Agenda packet — Pacifica City Council, August 8, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84059733437
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 840 5973 3437
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Comcast Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 August 08, 2022
August 08, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
CORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID-19) NOTICE

THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 (AS AMENDED BY AB 361) WHICH AUTHORIZES

TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS UNDER THE BROWN ACT DURING CERTAIN PROCLAIMED STATES OF EMERGENCY. THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PROCLAIMED A STATE OF EMERGENCY RELATED TO COVID-19 ON MARCH 4, 2020.

THIS TELECONFERENCED MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT

ESSENTIAL BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 IN ORDER TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ATTENDEES.

Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this City Council Meeting will be held via teleconference only and will not be physically open to the public. City Councilmembers and staff will teleconference into the meeting by audio and/or video. The meeting will be conducted via Zoom.

Below is information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting.

To Observe the Meeting:
• To access the meeting by computer / smartphone, go to:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84059733437
• To dial-in via phone:

Dial: 1-669-900-6833 And enter Webinar ID: 840 5973 3437 To Participate in the Meeting by Providing Public Comment:
• During the Meeting: Live verbal public comments may be made by members of the public joining the meeting via Zoom. Zoom access information is provided above. Use the “raise hand” feature (for those joining by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”) during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address. The City Clerk will call on people to speak by name provided or last 4 digits of phone number for dial-in attendees.

Please clearly state your full name for the record at the start of your public comment. • Before the Meeting: Written public comments for the record may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date by email to: [email protected] and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Oral Communications” in the City Council Regular Meeting 2 August 08, 2022
Subject Line for items not on the agenda
• Include the submitter’s full name
Written public comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date will be provided in their entirety to the City Council prior to the meeting and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments will be posted to the City’s website for review prior to the meeting.

Alternative Ways to Watch the Meeting:

The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is via the zoom link or phone number listed above, however, there are alternative ways to watch the meeting:
• Watch on TV on local cable channel 26
• Watch a Live Stream of the meeting by following
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream or www.pacificcoast.tv (LIVE STREAM) Note: The methods of observing the meeting or providing public comments may be altered or the meeting may be cancelled, if needed. You may check on the status of the meeting by visiting the City’s website at www.cityofpacifica.org for any updates or changes, should they occur.
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember O'Neill

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Chief of Police Daniel Steidle Retirement

CONSENT CALENDAR
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes.

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

City Council Regular Meeting 3 August 08, 2022

1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 6/01/22 through 6/15/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 6/01/22 through 6/15/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Meeting held on June 25, 2022 and the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on June 27, 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2022.

PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2022.

8. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending March 31, 2022.

PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending March 31, 2022.

9. Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Approving Execution of Settlement Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Plaintiffs, Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen Sanders Pertaining to Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Relating to Litigation in Geary, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the resolution approving execution of Settlement Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Plaintiffs, Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen Sanders through their undersigned counsel of record City Council Regular Meeting 4 August 08, 2022
pertaining to attorneys’ fees and costs relating to litigation in Geary, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780.

10. Notice of Completion for the Equalization Basin Water Cannon and Check Valves Installation Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Equalization Basin Water Cannon and Check Valves Installation Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

11. Approval of Agreement with Fehr & Peers for Local Roadway Safety Plan PROPOSED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to execute a Master Consultant Services Agreement and Task Order No. 1 with Fehr & Peers in an amount not to exceed $79,865 for the preparation of a Local Road Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).

12. Award of Construction Services Agreement for the Beach Boulevard Public Plaza Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for the Beach Boulevard Public Plaza Project:

A. Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Construction Services Agreement with Cazadoro Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $86,400.00 which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed $14,400.00 or twenty percent (20%) of the Construction Contract amount; and a Materials Testing Services Task Order in an amount not to exceed $12,694.65 which includes a contingency in an amount not to exceed $1,604.20 or fifteen percent (15%) of the proposed fee; B. Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the listed contingency amounts.

13. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to Authorize Submission Of An Application To The California Infrastructure And Economic Development Bank ("iBank") For Financing The Lower Linda Mar Sewer System Rehabilitation And Repair Project And The Ultraviolet Disinfection Replacement Project (“Projects”) As Part Of The Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt a Resolution of the City Council Authorizing Submission of an Application to the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank ("iBank") for Financing the Lower Linda Mar Sewer System Rehabilitation and Repair Project and the Ultraviolet Disinfection Replacement Project ("Projects") as Part of the Wastewater Capital Improvement Program

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the Agenda is available for the public to address the City Council on any issue that is not on the Agenda. Any person wishing to address the Council shall be recognized by the Mayor during Oral Communications, provided, however, that during the Oral Communications portion of the agenda, only items not on the agenda for that meeting may be addressed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member thereof. Councilmembers shall not enter into debate with speakers under Oral Communications. A maximum time of three minutes will be allowed for any City Council Regular Meeting 5 August 08, 2022
speaker. Pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 1, Section 2-1.118 any person making impertinent, slanderous, or profane remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the Council shall be called to order by the presiding officer and, if such conduct continues, may, at the direction of the presiding officer, be ordered barred from further audience before the Council during the meeting.

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

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS

14. Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval with conditions of Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 to establish one on-street Temporary Safe Parking Program parking space (30’ by 10’) on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public right-of-way (ROW), east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection (File No. 2022-012).

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution.

CONSIDERATION

15. Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and Carollo Engineers, Inc. for Engineering Design Services related to the Ultraviolet Disinfection Replacement Project (P034).

PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and Carollo Engineers, Inc. for Engineering Design Services in the amount of $800,000 in connection to the Ultraviolet Disinfection (UV) Replacement Project (P034); approve budget authority in the amount of $920,000 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $120,000; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.

16. Housing Element Update Community Engagement Plan
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive staff presentation about the Housing Element Community Engagement Plan and provide direction.

17. Designation of Voting Delegate for League of California Cities Annual Conference PROPOSED ACTION: Designate a voting delegate and alternate(s) who will attend the 2022 League of California Cities (Cal Cities) Annual Business Meeting on Friday, September 9, 2022.

City Council Regular Meeting 6 August 08, 2022

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

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

HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:

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

View on the Internet:

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

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

Agendas are available at the City Council meeting

HOW TO REACH YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
• Governor Gavin Newsom, State Capitol Building, Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 445-2841 • State Senator Josh Becker, 1528 So. El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 212-3313
• Assembly Member Kevin Mullin, 1528 South El Camino Real, Suite 302 San Mateo, CA 94402 (650) 349-2200
• Congresswoman Jackie Speier, 155 Bovet Road, Suite 780, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 342-0300
• Senator Alex Padilla, B03 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3553
• Senator Dianne Feinstein, #1 Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco CA 94104 (415) 393-0707
• President Joseph R. Biden, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500

CITY COUNCIL
• Mayor Mary Bier, [email protected]
• Mayor pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck, tbigstyck@ pacifica.gov • Councilmember Mike O’Neill, mo’[email protected]
• Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus, [email protected]
• Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer, [email protected]

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for Dated 6/01/22 through 6/15/22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 6/01/22 through 6/15/22.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Staff has submitted the following disbursements for Council approval:
• Disbursements dated 6/01/22 through 6/15/22 in the amount of $1,026,400.45 as written on regular checks numbered 60419-60596 (Attachment 1). These disbursements are for Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

FISCAL IMPACT:

These disbursements are within budgeted appropriations.

ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60419-60596-6-1 to 6-15-22(PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 7
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY JUL1222 8:10 Page: 1

