Agenda packet — San Carlos City Council, January 10, 2022

1 CITY OF SAN CARLOS
City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority
Regular Meeting

January 10, 2022 7:00 P.M.

CONDUCTED REMOTELY
www.cityofsancarlos.org

AMENDED AGENDA
In accordance with Assembly Bill 361, this meeting will be held by teleconference, and there will not be a physical location from which the public may attend. The public will have access to remotely observe the meeting and address the Council as outlined below.

Observe the Meeting Live:
- Zoom. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88256140939; or call 1-669-900-9128 and enter the Meeting ID #: 882 5614 0939
- Meeting Webportal. www.sancarlosca.iqm2.com
- Local TV. Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Uverse Channel 99

Provide Public Comments:

If you plan to make a public comment, please observe the meeting via Zoom (see above access information), and during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address, use the “raise hand” feature. If joining by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”.

MAYOR: Sara McDowell
COUNCIL: Ronald Collins, John Dugan, Laura Parmer-Lohan, Adam Rak

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

4. PRESENTATIONS
a. Receive a Presentation from the San Carlos Library on Its Annual Services Report.
b. Receive a Presentation from HIP Housing on Its Services to the Community.

2 5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Communications and Announcements are brief items from members of the City Council regarding upcoming events in the community and correspondence that they have received. They are informational in nature and no action will be taken on these items at this meeting.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to address the City Council on matters NOT on the posted agenda may do so.

Each speaker is limited to two minutes. If there are more than five individuals wishing to speak during public comment, the Mayor may choose to a llow the first five speakers to speak during this time, and the balance of the Public Comment speakers will be called upon at the end of the Council Meeting.

If the item you are speaking on is not listed on the agenda, please be advised that the City Coun cil may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed as allowed under the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54954.2). The City Council's general policy is to refer items to staff for attention, or have a matter placed on a future City Council agenda for a more comprehensive action or report and formal public discussion and input at that time.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Motion to Waive Reading of All Ordinances.
b. Approve Minutes of November 22, 2021 City Council Special Meeting. c. Approve Minutes of November 22, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting. d. Accept the Quarterly Reports from City Commissions and Boards. e. Adopt a Resolution Declaring the Need for City Council and Commissions to Continue Conducting Meetings Remotely Due to Health and Safety Concerns Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.
f. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year Products And/Or Services Agreement with Rustic Ranch Farming Company, LLC for Open Space Vegetation Management Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,066,557.
g. Deny Claim of Pam McCubin.
h. Adopt a Resolution Awarding the 2022 Sewer System CCTV Inspection Project C1736-22; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Public Project Agreement with Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. of Oakland, CA in the Amount of $336,897.00; and Authorizing the Expenditure of a Contingency in the Amount of $60,641.46. i. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Tetra Tech to Provide Emergency Management Services to the Cities of San Carlos and Redwood City in an Amount Not to Exceed $200,000. j. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with California CAD Solutions, Inc. for Annual Subscription, Maintenance, and On-Call Geographic Information System Services for a Three- Year Term in an Amount Not-To-Exceed $150,000 ($50,000 Per Contract Year). 3 8. REPORTS TO COUNCIL
Reports to Council are updates on key City projects by City staff and City Council Subcommittees. They are informational in nature, and no action will be taken on these items at this meeting.
a. Receive a Report Regarding the Receipt and Use of the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARPA”).

9. PUBLIC HEARING
a. Consideration of Adopting an Urgency Ordinance Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(B) to Impose Interim Regulations and Objective Standards for the Subdivision and Development of Qualified Senate Bill 9 Properties.

10. STUDY SESSION
a. Receive a Presentation on Year-Round Lighting in the Downtown.

11. AGENDA SETTING
Items discussed in this Agenda Setting Section will be considered by the Council for placing on a future agenda. No action will be taken on these items at this meeting. a. Consideration of Agendizing an Item to Consider Providing Free Feminine Hygiene Products in All City-Owned Restrooms.
b. Consideration of Agendizing an Item to Consider Installing Diaper Changing Stations in All City-Owned Restrooms (Men's and Women's).

12. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn in Memory of Patrick Boland.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection upon request.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI, if you need special assistance or translation services to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 802 -4222 or via email at [email protected]. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

November 22, 2021 1

San Carlos City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority Special Meeting
Conducted Remotely in Accordance with Assembly Bill 361 November 22, 2021, 6:30 PM

MINUTES

ROLL CALL
City Council Present: Laura Parmer-Lohan, Mayor
Ronald Collins, Councilmember
John Dugan, Councilmember
Sara McDowell, Vice Mayor
Adam Rak, Councilmember

Staff Present: Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
Crystal Mui, City Clerk
Tara Peterson, Assistant City Manager
Greg Rubens, City Attorney

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM by Mayor Parmer-Lohan.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Parmer-Lohan.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.

4. CLOSED SESSION
a. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Closed Session Held Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(A)); City of Long Beach, a Municipal Corporation; Et Al. V. Monsanto Company; Solutia Inc.; and Pharmacia LLC; Et Al Defendants. US District Court of California, Central Division CASE NO.: 2:16-Cv-03493- FMO-AS.
b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Closed Session Held Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(A)); National Prescription Opiate Litigation (U.S.D.C. Case No. 1:17-CV-2804).

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Greg Rubens reported that the City Council authorized him to initiate and participate in the PCB litigation.

7.b
Packet Pg. 4
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 22, 2021 6:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

November 22, 2021 2

6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:54 PM.

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

7.b
Packet Pg. 5
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 22, 2021 6:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

November 22, 2021 1

San Carlos City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority Regular Meeting
Conducted Remotely in Accordance with Assembly Bill 361 November 22, 2021, 7:00 PM

MINUTES

ROLL CALL
City Council Present: Laura Parmer-Lohan, Mayor
Ronald Collins, Councilmember
John Dugan, Councilmember
Sara McDowell, Vice Mayor
Adam Rak, Councilmember

Staff Present: Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner
Steven Machida, Public Works Director
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Crystal Mui, City Clerk
Amy Newby, Parks & Recreation Director
Tara Peterson, Assistant City Manager
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
Greg Rubens, City Attorney
Dave Pucci, RWCFD Deputy Fire Chief
Al Savay, Community Development Director
Carrie Tam, Financial Services Manager

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Mayor Parmer-Lohan.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Parmer-Lohan.

3. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
None.

4. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Manager Jeff Maltbie reported that at this evening’s 6:30 PM Closed Session, the City Council authorized the City Attorney to initiate and participate in the PCB litigation.

5. PRESENTATION
a. Present a Proclamation to Assistant City Manager Tara Peterson Upon Her Retirement from the City of San Carlos.

7.c
Packet Pg. 6
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 22, 2021 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

November 22, 2021 2
Mayor Parmer-Lohan presented a proclamation to Assistant City Manager Tara Peterson upon her retirement. Council and City Manager Jeff Maltbie thanked her for her services.

Ms. Peterson thanked Council and staff for the recognition.

6. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

a. Council Members Report on Subcommittees, Regional Boards, Commissions and Committees.

Councilmember Dugan acknowledged emails he received expressing concern for the Crystal Springs Cross Country Course losing its lease and noted that under this meeting’s “Agenda Setting” section, he will be proposing Council adopt a Resolution of support similar to the one the City of Belmont is considering.

Councilmember Rak reported on a recent City/County Association of Government (C/CAG) meeting he recently attended.

Mayor Parmer-Lohan thanked the San Carlos Community Foundation for their recent Poetry Slam event and recognized City Manager Jeff Maltbie for his 20 years of service to the City of San Carlos.

7. PUBLIC COMMENT

John Lilygren, resident and Carlmont High School Cross Country Coach, shared some history on the Crystal Springs Cross Country Course and requested Council issue a proclamation of support.

Patrick Brennan urged Council to support the protection of the Crystal Springs Course.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR

City Clerk Crystal Mui reported a typo on the October 25, 2021 Special (8b) and Regular (8c) meeting minutes. The correct litigation settlement amount is $3,075,000.

RESULT: Adopted as Amended [Unanimous] Consent Calendar Items 'a' through 'j', with a correction to the litigation settlement amount of $3,075,000 on items 8b and 8c; and
Item k - Adopting Ordinance No. 1574, an Ordinance of the City of San Carlos Amending San Carlos Municipal Code Section

18.29.040(E)(1) Public Notice Requirements for Residential Design Review Committee Applications; and
Item l - Adopting Ordinance No. 1575, an Ordinance of the City of San Carlos Adding Chapter 8.60 - Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, to the San Carlos Municipal Code, to Comply with Senate Bill (SB) 1383, California's Short Lived Climate Pollutants Reduction Act (2016).

MOVER: John Dugan
SECONDER: Ronald Collins
AYES: Collins, Dugan, McDowell, Rak, Parmer-Lohan
a. Motion to Waive Reading of All Ordinances.

7.c
Packet Pg. 7
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 22, 2021 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

November 22, 2021 3
b. Approve Minutes of October 25, 2021 City Council Special Meeting. c. Approve Minutes of October 25, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting. d. Accept the Investment Report for the First Quarter of Fiscal Year 2021-22. e. Accept the Financial Report for the First Quarter of Fiscal Year 2021-22. f. Adopt a Resolution Accepting the City of San Carlos Comprehensive Annual Financial Report ("Annual Report") for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2021.

Resolution 2021-116
g. Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Annual Report on the Receipt and Use of Development Impact Fees and In-Lieu Fees for Fiscal Year 2020-21. Resolution 2021-117
h. Adopt a Resolution Renewing Its Declaration on the Need for City Council and Commissions to Continue Conducting Meetings Remotely Due to Health and Safety Concerns Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361. Resolution 2021-118 i. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Adoption of Volume 1 of the San Mateo County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and the City of San Carlos Annex of Volume 2. Resolution 2021-119
j. Adopt a Resolution Supporting the US 101/Holly Street Interchange and Pedestrian Overcrossing Project and Authorizing Submittal of an Application for 2021 Measure A and Measure W Highway Program Funding. Resolution 2021- 120
k. Adopt Ordinance 1574 Amending San Carlos Municipal Code Section

18.29.040(E)(1) Public Notice Requirements for Residential Design Review Committee Applications.
l. Adopt Ordinance 1575 Adding Chapter 8.60 - Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, to the San Carlos Municipal Code, to Comply with Senate Bill (SB) 1383, California's Short Lived Climate Pollutants Reduction Act (2016).

9. NEW BUSINESS
a. Consideration of Authorizing the Release of the Request for Proposals (RFP) to Implement the City Council’s Strategic Goal for Downtown San Carlos.

Community Development Director Al Savay and Planning Manager Lisa Porras presented on the Downtown San Carlos Project's objectives and the timeline for the Specific Plan. Mr. Savay, Public Works Director Steven Machida, City Attorney Greg Rubens and City Manager Jeff Maltbie responded to Council questions.

Council discussed the Project and provided the following feedback and suggestions:
- provide regular check-ins with the Council Downtown subcommittee - provide Council with a mid-point check-in
- proceed with efforts to improve pedestrian movement and make the downtown mobility friendly

7.c
Packet Pg. 8
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 22, 2021 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

November 22, 2021 4
- Council will establish and make appointments to an advisory committee - the advisory committee should include representatives with small children; members of the Adult Community Center; people who are differently abled; service clubs; landlords; and retailers, service providers and restaurants
- include the Chamber of Commerce as a stakeholder group - Council is willing to consider providing more funding if needed - consider adding a fourth objective to the background to “develop a plan that is inclusive of community members of all ages and abilities and different business types - retailers and service providers, that support a resilient and sustainable community that takes into consideration the continual pressures from big box and online merchants”
- be more specific for mitigating traffic congestion
- increase access for senior, youth and young families
- consider including the assessment of a shared transportation that helps people get from different points in our community to the shopping district - include policy statements that addresses the desired retention of “mom and pop” shops
- consider ways to support all businesses
- include El Camino Real in the study area and make sure it coincides with the housing element update
- Greenwood Ave. should be the southern boundary of the study area - set the streetscape focus along San Carlos Avenue, from Walnut to Chestnut, and from Chestnut to Cherry, and east to Walnut RESULT: Adopted as Amendment [Unanimous] Authorize the Release of the Request for Proposals to Implement the City Council’s Strategic Goal for Downtown San Carlos, including the
extension of the streetscape boundary to Chestnut on San Carlos Avenue and to Greenwood along Laurel Street.

MOVER: Adam Rak
SECONDER: Sara McDowell
AYES: Collins, Dugan, McDowell, Rak, Parmer-Lohan

10. AGENDA SETTING
a. Consideration of Agendizing an Item to Consider Year-Round Lighting in the Downtown.

Councilmember Rak suggested Council discuss and consider year-round lighting in the Downtown. His suggestion received Council support and will be agendized on a future meeting.

Councilmember Dugan requested Council support the effort to save the Crystal Spring Cross Country Course. Council agreed to agendize the item.

11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 PM.

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

7.c
Packet Pg. 9
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Nov 22, 2021 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: January 10, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Accept the Quarterly Reports from City Commissions and Boards.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Council accept the quarterly r eports from the City’s Commissions and Boards.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None for this action.

BACKGROUND:

Since 2020, the City Council receives quarterly reports from each Commission and Board with updates on activities from the preceding period, along with its member attendance report.

ANALYSIS:

Attached are the reports from the following Commissions and Boards covering the period of October through December 2021:

- Economic Development Advisory Commission
- Museum of San Carlos History
- Parks, Recreation, and Culture Commission
- Planning Commission
- Residential Design Review Committee
- San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District - Transportation and Circulation Commission
- Youth Advisory Council

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the Council include:

1. Accept the quarterly reports from City Commissions and Boards; or

2. Do not accept the quarterly reports from City Commissions and Boards; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

7.d
Packet Pg. 10
2 Respectfully submitted by:

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Economic Development Advisory Commission Q2 Report

2. Museum Q2 Report

3. Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission Q2 Report

4. Planning Commission Q2 Report

5. Residential Design Review Committee Q2 Report

6. SMC Mosquito & Vector Control Board Q2 Report

7. Transportation and Circulation Commission Q2 Report

8. Youth Advisory Council Q2 Report

7.d
Packet Pg. 11

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION (EDAC)

QUARTERLY REPORT, OCT-DEC 2021
Commissioners
Don Mancini (Chair)
Pranita Ballback (Vice-Chair)
Chris Van Wert, Pranita Ballback, Mark Berger, Madhura Kumar, Sailesh Mehra, Anthony Kamm (appointed this quarter)

Advisory
Al Savay, Community Development Director
Adam Aronson, Economic Development & Housing Manager
Cristian Padilla, Economic Development Coordinator
Sajuti Haque, Sr. Management Analyst

Meetings Summary

Over the last Quarter the EDAC held one meeting on October 26th.

At the October meeting the EDAC received three presentations. The first presentation was an update from Senior Management Analyst Sajuti Haque on the approval by the City Council of the East Side Innovation District Vision Plan. The presentation included an overview of the completed plan, a reminder of the process the Plan went through, and guidance on how to view and reference the completed Plan.

The second presentation was from Community Development Director Al Savay and included an update on developments projects in the City. The presentation looked at both ongoing and anticipated commercial and residential projects in the City.

The third presentation was from Economic Development & Housing Manager Adam Aronson.

This presentation summarized the new parking opportunities available to the San Carlos community. The City has signed two agreements with SamTrans. The first agreement is intended for Downtown employees and makes available 75 parking spaces at the top of the SamTrans parking garage for extended hours. The second agreement is for 100 parking spaces available to the public on nights and weekends in the CalTrain station parking lot.

Also at this meeting the Commission was introduced to Anthony Kamm, the EDAC’s newest Commissioner who was appointed by the City Council in October.

7.d.1
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Economic Development Advisory Commission Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports) Meeting Date
Don Mancini
(Chair) Chris Van Wert
Pranita Ballback
(Vice-Chair)
Anthony Kamm
(Appointed
10/11/21) Sailesh Mehra Madhura Kumar Mark Berger
7/27/2021 - C
8/24/2021 P U P E P P
9/28/2021 - C
Total Unexcused Absences
1st Quarter 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
10/26/2021 P P P P P P P
11/23/2021 - C
12/28/2021 - C
Total Unexcused Absences
2nd Quarter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Unexcused Absences
This Fiscal Year 0 1 - U 0 0 0 0 0
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused Absence
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum City of San Carlos
Economic Development Advisory Commission Attendance Log Members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings and should make every effort to do so. Such attendance ensures a steady flow of communication and keeps everyone abreast of current topics under discussion. Unexcused absences from three (3) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk. For those Commissions that are scheduled to meet less than once a month, unexcused absences from two (2) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk.

7.d.1
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Economic Development Advisory Commission Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports) Museum of San Carlos History
2nd Quarter Report to the San Carlos City Council

This report covers the time period from October 1 to December 31, 2021.

The Museum Board had only one regularly scheduled meeting during this time period, November 8, 2021. The meeting was held via Zoom and was attended by all Board members. The first meeting of 2022 will be held via Zoom during the second week of January 2022.

Attendance
• All three City representatives were present at the November meeting. • The Villagers, Museum docenting group held a meeting via Zoom October 7, 2021. All Museum Board members attended that meeting as well.

Activities & More
• The Museum has been open to the public every Saturday from 1 to 4pm. • The number of visitors weekly continues to exceed prior pandemic numbers. • The Museum is not open during the month of December, we reopen January 8, 2022. • A 100th year, Centennial, celebration committee has been established to determine the Museum’s contribution to the City celebration. The committee met on October 6 and November 3. The next meeting is January 5, 2022. The committee consists of Museum Board members, Villagers and some former docents.
• The Museum debuted puzzles as a fundraiser on the last Saturday the Museum was open in 2021, November 27. They continued to be sold at our two December “pop up” shops on December 4 & 11.

The purpose of these special shopping dates was to provide San Carlans the opportunity to shop local and purchase items that celebrate the history and community of San Carlos. The puzzles have been a huge hit! See some below
o Note: All Museum items are available for purchase and local delivery by emailing [email protected].
• The Museum has increased its profile on social media to increase visitors, advertise pop up shopping and Museum field trip opportunities.
• The Museum hosted tours for special needs students from One Step Beyond, Inc. the entire week of November 1st.
• The Museum hosted six classes of 4th grade students from Arroyo School November 15, 16 & 17; 2 tours each day.
• A workday was held December 8 to clean out the Tuff Shed and ensure a correct inventory. • White Oaks Elementary School donated years of class photos and PTA binders dating back to 1942.

The next report will be submitted at the end of March 2022.

Respectfully Submitted by,
Molly Barton
MoSH Secretary

12.13.2021

7.d.2
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Museum Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports)

7.d.2
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Museum Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports) Meeting Date Molly Barton Gordon Burton John Durkin
7/13/2021 P P P
8/10/2021 P P P
9/14/2021 P P P
Total Unexcused Absences 1st
Quarter 0 0 0
11/8/2021 P P P
Total Unexcused Absences
2nd Quarter 0 0 0
Total Unexcused Absences
This Fiscal Year 0 0 0
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused Absence
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum City of San Carlos
Museum of San Carlos History Attendance Report
Members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings and should make every effort to do so. Such attendance ensures a steady flow of communication and keeps everyone abreast of current topics under discussion. Unexcused absences from three (3) consecutive Regular Meetings, will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk. For those Commissions that are scheduled to meet less than once a month, unexcused absences from (2) consecutive Regular Meetings will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk.

7.d.2
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Museum Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports) Parks, Recreation & Culture Commission
Second Quarter for FY 2022
October –December 2021

The Parks, Recreation & Culture Commission met twice during the second quarter of FY 2022 on October 6 and December 8, 2021 via Zoom.

 Alternate Tony Chao became a regular commissioner, due to the resignation of Commissioner French and Alternate Aveggio.
 Commissioners received updates on the San Carlos Museum of History Board by Commissioner John Durkin.
 Commissioners received a presentation from the Youth Advisory Council on their activities.  Commissioners received a presentation on San Carlos becoming an “Age Friendly City” by Cynthia Nakayama, Associate Director, Center for Age Friendly Excellence (CAFE).  Commissioners discussed and made a recommendation for adding Pickle Ball Lines to Tennis Courts at Highlands Park.
 Commissioners approved the designs for ballfield lighting at Flanagan Field (Burton Park) and Stadium Field (Highlands Park).
 The annual rotation of officers took place, with the new Chair John Durkin and Vice Chair Tony Chao.
 Commissioners received updates on CIP projects, including the Burton Park Batting Cages, Chilton Park Improvements, lights at Burton Park Flanagan Field and Highlands Park Stadium Field, as well as updates on the Age-Friendly Initiative and Parks & Recreation programs and services.

Attendance: Commissioner Lee was excused from the October 6, 2021 meeting, and Commissioner Stacy Cooper Dent was excused from the December 8, 2021 meeting.

Please see attached PRC Commission Attendance Log.

7.d.3
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports) Meeting Date John Durkin Cecile Lee Mark Maxwell Stacy Cooper Dent Tony Chao* 8/11/2021 P P P E P
Total Unexcused Absences
1st Quarter 0 0 0 0 0
10/6/2021 P E P P P
12/8/2021 P P P E P
Total Unexcused Absences
2nd Quarter 0 0 0 0 0
2/2/2022
Total Unexcused Absences
This Fiscal Year 0 0 0 0 0
*Chao (alternate) joined 8/11/21. Became a regular member at 10/6/21 meeting.

P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused Absence
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum City of San Carlos
Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission Attendance Log Members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings and should make every effort to do so. Such attendance ensures a steady flow of communication and keeps everyone abreast of current topics under discussion. Unexcused absences from three (3) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk. For those Commissions that are scheduled to meet less than once a month, unexcused absences from two (2) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk.

7.d.3
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports)

Planning Commission
Q2 Quarterly Reports
October 2021 – December 2021

Summary of Accomplishments

The Planning Commission held 5 meetings in the 2
nd quarter of FY 21-22 and addressed
the following items:

1. October 4, 2021: Adopted a resolution recommending the City Council approve the East Side Innovation District Vision Plan.

2. October 18, 2021: Adopted a resolution recommending the City Council enter into a Mills Act Contract for the purposes of historic preservation for a property at 447 Hillcrest. Approved a Conditional Use Permit for auto sales at 495 Bragato (for a Honda Automobile Dealership). Adopted a resolution recommending City Council extend the noticing requirements from 150 ft. to 300 ft. for residential projects reviewed by the City’s Residential Design Review Committee (“RDRC”).

3. November 15, 2021: Received a presentation and made comments during a study session on the City’s Below Market Rate (“BMR”) Ordinance update. Set the date for an appeals hearing for 104 Sunnydale, in r egards to location of a staircase accessing an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”).

4. December 6, 2021: Considered and moved to continue to a date certain (to December 20, 2021) an appeal of staff’s decision regarding a staircase location as part of approval f or a 2
nd story ADU at 104 Sunnydale Avenue. Considered and
denied an appeal of the RDRC’s decision to approve a new single-family home at 2125 Carmelita Drive.

5. December 20, 2021: As of the writing of this report (December 17, 2021) the Planning Commission has yet to take action on two agenda items, which include:
(1) an appeal regarding a staircase location at 104 Sunnydale Avenue; and (2) request to amend a Planned Development (“PD”) Plan that would modify permitted land uses at 1129 Old County Road.

7.d.4
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Planning Commission Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports) Meeting Date Don Bradley Kristen Clements Ellen Garvey Jim Iacaponi David Roof 7/6/2021 P P P P P
7/14/21 - Special Mtg. P P P P P
7/19/2021 P P P P P
8/2/2021 - C P P P P
8/16/2021 P P P P P
8/25/2021 - Special Mtg. P P P P P
9/7/2021 P P P P P
9/20/2021 - C
Total Unexcused Absences
1st Quarter 0 0 0 0 0
10/4/2021 P P P P P
10/18/2021 P P P P P
11/1/2021 - C
11/15/2021 P P P P P
12/6/2021 P P P P P
12/20/2021 P E P P P
Total Unexcused Absences
2nd Quarter 0 0 0 0 0
Total Unexcused Absences
This Fiscal Year 0 0 0 0 0
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused Absence
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum City of San Carlos
Planning Commission Attendance Log
Members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings and should make every effort to do so. Such attendance ensures a steady flow of communication and keeps everyone abreast of current topics under discussion. Unexcused absences from three (3) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk. For those Commissions that are scheduled to meet less than once a month, unexcused absences from two (2) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk.

7.d.4
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Planning Commission Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports) 1 Residential Design Review Committee (RDRC)
Q2 Quarterly Report
October 1, 2021 – December 31, 2021

Summary of Accomplishments

The RDRC held six public hearings in the 2nd quarter of FY 2021-22 and took the following actions:

A. Approvals: Eleven(11) applications: Seven (7) new residences with three (3) ADUs, three (3) additions, and one (1) modification of a previous approval

Address Description Total square
footage of
residence (s.f.)
14 Garden Lane Addition (w/ADU) 3,589 s.f.
2081 Greenwood Avenue New two-story residence 2,878 s.f. 61 Hilltop Drive New two-story residence (w/ADU and
basement)
4,290 s.f.
1880 Arroyo Avenue New two-story residence 4,108 s.f.
2125 Carmelita Drive New two-story residence 3,019 s.f. 865 Sunset Drive Addition 4,229 s.f.
117 Brook Street New two-story residence (w/ADU) 6,368 s.f. 2140 Belmont Avenue New two-story residence (w/ADU) 3,248 s.f. 1838 Elizabeth Street Modification to Previous Approval 1500 Cordilleras Avenue Addition 3,024 s.f.
338 Cedar Street New two-story residence 3,333 s.f.

7.d.5
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Residential Design Review Committee Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports) Meeting Date Don Bradley* Ellen Garvey* Eugene Sakai Hae Young Datwani Jim Iacoponi, Alternate 7/6/2021 P N/A P P N/A
7/13/2021 P N/A PP N / A
7/19/2021 N/A N/A P P N/A
8/2/2021 N/A N/A PP N / A
9/7/2021 N/A N/A P P N/A
9/20/2021 N/A N/A PP N / A
Total Unexcused Absences
1st Quarter 00 00 0
10/4/2021 N/A P P P N/A
10/18/2021 N/A C C C N/A
11/1/2021 N/A PP P P
11/15/2021 N/A P P P N/A
12/6/2021 N/A PP P N / A
12/20/2021 N/A P P P N/A
Total Unexcused Absences
2nd Quarter 00 00 0
Total Unexcused Absences
This Fiscal Year 0 00 0 0
* Ellen Garvey was nominated by the Planning Commission on July 6, 2021 to succeed Don Bradley on the RDRC.

P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused Absence
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum City of San Carlos
Residential Design Review Committee
Members are expected to attend all regularly schedul ed meetings and should make every effort to do so . Such attendance ensures a steady flow of communi cation and keeps everyone abreast of current topics under discussi on. Unexcused absences from three (3) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commis sion member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk. For t hose Commissions that are scheduled to meet less t han once a month, unexcused absences from two (2) Me etings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk.

7.d.5
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Residential Design Review Committee Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports)

Dear Ms. Mui,
Ross Graves has been an active and contributing member of the Board of Trustees and his input has been extremely valuable. His participation on the Ad Hoc Real Estate Committee is irreplaceable.

Attendance Records for Ross Graves, Trustee Appointed by San Carlos

Board meeting participation during this period
10/13/2021 Board Meeting (Ross Graves attended)
11/10/2021 Board Meeting (Ross Graves attended)
12/8/2021 Trustee Field Day (Ross Graves attended)

Committee Participation
Meetings of the Ad Hoc Real Estate Committee
10/7/21 (Ross Graves attended)

MAJOR ACTIVITIES OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PERIOD October through December 2021

 Approved Resolution M-011-2021 authoring Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of San Mateo Mosquito and Vector Control District.  Approved Minutes for September 8, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Correction on September minutes made by Trustee Rutherford to reflect that Trustee Laura Walsh was present on the Attendance Record and that IT Director David Kwan was absent.  Approved District painting contract to A&B Painting Inc. in the amount of $51,067.00.  Approved Preliminary Financial Report for FY 2020-21 as of August 31 2021.  Real Estate Committee Chair, Ross Graves, provided a written report in the Board Packet. The Committee met on October 7, 2021 and was given an update on the Carolan property by District Manager Brian Weber.The Committee recommends Staff move forward with issuing an RFP for Architectural Services including Programming, Design and Permitting associated with the property located at 1415 N. Carolan Ave.
 Approved the Preliminary Financial Report for FY 2020-21 as of September 30, 2021.  Ad Hoc Real Estate Committee Chair Trustee Graves and members met last board meeting he indicated the RFP has been developed and is under review of General Counsel Barnhill. The RFP should be ready for Phrase 1 of the construction.

7.d.6
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: SMC Mosquito & Vector Control Board Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports) 1 San Carlos Transportation and Circulation Commission
Report Oct – Dec 2021

Commissioners:

Sandra Nierenberg, Chairperson
Matt Baker
William Fairclough
Nishant Garg
Leeron Morad

October 19, 2021
Senior Engineer Vatsal Patel continued his 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project Update presentation from the prior meeting this time focusing on the intersection at Melendy and Rockridge. He explained that staff is considering how to add curb extensions and curb ramps at the intersection and provided two options for the Commission’s input. Chair Nierenberg and Commissioner Fairclough expressed concern about limited visibility at that intersection.

