.00 $ 698.00
Project Management 24 40 $ 13,840.00
Subtotal 32 48 0 0 0 0 8 $ 18,872.00 $ 698.00
2 Preliminary Design
Submittals & Construction Drawings 16 8 24 $ 7,536.00
Existing SCADA System Review 12 24 $ 7,776.00
Workshop Preparation 12 16 8 $ 7,624.00 $ 698.00
SCADA Development Workshops 8 8 $ 3,472.00
Subtotal 48 56 0 24 0 0 8 $ 26,408.00 $ 698.00
3 Final Design
3A 60 % PS&E Package
Hardware Procurment and Configuration 8 240 40 $ 58,480.00 $ 439,365.00 Submittals & Construction Drawings 8 4 8 $ 3,384.00
SCADA, PLC & Alarm Programming 840 $ 179,760.00
SCADA Development Workshops 8 12 8 $ 5,888.00 $ 698.00
3B 90 % PS&E Package
Submittals & Construction Drawings 4 4 4 $ 2,120.00
SCADA, PLC & Alarm Programming 590 $ 126,260.00
SCADA Development Workshops 12 8 $ 4,128.00 $ 698.00
3C 100 % PS&E Package
Submittals & Construction Drawings 4 4 $ 1,264.00
SCADA, PLC & Alarm Programming 194 $ 41,516.00
SCADA Development Workshops 16 8 $ 4,984.00 $ 698.00
FAT 16 80 $ 20,640.00
Subtotal 48 1992 40 40 0 0 24 $ 448,424.00 $ 441,459.00 4 Construction-Phase Design Support Services
PLC Hardware and installation 40 64 24 64 $ 37,312.00 $ 2,792.00 SCADA, PLC & Alarm Programming 160 80 $ 49,840.00 $ 3,490.00 Training 16 8 $ 4,984.00 $ 698.00
As builts and final docs 16 16 $ 5,056.00
Subtotal 56 176 0 16 64 24 152 $ 97,192.00 $ 6,980.00
Total 184 2272 40 80 64 24 192 $ 590,896.00 $ 449,835.00 Grand Total $ 1,040,731.00
7.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Consultant Services Agreement CCWRP SCADA PLC Upgrade Project Telstar Rev. 2021v2
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/25/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services related to the FY 2024-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services in the amount of $157,000.00 in connection to the FY 2024-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project; approve budget authority in the amount of $172,700.00 which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed 10% from the Street Construction Fund (Fund 9); and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related with the project.” STAFF CONTACT:
Bryan Bautista, Assistant Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3769
[email protected]
Raymund Donguines, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3768
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City of Pacifica is responsible for maintaining over 90 centerline miles of street pavement.
In order to complete this street maintenance, the City identifies a budget every year for annual street maintenance projects as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). It is important for the City to complete the annual street maintenance projects each year to prevent Citystreets from falling into more expensive repair categories. One year missed in completing the City’s annual street maintenance projects can escalate the decline of the City’s overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and increase the ongoing cost of maintenance.
At the October 12, 2020 City Council meeting, staff discussed the new 5-year Street Maintenance Program and the City’s 2019 Budget Options Report. At this meeting, the City Council accepted the 5-year Street Maintenance Program (Program), which identified streets for rehabilitation. As noted in the October 12, 2020 Council report, the goal of the 5-year Street Maintenance program is to prevent streets from falling into more expensive repair categories. The City’s approved program does this by using slurry seal treatments to keep good streets in the good condition category (which is the least expensive way to maintain streets) and using a stopgap cape seal treatment on suitable residential and collector streets in the poorer condition categories. The cape seal, along with localized pavement repairs, will 8 Packet Pg. 136
Pacifica City Council 2
September 25, 2023
provide significant protection to the street surface of these poorer condition category streets for a period of seven to ten years preventing further deterioration of the street surface. This will allow time for the City to identify other pavement funding sources for street rehabilitation. In addition to slurry seal and cape seal treatments, theprogram will continue to assign overlay and reconstruction treatments to arterial and some collector streets based on the extent of pavement deterioration and traffic volumes.
Staff worked with a pavement consultant, NCE, to develop the Five-year Street Maintenance Program for the City’s streets and the several resurfacing projects since the program was developed. NCE is on the City’s on-call consultant list for civil engineering. Due to the condition of the City’s pavement, it is necessary to choose a consultant who is knowledgeable in specialized pavement design and rehabilitation for stop gap pavement treatments. NCE has been working in the Bay Area since 1990 and is highly regarded for their expertise in pavement design and rehabilitation in the area and for their work with the pavement research branch of the Federal Highways Administration.
The FY 2024-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project will resurface approximately 7 miles (43 street sections) of City pavement and follows the Council approved 5-year Street Maintenance Program. It also includes streets recently added from a Council approved $650K funding addition, which is discussed more below. Due to the City receiving grant funding for Sharp Park Road that was scheduled to be slurry sealed with this Program, this work has been pushed out to align with the grant needs. In reviewing appropriate replacement streets in the area with the pavement consultant based on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission StreetSaver program, the City will add a portion of Talbot Avenue from the City limits to San Pablo and Carmel Avenue (including two small sections that connect Carmel to Paloma) from Mirador to Sierra.
During the FY 23-24 budget session, the City Council approved $650K from Measure Y Funds (FY 22-23) to go towards street areas that had not been included in the City’s 5-Year Street Maintenance Program, due to the condition of the streets in these areas. The StreetSaver program did not pick streets for the Program from Vallemar, Rockaway, and Pedro Point because many of the streets are in failed condition. The most cost-effective use of the City’s limited pavement maintenance dollars is to either keep good pavements in good condition or cap older pavements to keep them from falling into failed condition. City staff and the pavement consultant selected streets for the approved $650k within these areas based on the following criteria: streets were next to City businesses, streets were next to City schools, streets were collector or residential collector streets (ie. they are used by residents to get to and from businesses/schools), and the streets will be minimally impacted by the upcoming sewer system upgrades in Vallemar and East Rockaway. Based on these criteria, portions of San Pedro Road, Grand Avenue, West Rockaway Beach Avenue, Dondee Way, Old County Road, East Rockaway Beach Avenue, and Reina Del Mar Avenue were selected (Attachment 2).
Staff requested NCE to provide a proposal for engineering services for the design of the FY 2024-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project and prepare the construction documents for the project under Task Order No. 1. Staff reviewed their proposal, and the City Manager recommends approval of the Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may choose not to authorize design of the FY 2024-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project.
However, this will result in continued deterioration of the City’s pavement network. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.
8 Packet Pg. 137
Pacifica City Council 3
September 25, 2023
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of these actions is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to sealevel rise. Approval of these actions will improve the City street network.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Task Order No. 1 will provide the engineering services to complete the project. The cost of the Task Order is $157,000.00. City staff recommends including a 10% contingency to the Task Order for any additional work, such as additional field work. The use of the contingency will be reviewed and approved by City staff. The proposed project budget is as follows:
Project Budget
Task Order No. 1 - Engineering Services $ 157,000.00
Contingency (10%) $ 15,700.00
Total Project Cost $ 172,700.00
The City’s funding for streets since FY18/19 includes ongoing SB1 and Measure W (began in FY 19/20) funding with yearly allocations of approximately $956K and $544K, respectively.
Additionally, rollover Measure A money in the Street Construction Fund (Fund 9) of approximately $350K/year will be available for the 5-year Street Maintenance Program. For this FY project, City Council also approved $650K from Measure Y Funds. For future resurfacing projects, funds collected from the Utility Cut Fee and Construction Vehicle Impact Fee will also be available.
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (PDF) Attachment 2: FY 24-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project - List of Streets (PDF) 8 Packet Pg. 138
Pacifica City Council 4
September 25, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING THE MASTER AGREEMENT AND TASK ORDER NO. 1 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA
AND NCE FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $157,000.00 IN CONNECTION TO THE FY 2024-25 PAVEMENT RESURFACING PROJECT; APPROVE BUDGET AUTHORITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $172,700.00 WHICH INCLUDES CONTINGENCIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 10% FROM THE STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND (FUND 9); AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED WITH THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City desires to move forward with the design of the FY 2024-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project using a portion of funds allocated from the Street Construction Fund (Fund 9); and
WHEREAS, the City evaluated NCE’s proposal, and is satisfied they can successfully complete the work and has been satisfied with their services on past City projects; and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica authorizes the City Manager to execute the Master Agreement, Task Order No. 1, and future task orders for the Council for an amount not to exceed the budget authority amount of $172,700 that includes a 10% contingency and authorizes the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special and regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 25th day of September 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 8 Packet Pg. 139
- 1 - OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
MASTER AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Master Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 25th of September, 2023 by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and NCE (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY requires civil engineering, geotechnical engineering, pavement engineering, landscape architecture, biological resources, and water resources consultant services; WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified to perform such services; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has agreed to provide CITY with such services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, CONSULTANT and CITY agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1. Scope of Services. CONSULTANT agrees to furnish services pursuant to a Task Order in the form set forth in Exhibit A, Task Order, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Services").
1.2. Compliance with Law. The Services shall be performed in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders.
1.3. Time is of the Essence. CONSULTANT agrees to diligently prosecute the Services. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence.
1.4. Professional Competence. CONSULTANT represents that it has the professional skills necessary to perform the Services and that it will perform the Services in a skillful and professional manner. CONSULTANT represents that it has all the necessary licenses to perform the Services and shall maintain them throughout the term of this Agreement.
CONSULTANT agrees that the Services shall be performed consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by engineers practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT is in responsible charge of the Services. Acceptance by CITY of the Services does not operate as a release of CONSULTANT from professional responsibility for the Services performed.
1.5. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an employee of CITY. CONSULTANT expressly warrants that it will not represent that it is an employee of CITY.
8.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order - 2 - OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
1.6. Confidentiality. CONSULTANT agrees to maintain in confidence and not disclose to any person, firm, governmental entity, or corporation, without CITY's prior written consent, any trade secret or confidential information, knowledge or data relating to the products, process, or operation of CITY. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain in confidence and not to disclose to any person, firm, governmental entity, or corporation any data, information, technology, or material developed or obtained by CONSULTANT during the performance of the Services. The covenants contained in this Section 1.6 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause.
1.7. Ownership of Material. Any reports and other material prepared by or on behalf of CONSULTANT under this Agreement (collectively, the "Documents") shall be and remain the property of CITY. All Documents not already provided to CITY shall be delivered to CITY on the date of termination of this Agreement for any reason. The Documents may be used by CITY and its agents, employees, representatives, and assigns, in whole or in part, or in modified form, for all purposes CITY may deem appropriate without further employment of or payment of any compensation to CONSULTANT.
1.8. Documentation. CONSULTANT shall keep and maintain full and complete documentation and accounting records, employee time sheets, and correspondence pertaining to the performance of the Services, and CONSULTANT shall make such documents available for review and/or audit by CITY and CITY's representatives at all reasonable times for at least four years after the termination of this Agreement or completion of the Services.
1.9. Testimony. CONSULTANT agrees to testify at CITY's request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with the Services. Unless the action is brought by CONSULTANT or is based upon CONSULTANT's negligence, CITY will compensate CONSULTANT for the preparation and the testimony at CONSULTANT's standard hourly rates.
ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION
2.1. Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with the rate and schedules specified in a Task Order. However, in no event shall the amount the CITY pays to CONSULTANT for work done under a Task Order exceed the total compensation specified in the Task Order (“Cost Ceiling”).
2.2. Invoices. CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices in a form satisfactory to CITY on or before the tenth day of each month for Services provided during the preceding month. CONSULTANT shall submit time and cost records as necessary to substantiate performance of the Services. Within 35 days after receipt of each such invoice, CITY shall verify the accuracy of the invoice, correct the charges where appropriate and as discussed and mutually agreed with CONSULTANT, and make payment to CONSULTANT in an amount equal to the amount of such invoice, as verified or corrected by CITY. No payment hereunder shall be construed as evidence of acceptance of any of CONSULTANT's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONSULTANT on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in CONSULTANT's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder. CONSULTANT
8.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order - 3 - OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
shall not stop or delay performance of the Services under this Agreement on account of payment disputes with CITY.
2.3. Status Reports. Together with each monthly invoice, CONSULTANT shall submit a status report detailing the amount expended on the Services to that date and the remaining amount to be expended before the Cost Ceiling is reached. CONSULTANT shall notify CITY in writing when payments have reached 90 percent of the Cost Ceiling.
2.4. Withholding. In lieu of holding retention, CITY shall withhold CONSULTANT's final payment under a Task Order until the Services provided under that Task Order are complete and CITY has received all Documents. CONSULTANT shall diligently continue and complete performance of the Services if the Services are not complete at the time CONSULTANT has performed services up to the Cost Ceiling.
ARTICLE 3 - TIME OF PERFORMANCE
3.1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the second signature and shall remain in full force and effect until December 31, 2024 (the "Term").
Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be extended for successive one-year term(s) upon mutual, written approval by the City Manager or his/her designee and CONSULTANT. Work authorized by a Task Order shall be performed in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Task Order.
3.2. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by CITY upon written notice to CONSULTANT.
3.3. Final Payment. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation for Services performed up to the time of such termination, it being understood that any payments are full compensation for the Services rendered under this Agreement.
3.4. Other Remedies. Nothing in this Article 3 shall be deemed to limit the respective rights of the parties to terminate this Agreement for cause or otherwise to exercise any rights or pursue any remedies which may accrue to them.
ARTICLE 4 - DESIGNATED CONTACTS
4.1. CITY Contact. CITY designates Roland Yip, P.E., its Deputy Director of Public Works, as its contact who shall be responsible for administering and interpreting the terms and conditions of this Agreement, for matters relating to CONSULTANT's performance under this Agreement, and for liaison and coordination between CITY and CONSULTANT. In the event CITY wishes to make a change in CITY’s representative, CITY will notify CONSULTANT of the change in writing.
4.2. CONSULTANT Contact. CONSULTANT designates J. Ryan Shafer P.E., GE, its Principal, as its contact, who shall have immediate responsibility for the performance of the Services and for all matters relating to performance under this Agreement. Any change in CONSULTANT's designated contact shall be subject to written approval by CITY.
8.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order - 4 - OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
ARTICLE 5 - INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
5.1. Indemnification. CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to claims, liability, loss, damage, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees, awards, fines, penalties, or judgments, arising out of or relating to the Services (collectively "Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its Officials, officers, employees and agents (the "CITY Parties"), except to the extent the Claims are attributable to CITY Parties' gross negligence or willful misconduct. CONSULTANT shall defend the CITY Parties as required by California Civil Code Section 2778, and with counsel reasonably acceptable to those parties. CONSULTANT shall have no right to seek reimbursement from the CITY Parties for the costs of defense except as allowed by law pursuant to Civil Code section 2782.8. The obligations contained in this Section 5.1 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause for the full period of time allowed by law and shall not in any way be limited by the insurance requirements of this Agreement.
To the extent that CONSULTANT, is a design professional, as that term is defined in Civil Code section 2782.8(c)(3), the Consultant shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to claims, liability, loss, damage, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney’s and expert witness fees, awards, fines, penalties, or judgments (collectively “Claims”), defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officials, officers, employees and agents (“CITY Parties”) from those Claims that are caused by the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. In no event shall the cost to defend charged to the Consultant exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.
However, notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, the Consultant shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs.
The obligations contained in this Section 5.1 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause for the full period of time allowed by law and shall not in any way be limited by the insurance requirements of this Agreement.
5.2. Health and Safety. CONSULTANT may perform part of the Services at sites which contain unknown working conditions and contaminated materials. CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for the health and safety of CONSULTANT's employees during the performance of the Services.
5.3. Insurance. CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants and other agency shall procure, provide and maintain at all times during the performance of this Agreement, and for such additional periods as described herein, the insurance listed below with insurers licensed to do business in the State of California and with a Best's rating of no less than A:VII.
A. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance providing bodily injury liability and property damage, to protect against
8.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order - 5 - OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
all liability arising out of the use of any owned, leased, passenger or commercial automobile at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit and $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall apply to hired and non-owned autos.
B. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial General Liability Insurance, with limits providing a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage for each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products/completed operations aggregate. The insurance shall cover all operations including but not limited to the following: (1) premises, operations and mobile equipment liability; (2) completed operations and products liability; (3) contractual liability insuring the obligations assumed by CONSULTANT in this Agreement; (4) broad form property damage liability; (5) personal injury liability endorsement, including death; and (6) automobile bodily injury and property damage insurance, including all owned, hired and non-owned equipment.
C. Professional Liability Insurance. Professional Liability Insurance protecting against liabilities arising out of or in connection with negligent acts, errors, or omissions of CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants and other agency in connection with this Agreement, at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage and $1,000,000 aggregate, on a "claims made basis" with a continuation of coverage extension for liabilities for two years from the date the Services are substantially complete. Such professional liability policies shall include coverage for liability assumed by the CONSULTANT under this Agreement.
D. Workers Compensation Insurance. Workers Compensation insurance, occupational disease insurance and employer’s liability insurance shall be required with minimum limits as required by law, covering all workplaces involved in this Agreement.
E. Policy Terms. Concurrently with execution of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with Certificates of Insurance evidencing that CONSULTANT has obtained or maintains the insurance required by this Section
5.3. The Certificates shall be on forms acceptable to CITY. CONSULTANT shall also furnish CITY with original endorsements with the following documentation:
• Precluding cancellation or reduction in coverage before the expiration of thirty (30) days after CITY shall have received written notification thereof from CONSULTANT by United States mail;
• Providing that CONSULTANT’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, and include a “separation of insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability (cross- liability endorsement); • Excepting CONSULTANT’S professional liability insurance, naming CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds (“Additional Insureds”); and
8.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order - 6 - OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
• Providing that for any claims relating to CONSULTANT's services hereunder, CONSULTANT's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents, and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY for itself, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents shall be in excess of CONSULTANT's insurance and shall not be contributory with it.
• It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverages requirements and/or limits shall be available to the Additional Insured, including but not limited to any umbrella or excess insurance.
Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be the greater of:
(a) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (b) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured.
F. Material Breach. If CONSULTANT fails to maintain insurance coverage or provided insurance documentation which is required pursuant to this Agreement, it shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. CITY, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from CONSULTANT resulting from said breach. Alternatively, CITY may purchase the required insurance coverage, and without further notice to CONSULTANT, may deduct from sums due to CONSULTANT any premium costs advanced by CITY for such insurance. These remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies available to CITY.
ARTICLE 6 - NOTICES
All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered or sent by facsimile or reputable overnight courier and shall be deemed received upon the earlier of: (1) if personally delivered, the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice; (2) if delivered by Federal Express or other overnight courier for next business day delivery, the next business day; (3) if sent by facsimile, with the original sent on the same day by overnight courier, the date on which the facsimile is received, provided it is before 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time; or (4) if sent electronically, the date of delivery on the confirmed read receipt. Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner described in this Article 6. Rejection or other refusal to accept or the inability to deliver because of a change in address of which no notice was given shall be deemed to constitute receipt of the notice or communication sent. Unless changed in accordance herewith, the addresses for notices given pursuant to this Agreement shall be as follows:
If to CITY: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 738-7409
8.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order - 7 - OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038
Email: [email protected]
If to CONSULTANT: J. Ryan Shafer, P.E., GE, Principal
501 Canal Boulevard, Suite I
Pt. Richmond, CA 94804
Phone: (510) 215-3620
Email: [email protected]
ARTICLE 7 - MISCELLANEOUS
7.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of CITY and CONSULTANT as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. This Agreement may only be modified by an amendment in writing signed by each party.
7.2. No Assignment. The Services are deemed unique and neither party shall assign, transfer, subcontract or otherwise substitute its interest in this Agreement or any of its obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party. As limited by this Section
7.2, this Agreement is to be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
7.3. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is determined to be unconstitutional, invalid or beyond the authority of either party, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement can be interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties.
7.4. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and, when fully signed, such counterparts shall have the same effect as if signed in one document.
7.5. Choice of Law. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without reference to its choice of laws principles and venue shall be in the appropriate court in San Mateo County, California.
7.6. Waiver. No failure on the part of either Party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder. A waiver by either CITY or CONSULTANT of any breach of this Agreement shall not be binding upon the waiving party unless such waiver is in writing. In the event of a written waiver, such a waiver shall not affect the waiving party's rights with respect to any other further breach.
7.7. Mediation. In the event the parties are unable to resolve a dispute arising under this Agreement through good faith negotiations, the parties agree to submit the matter to mediation with a mutually agreeable mediator. Prior to the mediation, the parties shall exchange any documents reasonably necessary to resolve the matter to be mediated. 1003 Cutting Boulevard, Suite 110
8.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order - 8 - OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
7.8. Attorney’s Fees. If any action at law or in equity, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, which may be set by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled.
7.9. Interpretation. In the event this Agreement is ever construed in any dispute between the parties, it and each of its provisions shall be construed without regard to the party or parties responsible for its preparation and shall be deemed to have been prepared jointly by the parties. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement.
7.10. Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of one of the parties represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver the Agreement on behalf of such party and that this Agreement is binding on such party in accordance with its terms.
7.11. Third Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with, or cause of action in favor of, a third party against either the CITY or CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT’s Services hereunder are being performed solely for the benefit of CITY.
[Signatures on Next Page]
8.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order - 9 - OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.
CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
CONSULTANT: NCE
By: Date
J. Ryan Shafer, P.E., GE, Principal
By: Date
9-15-2023
8.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order EXHI
BIT A
TASK ORDER
OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
8.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order - 2 - OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
TASK ORDER NO. 1
CITY OF PACIFICA
AND
NCE
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct NCE to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below, in accordance with the provisions of the Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica (“CITY”) and NCE (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated September 25, 2023 (“MASTER AGREEMENT”)
SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK
The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Attachment “A” – Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT. Compensation for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be as set forth in Attachment “B” – Compensation, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided under this Task Order shall not exceed One Hundred Fifty-Seven Thousand and no/100 ($157,000) (“Cost Ceiling”).
SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed within 90 days or as extended in writing by the City Manager.
SECTION 5 – ITEMS AND CONDITIONS
All terms and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT are incorporated by reference and remain in full force and effect.
Approved this 25th day of September, 2023
8.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order -
3- OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2 05620-0129
CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
CONSULTANT: NCE
By: Date
J. Ryan Shafer, P.E., GE, Principal
By: Date
9-15-2023
8.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order -
4- OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2 05620-0129 ATTACHMENT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES
8.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order City of Pacifica
FY 24/25 Pavement Resurfacing and Concrete Improvements Project Scope of Work
Date: August 25th, 2023
Page | 1
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH
NCE has had the privilege of working with the City on its 5-year work plan since 2020 and we have completed the FY 2020/21 to FY 2023/24 pavement resurfacing projects since then. The 5-Year Plan was developed based on City budget, the desire to have a resurfacing project each year, grouping and aggregating by neighborhoods for efficiency of design, construction (less mobilization), future maintenance, and to be able to resurface more streets with a limited pavement resurfacing annual budget. The City indicated they wanted to use conventional and rubberized cape seals, double slurry seals, multi-layer seal with base repairs, or single-layer surface seal in lieu of more costly conventional overlays or reconstruction as a stop gap interim measure until additional funding sources can be identified. Cost-effective cape seal/rubber cape seal/double slurry seal/multi-layer seal will be applied on residential and collector streets in generally fair to very poor condition and slurry seals will be applied to residential and collector streets in generally fair to good condition in an effort extend pavement life, address moderately cracked pavement, and improve ride quality. In addition, one collector street in generally poor to failed condition (Reina Del Mar Avenue between Reichling Avenue and Minerva Avenue) is identified as in need of a more robust rehabilitation treatment.
The City would now like to complete the FY 2024/25 Pavement Resurfacing Project with a total construction cost of $1.7 million. The resurfacing street list is attached herein and includes the street sections, limits, and other pertinent street attributes. We understand that the City would like to begin design to complete construction documents for bidding in early 2024 and begin construction in Summer 2024. An optional task of professional service support is also included per City’s request.