REPORT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
ORGANIZATION : 001
BANK : 1
PRINT BY : CHECK #
SORT OPTION : CHECK #
PRINT DETAILS : N
ORG NAME FOR EXTRACT FILE : PACIFICA
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY JUL1222 8:10 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 60419 - 60596
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 60419 $1276.04 06/03/22 00009 8 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 60420 $443.46 06/03/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 60421 $10.04 06/03/22 00138 0 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60422 $1.76 06/03/22 04980 0 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60423 $783.15 06/03/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60424 $228.65 06/03/22 03895 0 AMERICAN FIDELITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60425 $533.00 06/03/22 00175 1 AMERICAN RED CROSS S OUTSTANDING 1 60426 $1620.00 06/03/22 03963 0 ANDREWS CONCRETE PUMPING S OUTSTANDING 1 60427 $133.61 06/03/22 00056 0 ARAMARK S OUTSTANDING
1 60428 $43.00 06/03/22 05536 0 ARCHER MARY ELIZABETH/CAREY GRAHAM NEIL S OUTSTANDING 1 60429 $221.17 06/03/22 04459 0 ARROWHEAD FORENSICS S OUTSTANDING 1 60430 $165.68 06/03/22 00009 2 AT&T MOBILITY S OUTSTANDING 1 60431 $200.00 06/03/22 04561 0 AVINA, ANGEL S OUTSTANDING 1 60432 $8.50 06/03/22 04666 0 B & D DONOR RECOGNITION S OUTSTANDING 1 60433 $9181.09 06/03/22 05484 1 BAY VIEW FUNDING S OUTSTANDING 1 60434 $1800.00 06/03/22 05414 0 BEECHER ENGINEERING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60435 $1663.03 06/03/22 00335 0 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60436 $106.00 06/03/22 00011 0 C.W.E.A. S OUTSTANDING 1 60437 $128.00 06/03/22 00014 5 CALIFORNIA STATE OF S OUTSTANDING 1 60438 $664.00 06/03/22 01690 0 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 60439 $240.60 06/03/22 00001 364 CASTELLANOS, FRANCISCO S OUTSTANDING 1 60440 $2504.61 06/03/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 60441 $477.00 06/03/22 00516 0 CITY MECHANICAL, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60442 $855.51 06/03/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 60443 $14916.23 06/03/22 03787 0 CONTRACT SWEEPING SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 60444 $2005.00 06/03/22 00022 50 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO S OUTSTANDING 1 60445 $722.23 06/03/22 00622 0 CURTIS & SONS, L.N. S OUTSTANDING 1 60446 $330.09 06/03/22 03590 0 DASH MEDICAL GLOVES S OUTSTANDING 1 60447 $256.07 06/03/22 05531 0 DEBI HIRSHLAG S OUTSTANDING 1 60448 $14000.00 06/03/22 02201 0 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60449 $749.00 06/03/22 04626 0 DPREP INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60450 $20347.08 06/03/22 04275 0 EKI ENVIRONMENT & WATER, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60451 $11033.00 06/03/22 04274 0 EMCOR SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 60452 $600.00 06/03/22 05537 0 F & A PLUMBING AND ROOTER S OUTSTANDING 1 60453 $14.00 06/03/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 60454 $7804.10 06/03/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60455 $31395.79 06/03/22 04376 0 FREEWAY TOYOTA OF HANFORD S OUTSTANDING 1 60456 $195.85 06/03/22 00001 301 FRY, HAYDEN S OUTSTANDING 1 60457 $35538.21 06/03/22 00352 0 G. BORTOLOTTO & COMPANY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60458 $2999.00 06/03/22 05520 0 GK HOLDINGS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60459 $203.37 06/03/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 60460 $5665.00 06/03/22 03616 0 GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH PLANNING INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60461 $8029.56 06/03/22 04131 0 HDL SOFTWARE, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60462 $1308.89 06/03/22 00927 0 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC S OUTSTANDING 1 60463 $550.05 06/03/22 04085 0 JAMES FORD, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60464 $1000.00 06/03/22 05538 0 JANET GUERRERO S OUTSTANDING 1 60465 $116.42 06/03/22 05532 0 JOAN ARTHUR S OUTSTANDING 1 60466 $492.19 06/03/22 01014 0 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60467 $2450.00 06/03/22 05534 0 JOHN W. HOWELL S OUTSTANDING 1 60468 $155.67 06/03/22 01027 0 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA S OUTSTANDING 1 60469 $53.22 06/03/22 01812 4 KBA DOCUSYS S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY JUL1222 8:10 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 1 of 3 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 7/12/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60419-60596-6-1 to 6-15-22 (5059 : Disbursements - Dated 6/01/22 through 6/15/22) 1 60475 $1300.00 06/03/22 03370 0 PEERY & ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED S OUTSTANDING 1 60476 $390.00 06/03/22 01289 0 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60477 $400.00 06/03/22 05526 0 PERRY YAN S OUTSTANDING 1 60478 $152.46 06/03/22 01317 0 PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60479 $566.47 06/03/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60480 $2470.41 06/03/22 00042 1 R & S ERECTION NORTH PENINSULA INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60481 $3296.70 06/03/22 04802 0 RECORDS CONTROL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 60482 $8052.42 06/03/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 60483 $32.76 06/03/22 01795 0 ROSS, LAURIE S OUTSTANDING 1 60484 $285.40 06/03/22 01402 1 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. S OUTSTANDING 1 60485 $104.00 06/03/22 03563 1 SAN CARLOS/CITY OF S OUTSTANDING 1 60486 $302.86 06/03/22 02182 0 SERVICE PRESS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60487 $482.85 06/03/22 05465 0 SIGILLO SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60488 $210.00 06/03/22 02471 0 SIGNAWEST SYSTEMS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60489 $12975.00 06/03/22 01531 1 ST. FRANCIS ELECTRIC, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60490 $146.69 06/03/22 01550 2 STEWART CHEVROLET S REISSUE 1 60491 $12000.00 06/03/22 05487 0 THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP S OUTSTANDING 1 60492 $1025.00 06/03/22 01029 2 THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60493 $184.79 06/03/22 01647 0 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS S OUTSTANDING 1 60494 $12.76 06/03/22 01652 0 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 60495 $490.18 06/03/22 01663 0 URBAN FARMER STORE, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 60496 $3612.68 06/03/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60497 $4370.15 06/03/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 60498 $600.00 06/03/22 05539 0 WEBER, HAYES & ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 60499 $90.00 06/03/22 05163 1 WEX HEALTH, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60500 $1046.50 06/03/22 01722 0 WILSEY & HAM S OUTSTANDING 1 60501 $9318.83 06/03/22 04832 1 WOODARD & CURRAN, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60502 $75.47 06/03/22 00001 363 YEUNG, CHRISTIE S OUTSTANDING 1 60503 $273.03 06/03/22 01751 0 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60504 $8574.85 06/10/22 05469 0 BCC BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60505 $69673.00 06/10/22 01771 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856 S OUTSTANDING 1 60506 $3250.00 06/10/22 03962 0 A & H DOOR AND ACCESS CONTROL S OUTSTANDING 1 60507 $250.75 06/10/22 04066 0 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60508 $166.56 06/10/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60509 $287.00 06/10/22 00175 1 AMERICAN RED CROSS S OUTSTANDING 1 60510 $221.17 06/10/22 01890 0 ARROWHEAD SCIENTIFIC, INC. S VOIDED 1 60511 $5779.28 06/10/22 00217 3 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS S OUTSTANDING 1 60512 $41.92 06/10/22 00009 1 AT&T LONG DISTANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 60513 $37.54 06/10/22 04464 1 BADGE FRAME, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60514 $1219.23 06/10/22 04880 0 BLADES GROUP, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60515 $95.00 06/10/22 05127 0 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60516 $2767.50 06/10/22 05463 0 BRETT STOLLENWERK S OUTSTANDING 1 60517 $72565.00 06/10/22 02655 0 CAROLLO S OUTSTANDING 1 60518 $1113.13 06/10/22 00510 1 CINTAS S OUTSTANDING
1 60519 $145.52 06/10/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 60520 $27.36 06/10/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY JUL1222 8:10 Page: 4

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 60419 - 60596
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 60521 $503.11 06/10/22 00632 0 DALTON TRACIE S OUTSTANDING 1 60522 $975.00 06/10/22 05062 1 DARRYL PANG S OUTSTANDING 1 60523 $182294.45 06/10/22 02130 1 DRYCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60524 $1200.00 06/10/22 04321 0 DUBOCE JANITORIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 60525 $24209.78 06/10/22 03083 0 DUKE'S ROOT CONTROL, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60526 $164.48 06/10/22 00745 0 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60527 $29750.00 06/10/22 04052 1 FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60528 $13243.45 06/10/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60529 $12322.63 06/10/22 04369 0 GHD INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60530 $5700.72 06/10/22 00870 0 GOVCONNECTION, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60531 $295.62 06/10/22 00929 0 HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60532 $854.02 06/10/22 04086 1 JACK DOHENY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60533 $9000.00 06/10/22 01005 1 JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCH DIST S OUTSTANDING 1 60534 $1000.00 06/10/22 05543 0 JERRY NEWBECK S OUTSTANDING 1 60535 $125.78 06/10/22 01014 0 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60536 $16630.00 06/10/22 05534 0 JOHN W. HOWELL S OUTSTANDING 1 60537 $137.84 06/10/22 01027 0 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA S OUTSTANDING 1 60538 $62.02 06/10/22 01812 4 KBA DOCUSYS S OUTSTANDING 1 60539 $337.18 06/10/22 03700 0 KIMBALL MIDWEST S OUTSTANDING 1 60540 $773.00 06/10/22 04088 0 LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 60541 $541.41 06/10/22 01070 0 LAURETTA PRINTING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60542 $2251.35 06/10/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60543 $358.13 06/10/22 01154 0 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS S OUTSTANDING 1 60544 $285.00 06/10/22 01165 0 MILLER & O'BRIEN S OUTSTANDING 1 60545 $495.00 06/10/22 01378 0 MUSCIO SECURITY S OUTSTANDING 1 60546 $178.20 06/10/22 01194 0 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60547 $3647.50 06/10/22 04632 0 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD S OUTSTANDING 1 60548 $100367.50 06/10/22 05074 0 NORTHWEST DEMOLITIONS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60549 $943.64 06/10/22 02486 0 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS S OUTSTANDING 1 60550 $410.50 06/10/22 01239 0 PACIFIC FIRE SAFE S OUTSTANDING 1 60551 $122720.64 06/10/22 01250 0 PACIFICA COMMUNITY TELEVISION S OUTSTANDING 1 60552 $130.00 06/10/22 04411 0 PACIFICA LIONS CLUB S OUTSTANDING 1 60553 $12480.00 06/10/22 01261 0 PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT S OUTSTANDING 1 60554 $6430.40 06/10/22 03782 0 PRIORITY 1 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 60555 $700.00 06/10/22 03160 0 PUBLIC PARKING ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60556 $1141.70 06/10/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60557 $503.63 06/10/22 01337 0 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60558 $1000.00 06/10/22 05544 0 ROBIN SOHNEN S OUTSTANDING 1 60559 $3188.35 06/10/22 01385 0 ROZZI REPRODUCTION & SUPPLY INC.. S OUTSTANDING

Page 2 of 3 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 7/12/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60419-60596-6-1 to 6-15-22 (5059 : Disbursements - Dated 6/01/22 through 6/15/22) 1 60560 $1473.00 06/10/22 00022 20 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH S OUTSTANDING 1 60561 $2635.95 06/10/22 01450 0 SEAVIEW TIRE & BRAKE CENTER S OUTSTANDING 1 60562 $133.33 06/10/22 01461 0 SERRAMONTE FORD INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60563 $2831.06 06/10/22 01475 0 SHIELDS, HARPER & CO. S OUTSTANDING 1 60564 $365.81 06/10/22 01498 0 SMART & FINAL S OUTSTANDING 1 60565 $175.00 06/10/22 05542 1 STIRLING GOULET S OUTSTANDING 1 60566 $639.29 06/10/22 02642 2 T-MOBILE CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60567 $2650.00 06/10/22 04359 0 TORRES CLEANING SERVICES, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60568 $281.95 06/10/22 04418 1 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60569 $367.27 06/10/22 01647 0 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS S OUTSTANDING 1 60570 $2734.90 06/10/22 01653 1 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) S OUTSTANDING 1 60571 $262.18 06/10/22 01812 3 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY JUL1222 8:10 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 393,611.24 221.17
005 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 8.50 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 37,660.71 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 16,887.02 0.00
012 HIGHWAY 1 IMPROVEMENT FUND 1,046.50 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 52,178.46 0.00
019 PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE FUND 72,565.00 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 211,138.97 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 44,410.09 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 2,363.03 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 112,868.33 0.00
065 SELF-FUNDED DENTAL PLAN FUND 13,808.05 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 29,660.50 146.69
072 MOTOR POOL REPLACEMENT FUND 37,826.19 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 1,026,032.59 367.86

Page 3 of 3 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 7/12/2022 NO FY 2021-2022 CHECKS ISSUED ON 6/1/22-6/2/22.

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60419-60596-6-1 to 6-15-22 (5059 : Disbursements - Dated 6/01/22 through 6/15/22)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Meeting held on June 25, 2022 and the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on June 27, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Meeting held on June 25, 2022 (Attachment A) and the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on June 27, 2022 (Attachment B).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (PDF) Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 11

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85312793868
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 853 1279 3868
Alt 2: Cable Channel, 26 _
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Special Meeting 1 June 25, 2022

SPECIAL MEETING
June 25, 2022 (SATURDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on June 25, 2022 at 9:02 AM 9:00 AM - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the special meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Present
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Absent
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.

Councilmember O’Neill was absent.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director; Raymund Donguines, Sr. Civil Engineer; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief; Samantha Hauser, Planning Commission Vice Chair; Jennifer Elizares, Permit Technician; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment.

City Clerk Coffey explained the conditions for having City Council meetings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 (as amended by AB 361), to conduct necessary business as an essential governmental function as a teleconference meeting with no meeting location open

2.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 2 June 25, 2022
to the public. She also gave information on how to present public comments participating by Zoom or phone.

Mayor Bier explained the agenda, which would include the General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan. Due to an appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the General Plan, Council cannot take final action on the General Plan today, but they plan to take all public comments today and engage in deliberation and then adjourn the meeting to July 11, 2022.

Salute to the Flag

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Consideration of Environmental Impact Report and California Environmental Quality Act Findings and Adoption of a General Plan Update.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached Resolution to:

A. Certify the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2012022046 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
B. Adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA;
C. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with CEQA;
D. Approve the General Plan Update, including the amendments incorporated into the May 2022 drafts of those documents identified by the Planning Commission and the City Council; and
E. Incorporate all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

Acting Planning Director Murdock is joined with city staff members plus consultants from Dyett & Bhatia and Good City Company. He then began the staff report.