City Engineer Grace Le updated the Commission on the sidewalk parking brochure and explained that it is currently on hold pending direction from City Council. She noted that further analysis, distribution, and enforcement will take additional staff resources. Chair Nierenberg and Commissioner Morad expressed surprise and concern that this item is on hold and Commissioner Morad asked if fewer resources would be required if the scope of the project was scaled down. City Engineer Le reiterated that the Sheriff’s Office and City Manager spoke about this issue and agreed that direction would need to be taken from City Council. She said that Commissioners can contact City Council members directly or encourage residents to make public comments during meetings or send submissions through Public Stuff.

November 16, 2021
Public Works Director Steven Machida provided an update on sidewalk parking and flier distribution, and explained that City Council has not directed staff to move forward with this item.

He noted that the City Manager agreed to send a citywide letter to all residents and businesses notifying them of the issue of parking on sidewalks. Commissioner Morad asked that staff share the proposed text of the letter at the next meeting.

Senior Engineer Vatsal Patel gave an update on the Traffic Calming Projects along Cordilleras Ave and Alameda de las Pulgas as well as several intersections.

City Engineer Grace Le discussed the status of the school walk audits and explained that the audits encompass a quarter mile radius around the school.

The Commission agreed to cancel its December 21 meeting in alignment with City Council’s December schedule.

December 21, 2021
This meeting was cancelled due to high vacation use and in accord ance with City Council’s schedule.

7.d.7
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Transportation and Circulation Commission Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports) Meeting Date Matt Baker William Fairclough Nishant Garg Leeron Morad Sandra Nierenberg 7/20/2021 E P P P P
8/17/2021 - C
8/25/2021 - Special Joint Meeting P P E P P
9/21/2021 P P E P P
Total Unexcused Absences
1st Quarter 0 0 0 0 0
10/19/2021 P P P P P
11/16/2021 U P U P P
12/21/2021 - C
Total Unexcused Absences
2nd Quarter 1-U 0 1-U 0 0
Total Unexcused Absences
This Fiscal Year 1-U 0 1-U 0 0
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused Absence
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum City of San Carlos
Transportation and Circulation Commission Attendance Log Members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings and should make every effort to do so. Such attendance ensures a steady flow of communication and keeps everyone abreast of current topics under discussion. Unexcused absences from three (3) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk. For those Commissions that are scheduled to meet less than once a month, unexcused absences from two (2) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk.

7.d.7
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Transportation and Circulation Commission Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports) YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL (YAC): QUARTERLY REPORT

October 2021 – December 2021

October 2021:
• The Youth Advisory Council hosted a Laurel Street Clean-Up on Saturday, October 30th. 65 community members participated, ranging in age from 11-18 years old. The clean-up was scheduled the day after the Goblin Walk to ensure no candy wrappers were left behind.

November 2021:
• The Youth Advisory Council attended a district-wide social with other youth committees and councils from the peninsula on Saturday, November 20th. The YAC Social allowed students to get together to socialize, network and inspire each other. Over 90 teens across 14 Bay Area cities connected to exchange ideas on how they can better their communities. • City Council adopted a Resolution approving updates to the Youth Advisory Council Bylaws.

Updates included gender-neutral references and updates to the voting members City Council appoints to YAC.

December 2021:
• The Youth Advisory Council organized a community-wide “Coats and Cards” donation drive for the month of December. The YAC collected winter weather items such as coats, jackets, umbrellas, and ponchos to benefit LifeMoves homeless family shelters. The YAC also collected cards for patients at Sequoia Hospital.
• The Youth Advisory Council provided a holiday-themed photo booth at the Night of Holiday Lights community event. YAC members volunteered at the event and took photos for families and groups that were in the festive spirit.
• The YAC hosted a free screening of Elf on Friday, December 17th at the Youth Center. In addition to the movie, the YAC organized holiday crafts and activities and provided free Mister Softee ice cream at the event.

*Please note, the December Youth Advisory Council meeting was canceled as it was scheduled during Finals week.

7.d.8
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Youth Advisory Council Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports) Meeting Date
Ezra Bergson-
Michelson Lucas Eden
Alice
Finkelstein
Samina
Ginwalla
Griffin
(formerly Mila)
Hamby
Vikram
Kacholiya Maya Nayberg
Isabela
Sugden Liam Tierney
Atharss
Prasath
(Alternate)
Ivy Zhou
(Alternate)
7/14/2021 (Summer Break)
8/25/2021 U P P P U P P P P P P
9/8/2021 P P P P P P P P P P P
Total Unexcused Absences
1st Quarter 1 - U 0 0 0 1 - U 0 0 0 0 0 0
10/13/2021 P P P P E E P P E P P
11/10/2021 P P P P P P P P P E P
12/8/2021 - C C C C C C C C C C C C
Total Unexcused Absences
2nd Quarter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Unexcused Absences
This Fiscal Year 1 - U 0 0 0 1 - U 0 0 0 0 0 0
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused Absence
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum Members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings and should make every effort to do so. Such attendance ensures a steady flow of communication and keeps everyone abreast of current topics under discussion. Unexcused absences from three (3) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk. For those Commissions that are scheduled to meet less than once a month, unexcused absences from two (2) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk.

City of San Carlos
Youth Advisory Council Attendance Log

7.d.8
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Youth Advisory Council Q2 Report (Commission Quarterly Reports)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: January 10, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Declaring the Need for City Council and Commissions to Continue Conducting Meetings Remotely Due to Health and Safety Concerns Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution renewing its declaration for City Council and Commissions to continue conducting meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns pursuant to Assembly Bill (“AB”) 361.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

BACKGROUND:

On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom of California proclaimed a state of emergency in response to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID -19). Then on March 17 , 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N -29-20, easing Brown Act restrictions to allow for local legislative bodies to hold their meetings via teleconference. This allowed for San Carlos Council and staff to continue to safely conduct public meetings with public participation via teleconference, while adhering to the County of San Mateo Health Officer’s "shelter -in-place" order.

On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N -08-21, which among other things, rescinded his prior Executive Order N -29-20 and set a date of October 1, 2021 for agencies to transit ion back to public meetings held in full compliance with the Brown Act. The City Council had planned to shift to a hybrid meeting approach on August 23, 2021, which would have allowed the public to continue participating remotely while Councilmembers, Commissioners, and staff would meet in person. However, due to a spike in cases throughout the state and the San Mateo County Health Department’s issuance of a health order requiring masks indoors in public places regardless of vaccination status starting Augus t 3, 2021, the Council opted to continue remote meetings for the safety of everyone.

On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom approved AB 361 allowing local legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely if they meet three criteria. As outlined in the tabl e below, the City still meets these criteria.

7.e
Packet Pg. 28
2 AB 361 Required Criteria City Meets Criteria
The local agency holds a meeting
during a declared state of emergency.

The City is still under a local state of emergency.

State or local officials have impose d or
recommended measures to promote
social distancing.

San Mateo County Health orders require that all
individuals in public spaces maintain social
distancing and wear masks.

Legislative bodies have determined that
meeting in person would present
imminent risks to the health or safety of
attendees.

The City can’t maintain social distancing
requirements for the public, staff, Councilmembers,
and Commissioners in their meeting spaces. This
issue is most apparent on the dais. Seating and
computer screens are less than six feet apart, as is
the case with staff seated adjacent to Council. In
addition, there is inadequate space at City Hall and
in the Council Chambers to accommodate the
public, staff, and consultants while maintaining safe
social distancing, particularly for access to the
speaker’s podium.

Council adopted Resolution 2021 -093 on September 27, 2021, declaring the need for City Council and Commissions to continue conducting meetings. Since October 25, 2021, the City Council has adopted a Reso lution each month renewing its declaration to continue meeting remotely for the next 30 days.

ANALYSIS:

If Council does not adopt a Resolution this evening to renew the declaration, Council and Commission meetings will need to transition back to in -person public meetings beginning January 13, 2022.

Pursuant to AB 361, this Resolution must be passed by majority vote of the City Council to continue meeting remotely under the modified Brown Act requirements.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution renewing its declaration on the need for City Council and Commissions to continue conducting its meetings remotely, due to health and safety concerns, pursuant to Assembly Bill (“AB”) 361; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution and proceed to transition the City Council and Commissions back to in-person meetings beginning January 13, 2022; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

7.e
Packet Pg. 29
3 Respectfully submitted by:

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. AB 361

7.e
Packet Pg. 30
RESOLUTION NO. 2022- _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RENEWING ITS DECLARATION ON THE NEED FOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONS

TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING MEETINGS REMOTELY DUE TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361.

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for a broader spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19); and

WHEREAS, on March 1 2, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-013 ratifying and extending the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency caused by COIVD-19; and

WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020 , in response to the COVID -19 pandemic, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means; and

WHEREAS, as a result of Executive Order N-29-20, City staff set up Zoom meetings for all City Council and Commission meetings; and

WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which set an end date of September 30, 2021 for agencies to meet remotely; and

WHEREAS, since issuing Executive Order N -08-21, the Delta variant has emerged, causing a spike in COVID-19 cases throughout the state; and

WHEREAS, on August 3, 2021, in response to the Delta variant, the San Mateo County Health Department ordered all individuals to wear masks when inside public spaces and maintain social distancing; and

WHEREAS, the City cannot maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff, Councilmembers, and Commissioners in their respective meeting locations. Seating and access to computer screens on the dais is less than six-feet apart. The City Attorney, City Manager, and City Clerk seating and access to screens is also less than six -feet apart. There is inadequate space at City Hall and in the Council Chambers to accommodate the public, staff, and consultants while maintaining safe social distancing, particularly for access to the speaker’s podium and to share the meeting agenda and materials; and

WHEREAS, because of the rise in cases due to the D elta variant, the City is concerned about the health and safety of all individuals who may attend the Council and Commission meetings in-person; and

WHEREAS, on September 27, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021 -093 declaring the need for City Council and Commissions to continue conducting meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns pursuant to AB 361; and

7.e.1
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Resolution (Assembly Bill 361)
WHEREAS, since October 25, 2021, the City C ouncil has adopted a Resolution each month renewing its declaration for the need for City Council and Commissions to continue conducting meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns, pursuant to AB 361.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby makes the following findings, in compliance with AB 361, and in order to continue to teleconference under the modified Brown Act requirements:

a. The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency; and b. The state of local emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the City Council and its Commissions, as well as staff and members of the public from meeting safely in person; and
c. San Mateo County Health orders require all individuals in public spaces to maintain social distancing; however the City cannot maintain the social distancing requirement for the Councilmembers, Commissioners, and staff in the meeting spaces, nor the public.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the San Carlos City Council and Commission meetings will continue to be conducted remotely for the next 30 days in compliance with AB 361 to better ensure the health and safety of staff and the public, and the City Council will revisit the need to conduct meetings remotely within 30 days of the adoption of this Resolution.

*****

I, Crystal Mui, City Clerk, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 10th day of January 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________________ ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________________

________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos

APPROVED:

___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

7.e.1
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Resolution (Assembly Bill 361)
Assembly Bill No. 361
CHAPTER 165
An act to add and repeal Section 89305.6 of the Education Code, and to amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of, and to add and repeal Section 11133 of, the Government Code, relating to open meetings, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
[Approved by Governor September 16, 2021. Filed with
Secretary of State September 16, 2021.]
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 361, Robert Ri vas. Open meetings: state and local agencies:
teleconferences.
(1) Existing la w, the Ralph M. Bro wn Act requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency, as those terms are defined, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate. The act contains specified provisions regarding the timelines for posting an agenda and pro viding for the ability of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public.

The act generally requires all regular and special meetings of the legislative body be held within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, subject to certain exceptions. The act allows for meetings to occur via teleconferencing subject to certain requirements, particularly that the legislative body notice each teleconference location of each member that will be participating in the public meeting, that each teleconference location be accessible to the public, that members of the public be allo wed to address the le gislative body at each teleconference location, that the le gislative body post an agenda at each teleconference location, and that at least a quorum of the legislative body participate from locations within the boundaries of the local agenc y’s jurisdiction. The act provides an exemption to the jurisdictional requirement for health authorities, as defined. The act authorizes the district attorney or any interested person, subject to certain pro visions, to commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that specified actions taken by a legislative body are null and void.

Existing la w, the California Emer gency Services Act, authorizes the Governor, or the Director of Emer gency Services when the go vernor is inaccessible, to proclaim a state of emergency under specified circumstances.

Executive Order No. N-29-20 suspends the Ralph M. Bro wn Act’s requirements for teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic provided that notice and accessibility requirements are met, the public members are allowed to observe and address the legislative body at the meeting, and that a legislative body of a local agency has a procedure for receiving and swiftly

92 7.e.2
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for indi viduals with disabilities, as specified.

This bill, until January 1, 2024, w ould authorize a local agenc y to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Ralph M. Bro wn Act when a le gislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emer gency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, during a proclaimed state of emergency held for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, and during a proclaimed state of emergency when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, as provided.

This bill w ould require le gislative bodies that hold teleconferenced meetings under these abbreviated teleconferencing procedures to give notice of the meeting and post agendas, as described, to allo w members of the public to access the meeting and address the legislative body, to give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option, and to conduct the meeting in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the le gislative body. The bill would require the legislative body to take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which pre vents the public agenc y from broadcasting the meeting, or in the e vent of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored. The bill would specify that actions taken during the disruption are subject to challenge proceedings, as specified.

This bill w ould prohibit the le gislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and would specify that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time. The bill would prohibit the le gislative body from closing the public comment period and the opportunity to register to provide public comment, until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, as specified. When there is a continuing state of emergency, or when state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, the bill w ould require a le gislative body to mak e specified findings not later than 30 days after the first teleconferenced meeting pursuant to these pro visions, and to mak e those findings e very 30 days thereafter, in order to continue to meet under these abbre viated teleconferencing procedures.

Existing law prohibits a le gislative body from requiring, as a condition to attend a meeting, a person to re gister the person’s name, or to pro vide other information, or to fulfill an y condition precedent to the person’ s attendance.
92 — 2 — Ch. 165

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
This bill would exclude from that prohibition, a registration requirement imposed by a third-party internet website or other online platform not under the control of the legislative body.
(2) Existing law, the Bagle y-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend any meeting of a state body. The act requires at least one member of the state body to be ph ysically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.

The Governor’s Executive Order No. N-29-20 suspends the requirements of the Bagle y-Keene Open Meeting Act for teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic, provided that notice and accessibility requirements are met, the public members are allo wed to observe and address the state body at the meeting, and that a state body has a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for indi viduals with disabilities, as specified.

This bill, until January 31, 2022, w ould authorize, subject to specified notice and accessibility requirements, a state body to hold public meetings through teleconferencing and to mak e public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically , to all members of the public seeking to observ e and to address the state body . With respect to a state body holding a public meeting pursuant to these provisions, the bill would suspend certain requirements of e xisting law, including the requirements that each teleconference location be accessible to the public and that members of the public be able to address the state body at each teleconference location. Under the bill, a state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically would satisfy any requirement that the state body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and of fer public comment. The bill w ould require that each state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing provide notice of the meeting, and post the agenda, as pro vided. The bill w ould urge state bodies utilizing these teleconferencing procedures in the bill to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to existing law, as provided.
(3) Existing law establishes the various campuses of the California State University under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and authorizes the establishment of student body organizations in connection with the operations of California State University campuses.

The Gloria Romero Open Meetings Act of 2000 generally requires a legislative body, as defined, of a student body or ganization to conduct its business in a meeting that is open and public. The act authorizes the legislative body to use teleconferencing, as defined, for the benefit of the public and the legislative body in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law.

This bill, until January 31, 2022, w ould authorize, subject to specified notice and accessibility requirements, a le gislative body, as defined for purposes of the act, to hold public meetings through teleconferencing and 92 Ch. 165 — 3 —

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
to mak e public meetings accessible telephonically , or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the legislative body. With respect to a le gislative body holding a public meeting pursuant to these pro visions, the bill w ould suspend certain requirements of e xisting la w, including the requirements that each teleconference location be accessible to the public and that members of the public be able to address the legislative body at each teleconference location.

Under the bill, a le gislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically w ould satisfy an y requirement that the legislative body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and of fer public comment. The bill w ould require that each legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing pro vide notice of the meeting, and post the agenda, as provided. The bill would urge legislative bodies utilizing these teleconferencing procedures in the bill to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to existing law, as provided.
(4)  This bill would declare the Le gislature’s intent, consistent with the Governor’s Executive Order No. N-29-20, to impro ve and enhance public access to state and local agency meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic and future emergencies by allowing broader access through teleconferencing options.
(5)  This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 54953 of the Government Code proposed by AB 339 to be operative only if this bill and AB 339 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(6)  The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts la ws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (7) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (8) This bill w ould declare that it is to tak e effect immediately as an urgency statute.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 89305.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:
89305.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other pro vision of this article, and subject to the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), a legislative body may hold public meetings through teleconferencing 92 — 4 — Ch. 165

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
and mak e public meetings accessible telephonically , or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the legislative body.
(b)  (1)  For a le gislative body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all requirements in this article requiring the physical presence of members, the clerk or other personnel of the le gislative body, or the public, as a condition of participation in or quorum for a public meeting, are hereby suspended.
(2)  For a le gislative body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all of the following requirements in this article are suspended:
(A)  Each teleconference location from which a member will be participating in a public meeting or proceeding be identified in the notice and agenda of the public meeting or proceeding.
(B)  Each teleconference location be accessible to the public. (C)  Members of the public may address the le gislative body at each teleconference conference location.
(D)  Post agendas at all teleconference locations.
(E)  At least one member of the legislative body be physically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.
(c)  A legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observ e and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically , consistent with the notice and accessibility requirements in subdi visions (d) and (e), shall ha ve satisfied any requirement that the le gislative body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. A legislative body need not make available any physical location from which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment.
(d)  If a legislative body holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, the legislative body shall also do both of the following:
(1)  Implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable modification or accommodation from indi viduals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and resolving an y doubt whatsoever in favor of accessibility.
(2)  Advertise that procedure each time notice is gi ven of the means by which members of the public may observ e the meeting and of fer public comment, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e).
(e)  Except to the extent this section provides otherwise, each legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section shall do both of the following:
(1)  Give advance notice of the time of, and post the agenda for , each public meeting according to the timeframes otherwise prescribed by this article, and using the means otherwise prescribed by this article, as applicable.
92 Ch. 165 — 5 —

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
(2)  In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, also give notice of the means by which members of the public may observ e the meeting and offer public comment. As to any instance in which there is a change in the means of public observ ation and comment, or an y instance prior to the effective date of this section in which the time of the meeting has been noticed or the agenda for the meeting has been posted without also including notice of the means of public observation and comment, a legislative body may satisfy this requirement by advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication a vailable at the time. Advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time shall include, but need not be limited to, posting such means on the le gislative body’s internet website.
(f)  All legislative bodies utilizing the teleconferencing procedures in this section are urged to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the otherwise applicable provisions of this article, in order to maximize transparenc y and pro vide the public access to legislative body meetings.
(g)  This section shall remain in ef fect only until January 31, 2022, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 2. Section 11133 is added to the Government Code, to read:
11133. (a)  Notwithstanding an y other pro vision of this article, and subject to the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), a state body may hold public meetings through teleconferencing and make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observ e and to address the state body.
(b)  (1)  For a state body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all requirements in this article requiring the physical presence of members, the clerk or other personnel of the state body, or the public, as a condition of participation in or quorum for a public meeting, are hereby suspended.
(2)  For a state body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all of the following requirements in this article are suspended:
(A)  Each teleconference location from which a member will be participating in a public meeting or proceeding be identified in the notice and agenda of the public meeting or proceeding.
(B)  Each teleconference location be accessible to the public. (C)  Members of the public may address the state body at each teleconference conference location.
(D)  Post agendas at all teleconference locations.
(E)  At least one member of the state body be ph ysically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.
(c)  A state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observ e and address the meeting telephonically 92 — 6 — Ch. 165

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
or otherwise electronically , consistent with the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), shall have satisfied any requirement that the state body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. A state body need not mak e available any physical location from which members of the public may observ e the meeting and offer public comment.
(d)  If a state body holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section and allo ws members of the public to observ e and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, the state body shall also do both of the following:
(1)  Implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable modification or accommodation from indi viduals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and resolving an y doubt whatsoever in favor of accessibility.
(2)  Advertise that procedure each time notice is gi ven of the means by which members of the public may observ e the meeting and of fer public comment, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e).
(e)  Except to the extent this section provides otherwise, each state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section shall do both of the following:
(1)  Give advance notice of the time of, and post the agenda for , each public meeting according to the timeframes otherwise prescribed by this article, and using the means otherwise prescribed by this article, as applicable.
(2)  In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, also give notice of the means by which members of the public may observ e the meeting and offer public comment. As to any instance in which there is a change in the means of public observ ation and comment, or an y instance prior to the effective date of this section in which the time of the meeting has been noticed or the agenda for the meeting has been posted without also including notice of the means of public observation and comment, a state body may satisfy this requirement by advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication a vailable at the time. Advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time shall include, but need not be limited to, posting such means on the state body’ s internet website.
(f)  All state bodies utilizing the teleconferencing procedures in this section are urged to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the otherwise applicable provisions of this article, in order to maximize transparency and provide the public access to state body meetings.
(g)  This section shall remain in ef fect only until January 31, 2022, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 3. Section 54953 of the Government Code is amended to read:
92 Ch. 165 — 7 —

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agenc y, except as otherwise pro vided in this chapter.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agenc y in connection with an y meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable pro visions of la w relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with an y meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agenc y. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the le gislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the local agenc y e xercises jurisdiction, e xcept as pro vided in subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall pro vide an opportunity for members of the public to address the le gislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4)  For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a le gislative body, the members of which are in dif ferent locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
(d) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that w ould establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if an y, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdi vision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and an y advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members.
(e)  (1)  A local agency may use teleconferencing without complying with the requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) if the legislative body complies with the requirements of paragraph (2) of this subdivision in any of the following circumstances:
(A)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials ha ve imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
(B)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority v ote, whether as a result of the emer gency, meeting in person w ould present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(C)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B), that, as a result of the emer gency, meeting in person w ould present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(2)  A legislative body that holds a meeting pursuant to this subdi vision shall do all of the following:
(A)  The legislative body shall give notice of the meeting and post agendas as otherwise required by this chapter.
(B)  The legislative body shall allow members of the public to access the meeting and the agenda shall pro vide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3. 92 Ch. 165 — 9 —

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also gi ve notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and of fer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
(C) The le gislative body shall conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. (D) In the event of a disruption which pre vents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the e vent of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the body shall tak e no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored. Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1.
(E) The le gislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must pro vide an opportunity for the public to address the le gislative body and offer comment in real time.

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
(3)  If a state of emergency remains active, or state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the le gislative body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(A)  The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B)  Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i)  The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii)  State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
(4)  For the purposes of this subdi vision, “state of emergency” means a state of emergency proclaimed pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act (Article 1 (commencing with Section 8550) of Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2).
(f)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 3.1. Section 54953 of the Government Code is amended to read:
54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the le gislative body of a local agenc y in person, e xcept as otherwise provided in this chapter. Local agencies shall conduct meetings subject to this chapter consistent with applicable state and federal ci vil rights la ws, including, b ut not limited to, an y applicable language access and other nondiscrimination obligations.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agenc y in connection with an y meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable pro visions of la w relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with an y meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agenc y. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the le gislative body 92 Ch. 165 — 11 —

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the local agenc y e xercises jurisdiction, e xcept as pro vided in subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall pro vide an opportunity for members of the public to address the le gislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a le gislative body, the members of which are in dif ferent locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agenc y from pro viding the public with additional teleconference locations.
(c)  (1)  No legislative body shall tak e action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.
(2)  The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
(3)  Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in subdi vision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be tak en. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Di vision 7 of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation.
(d)  (1)  Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that w ould establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if an y, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2)  Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdi vision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3)  For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and an y advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter 92 — 12 — Ch. 165

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)

In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also gi ve notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and of fer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
(C) The le gislative body shall conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. (D) In the event of a disruption which pre vents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the e vent of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the body shall tak e no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored. Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1.
(E) The le gislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must pro vide an opportunity for 92 Ch. 165 — 13 —

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
the public to address the le gislative body and offer comment in real time.

This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment. (F)  Notwithstanding Section 54953.3, an individual desiring to provide public comment through the use of an internet website, or other online platform, not under the control of the local le gislative body, that requires registration to log in to a teleconference may be required to re gister as required by the third-party internet website or online platform to participate. (G)  (i)  A legislative body that provides a timed public comment period for each agenda item shall not close the public comment period for the agenda item, or the opportunity to re gister, pursuant to subparagraph (F), to pro vide public comment until that timed public comment period has elapsed.
(ii)  A legislative body that does not pro vide a timed public comment period, but takes public comment separately on each agenda item, shall allow a reasonable amount of time per agenda item to allow public members the opportunity to provide public comment, including time for members of the public to re gister pursuant to subparagraph (F), or otherwise be recognized for the purpose of providing public comment. (iii)  A legislative body that pro vides a timed general public comment period that does not correspond to a specific agenda item shall not close the public comment period or the opportunity to re gister, pursuant to subparagraph (F), until the timed general public comment period has elapsed. (3)  If a state of emergency remains active, or state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the le gislative body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(A)  The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B)  Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i)  The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii)  State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
(4)  For the purposes of this subdi vision, “state of emergency” means a state of emergency proclaimed pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act (Article 1 (commencing with Section 8550) of Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2).
(f)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 4. Section 54953 is added to the Government Code, to read:
54953. (a) All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting 92 — 14 — Ch. 165

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
of the legislative body of a local agenc y, except as otherwise pro vided in this chapter.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agenc y in connection with an y meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable pro visions of la w relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with an y meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agenc y. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the le gislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the local agenc y e xercises jurisdiction, e xcept as pro vided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall pro vide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4)  For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a le gislative body, the members of which are in dif ferent locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agenc y from pro viding the public with additional teleconference locations
(c)  (1)  No legislative body shall tak e action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.
(2)  The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
(3)  Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in subdi vision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be tak en. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Di vision 7 of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation.
(d)  (1)  Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, 92 Ch. 165 — 15 —

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that w ould establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if an y, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdi vision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and an y advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members.
(e) This section shall become operative January 1, 2024.

SEC. 4.1. Section 54953 is added to the Government Code, to read:
54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the le gislative body of a local agenc y, in person e xcept as otherwise provided in this chapter. Local agencies shall conduct meetings subject to this chapter consistent with applicable state and federal ci vil rights la ws, including, b ut not limited to, an y applicable language access and other nondiscrimination obligations.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agenc y in connection with an y meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable pro visions of la w relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with an y meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the 92 — 16 — Ch. 165

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
legislative body of a local agenc y. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the le gislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory o ver which the local agenc y e xercises jurisdiction, e xcept as pro vided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall pro vide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a le gislative body, the members of which are in dif ferent locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and an y advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members.
(e) This section shall become operative January 1, 2024.

SEC. 5. Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of this bill incorporate amendments to Section 54953 of the Go vernment Code proposed by both this bill and Assembly Bill 339. Those sections of this bill shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become ef fective on or before January 1, 2022, but this bill becomes operati ve first, (2) each bill amends Section 54953 of the Government Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 339, in which case Section 54953 of the Government Code, as amended by Sections 3 and 4 of this bill, shall remain operative only until the operative date of Assembly Bill 339, at which time Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of this bill shall become operative.

SEC. 6. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to improve and enhance public access to state and local agenc y meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic and future applicable emergencies, by allowing broader access through teleconferencing options consistent with the Go vernor’s Executive Order No. N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, permitting expanded use of teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SEC. 7. The Legislature finds and declares that Sections 3 and 4 of this act, which amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of the Government Code, further, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdi vision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:

This act is necessary to ensure minimum standards for public participation and notice requirements allo wing for greater public participation in teleconference meetings during applicable emergencies.

SEC. 8. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that during the COVID-19 public health emergency, certain requirements of the Bagle y-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Di vision 3 of Title 2 of the Go vernment Code) were suspended by Executive Order N-29-20. Audio and video teleconference were widely used to conduct public meetings in lieu of physical location meetings, and public meetings conducted by teleconference during the COVID-19 public health emergency have been productive, have increased public participation by all members of the public re gardless of their location in the state and ability to travel to physical meeting locations, have protected the health and safety of civil servants and the public, and have reduced travel costs incurred by members of state bodies and reduced work hours spent traveling to and from meetings.
92 — 18 — Ch. 165

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)
(b) The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds and repeals Section 89305.6 of the Education Code, Section 2 of this act, which adds and repeals Section 11133 of the Go vernment Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of this act, which amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of the Government Code, all increase and potentially limit the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
(1) By removing the requirement that public meetings be conducted at a primary ph ysical location with a quorum of members present, this act protects the health and safety of civil servants and the public and does not preference the experience of members of the public who might be able to attend a meeting in a ph ysical location o ver members of the public who cannot travel or attend that meeting in a physical location. (2) By removing the requirement for agendas to be placed at the location of each public official participating in a public meeting remotely, including from the member’s private home or hotel room, this act protects the personal, private information of public officials and their f amilies while preserving the public’ s right to access information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.

SEC. 9. This act is an ur gency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.