Key Assumptions
In order to deliver the most cost-effective design strategy, we have made the following key assumptions:
City’s Responsibilities
NCE has assumed that the City will be able to provide the following to the extent available:
1. Provide information regarding utilities (i.e., water, sanitary sewer, electrical, and storm drain), boundary, right-of-way, and property limits, and existing construction as available.
2. Provide aerial maps for base-mapping information.
3. Provide project requirements, including design objectives, budget, constraints, and criteria.
4. Provide existing technical specifications as the basis for developing new technical specifications.
5. Provide City Standard Provisions and Standard Design Criteria.
6. Provide electronic files of City’s cover sheet template, if preferred.
7. Provide Front End specifications.
8. Provide bike path and pedestrian master plan as the reference.
8.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order City of Pacifica
FY 24/25 Pavement Resurfacing and Concrete Improvements Project Scope of Work
Date: August 25th, 2023
Page | 2
Pavement Testing and Design
1. Pavement design will be based on Caltrans Standards with a combination of coring, pavement condition surveys, laboratory testing of subgrade, and observed field conditions depending on rehabilitation strategy.
2. Pavement coring will be performed with spacing criteria and bulk samples as follows:
a. Pavement cores will be obtained approximately every 1,500 feet and a minimum of two cores per rehabilitation street section. Pavement cores will also be obtained on cape seal or multi-layer seal streets with lower Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Pavement cores will not be obtained on other cape seal or slurry seal or double slurry seal streets. b. Bulk samples of subgrade for laboratory testing will be limited, and only obtained within areas of observed fatigue cracking and pumping, for which typically up to one (1) bulk sample location has been allocated for the whole project on Reina del Mar Avenue, as rehabilitation is expected with no reconstruction.
3. Base and spot repairs will be measured in length and width to estimate bid quantities for all street sections.
It is the intent that base/spot repair quantities will be for bidding quantity purposes only and that actual locations will be re-marked by NCE with the City’s inspectors prior to construction as an optional task. In addition, a field calibration meeting will be setup as needed to identify the best approach to address fatigue cracking, rutting, more severe longitudinal/transverse and block cracking, and poor ride quality. This field meeting might include:
a. Base repairs depth (agree on depth and discuss experience of City staff with likely thickness of existing pavement, agree on 3-inch, 4-inch, or 6-inch base repairs). b. Spot repair or thin mill and fill (Type III microsurfacing spot repair) to address more severe areas of block and longitudinal, transverse cracking, and/or bad pavement seams. c. Miscrosurfacing leveling course to address ride quality and localized distortions/irregularities. d. HMA leveling course to address ride quality and localized distortions/irregularities. e. Consideration of other pavement treatment technologies such as sandwich seals that may be beneficial to the extent this fits in the City’s budget.
4. A no-fee encroachment permit will be pulled with the City for all pavement testing if required.
Topographic Surveying, Base Maps, and Right-of-Way
1. To provide a cost-effective design, preventive maintenance (surface seals) and rehabilitation street sections will only include vicinity maps delineating limits of treatment with accurate field inventories for bid quantities and appropriate detail sheets. Plan sheets will include curb and gutter replacement, and base repair schedules only. Plan sheets will not show individual locations on design plans. Base repair and curb repairs will be marked in the field on the pavement in white paint and numbered and verified prior to construction by the City’s CM and NCE.
2. A critical assumption is that all street resurfacing, rehabilitation and improvement work will be within City right-of-way, as this has impacts to the level of effort required to completion of design.
3. Design sheet information will be based on field inventories and approximate field measurements to verify items, such as utility covers, cross-slope, street widths and lengths, medians, and repair candidates for curb and gutter.
8.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order City of Pacifica
FY 24/25 Pavement Resurfacing and Concrete Improvements Project Scope of Work
Date: August 25th, 2023
Page | 3
4. Again, to provide cost-effective design, our scope does not include any topographic surveys with the assumption that the project will not include significant drainage improvements, complex changes in street geometry or intersection improvements, or full pavement section reconstruction. Should we determine that aerial base maps are not sufficient and topographic information is required for developing drainage improvements and/or for more complex pavement geometries and/or streets that may need to be reconstructed, we can provide topographic survey work at an additional cost.
5. Based on previous project experiences, we will determine which existing curb returns may need a topographic survey to design based on the following criteria: high street grades, utility obstructions, and other criteria agreed upon by the City and NCE. Recommended locations will be submitted to the City for further review. Topographic survey and design of these 3D curb ramps could be provided by NCE at additional scope and fee if desired.
Utility Coordination and Location
1. Assumes no significant roadway reconstruction requiring lowering or relocation of utilities.
2. NCE will prepare and distribute utility notification letters to collect facility maps and as-builts, confirm utility planned work, and notify utilities of the City’s utility cut moratorium on improved streets.
3. The subject street sections are expected to be candidates for rehabilitation and preventive maintenance, utility locating is currently not included in our scope of work. If significant roadway reconstruction is required, we will discuss with the City utility locating options (e.g., GPR) and can provide for additional scope and fee.
4. Utility covers will be field located approximately and inventoried for the purposes of placing onto plan sheets and developing bid quantities for adjustment of utility covers.
Traffic Striping
1. Traffic striping is assumed to match existing striping.
2. No significant traffic striping changes or design requiring traffic studies or assessment of traffic impacts is planned or included as a part of this scope.
3. Striping plans will not be developed in this project.
4. As part of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan from the City, NCE will incorporate the following striping improvements: class III, and class IIIB bicycle facilities. NCE will identify street lists to receive these improvements as well.
Traffic Control Plans
1. Traffic control plans are not included in this scope of work. We have assumed as is typical to have the contractor prepare traffic control plans in accordance with project technical specifications and requirements and submit to the City traffic engineering group for review.
Curb Ramps
1. It is assumed that all non-compliant curb ramps will be replaced or retrofitted (e.g., detectable warning surface embedded in concrete) in accordance with Caltrans standards, which we have estimated to be approximately 45 locations. Curb ramps will be replaced or retrofitted based on guidance from the Department of Justice/Department of Transportation Joint Technical Assistance on the Title II of the ADA Requirements to Provide Curb Ramps when Streets, Roads, or Highways are altered through Resurfacing
8.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order City of Pacifica
FY 24/25 Pavement Resurfacing and Concrete Improvements Project Scope of Work
Date: August 25th, 2023
Page | 4
dated July 8, 2013. For the purposes of developing this scope of work, we have assumed that surface seal streets that will receive slurry seal or double slurry seal applications will not require assessment and/or replacement of curb ramps. Further clarification on curb ramp replacement included in this scope of work is as follows:
a. Replaced/retrofitted/added curb ramps are assumed to be readily constructed with only minor grade adjustments.
b. Utility relocations (e.g. utility poles, utility boxes, and drainage inlets, for example) required to construct curb ramps are not included in this scope of work. c. All ramp construction shall be within City ROW.
d. Curb ramp design for the purposes of this scope
of work includes paving conforms up to 2 feet
beyond gutter lip or face of curb, or 2 feet beyond
back of walk
e. For curb ramps within hills or steepened grades,
curb ramp design shall only extend up to 15 feet
in the uphill direction, beyond which is
considering chasing the grade.
2. Curb ramps will be field verified to determine the appropriate standard case ramp and NCE will develop a curb ramp detail for those that will require a custom curb ramp. Curb ramp details will not be to survey accuracy and not contain elevations, and therefore some adjustments may be required during construction.
Drainage
1. The project will, to the extent possible, and within the context of proposed rehabilitation and preventive maintenance, address visible drainage issues or settled curb. However, it should be noted that no topographic survey data will be obtained and therefore drainage improvements will not include detailed flow line surveys.
2. No major drainage improvements are assumed for this project requiring significant stormwater drain and pipe alteration and/or reconstruction.
Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk
1. Curb and gutter sections will only be replaced to the extent that it affects pavement treatment (e.g., tree root uplift or settlement) or to improve drainage.
2. Sidewalk replacement is not included in this scope of work, but can be added if required for additional scope and fee.
Encroachment Permit
1. NCE will apply for no-fee City encroachment permits for all field work, including pavement coring work, if required.
Deliverable Packages
1. NCE will prepare two separate Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E) deliverable packages. One package will include concrete improvements such as curb ramps or curb and gutter repairs and the second package
8.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order City of Pacifica
FY 24/25 Pavement Resurfacing and Concrete Improvements Project Scope of Work
Date: August 25th, 2023
Page | 5
will include pavement resurfacing elements such as surface seal, base/spot repairs, HMA overlays, and traffic striping.
The purpose of our services will be to provide pavement and civil engineering design in support of the planned project by the City. To accomplish the stated purpose, we propose the following scope of services.
Project Scope
Task 1 – Project Management & Meetings
1A) Project Kick-off Meeting/Progress Meetings:
NCE’s Project Manager will arrange a Kick-Off Meeting with the City to initiate work on the project. The objectives of the Kick-Off Meeting will be:
Review of the Scope of Work
Establish Lines of Communication
Confirm Deadlines
Establish Project Schedule and Milestones
Define Design and Operation Criteria
Whether a simple preventive maintenance project or a complex reconstruction project, it is critical to establish effective lines of communication with, and coordination amongst, the various stakeholders from the start to ensure the delivery a high quality project within budget and on schedule.
In addition to City staff (Engineering, Maintenance, etc.), NCE will research and coordinate, as-needed, with other agencies such as PG&E, AT&T, North Coast County Water District, Sewer and Stormwater, Schools, etc., to identify any potential conflicts, requirements, or design issues early to help minimize delays (and costs) later in the design process or during construction. At the Kick-Off Meeting, key deliverables for each Task and the Project Schedule would be reviewed and adjusted accordingly to meet City needs.
NCE is very sensitive to construction costs, particularly the volatile price of materials, which have affected the scope of many similar projects. In order to keep the City aware of overall project costs, NCE will begin developing Preliminary Engineering Cost Estimates as soon as we have developed our engineering design recommendations to closely monitor any potential funding issues, which may develop. During the course of the project, NCE will be seeking to develop the most appropriate and cost-effective pavement surface seal alternatives as we completed in FY 2020/21 to FY 2023/24 pavement resurfacing program to stay within the planned project budget and schedule.
Throughout the project, NCE staff will be available to attend regularly scheduled progress meetings with the City, to maintain good communications for this project to offer up efficiency and reduce the number of design review and coordination meetings. Therefore, we have assumed up to two (2) progress meetings for FY 2024/25 resurfacing project to be included in our scope. The purpose of the progress meetings will be to identify and resolve any design or funding issues that may surface in a timely manner, present design alternatives and recommendations to City staff, and continue coordination with project stakeholders as necessary.
Deliverables: Kick-off/Progress Meeting Agendas and Minutes
8.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order City of Pacifica
FY 24/25 Pavement Resurfacing and Concrete Improvements Project Scope of Work
Date: August 25th, 2023
Page | 6
1B) Utility Coordination:
NCE will coordinate with utility agencies early in the design process to help avoid potential construction delays and unnecessary disruptions to public services. Utility coordination will be a critical item to keep utility providers informed about the project and schedule. One of the first and earliest items that NCE will complete is sending notification letters to applicable utility providers with a preliminary project schedule for street rehabilitation and surface seal projects for each year of projects. This will allow for the earlier notification to allow utility providers to perform maintenance on their facilities prior to moratorium on the street paving area.
NCE will also carefully document all utility coordination notifications, conversations, and meetings with utility contacts and information in a matrix format with dates of contacts and mailing detailed in this matrix. Follow-up calls will be made for each of the above notifications to confirm receipt. NCE will also keep the City informed of any project delays related to utilities.
Deliverables: Utility notification letters
Task 2 – Pavement Design
The scope of work we would perform under this task consists of the following:
2A) Pavement and Curb & Gutter Condition Survey:
NCE will perform a pavement condition survey of each street section based on distresses. The surveys will generally cover the travel and parking lanes. Pavement condition surveys serve the purpose of further refining the appropriate pavement surface treatments.
This condition survey will generally note the presence of load related and environmental distresses, such as alligator cracking, longitudinal and transverse cracking, rutting, patches and utility cuts, distortions and depressions as they pertain to developing appropriate pavement treatments. In addition, potential base repairs will be identified in the condition survey. Our scope of work and condition surveys do not address issues including but not limited to traffic, safety and road hazards, geometric issues, or short-term maintenance that should be performed (i.e. pothole that should be repaired).
A visual assessment of all curb and gutters will be included to identify areas where drainage or the adjacent pavement has been compromised. Our scope will limit repair recommendations to only those sections of curb and gutter that are damaged to the extent that they will affect pavement surface seals or cause ponding water or tripping hazard (i.e., tree root damage extending into pavement). If damaged curb and gutter areas are more extensive than anticipated, it may require additional time to complete, and we will notify the City if more time is required to complete these surveys.
Assume curb and gutter replacement criteria will remain the same as previous projects. NCE will meet with the City and establish updated condition criteria for assessment and replacement if needed. Based on the criteria established with the City, NCE will then determine what level of curb and gutter replacement will be pursued for design plans and documents.
2B) Pavement Coring:
NCE will collect pavement section core samples (4” – 8” diameter cores) on streets identified under key assumptions. All coring locations will be marked with white paint for utility location by Underground Service Alert
8.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order City of Pacifica
FY 24/25 Pavement Resurfacing and Concrete Improvements Project Scope of Work
Date: August 25th, 2023
Page | 7
(USA). Our current fee estimate assumes up to 20 core locations that we estimate will take one and a half (1.5) days to complete. For each core sample, NCE will measure and record the thickness and material type of each layer encountered in the pavement section, including the presence of any pavement reinforcing fabric.
Bulk samples of subgrade will be obtained at only one (1) location on Reina del Mar Avenue (between Reichling Avenue and Minerva Avenue) in accordance with stated key assumptions. We will collect bulk samples of subgrade materials at the core locations for laboratory testing such as R-value, moisture content and Atterberg Limits (plasticity index) determinations. The thickness of aggregate base (AB) will be measured at the bulk sample location only.
The core holes will penetrate through the pavement section and will then be backfilled with the excavated materials and capped with AC cold patch. NCE will then compile the coring and laboratory data and append it to its pavement design memorandum. Each core sample will be logged and stored at NCE’s office and retained through the duration of the project including construction before they are disposed. Additionally, NCE will apply for and obtain a no-fee encroachment permit from the City prior to starting the coring and provide traffic control in accordance with the same standards discussed in pavement deflection testing. 2C) Pavement Design Recommendations:
Using the data obtained in Tasks 2A and 2B, NCE will perform pavement analysis and design services, and develop pavement rehabilitation and preventive maintenance recommendations for each street section. NCE will perform its analysis in accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. NCE will develop pavement structural section recommendations expressed in the form of a Traffic Index (TI) that will be provided by the City. NCE will develop recommendations including, but not limited to, the following:
Conventional Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (RHMA)
Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA)
Locations and treatments of failed pavement sections (base repairs) Full-width milling and wedge grinding requirements
Surface seal treatments including but not limited to slurry seals, microsurfacing, conventional cape seals, rubber cape seal, and multi-layer surface seal.
NCE will then summarize its recommendations in a pavement design tables to the City that, at a minimum, will include street inventory, pavement structure thickness, base repair percentage, recommended treatments, and lab testing results.
NCE will submit the draft pavement design tables to the City for initial review. Upon receipt of any comments from the City, NCE will then prepare its final pavement design tables and submit to the City.
Task 2 Deliverables: Draft & Final Pavement Design Tables.
Task 3 – Plans, Specifications & Estimates
The work that will be performed during developing design PS&E are outlined in the subsequent Tasks. 3A) Design Data Gathering:
NCE will review relevant available data and records from the City as listed in the previous section, public and private utility providers, and other sources that may be appropriate to support the preparation of project contract documents. These may include, but are not limited to, the City drainage structure inventory maps, aerial
8.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order City of Pacifica
FY 24/25 Pavement Resurfacing and Concrete Improvements Project Scope of Work
Date: August 25th, 2023
Page | 8
photographs of the City; as-built street improvement and infrastructure plans, striping and markings, as-built plans from utility providers, including any preliminary plans for future work that may conflict with this project. The gathered information will be compiled and included in the base map used for design. It shall be noted that available record data (e.g., utilities, right-of-way) used to prepare the base map for streets undergoing rehabilitation will only be shown in their approximate location and that the depth of utilities will not be indicated. Based on our review we will identify any data gaps or missing information and provide this information to the City for review and discussion. 3B) 60% PS&E:
NCE will prepare the 60% PS&E for the planned street rehabilitation and surface seal street sections. The 60% plans for subject street sections will incorporate schematic design elements, localized base repairs (digouts) quantities, striping quantities, curb and gutter repair schedules, and limits of work. On subject street sections to offer the most cost-effective approach, plans will only include vicinity maps delineating limits of treatment with accurate field inventories for bid quantities and appropriate detail sheets with exceptions noted under key assumptions. Plan sheets will include curb and gutter replacement and base repair schedules only, but will not show individual locations on design plans. Base repair and curb repairs will be marked in the field on the pavement in white paint and numbered, and verified prior to construction. Additionally, a table summarizing major work items (e.g. surface seal area, base repair area, etc.) and their estimated quantities will be developed and included on the respective plan sheets. We find that this information is particularly useful to contractors when assembling construction bids and schedules, thus resulting in more competitive bids, and to the City for verifying pay quantities during construction.
NCE understands that the City will provide the “Front End” documents and Special Provisions. The technical specifications will be prepared in MS Word format and will follow the City’s formatting conventions. The technical specifications and details will reference the City’s standard provisions and Caltrans 2018 Standards (including subsequent updates). NCE will, however, recommend deviating from Caltrans standards where, from our experience, such changes will improve the likelihood of achieving a successful construction project without compromising the integrity of the design. NCE recognizes the value of incorporating Caltrans Standard Specifications in projects such as these, both because these specifications have been developed by an agency that designs and builds a vast amount of highway work, and because most contractors performing public works construction in Northern California are familiar with them. Caltrans, however, has the resources to administer projects quite differently than most local agencies, so NCE advocates modifying the Caltrans Standard Specifications to better fit the abilities, needs, and budgets of municipal agencies.
NCE also believes that an efficient yet thorough Quality Control/Quality Assurance program is essential for getting the maximum value out of every dollar spent on construction. Projects designed by NCE therefore, contain technical specifications that attempt to optimize the balance between using rigid, but time-tested, specifications and meeting local agency needs, with the ultimate goal of obtaining the very best value for its clients.
The Engineer’s Cost Estimate will be prepared in MS Excel format and will be based on the most recent construction cost data available to NCE for projects of this type. Because of NCE’s involvement in the design and construction of numerous similar projects throughout California, we are confident in our ability to estimate the construction cost of the City’s project. This initial estimate will then be updated and refined as the design effort progresses.
It is assumed that the City will require a 5 to 10-day review/comment period once the 60% PS&E package is submitted.
Deliverables: One reproducible copy of 60% plans, technical specifications, and engineer’s estimate.
8.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order City of Pacifica
FY 24/25 Pavement Resurfacing and Concrete Improvements Project Scope of Work
Date: August 25th, 2023
Page | 9
3C) 90% PS&E:
The 60% PS&E will be revised to incorporate comments received from the City. NCE will meet with the City to review these comments, from which the 90% PS&E will be prepared. NCE will provide a response to each comment that is included in a comment table provided by the City. The 90% PS&E will include additional design information and details typically expected at this stage of completion. The 90% PS&E will then be packaged and submitted similar to the 60% PS&E unless directed otherwise.
The technical specifications will be further refined and at this stage of the design. We will review and comment on the City’s Front End documents (bid and contract forms, General Provisions, Special Provisions, etc.), which the City will prepare and provide. The Engineer’s Cost Estimate will also be updated to reflect the revised quantities of work depicted on the plans.
It is assumed that the City will require a 5-day review/comment period once the 90% PS&E package is submitted.
Deliverables: One reproducible copy of 90% plans, technical specifications, and engineer’s estimate. 3D) Final (100%) PS&E:
The 90% PS&E will be revised to incorporate comments received from the City. NCE will again meet with the City to review these comments, from which the final (100%) PS&E will be prepared. NCE will provide a response to each comment that is included in a comment table provided by the City. The final (100%) PS&E will include all notes and details necessary for construction. One reproducible copy of the final (100%) PS&E will then be packaged and submitted similar to the 90% PS&E unless directed otherwise. It is assumed that the City will require a 5-day review/comment period once the final (100%) PS&E package is submitted.
Upon receipt of the City’s final review comments, the project documents will be finalized for bidding purposes.
A final quantity calculation will be tabulated, and this will be entered into the final Engineer’s Cost Estimate for the project. All final documents will be reviewed, stamped and signed by NCE’s registered civil engineer, and the final PS&E will be delivered to the City in both hard copy and electronic formats.
Deliverables: One electronic file of the final plans, technical specifications, and engineer’s estimate. The electronic files for the final construction plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimate will be in AutoCAD 2022, Microsoft Word, and Microsoft Excel, respectively.
Task 4 – As Needed Professional Services (Optional)
NCE will assist the City with as needed professional services that may include surveying additional curb ramps with NCE labor if needed, marking base/spot repairs with the contractor during construction, advising the City during construction regarding pavement treatments, submittals, RFIs, and other items that may come up during the course of design and construction.
SCHEDULE
NCE will provide a detailed design schedule to achieve delivery of construction documents for bidding in early 2024 once we have a notice to proceed and agreement on the revised scope of work. We will discuss further the level of effort and time to complete construction documents given the significant number of curb ramps that may require replacement and/or retrofit.
8.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order City of Pacifica
FY 24/25 Pavement Resurfacing and Concrete Improvements Project Scope of Work
Date: August 25th, 2023
Page | 10
FEE ESTIMATE
NCE will provide the defined scope of work for a not to exceed fee of $139,000 and $157,000 with optional Task 4 in accordance with the attached schedule of charges. Further cost detail is provided in the attached fee estimate.
8.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order FY 2024-25 PAVEMENT RESURFACING PROJECT STREET LIST
8.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order Pacifica FY24-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project (CD 1004.55-2301) Year # Street ID Section ID Street Name Beg Location End Location No.
Lanes
FC
L
(ft)
W
(ft)
Approx.