Alison Moore, Consultant of Dyett & Bhatia, continued the staff report.

Acting Planning Director Murdock completed the staff report.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that Permit Technician Jennifer Elizares will be introducing the speakers.

Permit Technician Elizares introduced the speakers.

Samuel Casillas, Pacifica, asked for clarification as he is saying the public comments is for the GP now, but this is a public meeting and he asked if they get to have public comments first that are not for the GP or both types of comments or just the comments for the GP at this meeting as it is a special meeting.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he is correct that it is a special meeting and his comments are limited to only those items on the agenda.

2.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 3 June 25, 2022
Mr. Casillas continued his public comment, expressing that in recent years the City Council has demonstrated an arrogance and disdain for its own citizens that is arising to a level of intentional negligence. He expressed his thoughts on specific situations where the citizens’ concerns have been ignored.

Mayor Bier stated that he has been muted and she asked that they stop the timer until he is back.

Mr. Casillas asked if they can restart the timer, and then reiterated his concerns on specific situations where the citizens’ concerns were ignored, as well as reporting on specific legal decisions against the city’s decisions.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, urged Council to not approve the General Plan, Sharp Park Specific Plan and EIR as they are still inadequate and do not meet the housing needs assessment by the HCD and shared his concerns and discussions with other entities on numerous violations.

Joanne Gold, Pacifica, agreed the city needs a new General Plan but the present Plan contains errors and omissions and shared her thoughts and concerns regarding significant negative consequences on various issues that need to be addressed and offered options to consider.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated she has invested a considerable amount of time on reviewing the EIR and General Plan, and shared her interactions with various agencies and offered options to help fix the various errors, omissions and inconsistencies that are leaving residents vulnerable in many situations.

Dinah Verby, Pacifica, expressed her appreciation to everyone who has worked on this. She knows there are good things in it, but she is confused about how the coastal zone is being handled, and she shared her thoughts on this issue and offered suggestions to fix the problems.

Peter Loeb, Pacifica, referred to a letter from an attorney for the Pedro Point Community Association and he briefly summarized it for the Council to know it raises issues about wildfire, evacuation, and many other issues of concern in the Plan and EIR and wanted to state for the record that it was submitted to Council.

Cherie Chan, Pacifica, stated she is the secretary of the Pedro Point Community Association and she authorized and helped pay for the comments of Bryan Gaffney, their attorney which they submitted to Council, and also hired biologists, planners and geologists and she wants to make sure Council is aware that they have filed their comments and speak to ten fatal flaws of the EIR and GPU and the court’s determination that Council abused its discretion when failing to consider other opinions. She stressed her association’s efforts to document the conditions on Pedro Point field.

Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that there are improvements in the documents but for a document to advance them after 40 years, they do not make the grade, and he expressed his concerns on what has been given to Council and asked that they take time to go through documents and listen to the public and restore their faith in the process.

Carolyn Jaramillo, Pacifica, stated she will continue to stress that these plans are not centered on Pacifica’s need for low and very low housing and she is worried on how they prevent displacement and shared her concerns on what the city needs to do to be at the center

2.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 4 June 25, 2022
of these plans.

Robine Runneals, Pacifica, thanked Council for all this work, and shared her support of the city’s process and Planning Commission’s work as well as staff’s work and they all have the best interests in what Pacificans want in the future. She expressed support of the Planning Commission’s vetting of the General Plan and advocated for approving the General Plan as recommended.

Richard Harris, San Francisco, stated he is president of the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance and his focus is on the golf course. He shared having sent Council a letter with information on Planning Commission’s meeting as well as his concerns regarding corrections that need to be made to these documents to reflect the historic recognition of the golf course and clubhouse in the General Plan and EIR, mentioning his willingness to work with the Planning Department to reflect the requested corrections.

Sue Digre, Pacifica, acknowledged all the hard work and stated it was difficult for her to keep tabs on everything. She expressed her thoughts on the previous Plan and today’s update and some of her concerns on the process with agencies such as the Coastal Commission and division within our community. She stated it is important to feel that we are a community visioning together and not to rush the process.

Vicki ____, Pacifica, asked Council to look at the decisions they are making in terms of risk, and expressed her concerns on what is happening with liability such as lawsuits, etc.

Kathleen Moresco, Pacifica, thanked Council for their hard work and voiced her support for their efforts to move this Plan forward and she would like to criticize some speakers, which might be inappropriate, as some of the insults to Council are extremely inappropriate and inaccurate. She hoped that the program moves forward quickly.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, if it is Council’s desire, staff has tracked some of the comments made and they could provide information in response to those comments and provide more information as Council deliberates and it is up to the Mayor and Council on how they want to proceed.

Mayor Bier thought it was a good idea as he will probably hit on all the things Council has been writing. She will hear from Councilmembers first.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he would love to hear staff’s responses but asked if it would be an appropriate time for a break.

Mayor Bier stated that they can have a break.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she wanted to say yes as she would appreciate hearing from staff on comments made this morning.

Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting and asked the City Manager if he wanted to start it off.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he will and then will turn it over to Acting Planning Director Murdock. He stated that numerous comments made have been received and responded to EIR

2.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 5 June 25, 2022
comments and General Plan comments. He stated that they can go through the list staff has maintained and Council can chime in to any other questions.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that there were a number of helpful comments and they have heard many of them before as mentioned by the City Manager. They prepared written responses to a number of them and, with others that they haven’t responded to directly, he wanted to hit at a high level on staff’s perspectives are on the public comments. The first statement regarding whether the city should, should not or cannot adopt the General Plan without planning for its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and that is nearly 2,000 units and the General Plan’s projected buildout is under 1,000 units. Staff has addressed that in a response in the EIR. He stated that, generally, the response to that is that the city recognizes it needs to undertake the Housing Element Update and they fully intend to do that, but they need the tools in the General Plan update to help make a constructive Housing Element update process, updated hazard maps, updated land use designations, including those mentioned in his earlier presentation and a higher density to provide the tools to allow them to have constructive employment of Housing Element update process and their full intention is to initiate that process once the General Plan has been adopted. He referred to a statement about transfer of development rights in the General Plan.

Mayor Bier asked if it was okay to ask a question about the RHNA item.

Acting Planner Director Murdock stated that whatever works for her.

Mayor Bier asked if, once the Housing Element is updated, they will have to back and update the information in the General Plan based on that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it was potentially correct. He stated that the city has not done for a long time is to undertake what is called a program of rezoning as part of its Housing Element update. With a significant RHNA allocation the city received as part of the 6th cycle, they are not able to accommodate that in either the 1980 General Plan or this draft General Plan. He stated that, in addition to going through the community engagement, all the policy analysis and constraints to housing and city policies, etc., that are a programmatic analytical process, they will also need to identify new housing sites and apply new land use designations and, in addition to a Housing Element update amendment, it would likely include a Land Use Element update as well to implement where those additional housing sites would be.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to clarify something, and may bring it up again later, because of concerns being raised. She stated that, in terms of social justice in housing and the location of particularly affordable housing, she asked, if the process he just outlined that would be taking all of that into consideration when they are looking at where to site and potential locate very low income or 100% affordable housing, would that be part of the analysis that he was referring to.

Acting Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, stating that it would at least be a couple of ways, i.e., regionally as they are focusing on Pacifica’s housing allocation rights but that allocation was given in the regional context for the Association of Bay Area Governments and was the Bay Area overall and each county received an allocation and there were further allocations to individual jurisdictions. He stated that part of the methodology used to make those allocations included those social and environmental justice factors to put units in places of high opportunity for people that are disadvantaged and areas with access to jobs, clean air, good schools, etc., and that is in part why Pacifica received a very high allocation rate as we

2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 6 June 25, 2022
have a lot of very favorable elements to our community and would make putting housing here for disadvantaged people a good public policy decision, and for the city planning for their city allocation throughout our community, we then have policies and can make those policy decisions in the actual allocation and identification of housing sites and take those factors into consideration, such as proximity to schools, access to transit, shopping and grocery stores, and those places of opportunity in our community are also relevant to people of lower income so they can have the support they need to thrive in the community.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to relationship of locating housing in areas that might be considered hazardous and with regard to environmental justice, and asked if that will also be evaluated in the process.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that one way it will is that, by using the updated tools in the General Plan, including the updated and more precise hazard mapping, that is a resource from making housing decisions, not only in the Land Use Element for this plan, but also in focused intensification that will be asked of Council for higher density housing and they would intend to use the tools in this updated General Plan when adopted to inform that decision making process.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to a comment brought up about ridgelines and she interprets that to be related to our Hillside Preservation District but she wanted to be sure there are policies imbedded and they will be factoring that into all of their decision making.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that it is a multi-layered approach to these issues and this General Plan carries forward a component of the prior General Plan which is the designation of prominent ridgeline and it meant to be a tool to understand that the development in those areas is not encouraged but discouraged and put in public places. He stated that one method for that is the land use designation itself to ensure minimal densities in those areas where there is private property and there is a right to develop, but they can set it appropriate to the conditions. He stated that the other is saying that they need to put policies in place to zone those as Hillside Preservation District and the General Plan recognizes that Hillside Preservation District zoning and recommends some additions to the Hillside Preservation District zoning overlay to be undertaken in the following zoning action that Council will be asked to make and those combined with other policies about discouraging development on steep slopes of 35% or more would all combine to help inform that land use decision making process.

Mayor Bier thanked him for allowing them to do it this way, and she thought that they can have an opportunity to ask questions on each public comment and then when they get to the chapters they will have information they can deliberate on.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought that was great. He then referred to the comment on transfer of development rights and the commenter suggested there should be support to use that more, and they have a policy that says that the program should be revisited and enhanced to be better utilized as it is very infrequently utilized now but it is a good tool to get development rights out of places where development should not occur, i.e., hazardous places, steep hillsides, prominent ridgelines, etc., and one policy in the General Plan would be to revisit that ordinance and improve it to make it more functional. He stated that there was a statement about undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site, and they need to clarify it as some people are mixing up terms when they are talking about the land use action Council is considering. He stated that all the city’s land use decisions are first, General Plan land use decisions, given that is an overarching document for the city and those are more specifically implemented through zoning.

2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 7 June 25, 2022
He stated that the current land use designation in the General Plan for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site is commercial and allows up to 22 units per acre in mixed use forum. He stated that what is being considered is a change in land use designation from 22 units per acre to 3-5 units per acre through the site specific policy in the commercial residential mixed use designation. He stated that there was a mention of commercial recreation and Council is changing it to coastal residential mixed use, adding that it is apples and oranges and not technically or legally correct and the question before Council is should the land use change from 22 units per acre with mixed use commercial to 3-5 units per acre with mixed use commercial.

He stated that would be a marked decrease in the allowable density under the General Plan.

Then, following adoption of the General Plan, Council may need to revisit the zoning classification for that site and, if they desire to change it, they determine what the appropriate zoning action would be. He stated that it is a different issue than what the commenter mentioned.