The facts constituting the necessity are:

In order to ensure that state and local agencies can continue holding public meetings while pro viding essential services lik e w ater, po wer, and fire protection to their constituents during public health, wildfire, or other states of emergencies, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.

O
92 Ch. 165 — 19 —

7.e.2
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: AB 361 (Assembly Bill 361)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: January 10, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Five -Year Products And/Or Services Agreement with Rustic Ranch Farming Company, LLC for Open Space Vegetation Management Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,066,557.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Open Space Vegetation Management Products and/or Services Agreement (“Agreement”) with Rustic Ranch Farming Company, LLC for the period of January 10, 2022 through June 30, 2026 in an amount not to exceed $1,066,557.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no additional fiscal impact associated with this item. There are sufficient funds available in the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021 -22 Adopted Budget and additional years will be budgeted accordingly.

The projected annual costs for the Agreement over the next five -years are listed below. A ten percent contingency budget is included for additional services beginning in the second year of the contract.

Fiscal Year Contract Amount Contingency (10%)
FY 2021-22 $178,408 N/A
FY 2022-23 $187,329 $18,732
FY 2023-24 $196,695 $19,669
FY 2024-25 $206,530 $20,653
FY 2025-26 $216,856 $21,685

BACKGROUND:

Recent statewide fire activity has highlighted the danger of wildfires in the urban interface. Th e area west of Alameda De Las Pulgas in San Carlos is designated a “high fire severity” zone by CAL FIRE. In an effort to reduce the risk of wildfire in our community, the City has taken multiple steps to keep our community safe including public education, fuels (vegetation) management on public and private property, and wildland urban interface fire inspections . These three elements are included in the San Carlos Fuels Management Program.

7.f
Packet Pg. 52
2 In 2017, staff applied for a vegetation fuel management grant as part of the City’s approved local hazard mitigation plan. The grant application was successful and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) awarded the City 7 5% of the total project cost for fuel management in July 2018. The work consisted of removing fuel that can feed a wildland fire in Eaton, Big Canyon, Crestview, and Highlands Parks. On May 11, 2020, City Council awarded a contract to Rustic Ranch Farming Company, LLC to conduct and manage the vegetation reduction work as part of the FEMA grant. The work was completed in June 2021 through the use of heavy equipment, hand crews, and goats.

One of the requirements of the FEMA grant was to include a Planned Maintenance Activities Statement in the closeout documents, and agree to maintain the work completed with the grant funding in future years. Annual routine maintenance will continue to aid in reducing the threat of wildfire in the City’s open space parks.

As part of the City’s efforts to continue to reduce the threat of wildfire and to adhere to the FEMA grant requirements, City Council approved funding in the amount of $75,000 in the Parks Maintenance operating budget for fuel reduction as part of the FY 2021-22 budget.

ANALYSIS:

On October 26, 2021, the City issued a request for proposals for the Open Space Vegetation Management work in City parks. Work will include annual coordination of goats, removal of vegetation u sing hand crews and heavy equipmen t, and project management. If needed, additional services such as property surveys, mitigation analysis maps, and other wildfire mapping may be included.

Two vendors responded with proposals by the deadline and each firm was ranked according to criteria established by City staff. Of the two vendors, Rustic Ranch Farming Company, LLC, met the City’s criteria to manage and perform the work. Furthermore, Rustic Ranch is familiar with San Carlos’ parks and parcels through their recent comprehensive work perf ormed through the FEMA grant.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement with Rustic Ranch Farming Company, LLC for the period of January 10, 2022 through Ju ne 30, 2026 in an amount not to exceed $1,066,557; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

7.f
Packet Pg. 53
3 Respectfully submitted by:

Amy Newby,
Parks & Recreation Director

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution - Vegetation Management Contract-Rustic Ranch

2. Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal

3. Rustic Ranch Cost Proposal 2022-2026

7.f
Packet Pg. 54
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 –_____

ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIVE-YEAR PRODUCTS AND/OR

SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RUSTIC RANCH FARMING COMPANY, LLC FOR OPEN

SPACE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $1,066,557.

WHEREAS, recent statewide fire activity has highlighted the danger of wildfires in the urban interface; and

WHEREAS, a significant portion of San Carlos is in a CAL FIRE designated “high fire severity” zone; and

WHEREAS, in an effort to reduce the risk of wildfire in our community, the City has taken steps to keep the community safe including public education, fuels ma nagement and wildland urban interface fire inspections; and

WHEREAS, in 2018, the City was awarded a grant through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) for vegetation reduction in City parks; and

WHEREAS, Rustic Ranch Farming Company, LLC was contracted to perform and manage the work in City parks; and

WHEREAS, in June 2021, the City completed the work identified in the grant and will now begin the “Planned Maintenance Activities” as required by FEMA; and

WHEREAS, Rustic Ranch Farming Company, LLC submitted a proposal to perform and manage the scope of work for ongoing maintenance including goat grazing, hand crews and heavy equipment to decrease the threat of rapid fire spread in City-owned parks and parcels; and

WHEREAS, of the two vendors who submitted proposals, Rustic Ranch Farming Company, LLC met the City’s expectations to manage and perform the work to City standard; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a five-year Professional Services Agreement with Rustic Ranch Farming Company, LLC for open space vegetation management services in an amount not to exceed $1,066,557.

* * * * *

I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of January 2022 by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS: _______________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________________ ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________________

7.f.1
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Resolution - Vegetation Management Contract-Rustic Ranch (Vegetation Management Contract)

_________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos

APPROVED:

__________________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

7.f.1
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Resolution - Vegetation Management Contract-Rustic Ranch (Vegetation Management Contract)

PROPOSAL FOR

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

PROJECT (CITY PARKS)
City of San Carlos
Parks & Recreation Department
November 18, 2021
Rustic Ranch Farming Company, LLC

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) Table of Contents
1 Cover Letter
2 Staffing, Team Experience and Understanding
3 Work Plan Approach and Schedule
4 References
5 Other Relevant Information
6 Appendix
Resumes

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) Crystal Mui, City Clerk
City of San Carlos - City Hall
City Clerk’s Department
600 Elm Street, 2nd Floor
San Carlos, CA 94070
RE: Vegetation Management Project (City Parks)
Dear Ms. Mui and the Selection Committee,
Rustic Ranch Farming Company is pleased to submit our proposal for vegetation management services for the San Carlos Parks and Recreation Department’s Vegetation Management project. In partnership with 2 other land management professionals, Rustic Ranch is prepared and excited to exceed the City of San Carlos’ expectations in carrying out the work plan enclosed in this proposal.

Rustic Ranch has a track record for completing large-scale vegetation management projects on- time, and within budget. Our team of project managers, grazers, hand crews and heavy equipment operators have worked harmoniously together on various projects, and we are fully resourced to handle the entire scope of the San Carlos City Parks Vegetation Management project, for the next 3 to 5 years.

We bring only the most skilled teams to a task, and we actively collaborate with our clients to ensure project goals are surpassed. We have a first-hand background in each aspect of the project at hand, including commercial grazing, heavy equipment operation, manual brush removal, risk and operations management, as well as overall project management.

Thank you for considering Rustic Ranch Farming Company as your vegetation management partner.

As an owner of this operation, I pledge the full resources of Rustic Ranch to this contract. We promise to work with San Carlos Fire Department and the City of San Carlos in a professional, resourceful, and collaborative way. Our goal is to ensure that the financial, human, and natural resources dedicated to this project will result in a lasting, quality investment for the City of San Carlos and the community at large.

Sincerely,
Jon Stauffer
Owner
Rustic Ranch Farming Company, LLC
916.990.4544 ph
[email protected]

1. COVER LETTER

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) Rustic Ranch Farming Company, a California-based LLC, provides customized land management solutions, ranging from the creation of defensible space and wildfire mitigation for single-family estates, to partnerships with public land stewards, in pursuit of sustainable emergency management solutions. Rustic Ranch Farming Company has the tools and the resources, to tackle the most intimidating land clearing jobs. Using eco-friendly methods, such as livestock grazing, as well as mechanical removal for more challenging areas, Rustic Ranch can eradicate the most stubborn vegetation.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
City of San Carlos - Vegetation Management - FEMA Phase I City of San Carlos - Vegetation Management - FEMA Phase II City of San Carlos - Vegetation Management 2021
Garret Park, Redwood City
Chabot Space & Science Center, Oakland
5675 Lincoln Newcastle Highway, Newcastle
185 Pond View Lane, Newcastle

2. STAFFING, TEAM EXPERIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING
Rustic Ranch Farming Company
Rustic Ranch Farming Co.

Newcastle, CA 95658
916.990.4544 ph
[email protected]
rrfarming.com

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) RELEVANT TEAM PROJECT LIST
City of San Carlos - Big Canyon, Eaton, Crestview & Highlands Parks - FEMA (73-acres grazing; 43-acres hand clearing/mastication)
City of San Carlos - Big Canyon, Eaton, Crestview, Highlands and Other City Parks - City Funded (47+ acres grazing, hand-clearing, mastication)
FireSAFE Marin (600-grazed acres of residential, business, and public land) City of Lincoln (1,457-grazed acres of public land, adjacent to residential properties) East Bay Regional Parks District (465-grazed acres of public land) Garret Park, Redwood City (3-acres mechanical removal, steep slopes, protected & invasive species) Chabot Space & Science Center, Oakland (2-acres, sloped, invasive species, high foot traffic) 5675 Lincoln Newcastle Highway, Newcastle (60-acres, invasive species, difficult terrain) Ridge Road, Newcastle (11-acres, steep slope, invasive species, dense underbrush) Mendocino Redwood Company, Fort Bragg CA (100-acres, dense vegetation hand clearing) Sierra Pacific Industries - Quincy, Tahoe, Forest Ranch, Paradise, Nevada City (large forest management projects)
RUSTIC RANCH FARMING
Prime Contractor, Heavy
Equipment Operator, Project
Manager
STAR CREEK LAND
STEWARDS, INC.

Grazer
J&M REFORESTATION &
TREE SERVICE
Chipping, Weedeating &
Hand Crews
ORGANIZATION CHART

2. STAFFING, TEAM EXPERIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) PROJECT TEAM MATRIX

2. STAFFING, TEAM EXPERIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
As wildfire risks in California continue to pose major threats to homes, businesses, and the overall livelihood of communities and families, more targeted efforts are being made to mitigate such ominous risks across the State. Land stewards, particularly those tasked with wildfire mitigation on public lands, are challenged to reduce fire fuels across expansive and difficult terrains, which are home to protected species, delicate ecosystems, and invaluable communities.

The City of San Carlos has been working to improve trail access and reduce vegetation in the open space parks within the routine park and trail maintenance program. With grant funding approved by FEMA, the City was able to complete a robust scope of work in the last 18 months to reduce the threat of wildfire, beyond the routine park and trail maintenance program.

The City of San Carlos seeks to continue its aggressive management of threatening fire fuels, through targeted grazing, mechanical brush removal, and hand trimming and removal of vegetation throughout its community parks and various City-owned parcels. The City seeks to partner with a land management team for the next 3 to 5 years.

City of San Carlos - FEMA Funded Projects
City of San Carlos - City Funded Projects
FireSAFE Marin
City of Lincoln
East Bay Regional Parks District
Garrett Park - Redwood City
Chabot Space & Science Center
5675 Lincoln Newcastle Hwy
Ridge Road - Newcastle, CA
Mendocino Redwood Company
Sierra Pacific Industries
Rustic Ranch Farming Co. x x x x x x
J&M Reforestation & Tree Service x x x x x
Star Creek Land Stewards x x x x x

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) Before After
CITY OF SAN CARLOS - FEMA FUNDED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT (PHASE I) SAN CARLOS, CA | 73-ACRES GRAZING; 48-ACRES HAND CLEARING Phase one of the FEMA-funded City of San Carlos Vegetation Management project was successfully completed in the Fall of 2020, ahead of schedule and on budget. Grazing crews expertly navigated difficult terrain, and moved 700-head herds of goats around a 100-ft perimeter of Big Canyon and Eaton Parks. Subsequent to this targeted grazing, hand crews fearlessly cleared 48-acres of vegetative debris, including several acres of poison oak. Difficult terrain, limited access, and property line issues created hurdles that the team was able to clear in a collaborative and efficient manner.

2. STAFFING, TEAM EXPERIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING
Before After
CITY OF SAN CARLOS - FEMA (PHASE II) AND CITY-FUNDED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SAN CARLOS, CA | 47-ACRES GRAZING; 30+ ACRES HAND CLEARING Rustic Ranch returned to the City of San Carlos, to carry out Phase II of the FEMA-funded Vegetation Management Project, as well as to conduct brush removal, grazing, and mastication at other City parks, in the Spring of 2021. Rustic Ranch deployed the same grazing and hand crew teams, since they proved so effective on Phase I of the FEMA project. Once again, the group worked in collaboration with City staff to carry out the City’s goal of removing threatening fire fuels, ahead of schedule and on budget.

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) RIDGE ROAD PROJECT
NEWCASTLE, CA | 11 ACRES
The Ridge Road project in Newcastle, CA, was unique in that it presented topographical challenges, as well as a large overgrown pond in the center of the project area. Vegetation was incredibly dense and included towering blacberry bushes, thick poison oak, and stubborn coyote brush. Rustic Ranch first deployed goats to remove flashy fuels, followed by trimming of trees and debris removal by hand crews. To finish the project, Rustic Ranch masticated and piled remaining vegetation with heavy equipment. In the Summer of 2021, Rustic Ranch also used heavy equipment and drag lines to remove invasive acquatic vegetation from the pond, while leaving the fish and wildlife habitats intact. As a result, Rustic Ranch uncovered the beautiful landscape of this parcel, which had previously been a threat to the surrounding structures and overall community.

Before After

2. STAFFING, TEAM EXPERIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING
GARRETT PARK
REDWOOD CITY, CA | 3 ACRES
The Garrett Park project, located in Redwood City, CA, was completed during the height of fire season in 2019. Rustic Ranch was hired to provide mechanical clearing services at Garrett Park, which had limited access, as well as protected species that required strategic avoidance. With a team of hand crews and heavy equipment operators, Rustic Ranch successfully cleared 3 acres of overgrown fire fuels ahead of schedule.

Before After

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) BIG CANYON PARK
Section I
To begin the project, goats will be used to maintain the 100-ft perimeter that was established by hand crews in 2020, by grazing smaller brush, grasses, and poison oak (perimeter approximately 26-acres). A herd of 600-800 goats will be mobilized to effectively complete the project in May/June of 2022. Goats will return to treat the same areas in subsequent years, or other areas identified by City staff.

Grazing will provide fuel reduction through consumption of flashy fuels, grasses, light brush, and new growth of understory vegetation. Rustic Ranch will closely monitor grazing pressure to help focus the grazing on brush species as well as reduce ground disturbance and potential erosion.

Section II
With its 10-person hand crews, Rustic Ranch will spend 4-days focusing on the manual removal of flashy fuels and invasive brush, such as poison oak and coyote brush (chaparral broom). Where accessible, Rustic Ranch will chip and scatter materials onsite.

When necessary, boundaries adjacent to identified residential parcels will be established either by survey crew, or by GIS boundary assessment, at an additional cost as specified in the separately sealed Cost Proposal, and upon authorization by the City.

Boundaries generally follow existing trails interior in the park. Only a few short segments of the treatment boundary proceed crosscountry. Rustic Ranch will follow the path of least resistance for establishing these cross- country boundaries.

In carrying out Sections I and II of the Scope of Work, Rustic Ranch will also make every reasonable effort to avoid the nests of the dusty-footed wood rat.

Mechanical clearing tools will include: tracked masticator/shredders, tracked or wheeled chippers, hand tools, and other landscaping tools.

Toxic substances of any kind will not be used in carrying out brush removal or other services on City of San Carlos Property.

Annually, vegetation at the entrance to Big Canyon Park on Brittan Ave., will be cleared, so as to maintain a manicured and inviting appearance.

3. WORK PLAN APPROACH AND SCHEDULE

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract)

3. WORK PLAN APPROACH AND SCHEDULE

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract)

3. WORK PLAN APPROACH AND SCHEDULE
EATON PARK
Section I
To begin the project, goats will be used to graze smaller brush, grasses, and poison oak on the Western side of the park (approximately 16-acres). A herd of 600-800 goats will be mobilized to effectively complete the project in a reasonable time frame.

Section II

With its 10-person hand crews, Rustic Ranch will spend 3-days focusing on the manual removal of flashy fuels and invasive brush, such as poison oak and coyote brush (chaparral broom). Where accessible, Rustic Ranch will chip and scatter materials onsite.

In carrying out Sections I & II of the Scope of Work, Rustic Ranch will also make every reasonable effort to avoid the nests of the dusty-footed wood rat.

Mechanical clearing tools will include: tracked masticator/shredders, tracked or wheeled chippers, hand tools, and other landscaping tools. Toxic substances of any kind will not be used in carrying out brush removal or other services on City of San Carlos Property.

Annually, vegetation at the entrance to Eaton Park on Loma and Eaton, will be cleared, so as to maintain a manicured and inviting appearance.

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract)

3. WORK PLAN APPROACH AND SCHEDULE
CRESTVIEW PARK
As a continuation of the tree maintenance and brush clearing efforts that were made in 2020, Rustic Ranch hand crews will perform annual maintenance around the perimeter of Crestview Park, including weedeating and tree trimming. Upon request by the City, specified dead trees will be removed during the first year of the project, and in each subsequent year.

NORTH CRESTVIEW PARK

Approximately 4-acres of brush and grass 25-ft from the condo complex, will be removed and/or mowed annually by Rustic Ranch’s hand crews. Small, steep areas will also be cleared annually with a weedeater.

HIGHLANDS PARK

As a continuation of the tree maintenance and brush clearing efforts that were made in 2020, Rustic Ranch hand crews will perform annual maintenance of Highlands Park, including clearing of Scotch and French broom, weedeating and tree trimming. Rustic Ranch will remove dead and diseased trees, as identified by the City in the first year of the project, and in each subsequent year, any additional dead trees and brush will be removed or chipped and scattered onsite. Rustic Ranch will also clear vegetation in the Highlands Park Open Space, upon request by the City. Goats are not recommended for brush removal in Highlands Park, as they are not effective at removing the types of broom species in this area, and high numbers of goats trampling the landscape may cause erosion of the hillside(s).

ARGUELLO PARK

Goats will be used annually to graze smaller brush, grasses, and other invasive species, across approximately 6-acres of City property in Arguello Park. A herd of 600-800 goats and sheep will be mobilized to effectively complete the project in a reasonable time frame.

As a continuation of the tree maintenance and brush clearing efforts that were made in 2021, Rustic Ranch heavy equipment and hand crews will perform annual maintenance of Arguello Park, and in Year 1, will target Upper Arguello Park with its hand crews. Crews will follow the ravine that goes north of the baseball diamond, heading towards Northam Ave.

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) VISTA PARK

A 50-ft perimeter around the park, which is currently home to dense trees in the lower portion of Vista Park, will be cleared, and vegetative debris will be chipped and scattered onsite. Rustic Ranch will perform annual brush control and removal of understory growth. 3141 LA MESA DRIVE
Rustic Ranch will deploy its heavy equipment and hand crews to extend the previously-cleared 50- ft perimeter, to a 100-ft perimeter, by clearing brush and dead trees around the remaining 4-acre parcel. Due to limited access on City property, it will be difficult to use a chipper on this parcel, however, Rustic Ranch will make every effort to coordinate with homeowners, to try and gain ac- cess with a chipper. If access is granted, hand crews will chip and scatter vegetative debris onsite.

Maintenance to keep the 100-ft buffer clear of vegetation, will be performed annually.

LOT BEHIND 3432 BRITTAN AVE.

Rustic Ranch will deploy its heavy equipment and hand crews to extend the 10-ft clearance along the drainage canal, by another 15 to 20-feet. Hand crews will weedeat the original 10-ft buffer in year 1, and in subsequent years, all previously cleared vegetation and poison oak will also be treated with weedeaters and chainsaws where necessary. Vegetative debris will be piled in the City access area and loaded by hand crews into City-provided dumpsters.

LOT BEHIND 3437 BRITTAN AVE.

Rustic Ranch will deploy its hand crews to extend the previously-cleared 50-ft perimeter, to a 100- ft perimeter, by clearing brush and small trees around the 3.1-acre parcel. Maintenance to pre- serve the 100-ft buffer will be done annually.

CITY-OWNED PROPERTY ON PEBBLE DRIVE

Using its heavy equipment and hand crews, Rustic Ranch will clear an additional 50-ft buffer, to extend the previously cleared area to 100-feet. Maintenance to preserve the 100-ft buffer will be done annually.

CHIL TON PARK

Rustic Ranch will follow up on the extensive landscaping that was done in 2021, by annually weed- eating the approximate 1.5-acres around the homes adjacent to Chilton Park.

3. WORK PLAN APPROACH AND SCHEDULE

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) HEATHER PARK
Rustic Ranch will follow up on the extensive tree trimming and chipping that was done in 2021 at Heather Park, by performing annual maintenance to control the regrowth of grass and brush.

1200 BLOCK OF GREENBRIER

On this long, narrow strip of land that is approximately 1.5-acres, Rustic Ranch will perform tree trimming and hand clearing in year 1, and weedeating in subsequent years. This area is too steep to chip and scatter the debris uphill, so Rustic Ranch hand crews will drag vegetative debris to the bottom of the hill and load it into City-provided dumpsters.

LOTS A & B ON CRESTVIEW DRIVE

Annual maintenance of these two parcels, totalling approximately 1/4-acre, will include weedeating and mowing.

3. WORK PLAN APPROACH AND SCHEDULE

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) Big Canyon Park
Professional Classification # People # Days Hours/Day Total Hours Hand Crews 10 4.00 8 320 Chipping Crew 2 1.00 8 16 Grazing Crew 4 26.00 24 2,496 Project Management 1 6.00 8 48 Total 17 2,880
Eaton Park
Professional Classification # People # Days Hours/Day Total Hours Hand Crews 10 3.00 8 240 Chipping Crew 2 2.00 8 32 Grazing Crew 4 16.00 24 1,536 Project Management 1 4.00 8 32 Total 17 1,840
All Other Parks & Parcels
Professional Classification # People # Days Hours/Day Total Hours Heavy Equipment 1 5.00 8 40 Hand Crews 10 7.50 8 600 Weedeating Crew 2 8.25 8 132 Chipping Crew 2 3.00 8 48 Grazing Crew 4 6.00 24 576 Project Management 1 2.00 8 16 Total 20 1,412

3. WORK PLAN APPROACH AND SCHEDULE

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) Stacey DeNardi
Ridge Road Homeowner
Newcastle, CA 95658
530.320.4869 ph
Project: Ridge Road Project #1, 3 acres
Robert Cortes
Ridge Road Homeowner
Newcastle, CA 95658
209.764.0802 ph
Project: Ridge Road Project #2, 11 acres
Dan Powell
Glenview Road Homeowner
Newcastle, CA 95658
916.612.2153 ph
Project: Glenview Road Project - 2019 and 2021

4. REFERENCES

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) At an additional cost to the primary services outlined herein, Rustic Ranch is resourced to deploy various levels of boundary line establishment, including the use of GIS maps and or more technical survey crews, whose scope would include field work and boundary line marking.

Rustic Ranch also offers Wildfire Behavior Modeling tools that are available to the City of San Carlos under this project.

Such additional services are listed separately in the Cost Proposal, and respectively include the following elements of service:

GIS BOUNDARY LINE, 3D WEBMAP , MITIGATION ANAL YSIS
SERVICES - FLAMEMAPPER, LLC

Online and offline web application with georeferencing information in support of property boundary locations determinations and project management Includes: creation of data for high resolution fuel model (minimum of 10-meter resolution), identification of mitigation locations, 3D webmaps, mitigation effectiveness analysis.

WEB MAP INTERFACE WITH VISUAL STORY MAP - FLAMEMAPPER,
LLC
Wildfire modeling of pre- and post- results to determine vegetation reduction impact of potential wildfire scenarios & pre- post- images for demonstrating results to community members, staff, and public officials

DATA LAYERING WEB MAP - FLAMEMAPPER, LLC
Structure vulnerability classification based on fuel and other risk factors, information assists communication and coordination with community members and other city-level risk assessments.

Evacuation vulnerability analysis to target roadway locations where potential wildfire characteristics make passage more difficult (all roads in wildfire hazard areas to be evaluated and mapped)*

5. OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract)

5. OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
FIELD BASED SURVEY CREW - KPFF, Inc.

Upon request by the City, survey crews will perform boundary sur- veys for the park sites, and mark the approximate location of bound- aries adjacent to residential property, if required.

The boundary component of this survey will include a field boundary, denoting current property lines of record as denoted on a current, client supplied title report, for the project site. We assume sufficient property corners to establish property lines will exist within relatively close proximity to the project site.

BOUNDARY SURVEY - KPFF, Inc.
• Locate and tie existing monuments.
• Resolve and map the subject property boundary.
• Plot existing property lines based on a title report provided by the owner.

EATON PARK
The Eaton Park survey will be performed for the 65-acre park site.

The property consists of 4 separate parcels with residential proper- ties abutting the park’s perimeter. The following image shows the grazing areas highlighted in blue. The subject property lines follow the perimeter of the blue areas.

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract)

5. OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
BIG CANYON PARK

The Big Canyon Park survey will be performed for the 55.3-acre park site. The property consists of 2 separate parcels with residen- tial properties abutting the park’s perimeter. The following image shows the grazing areas highlighted in blue. The subject property lines follow the perimeter of the blue areas.

PROPERTY LINE STAKING - KPFF, Inc.

Our survey crews will mark the approximate location of the prop- erty lines next to residential properties in the field, using flags or wooden lathe. Markers will be placed at approximately 50’ to 100’ intervals so temporary grazing fencing locations can be established.

Since we understand marking all property lines may not required and direction will be provided by the City at a later date, we propose to perform this service on an hourly, as-needed basis based on our hourly rates. Our fee for this task provided later in this proposal assumes the entire length of property lines identified in red in the previous images will require marking.

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract)

6. APPENDIX

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) JON STAUFFER, OWNER | RUSTIC RANCH FARMING
Raised in Central Wisconsin on a 60-acre horse farm, Jon was inspired to branch out into livestock husbandry when he and his wife Heidi purchased their farm in Newcastle, California. With the growing epidemic of catastrophic wildfires across the State of California, Jon saw the opportunity to effect positive change on this growing statewide problem by establishing a goat grazing operation. Rustic Ranch Farming Company began creating defensible spaces through targeted grazing within its local community. Rustic Ranch later expanded its territory to include Bay Area homes, businesses, and public lands. The company also invested in specialized brush clearing equipment that is capable of traversing typically-impassable terrain. Jon spearheads all day-to- day operations of Rustic Ranch Farming Company, including animal husbandry practices, breeding, equipment and vehicle maintenance, and project management. For larger projects, Rustic Ranch Farming Company engages the help of part-time, seasonal laborers, as well as subcontractors.

6. APPENDIX - RESUME
CONTACT INFO
916.990.4544 ph
[email protected]

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract)

6. APPENDIX - RESUME
HEIDI STAUFFER, OWNER | RUSTIC RANCH FARMING
Having spent most of her career in Non-Profit Financial Management, Heidi has a passion for making positive change in her community.

Heidi spearheads the business development, planning, marketing, communications, risk management, and accounting components of Rustic Ranch, and plays an integral administrative role in the Company.

Heidi has managed millions of dollars in grant funds, awarded by all levels of private and public contributors. Her experience in grants management, accounting, and financial and programmatic reporting are an asset to Rustic Ranch’s ability to confidently take on publicly-funded land management projects.

EDUCATION
California Baptist University
BS in Accountancy
CONTACT INFO
916.975.3470 ph
[email protected]

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) ANDREE SOARES, PRESIDENT | STAR CREEK LAND STEWARDS One of the largest grazing operations in California, Star Creek Land Stewards is an ecological and animal welfare-minded operation that incorporates both sheep and goats into its targeted grazing projects.

Led by Andree Soares, whose family history in livestock husbandry dates back over one hundred years, Star Creek is a leader in specialized grazing services across Northern California and beyond. With an average herd mobilization of 600-head per project, Star Creek’s herders and livestock effectively tackle large projects in a short amount of time. Star Creek will be the primary grazer for the San Carlos Vegetation Management Project, and will be mobilized in the Eaton, Big Canyon, and Arguello Parks components of the project.