Area (sft)
2022
PCI Origiinal Work Plan Treatment Updated Treatment(08/14/2023) Unit Cost
($/sy) Project Cost
24-25 1 ARLEEN 2060 Arleen Way CULLEN DR RIDGEWAY DR 2 R 653 29 18,937 55 SLURRY SEAL Slurry Seal (with >30% skin patch) $ 6.00 $ 12,625 24-25 2 BRADFO 2070 Bradford Way MORI`S POINT RD FAIRWAY DR 2 R 944 33 31,152 22 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR Option 1: Double Slurry Seal Option 2: Rubber Cape Seal $ 11.50 $ 39,805
24-25 3 BRADFO 2070A Bradford Way FAIRWAY DR SHARP PARK RD 2 R 1,796 20 35,920 50 SLURRY SEAL Rubber Cape Seal $ 12.00 $ 47,893 24-25 4 BRIGHT 2080A Brighton Road PALMETTO AVE FRANCSICO BLVD 2 R 750 29 21,750 60 SLURRY SEAL Slurry Seal $ 5.00 $ 12,083 24-25 5 BRIGHT 2080B Brighton Road OCEANA BLVD 375 E/O SCENIC WAY 2 R 1,780 32 56,960 78 SLURRY SEAL Slurry Seal $ 3.75 $ 23,733 24-25 6 BRIGHT 2080C Brighton Road 375 FT E/O SCENIC
WAY
CUL DE SAC 2 R 932 25 23,300 69 SLURRY SEAL Slurry Seal $ 5.00 $ 12,944 24-25 7 BURNS 2105 Burns Court CULLEN DR CUL DE SAC 2 R 283 29 8,207 65 SLURRY SEAL Slurry Seal $ 5.00 $ 4,559 24-25 8 CINDY 2150 Cindy Way CULLEN DR RIDGEWAY DR 2 R 608 29 17,632 18 MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR Option 1: Multi-layer Option 2: Mill and Overlay $ 25.00 $ 48,978
24-25 9 CLAREN 2140A Clarendon Road BEACH BLVD FRANCISCO BLVD 2 R 1,182 38 44,916 34 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR Francisco Blvd to Palmetto Ave: Rubber Cape
Seal
Palmetto Ave to Beach Blvd: Slurry Seal
$ 12.00 $ 59,888
24-25 10 CULLEN 2170 Cullen Drive LUNDY WAY CINDY WAY 2 R 533 29 15,457 38 SLURRY SEAL Rubber Cape Seal $ 12.00 $ 20,609 24-25 11 LAKESI 2310 Lakeside Avenue FRANCISCO BLVD CLARENDON RD 2 R 909 33 29,997 25 SLURRY SEAL Double Slurry Seal $ 8.00 $ 26,664 24-25 12 LUNDY 2340A Lundy Way CULLEN DR WESTPORT DR 2 A 347 33 11,451 48 SLURRY SEAL Rubber Cape Seal $ 12.00 $ 15,268 24-25 13 LUNDY 2340B Lundy Way WESTPORT DR RIDGEWAY DR 2 A 312 33 10,296 73 SLURRY SEAL Rubber Cape Seal $ 12.00 $ 13,728 24-25 14 LUNDY 2340C Lundy Way RIDGEWAY DR SHARP PARK RD 2 A 1,972 29 57,188 50 MILL & THICK OL W/ BASE REPAIR Rubber Cape Seal (discuss about the old patch) $ 20.00 $ 127,084 24-25 15 MOANA 2360A Moana Way OCEANA BLVD 1423' E/O OCEANA BLVD
2 R 1,423 29 41,267 42 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR Rubber Cape Seal $ 12.00 $ 55,023 24-25 16 MOANA 2360B Moana Way 1423' E/O OCEANA
BLVD
100 FT EAST OF RESSA
RD1
2 R 917 25 22,925 77 SLURRY SEAL Slurry Seal $ 3.75 $ 9,552 24-25 17 MOANA 2360C Moana Way
100 FT EAST OF RESSA
RD
CUL DE SAC 2 R 464 29 13,456 7 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR Multi-Layer $ 16.00 $ 23,922 24-25 18 OCEANA 1650A Oceana Boulevard CLARANDEN AVE PALOMA AVE 2 A 2,409 31 74,679 74 SLURRY SEAL/MICROSURFACING Rubber Cape Seal $ 12.00 $ 99,572 24-25 19 PALOMA 2425D Paloma Avenue OCEANA BLVD MIRADOR TERR 2 R 370 50 18,500 75 SLURRY SEAL Rubber Cape Seal $ 12.00 $ 24,667 24-25 20 PALOMA 2425E Paloma Avenue MIRADOR TERR SIERRA TERR 2 R 1,355 36 48,780 82 SLURRY SEAL Slurry Seal $ 5.00 $ 27,100 24-25 21 PALOMA 2425F Paloma Avenue SIERRA TERR CARMEL AVE 2 R 659 24 15,816 4 CAPE SEAL W/ BASE REPAIR Multi-Layer $ 16.00 $ 28,117 24-25 22 RESSA 2440 Ressa Road BRIGHTON RD MOANA WAY 2 R 402 25 10,050 77 SLURRY SEAL Slurry Seal $ 5.00 $ 5,583 24-25 23 RIDGEW 2430 Ridgeway Drive LUNDY WAY DEAD END (EAST) 2 R 1,112 38 42,256 56 SLURRY SEAL Slurry Seal (with >30% skin patch) $ 6.00 $ 28,171 24-25 24 SHARPP 1000 Sharp Park Rd FRANCISCO GYPSY HILL 4 A 4,828 80 386,240 78 SLURRY SEAL Slurry Seal $ - 24-25 25 SHARPP 2000 Sharp Park Rd GYPSY HILL CITY LIMIT (436 ft E/O YSABEL DR) 4 A 3,310 54 178,740 70 SLURRY SEAL Slurry Seal $ - $ 767,570 New 26 SANPED 4840 San Pedro Rd KENT RD 381' S/O KENT RD 2 R 381 25 9,525 26 - Rubber Cape Seal $ 16.00 $ 16,933 New 27 SANPED 4840A San Pedro Rd 381' S/O KENT RD DANMANN AVE 2 R 354 37 13,098 46 - Rubber Cape Seal $ 13.00 $ 18,919 New 28 SANPED 4840B San Pedro Rd DANMANN AVE
200 FT. EAST OF
GRAND AVE
2 R 694 29 20,126 28 - Rubber Cape Seal $ 16.00 $ 35,780 New 29 GRAND 4335B Grand Avenue BEGIN A/C SAN PEDRO AVE 2 R 1,442 20 28,840 19 - Muli-layer $ 25.00 $ 80,111 New 30 REINA 3380A Reina del Mar Avenue ST HWY 1 REICHLING AVE 2 C 939 38 35,682 48 Rubber Cape Seal $ 13.00 $ 51,541 New 31 REINA 3380B Reina del Mar Avenue REICHLING AVE MINERVA AVE 2 C 1,318 35 46,130 21 Mill and Overlay (High Crown) or Surface Reconstruct $ 45.00 $ 230,650
New 32 ROCKAW 3410A Rockaway Beach
Avenue
CUL DE SAC ST HWY 1 2 C 631 36 22,716 72 Double Slurry Seal $ 9.00 $ 22,716 New 33 ROCKAW 3410B Rockaway Beach
Avenue
FASSLER DR BUEL AVE 2 C 488 25 12,200 8 Rubber Cape Seal with base repairs and leveling course $ 35.00 $ 47,444
New 34 ROCKAW 3410C Rockaway Beach
Avenue
BUEL AVE BAY VIEW RD 2 C 1,529 20 30,580 3 Rubber cape seal with base repairs and leveling course $ 35.00 $ 59,461 Halfway to Bayview Only
New 35 DONDEE 3120 Dondee Way San Marlo Way ROCKAW 2 R 457 19 8,683 62 Rubber Cape Seal $ 13.00 $ 12,542 New 36 OLDCOU 3340 Old County Road San Marlo Way ROCKAW 2 R 707 37 26,159 13 Rubber Cape Seal $ 16.00 $ 46,505 New 37 ROCKAW 3410A Rockaway Beach
Avenue
End HWY 1 2 C 525 40 21,000 70 Rubber Cape Seal $ 13.00 $ 30,333 New 38 EUREKA 2200 Eureka Drive Oceana Market Talbot 2 R 230 30 6,900 8 Rubber Cape Seal $ 16.00 $ 12,267 New 39 TALBOT Talbot Avenue Oceana Market San Pablo 2 R 1,700 30 51,000 22 Rubber Cape Seal $ 13.00 $ 73,667 New 40 PICOTR 2455 Pico Terrace CARMEL AVE PALOMA AVE 2 R 228 21 4,788 54 Double Slurry Seal $ 9.00 $ 4,788 New 41 VALLEJ 2650B Vallejo Terrace CARMEL AVE PALOMA AVE 1 R 228 14 3,192 22 Rubber Cape Seal $ 16.00 $ 5,675 New 42 SIERRA 2610B Sierra Terrace CANYON DR PALOMA AVE 2 R 350 21 7,350 11 Rubber Cape Seal with base repairs and leveling course $ 35.00 $ 28,583
New 43 CARMEL 2110D Carmel Avenue MIRADOR TERR SIERRA TERR 2 R 1,291 27 34,857 15 Rubber Cape Seal with base repairs and leveling course $ 35.00 $ 135,555
New 44 CARMEL 2110E Carmel Avenue SIERRA TERR PALOMA AVE 2 R 553 20 11,060 47 Muli-layer $ 25.00 $ 30,722 New 45 CARMEL 2110F Carmel Avenue PALOMA AVE CUL DE SAC 2 R 643 16 10,288 12 Rubber Cape Seal with base repairs and leveling course $ 35.00 $ 40,009 $ 1,751,771
1 8/25/2023
8.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order ATTACH
MENT“B”
COMPENSATION
- 5 - OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2 05620-0129
8.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order Task Description Principal
Project
Manager
Senior
Engineer
Project
Engineer
Staff
Engineer
Field
Technician Clerical
Labor
Expenses Coring
Traffic
Control
Laboratory
Testing
Reimbursable
Expenses Total Cost
Rate $285 $225 $185 $165 $145 $105 $95
1. Project Management & Meetings
1A. Project Kick-off Meeting/Progress Meetings 6 16 8 $ 6,790 $ 100 $ 6,900 1B. Utility Coordination 2 2 20 2 $ 3,910 $ 100 $ 4,000 Sub-Total 6 18 10 0 20 0 2 $ 10,700 $ - $ - $ - $ 200 $ 10,900
2. Pavement Rehabilitation Design
2A. Pavement and C & G Condition Survey 2 4 16 40 $ 9,630 $ 400 $ 10,000 2B. Pavement Coring 2 8 10 12 2 $ 4,670 $ 7,500 $ 3,850 $ 1,180 $ 200 $ 17,400 2C. Pavement Design Recommendations 8 4 32 8 $ 9,620 $ 100 $ 9,700 Sub-Total 8 8 4 56 58 12 2 $ 23,920 $ 7,500 $ 3,850 $ 1,180 $ 700 $ 37,100
3. Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E)
3A. Design Data Gathering 24 64 $ 13,240 $ 1,000 $ 14,200 3B. 60% PS&E 16 12 16 40 132 $ 35,960 $ 100 $ 36,100
3C. 90% PS&E 8 6 12 40 80 $ 24,050 $ 100 $ 24,200
3D. Final (100%) PS&E 8 4 6 20 60 $ 16,290 $ 200 $ 16,500 Sub-Total 32 22 34 124 336 0 0 $ 89,540 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,400 $ 91,000 Total 46 48 48 180 414 12 4 $ 124,160 $ 7,500 $ 3,850 $ 1,180 $ 2,300 $ 139,000
4. As Needed Professional Services (Optional) 8 16 16 40 16 $ 17,760 $ 200 $ 18,000 Total With Optional Task 54 64 64 220 430 12 4 $ 141,920 $ 7,500 $ 3,850 $ 1,180 $ 2,500 $ 157,000 City of Pacifica
FY 24/25 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Fee Estimate
August 25, 2023
Labor Hours
8.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment 1: FY 24-25 Master Agreement & Task Order 1 NCE (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task Order # Year STREET NAME BEG LOCATION END LOCATION
1 24-25 ARLEEN WAY CULLEN DR RIDGEWAY DR
2 24-25 BRADFORD WAY MORI`S POINT RD SHARP PARK RD
3 24-25 BRIGHTON ROAD PALMETTO AVE FRANCSICO BLVD
4 24-25 BRIGHTON ROAD OCEANA BLVD CUL DE SAC
5 24-25 BURNS COURT CULLEN DR CUL DE SAC
6 24-25 CARMEL AVENUE MIRADOR TERR CUL DE SAC
7 24-25 CINDY WAY CULLEN DR RIDGEWAY DR
8 24-25 CLARENDON ROAD BEACH BLVD FRANCISCO BLVD
9 24-25 CULLEN DRIVE LUNDY WAY CINDY WAY
10 24-25 DONDEE WAY SAN MARLO WAY ROCKAWAY BEACH AVE
11 24-25 EUREKA DRIVE OCEANA MARKET TALBOT AVE
12 24-25 GRAND AVENUE BEGIN A/C SAN PEDRO AVE
13 24-25 LAKESIDE AVENUE FRANCISCO BLVD CLARENDON RD
14 24-25 LUNDY WAY CULLEN DR SHARP PARK RD
15 24-25 MOANA WAY OCEANA BLVD CUL DE SAC
16 24-25 OCEANA BOULEVARD CLARENDON AVE PALOMA AVE
17 24-25 OLD COUNTY ROAD SAN MARLO WAY ROCKAWAY BEACH AVE 18 24-25 PALOMA AVENUE OCEANA BLVD CARMEL AVE
19 24-25 PICO TERRACE CARMEL AVE PALOMA AVE
20 24-25 REINA DEL MAR AVENUE ST HWY 1 MINERVA AVE
21 24-25 RESSA ROAD BRIGHTON RD MOANA WAY
22 24-25 RIDGEWAY DRIVE LUNDY WAY DEAD END (EAST)
23 24-25 ROCKAWAY BEACH AVENUE CUL DE SAC ST HWY 1
24 24-25 ROCKAWAY BEACH AVENUE FASSLER DR BAY VIEW RD
25 24-25 SAN PEDRO RD KENT RD 200 FT. EAST OF GRAND AVE 26 24-25 SIERRA TERRACE CANYON DR PALOMA AVE
27 24-25 TALBOT AVENUE OCEANA MARKET SAN PABLO TERR
28 24-25 VALLEJO TERRACE CARMEL AVE PALOMA AVE
FY 2024-25 PAVEMENT RESURFACING PROJECT
1 8/30/2023
8.b
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment 2: FY 24-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project - List of Streets (5470 : NCE FY24-25 Resurfacing Master Agreement & Task
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/25/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Resolution to Approve Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Pan-Pacific Supply to rebuild the P20 Prime Pump and Epoxy coat Hydraflo Pump for the Linda Mar Stormwater Pump Station Rehabilitation Project and rebuild the Fairbanks Morse pump and GE Vertical motor for the Linda Mar Pump Station Rehabilitation and Replacement Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution Approving the Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and PanPacific Supply, via urgent purchase, in the amount of $93,987.40 to rebuild the P20 Prime Pump and Epoxy coat Hydraflo Pump for the Linda Mar Stormwater Pump Station Rehabilitation Project and rebuild the Fairbanks Morse pump and GE Vertical motor for the Linda Mar Pump Station Rehabilitation and Replacement Project and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the purchase.
STAFF CONTACT:
Eddie Pastrano, Collection Systems Manager
(650) 822-4547
[email protected]
Maria Aguilar, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works (Wastewater) (650) 738-4660
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
During the FY 2023-24 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget approval process, the Council approved funding for Linda Mar Stormwater Pump Station Rehabilitation Project and the Linda Mar Pump Station Rehabilitation and Repair Project (Projects).
The Linda Mar Pump Station has two separate systems for storm water and sanitary sewer. The storm water system operates on three electric P20 prime pumps and one hydraflo pump (formerly called hydro pump), while the sanitary sewer system operates on two electric Fairbanks Morse pumps and one engine driven pump. During this year’s storm events, all the electric pumps in both the storm water and sanitary sewer systems were in operation when needed. However, all these pumps will need to be rebuilt to extend their useful lives. Staff compared the costs of replacing these pumps to the costs of rebuilding and determined that the costs to rebuild will only be about 20% to 30% compared to the costs of total replacement.
Moreover, the lead time for the new pumps will be at least eight months to one year. Therefore, staff concluded that the best alternative is to rebuild the pumps.
Because time is of the essence due to the upcoming storm season, staff started soliciting 9 Packet Pg. 168
Pacifica City Council 2
September 25, 2023
quotes from different pump repair companies that will guarantee completion of the work before the rainy season begin. Only Pan-Pacific Supply gave staff the time and assurance that the pumps will be refurbished by the end of October 2023. Because the pump station for each system must have working pumps in place, only one pump for each system was sent to be rebuilt. Additionally, the GE vertical motor that runs the Fairbanks Morse pump in the sewer system was determined to need to be refurbished. The remaining electric pumps will be sent to be rebuilt after this coming rainy season. The repaired hydraflo pump will have new epoxy coating applied to the pump.
The following are reasons rebuilding of the P20 Prime Pump, Fairbanks Morse Pump and the GE Vertical motor, and recoating of the Hydraflo Pump for the Linda Mar Pump Station by PanPacific Supply have been determined to be an urgent purchase and benefits the city:
• The pumps need to be rebuilt to extend their useful lives and protect the City during the upcoming storm season.
• Staff compared the costs of replacing these pumps to the costs of rebuilding and determined that the costs to rebuild will be about 20% to 30% compared to the costs of total replacement. Moreover, the lead time for the new pumps will be at least eight months to one year.
• Because time of is of the essence, staff started soliciting quotes from different pump repair companies that will guarantee completion of the work before the rainy season begins. Only Pan-Pacific Supply gave staff the time and assurance that the pumps will be rebuilt by the end of October 2023.
• City of Pacifica Administrative Policy #76, Purchasing Policy, section 3.6.1, authorizes the City Manager to waive bidding requirements for urgent procurement if he/she determines sufficient justification exists.
For these reasons, the City Manager is recommending the approval of the Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Pan-Pacific Supply, via urgent purchase, in the amount of $93,987.40 to rebuild the P20 Prime Pump and recoat Hydraflo Pump for the Linda Mar Stormwater Pump Station Rehabilitation Project and rebuild the Fairbanks Morse pump and GE Vertical motor for the Linda Mar Pump Station Rehabilitation and Replacement Project; and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the purchase and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the purchase.
Staff will continue to annually assess the conditions of the pumps at the Linda Mar Pump Station to determine needs for replacement or rehabilitation.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Council may choose not to approve the Purchase Agreement with Pan-Pacific Supply, via urgent purchase. However, doing so would delay project delivery, will likely increase project cost, and will subject the city to possible flooding in the Linda Mar neighborhoods and cause sanitary sewer overflows. The City Manager does not recommend this alternate action.
RELATION TO CITY GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of the Purchase Agreement is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets and facilities: The Purchase will 9 Packet Pg. 169
Pacifica City Council 3
September 25, 2023
improve conveyance of stormwater at the Linda Mar Stormwater Pump Station and help reduce flooding at the lower Linda Mar neighborhoods.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Source and Use of Funds spreadsheet is shown below:
• For the rebuild of the P20 Prime Pump and Epoxy Coat of the Hydraflo Pump Project Source
Linda Mar Stormwater Pump Station Rehabilitation Project Account No 34.900000.52800.C047.000 $ 204,785.16
Total Source of Fund $ 204,785.16
Project Cost
Rebuild of the P20 Prime Pump and Epoxy Coat of the Hydraflo Pump ($ 52,864.68) Total Project Cost ($ 52,864.68)
Estimated Project Source End Balance $ 151,920.50
• For the rebuild of the Fairbanks Morse Pump and GE Vertical Motor Project Source
Linda Mar Pump Station Rehabilitation and Replacement Project Account No 34.900000.52800.C006.000 $ 41,122.71
Total Source of Fund $ 41,122.71
Project Cost
Rebuild of the Fairbanks Morse Pump and GE Vertical Motor ($ 41,122.71) Total Project Cost ($ 41,122.71)
Estimated Project Source End Balance $ 0
No additional budget authority is necessary as sufficient funds have been allocated in the Wastewater Enterprise Fund FY 2023-24 budget for this purchase.
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Purchase Agreement_Pan-PacificSupply_LindaMarPS Pumps and Motor Rebuild.SIGNED (PDF)
9 Packet Pg. 170
Pacifica City Council 4
September 25, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA
APPROVING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND PAN-PACIFIC SUPPLY TO REBUILD THE P20 PRIME PUMP AND EPOXY COAT THE
HYDRAFLO PUMP FOR THE LINDA MAR STORMWATER PUMP STATION
REHABILITATION PROJECT AND REBUILD THE FAIRBANKS MORSE PUMP AND GE
VERTICAL MOTOR FOR THE LINDA MAR PUMP STATION REHABILITATION AND
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, during the FY 2023-24 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget approval process, the City Council approved funding for the Linda Mar Stormwater Pump Station Rehabilitation Project and the Linda Mar Pump Station Rehabilitation and Repair Project (Projects); and
WHEREAS, the Projects includes the rehabilitation or rebuild or epoxy coating of existing pumps; and
WHEREAS, Staff compared the costs of replacing these pumps to the costs of rebuilding and determined that the costs to rebuild will only be about 20% to 30% compared to the costs of total replacement. Moreover, the lead time for the new pumps will be at least eight months to one year; and
WHEREAS, because time of is of the essence, staff started soliciting quotes from different pump repair companies that will guarantee completion of the work before the rainy season begin. Only Pan-Pacific Supply gave staff the time and assurance that the pumps will be delivered in a much better condition by the end of October 2023; and WHEREAS, City of Pacifica Administrative Policy #76, Purchasing Policy, section 3.6.1, authorizes the City Manager to waive bidding requirements for urgent procurement if he/she determines sufficient justification exists.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to:
Approve the Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Pan-Pacific Supply, via urgent purchase, in the amount of $93,987.40 to rebuild the P20 Prime Pump and Epoxy coat Hydraflo Pump for the Linda Mar Stormwater Pump Station Rehabilitation Project and rebuild the Fairbanks Morse pump and GE Vertical motor for the Linda Mar Pump Station Rehabilitation and Replacement Project and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the purchase authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the purchase. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special and regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 25th day of September 2023, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
9 Packet Pg. 171
Pacifica City Council 5
September 25, 2023
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 9 Packet Pg. 172
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
CITY OF PACIFICA – WASTEWATER DIVISION
PURCHASE ORDER NO. _____
Seller (Vendor): Buyer:
Name Pan-Pacific Supply Name: City of Pacifica
Address 2045 Arnold Industrial Way Address: 540 Crespi Drive City, State Zip: Concord, CA 94520 City, State, ZIP: Pacifica, CA 94044 Attn: Eddie Pastrano
Phone: (925) 685-2292 Fax: Phone: (650) 738-4660 Fax: (650) 355-7256 E-mail: [email protected] Fed. Tax I.D.: E-mail: [email protected] Project Information (If Applicable): Ship To:
Charge to Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant
Acct#: 34.900000.52800.C006.000 – Linda Mar Pump Station Rehabilitation and Repair Project
Acct#: 34.900000.52800.C047.000 – Linda Mar Stormwater Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
700 Pacific Coast Highway
Pacifica, CA 94044
Order Date Ship Via Payment Terms
September 26, 2023 - Net 30 days of invoice Upon Receipt of Equipment Delivery
Buyer and Seller agree as follows:
MATERIAL AND/OR EQUIPMENT TO BE PROVIDED: Vendor shall furnish the materials or equipment described below in strict compliance with the Quotation from Pan-Pacific Supply dated July 26, 2023 and August 30, 2023 (Attachment 1) at the price or prices set forth opposite each item and within the times stated below in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Purchase Agreement, including the attached Terms and Conditions, which are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement:
Item
No.
Item Description Budget
Acct No.
Qua
ntity
Unit Price Extension Delivery
Date
1 Rebuild P20 Prime Pump
(Taxable Amount = 24,869.00)
34.900000.52800.C047.000 LS $45,169.00 $45,169.00
2 Epoxy Coat Hydraflo Pump 34.900000.52800.C047.000 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 3 Rebuild GE Vertical Motor / 300HP,
L509HP20
(Taxable Amount = $15,732.00)
34.900000.52800.C006.000 LS $15,732.00 $15,732.00
4 Rebuild Fairbanks Morse Pump
(Taxable Amount = $13,198.00)
34.900000.52800.C006.000 LS $20,794.00 $20,794.00
5 Crane Rental (Taxable Amount =
$3,167)
34.900000.52800.C006.000
34.900000.52800.C047.000
LS $3,167.00 $3,167.00
TOTAL $88,362.00
Sales Tax (9.875%): $ 5,625.40
Shipping: $ N/A
P.O. Total: $ 93,987.40
9.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Purchase Agreement_Pan-PacificSupply_LindaMarPS Pumps and Motor Rebuild.SIGNED (5465 : Resolution to Approve Purchase
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: PAN-PACIFIC SUPPLY – REBUILD P20 PRIME PUMP, FAIRBANKS MORSE PUMP AND GE
VERTICAL MOTOR AND EPOXY COAT HYDRAFLO PUMP
Special Terms and Conditions
Shipping: Show Purchase Order number on all packages and invoices.
All purchases are F.O.B Pacifica unless otherwise specified on Purchase Order.
Charges: All transportation charges must be prepaid and shown separately on all invoices.
City of Pacifica is exempt from Federal Excise Tax.