Mayor Bier assumed they will be talking about that in Chapter 4.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating the land use policy. He stated that there was mention about the landslide hazard maps and debris flow maps and city staff has tried to be very responsive to those comments and have engaged with the relevant state agency experts to get the state information on those map landslides. He will not protest to the fact that every landslide is mapped in the map in the General Plan but he will tell them that they pulled the map plan slide inventory with the relevance state agency has for Pacifica. He thought, rather than trying to get the city into the business of becoming an expert landslide mapping agency, effort could be made to get more landslide maps into the state inventory so that the relevant state agency has that information and that can flow out to Pacifica as well as others such as county and elsewhere that might benefit from having improved map landslides. He also stated that the General Plan would include a new map of debris flows based on an inventory from the 1980 storms. They are trying to make an effort to include that information to support decision making and they can get more into it in the Safety Element discussion but the real question should be what decision making are those maps supporting and what is the policy consequence. He stated that they can talk more about it at that point. He stated that there was a question about how to align the General Plan Update with the coastal zone, recognizing that under state law local land use policy in the coastal zone cannot be implemented until certified by the Coastal Commission. City staff recognize that and there is a policy in the General Plan that indicates where there is a conflict between the General Plan and the certified Local Coastal program, the Local Coastal program will prevail. He stated that he mentioned in earlier hearings that it is a difficult position to be in and an unfortunate position to be in that, after two years of work, our Local Coastal Land Use Plan is not yet certified by the Coastal Commission, but that is beyond our control and they are continuing to work with the Coastal Commission toward that end. He stated that, in the meantime, they have a policy to resolve those from a practical standpoint. He stated that it will present challenges but they have to deal with them to the best of their ability but, until such time as the Local Coastal Land Use Plan is certified, it is correct that the 1980 LCLUP will remain in effect. He stated that it is staff’s assessment that the alternative is to defer all of its local land use authority and decision making in the General Plan for the entire city, most of which is outside of the coastal zone, until such time as the Coastal Commission certifies the LCLUP. He stated that it was their opinion that it would be forfeiting a lot of local control and Council may not be interested in that approach. He stated that they can revisit that if Council wants to discuss that further. He stated that there was mention of a comment letter by Attorney Bryan Gaffney and they received that comment letter. Many, if not all, of the same points were made in earlier comments on the environmental impact report so the city has prepared detailed responses and they can touch on those at some point if Council is interested.

2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 8 June 25, 2022
They are aware and have considered them seriously and prepared the appropriate response.

Mayor Bier stated she would be interested in hearing their responses to that letter.

Acting Planning Director Murdock asked if she wanted to do that now or in discussion after the General Plan.

Mayor Bier asked Councilmember Vaterlaus her thoughts.

Councilmember Vaterlaus suggested they hear them now.

Acting Planning Director Murdock asked Ms. Moore if she would like to take them through the process and some of the substance of their responses.

Ms. Moore stated that in Mr. Gaffney’‘s letter, some of the points have previously been addressed in their response to comments that is in the final EIR. Mr. Gaffney mentions consistency of fire hazard mapping with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and the General Plan.

She stated that the appropriate mapping to use which is outlined in the master response for wildfire that we have confirmed with CalFire, is the analysis that is presented in the FEIR and any changes that would need to be made in the Local Coastal Land Use Program would be made after it moves past its holding pattern that it is in now. She stated that all the analyses in the FEIR regarding wildfire mapping still stands. His points 2 and 3 regarding wildfire impacts and inadequacy have been addressed multiple times, both in response to comments and in the master response. In addition to the very high fire hazard severity zone mapping, the EIR also includes a map of fire threat and a number of policies in the plan plus any federal or state regulations reduce the impacts of less than significant our findings would not change. She stated that the evacuation route analysis they identified as being appropriate in the last response 7 and they don’t have any concerns there. Adequately responding to comments on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District as part of the response to their comment letter, they showed how Pacifica’s current Climate Action Plan is a very ambitious goal of GHG reduction by 2015 and they included more information that clarifies how Pacifica meets that 30% reduction below 2040 levels that is included in the red line. She stated that the statement of overriding considerations and his allegation that it violates CEQA, the statement of overriding considerations does include all evidence for impacts that could potentially be significant with mitigation and significant and unavoidable, so they have prepared an adequate assessment of that. Mr. Gaffney erroneously uses the term hundreds of mitigation measures in the final EIR, and proposed project policies are not intended to act as mitigation measures unless they are explicitly referred to as mitigation measures, rather the policy statements indicate actions the city will take on an ongoing basis as the proposed project is implemented and the EIR has correctly considered the effects of implementing those policies, including any beneficial effects that they would have in reducing potentially significant impacts. The mitigation monitoring and reporting plan includes specific and measurable content for each of those and the voluntary ones are recognized as such and they are not included with the GHG mitigation measures that are voluntarily omitted from that quantification. For the transportation ones, the second one is voluntary but that does not change the facts that the findings are significant and unavoidable and they have considered feasible mitigation measures that the city can adequately take on.

She state that regarding his allegation that re-circulation of the EIR is required, all of the information and edits that have been made do not change any of the findings in the EIR and merely represent clarifications or amplifications of the existing conclusions and findings. The project team has demonstrated that additional development is foreseeable, and she thinks he is referring to SB 9 which is not subject to CEQA review. She stated that their master response for

2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 9 June 25, 2022
build out and RHNA further clarifies how build out of 6 Cycle RHNA is not known, the locations of where housing is going is not known and thus it would not be possible, under the proposed plan, to analyze that potential impact of additional housing. She stated that, if there are any other issues in the letter, she is happy to clarify them.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the next comment he wanted to address was a commenter who indicated that the city needs much more very low income housing and the plan doesn’t address that. He stated that staff agrees that the city does need quite a bit more very low income housing or housing affordable to persons of very low income. As mentioned earlier, the plan will take an important step forward in supporting development of that type of housing but the city currently is not in a good position to do that, either through its land use policies or through its fiscal situation and they have control over one and less control over the other in terms of generating funding for affordable housing and they can do their part through adoption of the policies that are in the document. As far as tracking displacement, he stated that it is not a program or something that the General Plan can accomplish but Council could explore a policy to implement such a program if that was the desire of Council.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to make sure she understands what he just said. She heard him say that the concern that was raised by a commenter today and in numerous written and verbal comments throughout the Planning Commission process and Council’s process has been about the dearth of affordable housing in Pacifica. With our RHNA and our upcoming RHNA that will be addressing the Housing Element and the need to develop a significant amount. She heard him say that the policies in the current General Plan draft that is being studied and are considering will enable the development of affordable housing where the 1980 General Plan does not. She added that it didn’t prohibit it per se, but her understanding is that it wasn’t something being planned for in 1980. She asked if that is an accurate statement of what he said or where he was going with that statement.

Acting Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, adding that it wasn’t that anything particularly discourages development of affordable housing in the next General Plan but the policies don’t tip the balance towards making it easier to build. He stated that policies like increases in density of up to 50 acres and supporting application of state density bonus law on top of those increased base densities are policies that will manifestly make it easier for affordable housing developers to construct those types of projects. He stated that it is true that the city needs to build, not simply encourage or support those policies for a significant amount of new housing units to provide very low income housing and that is something they will need to continue to emphasize in their conversations with the community, given that building housing here continues to be a challenging process and, in many cases results in a lot of community resistance. They need to continue to work through ways to try to minimize that resistance and have the policies really support construction of that type of housing.

Mayor Bier stated that, when he talks about the rental registry and the displacement policies, that is something Council can take action on completely outside of the General Plan, or is there language that can be added to the General Plan to address it or acknowledge it.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the Council took undertake that kind of action at any time, and nothing that would run contrary in the current or proposed General Plan that would prevent that. He stated that what can be helpful is policies supported in the General Plan to make it clear that it is a priority for the city and that is where he thinks there is potentially a role in the General Plan adoption process.

2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 10 June 25, 2022
Mayor Bier thanked him for that information. She wanted to offer to Vice Chair Hauser that, at any point she feels like she has something she would like to add, she encouraged her to raise her hand because she doesn’t want to wait for people to ask her questions as she knows the breadth of knowledge that she has.

Vice Chair Hauser appreciated that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that there were comments from a representative of the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance and he narrowed it down to two edits, one in the EIR and one in the General Plan document. He stated that they would prefer not to make an edit to the EIR at this point, particularly for non-substantive environmental issue reason, but they are amenable to discussing the edit to the General Plan document if Council is interested to reflect that adjustment that the commenter mentioned. He stated that there were comments about making decisions with risks in mind, and going back to some of the earlier Councilmembers’ statement about what does this General Plan do for the city’s decision making process with respect to hazards, and he stated it provides new more robust assessment of hazard areas and presents that information in the form that is easier to use to support decision making in terms of modernizing maps, having digital source material to allow further analysis, etc. and it was simply not present in the 1980 General Plan. He stated that, to that end, adoption of the General Plan would help the city make informed decisions that weigh the risks in terms of the public benefits of the policy decision being considered. He stated that is all he had in direct response to public comments today.

Mayor Bier stated that they also mentioned something about an evacuation route analysis, and she asked if there was anything he wanted to say about that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that there are a couple of things. He thinks, most directly, the commenter is indicating a required evacuation route capacity analysis and staff’s assessment is that state law does not require that yet, so it is not legally deficient that the city has not done that analysis. He thought another element of evacuation route consideration is that they have included a new map in this General Plan of areas in Pacifica that do not have two evacuation routes, given the isolated nature of the subdivisions. It is a number of older neighborhoods that were subdivided in the early 1900s and prior to an era of the very robust 90s planning and prior to an era of widespread wildfire risk in this part of the region. There is an advancement made there and the city would be in a position in the near future to undertake that more robust evacuation route capacity analysis that was mentioned, most likely in the next safety element update.

Mayor Bier then asked Councilmembers to ask any questions and then they will work on the document.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he heard a question about environmentally sensitive habitat areas around the San Pedro area and whether they are properly mapped and accounted for.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they addressed a number of those points in their master response and he can have Ms. Moore touch on that if necessary. He stated that the documents prepared have mapped the officially adopted critical habitat in other officially known mapped areas that have been adopted by public agencies. He thought it was a misstatement to suggest that, simply because it is not mapped, it won’t be considered a use to support decision making. He stated that there are policies that will allow for that during projects specifically reviewed.

2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 11 June 25, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, when he says officially mapped, what does that mean. He stated that it might clarify a little bit what they are working with.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the classic example is critical habitat designations adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and there is a proper process for public review and comment on those maps and then a final adoption action by the relevant resource agency.

He stated that there are other instances that are potentially official adoption mapping processes and staff pulled the data from those relevant resource agencies that officially adopted habitat areas. He stated that the point he was trying to make about other policies that protect ESHA is that there are policies that require site specific analysis to identify those types of resources in areas where there may not be mapped currently. That is a routine process in the coastal development permit process when the city is having to analyze the relevant resources. He says that the resources can change over time and there was a suggestion made by one of the commenters that the city ignored information that was available and obvious but that is not true.

In the particular project referenced, qualified biologists evaluated the site at the time the city was making its decision on the project and evaluated and assessed the resources that were present on the site at that time. He stated that it evolved over time and at a later period additional resources were identified and that agency, in that case the Coastal Commission, made that permitting decision on their part based on the relative information that was known and observed at that time. He stated that there is no perfect point in time that can necessarily capture all resources and he thought that was an important point.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he has another point but he sees that Vice Chair Hauser has her hand raised and perhaps she has more to say.