EDUCATION
Fresno State University
Bachelors Degree in Nursing
CONTACT INFO
209.704.1790 ph
[email protected]
www.starcreeklandstewards.
org

6. APPENDIX - RESUME

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) ALFREDO LIBERATO, PROJECT MANAGER - J&M REFORESTATION & TREE SERVICE
A certified Arborist and long-standing Project Manager with J&M Reforestation, Alfredo recruits and manages only the most skilled tradesmen to work under him. With a track record for exceeding client expectations, Alfredo and his team have cleared thousands of acres of threatening wildfire fuels across the State of California. Alfredo and his crew have managed projects large and small, ranging from residential brush cleanup, to 100+ acre projects with landowners such as Sierra Pacific, Mendocino Redwood Company, as well as various California jurisdictional authorities. J&M has been in the industry for over twenty years, and many of its clients have been repeat customers for over a decade.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
City of San Carlos - Vegetation Management - FEMA Phase I City of San Carlos - Vegetation Management - FEMA Phase II City of San Carlos - Vegetation Management 2021
Pond View Lane Project - Newcastle, CA
Mendocino Redwood Company - Fort Bragg, CA
Sierra Pacific Industries - Quincy, Tahoe, Forest Ranch, Paradise, Nevada City
J&M REFORESTATION &
TREE SERVICE

CSLB LIC NO. 962408

LOCATION
Yuba City, CA

CONTACT INFO
530.441.3457 ph
[email protected]

6. APPENDIX - RESUME

7.f.2
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Vegetation Management Project Proposal (Vegetation Management Contract) Park / Parcel Grazing
Hand Crews
(10 People)
Mowing /
Mastication
Chipping
(2 People)
Weedeating
(2 People) Total Year 1 Year 2 Sen Year 4 Year 5
Big Canyon Park 28,600$ 17,320$ -$ 1,180$ -$ 47,100$ 49,454$ 51,927$ 54,524$ 57,250$ Eaton Park 17,600 14,740 - 2,360 - 34,700 36,435 38,257 40,170 42,178 Crestview Park - 1,474 - 295 590 2,359 2,477 2,601 2,731 2,867 North Crestview Park - - 1,800 - 295 2,095 2,200 2,310 2,425 2,546 Highlands Park - 1,474 - 295 1,180 2,949 3,096 3,251 3,414 3,585 Arguello Park 6,600 8,844 1,800 1,180 1,180 19,604 20,584 21,613 22,694 23,829 Vista Park - 5,896 - 1,180 - 7,076 7,430 7,801 8,191 8,601 3141 La Mesa Drive - 4,422 1,800 590 1,180 7,992 8,392 8,811 9,252 9,714 Lot Behind 3432 Brittan Ave. - 5,896 900 - 590 7,386 7,755 8,143 8,550 8,978 Lot Behind 3437 Brittan Ave. - 2,948 - - 590 3,538 3,715 3,901 4,096 4,300 Pebble Drive - 2,948 1,800 - 1,180 5,928 6,224 6,536 6,862 7,206 Chilton Park - - - - 590 590 620 650 683 717 Heather Park - - - - 1,180 1,180 1,239 1,301 1,366 1,434 1200 Block of Greenbrier - 4,422 900 - 590 5,912 6,208 6,518 6,844 7,186 Lots A & B on Crestview Drive - - - - 590 590 620 650 683 717 Total 52,800$ 70,384$ 9,000$ 7,080$ 9,735$ 148,999$ 156,448$ 164,271$ 172,484$ 181,109$ Project Management: 7,500 7,875 8,269 8,682 9,116 Indirect Costs (14%): 21,910 23,005 24,156 25,363 26,631 Total Project Cost (To Be Billed On A Fixed Fee Basis): 178,408$ 187,329$ 196,695$ 206,530$ 216,856$ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
GIS Boundary Line, 3D Webmap, Mitigation Analysis Services (Fixed Fee) - FlameMapper, LLC 1,592$ 1,672$ 1,755$ 1,843$ 1,935$ Webmap Interface With Visual Story Map (Fixed Fee) - FlameMapper, LLC 12,980 13,629 14,310 15,026 15,777 Data Layering - Structure Vulnerability Classification (Fixed Fee) - FlameMapper, LLC 8,250 8,663 9,096 9,550 10,028 Data Layering - Evacuation Vulnerability Analysis (Fixed Fee) - FlameMapper, LLC 13,750 14,438 15,159 15,917 16,713 Boundary Survey - Big Canyon Park (Fixed Fee) - KPFF, Inc. 12,100 12,705 13,340 14,007 14,708 Boundary Survey - Eaton Park (Fixed Fee) - KPFF, Inc. 10,450 10,973 11,521 12,097 12,702 Property Line Staking (Hourly to and Estimated Max) - KPFF, Inc. 11,550 12,128 12,734 13,371 14,039 Total Optional Services: 70,672$ 74,206$ 77,916$ 81,812$ 85,902$ Optional Services

RUSTIC RANCH FARMING COMPANY

CITY OF SAN CARLOS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT COST PROPOSAL (FIXED FEE PER TASK/PARCEL) - ATTACHMENT A 2022 THROUGH 2025
5% Year-Over-Year Escalation2022

7.f.3
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Rustic Ranch Cost Proposal 2022-2026 (Vegetation Management Contract)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: January 10, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Deny Claim of Pam McCubin.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council deny the claim of Pam McCu bbin as recommended by the Sedgwick representative.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None for this action.

BACKGROUND:

This item is coming before the Council to act on the claim submitted by Pam McCu bbin. Staff is recommending Council’s denial of the claim based on Sedgwick guidance.

The Tort Claims Act. California Government Code Sections 900, seq., mandates that all claims for money or damages against a public entity must be presented in writing to the public entity prior to filing suit. Generally, claims concerning personal injury, wrongful death, damage to personal property, or damage to crops must be presented to the public within six (6) months of the accrual of the claim. All other claims, principally claims on contracts and damage to real property, are subject to a one-year statute of limitations for presentation of the tort claim. Once a tort claim is received by the public entity, the entity has forty-five (45) days to act on the claim. A claim can be settled or rejected. If no action is taken within 45 days, the claim is deemed rejected by operation of law on the last day.

Claims Processing in San Carlos . When the City receives a claim, the claim is immediately forwarded to claims examiners at Sedgwick for investigation. After Sedgwick investigates the claim, Sedgwick provides a recommendation to the City on the handling of the claim.

About Sedgwick. Sedgwick is a leading global provider of technology -enabled risk, benefits and integrated business solutions. In July 2019, Sedgwick acquired York Risk Services Group (“York”). York was originally hired through the Pooled Liability Assurance Network Joint Powers Authority (“PLAN JPA”), and Sedgwick will continue claims administration services to provide claims administration services to the City. The City Council approved the City’s participation in the PLAN JPA (previously known as the Association of Bay Area Government Pooled Liability Assurance Network or “ABAG PLAN”) on November 27, 2017 and designated the

7.g
Packet Pg. 82
2 Administrative Services Director and Senior Management Analyst as primary and alternate PLAN JPA Board members.

ANALYSIS:

Pam McCubbin (“Claimant”) filed a claim against the City seeking reimbursement for plumbing services to clear a blockage in the sewer lateral. Claimant alleged that on November 3, 2021, their lateral backed up into the basement from a toilet. Se wage spread through the laundry room, storage area , and into the garage. The incident was attributed to work performed by a City contractor, Duke’s Root Control, who put foam in the main sewer line on October 26, 2021.

A review of the City’s contract dated September 29, 2021 shows that the City hired Duke’s Root Control for root foaming application work. The root control foam, however, was not injected into the laterals. It was only placed in the sewer main. When t he Claimant reported the sewer overflow o n November 4, 2021, Public Works staff and Duke’s Root Control responded the same day. The Claimant advised staff that the plumber was able to get the line open through the lateral. This appears to be an upper lateral issue and not the fault of the contrac tor, as the Claimant’s plumber was able to clear the blockage through the lateral. The incident location does not have a City cleanout; therefore, the lateral is the property owner’s responsibility to the manhole tap. For these reasons, Sedgwick has recommended formal rejection of this claim.

Council’s rejection of this claim does not prohibit staff or the staff of Sedgwick from continuing to work with the claimant to resolve the dispute.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Deny claim of Pam McCubbin; or

2. Do not deny claim of Pam McCubbin; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Rebecca Mendenhall,
Administrative Services Director

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. McCubbin, P. Claim Form

7.g
Packet Pg. 83

7.g.1
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: McCubbin, P. Claim Form (Deny Claim of Pam McCubbin) /0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /i255 /6 /7 /8 /3 /2 /i255 /9 /10 /7 /8 /3 /2 /11 /10 /7 /8 /3 /2 /12 /13 /2 /3 /14 /i255 /15 /16 /17 /18 /7 /13 /19 /4 /i255 /20 /2 /16 /i255 /21 /22 /23 /24 /i255 /25 /7 /2 /8 /22 /1 /24 /2 /i255 /15 /2 /26 /23 /27 /i255 /28 /29 /30 /31 /12 /32 /32 /i255 /33 /22 /19 /7 /4 /i255 /34 /2 /10 /7 /3 /17 /7 /1 /i255 /35 /36 /i255 /37 /32 /37 /29 /i255 /22 /19 /i255 /31 /4 /35 /38 /4 /32 /38 /i255 /39 /40 /i255 /39 /33 /41 /i255 /41 /2 /4 /i255
/43 /7 /21 /26 /44 /45 /41 /2 /4 /i255 /6 /7 /8 /3 /2 /i255 /34 /2 /45 /1 /7 /21 /26 /44 /i255 /9 /8 /2 /45 /1 /7 /21 /26 /44 /11 /10 /7 /8 /3 /2 /12 /13 /2 /3 /14 /i255 /i255
/i255 /i255 /i255
/i255 /i255 /i255
/20 /2 /16 /i255 /21 /22 /23 /24 /i255 /25 /7 /2 /8 /22 /1 /24 /2 /i255 /15 /2 /26 /23 /27 /i255 /i255 /39 /26 /16 /3 /17 /23 /8 /42 /i255
/i255
/41 /1 /22 /8 /27 /46 /7 /1 /i255 /33 /22 /19 /7 /i255 /22 /8 /24 /i255 /47 /3 /2 /16 /8 /19 /4 /i255 /i255 /i255
/34 /2 /10 /i255 /32 /35 /36 /i255 /37 /32 /37 /29 /i255 /39 /33 /41 /i255 /48 /i255 /i255 /i255 /45 /i255 /28 /29 /30 /31 /12 /32 /32 /i255 /i255
/i255
/25 /23 /49 /7 /i255 /i255
/50 /2 /3 /3 /7 /8 /19 /i255 /i255
/i255
/50 /2 /3 /21 /26 /7 /19 /7 /24 /i255 /10 /23 /22 /i255 /22 /i255 /17 /22 /8 /49 /i255 /19 /1 /22 /8 /27 /46 /7 /1 /i255 /46 /1 /2 /3 /i255 /44 /2 /16 /1 /i255 /15 /47 /34 /i255 /40 /47 /41 /51 /52 /i255 /50 /43 /51 /33 /53 /41 /i255 /54 /34 /53 /52 /34 /i255 /22 /13 /13 /2 /16 /8 /19 /i255 /7 /8 /24 /23 /8 /42 /i255 /23 /8 /i255 /12 /i255 /i255
/i255
/39 /22 /44 /3 /7 /8 /19 /i255 /53 /33 /4 /i255/i255 /i255 /53 /8 /10 /23 /19 /7 /i255 /0 /1 /23 /7 /8 /24 /27 /58 /i255 /i255
/0 /2 /1 /i255 /22 /8 /44 /i255 /23 /27 /27 /16 /7 /27 /36 /i255 /23 /8 /13 /26 /16 /24 /23 /8 /42 /i255 /19 /59 /7 /i255 /1 /7 /13 /23 /21 /23 /7 /8 /19 /i255 /8 /2 /19 /i255 /1 /7 /13 /7 /23 /10 /23 /8 /42 /i255 /46 /16 /8 /24 /27 /36 /i255 /21 /26 /7 /22 /27 /7 /i255 /13 /2 /8 /19 /22 /13 /19 /i255 /16 /27 /i255 /22 /19 /i255 /27 /16 /21 /21 /2 /1 /19 /11 /10 /7 /8 /3 /2 /12 /13 /2 /3 /i255 /2 /1 /i255 /13 /22 /26 /26 /i255 /29 /45 /55 /31 /31 /45 /55 /29 /37 /45 /57 /57 /35 /32 /12 /i255 /i255 /15 /7 /7 /i255 /2 /16 /1 /i255 /24 /23 /27 /13 /26 /2 /27 /16 /1 /7 /27 /i255 /46 /2 /1 /i255 /3 /2 /1 /7 /i255 /23 /8 /46 /2 /1 /3 /22 /19 /23 /2 /8 /12 /i255 /39 /26 /7 /22 /27 /7 /i255 /24 /2 /i255 /8 /2 /19 /i255 /1 /7 /21 /26 /44 /i255 /24 /23 /1 /7 /13 /19 /26 /44 /i255 /19 /2 /i255 /19 /59 /23 /27 /i255 /7 /3 /22 /23 /26 /12 /i255 /0 /2 /1 /i255 /3 /2 /1 /7 /i255 /22 /27 /27 /23 /27 /19 /22 /8 /13 /7 /36 /i255 /10 /23 /27 /23 /19 /i255 /2 /16 /1 /i255 /60 /7 /26 /21 /i255 /50 /7 /8 /19 /7 /1 /i255 /22 /19 /i255 /59 /7 /26 /21 /12 /10 /7 /8 /3 /2 /12 /13 /2 /3 /12 /i255 /41 /59 /23 /27 /i255 /21 /22 /44 /3 /7 /8 /19 /i255 /61 /23 /26 /26 /i255 /17 /7 /i255 /1 /7 /10 /23 /7 /61 /7 /24 /i255 /46 /2 /1 /i255 /13 /2 /3 /21 /26 /23 /22 /8 /13 /7 /i255 /61 /23 /19 /59 /i255 /2 /16 /1 /i255 /54 /27 /7 /1 /i255 /47 /42 /1 /7 /7 /3 /7 /8 /19 /i255 /22 /8 /24 /i255 /23 /46 /i255 /61 /7 /i255 /24 /7 /19 /7 /1 /3 /23 /8 /7 /i255 /19 /59 /22 /19 /i255 /19 /59 /7 /1 /7 /i255 /23 /27 /i255 /22 /i255 /10 /23 /2 /26 /22 /19 /23 /2 /8 /i255 /17 /44 /i255 /7 /23 /19 /59 /7 /1 /i255 /21 /22 /1 /19 /44 /36 /i255 /23 /19 /i255 /3 /22 /44 /i255 /17 /7 /i255 /1 /7 /10 /7 /1 /27 /7 /24 /i255 /2 /1 /i255 /44 /2 /16 /1 /i255 /22 /17 /23 /26 /23 /19 /44 /i255 /19 /2 /i255 /19 /1 /22 /8 /27 /46 /7 /1 /i255 /19 /2 /i255 /44 /2 /16 /1 /i255 /17 /22 /8 /49 /i255 /22 /13 /13 /2 /16 /8 /19 /i255 /3 /22 /44 /i255 /17 /7 /i255 /1 /7 /27 /19 /1 /23 /13 /19 /7 /24 /12 /i255 /6 /7 /8 /3 /2 /i255 /23 /27 /i255 /22 /i255 /27 /7 /1 /10 /23 /13 /7 /i255 /2 /46 /i255 /39 /22 /44 /39 /22 /26 /36 /i255 /53 /8 /13 /12 /36 /i255 /22 /i255 /26 /23 /13 /7 /8 /27 /7 /24 /i255 /21 /1 /2 /10 /23 /24 /7 /1 /i255 /2 /46 /i255 /3 /2 /8 /7 /44 /i255 /19 /1 /22 /8 /27 /46 /7 /1 /i255 /27 /7 /1 /10 /23 /13 /7 /27 /12 /i255 /47 /26 /26 /i255 /3 /2 /8 /7 /44 /i255 /19 /1 /22 /8 /27 /3 /23 /27 /27 /23 /2 /8 /i255 /23 /27 /i255 /21 /1 /2 /10 /23 /24 /7 /24 /i255 /17 /44 /i255 /39 /22 /44 /39 /22 /26 /36 /i255 /53 /8 /13 /12 /i255 /21 /16 /1 /27 /16 /22 /8 /19 /i255 /19 /2 /i255 /39 /22 /44 /39 /22 /26 /36 /i255 /62 /63 /64 /65 /66 /67 /i255 /69 /70 /64 /71 /63 /67 /71 /67 /65 /i255 /i255 /39 /22 /44 /39 /22 /26 /i255 /23 /27 /i255 /26 /2 /13 /22 /19 /7 /24 /i255 /22 /19 /i255 /37 /37 /29 /29 /i255 /34 /2 /1 /19 /59 /i255 /0 /23 /1 /27 /19 /i255 /15 /19 /1 /7 /7 /19 /36 /i255 /15 /22 /8 /i255 /72 /2 /27 /7 /36 /i255 /50 /47 /i255 /38 /31 /29 /35 /29 /i255 /0 /2 /1 /i255 /27 /7 /13 /16 /1 /23 /19 /44 /i255 /1 /7 /22 /27 /2 /8 /27 /36 /i255 /44 /2 /16 /i255 /13 /22 /8 /8 /2 /19 /i255 /16 /8 /27 /16 /17 /27 /13 /1 /23 /17 /7 /i255 /46 /1 /2 /3 /i255 /21 /22 /44 /3 /7 /8 /19 /i255 /7 /3 /22 /23 /26 /27 /12 /i255 /i255
/73 /74 /75 /76 /77 /78 /79 /80 /i255 /82 /80 /83 /84 /85 /74 /86 /84 /i255 /87 /73 /88 /i255 /89 /90 /73 /91 /92 /93 /90 /94 /95 /96 /97 /98 /96 /95 /94 /99 /100 /93 /95 /90 /90 /93 /99 /95 /93 /93 /82 /82 /82 /91 /99 /97 /98 /100 /98 /101

7.g.1
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: McCubbin, P. Claim Form (Deny Claim of Pam McCubbin)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: January 10, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Awarding the 2022 Sewer System CCTV Inspection Project C1736-22; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Public Project Agreement with Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. of Oakland, CA in the Amount of $336,897.00; and Authorizing the Expenditure of a Contingency in the Amount of $60,641.46.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Public Project Agreement with Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. of Oakland, CA in the amount of $336,897.00 for the 2022 Sewer System CCTV Inspection Project C1736 -22 and authorize the expenditure of a contingency in the amount of $60,641.46.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact an d no additional appropriation is needed at this time. The Sewer System C losed-Circuit Television (“C CTV) Inspection Project (“Project”) is funded by C1736 , which has a project budget of $400,000 for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021 -22. There is sufficient project b udget to award the total bid amount of $336,897 and contingency in the amount of $60,641.46, if necessary.

BACKGROUND:

The existing sewer system consists of approximately 105 miles of pipeline divided into 17 basins. The most recent evaluation of the condition of the entire sewer system was conducted in 2012. CCTV footage of the sewers and defect data assembled in the 2012 evaluation are used to assist in prioritizing sanitary sewer mains for rehabilitation or replacement during the upcoming Annual Sewer Rehabilitation Project.

Over time, the condition of sanitary sewer mains degrades due to deterioration, tree root intrusion, grease, and other causes. Staff conduct s annual sewer cleaning and inspection projects for two to three sewer basins each year in order to update the pipe footage condition for the entire system.

Video footage assists maintenance staff in monitoring and preventing sanitary sewer overflows and back-ups until rehabilitation or replacement of the sewer main can be completed as part o f the Annual Sewer Rehabilitation Project. Construction management and inspection will be performed by Public Works staff.

7.h
Packet Pg. 86
2 ANALYSIS:

The Project was advertised on October 12, 2021 and bids were opened on November 9, 2021.

The following table shows the Engineer’s estimate relative to bids received (from lowest to highest bid):

Contractor Total Bid Amount
Engineer’s Estimate $250,000.00
Express Plumbing $238,594.00
Pro Pipe, Inc. $250,021.50
AIMS $288,305.92
Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. $336,897.00
National Plant Services, Inc. $525,354.75

The bidder’s qualifications section of the bid proposal required bidders to list five projects which included cleaning and inspection of a minimum of 150,000 linear feet using the National Association of Sewer Service Companies’ (“NASSCO”) guidelines and standards.

Staff reviewed the three apparent lowest bidders and deemed them non -responsive since they did not provide five separate projects where 150,000 linear feet of sewer cleaning and inspection were performed.

The fourth apparent lowest bidder, Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc., was found responsible and responsive as they met all the bidder’s qualifications and their total bid amount is within the Project budget.

Although the bid from Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. is higher than the Engineer’s estimate, staff does not recommend rejecting all bids and re -bidding the Project. Annual c leaning and inspection of sewer mains are essential and time sensitive functions necessary to identify any immediate repai rs and to prevent backups and overflows within the system. Therefore, staff recommends awarding the agreement to Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Public Project Agreement with Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. of Oakland, CA in the amount of $336,897.00 for the 2022 Sewer System CCTV Inspection Project C1736-22 and authorizing the expenditure of a contingency in the amount of $60,641.46; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

7.h
Packet Pg. 87
3 Respectfully submitted by:

Steven Machida,
Public Works Director

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

7.h
Packet Pg. 88
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 - ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS AWARDING THE 2022 SEWER SYSTEM CCTV INSPECTION PROJECT C1736-22;

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PUBLIC PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH PIPE AND PLANT SOLUTIONS, INC. OF OAKLAND, CA IN THE AMOUNT OF $336,897.00; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF A CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,641.46.

WHEREAS, closed circuit television footage and d efect data assembled in the 2012 evaluation are used to prioritize sanitary se wer mains for repair, rehabilitation or replacement in upcoming sewer rehabilitation projects; and

WHEREAS, over time, sewer pipe conditions change due to deterioration, tree root intrusion, grease and other causes; and

WHEREAS, it is crucial to regularly monitor and record the condition of the sewer pipes to identify potential issues before sanitary sewer overflows ( “SSOs”) or backups occur in the system; and

WHEREAS, the Sewer System CCTV Inspection Project (“Project”) is funded by C1736, which was adopted by City Council as part of the 2021-23 budget; and

WHEREAS, the bidder’s qualifications of the bid proposal required bidders to list five individual projects where each project shall have included cleaning and inspection of a minimum of 150,000 linear feet using the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (“NASSCO”) guidelines and standards; and

WHEREAS, staff reviewed the three apparent lowest bidders and deemed them non - responsive as they did not provide five individual projects where 150,000 linear feet of sewer cleaning and inspection were performed; and

WHEREAS, the fourth apparent lowest bidder, Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc., was found responsible and responsive as they met all bidder’s qualifications and their tota l bid amou nt is within the Project budget; and

WHEREAS, the Project was advertised publicly and sealed bids were opened by the City Clerk on November 9, 2021 and the lowest responsible and responsive bid was submitted by Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $336,897.00.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby approves awarding the 2022 Sewer System CCTV Inspection Project C17 36-22, authorizing the City Manager to execute a Public Project Agreement with Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. of Oakland, CA in the Amount of $336,897.00; and Authorizing the Expenditure of a Contingency in the Amount of $60,641.46.

* * * * *

7.h.1
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Resolution (Award CCTV)

I, Crystal Mui, City Clerk, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was du ly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 10th day of January, 2022 by the following vote:

_________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:

__________________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

7.h.1
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Resolution (Award CCTV)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: January 10, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Tetra Tech to Provide Emergency Management Services to the Cities of San Carlos and Redwood City in an Amount Not to Exceed $200,000.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Tetra Tech, Inc. (“Tetra Tech”) for Emergency Management Services (“Agreement”).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The total amount of $200,000 required for this Agreement was previously appropriated by the City Council in its Fiscal Years 2021-23 budget.

This Agreement will be in the not -to-exceed amount of $200,000. The work to be performed under this contract will be for both the City of San Carlos and the City of Redwood City. E ach City will have a maximum commitment of $100,000. The City of San Carlos will manage the contract and pay the Tetra Tech directly. The City of Redwood City has agreed to reimburse the City of San Carlos for its costs upon presentation of invoices from San Carlos.

BACKGROUND:

The City is responsible for providing emergency services to the community. The City contracts with San Mateo County for law enforcement service s, and the City of Redwood City for fire protection services. However, there are other services required that are not provided under our contracts with these two agencies. This includes emergency preparedness, emergency operations center management, and tr aining of City staff members on their roles as disaster service workers. The City Council has prioritized emergency response and preparedness through its Strategic Plan goals for Wildfire, Public Safety, and Emergency Planning.

These services were for a t ime provided by a full-time District Coordinator position managed by the Sheriff’s Office. However, due to position deficiencies and budget constraints, this position was eliminated in Fiscal Year 2020-21. The elimination of this position impacted some operating procedures and required responsibilities to be shifted to other staff. However, due to increasing demands upon municipalities with regard to emergency management needs in preparedness,

7.i
Packet Pg. 91
2 planning, mitigation, and response, the City is in need of profe ssional emergency management support from an outside consultant to support staff.

On November 8, 2021 by Resolution 2021 -112, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Redwood City to participate in this contract, as both agencies will benefit from partnering in providing emergency management program support through the same vendor.

On November 9, 2021, the City issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for emergency management services. After review of the two proposals rece ived, City and Redwood City Fire staff selected Tetra Tech, Inc. to provide these services. Tetra Tech has agreed to the contract as provided in the RFP.

ANALYSIS:

The contract value exceeds the amount of the City Manager’s signature authority. Therefor e, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with Tetr a Tech for Emergency Management Services; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Nil Blackburn,

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution - EMS

2. EMS Agreement

7.i
Packet Pg. 92
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH

TETRA TECH TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO THE CITIES OF SAN CARLOS AND REDWOOD CITY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000.

WHEREAS, the City is responsible for providing emergency services to the community , including emergency preparedness and response; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has prioritized emergency response and preparedness through its Strategic Plan goals for Wildfire, Public Safety, and Emergency Planning; and

WHEREAS, the Cities of San Carlos and Redwood City have a working partnership through the shared services of the Redwood City Fire Department; and

WHEREAS, each agency has ag reed to share the services of an emergency management services consultant to provide services to each community that cannot be accomplished through existing staff, and together developed the attached agreement; and

WHEREAS, the San Carlos City Council ap proved funding for this agreement as part of its Fiscal Years 2021-23 budget; and

WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Redwood City has approved the Emergency Management Services Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the City issued a Request for Proposals for Emergency Management Services and Tetra Tech, Inc. was selected by staff as the best proposer to provide these services; and

WHEREAS, the value of the contract exceeds the City Manager’s $75,000 signature authority.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into an agreement for emergency management services with Tetra Tech, Inc.

* * * * *

I, Crystal Mui, City Clerk, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos a t a regular meeting held on the 10th day of January 2022 by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCIMEMBERS: _______________________________________________

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS: _______________________________________________

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS: _______________________________________________

_______________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:

___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

7.i.1
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Resolution - EMS (Emergency Management Services)

Exhibit
Contract for Services with Vendor

This Agreement is made and entered into as of __________________ by and between the City of San Carlos hereinafter called "CITY" and Tetra Tech, Inc. hereinafter after called "CONSULTANT".

RECITALS

This Agreement is entered into with reference to the following facts and circumstances:

A. That CITY desires to engage CONSULTANT to render certain professional services in the CITY and for the City of Redwood City;

B. That CONSULTANT is qualified to provide such services to the CITY the City of Redwood City and;

THEREFORE, the CITY has elected to engage the services of CONSULTANT upon the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth.

1. Services. The services to be performed by CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall include those services set forth in Exhibit A, which is, by this reference, incorporated herein and made a part hereof as though it were fully set forth herein.

Performance of the work specified in said Exhibit is hereby made an obligation of CONSULTANT under this Agreement, subject to any changes that may be made subsequently hereto upon the mutual written agreement of the said parties.

Where in conflict, the terms of this Agreement supersede and prevail over any terms set forth in Exhibit A.

2. Term; Termination. (a) The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the date hereinabove written and shall expire upon completion of performance of services hereunder by CONSULTANT or termination of the Agreement . (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of (a) above, CITY may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving written notice not less than ten (10) days prior to the effective date of termination, which date shall be included in said notice. In the event of such termination, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for services rendered, and reimburse CONSULTANT for costs and expenses incurred, to the date of termination, calculated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3. In ascertaining the services actually rendered to the date of termination, consideration shall be given both to completed work and work in process of completion. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed a limitation upon the right of CITY to terminate this Agreement for cause, or otherwise to exercise such rights or pursue such remedies as may accrue to CITY hereunder.

3. Compensation; Expenses; Payment . CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for all services performed by CONSULTANT hereunder in an amount based upon CONSULTANT’s hourly rates during the time of the performance of said services. A copy of CONSULTANT’s hourly rates for which services hereunder shall be performed are set forth in CONSULTANT’s fee schedule marked Exhibit B hereof, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the combined total of compensation and reimbursement of costs payable hereunder shall not exceed the sum of Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000) unless the performance of services and/or reimbursement of costs and expenses in excess of said amounts have been approved in advance of performing such services or incurring

7.i.2
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: EMS Agreement (Emergency Management Services) such costs and expenses by CITY’s City Manager (for contracts less than $75,000 or authorized by City Council action for contracts $75,000 or more by motion duly made and carried).

Compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses hereunder shall be payable upon monthly billing therefor by CONSULTANT to CITY, which bi lling shall include an itemized statement, briefly describing by task and labor category or cost/expense items billed.

4. Additional Services. In the event CITY desires the performance of additional services not otherwise included within the services desc ribed in Exhibit A, such services shall be authorized in advance of the performance thereof by CITY’s City Manager (for contracts less than $75,000 or authorized by City Council action for contracts $75,000 or more by motion duly made and carried). Such am endment to this Agreement shall include a description of the services to be performed thereunder, the maximum compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses payable therefor, the time of performance thereof, and such other matters as the parties deem appropriate for the accomplishment of such services. Any additional services causing the total contract price to exceed $75,000, shall require approval by the City Council. Except to the extent modified by written amendment, all other terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed incorporated in each such amendment.