Purchase up to $10,000 (must be approved
by Department Head or authorized signator)
Approved: _______________________
Name: LISA PETERSEN
Title: Director of Public Works
Purchase between $10,000.01 and $25,000
(must be approved by the Assistant City
Manager)
Approved: _______________________
Name: YULIA CARTER
Title: Assistant City Manager
Purchase between $25,000.01 and $50,000
(must be approved by the City Manager)
Approved: _______________________
Name: KEVIN WOODHOUSE
City Manager
(must be approved by the City Council)
Date City Council Approved: September 25, 2023
Buyer: CITY OF PACIFICA
Authorized Signature: _______________________
Name: KEVIN WOODHOUSE
Title: City Manager
If Seller is located in the City of Pacifica, does Seller have a current business license? Yes No
9.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Purchase Agreement_Pan-PacificSupply_LindaMarPS Pumps and Motor Rebuild.SIGNED (5465 : Resolution to Approve Purchase
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: PAN-PACIFIC SUPPLY – REBUILD P20 PRIME PUMP, FAIRBANKS MORSE PUMP AND GE
VERTICAL MOTOR AND EPOXY COAT HYDRAFLO PUMP
PURCHASE ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
DEFINITIONS: The term "Buyer" as used in this Purchase Order means the City of Pacifica, and the term "Seller" means the person, firm, or corporation from whom the material or equipment described in the purchase order is ordered.
ACCEPTANCE: The attached Acceptance Copy shall be signed and returned by the Seller within ten (10) calendar days after it is received by the Seller. The receipt by the Buyer of the signed Acceptance Copy or the initiation of performance under this Purchase Order by the Seller shall constitute acceptance of the Purchase Order by the Seller, including all of the terms and conditions herein. Acceptance is limited to the terms stated herein. Any additional or different terms and conditions proposed by the Seller are rejected unless expressly agreed to in writing by City Purchasing Agent or authorized agent.
COMPLETE AGREEMENT: This Purchase Order, including all applicable terms, conditions and specifications, shall constitute the sole and exclusive agreement between the parties. This Purchase Order supersedes all other writings and negotiations, written or oral. The City of Pacifica will not be responsible for goods delivered without a Purchase Order properly signed by the City Purchasing Agent or authorized agent. When this Purchase Order covers a purchase rendered over a stated period of time, Seller must obtain a new order upon expiration of the time period to authorize the purchase for an additional period of time.
DEFAULT: The Buyer may terminate the whole or any part of the purchase in any one of the following circumstances: (1) If the Seller fails to make delivery or fails to perform within the time specified herein or any extension thereof; or (2) If Seller delivers nonconforming goods; or (3) If Seller fails to perform in accordance with the material provisions of this agreement, or so fails to make progress as to endanger performance of this Purchase Order in accordance with its terms. In the event of any such failure Buyer will provide Seller with written notice of the default and Buyer's intention to terminate for default if Seller fails to cure the default to Buyer's satisfaction within seven (7) calendar days of Buyer' notice. If Seller fails to cure or correct the default within seven days, the Buyer may, without further notice to Seller, procure upon such terms and in such manner as the Buyer may deem appropriate, items similar to those terminated, and the Seller shall be liable to the Buyer for any excess costs of such similar items; however, the Seller shall continue the performance of this Purchase Order to the extent not terminated.
The rights and remedies of the Buyer provided in this clause shall not be exclusive, and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Purchase Order.
CHANGES: Buyer may direct in writing changes, including additions to or deletions from the quantities originally ordered, or in the specifications or drawings. If any such change causes a material increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for, performance hereunder, an equitable adjustment shall be made in the price or schedule. Any claims for adjustment which Seller believes result from any change directed by Buyer shall be asserted in writing by Seller no later than ten (10) days from the date of Seller's receipt of any such direction. Equitable adjustments for any claims or changes under this agreement, including claims arising from terminations or suspensions directed under DEFAULT above, of this agreement, will be made by
9.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Purchase Agreement_Pan-PacificSupply_LindaMarPS Pumps and Motor Rebuild.SIGNED (5465 : Resolution to Approve Purchase
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: PAN-PACIFIC SUPPLY – REBUILD P20 PRIME PUMP, FAIRBANKS MORSE PUMP AND GE
VERTICAL MOTOR AND EPOXY COAT HYDRAFLO PUMP
written Change Order. Nothing contained herein shall excuse Seller from proceeding with the change as directed prior to negotiation of any adjustment. Whether made pursuant to this clause or by mutual agreement, changes shall not be binding upon the Buyer, except when confirmed in writing by a member of the Buyer’s Purchasing Department.
INVOICES: Seller shall send Buyer a separate invoice for each shipment. Invoices shall not be issued prior to delivery of items. Payment shall not be made prior to receipt of items and an invoice. Credit and discount periods will be computed from the date of receipt of the invoice to the date the Buyer’s check is mailed. Unless freight and other charges are itemized, the discount will be taken on the full amount of the invoice. Payment will be made within thirty (30) days after approval of the invoice by the Buyer.
TITLE AND RISK OF LOSS: All prices shall be F.O.B. Factory. The Seller shall be responsible for safe and adequate packing of the items, which shall conform to the carriers’ requirements. The Seller shall separately number all cases and packages, showing the corresponding numbers on the invoices. An itemized packing slip bearing this Purchase Order number shall be placed in each container. No extra charge shall be made for packaging or packing materials unless authority therefor is set forth in this Purchase Order. Seller shall assume and pay for any and all loss or damage to the merchandise from any cause whatsoever until delivered to Buyer at the specified destination.
DELIVERY: Timely performance and deliveries are essential to this Purchase Order. The Buyer reserves the right to refuse deliveries made in advance of the delivery schedule.
Overshipment allowances, if authorized, will be applied to the entire order. If the Buyer agrees to accept deliveries after the date of delivery has passed, the Buyer shall have the right to direct the Seller to make shipment to the delivery point set forth in this Purchase Order by the most expeditious means, and the total cost of such expedited shipment and handling shall be borne by the Seller. Acceptance of late deliveries shall not be deemed a waiver of the Buyer’s right to hold the Seller liable for any loss or damage resulting therefrom, nor shall it act as a modification of the Seller’s obligation to make future deliveries in accordance with the delivery schedule.
DELAYS: Seller will not be liable for delays in performing its obligations to the extent the delay is caused by an unforeseeable condition which is beyond Seller’s reasonable control and without Seller's fault or negligence. Acts of God, such as storms or floods, as well as government priorities, acts of civil or military authorities, fires, strikes, epidemics, war or riot are examples of events which will be excusable for being beyond Seller's reasonable control, only upon fulfillment of the following conditions: (a) within seven (7) days of the commencement of any excusable delay, Seller shall provide Buyer with written notice of the cause and extent thereof as well as a request for a schedule extension for the estimated duration thereof, and (b) within seven (7) days of the cessation of the event causing delay Seller shall provide Buyer with written notice of the actual delay incurred, upon receipt of which, the date of promised delivery shall be extended for the time actually lost by reason of an excusable delay.
INSPECTION AND APPROVAL: All items are subject to final inspection and approval after delivery to Buyer. If any items are defective in material or workmanship or otherwise not in conformity with the requirements of this Purchase Order, the Buyer shall have the right to
9.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Purchase Agreement_Pan-PacificSupply_LindaMarPS Pumps and Motor Rebuild.SIGNED (5465 : Resolution to Approve Purchase
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: PAN-PACIFIC SUPPLY – REBUILD P20 PRIME PUMP, FAIRBANKS MORSE PUMP AND GE
VERTICAL MOTOR AND EPOXY COAT HYDRAFLO PUMP
require Seller to correct or replace them. Final acceptance or rejection shall be made by the Buyer as promptly as practicable after delivery. Final acceptance shall be conclusive except with respect to latent defects, fraud or such gross mistakes as amount to fraud, or with respect to the Buyer’s rights under the “Warranty” clause.
WARRANTIES-GUARANTEES: The Seller warrants that the items, at time of delivery, shall conform to the Buyer’s specifications, the requirements of this Purchase Order, approved sample or samples, if any, and are free from defects in design, material and workmanship. Warranty will be as described in the attached Vendor’s Quotation. At the Buyer’s option, the Seller shall promptly either repair or replace defective items after receipt of the Buyer’s written notice of a defect. Transportation charges for the return and redelivery of defective items shall be borne by the Seller. Seller also warrants that said merchandise is free and clear of all liens and encumbrances whatsoever and the Seller has good and marketable title to same, and Seller agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Pacifica, its officers, agents and employees free and harmless against any and all claimants to said merchandise.
SAFETY: All equipment and materials shall comply with all Federal, State and local safety rules and regulations including OSHA. Where applicable, materials must be labeled in accordance with Section 5194, Title 8, of the California Administrative Code. The Seller is required to include a Material Safety Data Sheet prepared in accordance with Section 5194(9) with each shipment of all such materials to the City.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER: It is the policy of the City of Pacifica that in connection with all materials furnished or work performed under this Purchase Order, there be no discrimination against employees because of race, religion, color, sex or national origin, and therefore the Seller agrees to comply with applicable Federal and California laws including, but not limited to, the California Fair Employment Practices Act.
TAXES: Unless prohibited by law, Seller shall pay and has included in the prices of this Purchase Order any federal, state or local tax, transportation tax, or other tax which is required to be imposed upon the items ordered hereunder, or by reason of their sale or delivery.
TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Purchase Order in whole or in part at any time, and from time to time, by written notice effective upon receipt by Seller of such notice, even though Seller is not in breach of any obligation hereunder.
Upon receipt of notice of termination, Seller shall immediately discontinue performance and shall comply with Buyer’s instructions concerning disposition of completed and partially completed items, work in progress and materials acquired pursuant to this Purchase Order. In the event of such termination, Seller shall be paid an amount in settlement to be mutually agreed upon by the parties which shall cover Seller’s reasonable costs of performance incurred prior to termination in connection with the items for which this Purchase Order is terminated plus a reasonable profit based upon such costs. However, said payment shall not exceed the price specified herein for such items. Seller shall advise the Buyer, in writing, of Seller’s claim, if any, for termination costs within ten (10) days after receipt of the notice of termination.
Termination in accordance with this article shall not affect Buyer’s obligation to pay for items accepted by Buyer prior to such termination.
9.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Purchase Agreement_Pan-PacificSupply_LindaMarPS Pumps and Motor Rebuild.SIGNED (5465 : Resolution to Approve Purchase
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: PAN-PACIFIC SUPPLY – REBUILD P20 PRIME PUMP, FAIRBANKS MORSE PUMP AND GE
VERTICAL MOTOR AND EPOXY COAT HYDRAFLO PUMP
GOVERNING LAW; VENUE; DEFINITIONS: The definition of terms used, interpretation of this Purchase Order and rights of all parties hereunder shall be construed under and governed by the laws of the State of California. Any litigation with respect to this Purchase Order shall be brought and conducted in San Mateo County, California.
9.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Purchase Agreement_Pan-PacificSupply_LindaMarPS Pumps and Motor Rebuild.SIGNED (5465 : Resolution to Approve Purchase ATTACHMENT 1
9.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Purchase Agreement_Pan-PacificSupply_LindaMarPS Pumps and Motor Rebuild.SIGNED (5465 : Resolution to Approve Purchase
QUOTATION
Date
8/16/2023
Quote #
QU-26842
City of Pacifica Wastewater (E)
Account Payable
700 Coast Hwy
Pacifica, CA 94044
City of Pacifica
Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant
700 Coast Hwy
Pacifica, CA 94044
Terms Net 30
Delivery:
8/16/2023
FOB
Ship Point
Quoted By:
Christian
Quotation valid 30 days from this date.
Phone #
925-685-2292
Fax #
925-685-4017
E-mail
[email protected]
Web Site
www.panpacificsupply.com
Total
Subtotal
Sales Tax (9.875%)
2045 Arnold Industrial Way Concord, CA 94520-5342
Item Description Qty Price Total
Faibanks Morse Pump
821-NOF New shaft, bearings, sleeve, packing,
bearing isolator
1 13,198.00 13,198.00T
812-LABOR Work Scope 1 7,596.00 7,596.00
Replace shaft
Replace Sleeve
Replace bearings
Repalce bearing isolators with Inpro
Machine bearing caps
Sandblast impeller then coat with arc
sd4i
Repack with chesterton 2211
Balance impeller
$22,097.30
$20,794.00
$1,303.30
9.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Purchase Agreement_Pan-PacificSupply_LindaMarPS Pumps and Motor Rebuild.SIGNED (5465 : Resolution to Approve Purchase
QUOTATION
Date
8/30/2023
Quote #
QU-26915
City of Pacifica Wastewater (E)
Account Payable
700 Coast Hwy
Pacifica, CA 94044
City of Pacifica
Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant
700 Coast Hwy
Pacifica, CA 94044
Terms Net 30
Delivery:
8/30/2023
FOB
Ship Point
Quoted By:
Christian
Quotation valid 30 days from this date.
Phone #
925-685-2292
Fax #
925-685-4017
E-mail
[email protected]
Web Site
www.panpacificsupply.com
Total
Subtotal
Sales Tax (9.875%)
2045 Arnold Industrial Way Concord, CA 94520-5342
Item Description Qty Price Total
Hydraflo pump
812-LABOR Work Scop 1 3,500.00 3,500.00
Sandblast, recoat with epoxy paint
(exterior only), and replace fasteners
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$0.00
9.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Purchase Agreement_Pan-PacificSupply_LindaMarPS Pumps and Motor Rebuild.SIGNED (5465 : Resolution to Approve Purchase
QUOTATION
Date
8/30/2023
Quote #
QU-26926
City of Pacifica Wastewater (E)
Account Payable
700 Coast Hwy
Pacifica, CA 94044
City of Pacifica
Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant
700 Coast Hwy
Pacifica, CA 94044
Terms Net 30
Delivery:
9/29/2023
FOB
Ship Point
Quoted By:
Christian
Phone #
925-685-2292
Fax #
925-685-4017
E-mail
[email protected]
Web Site
www.panpacificsupply.com
Total
Subtotal
Sales Tax (9.875%)
2045 Arnold Industrial Way Concord, CA 94520-5342
Item Description Qty Price Total
812-NOF GE Vertical Motor / 300HP, L509HP20,
1190RPM, 460 Volt
1 15,732.00 15,732.00T
As found condition
The winding has visual signs on
insulation damage to the wire in several
areas
that could cause a turn to turn short. It is
possible by reinsulating the winding
with epoxy varnish that it will extend the
life of the winding. Although the winding
has passed all electrical tests we cannot
guarantee how long the winding will last
under these conditions. Below are the
repair options.
9.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Purchase Agreement_Pan-PacificSupply_LindaMarPS Pumps and Motor Rebuild.SIGNED (5465 : Resolution to Approve Purchase
QUOTATION
Date
8/30/2023
Quote #
QU-26926
City of Pacifica Wastewater (E)
Account Payable
700 Coast Hwy
Pacifica, CA 94044
City of Pacifica
Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant
700 Coast Hwy
Pacifica, CA 94044
Terms Net 30
Delivery:
9/29/2023
FOB
Ship Point
Quoted By:
Christian
Phone #
925-685-2292
Fax #
925-685-4017
E-mail
[email protected]
Web Site
www.panpacificsupply.com
Total
Subtotal
Sales Tax (9.875%)
2045 Arnold Industrial Way Concord, CA 94520-5342
Item Description Qty Price Total
Work Scope – Overhaul
• Disassemble and inspect
• Clean and prepare all mechanical and
electrical parts for assembly
• Mic all mechanical fits, check internal
clearance and T.I.R rotating parts
• Steam clean winding, bake out, and
test
• Varnish treat winding using epoxy
varnish
• Metalize and machine bearing housing
to factory tolerance
• Dynamically balance rotor with all
rotating parts
• Furnish and install new bearings
• Reassemble and test run motor at full
voltage
$17,285.54
$15,732.00
$1,553.54
9.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Purchase Agreement_Pan-PacificSupply_LindaMarPS Pumps and Motor Rebuild.SIGNED (5465 : Resolution to Approve Purchase
QUOTATION
Date
7/26/2023
Quote #
QU-26745
City of Pacifica Wastewater (E)
Account Payable
700 Coast Hwy
Pacifica, CA 94044
City of Pacifica
Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant
700 Coast Hwy
Pacifica, CA 94044
Terms Net 30
Delivery:
9/20/2023
FOB
Ship Point
Quoted By:
Christian
Quotation valid 30 days from this date.
Phone #
925-685-2292
Fax #
925-685-4017
E-mail
[email protected]
Web Site
www.panpacificsupply.com
Total
Subtotal
Sales Tax (9.875%)
2045 Arnold Industrial Way Concord, CA 94520-5342
Item Description Qty Price Total
P20 Prime Pump
821-NOF New bowl, Tension nut, S2 ARC coat,
Oil Tube
1 14,628.00 14,628.00T
818-NOF Fabricate Shaft and line shaft bearings 1 10,241.00 10,241.00T 812-LABOR Work Scope 1 20,300.00 20,300.00
Tear Down and Inspect
Replace shafts
Replace line shaft bearings
Replace Suction bell
Replace oil tube
Replace tension nut
Rebuild Motor
Sandblast to near white finish then coat
woth Chesterton ARC S2
Balance impeller
Assemble and deliver
821-NOF Crane Rental 1 3,167.00 3,167.00T
Delivery 7-8 weeks aro
$51,104.56
$48,336.00
$2,768.56
9.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Purchase Agreement_Pan-PacificSupply_LindaMarPS Pumps and Motor Rebuild.SIGNED (5465 : Resolution to Approve Purchase
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/25/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Acceptance of County of San Mateo Measure K Grant for $20,000 for support for the Coastside News Group, Inc.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a Resolution “Accepting a Measure K Grant in the amount of $20,000 from the County of San Mateo and approving the Measure K Grant Agreement to provide support for the Coastside News Group, Inc., through a one-time grant.”
STAFF CONTACT:
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
650-738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Coastside News Group, Inc. (CNGI) is the primary source for local news about the San Mateo County coast and serves the approximately 60,000 residents from Pacifica to Pescadero.
Based in Half Moon Bay, the organization publishes the weekly Half Moon Bay Review and Pacifica Tribune newspapers (both in print and online), as well as the monthly Coastside magazine. For many on the coast, the destructive storm season and tragic mass shooting, in addition to the CZU fire and pandemic response in recent years, has highlighted the importance of maintaining a strong journalistic presence and various means of public information for the coastside area and its residents.
CNGI offers unique and area-specific content such as breaking news alerts on road closures, power outages, and weather events; coverage of local public meetings of the city councils, school boards and special districts; front-line reporting on climate change issues such as sea level rise and wildfires; and regular news stories on rural, agricultural and farmworker issues.
However, the aftermath of the pandemic and the ongoing decline of traditional newspaper advertising revenue, have led to the need to look for additional sources of funding to sustain the essential work of unbiased, local news coverage to keep residents informed.
The County of San Mateo and City of Pacifica have relied heavily on the resources provided by local news outlets to promote civic engagement, provide emergency and crisis response resources, and general community building. As envisioned by County District 3 Supervisor Mueller, this one-time grant of $20,000 from the County to the City would support CNGI operational expenses that allow for a continuance of newsgathering and strengthen a critical local media institution. This grant will serve as a foundation to encourage philanthropic pledges so that CNGI may build a diverse a sustainable funding stream and invest in the County’s broader information ecosystem.
The proposed Grant Agreement would require that the City, as the Grantee, apply the grant funds to support the Coastside News Group, Inc’s operational costs from October 3, 2023 10 Packet Pg. 185
Pacifica City Council 2
September 25, 2023
through June 30, 2024, to enable Coastside News Group to provide local news and resources to Pacifica residents, primarily through the Pacifica Tribune newspaper (both in print and online), as well as the monthly Coastside magazine.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council could choose to not accept the grant or enter into the agreement.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Acceptance of the grant to support the Coastside News Group supports the City Council’s Strategic Plan Goal to “Broaden public communications and collaboration.” FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the City for passing through grant funds to the Coastside News Group, Inc.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: Measure K Grant Agreement between the City of Pacifica and County of San Mateo (PDF)
10 Packet Pg. 186
Pacifica City Council 3
September 25, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA ACCEPTING A MEASURE K GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 FROM THE COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO AND APPROVING THE MEASURE K GRANT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE COASTSIDE NEWS GROUP, INC., THROUGH A ONE-TIME GRANT WHEREAS, the Coastside News Group, Inc. (CNGI) is the primary source for local news about the San Mateo County coast and serves the approximately 60,000 residents from Pacifica to Pescadero; and
WHEREAS, the Pacifica Tribune newspaper and the Coastside magazine provide essential local news coverage and public information to help keep Pacifica residents informed and engaged on local issues; and
WHEREAS, County District 3 Supervisor Mueller has proposed a one-time grant of $20,000 from the County to the City to support CNGI operational expenses to allow for a continuance of newsgathering, to strengthen a critical local media institution, and to serve as a foundation to encourage philanthropic pledges so that CNGI may build a diverse and sustainable funding stream and invest in the County’s broader information ecosystem; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica that the City Council accepts a Measure K Grant in the amount of $20,000 from the County of San Mateo and approves the Measure K Grant Agreement to provide support for the Coastside News Group, Inc., through a one-time grant.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special and regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 25th day of September 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 10 Packet Pg. 187
Agreement No. __________ Board Resolution No. ________
MEASURE K GRANT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO AND CITY OF PACIFICA
This Agreement is entered into this 3rd day of October, 2023 by and between the County of San Mateo, a political subdivision of the state of California, hereinafter called “County,” and City of Pacifica, hereinafter called “Grantee.”
* * *
WHEREAS, the Grantee has applied to the County seeking a grant for the purpose of funding the matters set forth in its Project described in Exhibit A (the “Grant”); WHEREAS, the County has approved the grant of certain funds to Grantee pursuant to the terms set forth in this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by the parties to this Agreement as follows:
1. Exhibits and Attachments
The following exhibits and attachments are attached to this Agreement and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference:
Exhibit A—Project Description
Exhibit B—Reporting and Invoicing
2. Grant
County hereby grants to Grantee a sum not to exceed Twenty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($20,000.00) in consideration of and on the condition that the sum be expended for the sole purpose of carrying out the objectives of Grantee’s Project as identified in Exhibit A, and in no event shall the County’s total fiscal obligation under this Agreement exceed this amount. Grantee agrees to assume any obligation to secure and furnish any additional funds that may be necessary to carry out its Project.
Funds granted under this Agreement shall not be disbursed until execution of this Agreement by County and Grantee.
County shall disburse grant funds to Grantee 30 calendar days after receipt of a satisfactory invoice.
Invoices should be accompanied by back up documentation (e.g., receipts for professional services rendered, salary and benefits back up, etc.) and submittal of any required summary reports outlined in Exhibits A or B. The County reserves the right to change the disbursement method during the term of this Agreement.
The disbursement schedule is as follows:
• Payment 1- Invoice for up to 50% of the grant ($10,000.00), upon submission of receipts/invoices showing expenditures and proof of performance measures, timesheets, and activity logs on items funded by the grant and listed in Exhibit A and/or B. • Payment 2- Invoice for remainder of the grant ($10,000.00), upon submission of receipts/invoices showing expenditures and proof of performance measures, timesheets, and activity logs on items funded by the grant and listed in Exhibit A and/or B, including photographs and use of Measure K logo as approved by the County.
INVOICES: Requests for grant disbursement should be (1) on the organization’s official letterhead, (2) include date of invoice, amount requested, and Agreement number, and (3) submitted to the attention of:
County Executive’s Office
Cristal Pepin, Accountant II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 755491C0-82C9-4181-9519-F46137D6A2F2 In Process
10.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment A: Measure K Grant Agreement between the City of Pacifica and County of San Mateo (5476 : Resolution - County of Agreement No. __________ Board Resolution No. ________
400 County Center, 1st Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
[email protected]
Phone: (650) 363-4170
3. Term & Termination
Subject to compliance with all terms and conditions, the term of this Agreement shall begin October 3, 2023 and continue through July 31, 2024. This Agreement will not automatically renew, nor shall it create any reliance on the possibility of future grants.