Vice Chair Hauser mentioned that, when the Planning Commission was reviewing this specific area, there is a sentence in Chapter 4 that specifically says that development of the site will require detailed evaluation of coastal hazards and vulnerabilities and biological resources to ensure that any sensitive habitat in wetlands that exist on the site are protected, and there is something very site specific in there that requires the additional analysis that Acting Planning Director Murdock was referring to, and it helped them feel that it had been adequately addressed.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wanted to go back to the notion that they do not yet have an updated LCLUP and he feels that he will be asking questions that have already been asked several times and answered several times, and his thoughts are that asking things again in a different direction might be a slightly different perspective and they did come across to him as robust concerns from the community and he wants to thoroughly address them to the best of his ability.

He stated that the point was well taken that they don’t want to give away our capacity to determine all of our lands because some of it is in the coastal zone. He stated that they don’t know how long it might take to have an updated LCLUP certified but he is curious of the processes that might go on for an undetermined amount of time in terms of what it looks like having a new General Plan versus working with a potentially old LCLUP.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated, as mentioned earlier, the most immediately noticeable change between the 1980 LCLUP and adoption of the new General Plan is a number of the land use designations, particularly in the commercial realm where there are a number of changes that would result in more specific commercial designations whereas the 1980 LCLUP has much more general commercial designations. He stated that residential designations which comprise the bulk of our community would largely remain the same. In the land use realm, while changes

2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 12 June 25, 2022
could be confronted, in most instances there are not proposed land use changes and hopefully the conflicts would be relatively few. As mentioned, the policy in the General Plan makes clear that it must be subordinate to the certified LCLUP and why they are continuing to work to obtain certification so that the two documents melt together and the instances of inconsistencies are few, if any, moving forward.

Mayor Bier asked if there were any more questions, and seeing no one, she stated that they can dig into the document, chapter by chapter. She encouraged Council to take their time as this is the only time they are ever going to get to do this process and it was important that they are able to do it thoroughly. She asked who will start Chapter 1, with questions or thoughts on changes that have been made or changes that need to be made.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she is pulling out the redline document for comparison.

Mayor Bier understood and stated she is doing the same as there are so many documents.

Acting Planning Director Murdock suggested that most of the discussion should probably take place in the redline version as that reflects the latest recommendation from the Planning Commission. He stated that there are just a few chapters where the Planning Commission did not make edits where they were captured in the redline and they can try to queue Councilmembers to the packet page to jump to for each respective chapter if that would be helpful, adding that it will take them to do that as well. He stated that it is the latest version of the document reflecting the redlines and they can take that as the baseline to consider whether or not to accept those or consider additional edits to the document.

City Manager Woodhouse believes that, in Chapter 1, there weren’t redline changes to the introduction so they have to look at the May version.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he was correct.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked what packet page they will be starting on.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the introduction begins on packet page 35.

Mayor Bier asked if it was the introduction.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that Chapter 1 that Council is currently discussing, and if they look at page 32.

Mayor Bier asked if he is referring to the May version.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has the original document of Chapter 1 in front of her and she wanted to touch on is that there are a number of comments, some of which she mentioned earlier, such as environmental justice, social justice and location of housing but there were also comments during one of the Planning Commission’s meetings. She appreciated the point of view of putting people at the center of this planning process. She stated that people weren’t considered and it was only the policies and it feels very policy heavy but there is a reason, as they need those policies in place so they can make decisions that protect people and support people. She referred to the statements that were made in terms of environmental justice in this section that it does give that overview of how they will be evolving the plan and all of the pieces that come out in more detail later, like the complete street piece, which has a lot to

2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 13 June 25, 2022
do with all of the policies they have been working on for a long time around bike and ped and changing our circulation transportation. She stated that this is a comment about the reference points that are in the document and may not be spelled out in the specific way with that peoplecentered focus that was asked for but, for her, as the decision maker, she feels confident that what is there provides the framework and the supportive policies for making decisions in the best interest of residents and people who live and enter Pacifica.

Mayor Bier stated that the only place she thought was interesting is where there is not a whole lot of mention about youth and she thought that goes back to what Councilmember Beckmeyer said about putting people first. She stated that there was one paragraph, recreational facilities and activities for youth, and when she went to read that paragraph, she was looking for more regarding what kind of activities for youth, including leadership opportunities within the city structure, and that would make her feel good.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he will be making notes of Council suggestions as they go. If it works for them, he could keep the running list as they work through the chapters and at some point they can revisit those suggestions and see if there is consensus from Council or further adjustments to those potential modifications, adding that they are in a no idea is a bad idea phase, and they can revisit them and work through them thoroughly.

Mayor Bier stated that, if no one has anything further to say, they will move on to Chapter 2.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that there is a technical issue with Chapters 2 and 3 in the redline version as it looks like parts of them were included twice and he thought the full references are in packet page 356 of Chapter 2 and page 375 for Chapter 3. He stated that, if Councilmembers have any comments to prior packet pages, they can jump back to them and do the work to correspond with them later on the staff side. He thought there was a scanning issue when they had to work around the agenda system at one point.

Mayor Bier stated that they can talk about Chapter 2, as economic sustainability is important for the city.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that there were comments made questioning the focus on West Sharp Park primarily, but also including Eureka Square. She knows it will come up more in the Specific Plan issue, but the general overall comment was that it doesn’t make sense to create a downtown there and is a waste of time because they already have a downtown and they were referring to Rockaway. She thought the commenter at that time was limiting the analysis or the focus of the comment on tourism but what she was seeing as economic sustainability and the support of all the commercial areas in Pacifica and, as they pertain to not only visitor serving but where residents live too. She thought it was an important thing to keep in mind because, while they are looking to tourism and single term occupancy tax and she wanted to be sure their approach, in the form of comment and recognition of the fact that it is all of the residents in the economy, not just talking about tourism or hinging our economic sustainability for the city on tourism dollars.

Acting Planning Director Murdock would elaborate on a couple of points in her statement. He noted that, in the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Sharp Park Specific Plan, and the first part of her comments keyed in on that, and on trying to understand what was the right mix of what are described as community serving versus neighborhood serving versus visitor serving uses, and he thought it was an important but difficult distinction to make and it was important to get it right so you are achieving your intended vibrancy and revitalization but not going too far in

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 14 June 25, 2022
any one direction. He thought it was not the case that the city was trying to hinge all of its economic future on just the West Sharp Park neighborhood but making it the first of several efforts to revitalize and plan for different areas of the city, and that is indicated in the Council’s work plan for the next fiscal year, i.e., undertake a community process for a quarry specific plan and corresponding updates to the Rockaway Beach Specific Plan to integrate the quarry specific plan area, and they recognize that many areas of the city need a focused planning process and all need to be vibrant, successful and able to work harmoniously with one another.

Mayor Bier stated that she will talk about the demographic indicators Table 2-1. She stated that it says the Census Bureau American Community Survey was from 2015 to 2019, and she wondered if there was an update as we have a new census, and if additional demographic information might be helpful. She asked if they can update it with the newest census data and would it be helpful to have more demographics such as racial ethnicity.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating that one question is the different products released by the census have different data and he didn’t know whether these specific data points would also be in the 2020 decennial census or if they would need to wait for the next fiveyear American Community Survey update as they do have different data points. He stated that they can look at that. He thought one indication is that, potentially, the census data weren’t released yet for 2020, when this draft document was updated, and those data releases occurred more recently than the drafting of this document.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they focused on the school district and, in terms of ethnicity and culture identity, demographics in a snapshot but also a focus or acknowledgment of the change over time in our city and what we are seeing in terms of that. She thought, if there was a way to acknowledge that and make sure our policies are inclusive of everyone, and she thought it was worth saying. She stated that she can’t say that, in many instances, when she talks to residents, they have a different picture of our demographics than she does, and she encourages them to look at the school demographic data. She stated that, what Mayor Bier is saying is prompting her to say that she would like to see the General Plan for the city reflecting that same information is some way mirroring that. She didn’t know what the current exact data source would be, and as this is the economic focus, she thought there may be some specific source they can locate.

Acting Planning Director Murdock notes that they are somewhat of a disadvantage as they don’t have the Housing Element before them at this time, which will be subject to a separate update process, and a lot of that type of demographic data shows community changes over time, a finer grain on racial demographics and income demographics and that information is in the Housing Element and it helps to demonstrate the need for housing and policies that can help to address those issues.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought a general statement in Chapter 2 that brings that up can elaborate on in the housing element.

Mayor Bier stated that she is going to keep going as she has another one which is Policy ES-I14, under marketing and branding, she stated that she would like to see more in there talking about social media and creating different kinds of content for different kinds of media platforms was important to update.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if the Mayor would mention that policy name again.

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 15 June 25, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that it is ES-I-14 on packet page 370.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it is in the redline version.

Mayor Bier agreed. She then mentioned ES-I-19, hosting new events. She asked if they can add Pride in there. She then stated she wanted to add under the marketing branding something about continuing to update the city website to improve usability. She asked Acting Planning Director Murdock if that was okay and he is catching things.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated so far so good.

Councilmember Vaterlaus referred to the city-wide calendar, stating that they seem to have events that overlap with each other and they tried for years to develop that but it doesn’t seem to connect very well.

Mayor Bier then moved on to Chapter 3 on packet page 375, community design.

Councilmember Beckmeyer had a question about the historical development and preservation and asked if this was the right place to talk about or it needs to be somewhere else, such as Chapter 4. She stated that she keeps asking how they include policy in Sharp Park Specific Plan or the General Plan to reflect the historic nature of some of our neighborhoods in terms of future development to persist. She stated that she believes Council, Planning Commission and staff understands what they mean by that and they will be discussing them in the Sharp Park Specific Plan, and she is looking for any anchors where they can encourage the character of neighborhoods. She asked Vice Chair Hauser if she had any comments or thoughts on how that was addressed by Planning Commission.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that it was talked about more extensively, which she thinks in Element 6, asking Acting Planning Director Murdock if she has that right, specifically where some of the historical character of sites itself came up. She thought what was not touched on was if there was a historic character of neighborhoods themselves. She stated that some of it came up in the Sharp Park Specific Plan discussion on Monday and Thursday, but she doesn’t think the Planning Commission deliberated on it for the General Plan.