5. Records. CONSULTANT shall keep and maintain accurate records of all time expended and costs and expenses incurred relating to services to be performed by CONSULTANT hereunder. Said records shall be available to CITY for review and copying during regular business hours at CONSULTANT’s place of business or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties.

6. Authorization. This Agreement becomes effective when endorsed by both parties in the space provided below.

7. Reliance on Professional Skill of CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT represents that it has the necessary professional skills to perform the services required and the CITY shall rely on such skills of the CONSULTANT to do and perform the work. In performing services hereunder, CONSULTANT shall adhere to the standards generally prevailing for the performance of expert consulting services similar to those to be performed by CONSULTANT hereunder. CONSULTANT acknowledges the importance to CIT Y of the skill, competency, ability to appropriately work with CITY staff and expertise of individual staff assigned to the project, and accordingly the individuals assigned to the Project must be acceptable to CITY.

8. Documents. All documents, plans, dr awings, renderings, and other papers, or copies thereof, as finally rendered, prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, shall, upon preparation and delivery to CITY, become the property of CITY.

9. Relationship of Parties. It is understood that the relationship of CONSULTANT to the CITY and the City of Redwood City is that of an independent contractor and all persons working for or under the direction of CONSULTANT are its agents or employees and not agents or employees of the CITY or the City of Redwood City.

10. Schedule. CONSULTANT shall adhere to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A; provided, that CITY shall grant reasonable extensions of time for the performance of such services occasioned by governmental reviews of CONSULTANT’s work product or other unavoidable delays; provided, further, that such unavoidable delay shall not include strikes, lockouts, work stoppages, or other labor disturbances conducted by, or on behalf of, CONSULTANT’s officers or employees.

CONSULTANT ack nowledges the importance to CITY of CITY’s Project schedule and

7.i.2
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: EMS Agreement (Emergency Management Services) agrees to put forth its best professional efforts to perform its services under this Agreement in a manner consistent with that schedule.

11. Indemnity. CONSULTANT hereby agrees to defend, indemnify, and save harmless CITY, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, attorneys, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, suits, actions liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including, without limitation, costs and fees of litigation) of every nature, kind or description, which may be brought against, or suffered or sustained by, CITY, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, attorneys, employees or agents caused by, or alleged to have been caused by, the negligence, intentional tortuous act or omission, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees or agents in the performance of any services or work pursuant to this Agreement for CITY.

CONSULTANT hereby further agrees to defend, indemnify, and save harmless t he City of Redwood City (RWC), its Council, boards, commissions, officers, attorneys, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, suits, actions liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including, without limitation, costs and fees of litigat ion) of every nature, kind or description, which may be brought against, or suffered or sustained by, RWC, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, attorneys, employees or agents caused by, or alleged to have been caused by, the negligence, intentional tortuous act or omission, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees or agents in the performance of any services or work pursuant to this Agreement while providing services under this agreement for RWC.

The duty of CONSULTANT to indemnify and save harmless, as set forth herein, shall include the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify CITY and RWC and, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, attorneys, employees and agents against any responsibility or liability in contravention of Section 2782 of the California Civil Code.

The duty of Consultant to indemnity and save harmless, as set forth herein, shall survive termination of this Agreement.

12. Insurance. CONSULTANT shall acquire and maintain Workers’ Compensation, employer’s liability, commercial general liability, owned and non- owned and hired automobile liability, and professional liability i nsurance covering risks relating to CONSULTANT’s services to be performed hereunder in form subject to the approval of the City Attorney and/or CITY’s Risk Manager. The minimum amounts of coverage corresponding to the aforesaid categories of insurance per insurable event, shall be as follows:

Insurance Category Minimum Limits

Workers’ Compensation statutory minimum

Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

CONSULTANT shall submit to City a Waiver of
Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.

Commercial General Liability $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without
limitation, blanket contractual liability and coverage for explosion, collapse and underground property
damage hazards. If a general aggregate limit applies,
either the general aggregate limit shall apply
separately to this project/location or the general

7.i.2
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: EMS Agreement (Emergency Management Services) aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence
limit. Coverage must be at least as broad as Insurance
Services Office form CG 00 01.

Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage (coverage required to the extent applicable to
CONSULTANT’s vehicle usage in performing services
hereunder)

1Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and if a general aggregate limit applies, general aggregate limit shall be twice the
required occurrence limit.

Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY with certificates and copies of information or declaration pages of the insurance required hereunder and, with respect to evidence of commercial general liability and automobile liability insurance coverage, original endorsements:

(a) Precluding cancellation or reduction in per occurrence limits before the expiration of thirty (30) days (10 days for nonpayment) after City shall have received written notification of cancellation in coverage or reduction in per occurrence limits by first class mail;

(b) CONSULTANT’s general liability policies shall be primary and non-contributory, and be endorsed using Insurance Services Office form CG 20 10 to provide that City and the City of Redwood City and each of their officers, officials, employees, and agents shall be additional insured under such policies. An endorsement providing completed operations coverage for the additional insured, ISO form CG 20 37, is also required.

Claims Made Policies
If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage:

1. The Retroactive Date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.

2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.

3. If coverage is canceled or non- renewed, and not replaced with another claims -made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.

Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the CITY with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the CITY before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The CITY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications,

1 Note: Professional liability insurance coverage is not required if the contractor/vendor/consultant is not providing a service regulated by the state. (Examples of service providers regulated by the state are insurance agents, professional engineers, doctors, certified public accountants, lawyers, etc.) Please check and initial the following if professional liability is NOT required for this agreement. Recommended ______ [Project Manager] Approved _______[Risk Manager]

7.i.2
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: EMS Agreement (Emergency Management Services) at any time.

Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant hereby grants to CITY a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. This provision applies regardless of whether or not the CITY has requested or received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

Special Risks or Circumstances
CITY reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

Coverage
It is a requirement under this agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shall be made available to the Additional Insured and shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy, whichever is greater.

Primary and Non-Contributory Coverage
The Additional Insured coverage under the Consultant’s policy shall be “primary and non- contributory” as will not seek contribution from the CITY insurance or self -insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 12.

Excess Insurance
The limits of insurance required in this agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of CITY before the CITY insurance or self -insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

13. CONTRACTOR acknowledges and certifies awareness of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and CONTRACTOR certifies and agrees to compliance with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement.

14. Non-Discrimination.

The CONTRACTOR hereby assures that it will comply with Subchapter VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC Section 2000 (e) (17), to the end that CONTRACTOR will not exclude any person from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subject to discrimination from any project, program, or activity supported by this Agreement, based on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, or religion,. CONTRACTOR shall comply with its EEO Certification (Form PW -7). In addition, CONTRACTOR will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The CONTRACTOR will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and the employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, advancement, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The CONTRACTOR shall at all times be in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Americans With Disabilities Act (Public Law 101- 336) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public

7.i.2
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: EMS Agreement (Emergency Management Services) entities. The CONTRACTOR agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment any notices provided by the CITY setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause.

15. Notice. All notices required by this Agreement shall be given to the CITY and CONSULTANT in writing, by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

CITY: City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
Attention: City Manager

CONSULTANT: Tetra Tech, Inc.

Ed Sussenguth
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612

16. Non-Assignment. This Agreement is not assignable either in whole or in part.

17. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by written agreement signed by both parties.

18. Business Registration. CONSULTANT agrees to comply with Chapter 5.04 of the Municipal Code and pay all fees required to be paid.

19. Validity. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.

20. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any suit or action initiated by either party shall be brought in the County of San Mateo, California. In the event of litigation between the parties hereto to enforce any provision of the Agreement, the unsuccessful party will pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation of the successful party.

21. Intentionally deleted

22. Conflict of Interest. CONSULTANT may serve other clients, but none who are active within the City of San Carlos or who conduct business that would place CONSULTANT in a "conflict of interest" as that term is defined in State law.

23. Entire Agreement. Each party acknowledges that this agreement, the exhibits hereto, and the documents incorporated by reference herein constitute the complete agreement and exclusive statement of the terms and conditions between the parties, which supersedes and merges all prior proposals, unde rstandings and all other agreements, verbal and written, between the parties relating to the subject matter of this agreement. This agreement may not be modified or altered except by written instrument duly executed by both parties.

7.i.2
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: EMS Agreement (Emergency Management Services) Agreement Revised 03/14/2019

SIGNATURE PAGE

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first above written by their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf.

CITY OF SAN CARLOS:

Dated: _________________________________ Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTEST:

Dated: ________________________________ Crystal Mui, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Dated:

Gregory J. Rubens, City Attorney

CONSULTANT/CONTRACTOR/VENDOR:

I acknowledge that I have full authority to execute this agreement on behalf of the Consultant/Contractor/Vendor, and have read, understand, and agree to comply with the provisions of this Agreement, including the Insurance and indemnity requirements set forth herein.

Dated:

7.i.2
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: EMS Agreement (Emergency Management Services) Scope of Services

Tetra Tech will provide emergency management services as requested over the contract term.

The City will request services from the contracted vendor as needed on behalf of both agencies.

Quotes and invoices will be provided to the City.

Services to be provided are listed below.

1) Manage the preparation, activation, and maintenance of the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) as directed.

2) Provide ongoing support to staff before, during, and after EOC activation as directed.

3) Provide training to City staff and/or volunteers in emergency management and communication systems including, but not limited to:

a) Incident Command System 100/700 training at the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) as needed;

b) EOC operations training, including required forms, tasks, reports, etc.;

c) Mock EOC activations and Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) compliant exercises.

4) Perform grant writing and management as needed.

5) Manage the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Program, and Mitigation Projects, including grant applications and management as directed.

6) Complete the update of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and all other pertinent disaster plans and provide input on any plan updates as directed.

7) Manage the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and all other pertinent disaster plans as directed.

8) Develop and/or update emergency communications lists and strategies.

9) Support City staff on public outreach and community education in disaster preparedness, planning, and mitigation.

10) Support City and RWC Fire staff with Community Emergency Response Team, CERT, coordination through scheduling & conducting training, data collection & record keeping, scheduling & attending CERT meetings, and other activities related to CERT coordination.

11) Support City and RWC Fire staff to conduct events, workshops, town hall meetings, exercises, presentations, and other activities related to emergency management.

12) Other duties and projects as assigned.

7.i.2
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: EMS Agreement (Emergency Management Services) Fee Schedule

This is a not-to-exceed contract in the amount of $200,000.

Tetra Tech will provide “on-call” professional emergency management services that will not exceed $200,000.00 for the life of the contract for services to the City of San Carlos and Redwood City Fire Department. No more than $100,000 will be charged to either City under this contract unless an amendment is provided and approved by the City and Tetra Tech.

Below are listed current rates for selected Tetra Tech positions:

Tetra Tech Positions Rate / hour
Consulting Planner II
Consulting Planner I
Senior Project Manager
Project Manager
Senior Planner
Staff Planner III
Staff Planner II
Staff Planner I
Associate Planner II
Associate Planner I
Technical Editor
GIS Specialist
Associate GIS / CAD
Financial Manager
Accounting
Word Processing
$180
$165
$180
$165
$150
$135
$120
$105
$90
$80
$110
$125
$80
$150
$85
$85
Note: Rates are valid through 2022 and are subject to an annual escalation of 3% thereafter.

Other Direct Costs (ODC) – Miscellaneous direct costs such as travel, supplies, and the like are billed at invoice plus general and accounting (G&A) fees (currently 16.01%) and a 10% fee.

Rates for field equipment can be quoted upon request.

Prior to the initiation of any project, Tetra Tech’s Project Manager will submit for approval a proposed scope of work, including potential team members and projected costs. The Project Manager will select the most appropriate team members based on the services requested by the City or Redwood City Fire Department. No work will commence without the written approval of the City of San Carlos as managers of the contract. All invoices will be paid by the City of San Carlos.

7.i.2
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: EMS Agreement (Emergency Management Services)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: January 10, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with California CAD Solutions, Inc. for Annual Subscription, Maintenance, and On -Call Geo graphic Information System Services for a Three -Year Term in an Amount Not -To-Exceed $150,000 ($50,000 Per Contract Year).

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with California CAD Solutions, Inc. for annual subscription, maintenance, and on-call geographic information system ser vices for a three -year term in an amount not-to-exceed $150,000 ($50,000 per contract year).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact or additional budget appropriation necessary at this time. On -going maintenance for the geographic information systems (“GIS”) application has been budgeted in the Information Technology (“IT”) budget since 2010. Additionally, GIS updates and projects have been budgeted by the Public Works and Community Development Departments as part of their professional services funding since 2010.

BACKGROUND:

Per the City of San Carlos Municipal Code , Chapter 3.12 , “Purchasing of City Supplies and Services”, any contracts (including amendments) with a value less than $75,000 can be approved under the signing authority of the City Manager . Any contract with a value of $75,000 or more must be approved by the City Council. At a value of $150,000, this agreement exceeds the City Manager’s signing authority and requires the City Council’s approval.

GIS services are mission -essential for City staff, who use these services on a daily basis to manage numerous infrastructure systems such as sanitary sewer, st orm drain, streets, street signs, streetlights, and traffic signals as well as the computerized maintenance management system, Lucity. Staff also relies on GIS for day -to-day operation of TrakIT, the City’s permit tracking system.

In 2009, the GIS was no t functioning properly . After an informal consultant selection process, California CAD Solutions, Inc. (“CalCAD”) was hired to provide an assessment of the system.

Recommendations based on the assessment have since been implemented.

7.j
Packet Pg. 103
2 In 2010, CalCAD was a gain contracted to create a new GIS application and provide professional services related to the ongoing development and management of the City’s GIS application, including application upgrades and feature enhancements.

CalCAD currently provides several services, such as an annual subscription for staff and public sites, regular maintenance and monthly updates, and special projects and tasks requested by departments.

Annual Subscription for Staff and Public Sites: CalCAD is currently under contract to host and maintain the internal GIS site, the staff site, and the public GIS site.

Regular Maintenance and Updates: CalCAD regularly maintains the GIS services and performs monthly updates of the San Mateo County Assessor information along with as-needed updates to the infrastructure and zoning data layers. Updating these sites is vital to day -to-day operations by staff. CalCAD also maintains active data connections between various departmental data repositories to ensure maximum interdepartmental connectivity.

Special Projects and Tasks: CalCAD also performs special projects and tasks requiring advanced spatial and database analysis in the extracti on of data , as well as production of exhibits, maps, and deliverables for staff.

ANALYSIS:

Due to the lack of in-house GIS expertise, the City must outsource GIS services. When the GIS was developed in the 1990s, an IT Division position was created to manage the system, but the position was eliminated in the late 2000s.

The IT Division doesn’t have the personnel, the training, or GIS skills, to perform necessary GIS and data updates. Since CalCAD built the City’s current GIS system and it is proprietary software, it is recommended that we continue to contract with CalCAD directly for services.

In addition to an annual subscription and regular maintenance costs, staff is also requesting an allowance for special projects and tasks. Therefore, staff recommends the approval of a three- year agreement in an amount not-to-exceed $150,000 ($50,000 per contract year).

ALTERNATIVES:

Options available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with California CAD Solutions, Inc. for annual subscription, maintenance, and on-call geographic information system se rvices for a three -year term in an amount not - to-exceed $150,000 ($50,000 per contract year); or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

7.j
Packet Pg. 104
3 Respectfully submitted by:

Steven Machida,
Public Works Director

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

7.j
Packet Pg. 105
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA CAD SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION,

MAINTENANCE, AND ON-CALL GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SERVICES FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $150,000
($50,000 PER CONTRACT YEAR).

WHEREAS, Geographic Information System (“ GIS”) services are mission-essential for City staff; and

WHEREAS, in 2009, the GIS was not functioning properly and there was no in -house support to either troubleshoot or update it; and

WHEREAS, after an informal consultant selection process, California CAD Solutions, Inc. (“CalCAD”) was selected to provide an assessment of the system; and

WHEREAS, in 2010, CalCAD was contracted to provide professional services related to the ongoing development and management of the City’s GIS; and

WHEREAS, CalCAD currently provides several services such as annual subscription for staff and public sites, regular maintenance and monthly updates, and special projects and tasks requested by departments; and

WHEREAS, contracting for GIS services is needed due to the lack of in-house expertise; and

WHEREAS, the Information Technology Division doesn’t have the personnel, the training, or GIS skills to perform the various GIS and data updates; and

WHEREAS, since CalCAD built the City’s current GIS system and it is proprietary software, it is recommended that we continue to contract with CalCAD directly for services; and

WHEREAS, in addition to annual subscription and regular maintenance costs, staff is also requesting an allowance for special projects and tasks.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with California CAD Solutions, Inc. for annual subscription, maintenance, and on-call geographic information system services for a three-year term in an amount not-to-exceed $150,000 ($50,000 per contract year).

* * * * *

7.j.1
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Resolution (CalCAD GIS Services)

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________________ ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________________

________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:

___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

7.j.1
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Resolution (CalCAD GIS Services)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: January 10, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Receive a Report Regarding the Receipt and Use of the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARPA”).

RECOMMENDATION:

It is r ecommended that the City Council receive a report regarding the receipt and use of the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARPA”).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City of San Carlos received $3,610,447 from the State of California on July 13, 2021, which represents 50% of the City’s total ARPA allocation. The second installment (tranche) is expected to be received at the end of July 2022. All funds must be obligated by December 2024.

BACKGROUND:

The S tate and Local Coronavirus Fiscal Recovery Funds legislation, part of the ARPA, was signed into law by President Biden on March 11, 2021. The bill includes $350 billion in funds allocated to recovering from the COVID -19 pandemic and restoring the economy. This includes $195.3 billion to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, $65.1 billion to counties, $45.6 billion to metropolitan cities, etc., and $19.5 billion to non -entitlement units of government. The United States Department of the Treasury (“Trea sury”) will oversee and administer payments to the State of California for non -entitlement cities (population less than 50,000), which includes San Carlos.

Current interim rule guidelines allow local governments to use funds in the following manner:

 Support the public health response to the COVID -19 emergency, by funding COVID -19 mitigation and prevention activities, medical expenses for cases and services to address short- and long-term needs, behavioral healthcare, certain public health and safety staff payroll and benefits, and activities to address the disparities in public health outcomes; and

 Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency, including economic harms to workers, households, small businesses, impacted industries ,

8.a
Packet Pg. 108
2 expanded uses for the hardest hit communities, and "broad latitude" to address the impact on state/local/tribal governments' ability to deliver general government services and rehire staff; and

 Replace lost public sector revenue with “broad latitude” fo r using this funding for provision of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue experienced due to the pandemic, on items such as infrastructure maintenance or pay -go infrastructure projects; and

 Provide premium pay for essential worke rs, offering additional support to those who have borne and will bear the greatest health risks because of their service in critical infrastructure sectors, with work that involved regular in -person interactions or regular physical handling of items that were also handled by others; and

 Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure, making necessary investments to improve access to clean drinking water, support vital wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, and to expand access to broadband interne t for unserved or underserved households and businesses.

Ineligible uses include deposits into pension funds, debt service, matching funds, legal settlements or judgments, deposits to rainy day funds or financial reserves, spending to offset tax cuts, or general infrastructure spending unless done under the revenue loss provision.

Other requirements include:

 Non-Entitlement Units of Government (“NEUs”). San Carlos is classified as an NEU for the ARPA program, based on its small population of less than 50 ,000 residents. States are not responsible for monitoring NEUs for compliance with use of funds. Most of the Office of Management and Budget’s Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (commonly called “Uniform Guidance”) applies to this program.

 Loss of Revenue Calculation. A prescribed calculation is used for determining loss of revenue with a four -point measurement starting with December 31, 2020. It compares actual revenues against an average revenu e growth in the three years prior to the COVID-19 public health emergency at a minimum 4.1%. San Carlos is 5.11%.

 Reporting and Recordkeeping. Records must be maintained for five years after all funds have been expended or returned to the Treasury, which ever is later. The first report to the Treasury is due April 30, 2022 and covers the period of March 3, 2021 to March 31, 2022. The subsequent annual reports must be submitted to the Treasury by April 30 each year.

ANALYSIS:

The City’s total ARPA allocat ion is $7,220,894, of which the first installment in the amount of $3,610,447 was received in July 2021.

8.a
Packet Pg. 109
3 Government Finance Officers Association (“GFOA”)

The GFOA offers the following outline of Guiding Principles for the use of ARPA funds (https://www.gfoa.org/american-rescue-plan-spending-guiding-principles):

 Adequate time should be taken to carefully consider all alternatives for the prudent use of ARPA funding prior to committing the resources to ensure the best use of the temporary funding.

 Investment in critical infrastructure is a particularly well suited use of ARPA funds because it is a non -recurring expenditure that can be targeted to strategically important long-term assets that provide benefits over many years. However, care should be tak en to assess any on -going operating costs that may be associated with the infrastructure project.

 Care should be taken to avoid creating new programs or add -ons to existing programs that require an ongoing financial commitment.

 Use of ARPA funds to cover operating deficits caused by COVID -19 should be considered temporary and additional budget restraint may be necessary to achieve/maintain structural balance in future budgets.

 Consider regional initiatives, including partnering with other ARPA recipients.

 Use other dedicated grants and programs first whenever possible and save ARPA funds for priorities not eligible for other federal and state assistance programs.

Staff Recommendations

First Tranche . Staff recommends the following uses of the first tran che of ARPA funding totaling $3,610,447:

Category Amount
Support Public Health Response to COVID-19 Emergency $19,235 Address Negative Impacts $151,000
Replacement of Lost Revenue $3,440,212
Total ARPA First Funding Allocation $3,610,447

1. Support the Public Health Response to the COVID -19 Emergency. The Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget includes $250,000 of anticipated expenditures for COVID -19 mitigation and prevention. This covers a broad range of services and programming, including enforcement of public health orders, public communication efforts, purchases of personal protective equipment, ventilation improvements, and other public health responses.

It is recommended that $19,235 of the first tranche be used against this existing appropriation as this was the amount spent on safety supplies, equipment, and services as a response to the COVID -19 emergency from March 3, 2021 through November 30, 2021.

8.a
Packet Pg. 110
4 2. Address Negative Impacts on Households and Individuals . Assistance to households includes, but is not li mited to: food assistance; rent, mortgage, or utility assistance; counseling and legal aid to prevent eviction or homelessness; cash assistance; emergency assistance for burials, home repairs, weatherization, or other needs; internet access or digital lite racy assistance; or job training to address negative economic or public health impacts experienced due to a worker’s occupation or level of training.

On November 8, 2021, the City Council approved Resolution 2021 -115 to provide additional funding to the Tenant Assistance Program administered by Samaritan House.

It is recommended that $151,000 of the first tranche be used on this appropriation.

3. Replacement of Lost Revenue . Based on a recent release of Treasury’s interim rules and guidance, staff has calcul ated the City’s revenue loss in the amount of $3,799,227.

However, it is recommended that $3,440,212 of the first tranche be used at this time to allow for spending on support response to COVID -19 emergency and to address the negative impacts on households and individuals as mentioned above. The remaining $359,015 can be applied toward the second tranche. The guidelines allow “broad latitude” for using this funding for provision of government services. Government services can include, but are not limited to : maintenance or pay -go funded building of infrastructure, including roads; modernization of cybersecurity, including hardware, software, and protection of critical infrastructure; health services, environmental remediation; and the provision of police, fire, and other public safety services.

It is recommended that this full amount be applied toward Project C9823 - Fire Station 16 Replacement.

Second Tranche. The second tranche of the ARPA funding in the amount of $3,610,447 is expected to be received at the end of July 2022.

Staff evaluated this funding and believes it could be used in the following ways:

1. Further investments toward responding to COVID-19 mitigation and prevention.

2. Further assistance to address the negative economic impacts to house holds as defined above.

3. Assistance to small businesses and non-profits, which could include:

a. Loans or grants to mitigate financial hardship such as declines in revenues or impacts of periods of business closure; such as supporting payroll and benefits costs, costs to retain employees, mortgage, rent, or utilities costs, and other operating costs;

b. Loans, grants, or in-kind assistance to implement COVID-19 prevention or mitigation tactics; such as physical plant changes to enable social distancing, enhanc ed cleaning efforts, barriers or partitions, or COVID -19 vaccination, testing, or contact tracing programs; and

c. Technical assistance, counseling, or other services to assist with business planning needs.

8.a
Packet Pg. 111
5 4. Investments in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure.

These investments could include improved access to clean drinking water, support of vital wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, and expanded access to broadband internet for unserved or underserved households and businesses.

Eligible uses of the funds have been aligned to include the wide range of types or categories of projects that would otherwise be eligible to receive financial assistance through the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund (“CWSRF”) or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (“DWSRF”).

Under the DWSRF, categories of eligible projects include: treatment, transmission, and distribution (including lead service line replacement); source rehabilitation and decontamination; storage; consolidation; and new systems development.

Under the CWSRF, categories of eligible projects include: construction of publicly owned treatment works; nonpoint source pollution management; national estuary program projects; decentralized wastewater treatment systems; stormwa ter systems; water conservation, efficiency, and reuse measures; watershed pilot projects; energy efficiency measures for publicly -owned treatment works; water reuse projects; security measures at publicly-owned treatment works; and technical assistance to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act. In particular, eligible water conservation projects are those that reduce the demand for publicly owned treatment works (“POTW”) capacity through reduced water consumption (i.e., water efficiency). Water reuse a nd precipitation harvesting are also eligible.

As mentioned in the Department of the Treasury 3 Interim Final Rule dated May 17, 2021, eligible projects under the DWSRF and CWSRF support efforts to address climate change and to meet cybersecurity needs to protect water and sewer infrastructure.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Receive a report regarding the receipt and use of the ARPA funds; or

2. Do not receive a report; or

8.a
Packet Pg. 112
6 3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Rebecca Mendenhall,
Administrative Services Director

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

8.a
Packet Pg. 113

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: January 10, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting an Urgency Ordinance Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(B) to Impose Interim Regulations and Objective Standards for the Subdivision and Development of Qualified Senate Bill 9 Properties.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt an Urgency Ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(b) to impose interim regulations and objective standards for the subdivision and development of qualified Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”) properties.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with the City Council adopting an Urgency Ordinance establishing interim regulations and objective standards for the subdivision and development of qualified SB 9 properties . It is recommended that the Council direct staff to develop and improve objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards as they relate to SB 9 property development; recalibrate interim standards as necessary; research best practices; and develop a permanent ordinance for regulations for SB 9 qualified properties. There will be costs associated with this work. Staff will return to Council with a request for necessary budget appropriations.

BACKGROUND:

On September 6, 2021, Governor Newsom signed SB 9 in to law. Named the “California Home Act,” SB 9 has the potential to alter the longstanding character of single -family zoned neighborhoods throughout California. The most significant part of this bill is that it grants ministerial approval1 of: (1) a one -time, two-lot subdivision and subsequent development of up to two units per resulting lot; or, (2) development of up to four units on a lot that is not subdivided. However, proposed subdivision s and development project s are still required to meet certain qu alifying location and development criteria. SB 9 became effective January 1, 2022 and supersedes San Carlos’ local zoning regulations. Notwithstanding these provisions, cities and counties can customize their subdivision and development standards as long a s they do not conflict with state law.

1 A ministerial approval means property owners have the ability (granted by the State of California under SB 9) to subdivide and develop their property in accordance with the provisions under SB 9, and without discretionary approval by a municipality as long as the subdivision and/or development complies with established regulations that do no conflict with state law.

9.a
Packet Pg. 114
2 Under SB 9, the State requires that local agencies must allow:

 A one-time lot split on all properties zoned single-family residential; and  The resulting size of the subdivided lot can be as small as 1,200 square feet; and  Resulting lot splits are allowed, by right, to have up to two units. It is up to local agencies to determine the combination of two units allowed and whether to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) , or li mit to only primary units. This would allow two primary units , or one primary unit and one ADU/JADU (if the City allowed ADUs and JADUs); and
 Each primary unit developed under a SB 9 subdivision is allowed to be at least 800 square feet in size (note: the State affords local municipalities the discretion to allow a greater amount of square footage, but cities and counties must otherwise allow at least 800 square feet); and
 Up to a maximum of four units on single -family lots that are not subdivided under SB 9 (i.e. one primary unit, an additional primary unit, an ADU, a JADU, or any combination thereof, with objective standards applied).

ANALYSIS:

On December 22, 2021 staff met with the City Council Housing Subcommittee to discuss the implications of SB 9 and to receive feedback on whether to proceed with an Urgency Ordinance.

It was recommended that an Urgency Ordinance be placed on the City Council agenda for January 10, 2022.