County may terminate this Agreement based upon the unavailability of Federal, State, or County funds by providing written notice to Grantee within a reasonable time after County learns of said unavailability of funding. Grantee acknowledges that this Agreement may be subject to approval of the Board of Supervisors, and assumes all risk of possible non-appropriation and non-approval of funds.
County may suspend and/or terminate this Agreement if Grantee fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement and may, in its sole discretion, withhold or cancel pending and future disbursements of grant funds and/or require Grantee to return some or all funds disbursed under this Agreement.
4. Relationship of Parties
Notwithstanding any publicity or other references to the County required to be made in connection with the Project as set forth in Exhibit A, Grantee understands and agrees that the Project performed under this Agreement is not performed by Grantee as an independent contractor of the County or as an employee of County and that neither Grantee nor its employees acquire any of the rights, privileges, powers, or advantages of County contractors or County employees. Grantee acknowledges and agrees that it is not, and will not hold itself out as, an agent, partner, or co-venturer of the County, and that this Agreement is not intended to and does not create an agency, partnership, or joint venture between the Parties.
5. Project Administration
The Parties agree that the Project as described in Exhibit A shall not be altered without a written amendment to this Agreement, signed by both the County and the Grantee. Grantee shall provide written reports to the County’s authorized representative in accordance with Exhibit B.
6. Hold Harmless
Grantee shall indemnify and save harmless County and its officers, agents, employees, and servants from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description resulting from this Agreement, the performance of any work or services performed of Grantee in furtherance of the Project under this Agreement, or payments made pursuant to this Agreement brought for, or on account of, any of the following:
(A) injuries to or death of any person, including Grantee or its employees/officers/agents/volunteers;
(B) damage to any property of any kind whatsoever and to whomsoever belonging; (C) any sanctions, penalties, or claims of damages resulting from Grantee’s failure to comply with any applicable federal, state, or local laws or regulations; or (D) any other loss or cost, including but not limited to that caused by the concurrent active or passive negligence of County and/or its officers, agents, employees, or servants. However, Grantee’s duty to indemnify and save harmless under this Section shall not apply to injuries or damage for which County has been found in a court of competent jurisdiction to be solely liable by reason of its own negligence or willful misconduct.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 755491C0-82C9-4181-9519-F46137D6A2F2 In Process
10.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment A: Measure K Grant Agreement between the City of Pacifica and County of San Mateo (5476 : Resolution - County of Agreement No. __________ Board Resolution No. ________
The duty of Grantee to indemnify and save harmless as set forth by this Section shall include the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code.
7. Insurance
a. General Requirements
Prior to its receipt of any funds pursuant to this Grant Agreement, Grantee shall obtain all insurance required under this Section and such insurance shall be subject to the approval by County’s Risk Management, and Grantee shall use diligence to obtain such insurance and to obtain such approval.
Grantee shall furnish County with certificates of insurance evidencing the required coverage, and there shall be a specific contractual liability endorsement extending Grantee’s coverage to include the contractual liability assumed by Grantee pursuant to this Agreement. These certificates shall specify or be endorsed to provide that thirty (30) days’ notice must be given, in writing, to County of any pending change in the limits of liability or of any cancellation or modification of the policy. b. Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance Grantee shall have in effect during the entire term of this Agreement workers’ compensation and employer’s liability insurance providing full statutory coverage. In signing this Agreement, Grantee certifies, as required by Section 1861 of the California Labor Code, that (a) it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code, which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code, and (b) it will comply with such provisions before commencing or continuing the performance of Project work for which it would receive grant funds.
c. Liability Insurance
Grantee shall take out and maintain during the term of this Agreement such bodily injury liability and property damage liability insurance as shall protect Grantee and all of its employees/officers/agents while performing work covered by this Agreement from any and all claims for damages for bodily injury, including accidental death, as well as any and all claims for property damage which may arise from Grantee’s operations under this Agreement, whether such operations be by Grantee, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, or an agent of either of them. Such insurance shall be combined single limit bodily injury and property damage for each occurrence and shall not be less than the amounts specified below:
X Comprehensive General Liability… $1,000,000
(Applies to all agreements)
☐ Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance… $1,000,000
(To be checked if motor vehicle used in performing services) ☐ Professional Liability………………. $1,000,000
(To be checked if Grantee is a licensed professional)
County and its officers, agents, employees, and servants shall be named as additional insured on any such policies of insurance, which shall also contain a provision that (a) the insurance afforded thereby to County and its officers, agents, employees, and servants shall be primary insurance to the full limits of liability of the policy and (b) if the County or its officers, agents, employees, and servants have other insurance against the loss covered by such a policy, such other insurance shall be excess insurance only.
In the event of the breach of any provision of this Section, or in the event any notice is received which indicates any required insurance coverage will be diminished or canceled, County, at its option, may, DocuSign Envelope ID: 755491C0-82C9-4181-9519-F46137D6A2F2 In Process
10.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment A: Measure K Grant Agreement between the City of Pacifica and County of San Mateo (5476 : Resolution - County of Agreement No. __________ Board Resolution No. ________
notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, immediately declare a material breach of this Agreement and suspend any further payment pursuant to this Agreement.
8. Assignability and Subcontracting
Grantee shall not assign this Agreement or any portion of it to a third party. Except as set forth in Exhibit A, Grantee shall not subcontract with a third party to perform the Project. Any such assignment or subcontract without County’s prior written consent shall give County the right to automatically and immediately terminate this Agreement without penalty or advance notice and the County shall have the right to a refund of all funds disbursed under this Agreement.
9. Compliance With Laws
All services to be performed by Grantee in connection with the Project shall be performed in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, County, and municipal laws, ordinances, and regulations, including, but not limited to, any laws related to payment of prevailing wages pursuant to the California Labor Code. In connection with the Project, Grantee bears responsibility to obtain, at Grantee’s expense, any license, permit, or approval required from any agency.
10. Merger Clause; Amendments
This Agreement, including Exhibits, constitutes the sole Agreement of the parties regarding the Grant, and correctly states the rights, duties, and obligations of each party as of this document’s date. In the event that any term, condition, provision, requirement, or specification set forth in the body of this Agreement conflicts with or is inconsistent with any term, condition, provision, requirement, or specification in any Exhibit and/or Attachment to this Agreement, the provisions of the body of the Agreement shall prevail. Any prior agreement, promises, negotiations, or representations between the parties concerning the Grant that are not expressly stated in this document are not binding. All subsequent modifications or amendments shall be in writing and signed by the parties.
11. Controlling Law; Venue
The validity of this Agreement and of its terms, the rights and duties of the parties under this Agreement, the interpretation of this Agreement, the performance of this Agreement, and any other dispute of any nature arising out of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to its choice of law or conflict of law rules. Any dispute arising out of this Agreement shall be venued either in the San Mateo County Superior Court or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
12. Notices
Any notice, request, demand, or other communication required or permitted under this Agreement shall be deemed to be properly given when both: (1) transmitted via email to the email address listed below; and (2) sent to the physical address listed below by either being deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or deposited for overnight delivery, charges prepaid, with an established overnight courier that provides a tracking number showing confirmation of receipt.
In the case of County, to: In the case of Grantee, to:
County Executive’s Office
Molly Villagomez, Administrative Assistant II
400 County Center, 1st Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (650) 363-1810
City of Pacifica
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (650) 738-7409
DocuSign Envelope ID: 755491C0-82C9-4181-9519-F46137D6A2F2 In Process
10.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment A: Measure K Grant Agreement between the City of Pacifica and County of San Mateo (5476 : Resolution - County of Agreement No. __________ Board Resolution No. ________
13. Electronic Signature
Both County and Contractor wish to permit this Agreement and future documents relating to this Agreement to be digitally signed in accordance with California law and County’s Electronic Signature Administrative Memo. Any party to this Agreement may revoke such agreement to permit electronic signatures at any time in relation to all future documents by providing notice pursuant to this Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 755491C0-82C9-4181-9519-F46137D6A2F2 In Process
10.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment A: Measure K Grant Agreement between the City of Pacifica and County of San Mateo (5476 : Resolution - County of Agreement No. __________ Board Resolution No. ________
* * *
THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT VALID UNTIL SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES. NO FUNDS WILL BE DISTRIBUTED UNTIL THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN SIGNED BY THE COUNTY’S AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE.
For Grantee:
City of Pacifica
_____________________________
(signature)
Authorized Representative
Grantee
_____________________________
(please print name)
Authorized Representative
Grantee
_______________
Date
_____________________________
Name of Grantee
For County:
______________________________
(Signature)
Authorized Designee
County of San Mateo
ROBERTO MANCHIA
____________________________
(please print name)
Authorized Designee
County of San Mateo
______________
Date
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
______________________________
Job Title (please print)
80125-6265
______________________________
Budget Unit
BOSD3
______________________________
Measure K JL Code
DocuSign Envelope ID: 755491C0-82C9-4181-9519-F46137D6A2F2 Kevin Woodhouse
In Process
10.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment A: Measure K Grant Agreement between the City of Pacifica and County of San Mateo (5476 : Resolution - County of Agreement No. __________ Board Resolution No. ________
Exhibit A
The County and Grantee agree that the grant funds shall only be used to further the goals of the following Project, described below and in the October 3, 2023 Board transmittal and resolution, incorporated herein by reference:
Grantee will provide support for the Coastside News Group, Inc’s operational costs from October 3, 2023 through June 30, 2024, to enable Coastside News Group to provide local news and resources to Coastside San Mateo County residents (Pacifica and mid-coast region) primarily through (but not limited to) the weekly Half Moon Bay Review and Pacifica Tribune newspapers (both in print and online), as well as the monthly Coastside magazine.
In no event shall the County’s fiscal obligation under this Agreement exceed $20,000.00.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 755491C0-82C9-4181-9519-F46137D6A2F2 In Process
10.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment A: Measure K Grant Agreement between the City of Pacifica and County of San Mateo (5476 : Resolution - County of Agreement No. __________ Board Resolution No. ________
Exhibit B
In accordance with the terms of this Grant Agreement, Grantee will provide, or cause to be provided the services for the Project detailed in Exhibit A and will report back to the County regarding various performance measures including, but not limited to, those noted below. Such reporting data shall be delivered to the County no later than July 31, 2024. In addition, Grantee agrees to provide descriptive information about the Project funded by the Measure K grant upon reasonable request of the County, including, but not limited to, the County Executive’s Office, the County Communications Officer, or the Supervisorial District Office.
Performance Measure Target
Support Coastside News Group, Inc.’s operational expenses, to provide for uninterrupted local news coverage regarding Pacifica and the mid-coast region in the 2023-24 fiscal year. Complete
Payment will be made within 30 days of receipt of an adequate invoice by the County Executive’s Office, Accounting Unit. County shall have the right to withhold payment if County determines the quantity and/or quality of the work performed is unacceptable.
Grantee shall provide County with a written itemized invoice that allows the County to reconcile the work performed. Grantee shall provide a description of monthly expenses, evidence of work performed, or of costs incurred, including, but not limited to, performance measures, timesheets, activity logs, copies of bills, and/or packing slips.
Grantee shall include a written certification that the costs were actually incurred for the Project and that the supporting documentation is true, correct and complete.
All invoices shall include the agreement number, project location, dates of service and specified work completed.
Pursuant to Section 2 of the Grant Agreement, County’s fiscal obligation shall not exceed $20,000.00.
Remit invoices to:
County Executive’s Office
Cristal Pepin, Accountant II
400 County Center, 1st Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (650) 363-4170
DocuSign Envelope ID: 755491C0-82C9-4181-9519-F46137D6A2F2 In Process
10.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment A: Measure K Grant Agreement between the City of Pacifica and County of San Mateo (5476 : Resolution - County of
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/25/2023
1 SUBJECT:
City of Pacifica response to the Grand Jury Report: "Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County"
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to approve the response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report titled "Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County" STAFF CONTACT:
Bob Palacio, Director Parks Beaches and Recreation
650 738-7382
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Early in California’s history, the California Constitution established grand juries in each county.
The California Penal Code provides for the formation of civil grand juries and their powers and duties. With respect to public agencies, grand juries are authorized to “Investigate and report upon the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments, functions, and the method or systems of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit.” California Penal Code § 925(a). Within 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a report regarding the operations of any public agency, the “Governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body…” California Penal Code § 933(c).
As bicycle riding has become an ever more meaningful form of transportation, especially with the popularization of eBikes, the demand by San Mateo County residents for safe micro-mobility solutions has soared. A Civil Grand Jury was formed and asked the question "Are San Mateo County and its municipalities positioned to respond to safety concerns and meet those demands? The Civil Grand Jury report was released on July 10, 2023. The City of Pacifica is required to respond to the findings and recommendations by October 10, 2023.
In summary, the report finds that due to differences in terrain, population density, and existing infrastructure, the 20 different municipalities and the unincorporated portions of the County have differing bicycle safety needs and requirements. Some cities are very hilly, making commuting to work, school, or transit stations nearly impossible. Others are more urban and accommodate many more commuting bicyclists. The County also has some areas that are primarily recreational biking destinations and areas that accommodate both commuting bicyclists and recreational bicyclists. As a result, each community also assigns a different level of importance to bicycle safety relative to other issues, such as crime, motor vehicle safety and public works improvement projects. And education and enforcement about bicycle laws varies from one jurisdiction to another.
11 Packet Pg. 196
Pacifica City Council 2
September 25, 2023
Despite the differences among the jurisdictions, there are several commonalities. One is that cities and law enforcement do not consistently maintain records about bicycle near misses, accidents, or complaints; data is neither broadly available nor consistently maintained. Another commonality is that government entities focused on bicycling and/or improving bicycle safety do not communicate and collaborate with each other often enough, if at all. This makes it difficult to get accurate information on the number and severity of incidents and gauge how safe it is to bicycle in San Mateo County. Without data, and communication among the municipalities, San Mateo County and its cities and towns lose out on available state and local funding to improve bicycle safety through physical improvement projects.
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Recommendations To improve bicycle safety and thereby increase ridership, San Mateo County and its cities and towns need to:
1. Create effective ways to educate bicycle riders and motorists about bicycle rules of the road to enhance predictability.
2. Develop consistent communications among government organizations responsible for bike safety (e.g., between law enforcement and public works).
3. Conduct enforcement details in each jurisdiction to ensure enforcement leads to education.
4. Collect accurate data about accidents and incidents that is crucial to supporting and justifying grant applications and funding from State and local agencies for physical improvements to infrastructure for bicyclists (e.g., connectivity of bicycle routes from one city to another), needed signage, and other engineering improvements.
The City of Pacifica responses can be found in Attachment B "Bike Safety SMC Civil Grand Jury Pacifica Response Letter.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Decline to accept the draft response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury and provide additional direction to staff.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets, and facilities FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact of accepting this report and implementing the recommendations are minimal and can be addressed with budgeted resources.
ORIGINATED BY:
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (PDF) Attachment B: Bike Safety SMC Civil Grand Jury Pacifica Response Letter (PDF) 11 Packet Pg. 197
Bike Safety in San Mateo County
Making Bicycling Safer in the County
Release Date: July 10, 2023
2022-23 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
11.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 1
“Biking is one of the few activities that checks all the boxes at once — it’s active, practical, social, sustainable, stress-relieving, fun, and is a great family activity. Biking has the unique ability to elevate the mundane — it turns errands into adventures. More people on bikes keeps our streets safer, our air cleaner and our communities better connected.” Sonia Elkes, 2021 Bike Champion of the Year for San Mateo County Bay Area Bike to Work Website “I often drive up Alpine Road near the Stanford golf course and I believe I would have a head-on crash with oncoming cars if I left a 3-foot margin between my car and the thoughtless bikers who ride out partially in the road. What is the best advice for that situation?” Comment on Bicyclists Can Now Report 3’ Rule Violations Online in The Almanac 5/12/2023. “On the afternoon of Monday, April 10, bicyclist Lester Legarda was fatally struck by a driver on Cañada Road, a rural route popular among walkers, equestrians, and bicyclists. Details of the crash scene suggest that the collision speed was high. One solution to prevent future tragedies along Cañada is tantalizingly simple — reduce the 50-mph speed limit. Sure, drivers will likely continue to exceed the speed limit. But just like the paint on the road that defines where drivers are supposed to drive, posted speed limits set expectations for acceptable driver behavior.” Reduce the speed limit on Canada Road San Mateo Daily Journal 04/20/23.
11.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2
Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County ISSUE
As bicycle riding has become an ever more meaningful form of transportation, especially with the popularization of eBikes, the demand by County residents for safe micro-mobility solutions has soared. Are San Mateo County and its municipalities positioned to respond to safety concerns and meet those demands?
SUMMARY
Whether for commuting or recreational purposes, residents in every jurisdiction of San Mateo County (SMC), as well as from the surrounding Bay Area counties, use bicycles. Because bicycles are widely available, for some the only mode of getting to and from work and jobs, and ridden in every jurisdiction, bicycle safety has become an increasingly important issue for SMC and its cities and towns. Without greater focus on bike safety, the number of riders will remain low, because people will avoid bicycling when they don’t feel safe. The benefits of increasing bicycle riding are important to all residents of San Mateo County: reducing motor vehicles, healthy lifestyle and an inexpensive form of transportation. Accordingly, San Mateo County, and its cities and towns have a responsibility to make it safe for drivers and pedestrians, as well as bicyclists.
Due to differences in terrain, population density, and existing infrastructure, the 20 different municipalities and the unincorporated portions of the County have differing bicycle safety needs and requirements. Some cities are very hilly, making commuting to work, school, or transit stations nearly impossible. Others are more urban and accommodate many more commuting bicyclists. The County also has some areas that are primarily recreational biking destinations and areas that accommodate both commuting bicyclists and recreational bicyclists. As a result, each community also assigns a different level of importance to bicycle safety relative to other issues, such as crime, motor vehicle safety and public works improvement projects. And education and enforcement about bicycle laws varies from one jurisdiction to another.
Despite the differences among the jurisdictions, there are several commonalities. One is that cities and law enforcement do not consistently maintain records about bicycle near misses, accidents, or complaints; data is neither broadly available nor consistently maintained. Another commonality is that government entities focused on bicycling and/or improving bicycle safety do not communicate and collaborate with each other often enough, if at all. This makes it difficult to get accurate information on the number and severity of incidents and gauge how safe it is to bicycle in San Mateo County. Without data, and communication among the municipalities, San Mateo County and its cities and towns lose out on available state and local funding to improve bicycle safety through physical improvement projects.
11.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 3
To improve bicycle safety and thereby increase ridership, San Mateo County and its cities and towns need to:
1. Create effective ways to educate bicycle riders and motorists about bicycle rules of the road to enhance predictability.
2. Develop consistent communications among government organizations responsible for bike safety (e.g., between law enforcement and public works).
3. Conduct enforcement details in each jurisdiction to ensure enforcement leads to education.
4. Collect accurate data about accidents and incidents that is crucial to supporting and justifying grant applications and funding from State and local agencies for physical improvements to infrastructure for bicyclists (e.g., connectivity of bicycle routes from one city to another), needed signage, and other engineering improvements.
BACKGROUND
Why is bike safety an important topic?
Statistically, the safer a person feels riding a bike, the more likely they will use it as regular transportation; both as a commuter and a recreational user.
Fifty-three percent of Americans worry about being hit by a motor vehicle when riding a bicycle; 47% say they would be more likely to ride a bike if pathways were physically separated from motor vehicles.1
However, bicycle accident statistics, though better than in 1998, averaged 231 fatalities and injuries over the last ten years. The average was 203 fatalities the last three years, but the drop includes the pandemic shutdown and more people working from home. The source of the recent data is the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS2) database, managed by the California Highway Patrol. All law enforcement agencies are required to submit accident data to the database on a regular basis.
A 2002-2003 SMC Civil Grand Jury titled, Bike Safety in San Mateo County3, questioned whether San Mateo County and the cities adequately consider and support safe bicycle travel? At that time, it was estimated that 46% of Americans bicycle for pleasure and 300,000 County residents bicycle at least occasionally. Commuting by bicycle was less than 1% in the County.
That year’s Grand Jury found that bicycle infrastructure for safe travel needed improvement, but funding was an issue. It also found that communication and planning between the county and the cities on bicycle projects and safety could be improved. And that throughout SMC, bicycle safety was not a high priority. The primary recommendation of the report was the county, and all cities should develop a long-term strategic bicycle and safety plan.
1 People for Bikes: https://www.peopleforbikes.org/news/building-for-tomorrow 2 https://iswitrs.chp.ca.gov/Reports/jsp/logout.do
3 https://www.sanmateocourt.org/court_divisions/grand_jury/2002reports.php?page=02SMC-Bicycle.html
11.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 4
A few things have changed since then.
Over the years, the focus of cities and the county on improving bike and pedestrian forms of transportation has increased:
● Bicycle maps and routes are now generally available online. ● The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) updated their San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in 20114and 20215. ● California enacted Assembly Bill 1358, California Complete Streets Act of 20086, requiring all cities and counties to include complete streets policies as part of any substantial revision to the circulation element of their general plans; and cities and the County have adopted these complete streets policies, noting these policies in their Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, or Active Transportation Plans. ● SMC and most of its municipalities have created and consistently upgraded their Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans.
● Unincorporated San Mateo County has created an Active Transportation Plan7(Active Transportation is a term often used to cover walking, bicycling, and other motorized devices as a primary mode of transportation).
● C/CAG, Unincorporated SMC and some cities have created Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committees to address active transportation improvements, safety issues, and other citizen related requests.
Meanwhile, the number of bicyclists in San Mateo County has not increased since 2002, according to the California Household Travel Survey, which is regularly used for data on the number of bicyclists in a community, but is restricted to commuting.
The 2002 and 2012 surveys showed only 1% of SMC’s population rides bicycles as a form of transportation. Looking at the various municipalities’ Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, and the surveys and counts discussed in the plans, bicycle commute ridership still hovers at approximately 1% within SMC.
It is important to note that the number of people in SMC using bicycles in lieu of a car has not increased in 20 years. This is in contrast to the estimated number of recreational bicyclists (46%) in SMC, who also use streets and bicycle paths and expect a safe ride8.
4 https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CBPP_Main-Report__Sept2011_FINAL.pdf 5 https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/6_A1_San-Mateo-County-Comprehensive-Bicycle-andPedestrian-Plan-Update-Final-Plan.pdf 6 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1351-1400/ab_1358_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf 7 https://www.smcsustainability.org/livable-communities/active-transportation/unincorporated-smc-activetransportation-plan/ 8 https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/6_A1_San-Mateo-County-Comprehensive-Bicycle-andPedestrian-Plan-Update-Final-Plan.pdf
11.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 5
However, even with roadway and signage improvements over the past 20 years, there is much San Mateo cities and the county can do to improve bicycle safety.
DISCUSSION
The merits of bicycle riding may seem self-evident, but a wide range of research reveals often surprising benefits to local economies, personal health, the environment, traffic congestion, and pedestrian safety that are unique to bicycle friendly communities.