Acting Planning Director Murdock asked Councilmember Beckmeyer some clarifying questions to be sure he understands what she is getting at, such as when she say future proofing, is she suggesting that the General Plan needs more detailed discussion and narrative to lock in the perspective and historical nature and circumstances of our neighborhoods so there is a baseline that can support future decision making about scale, architectural design, elaborateness of the development, review process to dial in and preserve that neighborhood character.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that is correct, and she stated that she can cite a few specific examples she recently encountered in Vallemar, where she thought zoning, codes, etc., were completely within the scope and the outcome of the product is not in character. She stated that she wasn’t saying one type fits all characters for Vallemar, adding that is the beauty of Pacifica that there isn’t that, but there is a kind of a feel and sometimes they end up with the thinking of where did it come from. She stated that she has been thinking about it a lot after a trip to other environments. She stated that, when in an unfamiliar environment, you are very observing those kind of visual differences and how it jumped out at her. She stated her conclusions were borne out by some of the tours and historic explanation of how towns were converted from renaissance or medieval to what is seen now. She stated that our timeline wasn’t that long, but

2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 16 June 25, 2022
someone had a good idea and moved it forward and she wants to be sure we are asking for some kind of character neighborhood fit, whether floor area ratio (FAR), etc. She stated that she knows a lot of that is being nipped at on a state level, and she understands why, but she wants to figure out a way to insert that in spaces where they have those controls.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he had some thoughts on that, but after they hear from Vice Chair Hauser.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that it was not element 6, but element 7-4 which is a figure that illustrates where the cultural and historic resources and site are. She referred to what she said, and stated a policy in the redline that they recommended, and we have maximum FARs [floor area ratios] that are in the land use element but they didn’t have minimum FARs. That was what they thought we needed, and one things in the redline is a new policy recommending that we study and adopt that as part of the implementation of the zoning ordinance. She echoed what she initially said but they didn’t do it in a neighborhood specific manner.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the Commission spent some time talking about ensuring that there is a minimum amount of commercial area so they are not dominated by the housing or residential component of this project because they do need to function with one another and provide that commercial core. He referred to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s point, stating that they talked about the policy in the General Plan to revisit the citywide height limit of 35 feet and he explained that, in some instances, it will go higher to support mixed use such as in the Sharp Park area shopping center redevelopment but in other cases, it needs to go in the other direction which gets to the core of what she is describing which is community scale and character and they need to visit that in zoning. He stated that one of the curious elements of coming to Pacifica and learning the zoning code was that the R1 zoning district applied to a significant amount of land area, sort of a one size fits all set of zoning standards but they have a number of different neighborhoods, different historic development patterns, lot sizes, character, aspirations for the future, etc., and he thought that needs to be dialed in, not only with height but different setbacks, lot coverage, parking standards, floor area ratio standards, and to achieve that desired scale and quality of the neighborhood, the city made some attempt at that and in reaction, such as Vallemar and other neighborhoods, there are very large homes being reconstructed or expanded on small lots. He stated that some people call it the mega-home ordinance and is a discretionary review process and that is not sufficient anymore as the city is so bound under state law against making arbitrary discretionary decisions on housing and they need to dial in the objective standards through our zoning to reset the baseline to achieve that desired community and neighborhood character.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the neighborhood issue is interesting as she likes Vallemar because it is all different as there could be a 500-square foot cottage or a 2,800- square foot house instead of rows and rows of Linda Mar ranchers that all look the same. She stated that, if you start with the neighborhood standards, are you going to get neighborhoods that look like Stepford wives where they are exactly the same and no one can make a change to their property because it has to follow a specific neighborhood rule. She finds that concerning.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she hears that, and she is not suggesting that. She stated that, with those kinds of rules, she thinks of them more at the level of the HOA. She is talking about acknowledging the diversity that she is referring to and continuing that. She stated that you can drive down certain streets and you will see the box that jump off the lot, and that is what she is talking about. She stated that, as they move forward with their zoning and begin to implement a more granular form of our zoning policies, they will address it at that point.

2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 17 June 25, 2022
Mayor Bier referred to packet pages 382 and 383, stating that they have guiding policies and are talking about high quality multi-family and senior housing and accessory dwelling units, but she doesn’t see anything about low income housing in this area. She stated that they also want high quality low income housing, and she didn’t know if that is the right place to put it, but she wants to put it in the General Plan as often and as many sections as they can so it is clear that is what they want.

Acting Planning Director Murdock understands, and they could add that specific reference and his take on it is whether it is affordable housing or market rate housing, they probably shouldn’t be able to tell the difference as to high quality, when multi-family, etc. should all be high quality.

He stated that doing it too much could draw a distinction as they are different types of housing.

He thinks they shouldn’t be but just a different take on that policy question.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if the Mayor was on CD-1-5.

Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested they consider something like for a range of income levels or something to that effect, using a phrase that gets to that point and they can consider that for CD-1-5.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated for is all income levels, and he thinks that achieves the same objective as market rate shouldn’t be different than affordable, but it should be for every income level that there is a high quality housing product and it doesn’t draw the focus on affordable necessarily, depending on where the emphasis is desired.

Councilmember Vaterlaus referred to page 377, stating that it is the map and shows industrial zones. She knows the Sharp Park is priority development area but it says industrial zones and that throws her off as we don’t have actual industry in Pacifica. She said that the quarry is not in there and she would consider it our largest industrial zone, so she asks why it was worded that way.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that part of the challenge is in the way they have to produce the map, the colors are not distinguishable, but the two red shades have come through in a very challenging way. He stated that he would like to pull up a better quality.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated she got it, i.e., it’s activity, not industrial.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the predominant designation is primary activity center.

Mayor Bier referred to CD-I-13, Hillside Preservation District, stating that at the last census update the HPD to ensure that all steep slopes are covered and that sites on other terrains are not included, and asked for an explanation of what that last phrase means.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought the first one is self-evident and take another look and see if there are areas that are missing and should be mapped and included in the zoning district. He stated that there are areas, such as the eastern part of the quarry, that are flat and mapped in the Hillside Preservation District, and he thought the inclusion of those areas, for whatever reason they were originally included in that zoning overlay, undercuts the foundation

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 18 June 25, 2022
and the support for why they have a Hillside Preservation District. He thought getting it right was the point of that policy to ensure that all appropriate hillside areas are included and protected by the ordinance, but not including those areas that aren’t hillside. He added that, to remove those areas that are zoned with the overlay would require a vote of the people as it is not a simple undertaking that Council could accomplish, but they can add areas to the Hillside Preservation District.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to CD-1-10, and stated that it specifically calls out new public spaces as part of redevelopment and enumerates the specific areas. She wanted to double check with Acting Planning Director Murdock and Vice Chair Hauser, in terms of the issue of redevelopment, if that is why they specified those specific locations in the paragraph.

She can think that there may be other places, and she wanted to actually limit it to just those spaces.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought it would be a great revision to generalize and then use specific examples. He stated that those sites were included because they were the most likely anticipated as key redevelopment sites to insure that appropriate public spaces were reserved in those redevelopments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought a great example was the little pocket park that they included in the Civic Center project, even though it is little. She stated that as they have come through the pandemic, the idea of outdoor spaces that are available and accessible to everyone all over the place and that is where she is driving at.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed that every little bit helps and they have to fit them in where they can. He stated that they can find language to generalize that policy.

Mayor Bier referred to CD-I-15, packet page 387, and stated that it talks about ensuring that the negative visual impacts resulting from new development on the coastal zone are minimized, and she asked if it was only visual impacts that they are looking at as she sees the next one where they are talking about impacts of vegetation like habitat and does that need to be added in or does it go somewhere else.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that those issues are addressed elsewhere as this is the community design element and it is focusing on the visual components of development and how they need to be suitably designed and development placed in the appropriate locations to minimize negative visual impacts. He stated that they are all read together in the General Plan to complement one another and other types of impacts are addressed in the chapters appropriate to those types of impact.

Mayor Bier referred to CDI-21, packet page 390, roadway enhancements, stating that they have done some work with Caltrans over the past year, and she wondered if there was anything that came out of things that are planned to work with them and if they can include that in there.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he is less familiar with that, and he suggested that PW Director Petersen may be able to speak to those efforts with Caltrans.

Mayor Bier thought they could take a look and see.

PW Director Petersen stated that they have been working with Caltrans on different intersections on Highway 1, i.e., concerning signal timing, allowing better pedestrian access

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 19 June 25, 2022
across specific intersections where they see a lot of foot traffic and most recently they have been implementing the delayed signal for the pedestrians to allow them to get in the crosswalk prior to the cars moving and making some of the turns where there is conflict. She stated that they continue to work with Caltrans on a number of elements related to traffic on Highway 1, specifically how they can incorporate more with them, and she would turn to Acting Planning Director Murdock on how they can do that.

City Manager Woodhouse thanked her for the information, adding that some of those improvements related to the safety chapter and this policy is specifically focused on the visual and for the General Plan it is probably good to keep this policy as general but cite examples such as improving the appearance would be the San Jose Avenue pedestrian overcrossing that was recently built, and there have been ongoing efforts for removing dead trees, clean up, etc., that Caltrans is regularly doing, and they are some of the ideas to be inserted as examples but keep the policy general.

Mayor Bier stated that they will move on to Chapter 4, adding that there will be a long discussion on this chapter, so they should take lunch at 1:00 p.m., and confirmed that everyone was okay with that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to this chapter, stating that it would be helpful to her if Acting Planning Director Murdock and Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser would discuss the biggest areas of change or re-designation. She stated that there were small parcels where they were recommending re-designation like the one by Linda Mar School but as a reminder to know the changes or recommendations that were made in the land use.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he would start and then Vice Chair Hauser could jump in with any additional information. He stated that first, they should recognize all the commercial areas that have changes in designation. He stated that they will remain in the commercial designation, and the 1980 General Plan had a single commercial land use designation and this proposed General Plan has a number of different designations including service commercial, visitor serving commercial and other types of commercial, i.e., low intensity, visitor serving, coastal residential mixed use and there are three new mixed use designations, one he just mentioned and the coastal residential mixed use and the name suggests an emphasis on coastal oriented and visitor serving combined with housing. There were two other mixed use designations that are medium and high intensity version mixed use neighborhood and mixed use commercial and they are applied to three different existing shopping centers, Park Mall, Eureka Square and Pacific Manor Shopping Center in trying to achieve some redevelopment and more active dynamism with combining residential use with new modernized commercial uses. He stated that those are the notable changes for Council. He stated that one item to keep in mind is that the current Local Coastal Land Use Plan that certified the 1980 version as well as the current General Plan, as they had different uses intended for the quarry and this proposes a mixed up conservation and visitor serving commercial for the quarry and the city is seeking certification of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan for the Quarry area in the hope that it can obtain permit authority for that location. He stated that it was one of the areas of deferred certification that was not included in the 1980 certified LCLUP. He referred to one other unique change, and stated it was two parts but he will talk about them together, i.e., the creation of a new l and use designation called transitional open space residential. He stated that the 1980 General Plan has a number of different residential land use designations going from high density which allows up to 21 units per acre, all the way down to what is known as open space residential. He stated that it allows one unit for more than five acres and there was no upper limit on that, but they need at least 5.01 acres in that designation. He stated that this General

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 20 June 25, 2022
Plan would create a new designation, i.e., transitional open space residential (TOSR) and would require a minimum of ten acres per dwelling unit in order to construct residential uses on parcels that are so designated. He stated that, aligned with that, those transitional open space residential designations are primarily in the peripheral areas of town that are undeveloped, steep slopes, heavy tree cover, not appropriate for intensive development from a public safety standpoint. He stated that, similarly, areas in their spear of influence are largely similarly situated in terms of slope, tree cover, remoteness, difficulty with access, etc. He stated that the areas in their sphere of influence which are outside of the city limits but required to be in our General Plan are proposed designation called urban reserve and that would also have a one unit per ten acres of land use designation. As they are trying to ensure that those areas on the boundaries of Pacifica, outside the city limits and unincorporated San Mateo County, and they are assumed and identified for a very low intensity of residential development, at least ten acres per unit.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that something he likes about the update is that they seem to accentuate our open space more than we normally do and that is a value our community seems to embrace, including himself. He stated that it is heartening that they took pain to accentuate our natural environment to the point we can and focus in on the places that are already developed to augment those opportunities and densify a little bit so those are the places that are already really focusing.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed that was a good point and she appreciated that he said that.