Based on previous efforts to manage the size of single -family lots by setting a minimum lot size at 10,000 square feet (Ordinance 1517, adopted by the City Council on January 23, 2017) and single-family house size by imposing a new aximum Floor Area standard (Ordinance 1536, adopted by the City Council on November 13, 2018), staff i s recommending an Urgency Ordinance (see Exhibit A of Attachment 1) that establishes limitation s to the extent feasible under the law. If the Urgency Ordinance is adopted, it would limit SB 9 development as follows:

For parcels subdivided under SB 9:

 Limit the size of new units on SB 9 subdivided lots by establishing regulations to allow a maximum size of 800 sq uare feet per unit (including clarification that garage space would count toward this maximum) in accordance with state law  Limit the unit count o n SB 9 subdivided lots to a maximum of two units per resulting lot (no ADUs and JADUs allowed)
 Set interior side and rear yard setbacks for new development at a minimum of four feet (consistent with state law)
 Prohibit basements
 Limit the height of new SB 9 development to 16 feet (maximum of 20 feet for lots subject to the Hillside Overlay District)
 Require one uncovered parking space per new SB 9 unit. The parking space shall be at least 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep and shall be contained entirely on the private property. No parking is required when the parcel is located within one -half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, or a major transit stop, or if there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel

9.a
Packet Pg. 115
3  If the p roposed dwelling units are developed subsequent to a subdivision, require the owner to sign and record an affidavit placing a covenant that will run with the parcel to confirm that the owner intends to reside in either the primary dwelling unit or an SB 9 unit on the parcel for three years from the issuance of an SB 9 dwelling unit’s Certificate of Occupancy
 No dwelling unit shall be rented for a period of less than thirty (30) days and cannot be occupied as a short-term rental unit
 An SB 9 dwelling unit may be rented separately from the primary dwelling unit

For parcels that are not subdivided under SB 9:

 A maximum of four units are allowed per lot:
o Two primary units (an existing unit at any square footage plus a new 800 sq uare feet unit) or two new primary units (each with a maximum of 800 square feet) o An ADU
o A JADU
 The maximum floor area (MFA) and maximum lot coverage (MLC) permitted on the parcel shall be determined pursuant to Table 18.04.030 of the Municipal Code, 800 square feet of additional MFA/ML C is permitted for an SB 9 unit that is not the primary dwelling
 Maximum size of a new primary dwelling unit is 800 square feet (including garage)  Basements are not permitted
 The minimum front setback for any new SB 9 dwelling unit shall be the same as required for the underlying zoning district and four feet from the interior side and rear parcel lines
 The maximum height of the SB 9 dwelling unit is 16 feet (20 f eet for properties in the Hillside Overlay district)
 One uncovered parking space is required ( per new SB 9 unit). The parking space shall be at least 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep and shall be contained entirely on the private property. No parking is required when the parcel is located within one -half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, or a major transit stop, or if there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel
 No dwelling unit shall be rented for a period of less than thirty (30) days and cannot be occupied as a short-term rental unit
 An SB 9 dwelling unit may be rented separately from the primary dwelling unit

By adopting an Urgency Ordinance to set minimum standards consistent with state law, it would allow staff time to receive community input and meet with the Housing Subcommittee and Planning Commission for further guidance in the development of permanent solutions for SB 9 related development. If the Council subsequently extends the Urgency Ordinance, staff will research the range of options for the Planning Commission and the City Council’s consideration relating to SB 9 subdivisions and development. Options for further discussion include:

 Should the City allow additional units on lots resulting from SB 9 subdivisions? The State requires that at least two units be allowed on lots resulting f rom an SB 9 subdivision.

Local agencies can decide whether to allow additional units, such as an ADU and/or a JADU, or both for up to a maximum of four units per resulting lot.

 Should the City allow 28 feet height maximums for two story SB 9 units?

9.a
Packet Pg. 116
4  Should the City consider any affordability requirements for SB 9 units?

DISCUSSION:

It remains to be seen how the market will respond to SB 9 development allowances in single - family neighborhoods. So far staff has had six inquires. As of the writing of this report, no SB 9 development applications have been submitted.

In July 2021, the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, whose mission is to formulate housing strategies by identifying, developing, and advancing innovative public and private sector solutions to housing strategies, released a report assessing the viability of new housing supply under SB 9. For San Mateo County, the report cited an additional 17,000 -unit capacity under SB 9. See Attachment 3 for more information on the report entitled, “ Will Allowing Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Family Create New Homes?

PUBLIC NOTICE:

A public notice (Attachment 2) was placed in the local newspaper and posted at City Hall at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA):

The adoption of the Urgency Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the general rule described in Section 15303 (a) and (b) of the CEQA Guidelines, as the ordinance does not have the po tential to cause a significant effect on the environment.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

There is a current and immediate threat to the public peace, health, welfare , and safety of the City’s single-family neighborhoods that could arise from SB 9 subdiv isions and accompanying developments. San Carlos’ existing zoning regulations are insufficient for SB 9 subdivisions and/or developments and do not thoroughly address community concerns regarding parking and safety, public peace , and privacy, and scale and development intensity. In addition, under SB 9, the City does not have the discretion to review and impose reasonable conditions on such SB 9 subdivisions and/or developments. Accordingly, establishing interim standards for qualifying SB 9 properties woul d provide the City with clear and measured regulations for how such development can occur, while maintaining consistency with state law. It would also allow time for staff to prepare a permanent ordinance, engage the public and prepare information, and provide recommendations for review by the Planning Commission and the City Council.

Furthermore, approval of the Urgency Ordinance will allow staff to manage the parking, privacy, scale, and development intensity of new SB 9 related development on single-family lots, including the subdivision of lots potentially as small as 1,200 square feet, in order to uphold San Carlos’ standards for the safety and visual qualities of its single-family neighborhoods.

Staff recommends that the City Council ado pt the Urgency Ordinance, which requires a four - fifths vote of the Council to be enacted. If adopted, the Ordinance would be in effect for a period of up to 45 -days and it is possible for the City Council to extend the Urgency Ordinance for 10 months and 15 days by a subsequent four-fifths vote. Should the City Council adopt an Urgency Ordinance at its January 10, 2022 meeting, staff will prepare an item for the City Council to

9.a
Packet Pg. 117
5 consider a time extension of the Ordinance for the February 14 , 2022 City Counci l meeting.

Such extension would require a duly noticed public hearing.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt an Urgency Ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 establishing interim regulations and obje ctive standards for the subdivision and development of qualified Senate Bill 9 properties; or

2. Do not adopt the Urgency Ordinance and allow the State Law to take effect; or

3. Provide staff with alternate direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Al Savay, AICP
Community Development Director

Greg Rubens, City Attorney

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Ordinance with Exhibit A

2. Public Hearing Notice

3. Terner Center Report on SB 9

4. SB 9 FAQs from 21 Elements

9.a
Packet Pg. 118

ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858(b) IMPOSING INTERIM REGULATIONS

AND OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF QUALIFIED SENATE BILL 9 PROPERTIES.

SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of San Carlos does hereby ordain as follows:

WHEREAS, this Ordinance is adopted as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(b). The facts constituting the urgency are as follows:

a) A severe housing crisis exists in the state with the demand for housing outstripping supply.

b) In September 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”), entitled the “California Home Act”. Among other provisions, this bill adds Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to the Government Code and becomes effective on January 1, 2022.

c) SB 9 requires cities and counties, including the City of San Carlos (“City”), to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split and/or a proposed housing development containing a maximum of two residential units within a single-family residential zone, if the two-unit or subdivision project meets certain statutory criteria. SB 9 specifies that proposed projects and subdivisions cannot be proposed in prohibited locations under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(K), such as in an earthquake fault zone, lands under conservation easement, a federally designated flood plain, and high fire hazard severity zones as defined under state law.

d) SB 9 further restricts the standards and regulations that local agencies, including the City, may impose on qualifying two -unit or subdivision projects. For example, SB 9 specifies that local agencies may impose only objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards that do not conflict with the statutes, but such standards must not physically preclude a unit size of 800 square feet. In addition, SB 9 permits a local agency to deny a proposed two -unit or subdivision project only if the agency’s Building Official makes a written find ing based on preponderance of the evidence that the proposed project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment, which is a very high standard for municipalities to meet under the statute.

e) The default statutory standards contained in SB 9 does not include objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards, such as, floor area, lot coverage, height, fencing regulations, subdivision and site development standards and regulations that are included in the San Carlos Municipal Code (SCMC) Titles 17 and 18 which are otherwise required to be complied by all residential development projects including accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs).

f) SB 9 specifically authorizes local agencies to impose objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards consistent with the bill’s provisions, and to adopt an ordinance to implement its provisions. SB 9 further provides that such ordinances are not considered a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

g) There is a need for the City to update its standards for SB 9 projects to bring its design and development regulations into compliance with the requirements of the bill.

h) There is a need for the City to update its st andards for SB 9 projects to ensure orderly development that also addresses aesthetics and massing of future projects.

i) On January 10, 2022, the City Council considered the following Urgency Ordinance for the purpose of establishing regulations and objecti ve standards pertaining to single-family home developments and subdivisions in a manner that complies with SB 9 and is consistent with California Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, as amended.

j) California Government Code Section 65858 authori zes the City to adopt an interim urgency measure by a four-fifths (4/5ths) vote where necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare without following the procedures otherwise required prior to adoption of a zoning ordinance.

k) Any interim urgency measure adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 shall be of no further force and effect forty-five (45) days from its date of adoption unless extended by the legislative body. During the effective term of the urgency ordinance, City staff intends to undertake further study and present its recommendations to the City Council regarding permanent revisions to the City’s Municipal Code pertaining to SB 9 residential development and subdivision projects and consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, California Planning and Zoning Law, and the provisions of California Government Code Section 65858.

SECTION 2: The City Council finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public peace, health, welfare, and safety, speci fically including possible permanent damage to the City’s aesthetics that can result from unregulated and unorderly developments due to SB 9 projects. The City Council finds that it is necessary to impose the Urgency Ordinance pursuant to Government Code S ection 65858(b) to protect the public health, welfare, and safety for the following reasons:

a) Based on the recent amendments to state law with respect to the regulation of SB 9 units and lot subdivisions, there is a need for the City to update its current codes.

b) City staff needs time to analyze the impacts on the current Zoning Ordinance with respect to SB 9 and recommend changes with appropriate public input to provide for orderly and aesthetically appealing developments throughout the City thus maintai ning the character of the City; and

c) The citizens of San Carlos will be well -served if the City more fully addresses the potential impacts of SB 9 projects on aesthetics, safety, and environmental protection; and

d) The most appropriate way to ensure Plannin g Commission and public review and comments on the permanent ordinance is to adopt the Urgency Ordinance imposing interim regulations and development standards for SB 9 projects while the permanent ordinance is being prepared.

e) The subdivision of lots and design and construction of single - family residences, second

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

primary dwelling units and accessory dwelling units pursuant to Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) without adequate standards can cause: land use and site development conflicts and incompatibilities including public safety, visual, privacy, acoustic and aesthetic impacts which would negatively impact the public welfare and the unique quality and character of the City of San Carlos.

f) All of the facts and recitals above are true, correct, incorporated herein and made a part hereof such that there exists a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare requiring immediate implementation of an urgency ordinance to regulate SB 9 residential development projects, subdivisions and site developments in the City of San Carlos.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare requires that this Ordinance be enacted as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 6585 8(b), and take effect immediately upon adoption. Therefore , this Urgency Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare and its urgency is hereby declared.

SECTION 3: For purposes of this Interim Urge ncy Ordinance temporary regulations and standards shall be placed on all qualifying properties within RS-3 and RS-6 districts per the language in Exhibit A.

SECTION 4: This is an Urgency Ordinance, which requires 4/5 vote of approval of all of the members of the City Council and goes into effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 5: California Environmental Quality Act Determination. The City Council hereby finds pursuant to Section 15001 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this ordinance exempt from CEQA because pursuant to Section 15001 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this ordinance is exempt from CEQA because this project is consistent with the programs and policies of the San Carlos 2030 Gen eral Plan, is within the scope of the activities and impacts identified in San Carlos 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and no new environmental effects have been found and no new mitigation is necessary.

Therefore, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15303 (a) and (b).

SECTION 7: Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effe ct. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.

SECTION 8: Effective Date and Publication. This Ordinance shall take effect January 10, 2022. The City Clerk shall cause publication of the Urgency Ordinance within 15 days after passage in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the city or, if none, by posting in at least three public places in the city. Within 15 days after the adoption of the Urgency Ordinance amendment, a summary of the amendment shall be published with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the amendment.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

Section 9: Conflicting Provisions Deemed Ineffective During Ordinance Operative Period. Any provision of the Municipal Code relating to residential development and lot subdivision standards which is in conflict with this ordinance is hereby deemed ineffective during the ordinance’s operative period.
*****
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance was adopted by the required 4/5th vote, effective immediately, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Carlos held on the 10th day of January, 2022 by the following vote:

______________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos

APPROVED:

___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

Exhibit A: Proposed Regulations and Standards for SB-9 projects

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

EXHIBIT A

Regulations and Objective Standards for Qualified Senate Bill 9 Subdivisions and Development Projects

1. Purpose and Intent.

The purpose of this article is to establish regulations and objective standards t o govern the development of qualified Senate Bill 9 subdivisions and development projects on RS-3 (single-family, low density) and RS -6 (single -family) properties within San Carlos. The establishment of these regulations will result in the orderly subdivision and development of qualified Senate Bill No. 9 (2021) (“SB 9”) projects while ensuring that the new units are consistent with the existing development patterns of the City and do not create any significant impacts with regards to public infrastructure or public safety. The regulations are established to implement the requirements under California Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7.

2. Definitions.

For purposes of this article, the following definitions apply:
(a) “Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU”, means an attached or detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one (1) or more persons and located on a single lot with a proposed or existing single -unit dwelling. It shall include a separate external ent rance and permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation (at minimum, a sink, toilet, and shower) on the same parcel as the single - family or multifamily dwelling. At a minimum, the kitchen shall contain a sink, standard refrigerator, and either a built -in cooktop or range, as well as a food preparation counter and storage cabinets. An accessory dwelling unit also includes an efficiency unit and a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. (b) “Dwelling unit” means any building or portion thereof which contains living facilities, including provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation, for not more than one family. Dwelling Unit includes an ADU, JADU, a primary dwelling unit, and a SB 9 dwe lling unit.
(c) “Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU”, or “efficiency unit is a unit that is no more than five hundred (500) square feet in size and contained entirely within a single -family dwelling unit (must contain a separate, external entrance). A ju nior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities (bathroom containing, at minimum, a sink, toilet, and shower) or may share sanitation facilities with the single -family dwelling. An efficiency kitchen is required, which must include a sink and a built-in cooking facility with appliances (e.g., microwave, toaster oven, hot plate), as well as a food preparation counter and storage cabinets.
(d) “Existing dwelling unit” means a primary dwelling unit or other dwelling unit on a parcel that exists prior to any voluntary demolition or reconstruction or remodel where more than 50% of the exterior wall framing has been removed or altered. Any existing dwelling unit where more than 50% of the exterior wall framing has been removed is considered a new dwelling for purposes of this article.
(e) “Primary dwelling unit” means a single -family residence on the parcel and is the larger of the two if there is an existing accessory dwelling unit on the parcel.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

(f) “Private Road” means a road, way, or street in priva te ownership and under private maintenance, not offered for dedication as a public road, way, place, or street, which affords the principal means of access to three or more lots or parcels which do not have frontage on a public street.
(g) “SB 9 dwelling unit” or “SB 9 unit” or “second primary dwelling unit” means a dwelling unit that is developed using the provisions in this article and the provisions identified in California Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7.

3. Eligibility of properties for a subdivision.

The following parcels are not eligible for a subdivision under this article:
(a) Any parcel that was established through a prior exercise of a subdivision as provided for in this article.
(b) Any parcel proposing to be subdivided that is adjacent to another parcel where either the owner of the parcel proposing to be subdivided or any person acting in concert with said owner has previously subdivided that adjacent parcel using the provisions in this article. For the purposes of this article, “any person acting in concert” with the owners includes, but is not limited to, an individual or entity operating on behalf of, acting jointly with, or in partnership or another form of cooperative relationship with, the property owner. (c) Any parcel located within an hist oric district or included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or a parcel within a site that is designated or listed as a City of San Carlos or San Mateo County landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a City of San Carlos or San Mateo County ordinance.
(d) Any parcel where the subdivision would require the demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
i. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. ii. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power.
iii. A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner's rights under Government Code section 7060 et seq. to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.
iv. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (e) Any parcel where the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.

4. Objective standards and requirements for a subdivision.

The following objective standards and regulations apply to all subdivisions under this article. All applicable objective standards within Article 17 of the San Carlos Municipal Code shall apply in addition to the objective standards under the provisions of this article:

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

(a) A Parcel Map and an application for Subdivision Application shall be submitted to the City for all proposed subdivisions.
(b) The subdivision shall create no more than two new parcels of approx imately equal area provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision. In no instance shall any resulting parcel be smaller than 1,200 square feet in area.
(c) Existing parcels shall be split approximately perpendicular to the longest contiguous property line.
(d) The front parcel line of any newly created parcel shall be the parcel line that is closest to or parallel to the public or private road that serves the parcel. (e) The side lot lines of all lots, as far as practicable, shall be at right angles to straight streets on which the lot faces, or radial to curved streets.
(f) Lots without frontage on a street are not permitted. Lots, other than corner lots, may not front on more than one street u nless necessitated by topographic or other unusual conditions.
(g) Flag lots are not allowed.
(h) No setbacks shall be required for an existing dwelling structure on the parcel from a proposed property line.
(i) Separate utility meters shall be provided for each parcel prior to recordation. (j) All newly created parcels shall be connected to public sewer per the City of San Carlos Engineering Standards.
(k) The subdivision is subject to all impact or development fees related to the creation of a new parcel.
(l) A note on the parc el map and a recorded deed restriction in a form approved by the City Attorney shall be applied to all newly created parcels indicating that the parcel was split using the provision of this article and that no further subdivision of the parcels is permitted. (m) Prior to the recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall sign and record an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to reside in one of the proposed or existing primary dwelling units or SB 9 units for three years from the date of the approval of the subdivision.

This requirement shall not apply if the applicant is a community land trust or a qualified nonprofit corporation as provided in Sections 402.1 and 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

5. Objective standards and requirements for dwelling units on a parcel subdivided pursuant to this article.

The following objective standards and regulations apply to all development on a parcel that has been subdivided or concurrently subdivided under the provisions of this article:
(a) A maximum of two units shall be allowed per subdivided parcel (b) ADUs and JADUs are not allowed
(c) The uses shall be limited to those permitted in the underlying zoning district (d) The following development is permitted on the parcel:

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

(1) An existing primary dwelling unit and an SB 9 unit; or (2) Two SB 9 units.
(3) If there is an existing primary dwelling unit and ADU or JADU on the property, then no further development is permitted for that property.
(e) The maximum floor area (MFA) permitted on each lot shall be 1,600 square feet (800 square feet for each unit).

Exception:

If there is an existing primary d welling unit on the parcel, the floor area of the existing residence cannot be increased, and any SB 9 dwelling unit shall not exceed 800 square feet.
(f) Setbacks and Floor Area: The minimu m front setback for any new primary dwelling unit or SB 9 dwelling unit shall adhere to the underlying zoning district and be four (4) feet from the interior side and rear property lines and the maximum floor area on the property shall be 1,600 square feet (800 square feet for each unit). Basements are not permitted.

Exception:

No setback is required for a new SB 9 dwelling unit constructed in the same location as an existing structure on the parcel.
(g) The maximum height of all new SB 9 dwelling units shall be 16 feet. If there is an existing primary dwelling on the parcel, the maximum height per the underlying zoning district of the existing residence cannot be increased.

Exception:

The maximum height of SB 9 units within Hillside Overlay Districts shall be 20’- 0.

(h) One uncovered parking space is required. The parking space shall be at least 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep and shall be contained entirely on the private property. No parking is required when the parcel is located within one -half mile walk ing distance of either a high - quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code; or if there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. (i) If the two SB 9 dwelling units are configured as a duplex on a parcel, a solid one -hour fire wall between the units is required. In addition, a deed restriction in a form approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded stipulating that the duplex shall be maintained as two separate units.
(j) All new SB 9 units shall have 1 - hour rated Type 5A construction on all exterior walls and Class A roof assemblies.
(k) If the parcel is fully developed with the number of units permitted under this section, the applicant or property owner shall record a deed restriction in a form approved by the City Attorney stipulating that no further development of the parcel is permitted. (l) Fire access to all new units shall be compliant with the Redwood City - San Carlos Fire Department standard specifications and the California Fire Code. (m) If the proposed dwelling units are developed subsequent to a subdivision completed pursuant to this Article, the owner shall sign and record an affidavit placing a cov enant that will run with the parcel to confirm that the owner intends to reside in either the primary

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

dwelling unit or an SB 9 unit on the parcel for three years from the issuance of an SB 9 dwelling unit’s Certificate of Occupancy and closing of all construction permits pertaining to the parcel.
(n) All newly created dwelling units shall be connected to public sewer per the City of San Carlos Engineering Standards.
(o) All outdoor patios, covered patios, decks, and other hardscape shall meet the City’s requirements with regard to lot coverage, setbacks, natural state, height, etc. (p) All new SB9 units shall comply with San Carlos Municipal Code and adopted California Building Code, and California Fire Code.
(q) No dwelling unit shall be rented for a period of less than thirty (30) days and cannot be occupied as a short-term rental unit.
(r) An SB 9 unit may be rented separately from the primary dwelling unit. (s) Development projects pursuant to this section shall be subject to all impact or development fees related to the development of a new dwelling unit.

6. Objective standards and requirements for new dwelling units on a parcel that is not being subdivided.

The following objective standards and regulations apply to all new development on a parcel, including primary dwellings, SB 9 dwelling units, an ADU, or a JADU attached or detached to the primary dwelling, that are developed under the provisions of this article on a parcel that is not being subdivided:
(a) The maximum of four (4) units are allowed per lot.
(b) The uses shall be limited to those permitted in the underlying zoning district (c) The following development is permitted on the parcel:
(1) a primary dwelling unit and an SB 9 unit (or two SB 9 units); (2) an ADU; and
(3) a JADU
(d) The maximum floor area (MFA) and maximum lot coverage (MLC) permi tted on the parcel shall be determined pursuant to Table 18.04.030 of the Municipal Code, 800 square feet of additional MFA/MLC is permitted for an SB 9 unit that is not the primary dwelling. (e) The maximum floor area of an SB 9 unit shall be 800 square feet. Basements are not permitted.
(f) The minimum front setback for any new SB 9 dwelling unit shall be the same as required for the underlying zoning district and four (4) feet from the interior side and rear parcel lines.

Exception:

No setback is required for a new SB 9 dwelling unit constructed in the same location as an existing structure on the parcel.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) (g) The maximum height of the SB 9 dwelling unit shall be 16 feet.

Exception:

The maximum height of SB 9 units within Hillside Overlay Districts shall be 20’-0.

(h) One uncovered parking space is required. The parking space shall be at least 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep and shall be contained entirely on the private property. No parking is required when the parcel is located within one -half mile walking distance of e ither a high -quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code; or if there is a car share vehicle located within one b lock of the parcel. A solid (no openings) one-hour rated fire wall is required between any SB 9 unit and the primary dwelling unit or an ADU or JADU. (i) All new SB 9 units shall have 1 - hour rated Type 5A construction on all exterior walls and Class A roof assemblies.
(j) Fire access to all new units shall be compliant with the Redwood City - San Carlos Fire Department standard specifications and the California Fire Code. (k) All newly created SB 9 units shall be connected to public sewer per the City of San Carlos Engineering Standards.
(l) All new SB 9 units shall comply with San Carlos Municipal Code and adopted California Building Code, and California Fire Code.
(m) All outdoor patios, covered patios, decks, and other hardscape shall meet the City’s requirements with regard to lot coverage, setbacks, natural state, height, etc. (n) No dwelling unit shall be rented for a period of less than thirty (30) days and cannot be occupied as a short-term rental unit.
(o) An SB 9 dwelling unit may be rented separately from the primary dwelling unit. (p) Development projects pursuant to this section shall be subject to all impact or development fees related to the development of a new dwelling unit.

7. Objective building and design requirements for all SB 9 dwelling units.

All SB 9 dwelling units shall be reviewed and approved without discretionary review or a hearing. As part of the Planning Department’s ministerial approval, the following objective design requirements shall be required.

If it is not feasible to comply with all applicable Obje ctive Design Standards when constructing up to two 800 square foot residential units on a property, the applicant shall provide all necessary information requested by the City (e.g., a topographic survey, etc.) to demonstrate that it is infeasible to const ruct one or both of the two 800 square foot residential units while complying with all applicable Objective Design Standards for review by the City. On review of the complete feasibility study, the Planning Director shall determine which of these Objective Design Standards may be reduced and/or waived to allow for up to two residential units that are no more than 800 square feet and evaluate feasible locations for the residential unit(s) to

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

find the location(s) that create the fewest impacts to environmenta lly sensitive areas such as hillside districts, stream overlays, etc.

Where there is any discrepancy between these objective standards and other requirements within the San Carlos Municipal Code for the underlying Zoning District, the stricter objective standards shall apply:

Site Planning
Grading
Grading shall not exceed 999 cubic yards.

Hillside Overlay Development - All objective design standards within the Hillside Overlay District per SCMC 18.12 Hillside Overlay District shall apply in addition to the standards specified below.

Proposed grading which necessitates terracing shall not have retaining or skirt walls exceeding four feet in height and shall have a horizontal separation equal to the wall height.

Slopes created by grading of the site shall not exceed thirty percent.

Parking Front Setback Adjustment. In order to reduce grading, required parking (including a private garage) may be located at five feet to the street property line; provided, that portions of the new units and accessory structures other than the garage shall comply with the setback requirements of the base zoning district.

Natural State. A minimum area of twenty-five percent of the lot area plus the percentage figure of average slope, not to exceed a maximum of eighty-five percent, must remain in its natural state.

Site Access, Driveways. Each driveway shall follow natural terrain contours to the maximum extent feasible to minimize grading, and also shall comply with the following standards:

1. Maximum Grade. The finished grade of a driveway shall conform to the finished grade of the lot, but in no case shall exceed an average grade of eighteen percent.

2. Agency Review. The location and design of any driveway shall be referred to the Fire Department for review and comment as to on- and off-street safety of vehicles, vehicle passengers and pedestrians, and access for emergency vehicles.

Retaining Walls. Large retaining walls in a uniform plane shall be avoided. Retaining walls shall be divided into terraces with variations in plane and include landscaping to break up the length of walls and to screen them from view. No retaining wall located in the front or rear yard area shall be higher than six feet, and must incorporate a three-foot recessed offset feature every thirty feet, or other methods of articulation Decks. No portion of the walking surface of a deck with visible underpinnings shall exceed a height of six feet above grade. Decks shall be integrated into the architecture of the house, and not appear as an add-on to the primary building mass.

Retaining walls over four feet in height, accessory structures, and buildings visible from a downslope shall be screened;
Colors and Materials. A mixture of materials and color shall be used to blend structures with the natural appearance of the hillside which shall include darker and earth tone exterior colors. In areas of potential high fire hazard, exterior building materials shall be fire- retardant.

Trees
A tree removal/ pruning permit is required for removal or pruning of any protected and/or significant tree.

All objective standards within the SCMC 18.18 Landscaping shall apply.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

Driveways
One driveway is permitted per lot.

Utilities & Services
Each home shall be provided with a location for the storage of trash receptacles which is screened from the view from the public right-of-way.

Transformers, back flow preventers, generators, and other similar elements shall be screened from view from the public right-of-way.

II. Building Design (Detached & Attached)
Entrances
Entrances shall not exceed 10 feet in height.

The principal entry shall be located in a visible location facing the street and shall incorporate a projection (e.g., porch) or recess, or combination of projection and recess at least forty square feet in area, with a minimum depth of five feet.

Porches shall not encroach more than 3’-0 into the front setback regardless of height.

Where the entrances to both units are located on the front elevation, both doors shall be located together to mimic the appearance of a single-family home and shall have a covered entry.

Where entrances are located on separate elevations, both entrances shall have a covered entry.

The main entry feature shall not be the garage door.

Design elements and detailing shall be continued completely around the structure. Such elements shall include window treatments, trim detailing, and exterior wall materials.

All vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, electrical conduit, etc., shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent surface.

No street-facing facade shall run in a continuous plane of more than twenty-five feet without a window or a projection, offset, or recess of the building wall at least one foot in depth. Building entrances and front porches, and projections into required yards such as stoops, bays, overhangs, fireplaces, and trellises count towards this requirement.

Building elevations abutting side yards shall be designed to provide at least one horizontal plane break of at least three feet, and one vertical break.

All exterior building materials and colors shall be the same for all units on the property. Exterior materials shall be hard board, stucco, unpainted brick, or stone in an earth tone color. Board- formed non-colored concrete and stained wood with
proper fire assemblies may be used for accent walls.

Roofing shall be 30-year (minimum) composition shingle, tile, natural slate or standing seam metal in a non-reflective earth tone color.

The exterior use of foam as trim and plywood or aluminum as siding materials is prohibited.

Building materials which are vinyl or include reflective minerals such as hematite or quartz are prohibited.

Fenestration
Window and door frames shall be colored metal: black, white or earth tone in color.

The window type and style shall be consistent on all elevations.

Trim at least one inch in depth must be provided around all windows, or window must be recessed at least two inches from the plane of the surrounding exterior wall. For double- hung and horizontal sliding windows, at least one sash shall achieve a two-inch recess.

Exterior Lighting
Exterior building lighting shall be directed downward, have a shielded light source, and be designed so that the light is not directed off site.

Massing

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

Garage Frontage. Where an attached garage is located on the front half of the lot and garage doors face a street, garage width shall not exceed sixty-five percent of the width of the front facade of the building (sixty percent on lots wider than one hundred feet).

Paving
The maximum amount of paving in street-facing yards is fifty percent of the required yard.