Health Benefits
Bicycle riding contributes to both physical and mental health. Regular exercise such as cycling can help prevent heart issues9such as stroke, heart attack, high blood pressure, and may also help prevent and manage type 2 diabetes.10 Riding a bicycle is good for cognitive health and emotional well-being and can ease feelings of stress, depression, or anxiety.11 All in all, bicycling for only 30 minutes a day reduces a person’s chances of diabetes, dementia, depression, colon cancer, cardiovascular disease, anxiety and high blood pressure by 40 percent or more.12
The World Health Organization has found that “If every adult EU citizen walked or cycled for 15 extra minutes per day, we’d have 100,000 fewer people dying prematurely, each year.”13 Environmental Benefits
Among the most obvious benefits of cycling is its benign effects on the environment. A solo driver in an average car releases about 1.1 pounds of CO2 per mile.14 A standard compact to midsize car that travels 12,000 miles will emit 11,000 pounds of CO2.15 The average car produces about 1.3 billion cubic yards of polluted air over the course of its lifespan plus worn tire particles, brake wear, and the emissions from other materials in the car also contribute to air pollution.16 Recent research in Europe found that traveling by bicycle instead of by car once a day decreases your transportation carbon footprint by 67%.17
9 https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/exercise-and-the-heart 10 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4942105/ 11https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/minding-the-body/201505/bicycling-can-sharpen-your-thinking-and-improve-yourmood 12 https://www.exerciseismedicine.org/assets/page_documents/EIMFactSheet_2014.pdf 13 https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/walking-and-cycling-reduce-congestion 14 https://www.sharetheroad.ca/what-are-the-environmental-traffic-congestion-benefits-of-cycling--s16223 15 https://www.treehugger.com/cars-are-causing-air-pollution-we-breathe-new-study-finds-4856825 16 https://www.scholaradvisor.com/essay-examples-for-college/bicycle-helps-reduce-air-pollution/ 17 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920921000687
11.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 6
Traffic
As active transportation choices like walking and bicycling gain attention and popularity, researchers are beginning to investigate the role these travel modes can play in reducing traffic congestion.18 Studies show that measures taken to promote bicycling and walking have a positive effect on congestion.
Research in Washington, DC identified a causal effect of the presence of a bike-share station on traffic congestion. The result is a 2-to-3% reduction in traffic congestion that can be attributed to the bike-share station within the sample.19
Economic Benefits
Among the more surprising findings is the positive economic impact from an increase in bicycle usage but studies show that the bicycle-related economy creates jobs, economic activity, and cost savings.20
Bicycle trails and facilities have a positive, statistically significant impact on home values; a 2006 study in Minneapolis found that the median home values rose $510 for every quarter mile they were located closer to an off-street bikeway.21
Indianapolis’ Cultural Trail, an 8-mile network of separated bike and pedestrian lanes, has reinvigorated a number of struggling business districts and sparked a whopping $1 billion in increased property values.22
And in an era when streets and sidewalks across the county are in various states of disrepair, bicycle projects can significantly reduce the cost of maintaining and expanding our transportation systems.23 Even protected bicycle lanes are “dirt cheap to build compared to road projects,” says Gabe Klein, a partner at Fontinalis, a venture capitalist firm founded by Ford Motor Co. Chairman Bill Ford. Cities everywhere need to be more efficient about the money they spend to move people. "We need to get more use from the streets we already have.” Research indicates that investments in cycling infrastructure generate more jobs per dollar spent than investments in road-only infrastructure; cycling projects create a total of 11.4 local jobs for each $1 million spent while road-only projects create 9.6 jobs per $1 million.24
18 https://kawarthanow.com/2019/01/17/reduce-traffic-congestion-bikes-can-do-that 19 https://www.resources.org/archives/commentary-does-bicycle-infrastructure-reduce-traffic-congestion/ 20 https://railyards.com/blog/7-benefits-of-bike-friendly-communities 21 https://smartcity.press/bicycle-infrastructure-in-smart-city/ 22 https://indyculturaltrail.org/2015/07/23/economic-impact-figures-released/ 23https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/getting-around/info-2016/why-bicycling-infrastructure-is-good-for-people-whodont-ride-bikes.html 24 https://www.sharetheroad.ca/what-are-the-environmental-traffic-congestion-benefits-of-cycling--s16223
11.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 7
Bicycle friendly communities are important to millennial job seekers and functional bicycle infrastructures help companies attract talent. “States and cities are competing for the most mobile generation ever and so the job creators and the innovators are really pushing for these amenities.”25
Safety
The most comprehensive study of bicycle and road safety to date finds that building safe facilities for cyclists is one of the biggest factors in road safety for everyone. Bicycling infrastructure -- specifically, separated and protected bike lanes -- leads to fewer fatalities and better road-safety outcomes for all road users.26
Davis, CA was the first city to gain “platinum” status by the League of American Bicyclists and is often referred to as the “bicycle capital of America.” From 1996 to 2007, Davis only had nine fatal road crashes. Despite having the largest percentage of bike commuters in the United States, none of these accidents involved a bicyclist. With a fatal crash rate of less than 1.5 per 100,000 residents, far fewer people are killed on Davis’ roads than in the U.S. as a whole, which averaged
14.5 fatalities per 100,000 residents.
Portland, OR, another platinum bicycling city, saw a nearly 50% decrease in road fatalities as it increased its bicycle mode share from 1.2% in 1990 to 5.8% in 2000. Bike friendly communities are safer for all road users, no matter what type of transportation is being used.
Social Benefits
Finally, bicycle riding as an alternative to car travel is associated with a number of social benefits, including increased social interaction, social networks, and social capital.27 A bicycle rider has a completely different relationship with their environment than those who are cocooned in their cars.
When communities invest in bicycle infrastructure, everyone benefits. Overall, bicycle commuters are healthier and bicycle-friendly streets are safer for everyone on the road. Bicycle friendly communities reap economic benefits including more retail activity and increased home values. The evidence is clear: bicycling brings big benefits to communities who embrace it.
Status Today
Twenty years after the first San Mateo Grand Jury report, significant gaps remain in jurisdictions’ approach to bicycle safety:
25 https://railyards.com/blog/7-benefits-of-bike-friendly-communities 26 https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/files/marshallw_cnu18.pdf 27 https://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/benefits-of-biking-walking/
11.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 8
● San Mateo County and its municipalities’ characteristics make it difficult to create a consistent approach to bicycle safety.
● The use of bicycle safety education as a tool to increase safety for bicyclists and motorists is underutilized Countywide.
● Communication and coordinated planning across city lines is the exception, rather than the norm. Reporting of bicycle-related incidents is inconsistent throughout the county. ● Enforcement of bicycle laws, for motorists and bicyclists, is inconsistent and not prioritized.
Bicycle Safety in San Mateo County Cities
Each city and town in San Mateo County is unique and has a different relationship with bicycle use and safety. These variations include:
● Topography
● Objectives and priorities re bicycles and ridership
● Safety Perception
● Infrastructure
● Impact of eBikes
● Role of enforcement in bicycle safety.
For example:
Woodside and Portola Valley: Woodside and Portola Valley are hill communities with narrow roads. Woodside has a very active Circulation Committee which keeps a close eye on large bicycling events in the community and Portola Valley is focused on managing bicyclists on the weekend. But in both cases, the communities concentrate on ensuring quality of life for residents. They both see mostly recreational bicyclists.
Woodside has invested as much as $1 million to ensure a “safe route to school” for the children. However, the communities don’t make a strong effort to track riders or accidents. In both communities the Sheriff’s Office, which is their policing arm, enforces rules at some problem locations, but not regularly.
Hillsborough: Hillsborough is a relatively insular community by nature of its location and topography. It has no commercial districts and is, to a large degree, rather hilly. The view on bicyclists is very much a neighborhood view: meaning the expectation is that if there are problems with bicyclists they are brought up by members of the neighborhoods.
The primary focus on any kind of organized bicycling safety activity is efforts to teach children bicycle safety and safe routes to school at the beginning of the school year.
Belmont: Until quite recently, the City has been completely focused on ensuring that the community is comfortable for single family dwellings. However, areas close to El Camino Real are more commercial and have denser housing. The community now has both recreational and commuting bicyclists using the roads. While Belmont does have a bicycle master plan and holds an annual bike safety program for children and teenagers,
11.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 9
more needs to be done. The City needs to obtain funding from external Federal, State and County sources to do more.
Half Moon Bay: Possibly more than any other community in San Mateo County, Half Moon Bay has a sophisticated, complex relationship with bicyclists. On the one hand, Half Moon Bay attracts many visitors -- both vacationers and visitors from other Bay Area communities; and on the other hand, it has a robust population of residents who use their bicycles to get to work, school, and stores. Moreover, while Half Moon Bay has many surface streets, it is dominated by Highways 1 and 92 which have many challenging safety issues. As a result, the community has a bicycle master plan that focuses on bicycle safety and traffic planning. Despite this very proactive approach, the City deals with sometimes devastating safety issues. However, it appears that concern for bicycle safety is shared by many of the participants in the community.
San Mateo: The City of San Mateo updated its bicycle master plan in 2020. As a result, the City has focused on a variety of contemporaneous issues. These include working to develop a roadway network which could accommodate both bicycles and other types of active transportation. The City believes that it still skews toward recreational bicycling but is finding that more people want to use bicycles as a way of getting around. The master plan covers some education issues such as safe routes to school and safe bicycling for seniors. The plan does not talk about safety per se but addresses it from the vantage point of education. Though the City is focused on these matters it still recognizes that there's more education to be done about the rules of the road for bicyclists.
Unincorporated San Mateo County: Large areas of San Mateo County are small towns, private land, and open space, bisected, primarily, by two lane roads and highways. To address bicycle safety in these areas, the county created the Unincorporated San Mateo County Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee. Though there is no explicit Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, they do contribute to the SMC Active Transportation plan. The Committee makes recommendations regarding bicycle and pedestrian related grants, but expressed frustration with money not being shared equitably. Additionally, the Committee inputs bicyclist’s feedback. They are concerned with the number of incidents between motorists and bicyclists that are not addressed by law enforcement. The Committee has been working with the County Sheriff to address the problem.
These are just a few examples of San Mateo County and its municipalities' approach to bicycle safety. But because the communities are so diverse, thinking about bicycle safety needs to be broad-minded.
Bicycle Safety Education in SMC: Not just for cyclists
Since bicycle safety is crucial to encouraging bicycle usage, it follows that bicycle safety education is an essential component of the bicycle safety equation.
11.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 10
According to the US Department of Transportation: “Educating people about safe bicycling and walking, enforcing laws that make it easier and safer for people to bicycle and walk, and encouraging people to bicycle and walk, may help increase walking and bicycling activity, especially when combined with infrastructure improvements.”28 Moreover, as noted on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Bicycle Safety web page, “A large percentage of crashes can be avoided if motorists and cyclists follow the rules of the road and watch out for each other.”29
In San Mateo County, much of the focus on bicycle safety and bicycle safety education is focused on ensuring safe routes to schools for children. Several communities, as detailed below, have much more comprehensive approaches to bicycle safety education in their Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans. Here are some examples:
● Burlingame (Excerpt from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) Policy 11: Educate people walking, bicycling, and driving, and the general public about roadway safety and the benefits of bicycling and walking.
11.1: Support the continuation and expansion of bicycle safety education programs such as those taught by Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and the San Mateo County Office of Education.
Policy 12: Encourage Burlingame public schools to participate in the Safe Routes to School program organized by the San Mateo County Office of Education. ● Brisbane’s Master Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan examples:
“Policy 4.A.5: Provide support for programs that educate drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians about their rights and responsibilities, as well as traffic education and safety programs for adults and youth.”
“Programs support bicycling and walking by providing encouragement to those considering bicycling and walking, education for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians about safe and appropriate sharing of streets and roads, and enforcement of traffic laws that help ensure the safety of vulnerable road users.”
● County Sheriff:
The San Mateo County Sheriff’s office publishes a pamphlet, Bicycle Safety30, on the California Vehicle Code sections related to bicycle safety. One City, Woodside, references this document, which could be used by all cities, schools and police
28 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_focus/docs/fhwasa17050.pdf 29 https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/bicycle-safety
30 https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community/page/33495/bicycle_safety.pdf
11.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 11
departments to improve bicycle safety education. However, the document is not available on the SMC Sheriff website.
● City of San Mateo:
San Mateo has some support for bicycle use and safety on its City website. The pages are listed in the table below.
EXISTING
Support Program Description Webpage
Bicycle Webpage There is brief text about bike
routes and using a bike with
public transport on the City’s
webpage
http://www/cityofsanmateo.org/
2125/Parking-andTransportation
Bicycle Education
Events
The city’s Public Works
Department hosts an annual
bike rodeo
http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/
3736/Bike-Rodeo
Moving to Excellent Bike Safety Education in all SMC Cities Overall, the approach to bicycle safety education in SMC communities is inconsistent. Several of the master plans recognize that bicycle safety education is about teaching motorists and cyclists of all ages about the guidelines for bicycle safety. Other communities either don’t focus much on education or are focused exclusively on “Safe Routes to School”.
Nonetheless, there are a handful of programs identified in the table below that creatively address bicycle safety, which San Mateo County and its municipalities should consider adopting.
11.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 12
RECOMMENDED FOR ALL SMC CITIES
Support Program Description Webpage
Establish child and
adult education
programs
Identify and implement
education programs for
children and adults that build
bicyclists’ confidence, done
in coordination with the Parks
and Recreation Department,
Police or Local Schools.
https://www.portlandoregon.go
v/transportation/article/565224
http://www/cityofsanmateo.org/
2125/Parking-andTransportation
Establish Safe
Routes to School
Funding
Establish a stable funding
source for Safe Routes to
School programming
https://www.metro.net/projects/
sr_ts/fund-your-program
Implement and
promote
demonstration
projects
Implement short-term, highvisibility bicycle
demonstration or ‘pop-up’
projects to serve as models
that can be applied throughout
the city. Market bicycle
safety.
https://transportation.bellevuew
a.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server
_4779004/File/Transportation/P
ublications/PBII_Demo%20Bik
eway%20Brochure_20180205.
pdf
Provide safety
education program
for users of all
modes
Provide safety education
programs or communications
campaigns for people driving,
bicycling, walking, and using
micro mobility devices that
encourage safe travel
behaviors.
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/
Create a robust
bicycling webpage
Develop and maintain a
content rich mobility
webpage(s) on the
County/City website and
communicate how to reach
city destinations by bike, on
foot or on micro-mobility
devices. Include information
on these transportation
options.
https://www.metro.net/riding/g
o-bike
http://www/cityofsanmateo.org/
2125/Parking-andTransportation
11.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plans and Advisory Committees: Planning Across the County The 2002 SMC Grand Jury Report recommended that all municipalities create Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans. As a best practice, the municipalities were encouraged to form Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees.
To date, almost all San Mateo County jurisdictions or cities have Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, or Active Transportation Plans. Most, if not all of these plans, align with recommendations from the 2011 C/CAG’s San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The 2021 update of C/CAG’s plan enhances and adds to the 2011 C/CAG San Mateo County plan, but most of the cities and towns have not updated their plans to be consistent with the 2021 plan. (See Appendix D for a complete list of San Mateo County’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plans.)
The cities’ bicycle and pedestrian master plans help each city by identifying strategies to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. The plans recommend improvements for roadway connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians, within each city as well as with neighboring cities.
Numerous plans reference the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) as organizations that have certified instructors for bicycle safety education. At least several of the plans also discuss the LAB Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card to which five SMC cities and San Mateo County belong. The plans list potential State and Federal funding for projects that improve safety and roadway connectivity and make clear the importance of annually evaluating and tracking progress against objectives.
However, in SMC, County committees and municipalities do not always work together to generate consistent plans that meet C/CAG’s goal for a Countywide bicycle backbone. Though C/CAG does have an advisory committee which includes representatives from municipalities, it does not have control over what individual municipalities decide to do regarding grant applications, infrastructure projects for better bicycle and pedestrian safety and education initiatives. If the municipalities endeavored to work together to prioritize projects and programs that are consistent with C/CAG’s priorities, it would benefit all of San Mateo County, especially with respect to providing north-south connectivity between municipalities.
Metrics: If you don’t measure it, you can’t improve it.
One important measure of bicycle safety is arriving safely at a destination. This is usually reflected in the negative; that is, the number of fatalities and injuries during a calendar year versus the number of successful bicycle trips.
In San Mateo County, the cities and county rely heavily on data supplied to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to state the number of fatalities and injuries. The CHP then maintains a database, SWITRS (California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System), which is accessible
11.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 14
to the public. And, UC Berkeley maintains a website, TIMS31 (Transportation Injury Mapping System), which can further refine the raw data from SWITRS.
However, relying on this data to evaluate Bicycle Safety is problematic.
Law enforcement agencies in the County submit their bicycle accident data to SWITRS based on incidents that result in fatality or injury. However, there are bicycle accidents resulting in injury which don’t make it into SWITRS because law enforcement is not called. Some examples are bicyclists being forced off the road by motor vehicles, collision near misses and, of course, bicyclist error. Consequently, the actual number of bicycle accidents is underreported and, more importantly, the list of accident locations is not complete. Cyclists that have an incident that does not involve either the police or the fire department do not have a consistent means to log their experience. That data goes unreported. And this goes both ways; there is no means for a motorist to complain about bicycle riders’ unsafe behavior.
Countywide there is no uniform metric to measure Bicycle Safety. Without such a measure, it’s impossible to assess progress while building infrastructure, enforcing laws, and educating everyone in safety principles.
An obvious metric is bicycle accidents as recorded by SWTRS and online reports, but there is another metric which evaluates the complex equation that results in safe bicycling: Bicycle Friendly America Certification32.
The League of American Cyclists is a national organization dedicated to creating “safer roads, stronger communities and a Bicycle Friendly America for everyone.” This is a grassroots organization dedicated since 1880 to protecting the right to safe and enjoyable bicycling. A valuable achievement of this organization is establishing the Bicycle Friendly America (BFA) certification for cities and counties. This consists of a very detailed application33 that a city or county official fills out to get a comprehensive rating of bicycle safety. BFA defines bicycle safety using 5 E’s:
● Equity and Accessibility: A bicycle-friendly America for everyone ● Engineering: Creating safe and creative places to ride and park ● Education: Giving people of all ages and abilities the skills and confidence to ride ● Encouragement: Creating a strong bike culture that welcomes and celebrates bicycling ● Evaluation and Planning: Planning for bicycling as a safe and viable transportation option [Note that Enforcement, a common element in the 5 E’s of safety, is not included in the BFA definition.]
31https://tims.berkeley.edu/summary.php?showArea=city&expandTables=false&injury=3&yearRange=3&showMap =crashes
32 https://bikeleague.org/bfa/
33 https://bicyclefriendly.secure-platform.com/a/organizations/main/home
11.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15
The application covers the BFA 5 E’s and investigates what it calls the 10 building blocks of a Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC). Finally, the rating includes steps to reaching the next level of excellence. Oakland in 2022, for example, received a GOLD rating Report Card34 having been BRONZE in 2010 and SILVER in 2014. The following cities and SMC have received the following ratings:
● Menlo Park35: GOLD: 2017
● Redwood City36: BRONZE: 2016
● San Carlos37: BRONZE: 2016
● San Mateo38: BRONZE: 2016
● South San Francisco39: BRONZE: 2018
● San Mateo County40: BRONZE: 2016
The BFC Report Card is a valuable metric that all cities and the County should make use of. If SMC cities develop the information necessary to answer objective and comprehensive questions about bicycle safety, each jurisdiction would have a consistent metric that can be used to measure bicycle safety progress across the County.
Law Enforcement and Bicycle Safety
Laws regarding the operation of bicycles are in the California Vehicle Code (CVC), but in general, bicycles are governed by the same rules of the road as motor vehicles.
SMC law enforcement organizations are concerned that there is currently no way for them to track bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle accidents, from near misses to actual contact, that did not require police involvement. And, even if an incident or infraction is reported, an officer may or may not go out to speak with the complainant.
Other than the initial report, there is no single repository in SMC to store and retrieve information regarding bicycle-related citations or enforcement of bicycle law so it can be used in the future.
And perhaps most importantly, the enforcement of laws, regarding motorists and bicyclists, is inconsistent due to competing priorities and the requirement that a citation requires an incident be witnessed by an officer.
34 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2022_ReportCard_Oakland_CA.pdf 35 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2017_ReportCard_Menlo_Park_CA.pdf 36 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Spring_2016_ReportCard_Redwood_City_CA.pdf 37 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2016_ReportCard_San_Carlos_CA.pdf 38 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2016_ReportCard_San_Mateo_CA.pdf 39https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2018_ReportCard_South_San_Francisco_CA.p df
40https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Spring_2016_ReportCard_San_Mateo_County_CA.p df
11.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 16
Conflicting Priorities
Law enforcement prioritizes assets based on the needs of the community, as well as their operating budget, when it comes to providing services. While public and political prioritization of bicycle safety issues may come up from time to time, calls for service are always prioritized.
This results in minimal officer resources dedicated to bicycle safety.
Police forces will:
● Focus resources or staff on bicycle safety, if there is an uptick in accidents at a particular location, citizen requests/calls, or requests from a jurisdiction’s public works or traffic departments to focus on certain locations; or
● Provide teams to schools and special events for bicycle safety education ● Much less often, assign their police officers to bicycle safety duty exclusively (some police departments do have officers that patrol on bicycles).
In addition, law enforcement agencies do not always enforce eBike laws, but this is mostly due to the popularity of eBikes being ahead of law enforcement policies.
Because of these conflicting priorities, and limited staff, enforcement of bicycle laws pertaining to motorists as well as bicyclists appears to be underreported.
Policing Bicycles and eBikes
Law enforcement departments in the county are very aware of the importance of bicycle safety.
Common sense says people generally want the streets to be safe for motor vehicles which translates to most officer resources going to motor vehicle enforcement.
It’s possible that safer bicycle riding could lead to fewer cars and free up police resources for more pressing issues.
The New 3’ Law for Motorists and Bicycles
In January 2023, California amended the California Vehicle Code (CVC). The new law (AB. 1909) requires all motorists to give a bicyclist three feet of clearance when passing on the lefthand side of the bicyclist or (depending on the width of the road) reduce speed appropriately, when passing. (See CVC: 21750 (b) (c) (d)). This is particularly crucial on narrow two-lane roads where there are many reports of bicyclists being forced off the road or hit by motor vehicles.
Hampering the situation is the requirement that a citation can only be written if the incident is witnessed by the officer. With the advent of helmet-worn cameras, cyclists have attempted to record these incidents with the hope that the recording can be used as “visual evidence”. But this evidence, post incident, cannot be used to issue a citation.
The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department recently announced it will allow the public to submit these incidents on the Sheriff’s website.41 These reports have since resulted in the
41https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/05/12/bicyclists-can-now-report-3-foot-rule-violations-online-in-sanmateo-county
11.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 17
department sending a violation letter to the offending motorist; this is not a citation. However, only incidents that occur in unincorporated San Mateo County, Woodside, Portola Valley, San Carlos, Half Moon Bay, and Millbrae can use this online resource.
Citations vs. Reprimands for Education Purposes:
It is at the officer’s discretion, when addressing a law infraction, to issue a citation or give a reprimand. One advantage of a reprimand is that it creates an opportunity to educate. With officers focusing on education, these brief encounters, cumulatively, can do a lot to improve bicycle safety, for bicyclists and motorists. But only if these reprimand stops are recorded officially can an accurate picture of bicycle safety be established.
FINDINGS
F1. Bicycle policy and the approach to ensuring/improving bicycle safety is not consistent across San Mateo County due, at least in part, to:
a. Topography
b. Urban vs. suburban environments
c. Types of bicyclists (commuter, recreational)
d. Varying levels of enforcement of bicycle laws
e. Differing knowledge of bicycle laws and safe practices.
F2. Bicycle ridership as an alternative means of transportation (e.g., commuting to work, school, or transit hubs, running errands) is not increasing due, at least in part, to perceived safety issues.
F3. Bicycle accidents and incidents (such as near misses) are underreported, if reported at all.
F4. Only bicycle accidents or incidents that trigger a 911 call are consistently logged in the State (SWITRS) database and law enforcement agencies do not log bicycle accident data consistently.
F5. The amount of enforcement of laws, as they pertain to bicyclists and how motorists and bicyclists interact, is inconsistent due to other priorities (e.g., criminal enforcement and general automobile traffic) and the requirement that a citation can generally only be written if the violation is witnessed by an officer.
F6. There is no official metric in San Mateo County and its cities to evaluate how safe it is to ride a bicycle.
F7. Bicycle safety education, for the bicyclist, pedestrians and motorists, is not consistently offered across San Mateo County.
F8. Communication between various entities with responsibility for bicycle safety, including Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees (BPACs), Law Enforcement, City Transportation Planning, and Public Works departments, is not formalized, resulting in inefficiencies, and missed opportunities (e.g., funding for improvements, shared bike safety education, or improving signage).