She thinks that she characterizes it that this General Plan is catching up with the longstanding philosophy and point of view of so many in the city and so much action going on over the decades. She stated that she and the mayor attended a wonderful presentation of the historic developments over time and when certain parcels were designated as permanent open space and how that came about. She stated that, to have it presented to them in one sitting, it really encapsulated what is true about Pacifica, and she likes that this reflects that and the plan is catching up and bringing us to current to where people are. She hopes that they can find ways to elucidate that sort of community as she thinks with the plan being dense, they have some documents to review and, over time as they are implementing it once it is approved, the more they can refer back to with the new policy in the General Plan Update to help drive and understand where that was actually codified.

Acting Planning Director Murdock wanted to expand on that point. He stated that, during the course of the hearing thus far, there is no single policy that is going to achieve everything the community wants, adding that this General Plan has a number of policies that will need to be combined and leveraged with one another. He stated that the land use element is a very important starting place, as well as other safety element policies about identifying potential view inclusions in the Hillside Preservation overlay district, as they all need to be combined and utilized to full affect to achieve Council’s desire for the community right which is to protect our picturesque high value open space and slopes and try to concentrate development in areas that already disturbed and where it makes the most sense to concentrate and leverage that activity as well. He stated that he can briefly share the change in graphic to which he was referring and it will hopefully provide some clarity as to what they are describing but it isn’t showing up on his list of screens to share and they might not be able to do that now, and then tried again. He then stated that they can see in the commercial realm that they have a lot of new designations in the red where they are changing from the standard commercial designation to the multiple different commercial designations. He pointed out all the green areas, and stated that the good news is that they have new designations for public lands and preserved open space areas, primarily in the shades of green and they can see how much of Pacifica is in those categories. He stated

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 21 June 25, 2022
that the areas that are not green because they are already in a designation that is in the current General Plan and there is no change. He stated that the purple areas are where the mixed use designations are being proposed, mixed use center and neighborhood, and they will see the coastal residential mixed use is sort of a salmon color, focused predominantly in the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site and the much smaller site immediately to the southeast.

He stated that, in nearly all the residential neighborhoods, no changes are proposed and are white, and will remain low density residential or whatever their existing residential designations are and they are trying to preserve the core character uses in those parts of the city. He stated that there is a lot of focus into areas that are already developed and a lot of preservation protection of the areas that are existing residential neighborhoods and open space areas.

Mayor Bier asked if he can give her the number of that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock didn’t know if it is a figure number in the General Plan.

Mayor Bier stated that she was looking for it and didn’t see it and she wanted to be sure she didn’t miss it.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that land use designations are shown in Figure 4-3.

Mayor Bier thought that was what it was, and she knows some of those colors were hard to delineate.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she knows they have talked about the increased density in some of the areas, such as West Sharp Park, and ways of directing views and terracing , etc., and she was trying to figure out where it was requested. She knew it will be in the zoning just in the plan exactly where they may refer to that, and if they don’t, she asked if there was a way to incorporate that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought a lot of the specificity was in the Sharp Park Specific Plan and, to the extent that they are going to discuss it here, it is relevant to the EIR being considered and the visual resources evaluations for that. He asked Ms. Moore if she can pull up some of the renderings to show what work has been done and how the policies on paper might be transformed into the built environment to accomplish an appropriate scale avoiding public crowding, avoiding boxiness, etc.

Ms. Moore stated that she can show where visual resources in the Sharp Park Specific Plan were analyzed.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated, while she was trying to bring it up, he would generalize. He stated that, in the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Sharp Park Specific Plan so far and in relation to the Coastal Commission staff’s comments of concerns about potential visual resources impacts, particularly from the increased building heights in the Sharp Park Specific Plan, as a preliminary matter, the primary views of the city is obligated to assess and potentially protect our public views, and views from public rights of way ,public l ands, public spaces, Pier, promenade, all streets in Sharp Park, library and elsewhere in the public realm, attempts are made to try to be considerate to private use but it is not always possible to protect every existing private view, particularly while trying to accomplish some of the other goals of the Plan, but as will be explained in more detail when Council considers the Sharp Park Specific Plan, that type of intensification is focused on the north, south Palmetto Avenue and Francisco Boulevard corridors and attempts are being made to preserve the

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 22 June 25, 2022
character and scale of the east west neighborhood street and residential streets, to try to achieve that desired community character and scale.

Ms. Moore stated that there is a chapter in the EIR called visual resources with several figures that show what potential impacts of height could be looking south on Palmetto. The analysis shows the impacts to the views are not that significant. They also analyzed views from the Sharp Park Library and how, even at 35 feet at the street level, views would be blocked with the allowable height, but with certain policies in the Sharp Park Specific Plan that require preservation views of setbacks over a certain height, more of that coastal view is preserved.

Vice Chair Hauser echoed what Acting Planning Director Murdock said, i.e., a lot of the analysis is taken with the current Sharp Park Specific Plan review Planning Commission is doing, and added that they talked about it when deliberating on this element and where they had landed was that it was important that the General Plan stay general but have policies that would allow them to see conduits to make these changes via zoning, not just in Sharp Park but all the neighborhoods in the city. The Commission felt good that there were policies on LU -I-19 which is a height limit policy and means that for each neighborhood and each land use, they will study what those height limits should be. She referred previously to the policy LU-I-A which is an FAR minimum, and they are making sure that, as they move forward, they got that level of specificity as they were implementing the zoning.

Acting Planning Director Murdock wanted to allow Ms. Moore another minute, stating that they provided the coarser scale of neighborhood wide view impact analysis that was done in the EIR but for some of the finer grades in site specific policies in the Sharp Park Specific Plan, they wanted to show some examples of what those are intended to achieve to preserve the scale and character and avoid adverse impacts from the intensification building heights.

Ms. Moore stated that there is a policy in the Sharp Park Specific Plan about daylight plane which requires certain setbacks from the rear to avoid any shadow on existing smaller scale adjacent residential. She showed how some of the setbacks minimize potential impacts.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought they lost connection from Ms. Moore, but she was explaining how the setbacks are intended to try to maintain that appropriate scale at street level and not overwhelm the pedestrian scale at street level while trying to achieve some of the increased densities that they assess are necessary to achieve the more continuous level of vibrancy that is desired that is more routine than just peak tourism.

Mayor Bier stated that they received ideas on the map for Figure 43 that she thought were interesting and she would like to talk about them. She referred to the first one, identification of a PDA at the top of Fairmont.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated there is what is known as the Skyline corridor priority development area and it includes the Fairmont Shopping Center and some other lands in the area.

Mayor Bier asked if it was possible to increase density there.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought it was, and staff had envisioned doing that as part of the Housing Element process. He stated that this is trying to formalize and finalize earlier work to create the General Plan and that PDA came about relatively recently within the last couple of years and they didn’t revisit what the potential would be for that but it he thought it should be

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 23 June 25, 2022
visited during the Housing Element process as a potentially key area.

Mayor Bier wanted to be sure they talked about it at this time, acknowledge it and want to do something about it so it is clear to the community. She stated that they are also talking about where the apartments fell into the ocean and thus no longer a medium density residential, and she wanted to comment on that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought they could revisit that. He thought those lands were still in private ownership even though there is a process underway. They could take a closer look at that as he thought the development potential for those is unknown given the coastal hazards analysis that would be required as part of a future project.

Mayor Bier asked if he could explain their land use decisions around the Calson field.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that property is known as the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site in the draft General Plan, and not only has it been the subject of a lot of discussion and focus as part of the General Plan Update process but also the Local Coastal Land Use Plan process. He stated that, in 2019 and 2020, when Council was considering approval of a new Local Coastal Land Use Plan, they spent a significant amount of time focused on that single property and received a lot of community input, including from the property owner, with a desire to ensure a reasonable economic development potential for that site with a lot of discussion about potential hazards, including tsunami, sea level rise, biological resources, etc. He stated that, going into that process in 2019 and 2020, the site had coastal residential mixed use land use designation, CRMU, and at the time it would allow up to 15 units per dwelling acre in a mixed use so some commercial component and up to 15 dwelling units of residential on that area. He stated that, given its size of roughly five acres, that mean that the theoretical maximum of 75 dwelling units plus the associated commercial development. He stated that, on hearing from the community, he thought it was necessary to keep it at the appropriate level for now. He thought there was a concern that intensive development of 75 units per acre plus commercial was too much for the site and he thought the neighborhood concern was that level of activity would be disruptive and there was concern about only one way out of the neighborhood and over intensification from a project there could frustrate emergency evacuation of the existing neighborhood, concerns about impacts to wetlands that may be existent on the site, etc. A lot of the community input was to allow very, very low intensity of development, perhaps no residential development at all and focusing on a commercial/recreational set of uses. He didn’t want to mis-state what those potential uses would be, but certainly things on the very low intensity realm, perhaps not including any permanent development, but some sort of series of low impact temporary or semi-temporary/semi-permanent type uses of the site. He stated that, after much discussion and consideration, Council tried to strike a balance between reasonable development and protection of resources and minimization of impacts to the neighborhood. He stated that Council concluded to keep the coastal residential mixed use land use designation but the creation of a site specific policy which specified that, within that range, the density should be 3-5 units per acre as opposed to up to 15 units per acre and, based on that type specific policy, the theoretical maximum would be 25 dwelling units plus the corresponding commercial use. He stated that is where the recommendation ended up and was incorporated in the certification draft LCLUP approved by Council in February 2020 and what has been carried forward to this hearing in the draft General Plan.

Mayor Bier wanted to suggest that they possibly look at lowering it to 1-3 units and see what they all think about that. She mentioned it to Acting Planning Director Murdock and he said he would get some information for her about what that would entail and what it would mean for

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 24 June 25, 2022
other parts of the plan. She asked if he could share that information.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought the Council might be contemplating is taking it from a potential maximum of 25 dwelling units to a potential maximum of 15, and at some point in their detailed deliberations, they will need to consider if there is a place where another 10 dwelling units could be identified in the draft General Plan to ensure that overall the buildout and potential in the plan is not going to be reduced from what is being considered here, recognizing they are going to have to go from 990 unit buildouts to roughly 1900 at some point and every unit counts so losing units at this stage would only make the challenge harder during the housing element update. He stated that redesignating another site to achieve that ten-unit capacity is something Council will need to go through.