Alley Access
A detached garage or carport is permitted to have access to the alley if:

1. The garage or carport entrance is set back a minimum of four feet from the rear property line;

2. A forty-five-degree visibility triangle is provided on either side of the garage or carport;

3. The garage door does not cross the property line when opened or closed III. Landscape Elements
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls shall not exceed 6 feet in height in the required front or rear setback.

Retaining walls shall be stone or unpainted brick in earth tone colors, or non-colored concrete.

Hardscape
Hardscape shall be gravel, stone, or unpainted brick in earth tone colors, or non-colored concrete.

Softscape
All landscaping shall be drought tolerant and native.

Landscaping shall not be planted in a linear pattern.

All new trees shall be installed at a minimum of 24- inch box and shall be adequately spaced.

One tree per every 1000 s.f. lot coverage. One must be a 24” box street oriented tree.

Landscaping
All landscaping shall adhere to the Objective Standards within SCMC 18.18 Fencing
All other fence regulations apply per the SCMC 18.18.040

8. Permit review process.

All applications for lot splits and new development using this article shall be ministerially approved without public hearings or discretionary review.

9. Fees.

The City Council may establish and set by resolution all fees and charges, consistent with Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22, and related provisions, as may be necessary to effectuate the purpose of this article.

9.a.1
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

If you require translation for this notice, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 650-802-4222.

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the San Carlos City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, January 10, 2022 at 7:00 p.m., pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.35, and Government Code Section 65858 for the purpose of hearing and considering all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with the City Council’s consideration of adopting an Urgency Ordinance to establish interim development and subdivision standards applicable to all properties in the RS -3 and RS-6 Zoning Districts that propose lot splits and additional development under the provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 9. If adopted by the City Council, this Urgency Ordinance would be effective for a period of 45 days, unless extended by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing.

The interim ordinance would establish regulations for the subdivision (i.e., lot splits) and development of qualified SB 9 properties. The significant changes include:

 Objective Design Standards
 Objective Development Standards
 Objective Subdivision Standards

This project is consistent with the programs and policies of the San Carlos 2030 General Plan, is within the scope of the activities and impacts identified in San Carlos 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and no new environmental e ffects have been found and no new mitigation is necessary. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15303 (a) and (b).

The agenda and relevant materials for this item will be available for viewing on the City’s website at http://sancarlosca.iqm2.com on January 6, 2022. A hardcopy may be obtained upon request to the City Clerk. Please note that this January 10, 2022 City Council meeting will be held via teleconference and there will not be a physical location for which the public can attend. However, the public will have access to observe the meeting and telephonically address the Council – details and directions will be available on the agenda. For more information and resources regarding SB9, please visit the project page at www.cityofsancarlos.org/sb9.

Questions regarding the project may be directed to Project Manager Sajuti Haque at [email protected]. Comments may be sent via email to the City Clerk at [email protected] and the City Council at [email protected]; or mailed to the City Clerk at 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070.

All persons interested in the above are hereby invited to participate remotely in this Public Hearing and be heard. If you challenge this proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk prior to the public hearing.

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

Publication Date: December 30, 2021

9.a.2
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Public Hearing Notice (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) Copyright 2021 Terner Center for Housing Innovation
For more information on the Terner Center , see our website at www.ternercenter .berkeley.edu
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
Will Allowing Duplexes and Lot
Splits on Parcels Zoned for
Single-Family Create New
Homes?
Assessing the Viability of New Housing Supply
Under California’s Senate Bill 9
AUTHORS:

BEN METCALF, MANAGING DIRECTOR, TERNER CENTER

DAVID GARCIA, POLICY DIRECTOR, TERNER CENTER

IAN CARLTON, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO, MAPCRAFT LABS

KATE MACFARLANE, PRODUCT MANAGER, MAPCRAFT LABS

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
2 Introduction
In recent years, California lawmakers have
proposed a number of legislative changes
to address the state’s ongoing housing
shortage and affordability crisis. While the
most ambitious of these efforts have not
passed, momentum has increased around
one solution in particular: legislation to
allow modest increases in smaller-sized
units in existing single-family neighbor-
hoods. In 2020, Senate Bill 1120—which
would have allowed for up to four new
homes on existing single-family parcels—
passed both the California Assembly and
Senate, but fell short of becoming law as
time ran out at the end of the session. This
year, Senate President Pro Tempore Toni
Atkins has introduced Senate Bill 9 (SB
9), which proposes a similar policy shift.

SB 9 has now passed through the State
Senate and is under discussion in the State
Assembly; if approved by the Assembly, it
may be poised to be the most significant
housing bill coming out of California’s
current legislative session.

SB 9 has potential to expand the supply
of smaller-scaled housing, particularly in
higher-resourced, single-family neighbor -
hoods. In this way, SB 9 builds on recent
state legislation that opened up access to
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for virtu-
ally all California single-family parcels.

What distinguishes SB 9 is that it allows
for the development of new, for-sale
homes, either on a newly subdivided lot or
through the conversion of existing single-
family homes into multiple units. This
ability to create duplexes and/or split the
lot and convey new units with a distinct
title would allow property owners to
pursue a wider range of financing options
than are available for ADU construction to
build these new homes.
1 In so doing, SB 9
could open up new homeownership oppor-
tunities at more attainable price points
for prospective purchasers, who would be
able to apply for a traditional mortgage to
buy the home.

Yet, the likelihood of creating new housing
and homeownership opportunities as
a result of SB 9 largely depends on local
context. While Senate Bill 9 does not
apply to single-family parcels in historic
districts, fire hazard zones, and rural
areas, local market prices and develop -
ment costs play a large role in determining
where there is financial viability for the
addition of new homes. Moreover, phys -
ical constraints, such as small lot sizes
and other local regulations, can limit the
number of new homes built as a result of
this bill. To assess the potential impact
of SB 9 on new housing supply, this anal-
ysis assesses the market feasibility of new
homes as allowed by the current version of
the Bill (as of July 2021).
2 This analysis finds that SB 9’s primary
impact will be to unlock incrementally
more units on parcels that are already
financially feasible under existing law,
typically through the simple subdivision
of an existing structure. Relatively few
new single-family parcels are expected
to become financially feasible for added
units as a direct consequence of this bill.

While this analysis does not attempt to
measure the actual rate of uptake for
adding new units to single-family parcels,
it is reasonable to assume that SB 9 will
modestly accelerate the addition of new
units relative to the status quo by facilitating
access to conventional mortgage products
for multiple households able to purchase
homes on newly subdivided single-family
parcels.

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
3 Background
California’s recent housing laws have
largely failed to unlock significant housing
production changes that would ease
the ongoing housing and homelessness
crisis. One of the state’s more effective
housing solutions has been recent laws
removing barriers to the construction and
financing of ADUs. In 2016, Senate Bill
1069 and Assembly Bill 2299 expanded
the ability of homeowners to build ADUs
and Junior ADUs (JADUs). Subsequent
legislation (Assembly Bill 68, Assembly
Bill 881, Senate Bill 13) removed other
barriers to ADU development, including
lowering impact fees and removing owner
occupancy requirements. The impacts
of this legislation are already apparent
throughout the state. Published state data
demonstrates that the initial 2017 ADU
law had immediate impacts: California
jurisdictions went from issuing 5,911
ADU permits in 2018 to 15,571 in 2019,
with ADU completions following a similar
upward trend, more than tripling over the
same period (from 1,984 to 6,668 units)
(Figure 1).
3 The ADU laws that took effect in
2019 allowing two ADUs on single-family
parcels and more on multi-family parcels
are already having a significant impact
on gently adding density across the state
in single- and multi-family properties. In
early 2021, the City of Los Angeles reports
processing upwards of 20,000 ADUs
where ADUs make up nearly 40 percent of
all housing building permits, and the City
of San Jose reports that ADUs make up 38
percent of all housing building permits.
4 This progress signals the significance of
easing approvals and barriers to smaller-
scale, infill development in low-density
areas.

Figure 1. ADU Permits and Completions in California, 2018 and 2019 0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Permits Completions
2018 2019
Source: Chapple, K., et. al. (2020). “Reaching California’s ADU Potential: Progress to Date and the Need for ADU Finance.” Retrieved from: https:// ternercenter .berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ADU-Brief-2020.pdf.

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
4 The early success of recent ADU legisla -
tion has prompted lawmakers to examine
similar policies that would incrementally
unlock more homes in low-density urban
infill neighborhoods where the housing
crisis is particularly acute. Such poli-
cies would also align with state climate
change policies encouraging additional
homes near jobs and services to reduce
vehicle miles travelled. Last year, SB 1120
proposed allowing up to four units in
single-family-zoned parcels throughout
the state. Analysis by the Terner Center
of SB 1120 found that nearly six million
single-family parcels statewide would
theoretically be eligible, a significant
expansion of buildable area in Califor-
nia.
5 For example, if just 5 percent of those
parcels created new two-unit structures
as a result of SB 1120, that would have
resulted in 597,706 new homes. That’s
more than five times the number of new
homes that have been built in California
annually since 2015.
6 However, in a
session marked by the disruptions related
to the COVID-19 pandemic, SB1120 ran
out of time to be sent to the governor’s
desk, despite passing both the Assembly
and the Senate.

SB 9 was introduced with nearly identical
language to its predecessor, SB 1120, but as
the bill has progressed through the legisla-
tive process, some important changes have
been made. Most notably, properties that
have developed an ADU are not eligible for
the density or lot split provisions of SB 9,
and jurisdictions would have the option of
imposing owner-occupancy requirements
for lot split applicants, where the applicant
would have to make one of the units on
the site their primary residence for at least
one year. This owner-occupancy provision
has been added to address concerns that
current homeowners could be incentiv-
ized to sell to private entities interested in
speculative investment on single-family
parcels and to encourage use of the law to
create more opportunities for California
families to buy a home. The provisions also
ensure the law cannot be used to divide
homes occupied by renters as a measure
to prevent displacement. Other new provi-
sions have made the legislation potentially
more impactful. For example, SB 9 allows
more flexibility in how the lot is split.

SB1120 required that both newly created
lots be of equal size, potentially limiting
the number of instances where new homes
would be feasible. New language in SB 9
requires that one of the newly created
parcels only needs to be more than 40
percent of the original parcel size. Table 1
summarizes the key provisions of SB 9 as
of July 2021.

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
5 Location
• The parcel, lot, or development must be located in a single-family residential zone. • The parcel cannot not be located in a historic district or be a historic property itself (as defined by the state or local county or city).
• The parcel cannot be located in a high fire zone area. • The parcel must be in a city whose boundaries include some portion of an urbanized area or urban cluster as designated by the U.S. Census Bureau.
• If the parcel lies in an unincorporated area, then the parcel at stake must be a legal parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area/cluster .

Parcel Size
• The parcel must be a minimum of 2,400 square feet in size. • The newly created parcel as a result of a lot split may not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel.
• A locality cannot impose any standards that would preclude the construction of up to two units or physically precluding either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area. • A side and rear setback of up to four feet is allowed.

Anti-Displacement
• The lot split cannot require the demolition or alteration of a housing unit currently serving moderate-, low- or very-low income household(s) or a rent-controlled unit. • The lot split cannot result in the demolition or alteration of housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years or where an owner has used the Ellis Act to remove a rental unit from the market within the last 15 years.
• A jurisdiction may impose an owner-occupancy restriction for lot splits, where the applicant must intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of one year from the date of the approval of the urban lot split.

Other
• The parcel cannot have been created from a previous lot split as provided by this policy. • The same person (or another party acting on their behalf) cannot perform a lot split on adjacent lots.

Table 1: Eligibility Criteria Proposed for Split Lots Under SB 9

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
6 To inform our model, several assump-
tions were made about market conditions
and trends. For example, all properties
with single-family detached land uses
were assumed to conform to zoning and
currently have exactly one existing unit
(e.g., no ADUs). In combination with tax
assessor data, we estimated the value of
each existing single-family property on
those parcels. MapCraft calculates stan-
dard development “pencil out” models
to compute snapshots of market feasi -
bility on every relevant parcel, both under
current policies and as proposed in SB 9.

These models are based on the financial
evaluations conducted by developers to
assess an investment’s viability early in
the development process by balancing the
cost of developing the site with expected
rental or sale income.
8 MapCraft’s models
of small-scale development look at finan -
cial feasibility from the perspectives of
owner-occupants, owner-occupant land -
lords, small-scale investors, and commer -
cial investors, with market-feasible unit
potential based on a probabilistic blend of
all possible development options. Finan-
cial expectations of investors and lending
terms are based on conversations with
industry professionals and are updated by
MapCraft regularly.

MapCraft’s calculations incorporate data
and assumptions about current rents, sales
prices, construction costs, and investors’
expected return on investment rates, and
are validated by ECONorthwest, a West
Coast economics consultancy. MapCraft’s
market demand information relies on
multiple sources, including CoStar, Zillow,
tax assessors, U.S. Census, and transaction
records. MapCraft’s construction cost
information is based on interviews and
RS Means. Finally, the modeling relies on
Methodology
It is unrealistic to assume that under SB
9, every single-family lot would be split,
or that every existing single-family home
would be demolished and replaced with
four new units. For example, some lots
may be too small, have other existing
structures or ADUs, have a history of
being rented, or other physical conditions
that prevent changes. Some owners may
have no interest in developing their prop -
erty. And finally, even if a property owner
is interested in pursuing new development
on their land, trying to recoup this invest -
ment with market-rate rental or sales
will prove financially infeasible in many
instances. To develop a better estimate
of the potential impact of SB 9 on new
supply, we conducted an analysis of how
many new homes would be both physically
eligible and financially feasible as a result
of SB 9, as well as what types of develop -
ment would be most likely, taking into
account on-the-ground market dynamics.

We partnered with MapCraft Labs, which
developed a financial feasibility model to
assess market-feasible housing capacity
on existing parcels with detached single-
family homes. The base layer for the
analysis is a parcel dataset from Urban -
Footprint which includes all counties in
California with populations greater than
45,000 people, and covers homes built
prior to 2020.
7 This dataset includes
roughly 7.5 million single-family parcels
across the state. We used MapCraft’s Lab
analysis tool to determine what types and
scales of housing development would be
feasible with an approach that considers
construction costs, market demand,
financing, land use policies, and individual
parcel characteristics.

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
7 assumptions about parking requirements
based on previous Terner Center research,
typical unit sizes, and other factors that
inform development.
9 The provisions of SB 9 would allow for a
variety of development options. For this
analysis we examined the most likely devel-
opment scenarios as shown in Appendix B.

Our business-as-usual scenario evaluates
development feasibility for housing supply
changes currently permissible under
single-family zoning, while the alternative
policy scenario considers the additional
set of development options allowed under
SB 9. For example, under the business-as-
usual scenario, a homeowner may decide
to build an ADU but would only be able
to split the parcel into two lots, each with
two homes, under the alternative policy
scenario allowed under SB 9.

Our estimates also account for the fact that
SB 9 includes anti-displacement language
that prohibits alteration or demolition of
renter-occupied homes. To approximate
this, we used the percentage of single-
family home rentals in each census tract
(as determined by ACS data) to discount
results for development outcomes that
alter or demolish the existing structure.

We also examined the potential impacts
of owner-occupancy requirements by
removing financial scenarios that assume
all the new units are rentals, as well as
development scenarios that require demo-
lition of an existing structure. In addition,
we assumed that owners received a 25
percent discount for the unit they occu -
pied in split lot development scenarios.

Market-feasible capacity is not a
forecast of future production.

While this analysis identifies the number
of market-feasible units, in most cases
these market-feasible units will take years
to be developed, and some may never get
built. This analysis considers the market
feasibility of redevelopment on each
eligible single-family parcel in isolation,
and assumes that every property owner
is maximizing the economic potential of
their lot. However, that is not the case for
several reasons.

First, the most economically feasible use
does not consider the motivations and
preferences of individual property owners.

Any change in use requires the coopera -
tion of the owner, either to sell the site or
to redevelop it themselves. The economics
All Single-Family Parcels
Eligible Parcels
Market-Feasible
Parcels
Developed
Parcels
TBD
Figure 2: Production Funnel

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
8 may suggest that the highest value of a
house may be to tear it down and rebuild
it into a much larger house, but if a home-
owner prefers a small house or the existing
architecture, they’re not going to rebuild.

Converting a house to a duplex and renting
out half may be most profitable for a home-
owner, but that will not happen if that
homeowner is uninterested in living more
closely with others in what was formerly
“their” space or in becoming a landlord or
homeseller. Even when a property owner
does wish to redevelop their site, they may
lack the upfront capital and sophistica -
tion to initiate the process; and then may
be unable to access financing due to a low
credit score or other underwriting barrier.

In addition, redevelopment does not
happen instantaneously; it requires home-
owner awareness and interest, available
construction industry capacity, a suitable
financing ecosystem and viable routinized
business models for development in order
to proceed. State ADU laws, for example,
have taken several years to ramp up as
awareness, delivery models, industry and
local agency capacity have adapted to law
changes. It is reasonable to assume that
it may take years for that capacity to fully
emerge in California if SB 9 becomes law.

Findings
SB 9 could enable the creation of
over 700,000 new homes that would
otherwise not be market feasible.

Under our business-as-usual scenario, we
estimate 1,800,000 new ADUS/JADUS
are currently market-feasible and could be
built under today’s zoning laws across Cali-
fornia’s 7,500,000 existing single-family
housing parcels. With SB 9, we estimate
that approximately 700,000 additional
new units would become market-feasible,
representing a 40 percent percent increase
in existing development potential across
California’s single-family housing parcels.

All Single-Family Parcels

7.5 million
Eligible Parcels

6.1 million
Market-Feasible Parcels
~410,000
(including 110,000
newly feasible parcels)
Developed
Parcels
TBD
Figure 3: Parcel Development Funnel (Total Numbers)

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
9 SB 9 would enable the development
of more units on 410,000 single-
family parcels, of which only 110,000
parcels would become newly feasible.

Overall, SB 9 would change the
development feasibility of a relatively small
number of parcels. First, the conditions
stipulated by the legislation limit the
number of parcels that can utilize the bill’s
provisions, as illustrated in Figure 3. For
example, the bill’s current limitations
on new development in high fire hazard
areas, historic districts, non-urbanized
areas, and existing renter homes removes
approximately 1.4 million existing single-
family homes from consideration.
10 Of
the 6.1 million remaining parcels, the
majority would not be affected because
of an absence of physical capacity or
financial feasibility. However, on 5.4
percent of current single-family parcels,
SB 9 would enable new development. For
110,000 single-family parcels (1.5 percent
of total single-family parcels), SB 9 would
enable new development where none was
financially feasible before, and for another
300,000 parcels, SB 9 would allow for
more units than under our business-as-
usual scenario.

For the majority of single-family proper -
ties, we find the most financially viable
outcome is not to pursue any develop -
ment whatsoever, both under our busi -
ness-as-usual scenario and under our SB
9 scenario.

Under our assumptions about today’s
regulations, market conditions, and devel-
opment alternatives, we found that doing
nothing was the most likely option for
California’s single-family parcels: devel -
opment is not feasible for 80 percent
of parcels (Figure 4). If SB 9 passed,
110,000 parcels would be newly devel-
opable, causing the share of infeasible
parcels to tick down slightly to 78 percent.

The primary benefit of SB 9 comes from
allowing slightly more units on parcels
where development already makes sense
and in opening up any added units to
homeownership opportunities through the
ability to legally subdivide those parcels.

Figure 4. Likely Parcel Feasibility By Number of Feasible Units 78%
80%
1%
1%
12%
16%
7%
4%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Under SB 9
Business-As-Usual
No feasibility 1 New Unit 2 New Units 3 New Units 4 New Units

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
10 SB 9 is unlikely to lead to significant
demolition of the existing stock.

We found that nearly 97 percent of single-
family homes would be retained under SB
9’s provisions, either without any modifi-
cation or with less intensive development
(e.g., subdividing the existing structure
to enable a duplex conversion). In many
places, existing zoning allows homes to
be demolished and replaced with larger
single-family homes, which we found was
the most financially attractive scenario on
1 percent of all single-family parcels under
our business-as-usual scenario. Under SB
9, the likelihood of tearing down a single-
family home and replacing it with a larger
single-family home falls by half to 0.5
percent due to other viable development
opportunities.

While SB 9 would provide a boost
in three- and four-unit feasibility,
duplexes would be the most domi-
nant form of financially-feasible
development.

The majority of viable development oppor-
tunities should SB 9 be enacted would
result in two units per existing lot (Figure
5). Duplexes comprise an important block
of this new capacity, accounting for 35
percent of all new units, two thirds of
which would be in converted existing
single-family homes. SB 9 would also
enable a somewhat higher total number of
feasible units by allowing greater uptake
of three- and four-unit development.

Figure 5. Estimates of Parcels with Feasible Capacity Under SB 9 0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1 Unit (1 for 1
replacement of existing
home)
2 Units 3 Units 4 Units

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
11 There is wide regional variation in
market-feasible units.

The amount of new market-feasible units
varies by region. Los Angeles County
resulted in the most new market-feasible
units under SB 9 with approximately
126,000 new homes. While significant,
Los Angeles County also comprises both
the most single-family parcels and SB 9
eligible parcels (Table 2). Analyzing new
market-feasible units per eligible single-
family parcel finds that Yuba, El Dorado,
Sutter, and Nevada counties would see
the most new market-feasible potential
per parcel, although the overall number
of new feasible units is relatively low
compared to larger counties. Many coastal
California counties exhibited higher than
average per parcel unit ratios, such as
Marin, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, and
Santa Barbara counties, signaling that
rents and sales prices there could support
new homes resulting from SB 9. Mean-
while, most Central Valley counties, such
as Fresno, Merced, Kern, and Stanislaus,
showed below average potential for new
homes per parcel, reflecting lower finan-
cial feasibility. For a list of all county
results, see Appendix A. At the city level,
the state’s most populous jurisdictions
were all below average for market-feasible
units per parcel, as shown in Table 3.

Owner-occupancy requirements
would have a limited negative impact
on the market feasibility of devel-
opment pursuant to SB 9, but they
could have a much larger impact on
actual delivery of units under SB 9.

SB 9, as currently written, allows juris-
dictions to impose owner-occupancy
requirements for lot split applicants, but
not for duplex conversions. Our analysis
finds that, if every jurisdiction imposed
owner-occupancy requirements, the total
financially feasible units enabled by SB 9
would decrease by roughly 6 percent, or
approximately 40,000 units. This limited
impact reflects the fact that our model
indicates only 10 percent of new units
under SB 9 would be attributable to lot
splits.

While the owner-occupancy requirement
would have only a modest impact on the
financial viability of new units, it may have
a significant effect on the number of owners
willing to actually pursue new develop -
ment on their properties. By preventing
owners from splitting a lot unless they
plan to live there themselves for at least
a year, or from allowing a developer to
take on development involving a lot-split
pursuant to SB 9, the owner-occupancy
requirement may reduce the number of
homes that will result from SB 9.

Shifts in construction costs and
rental and sales prices could change
development feasibility.

In addition to assessing the potential
impact of SB 9 using current market
conditions, we also ran a sensitivity anal-
ysis to examine the potential impact of SB
9 under different market scenarios. Our
analysis found that a 10 percent decrease
in construction costs could increase the
amount of market-feasible units by 5
percent, or roughly 36,000 more units
than the 700,000 baseline impact of SB

9. Local and state policymakers should
therefore also consider policies that could
help reduce the costs of production to
enable policies such as SB 9 to work more
effectively in more places. In the oppo -
site direction, we found that a 10 percent
increase in construction costs lowers
development feasibility by 4.5 percent,
or by approximately 32,000 units. Our

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
12 County
Total single-
family
parcels
SB 9-eligible
parcels
Parcels
where SB
9 would
increase
the number
of market-
feasible
units
Parcels
where SB
9 changes
feasible
outcome
from no net
new units to
1+ net new
units*
Total
market-
feasible new
units if SB 9
is enacted**
Total
market-
feasible new
units divided
by SB 9
eligible lots
Los Angeles 1,441,000 1,210,500 79,500 18,000 127,000 0.10 San Diego 554,500 398,500 28,500 9,000 54,500 0.14
Orange 557,000 486,000 26,500 8,500 47,000 0.10
Riverside 563,000 483,000 36,500 10,000 62,500 0.13
San
Bernardino 493,000 385,000 32,000 8,000 56,500 0.15
Santa Clara 331,000 319,500 22,000 8,500 40,000 0.13
Alameda 306,500 277,000 16,000 3,500 25,000 0.09
Sacramento 369,500 360,500 25,000 5,000 40,500 0.11
Contra Costa 263,500 239,000 20,000 7,500 38,000 0.16
Fresno 203,500 186,000 5,500 500 10,500 0.06
Statewide
totals
(excluding
counties
with pop.
under
45,000)
7,470,500 6,182,500 410,000 111,500 714,000 0.12 Table 2. SB 9-Eligible Parcels and Market-Feasible New Units by Largest Counties *Note: This is a subset of the parcels where SB 9 would increase the number of market-feasible units. **Note: Market-feasible new units are rounded.

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
13 City
Total single-
family
parcels
SB 9-eligible
parcels
Parcels
where SB
9 would
increase
the number
of market-
feasible
units
Parcels
where SB
9 changes
feasible
outcome
from no net
new units to
1+ net new
units**
Total
market-
feasible new
units if SB 9
is enacted
Total market
feasible new
units divided
by SB 9
eligible lots
Los Angeles 447,500 355,000 23,000 6,000 37,500 0.11
San Diego 203,500 133,000 7,000 3,000 13,000 0.10
San Jose 168,500 168,000 10,500 2,500 16,000 0.10
San Fran-
cisco 94,500 93,500 6,500 500 8,500 0.09
Fresno 104,000 104,000 2,000 100 4,000 0.04
Sacramento 116,500 116,000 6,500 800 9,500 0.08
Long Beach 59,500 58,500 3,000 200 3,500 0.06
Oakland 66,500 51,000 3,000 100 3,500 0.07
Bakersfield 87,500 87,500 5,000 2,000 9,000 0.10
Anaheim 43,000 36,000 2,500 1,000 4,000 0.11
Table 3. SB 9-Eligible Parcels and Market-Feasible New Units by Most Populous California Cities*
*Note: This is a subset of the parcels where SB 9 would increase the number of market-feasible units. **Note: Market-feasible new units are rounded.

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021
14 model also analyzed sensitivity to changes
in rental and sales prices. We found that
a 10 percent increase in prices resulted in
an 8 percent increase in market-feasible
units, or roughly 57,000 more units.

Policy Implications
A significant amount of land in California
has historically been designated for single-
family homes, limiting the development of
a greater diversity of urban infill housing
options in jurisdictions across the state.

Solving California’s housing crisis—let
alone tackling the challenges of climate
change and residential segregation—
requires policies that intensify land use in
these communities. California’s statewide
ADU laws were a step in the direction of
gently adding more density to simulta -
neously address the housing, climate,
and equity challenges faced by the state.

But, in other ways, California lags behind
other states in its land use regulations
and dogged resistance to changing single-
family zoning. For example, the state of
Oregon recently required jurisdictions to
allow multifamily housing—either two or
three units—on all single-family parcels.

Some cities have gone even further, such
as Portland and Minneapolis, both of
which have voted to loosen allowable
homebuilding on single-family parcels.

While many cities in California—including
Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Sacra-
mento, Berkeley, and Oakland—are
exploring similar options, SB 9 could play
an important role in enabling the construc-
tion of a significant amount of new house
options that are smaller-scale, more
cost-effective, more varied, and inclusive
across the urban areas of the state.

Our analysis shows that approximately
700,000 new, market-feasible homes
would be enabled under SB 9. But despite
the concerns of some of its detractors,
SB 9 will not lead to the overnight trans-
formation of residential neighborhoods.

Differential owner preferences and limited
applicability means that only a share of
that potential is likely to be developed,
particularly in the near term as aware-
ness and capacity expands. As such, while
important, the new units unlocked by SB
9 would represent a fraction of the overall
supply needed to fully address the state’s
housing shortage.

Policymakers should consider comple -
mentary strategies to ensure that this
legislation is effective. These strategies
could include outreach to make sure that
homeowners are aware of and understand
the opportunities allowed by recent policy
changes, either through SB 9 or existing
ADU laws, and the expansion of more
robust financing options to moderate- and
low-income owners who wish to add new
units to their parcels. Increasing housing
production in single-family zoned areas
is also not the only policy shift that is
needed. Policymakers should add addi -
tional tools to boost supply overall,
including by expanding permissible
residential development on commercial
property and by further reducing local
barriers to new housing through expe -
dited approval processes for conforming
projects and reform of the local regula-
tory barriers and fees.