11.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 18
F9. City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans or Active Transportation Plans, have not been adopted/created by all SMC cities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. By December 2023, all law enforcement agencies and the County Sheriff should submit bicycle related data to SWITRS monthly, and regularly post and update their websites with all reported bicycle accident data.
R2. By December 2023, all law enforcement agencies should begin sending warning letters to motorists for violations of the 3 ft. law.
R3. By June 3, 2024, all law enforcement agencies should provide a means for citizens to report bicycle-related incidents that are not currently reported to law enforcement, similar to the SMC Sheriff’s Department Online Crime Reporting portal.
R4. By June 3, 2024 each city, town, and unincorporated SMC should offer a bike safety education program for riders and motorists about the laws and safety facts related to bicycles on the road.
R5. By June 3, 2024, each city, town, and unincorporated SMC should update or generate a new Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (or Active Transportation Plan) if their current plan is older than five years; consistent with the 2021 C/CAG San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
R6. By June 3, 2024, each city, town, and the county should apply (or reapply) online to generate the Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card.
R7. By February 1, 2024, the County should meet with cities within the County that are willing to participate, to consider establishing a regional effort that integrates the cities’ bicycle plans and to discuss how the cities and County could work together to apply for grant opportunities as a region.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, County Sheriff and all 20 cities and towns’ governing bodies for each Finding and Recommendation.
The governing bodies should be aware that their comments or responses must be conducted subject to the Brown Act's notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements.
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
California Penal Code Section 933.05, provides (emphasis added):
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
11.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 19
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons, therefore.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation, therefore.
11.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20
METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury used a variety of tools to obtain information regarding bicycle riding and safety in San Mateo County:
● Documents: The Bike and Pedestrian Master Plans that cities use to explain approaches to planning, prioritizing projects, and re-engineering their communities to make riding and walking easier and safer. These documents came with a variety of titles:
o Bike and Pedestrian Master Plans
o Active Transportation Plans
o Micro-Mobility Plans
o Transportation Plans
● Internet: Almost all the historical and current information (including the availability of documents) regarding bicycle safety came from internet searches. Information from those searches was verified.
● Survey: The Grand Jury sent a survey in December 2022 using Google Forms to understand whether the cities believe eBikes were an issue in their communities. The results helped in defining the broader issue of bicycle safety. o The survey questions and results are in Appendix A.
o Participants: The survey was sent to all the cities in SMC and, specifically, the City Managers. Many chose to have the chief of police of their city fill out the survey. Two cities did not respond to the survey.
● Interviews: The survey helped the Grand Jury develop a list of individuals for interviews. The questions for the interview came as a result of the investigation’s pivot to the state of bicycle safety in San Mateo County as a general topic. o Participants:
▪ Cities: Belmont, Daly City, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Pacifica, Portola Valley, San Mateo, Woodside
▪ Unincorporated San Mateo County
▪ Police Departments: Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Redwood City, South San Francisco
▪ Sheriff of SMC
▪ BPACs: CCAG, Unincorporated SMC
▪ CyclistVideoEvidence.com: Craig Davis
11.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 21
GLOSSARY
3 ft. Rule – Motorists must yield at least 3 feet between their vehicle and a bicyclist on all roadways. This rule was amended by State legislation through Assembly Bill 1909, approved by the Governor in 2022, and commencing January 2024. Additionally, this bill requires a vehicle that is passing or overtaking a vehicle to move over to an adjacent lane of traffic, as specified, if one is available, before passing or overtaking the bicycle.
Active Transportation - A means of getting around that is powered by human energy, primarily walking and bicycling.
BFA – Bike Friendly America. A program sponsored by the League of American Bicyclists to evaluate communities with respect to their support for bicycling. As of December 2022, 501 communities are certified.
BFC – Bike Friendly Community. A Bike Friendly Awards Report Card that is given to a community that applies for a ranking (i.e., Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum).
BPAC – Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
CATSIP – California Active Transportation Safety Information Pages. An online resource for improving pedestrian and bicycle safety in California. This site is administered by UC Berkeley Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC)42. Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety43, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
C/CAG – City County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Bicycle Roadways
● Bike paths (Class I): also termed shared-use or multi-use paths, are paved rights-of-way for exclusive use by bicyclists, pedestrians and those using non-motorized modes of travel. They are physically separated from vehicular traffic and can be constructed in roadway rights-of-way or exclusive rights-of-way. Bike paths provide critical connections in the city where roadways are absent or are not conducive to bicycle travel. ● Bike lanes (Class II): are defined by pavement striping and signage used to allocate a portion of a roadway for exclusive or preferential bicycle travel. Bike lanes are one-way facilities on either side of a roadway. Whenever possible, bike lanes should be enhanced with treatments that improve safety and connectivity by addressing site-specific issues, such as additional warning or wayfinding signage.
● Bike routes (Class III): provide shared use with motor vehicle traffic within the same travel lane. Designated by signs, bike routes provide continuity to other bike facilities or designate preferred routes through corridors with high demand. Whenever possible, bike
42 http://safetrec.berkeley.edu/
43 http://www.ots.ca.gov/
11.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 22
routes should be enhanced with treatments that improve safety and connectivity, such as the use of "Sharrows" or shared lane markings to delineate the road as a shared-use facility.
● Cycle tracks (Class IV): Also referred to as protected bikeways, are exclusive bike facilities that combine the user experience of a separated path with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. A cycle track is physically separated from motor traffic and distinct from the sidewalk. The separation may be in the form of posts, parked cars or a combination of both.
eBike – motorized bicycle that comes in three different classes:
● Class I: Bicycle equipped with a motor that aids only when pedaling and ceases when 20 mph is reached.
● Class II: Same capability as a Class 1 eBike with a throttle-actuated motor. No pedaling required when operated with the throttle.
● Class III: Bicycle equipped with a motor that aids only when pedaling and ceases when 28 mph is reached.
GJ – Grand Jury
MTC – Metropolitan Transportation Commission is the transportation planning, financing, and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.
SHARROW – Sharrows are pavement markings that have been installed on city streets to provide guidance for both bicyclists and vehicles on roadways when sharing the road.
SMC ATP: San Mateo County Active Transportation Plan is a comprehensive framework to guide the development of active transportation projects and programs for walking, bicycling, and other forms of human powered movement for people of all ages and abilities throughout unincorporated County communities.
SWITRS – California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System.
TIMS – Transportation Injury Mapping System developed by the Safe Transportation Research & Education Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
TR-INST Form – Notice to Appear form used by law enforcement for law infractions.
11.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 23
APPENDIX A: Bicycle Safety Best Practices
Bicycle Education Best Practices
There are two excellent examples of California communities that are investing in Bike Safety education: Davis and San Diego.
San Diego Bike Coalition:
This is an excellent reference tool to see all the kinds of bicycle safety education that can be offered and the resources that can be used to teach those courses. Again, the classes range from those for a variety of ages of bicyclists, basic bicycling, bicycle friendly motorist safety, and others.
https://sdbikecoalition.org/our-work/education/
Davis, California:
The City of Davis, CA, which is one of the leading bicycle communities in the US, has several pages of information about bike safety education on its website. https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/public-works-engineering-and-transportation/bikepedestrian-program Two Cities Committed to Bicycling: Portland, Oregon and Davis, California Portland and Davis have become famous for their commitment to supporting bicycling, not only as recreational, but also as a true commuter alternative to motor vehicles and public transportation. Both have received the Platinum rating for a Bicycle Friendly Community from The League of American Bicyclists, while being quite different communities.
Portland is a large city of 622,000 residents with similar topography to the linked San Mateo County cities along El Camino Real: hilly and flat lands, urban centers, urban neighborhoods, suburbia, and major freeways. Portland advertises itself as “Bicycle Friendly” and claimed the highest percentage of bike commuters in US large cities in 2019 at 6% (Portland does annual bike ride census counts). Portland started investing in bicycle infrastructure with the acceptance of the 1973 Portland Bike Plan and the formation of a Bicycle Advisory Committee within the City Transportation Department. Since then, it has created:
● 385 miles of bikeways
● 36 miles of protected bike lanes
● A pedestrian and bicycle only bridge over the Willamette River and protected bike lanes on other bridges
● Intersections with bicycle specific traffic signals
11.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 24
● Bicycle boxes44 at intersections to raise the visibility for motorists turning right ● A Safe Routes for Schools serving 100 schools
● 6500 bike racks to meet increased demand for safe stow of bicycles ● 3 bicycle plans over 40 years that establish policy, goals and a bikeway network ● $60 M spent to 2008 on bicycle infrastructure (one mile of installed freeway costs $60M) Portland’s safety record is very good for a large city: 4.3% of all traffic injury accidents from 2015-2019 are bicycle related. In comparison, San Francisco’s number is 14% for the same period. Portland also does better than San Mateo County (8%) and a representative city, Redwood City (10%).
Davis in California is a small city between San Francisco and Sacramento with a population of 66,800. It has earned a nationwide reputation for supporting bicycles in its community (there is a bicycle on the city logo). The topography of Davis could not be flatter and more conducive to bicycle riding. The current statistics indicate that 20% of Davis’s population commutes on bicycles. In 1967, Davis was the first community in the US to develop dedicated bicycle lanes (a total of 4!). The origins of this project were a couple that had visited the Netherlands, often cited as the most bicycle friendly nation in the world. They were so impressed with the bicycle infrastructure that they started a grassroots movement in Davis to promote safe bicycle riding.
The group had to overcome CA law that did not support bike lanes on city streets, but once the law was revised, Davis proceeded to create bicycle infrastructure throughout the City:
● 63 miles of pathways
● 102 miles of bike lanes
● 75% of roads have a posted speed limit of 25 mph
● Of the 169 miles in the road network, 140 miles of roads are posted at 25 mph or less., 21 miles of roads are posted at between 25 mph and 35 mph, and 8 miles of roads posted over 35 mph
● 1 mile of bicycle boulevards
● 1 mile of cycle track
● 4 miles of buffered bike lanes
● 4,300 bike racks within the City and over 2,000 bike racks downtown ● 25 grade separated crossings. Four overpasses and 21 underpass crossings. Gradeseparated crossings are used to move people on bikes and pedestrians over and under barriers like railroad tracks, busy roads, and the freeway.
Davis’s bicycle accidents with injury (and fatalities) are high for a city of its size. However, the number of total accidents with injury is also very low compared to cities of comparable size. For
44 https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/intersection-treatments/bike-boxes/
11.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 25
example: in 2019 there were 60 bicycle accidents with injury and 221 total vehicle injury accidents resulting in 27% of all vehicular accidents involving a bicycle. Redwood City’s number is 4.8%, but their number of bicycle commuters is less than 1%. If you look at the percentage of accidents with respect to the biking population for 2019, Davis’s percentage is .4% and Redwood City’s percentage is 2.4%. Davis’s safety statistics are very good, given the number of bicycle riders.
Both Portland and Davis are renowned environments for bicycle riders because they committed early to bicycle infrastructure and consistently improved it over the years. The city government and the school systems actively support bicycle education. Both cities conduct counts to determine bicycle use. They are both advocates of the Vision Zero policy to reduce accidents and fatalities. They use the Bicycle Friendly Community evaluation process to assess their progress towards their bicycle plans and goals.
Disclosure: Portland, beginning in 2020, noted a decline in bicycle commuter percentages.
Thinking it was an aberration of the pandemic shutdown, it continued to do annual bike counts.
As of 2022, its percentage had gone down to 3.1%. The current theory of why there has been a decline is assumed to be the increase of work from home. Regardless, Portland continues to make improvements to its bicycle infrastructure and safety.
11.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 26
APPENDIX B: San Mateo County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan List Jurisdiction Year Name of Report Link to Report
Atherton Jul 2014 Town of Atherton Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan
https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/Docume
ntCenter/View/1381/AthertonBPMP_Proposed-Final-July2014?bidId= Belmont Nov 2016 City of Belmont
Comprehensive Pedestrian &
Bicycle Plan
https://www.belmont.gov/home/show
publisheddocument/14951/636179086
799900000
Brisbane Feb 2017 Brisbane Pedestrian and
Bicycle Master Plan
https://www.brisbaneca.org/sites/defa
ult/files/fileattachments/public_works/
page/149/bikepedmasterplanappendic
es.pdf
Burlingame Dec 2020 City of Burlingame Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan
https://www.burlingame.org/business
_detail_T54_R154.php
Colma Feb 2021 Colma El Camino Real
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvement Plan
https://www.colma.ca.gov/documents/
ecr-improvement-plan/
11.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 27
Jurisdiction Year Name of Report Link to Report
Daly City Feb 2020 Walk Bike Daly City; City of
Daly City Pedestrian and
Bicycle Master Plan 2020
https://dalycity.org/1106/Daly-CityPedestrian-and-Bicycle-MasterEast Palo Alto Oct 2017 2017 East Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan
https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/defaul
t/files/fileattachments/planning/page/2
801/reso_4905_adopting_2017_bicycl
e_transportation_plan.pdf
Half Moon Bay Sep 2019 City of Half Moon Bay
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan
https://www.half-moonbay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/224 3/Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-MasterPlan-Final?bidId=
Menlo Park Nov 2020 City of Menlo Park
Transportation Master Plan
https://beta.menlopark.org/Governme
nt/Departments/PublicWorks/TransportationDivision/Bicycling Millbrae 2021/2022 City of Millbrae Active
Transportation Plan
https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/home/sh
owpublisheddocument/25807/637787
902014030000
11.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 28
Jurisdiction Year Name of Report Link to Report
Pacifica Feb 2020 City of Pacifica Bicycle &
Pedestrian Master Plan
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/depart
ments/publicworks/engineering/bicycle-pedestrianmaster-plan Redwood City July 2018 Redwood City Moves, A
Comprehensive Assessment
of Transportation with
Redwood City
San Bruno Jul 2016 City of San Bruno Walk 'n
Bike Plan
https://sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCen
ter/View/1733/Adopted-San-BrunoWalk-n-Bike-Plan-PDF
San Carlos Jun 2020 City of San Carlos Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan
Final
https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/home
/showpublisheddocument/8139/63815
5282314370000
San Mateo Apr 2020 San Mateo Bicycle Master
Plan April 2020 Final
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/Docu
mentCenter/View/85445/2020-BikeMaster-Plan_Final_Updated62021?bidId=
11.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 29
Jurisdiction Year Name of Report Link to Report
South San
Francisco
Mar 2022 Active South City: South San
Francisco's Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan Draft
https://activesouthcity.com/wpcontent/uploads/2022/03/SSFActiveSouthCity_PublicDraft_31Mar ch2022_plan_only.pdf
San Mateo
County
2021 2021 C/CAG San Mateo
County Comprehensive
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
https://ccag.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/San-MateoCounty-Comprehensive-Bicycle-andPedestrian-Plan-Update-FinalPlan.pdf
11.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 30
APPENDIX C: Survey Questions and Results
This is a summary of the responses:
1. Cities and law enforcement do not track bicycle and eBike accident statistics separately; in fact, most respondents did not track eBike specific data at all (94%).
2. Complaints on Class I Bicycle Roadways include speeding and not yielding to pedestrians.
3. Complaints on Class II and III Bicycle Roadways include speeding, improper signaling, mixed use of bikes/eBikes and violation of the 3 ft. Rule.
4. Of 361 citations issued, only 11 were specifically for eBikes. It is impossible to know if there were more eBikes in violation as there is no requirement to ID the type of bicycle when filling out the form.
5. Class 3 eBikes are more powerful machines and have specific laws regarding usage. Only 50% of the respondents were enforcing the Class 3 eBike laws.
6. Complaints and incidents regarding bicycles (from riders or others) come mostly through police reports, but also from input to City Halls, Redwood City’s “app”, city planning, parks and recreation.
7. 1/3 respondents said there has been an increase in complaints regarding bicycles in the last three years (speeding, underage use, reckless behavior, vehicular code).
8. 2/3 of respondents said there had not been an increase in complaints regarding eBikes and 25% said they didn’t know.
9. Civilian bicycle complaints are generally not available to the public (over 50% of respondents).
10. 44% of respondents said they don’t provide bicycle safety education.
11. Enforcement of bicycle-related law is done where appropriate, with discretionary authority. Effort is made to educate at the time of the infraction. Additional enforcement is budget driven.
12. Future planning for the regulation of bicycles and eBikes varies greatly in the responses (see Question II-16 in Appendix A).
List of responses to questions (on the next page):
11.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 31
Number of bicycle accidents in 2022? 212
Number of bicycle accidents in 2020 to the end of 2021? 307
11.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 32
How many Bicycle citations were issued in the last year? 361 How many eBike Citations were issued in the last year? 0 [Comments: this information is not tracked]
11.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 33
If you are enforcing bicycle/eBike law, how is it accomplished? ● Nothing too specific. Enforcement during routine patrol if violations are witnessed. The PD has done a few details and targeted patrols in our downtown area specifically looking for bicycle violations (riding on sidewalks, helmet violations, reckless behavior, etc.). ● The Police Department enforces all laws as appropriate and with necessary and legal discretionary authority.
● Education and Enforcement
● All officers are trained to enforce Vehicle Code and Municipal Code law on bicycles and eBikes.
● On view and by complaint.
● On view and calls for service which result in Education or Enforcement. ● Traffic enforcement resulting in citations and/or verbal warnings/ education to the public. ● Through proactive patrols, directed enforcement and calls for service. ● Most bicycle stops are made for violations occurring on roadways, not on trails or sidewalks. Most bike stops result in education and not citations as evidenced by our low citation numbers.
● Primarily through education and warnings.
● We have not enforced the Bicycle/eBike law because we have not received any comments to date that have triggered the Police Department to enforce.
11.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 34
● By Sheriff patrol.
● We can’t enforce much because of limitations in light of funding and staffing needs
11.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 35
11.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 36
Does your city/town have any future plans regarding the regulation of bicycles and eBikes? ● Not at this time.
● Yes. Additional and improved bike lanes.
● Policies in the newly adopted General Plan supporting alternative modes of transportation, including bikes.
● Awaiting the results of the County-wide eBike pilot to determine best practices to implement.
● Not at this time.
● Not at this time. There have not been complaints/concerns regarding eBikes. ● Not at this time.
● Not that I am aware of.
● No, unless we start receiving complaints.
● Yes, The City of South San Francisco's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. ● No
● As the Town begins to understand various micro-mobility issues going forward, eBikes being part of that growth pattern, we will plan to prepare plans and outreach material to help educate the bike populations on eBike protocols and safety. ● With the growing development, more bike facilities are being provided for the general public. Public outreach and programs to help educate both current/new users are currently
11.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 37
being implemented citywide. Buildout of Bike & Pedestrian master plan is underway.
Alameda de Las Pulgas and Ralston 4 designs are underway. Creation of a transportation master plan is also underway. Parks & Recreation Department is developing a Master Plan that also includes implementation of eBikes policies on open space trails. ● Yes
● Nothing specific regulatory changes planned at this time. ● City is currently drafting ordinance language to address the increasing number of electric mobility devices that are present on trails and paths. Many conversations have occurred at BPAC and council (among other committees and commissions) and will continue in 2024.
11.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment A: Bike Safety in San Mateo County Final Report (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury Response)
CITY OF PACIFICA
540 Crespi Drive • Pacifica, California 94044-3422
www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Tygarjas Bigstyck
MAYOR PRO TEM
Sue Vaterlaus
COUNCIL
Sue Beckmeyer
Mary Bier
Christine Boles
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
September 25, 2023
Hon. Nancy L. Fineman
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Bianca Fasuescu
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
Subject: City of Pacifica response to the Grand Jury Report: "Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County"
Honorable Judge Fineman,
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury report entitled "Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County". The City of Pacifica’s response to both the findings and recommendations are listed below.
RESPONSES TO CIVIL GRAND JURY FINDINGS:
F1. Bicycle policy and the approach to ensuring/improving bicycle safety is not consistent across San Mateo County due, at least in part, to:
a. Topography
b. Urban vs. suburban environments
c. Types of bicyclists (commuter, recreational)
d. Varying levels of enforcement of bicycle laws
e. Differing knowledge of bicycle laws and safe practices.
Response to F1: The City of Pacifica agrees with the finding.
F2. Bicycle ridership as an alternative means of transportation (e.g., commuting to work, school, or transit hubs, running errands) is not increasing due, at least in part, to perceived safety issues.
Response to F2: The City of Pacifica agrees with the finding.
F3. Bicycle accidents and incidents (such as near misses) are underreported, if reported at all.
Response to F3: The City of Pacifica agrees with the finding.
11.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment B: Bike Safety SMC Civil Grand Jury Pacifica Response Letter (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury [Recipient Name] 2
F4. Only bicycle accidents or incidents that trigger a 911 call are consistently logged in the State (SWITRS) database and law enforcement agencies do not log bicycle accident data consistently.
Response to F4: The City of Pacifica disagrees partially with the finding.
The City of Pacifica disagrees with the portion stating “law enforcement agencies do not log bicycle accident data consistently”. In this case, we can only speak for the City of Pacifica and not other law enforcement agencies. All vehicle collisions occurring in our jurisdiction that qualify for entry into SWITRS following investigation are entered accordingly regardless of how they are reported to the department (911, non-emergency lines, in-person, etc.).
F5. The amount of enforcement of laws, as they pertain to bicyclists and how motorists and bicyclists interact, is inconsistent due to other priorities (e.g., criminal enforcement and general automobile traffic) and the requirement that a citation can generally only be written if the violation is witnessed by an officer.
Response to F5: The City of Pacifica agrees with the finding.
F6. There is no official metric in San Mateo County and its cities to evaluate how safe it is to ride a bicycle.
Response to F6: The City of Pacifica agrees with the finding.
F7. Bicycle safety education, for the bicyclist, pedestrians and motorists, is not consistently offered across San Mateo County.
Response to F7: The City of Pacifica agrees with the finding.
F8. Communication between various entities with responsibility for bicycle safety, including Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees (BPACs), Law Enforcement, City Transportation Planning, and Public Works departments, is not formalized, resulting in inefficiencies, and missed opportunities (e.g., funding for improvements, shared bike safety education, or improving signage).
Response to F8: The City of Pacifica agrees with the finding.
F9. City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans or Active Transportation Plans, have not been adopted/created by all SMC cities.
Response to F9: The City of Pacifica agrees with the finding.
RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS:
R1. By December 2023, all law enforcement agencies and the County Sheriff should submit bicycle related data to SWITRS monthly, and regularly post and update their websites with all reported bicycle accident data.
11.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment B: Bike Safety SMC Civil Grand Jury Pacifica Response Letter (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury [Recipient Name] 3
Response to R1: The recommendation has been implemented.
The Pacifica Police Department (PPD) already reports appropriate bicycle-related collision data via SWITRS (California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System) as each report is completed and ready for transmission. The SWITRS database is maintained by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). The California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) allows public access to SWITRS data. Additionally, UC Berkeley provides a Transportation Injury Mapping System tool for accessing and mapping bicycle collision data from SWITRS.
This tool can be accessed at https://tims.berkeley.edu/help/Query_and_Map.php. The Pacifica Police Department will provide this link to the community on their website.
R2. By December 2023, all law enforcement agencies should begin sending warning letters to motorists for violations of the 3 ft. law.
Response to R2: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable.
Allowing civilians to routinely report traffic infractions not witnessed by sworn peace officers, resulting in action by the Pacifica Police Department is not a current practice. To implement such a practice only for violations of the 3 ft. law would raise the question; “Why doesn’t the police department have this same approach for any and all infraction violations?” Such a change in practice would require substantial evaluation prior to implementation. There are potentially concerns involving legality, liability, rules of evidence, resource limitations, and potential abuses that need to be considered prior to implementing this change. If civilians were able to submit complaints about traffic infractions (ie. speeding, cellphone use, stops signs, red lights, etc.) thus creating the expectation that the police department author and mail out warnings in all cases, would create a demand on limited resources and could result in substantial abuses. In cases where sufficient evidence is provided that a safety violation occurred, and the investigating officer believes that sending a warning notice is appropriate, the Pacifica Police Department will do so.
R3. By June 3, 2024, all law enforcement agencies should provide a means for citizens to report bicycle-related incidents that are not currently reported to law enforcement, similar to the SMC Sheriff’s Department Online Crime Reporting portal.
Response R3: The recommendation has been implemented.
The Pacifica Police Department provides several means for community members to report any type of activity to the police department, including bicycle-related incidents (in-person, by telephone, via department general email, and via the Internet online crime and collision reporting). Whether or not members of the public report incidents that “are not currently reported to law enforcement” is outside of our control.
R4. By June 3, 2024 each city, town, and unincorporated SMC should offer a bike safety education program for riders and motorists about the laws and safety facts related to bicycles on the road.
Response to R4: The recommendation will be implemented by June 3, 2024
11.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment B: Bike Safety SMC Civil Grand Jury Pacifica Response Letter (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury [Recipient Name] 4
The Pacifica Police Department will implement additional opportunities to educate both riders and motorists about bicycle laws and safety by June 3, 2024. This may include the following; a. Youth education programs in collaboration with the Pacifica School District, Jefferson Union High School District, PB&R, Pacifica Bike Coalition, etc. b. Rider education programs in collaboration with local businesses (ie. bike shops) c. Motorist and rider education through targeted social media messaging d. Motorist and rider education though literature and print messaging e. Directed enforcement with a focus on applicable bicycle safety laws R5. By June 3, 2024, each city, town, and unincorporated SMC should update or generate a new Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (or Active Transportation Plan) if their current plan is older than five years; consistent with the 2021 C/CAG San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Response to R5: This has been implemented.
The City of Pacifica of Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan has been in place since February of 2020
R6. By June 3, 2024, each city, town, and the county should apply (or reapply) online to generate the Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card.
Response to R6: The recommendation will be implemented by June 3, 2024 The City of Pacifica is contacting neighboring cities, and the county, to research and begin the process of applying for a Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card.
R7. By February 1, 2024, the County should meet with cities within the County that are willing to participate, to consider establishing a regional effort that integrates the cities’ bicycle plans and to discuss how the cities and County could work together to apply for grant opportunities as a region.
Response to F7: The recommendation has been implemented.
The City of Pacifica works with San Mateo County on grant application opportunities for many programs and initiatives, including bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Respectfully,
Kevin Woodhouse
City Manager City of Pacifica
Cc: Pacifica City Council
11.b
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment B: Bike Safety SMC Civil Grand Jury Pacifica Response Letter (5472 : Bike Safety in San Mateo County Grand Jury
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/25/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Comment Letter on Federal Aviation Administration Civil Aviation Noise Policy RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Authorize the Mayor to submit the comment letter provided in Attachment B to the Federal Aviation Administration regarding Civil Aviation Noise Policy.
STAFF CONTACT:
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
650-738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City of Pacifica has been an active member of the SFO Community Airport Roundtable (SFO-RT) since its inception in 1981, and has been collaboratively working toward the SFORT’s purpose "to develop, evaluate, and implement reasonable and feasible policies, procedures, and mitigation actions that will further reduce the impacts of aircraft noise in neighborhoods and communities in San Francisco and San Mateo Counties," On January 22, 2018, the City Council of Pacifica adopted the “Airport Aircraft Noise Over Pacifica” position statements provided in Attachment A, and authorized the Mayor, individual City Council members, as well as the City Manager, to communicate these position statements broadly and to provide comment letters to appropriate recipients advocating and working towards these positions. Councilmember Boles is the current City Council liaison member of the SFO-RT.
Recently, with new research acknowledging the long-term health effects of aircraft noise, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced they are seeking input from the public on their noise policies. Referred to as Docket No: FAA-2023-0855, their request for comments states:
The FAA invites public comments from interested individuals, entities, and other parties to review four key considerations of its civil aviation noise policy, in the context of noise metrics and noise thresholds. The civil aviation noise policy sets forth how the FAA analyzes, explains, and publicly presents changes in noise exposure from aviation activity: recreational and commercial fixed wing airplanes, helicopters, commercial space transportation vehicles, unmanned aircraft systems, as well as emerging technology vehicles (newer types of vehicles that will operate in U.S. airspace). The FAA will consider how changes to the civil aviation noise policy may better inform agency decisionmaking, the types of impacts it considers in making decisions ( e.g., community annoyance, certain types of adverse health impacts highly correlated with aviation noise exposure), and potential improvements to how the FAA analyzes, explains, and presents changes in exposure to civil aviation noise.
Over recent months, Councilmember Boles has worked with community stakeholders to diligently review the FAA’s documents and has drafted a comment letter, provided as Attachment B, for the Council’s consideration.
12 Packet Pg. 240
Pacifica City Council 2
September 25, 2023
In summary, traditionally the FAA has based flight policies solely on safety and efficiency.
Consistent with the City’s previously adopted position statements, the draft comment letter emphasizes that noise should also become as important a metric to operational procedures and policy decisions. Pacifica is heavily burdened with noise from flight departures, and the comment letter provides data and details to the FAA about the effects of aircraft noise on the Pacifica community. The letter provides suggestions to improve how noise is measured to better reflect the impacts on the Pacifica community, as well as how different types of aircraft, including new emerging technologies such as drone package delivery, air taxis and hypersonic aircraft, should be considered.
The City Manager recommends Council authorize the Mayor to send the comment letter provided in Attachment B.
In addition, it should be noted that the FAA’s request for comments is open to any individuals wishing to comment, and the SFO-RT, liaison Councilmember Boles, and the City Manager encourage residents to also submit their own comments. The public portal for comments can be accessed at: <https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2023-0855-0001>, with the following summary of commenting instructions:
Fill in all fields on the comment portal:
1. Write a Comment - See Comment Options below.
2. What is your comment about? - Click on the dropdown menu, click Public Comment(s).
3. Upload File(s) - Ignore this field unless you have a document you want to upload.
4. Email - Add your email address.
o Check the box - “opt to receive email confirmation of submission and tracking number?” o Note that your email will not be posted publicly.
5. Tell us about yourself! I am…
o Click “An Organization” for your group or “An Individual” or “Anonymous”. Using anonymous will not include the entity associated with the comment or city/state. o Fill in the required fields of First Name and Last Name (or just your last initial if you want to maintain your privacy).
o If not “Anonymous”, fill in your city and state as the FAA will use this information to summarize the source of comments.
o Do not add your phone number.
6. Check the box: “I read and understand the statement above.”
7. Click “SUBMIT COMMENT”
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council could choose to not submit a comment letter or could authorize submittal of an amended comment letter.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Advocating for improvements to aircraft overflight noise impacts relates to health and safety priorities in the City's Strategic Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with approval of the recommendation.
ORIGINATED BY:
12 Packet Pg. 241
Pacifica City Council 3
September 25, 2023
City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: City of Pacifica 2018 Position Statements re: Airport Aircraft Noise Over Pacifica (PDF)
Attachment B: Draft Comment Letter re: FAA Civil Aviation Noise Policy (PDF) 12 Packet Pg. 242
12.a
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: Attachment A: City of Pacifica 2018 Position Statements re: Airport Aircraft Noise Over Pacifica (5475 : Comment Letter on Federal
12.a
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Attachment A: City of Pacifica 2018 Position Statements re: Airport Aircraft Noise Over Pacifica (5475 : Comment Letter on Federal Federal Aviation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Docket Operations, M-30
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590-0001
Re: Docket No.: FAA-2023-0855
Request for Comments on the Federal Aviation Administration's Review of the Civil Aviation Noise Policy
The City of Pacifica (the "City") welcomes the opportunity to comment upon the consequential noise burdens that are imposed on our residents, visitors and businesses by departing flights from San Francisco International Airport. As the current FAA noise policy dates from 1976, it is certainly time for its update.
The City of Pacifica is a community of approximately 38,000 residents, businesses and hotels spread along a 6-mile stretch of coastal beaches just south of San Francisco, approximately 5 miles from the San Francisco International Airport. Topographically, the City is comprised of several steep hillsides and valleys leveling off to the Pacific Ocean in the west. We have significant open space that is the key economic driver for us - people come to Pacifica to hike, surf, ride horses and bike in quiet, natural surroundings.
We are an “overflight community” based on FAA’s definition as we are located under the flight paths of aircraft and vehicles, are distressed by aircraft noise, and are located outside of the DNL 65 dB contour. Aircraft must rise quickly leaving SFO to clear our mountains but are often still flying at or below 3,000 feet as they enter our community, flying directly over homes. This is despite years of lobbying for flights to fly out high and well over the Bay or over water, so they are not heard by our residents.
Per the May 2023 monthly report from the SFO Noise Office, Pacifica currently gets 196 noise events/day (time and duration methodology) and 235 noise events/day (using the new and more accurate ANEEM methodology below). Pacifica has 61 CNEL (time and duration), and 62 CNEL (ANEEM). Our SEL and LMax are 84 and 73 (similar in both methodologies). Our Ambient level noise is only 59 dBA, so these events are a large deviation from our normally quiet environment.
We have been greatly impacted by NextGen policies that started in approximately 2016. NextGen drastically increased low-altitude aircraft concentration over communities and changed where and how aircraft fly. Prior to NextGen, noise primarily affected parts of our northern area. After NextGen the noise in this area worsened. Additionally, changes were made to the flight paths so that the entire eastern ridge of Pacifica started being affected as turns to the west now travel over our southern area. Additionally the topography of our community (low-lying areas, surrounded by steep hills) means that any large sounds tend to reverberate far beyond their direct path.
Residents were appalled and calls about painful noise spiked despite assurances NextGen would mean quieter skies for our area.
12.b
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Comment Letter re: FAA Civil Aviation Noise Policy (5475 : Comment Letter on Federal Aviation While we welcome recent changes to aircraft procedures through the SFO NIITE and HUSSH programs adopted in 2022 that allow some aircraft departing southward along specific runways to use an alternate route over water at the San Francisco Bay before turning over the Golden Gate Bridge from 1-5am, there are still significant flights over Pacifica all hours of the day and night. These runways are too short for larger passenger and cargo planes, cannot be used in certain wind or weather conditions, and are not used for flights to Asia, which make up a significant portion of flights over our community starting around 11pm. Procedural changes for departing flights should be considered to reduce the noise, health and annoyance impacts to our community, including:
A. Consideration of a nighttime curfew
B. Incentivising or requiring airlines operating at night to use quieter aircraft and takeoff techniques.
C. Expanding NIITE and HUSSH programs to more accurately reflect critical sleep hours from 10-7
D. Requiring all departures from runway 28 L and R to turn right over the bay immediately after takeoff. If the aircraft is unable to make this maneuver safely, then the departure flight time should be changed to a non-curfew hour between 8am and 9pm only or move to Oakland’s main runway which departs over the bay and has no back blast into communities.
E. If this is not possible, then at a minimum, requiring departures from Runway 28 to fly straight over the ocean for 5 miles before turning to limit the impacts.
The FAA's current 65 DNL metric for assessing "significant" noise fails to account for the realworld, notable noise burdens created by multiple, continuous, moderate-level dB jet noise events.
In addition, this is an unceasing disturbance in areas that are not contiguous to any airports, yet current metrics find this noise not to be "significant." NES established an up-to-date survey of annoyance, proving that many more people are annoyed by aircraft noise at DNL levels far below DNL 65 dB. Studies have shown that irregular, unpredictable noises make it difficult for our brains to wholly focus, interrupting concentration on work/school tasks or waking people from sleep. And, although numerous moderate-level noise events don’t contribute a lot to total decibel levels on the FAA’s DNL scale, they are seen as some of the most irritating to the human brain. To describe these health consequences as “annoyance” is a misrepresentation of the real and cumulative effects on our community.
We very much appreciate the FAA’s consideration of research into the health effects of aircraft noise and request that noise be considered as an operational factor equal with efficiency, just behind safety, in determining future policies and procedures. Aircraft noise at night, which repeatedly prevents or disturbs sleep has been shown to have long-term cognitive and cardiovascular health issues and can interfere with learning in children at critical stages of development.
Our comments are detailed below. Note that we have not chosen to answer every question.
12.b
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Comment Letter re: FAA Civil Aviation Noise Policy (5475 : Comment Letter on Federal Aviation Section 1 - Vehicle Type
QUESTION 1A
When the FAA published the ANAP (27) in 1976, the impacts of aviation noise were related to commercial jet service at or in the immediate vicinity of airports. What types or elements of current or future air vehicle activity (e.g., unmanned aircraft systems (also known as UAS or drones), advanced air mobility, rotorcraft, subsonic fixed wing, supersonic, or commercial space) should the policy describe and disclose? How should this information be described using noise metrics? Should the FAA use this information to make decisions or for public disclosure only? Please explain your reasoning.
Supersonic Aircraft
We oppose supersonic flight over the land of the United States and the US Territorial Sea (12NM offshore) regardless of any purported “quiet sonic boom” technology.
Helicopters
We value the services provided by medical, law enforcement, and military helicopters and recognize the necessity of low-altitude helicopter operations for items such as special inspections, repairs, and photo reconnaissance. Helicopters as a regular transportation method for convenience or tourism should be regulated by the FAA considering minimum altitudes and bans for nighttime use.
Emerging Aircraft
Low altitude autonomous aircraft, whether designed to act as “air taxis” (eVTOLs) or to deliver packages, should be strictly regulated in conjunction with local elected officials and the public in the areas that they traverse.
Section 2 - Operation of Vehicles
QUESTION 2A
What elements of aircraft operations (e.g., en-route, takeoff, landing) should the noise metric evaluate and disclose? Should the FAA use this information to make decisions or disclose to the public noise impacts? Please explain your reasoning.
Noise impacts of aircraft operations should be disclosed for ground-based noise at the airport, as well as en-route, takeoff and landing. These operations impact communities differently, and it is important to evaluate and disclose the data and impacts to the public. This data beyond the simple DNL metric may find nuances that can be addressed by local communities working in partnership with the local airport noise offices. For Pacifica we are mostly affected by low-flying aircraft over our hills shortly after takeoff.
QUESTION 2B
What interests or concerns do communities in the vicinity of airports have? How can these concerns be addressed using noise metrics? What noise metrics would address these concerns? Please explain your reasoning.
12.b
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Comment Letter re: FAA Civil Aviation Noise Policy (5475 : Comment Letter on Federal Aviation Our main concerns are related to the operations of air vehicles, including night operations and non-safety vectoring for efficiency of aircraft from published procedures and/or noise abatement procedures. Due to the limited altitudes possible over our community after takeoff (approximately 3,000 feet), the noise impacts are great, especially over the departure path known as the "Gap", over our northern mountains. When planes turn early instead of over the ocean, they also impact other quiet residential neighborhoods in our valleys, where the noise reverberates. There are also occasions when controllers offer or approve shortcuts to airplanes – allowing the planes to leave their filed flight plan path to fly over residential areas in the middle of the night for efficiency reasons with virtually no other traffic in the sky. In these instances, ATC controllers should prioritize health over efficiency and avoid non-safety vectors to aircraft over residential areas - especially at night. Noise metrics that use N-Above Ambient (NAA) for the peak day are more representative than DNL for Overflight Communities such as ours.
QUESTION 2C
What interests or concerns do overflight communities (28) have? How can these concerns be addressed using noise metrics? What noise metrics would address these concerns? Please explain your reasoning.
NAA metrics better represent overflight communities such as ours. NAA is the counting of noise events with a peak noise level Lmax (with applicable and revised nighttime penalties) that exceeds ambient noise. It is calculated based on ambient noise, which is the typical background noise level without air vehicle noise, for the peak day of the year, reflecting the fact that noise events that exceed ambient noise will disturb people. Note that the Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Highway Administration take into account ambient noise when assessing impacts. NAA also better reflects the greater impact on our community at various times of the year due to wind/storms/etc. where alternate runways and departure procedures are used.
These more accurate noise metrics with NAA may also expand the areas of needed sound insulation improvements beyond the limited 65DNL contour, which would be a great help to our residents.
Section 3 - DNL
QUESTION 3A
What views or comments do you have about the FAA’s core decision-making metric, DNL? How would these views regarding DNL be resolved if the FAA employed another noise metric (either in addition to, or to replace DNL) or if the FAA calculated DNL differently? Please explain your reasoning.
Impact to our community extends far beyond an arbitrary DNL 65 level which is widely acknowledged to be inadequate. There are other available noise metrics, including those that better capture how frequency of flights affects communities. Living in 60 DNL or 55 DNL noise contours, especially if the area also includes loud nighttime airplanes, limits residents’ amount of health-restoring sleep, increases their susceptibility to serious disease and results in very high levels of annoyance. In 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized the
12.b
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Comment Letter re: FAA Civil Aviation Noise Policy (5475 : Comment Letter on Federal Aviation importance of setting a low level of 55 DNL but that recommendation by the EPA was not accepted by the FAA. It should be reconsidered now with the new data about health impacts of noise.
In a recent study conducted by Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) and Oregon State University, (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP10959) it was reported that people who were exposed to airplane noise at levels as low as 45 dB were more likely to sleep less than 7 hours per night. Other studies have correlated awakenings with Sound Exposure Level (SEL).
SEL may be an appropriate single-event noise metric to use as the onset of awakenings from aircraft operations at night depending on the level of treatment applied to the structure; and be used to determine the acoustical treatments required to provide for an adequate sleeping environment for residential bedrooms. However, understanding that SEL and Lmax are closely tied with the noise events caused by aircraft operations, either metric could be used.
Section 4 - Averaging
QUESTION 4A
DNL provides a cumulative description of the noise events expected to occur over the course of an entire year averaged into a representative day, described as an Average Annual Day (AAD). a. Do you believe an AAD is an appropriate way to describe noise impacts? Please explain why or why not.
No, averages do not tell the full story of event disturbance, particularly day versus night, weather related path changes, or frequency of events. Perhaps DNL is adequate for certain communities near the airport in the 65 DNL contour, but Overflight Communities need different metrics.
Section 5 - Decision-Making Noise Metrics
QUESTION 5A
The FAA currently uses DNL as its primary decision-making metric for actions subject to NEPA and airport noise compatibility planning studies prepared pursuant to 14 CFR part 150. a. Should different noise metrics be used in different circumstances for decision-making? Yes. The concerns of communities near the airport are different than departures for overflight communities and a one-size-fits-all metric does not fully describe the impacts to these communities. Also, DNL does not work well away from the airport, either for departures or arrivals.
QUESTION 5B
If the answer to Question 5.a. is “yes,” please identify: the metric, the information it provides that DNL does not, and explain when and how it should be employed by the FAA in its system (e.g., should the FAA use a noise metric other than DNL to evaluate noise exposure in quiet settings, such as national parks, national wildlife and waterfowl refuges, etc.)? Should this metric be used when the FAA is making decisions that affect noise in these settings? Should this metric be used alone or in combination with another metric?
The FAA should use and report N-Above-Ambient using Lmax for the peak day of the year (which counts the number of aviation noise events over a certain location and decibel level) because (1)
12.b
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Comment Letter re: FAA Civil Aviation Noise Policy (5475 : Comment Letter on Federal Aviation the frequency of noise disruptions is highly correlated with annoyance, and DNL (an averaging metric) fails to account for this; (2) the FAA also should consider using and reporting a C-weighted metric (dBC), which measures the lower frequencies of noise that are at the source of most annoyance and sleep disturbances farther from the airport, but which are discounted by the Aweighted metric (dBA) currently in use; and (3) the FAA should also measure and incorporate the differences in aircraft-induced noise and ambient noise levels for determining significant impact thresholds for different noise environments. To improve the true representation of noise impacts, we encourage the FAA to immediately start reporting these additional metrics, not just DNL, if the data is available.
Section 6 - Communication
QUESTION 6A
Please identify whether and how the FAA can improve communication regarding changes in noise exposure (e.g., what information the FAA communicates, where and with whom the FAA communicates, what information methods the FAA uses to communicate and the venues at which the FAA shares this information). Please explain your reasoning.
The issues we have had with NextGen updates show that early communication with and input from affected communities are critical to obtain before policies are finalized, and input should be sought and adjustments considered after new policies have been implemented and tested so communities can understand and provide feedback on the changes.
No one worked with our City or even alerted us that the proposed changes from NextGen would negatively impact our community. Communication to SFORT (San Francisco Airport Community Roundtable) members, including our Council representative at the time, were that NextGen would be less intrusive and positive for the environment. By the time we learned what NextGen’s impacts really would be, it was too late to comment or suggest modifications.
Section 7 - NEPA and Land Use Threshold Established Using DNL or for Another Cumulative Noise Metric
QUESTION 7A
How should the FAA consider this information (i.e., the Schultz Curve and Neighborhood Environmental Survey findings) when deciding whether to retain or modify the FAA noise 31) established using the DNL metric or to establish new FAA noise thresholds using other cumulative noise metrics? Please explain your reasoning.
If metrics are changed to better reflect the actual “annoyance” experienced as noted in the Neighborhood Environmental Program, insulation programs could possibly be expanded. Current DNL of 65 has a very small eligibility. Based on the NES results DNL 65 should be lowered.
QUESTION 7D
In examining whether to change its metrics and thresholds for noise, the FAA needs reliable information to support any changes. One type of information that the FAA can rely on is epidemiological evidence. This means the study (scientific, systematic, and data-driven) of the
12.b
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Comment Letter re: FAA Civil Aviation Noise Policy (5475 : Comment Letter on Federal Aviation distribution (frequency, pattern) and determinants (causes, risk factors) of health-related states and events (not just diseases) in specified populations (neighborhood, school, city, state, country, global). What amount of epidemiological evidence is sufficient to provide the FAA with a sound basis for establishing or modifying the FAA noise thresholds (33) either using the DNL metric or another cumulative noise metric? Please explain your response.
Health experts should address the Noise Policy Review health questions. An independent, unbiased, and peer-reviewed consensus report should be commissioned from the National Academies Division of Medicine on aviation impacts on public health.
We also support the comments of the SFORT, Comment ID FAA-2023-0855-1254 and those of the Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA), Comment ID FAA-2023-0855-2206. <END OF QUESTIONS/COMMENTS SECTION>
In summary, simplicity in a new noise policy cannot be at the expense of Overflight Communities whose impacts are underrepresented today under current noise policies. We support changes, additions, or replacement of the current noise metrics used by the FAA, or other actions that would accurately reflect and reduce the real-world aircraft noise that adversely affects our residents, schools, visitors and businesses. For emerging technologies and civil rotorcraft and for air traffic flying below 2000 ft., we also request allowing local governments such as ours to establish local noise ordinances.
With our significant areas of open space and the ocean forming our western border, Pacifica is also home to large wildlife populations including several endangered and threatened species.
There seems to be little data about the effects of aircraft noise on wildlife and we would encourage the FAA to support peer-reviewed scientific studies related to these impacts in the future.
Additionally, Pacifica’s economy is strongly tied to these areas of open space and coast, as a well-used recreational oasis for the Bay Area, where individuals can seek the beauty and peacefulness found in nature. We do not have an industrial area to route aircraft over. We learned from the Phoenix Airport lawsuit that NextGen was supposed to protect such areas - parks, open spaces, etc and yet the policies worsened the flight paths and noise impacts over these areas in Pacifica.
We hope, moving forward, the FAA, a body elected to serve the US people, is more proactive in gaining input from communities whose general health, well-being and economy are so impacted by the operations of local airports. Given our proximity to SFO, the City of Pacifica has many residents with expertise relevant to suggesting actionable ideas that could mitigate noise while maintaining the safe and efficient use of our airspace (some have already been shared with City Council) - all we need is to be informed and asked before changes affecting us are made. We appreciate this opportunity to comment, and look forward to continued work with the FAA and the SFO Airport Roundtable.
12.b
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Comment Letter re: FAA Civil Aviation Noise Policy (5475 : Comment Letter on Federal Aviation
12.b
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Comment Letter re: FAA Civil Aviation Noise Policy (5475 : Comment Letter on Federal Aviation