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

APPENDIX A
County Name Existing SFR
Lots
SFR Lots
Eligible for
SB 9
Additional Lots
with 1+ Unit
Capacity Under
SB 9
SB 9 Net
Change in
Market-
Feasible Units*
SB 9 Net Units
Per Eligible Lot
Alameda 306,306 276,795 3,633 25,000 0.09
Butte 65,020 32,720 47 3,000 0.09
Contra Costa 263,303 238,957 7,438 38,000 0.16
El Dorado 57,386 19,133 583 4,500 0.24
Fresno 203,474 185,908 564 10,500 0.06
Humboldt 35,672 22,560 93 2,500 0.11
Imperial 33,036 27,002 76 1,500 0.06
Kern 216,321 174,219 2,226 14,500 0.08
Kings 29,045 26,784 87 1,500 0.06
Lake 27,095 10,257 60 1,000 0.10
Los Angeles 1,441,148 1,210,729 18,130 127,000 0.10
Madera 35,785 22,474 1,196 4,500 0.20
Marin 60,998 46,841 2,163 9,500 0.20
Mendocino 19,350 8,949 90 1,500 0.17
Merced 55,676 51,972 106 2,500 0.05
Monterey 75,348 55,097 845 6,000 0.11
Napa 31,248 25,890 1,108 5,000 0.19
Nevada 43,090 5,618 199 1,500 0.27
Orange 557,820 485,756 8,730 47,000 0.10
Placer 125,458 94,273 1,448 13,000 0.14
Riverside 562,935 482,821 10,149 62,500 0.13
Appendix Table 1. County-Level Results

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

APPENDIX A
County Name Existing SFR
Lots
SFR Lots
Eligible for
SB 9
Additional Lots
with 1+ Unit
Capacity Under
SB 9
SB 9 Net
Change in
Market-
Feasible Units*
SB 9 Net Units
Per Eligible Lot
Sacramento 369,605 360,485 5,006 40,500 0.11
San Benito 12,747 9,940 740 2,500 0.25
San Bernardino 492,806 385,243 7,848 56,500 0.15
San Diego 554,502 398,386 9,015 54,500 0.14
San Francisco 94,400 93,514 486 8,500 0.09
San Joaquin 164,796 147,577 2,159 14,000 0.09
San Luis Obispo 75,016 53,068 1,229 8,500 0.16
San Mateo 151,508 134,531 3,112 17,000 0.13
Santa Barbara 91,540 75,399 1,506 10,000 0.13
Santa Clara 331,232 319,319 8,527 40,000 0.13
Santa Cruz 54,817 43,522 1,422 8,000 0.18
Shasta 55,366 25,997 402 3,500 0.13
Solano 110,592 105,962 684 8,500 0.08
Sonoma 124,610 103,452 2,688 16,500 0.16
Stanislaus 123,922 116,754 1,542 9,500 0.08
Sutter 24,707 19,357 1,111 4,000 0.21
Tehama 18,504 7,903 35 500 0.06
Tulare 104,235 86,679 1,096 6,000 0.07
Tuolumne 25,386 995 1 100 0.10
Ventura 184,033 135,836 1,604 14,500 0.11
Yolo 43,761 40,940 550 4,500 0.11
Yuba 16,743 13,064 2,016 4,500 0.34
Statewide Total 7,470,342 6,182,678 111,746 714,100 0.12 Appendix Table 1. County-Level Results (Continued)
+Note: Parcels that could have feasibly built ADUs or JADUs in a pre-SB 9 scenario are not included in the “New Market-Feasible Lots Under SB 9” category in this table, even if our analysis found that under SB 9, they could now feasibly build three or four units. As a result, per lot averages of new feasible units will yield results higher than four units per lot. *Note: Market-feasible new units are rounded

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

APPENDIX B
Specific Modeling Assumptions
The following assumptions were incorporated into MapCraft’s analysis of SB 9.

Allowed Prototypes
The prototypes in the following tables were evaluated on each site.

Keep Existing Structure Demo Existing Structure
Do nothing Build new single-family residence (SFR)
Add detached ADU (DADU) Build new SFR + detached ADU (DADU) JADU conversion + DADU Build new SFR + DADU + JADU
Convert to duplex Build duplex
Convert to duplex + DADU Build duplex + DADU
Convert to duplex + DADU + JADU Build duplex + DADU + JADU Appendix Table 2. Prototype Options When SB 9’s Lot Split Provision Is NOT Used Italicized indicates outcomes that are possible in the business-as-usual scenario under current single-family zoning, without SB 9.

Keep Existing Structure Demo Existing Structure and
Create Two Lots
Subdivided Lot with Existing
Structure New Lot Build two new SFR
Do nothing SFR Build two new SFR + ADU
Add detached ADU (DADU) SFR Build two new SFR + JADU + ADU JADU conversion SFR Build two new duplexes
JADU conversion + DADU SFR
Duplex conversion SFR
Do Nothing SFR + ADU
Add detached ADU (DADU) SFR + ADU
JADU conversion SFR + ADU
JADU conversion + DADU SFR + ADU
Duplex conversion SFR + ADU
Do nothing SFR + JADU + ADU
Add detached ADU (DADU) SFR + JADU + ADU
JADU conversion SFR + JADU + ADU
JADU conversion + DADU SFR + JADU + ADU
Duplex conversion SFR + JADU + ADU
Do nothing Duplex
Add detached ADU (DADU) Duplex
JADU conversion Duplex
JADU conversion + DADU Duplex
Duplex conversion Duplex
Appendix Table 3. Prototype Options When Using SB 9’s Lot Split Provision

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) For new-built duplex prototypes, MapCraft evaluated both stacked and side-by-side vari- ations at a variety of scales. Also, four scales of single-family prototypes were tested. In total, 652 pro formas were evaluated on each parcel.

Data Inputs
The parcel data for this analysis was provided by UrbanFootprint and includes approxi- mately 7.5 million parcels: all parcels with single-family dwellings in California counties with populations greater than 45,000 people.

For the purposes of this work, all properties with single-family detached land use were assumed to currently have one existing unit (i.e., no ADUs) and single-family zoning that limited development of multiple primary units. To support the assumption, UrbanFoot- print scanned zoning in a sample of cities, finding that the vast majority of parcels with single-family homes are zoned for single-family. UrbanFootprint’s parcel data included information on each lot and the single-family homes on those lots. In combination with tax assessor data, the value of each existing single-family property was estimated in the second quarter of 2020.

To be realistic about the policy constraints that limit development under current policies and SB9, MapCraft relied on coarse zoning-like limitations interpolated from homes built in each tract between 2005 and 2020. MapCraft assumed that developments on a parcel would need to conform to the 90th percentile of height, FAR, and lot coverage of other recently built homes in the same census tract. In other words, MapCraft assumed that plexes would be held to the same bulk restrictions as newer single-family homes.

MapCraft’s financial calculations incorporated data and assumptions about early 2020 rents, sales prices, construction costs, and investors’ expected return rates, which were validated by ECONorthwest and Economic & Planning Systems, two West Coast economics consultancies. Early 2020 data was used given the volatility of both the rental and for-sale prices during the COVID-19 pandemic. MapCraft’s market demand informa- tion relied on multiple sources, including CoStar, Zillow, tax assessors, U.S. Census, and transaction records. MapCraft’s construction cost information was based on interviews with cost observations localized based on RS Means. Financial expectations of investors and lending terms were based on MapCraft’s conversations with industry professionals.

Finally, the modeling relied on assumptions about parking requirements, typical unit sizes, development fees, and other factors that inform development. The Terner Center provided input on parking and fees that were incorporated into the analysis.

Tenancy-Based Eligibility Restrictions
SB 9 prohibits demolition or alteration of renter-occupied housing. To address this, Mapcraft used the percentage of single-family rentals in each tract (per the U.S. Census) to discount results for outcomes that require demolition of the existing structure.

SB 9 also allows jurisdictions to impose certain owner-occupancy requirements. Mapcraft tested the impact of this provision by running bookend scenarios at two extremes: 1) no jurisdictions impose owner-occupancy restrictions, and 2) all jurisdictions impose

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) owner-occupancy restrictions. To model the owner-occupancy requirement, Mapcraft disallowed all-rental valuation options and prototype options that required demolition of the existing structure. Mapcraft also tested the imposition of a risk premium threshold that eliminates any second split lot prototypes that do not generate residual land values that exceed the reduced value of the original property by 25 percent.

Notably, the results do not estimate the number of owner-occupants that may pursue development given an owner-occupancy requirement.

Lot Splitting Limitations
MapCraft used the following assumptions in modeling the ability of a parcel to split into two lots:
• Lots smaller than 2,400 square feet cannot be split.
• In cases where the existing structure is retained, the lot must have at least 4,000 sq ft of unbuilt area (after deducting the footprint of the existing structure from the lot size).

Parking Provision
MapCraft used Terner Center’s California Residential Land Use Survey to help define parking delivery minimums. Even if a jurisdiction’s code or SB 9 eliminates parking requirements, demand for parking may still exist, and developers will still provide parking. MapCraft assumed that developers will provide at least the parking ratios shown in Appendix Table 4.

Within ½ Mile of High-Capacity
Transit Not Near High-Capacity Transit
Small Units (2 Bedrooms or
Fewer) 0.5 stalls/unit 1 stall/unit
Large Units (3+ Bedrooms) 1 stall/unit 2 stalls/unit
Appendix Table 4. Assumptions of Minimum Demanded Parking for New Construction In prototypes where a small unit is added without a lot split or demolition of the existing structure, MapCraft assumed that no new parking spaces will be added.

Relaxed Zoning Restrictions
SB 9 prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing zoning standards on two-unit develop - ments or newly split lots that would physically preclude the construction of up to two units, or that would preclude units from being at least 800 square feet. To reflect this, MapCraft increased the existing zoning restrictions on FAR, lot coverage, and impervious coverage. FAR was relaxed by increasing the allowed FAR by one quarter, lot coverage was relaxed by one quarter up to 75 percent coverage, and impervious coverage was increased one quarter up to 90 percent coverage.

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

ENDNOTES

1. It is often difficult for a homeowner to finance an ADU. Few loan products exist to finance ADU construction, and those that are available often do not go far enough to cover the costs of development. See https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/ reaching-californias-adu-potential-progress-to-date-and-the-need-for-adu-finance/.

2. Senate Bill 9: Housing development approvals, April 27, 2021. https://leginfo.legis - lature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB9

3. Chapple, K., et. al. (2020). “Reaching California’s ADU Potential: Progress to Date and the Need for ADU Finance.” Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-con - tent/uploads/2020/12/ADU-Brief-2020.pdf.

4. 2021 Casita Coalition Best Practices Webinar Series. https://www.youtube.com/ playlist?list=PLRPPog7f6IzVUuadN9ED5HztZGU_tgY32

5. Garcia, D., Tucker, J. & Schmidt, I. (2020). “Single-Family Zoning Reform: An Analysis of SB 1120.” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Single-Family_ Zoning_Reform_An_Analysis_of_SB_1120.pdf.

6. On average, California added roughly 100,000 new homes each year between 2015 and 2019. California Industry Research Board, “Housing Production in California, 2005- 2019”.

7. The following counties are not included: Calaveras, Siskiyou, Amador, Lassen, Glenn Del Norte, Colusa, Plumas, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Trinity, Modoc, Sierra, and Alpine.

8. For more information on the financial dynamics of development decisions, see our 2019 brief “Making it Pencil: The Math Behind Housing Development”.

9. Mawhorter, S. & Reid, C. (2018). Terner California Residential Land Use Survey.

Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from: https://californialan - duse.org/.

10. Historic areas were determined using National Park Service data, which does not include local or state historic designations.

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to the Terner Center team including Issi Romem, Carolina Reid, and Elizabeth Kneebone for their review and expertise as well as Paavo Monkkonen and Denise Pink - ston for their input and feedback. Also, thank you to UrbanFootprint for the use of their statewide parcel dataset.

This research does not represent the institutional views of UC Berkeley or of Terner Center’s funders. Funders do not determine research findings or recommendations in Terner Center’s research and policy reports.

ABOUT THE TERNER CENTER
The Terner Center formulates bold strategies to house families from all walks of life in vibrant, sustainable, and affordable homes and communities. Our focus is on generating constructive, practical strategies for public policy makers and innovative tools for private sector partners to achieve better results for families and communities.

For more information visit: www.ternercenter.berkeley.edu

9.a.3
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Terner Center Report on SB 9 (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) 1 Senate Bill 9 – Ministerial Urban Lot Splits & Two-Unit Developments Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

DISCLAIMER: This document is intended to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice. Additional facts, facts specific to a particular situation, or future developments may affect the subjects discussed in this FAQ. Seek the advice of your attorney before acting or relying upon the following information.

BASICS

1. When does SB 9 go into effect?
January 1, 2022.

2. What is the definition of an urbanized area or urban cluster? As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, an urbanized area is an area with 50,000 or more persons, and an urban cluster is an area with at least 2,500 people, but less than 50,000 people. Maps of urbanized areas and urban clusters can be found on the official U.S. Census Bureau website.

3. Can you use SB 9 in zones that allow single-family development but are zoned primarily for multi-family or mixed-use development?
No. The language of the statute is clear that it applies only to parcels in single-family residential zones. Since the intent of the legislation was to upzone or densify areas where only single-family development is currently permitted, it would not serve the purposes of the legislation for it to apply in areas where multi-family or denser uses are already permitted. SB 9 also does not apply to a parcel that is currently developed with a single-family home, if that parcel is located in anything other than a single-family residential zone.

4. Does SB 9 apply to homeowners' associations (HOAs)?
SB 9 overrides local zoning only. It does not address rules or restrictions implemented and adopted by homeowners' associations or included in CC&Rs (covenants, conditions, and restrictions).

9.a.4
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: SB 9 FAQs from 21 Elements (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) 2 5. Is a lot eligible for an SB 9 lot split if it was split before SB 9? Yes. The language of SB 9 only prohibits an applicant from using SB 9 to subdivide a lot if it was previously split using the authority contained in SB 9. Even after using SB 9, the lot could be further split using ordinary procedures under the Subdivision Map Act and local subdivision ordinance subject to minimum lot size and other requirements that apply to the parcel.

6. Is the restriction on the demolition of 25% of the exterior walls of the building only applicable to deed-restricted affordable units?
No. This restriction applies to all units unless (1) the city adopts an ordinance allowing for demolition of more than 25% of the exterior walls of an existing structure, or (2) a tenant has not resided on the property in the last three (3) years.

7. How do you verify that existing housing has not been rented in the last 3 years? SB 9 does not provide an explicit mechanism for determining whether existing housing has been rented in the last three years. Given that, this is an issue that local agencies will want to address in an implementing ordinance or in their application procedures. Some approaches might include:
• In jurisdictions with existing records of rental properties, which may include business licenses, rent control registries, or inspection records, using data from the local records to be cross-referenced upon submission of an SB 9 application; • Requiring applicants to sign a declaration under penalty of perjury; and/or • Providing that it is a violation of the Municipal Code or allowing a private cause of action if inaccurate information is submitted.

8. When the provisions of SB 9 are unclear, can we seek clarification from the Department of Housing and Community Development?
Unlike other recent state laws, such as SB 35 or SB 330, SB 9 does not include any provisions requiring HCD to issue guidelines for the implementation of SB 9. Nonetheless, HCD has indicated that it intends to provide a technical assistance (TA) memo on SB 9 implementation.

The timeline for when HCD's TA memo will be available is unclear.

INTERSECTION WITH OTHER LAWS

9. How does the state Density Bonus Law apply to the 4-unit scenario? State Density Bonus Law would not be applicable to SB 9 projects. Government Code § 65915(i) defines "housing development project," for the purposes of state density bonus, as "a development project for five or more residential units." SB 9 covers up to four units total on two contiguous lots. Additionally, the urban lot split section states specifically that local agencies are not required to allow more

9.a.4
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: SB 9 FAQs from 21 Elements (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) 3 than the maximum of two units on each lot notwithstanding any provision of density bonus law.

10. How do SB 9 urban lot splits relate to the Subdivision Map Act and the fact that the Subdivision Map Act requires general plan conformance?
The language in SB 9 overrides any conflicting provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. Specifically, Government Code § 66411.7(b)(2) provides that "[a] local agency shall approve an urban lot split only if it conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act…, except as otherwise expressly provided in this section." General Plan and specific plan conformance is not required if it would preclude lot splits mandated by SB9.

11. Do minimum frontage requirements apply to restrict lot subdivision? Minimum frontage requirements continue to apply unless the requirements would physically preclude the lot split or the construction of two units of at least 800 square feet each. However, SB 9 does allow local agencies to require the resulting parcels to have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way.

12. How does the Permit Streamlining Act apply if these are ministerial actions? SB 8, also effective January 1, 2022, extends the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act to housing projects of one unit or more that require no discretionary approvals. As a consequence, SB 9 projects are subject to the Permit Streamlining Act’s requirements for completeness letters (within 30 days of submittal) and approval deadlines (within 60 days of determining that the project is exempt from CEQA).

QUANTITY/ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

13. SB 9 states that "[a] housing development contains two residential units if the development proposes no more than two new units or if it proposes to add one new unit to an existing unit." Why are some people saying that you can add two new units to a parcel with an existing single-family home?
As the question states, Gov. Code § 65852.21(i) provides that a development contains two residential units if "the development proposes no more than two new units or if it proposes to add one new unit to one existing unit." This could be interpreted to mean that the statute applies to a two-unit proposal even if those units are proposed for a lot already containing a unit. While the urban lot split section (Gov. Code § 66411.7) clearly allows local agencies to limit total development to two units per lot, including existing units, ADUs, and JADUs, the same language is not present in the two-unit development section. The Legislature’s intent regarding a two-unit development on a single lot is not clear. It may be possible for an applicant who only uses the two-unit development provisions, but not the urban lot split provisions, to have more than two units on the lot.

9.a.4
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: SB 9 FAQs from 21 Elements (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) 4 14. Does SB 9 prohibit ADUs with an urban lot split, or can jurisdictions disallow ADUs with an urban lot split?
SB 9 does not prohibit accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units on lots created by an urban lot split. Under SB9 a local agency "shall not be required to approve" more than two units (including ADUs and JADUs) on a lot created via an SB 9 lot split. Agencies may also prohibit ADUs and JADUs on parcels created by urban lot splits that use the two-unit provision. Given this language, local agencies could choose to limit development on lots created by an urban lot split to two primary units each via adoption of an SB 9 implementing ordinance.

15. Are the two new SB 9 units entitled to an ADU or JADU? If the two new SB 9 units are not located on a lot created via the urban lot split provision, then ADUs and JADUs are allowed as under existing law. If the applicant used both the SB 9 lot split provisions and the SB 9 two-unit development provisions, then a local ordinance can limit total development to two units per lot, including ADUs and JADUs, or could choose to allow only two primary units on each lot.

16. If there is an existing four-unit building on a parcel in a single-family residential zone, can an applicant still add a duplex?
The existing four-unit building would already be a non-conforming use in a single-family zone.

Depending on the jurisdiction's non-conforming use policies, the non-conforming structure may need to be removed if the applicant wishes to add a duplex. However, the urban lot split provision (section 66411.7(i)) prohibits requiring correction of nonconforming zoning conditions for urban lot splits.

Nonetheless, the agency can require that no more than two units be located on each lot.

17. Does SB 9 allow an applicant to use the duplex entitlements to build a single unit "monster home" and get around non-objective single-family design guidelines? Probably, yes. Section 65852.21(a) states, “A proposed housing development containing no more than two residential units within a single-family residential zone shall be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing….” Later in the section, in paragraph (i), it also states “[a] housing development contains two residential units if the development proposes no more than two new units or if it proposes to add one new unit to one existing unit.” Although it is not clear whether the legislature intended to include single-family home development, the "no more than two units" language in SB 9 could be interpreted to cover development projects proposing to construct one single-family home.

18. Are the new units created via the authority in SB 9 condominiums? Does SB 9 facilitate ministerial condominium conversions? Does SB 9 allow for condominium conversion of existing duplexes? SB9 does not amend laws regarding condominiums. SB9 does not allow denial of attached units so long as their design and construction allow them to be “separately conveyed,” i.e., sold separately as condominiums may be sold. New units created via the authority in SB 9 may be approved as

9.a.4
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: SB 9 FAQs from 21 Elements (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) 5 condominiums if the applicant asks for that approval, but the application would need to meet state and local law concerning condominiums. A jurisdiction's regular condominium conversion process would also continue to apply.

OBJECTIVE STANDARDS

19. Can the applicant seek variances from zoning requirements? SB 9 provides that a local agency may apply its objective zoning standards so long as they do not physically preclude the construction of two units of at least 800 square feet each with four-foot setbacks (no setbacks are required if the unit is constructed in the same location and with the same dimensions as an existing structure). In that situation, the applicant does not need to apply for a variance.

However, if the applicant desires to construct a larger unit which does not meet the agency’s zoning standards, it could be denied under SB 9, or the applicant could apply for a variance.

20. My understanding is that SB 330 requires only objective design standards for design standards adopted after Jan 1, 2020, is this the same for SB 9?
SB 330 would apply to an SB 9 implementing ordinance, so any design standards adopted must be objective.

21. For purposes of a duplex, can jurisdictions adopt an objective standard that says the units have to be within, for example, 10 feet of each other?
Yes, a city could adopt this as an objective standard. However, if the standard or requirement would physically preclude the construction of two units or the construction of a unit that is at least 800 square feet, then it cannot be applied to the specific project. Also note that section 66411.7(k) provides that an urban lots split “shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance.”

22. Is there a street frontage or lot width requirement for ministerial lot splits? SB 9 does not contain street frontage or lot width requirements. A local agency may apply an objective frontage or lot width requirement. It must, however, allow lot splits

that create lots that are at least 1,200 square feet each where both lots are of approximately equal size. This likely means that the local agency may not be able to apply its minimum lot dimensions or frontage requirements to some urban lot splits.

23. Is the 4-foot setback provision similar to that for ADUs? Yes. A local agency cannot impose a rear or side setback greater than 4 feet, or less if a structure is in the same location and with the same dimensions as an existing structure.

9.a.4
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: SB 9 FAQs from 21 Elements (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) 6 24. Does the right of way dedication provision require cities to allow for flag lots, provided they meet the 60-40 split?
The agency may require the parcel to have access to, provide access to, or adjoin a public right of way but must allow the lot split. Where a parcel does not front on a public right of way, the options are to allow a flag lot or to provide access to the public right-of-way via an easement through the other lot.

25. Could a jurisdiction define "sufficient to allow separate conveyance" to require separate HVAC systems and separate water connection to meet Title 24 requirements? Yes. Title 24 is a state law requirement. Therefore, compliance can be mandated assuming that Title 24 requires separate HVAC systems and water connections for units that are separately conveyed.

26. If a jurisdiction doesn't require "dedications" but a property owner wants to put in some improvements in the right-of-way, could the jurisdiction require that those meet the jurisdiction’s standards for right of way improvements?
If an applicant includes improvements to the public right of way in its SB 9 application, the jurisdiction can require that those improvements meet objective agency standards.

27. Does the requirement for one parking space/unit supersede other local minimum parking requirements? For example, if local parking standards require two covered spaces per residential unit and additional parking spaces tied to additional bedrooms.

Yes, SB 9 supersedes local standards. A local agency "may require" off-street parking of up to one space per unit, and "shall not impose" parking requirements where the parcel is located within one- half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop, or where there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel.

28. Can a jurisdiction impose affordability requirements on units created via SB 9? There is nothing in the statute that would prohibit the imposition of objective affordability requirements. However, agencies should examine the economic feasibility of any affordability requirements to ensure that urban lot splits and two-unit developments remain economically feasible.

29. Can a local jurisdiction impose conditions of approval on an SB 9 project? A jurisdiction may impose standard objective conditions of approval on an SB 9 project.

9.a.4
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: SB 9 FAQs from 21 Elements (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) 7 FIRE/INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES

30. Is it true that SB 9 cannot be used in high fire hazard severity zones? No. SB 9 provides that any proposed two-unit development or urban lot split must comply with the requirements of Government Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(D), which excludes projects in high or very high fire hazard severity zones, unless either: (1) the site was excluded from the zone by the jurisdiction; or (2) the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures “pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.” “Fire hazard mitigation measures” and “state fire mitigation measures” are not defined. A local ordinance could specify which “building standards” apply or reference the appropriate “state fire mitigation measures.”

An agency may also reject SB 9 proposals on a case-by-case basis where the local building official makes a written finding that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment, based on inconsistency with an objective standard, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact.

31. X County has some areas that are identified as "urban" or "urban clusters" and could be a qualifying parcel under SB9. However, those areas do not have access to water or sewer connections and may have to expand an existing leach field and utilize other water sources. If the applicant cannot demonstrate that they can build what's allowed under SB9 with a wastewater treatment system and water source that meets Environmental Health Codes, would the County be able to deny them their application?
Yes. In this scenario, the county could deny the application because it would not meet objective standards. The building official could also likely make a finding that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment and that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid specific impact.

32. If a jurisdiction has substandard existing sewer infrastructure, can those areas of the jurisdiction be excluded from SB 9 applicability?
The local agency likely could not outright exclude those areas from SB 9 applicability. However, if projects are proposed in these areas, the local building official could deny

the application if it would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment, by violating an existing objective standard, with no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact.

33. Can a jurisdiction prohibit someone from creating a new unit in an existing structure that would be below the Base Flood Elevation?
To qualify for ministerial approval, SB 9 provides that an applicant must comply with all the requirements in Government Code §§ 65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(K). Subparagraphs (G) and (H) exclude

9.a.4
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: SB 9 FAQs from 21 Elements (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) 8 development within a flood plain or floodway, respectively, as those sites are determined by maps promulgated by FEMA. However, subparagraphs (G) and (H) also allow development in a flood plain where FEMA has issued a flood plain development permit or meet FEMA criteria and allow development in a floodway where a no-rise certification has been issued or the project otherwise meets FEMA criteria. If these mitigation requirements are met, then it may be possible for the new unit to be built below Base Flood Elevation. Agencies should refer to the text of the statute.

URBAN LOT SPLITS

34. Would the "sufficient to allow separate conveyance" provision allow someone to build an attached duplex but then sell them as two separate lots with their own yard? "Sufficient to allow separate conveyance" is not defined in the statute. However, “separate conveyance” means that the units can be sold separately. This phrase would seem to require that each unit be built to condominium standards so that they can be sold separately if the local agency approves a condominium application. Agencies may wish to define this in their local ordinances.

35. Should agencies record a deed restriction stating that the lot has been split using SB9 and cannot be split further?
This is not specifically addressed by SB 9. Two possibilities are a recorded deed restriction and a notation on the approved parcel map. It would be good practice for local agencies to include such a requirement in their implementing ordinances.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS/HOUSING ELEMENT

36. How do jurisdictions account for SB 9 in Housing Elements? SB 9 requires jurisdictions to report (1) the number of units constructed pursuant to SB 9 and (2) the number of applications for parcel maps for urban lot splits under SB 9 in their annual housing element report. SB 9 itself does not include any reference to housing elements. The HCD TA memo may provide some guidance on how to project SB 9 development in a community’s housing element.

37. What can be included in a sites inventory?

There is nothing in SB 9 that prohibits a jurisdiction from using SB 9-eligible parcels in their sites inventory, but there would be limited history to project how many units might be built and what income levels might be served.

38. Could cities use the Terner Center’s findings to project above moderate- and moderate-income housing in their Housing Elements?
This may be a reasonable approach. It is not known if HCD will accept it, however.

9.a.4
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: SB 9 FAQs from 21 Elements (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance) 9 Published by the
Association of Bay Area Governments:

June 2021
Association of Bay Area Governments
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94105
abag.ca.gov

9.a.4
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: SB 9 FAQs from 21 Elements (SB 9 Urgency Ordinance)

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: January 10, 2022

ITEM TITLE: Receive a Presentation on Year-Round Lighting in the Downtown.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation regarding year-round lighting downtown.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with this report. It is for informational purposes only.

BACKGROUND:

On November 22, 2021, City Council requested to add a discussion on a future City Council meeting agenda to consider lighting Downtown San Carlos year-round.

The tradition of placing l ight swags across Laurel Street began in 2010 when the Night of Holiday Lights event was introduced to the community as an opportunity to come together to celebrate the holiday season. The swags of LED C-9 warm white lights are strung across the street, from each street lamp pole, on the 600, 700 , and 800 blocks of Laurel Street between San Carlos Avenue and Olive Street. Mini lights and holiday wreaths are also strung up and down the po les. Lights are installed prior to Thanksgiving weekend and are lit at the annual Night of Holiday Lights event. The lights and wreaths stay up until the new year when they are removed. The current cost to hang the lights annually is $25,000.

ANALYSIS:

In making the determination whether to provide year -round lighting on the 600, 700 , and 800 blocks of Laurel Street, the City Council should consider the following factors:

Maintenance Contract.

The City would need to hire a vendor to maintain the lightin g and address issues such as bulb outages or snapped cable lines. The costs of a maintenance contract are unknown at this time .

Staff would need to issue a request for proposals (“RFP”) or obtain quotes for this service.

Tension of the Lamp Poles.

10.a
Packet Pg. 163
2 One thing that would need further evaluation is whether or not the street lamp poles can withstand the tension of the cable year round. When there is excess tension, as well as excess heat, rain , or wind, it creates a potential for the cable to snap. The curre nt poles are not reinforced and may not be able to be retrofitted to meet the standard for permanent external lights.

Alternate Holiday Attraction.

Since one of the main attractions to the Night of Holiday Lights event is to light the swags across Laurel Street, the City could consider something different to add to the downtown holiday festivities.

ALTERNATIVES:

Options available to the City Council include:

1. Provide staff with direction; or

2. Do not provide staff with direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Amy Newby,
Parks & Recreation Director

Approved for submission by:

_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

10.a
Packet Pg. 164

San Carlos City CouncilJanuary 10, 2022

San Carlos City Council
January 10, 2022