Councilmember Vaterlaus disagreed with that, as they discussed it at length and this is a lowering already from 75 to 25 and that property has been platted and drawn with streets and could have had, at one point, over 100 units on it. She understands that the neighborhood doesn’t like it, and she thinks, if they lower it to 15 houses, they still wouldn’t like it, so she doesn’t think it is going to be possible for them to find additional units in another location.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it is hard discussing that one lot. He has had this journey from sitting in the audience, being part of the Planning Commission and now on Council and every step of the way, as he has gone from observing to action, it has been difficult to try and properly address it and figuring out the right way to address it and what resources to put into addressing it as well as listening to community and staff feedback and deliberating with Commission and Council at the same time. He stated that, when they had the Council/Planning Commission joint study session in 2019, they had a robust discussion. He drove as deeply into the history of that lot with questions as he could do at that time and he walked away with an understanding that there was a quagmire disagreement between land use shift or rezoning shift to C2 from commercial recreation and whether or not it was passed over by Coastal Commission, and he walked away with the sense of the potential that, if left unchecked now, maybe to the tune of up to 22 units per acre, it could be developed, and they need to address it in real time as that history is so murky. After a robust deliberation between Council and Planning, they walked away with that as being as happy a medium as all of them could fathom in that moment. He didn’t think it meant that it was a happy medium for the neighborhood and he respects that to what he can after this long process of trying to establish a happy medium between Planning and Council. He stated that, after listening to the robust discussion Planning recently had with regard to that property, he is as comfortable as he can be as he thinks it is an uncomfortable piece of land no matter how he is engaging in and discussing it. He stated that it is as happy a medium as all the discussions have been able to produce and wants to leave it there while acknowledging that it doesn’t mean it is a settled issue as he doesn’t want to poke at it anymore at this time.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to bring up a point she asked about in a general way, and she asked Vice Chair Hauser if she has anything to add, and added that Acting Planning Director Murdock can help her. She stated that, in terms of the issue of transfer of development rights and its relationship to the EIR to the project, as the General Plan is general in a program level, any development of any kind that would need to be done on that coastal zone property would need significant reviews, such as issues with ESHA, environmentally sensitive habitat area, dining space, water shed areas or impacts that would disallow or constrain the development of any site, whatever the zoning would allow. She asked if transfer of development rights would pertain to this property if it came to that.

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 25 June 25, 2022
Acting Planning Director Murdock thought there were multiple parts in his response. He stated that the transfer of development rights ordinance is one that already is in a policy in the General Plan to revisit and try to improve to make it more practical and more attractive to use. He thought one of the components is what the amount of density is and the incentive to actually transfer. He stated that the less base density that a parcel has, the less potential economic value to that transfer to make it attractive to go through the legal and the city process to achieve it. He stated that having more units to transfer from the site might make it a better and more attractive candidate for that transfer to occur. He wanted to draw Council’s attention to packet page 428 where the land use policy I-29 is located and the site specific policy he mentioned earlier for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site. He stated that it is one of the longest policies in the General Plan which he thinks reflects the amount of care that Council has taken to this point, primarily to the LCLUP update process and it gets to the heart of the latter part of her comment and question by Councilmember Beckmeyer about evaluations required for some future project on the site. He stated that it specifically calls out a wetland survey as required by the Coastal Act to identify where all those resources are located as well as other geotechnical hazard assessments and an assessment of the Ocean Shore railroad berm. He stated that all those factors together have the potential to affect the amount of development that can occur.

He stated that, in a horizontal sense, where on the site development might be appropriate in three dimensions, height limits and floor area ratios, etc., also combined to potentially limit the development capacity. He stated that it is unknown whether the site will be able to develop at the upper end of that allowable range of five units and whether it would be forced to the lower end or if it could even develop at all, once all those resource constraints are known and does become an ideal candidate for a transfer of development rights to some other more suitable location. He thought they won’t know until such time as a project is coming forward and they get all those studies completed, but at this point, he stated that Council has found a balance in its mind coming into this meeting of 3-5 units per acre.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that she thought the document is set up nicely for what Councilmember Beckmeyer just set forward. She stated that, in addition to the page that she read out of the Pedro Point and Shelter Cove neighborhood requiring the land use policy that Acting Planning Director Murdock just referred to, LU-I-29, there is a policy in the same chapter, LU-I-15, transfer of development rights (TDR), which specifically talks about doing TDR in these coastal vulnerability zones. She stated that the Commission’s read of it, after talking about it extensively, is that there has to be an analysis to figure out if it is a vulnerable site and, if it is, the TDR policy definitively applies to it. She thought that encapsulates what Councilmember Beckmeyer is looking for.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was exactly what she was asking.

Mayor Bier knew it wasn’t going to be a popular thing to bring up. She thought with this one, she wanted to try to push it down just one more notch which is why she brought it up. She appreciated her engaging in the conversation with her. She asked if anyone else had anything in Chapter 4. She had a question about the below market rate program. She asked if it would be possible for them to bring it from 15% to 20%.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it would, suggesting that City Attorney Kenyon may have to guide him on the legal standards. He recalled that there was essentially a presumption that 15% is okay in state law in that at least up to 20% could be justified by a local agency, subject to appropriate study is called under state law and it was an opportunity for the city to go above 15% potentially. He stated that it would be a very focused process to conduct the proper study analysis.

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 26 June 25, 2022
Mayor Bier would appreciate that moving forward. She stated that they spend a lot of time doing exactly what is legally required.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that Acting Planning Director Murdock is correct, and she emphasized that there are findings and studies that they will have to prepare in order to do that.

Vice Chair Hauser brought Council’s attention to the sentence they added in the below market rate program, she referred to the paragraph that says the program may be updated by ordinance from time to time so that as Council does make updates to the ordinance, this General Plan does not in any way override it.

Mayor Bier asked if she could give them the packet page number.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that she is going back and forth between three documents. She asked Acting Planning Director Murdock if he can help her with that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he is looking for it now.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that she just found it, page 407.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agrees with that.

Mayor Bier stated that she didn’t have anything else for Chapter 4, and asked if any Councilmembers did.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked Vice Chair Hauser a question regarding LU-I-40, park and ride. She cannot remember what the final decision was and she can’t get the redline document open to check to see if there is something added to that. She asked if she can remind them of what the conversation was around that particular location and any changes made.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that Acting Planning Director Murdock can jump in and help if necessary, but on packet page 429, they have LU-I-40 , and Planning Commission removed the words, “rezone the north side of Linda Mar Boulevard”, and added, “as shown on the land use diagram”, and they will notice as they go through the chapter that they correlated anything about sites back to the land use diagram so that there was really one overarching place where everything can be found. The conversation they had was about whether or not this area should be for overflow beach parking was something they talked about for a while and came to the conclusion that it would be under-utilization for this to be overflow beach parking but they should explore a shared parking facility between the Linda Mar Shopping Center and the Park and Ride, and that was what was recommended into the policy LU-I-40.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that the theme from the Planning Commission discussion on that topic was that it was such an important site and somewhat underutilized currently and to do any one thing with it would be to deprive the value from some other use and, in addition to ensuring shared use for potential overflow beach parking during peak utilization, it was recognized that it was really one of the few transit opportunities the city had that was ready made to combine park and ride with a bus facility with mixed use with potential overflow for beach access as well as mixed use to support the Linda Mar Shopping Center. He stated that it was recognized that it had all of those assets and potential aspects to it and trying to tie that policy together to reflect those opportunities.

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 27 June 25, 2022
Mayor Bier called a break for lunch, and then reconvened the meeting.

Mayor Bier stated that they were going to Chapter 5, circulation.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, before going to Chapter 5, he had a question about Chapter 4. He referred to some recommendation made by Planning Commission about MUN shift from commercial to mixed use.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the Planning Commission considered a request from the property owner of property along Highway 1 on the eastside between Rockaway Beach and Vallemar neighborhood to redesignate to mixed use neighborhood from service commercial. He stated that the staff analyzed that and made a recommendation to the Planning Commission which they then considered both sides of that potential land use change and recommended Council approval of the change to mixed use neighborhood.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if that was incorporated in the changes they have.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it was not currently shown in the maps of the land use diagram pending confirmation of City Council. They did make the error correction change for the properties on Rosita and Adobe given that they were unintentional inclusions in the semipublic designation but, given that it is an actual option and choice for Council, they did not change the maps yet.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck just wanted to make sure it was included when they get there.

Mayor Bier stated, regarding Chapter 5, they have talked about it a lot but she thinks additional clarification is always good for our community. She referred to the Manor Drive overcrossing, and wonders why they have to include this that this project includes a new on ramp. She asked if they can remove that statement.

Acting Planning Director Murdock drew Council’s attention to packet page 442. He stated that there was a brief discussion related to the Manor Drive overcrossing project which says the Manor Drive overcrossing is planned to be widened and coordinated, signal control is recommended to be added at the intersection of Manor Drive, Oceana Boulevard and Palmetto Avenue and the project includes consideration of a new on ramp to SR 1 from Oceana and Milagra Drive. He stated that the General Plan needs to discuss those transportation and circulation network improvements that are currently being considered that the city potentially constructed during the planning period. He stated that it is mentioned to ensure that there is a fair assessment of those improvements being considered and what the impact would be relative to the circulation network and other aspects of the General Plan. He stated that it is intended to be an objective description of what the project could be and what is being considered. He stated that, on that packet page, Planning Commission added consideration notes to make it clear that it is not a done deal as to what the project would or would not include, but the on ramp is one aspect of that being considered.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that PW Director Petersen could probably add to this, but he stated that, in case there is additional general language that would help, part of the project and work with Caltrans in the environmental review needs to look at different alternatives and they could potentially add something to the language that says “will consider the on ramp and other alternatives”. He then deferred to Director Petersen to be more specific about that language.

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 28 June 25, 2022
PW Director Petersen stated that there are other things that have been looked at and may not or may be feasible, one of those is putting an on ramp going southbound on Oceana onto Highway 1 at Paloma, and the other is a roundabout in that same area to prevent needing to have an on ramp or looking in the future of an on ramp at Milagra, but those are just additional considerations that have been generally looked at by the consultant and one of the things she believes that the City Engineer Bautista discussed previously with Council is that, during this process, Caltrans wants to make sure that all things happen with that and everything has been considered. What they don’t want to have happen is to put a bunch of money towards a project that ultimately does not rectify the problem and that is their goal and why they want these other elements to be looked at as well. She stated that, at this point, they are just looking at the different elements. She stated one thing the transportation authority allowed the city to move forward with was to say that this project could be broken into two parts so they did not need to complete an on ramp at Milagra along with the Manor Drive overcrossing improvement. She thought that was very helpful, especially for a lot of residents who are concerned about that on ramp at Milagra.

Mayor Bier was thinking about our community and how this brought up a lot of fear in the community and if there are other things being considered by the consultant, she thought it may be helpful to put that language so it is not just this, i.e., trying to put a buffer for the community so that they know that they hear them.

PW Director Petersen also thought the language that City Manager Woodhouse recommended could be helpful as it allows for a broader spectrum to be looked at and doesn’t tie them down to anything in particular.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if this is a consideration of words that were already added, then City Manager Woodhouse was adding other considerations at the end of the sentence. She asked if she was correct.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that there were a number of ways to structure it, and he said they could say “consideration of a new on ramp to SR1 from Oceana at Milagra and other alternatives”.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they can put it the other way around.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they can solve a problem as they are not necessarily sure what the right answer is and take it from that point of view. She stated that looking at considerations, “including the off ramp” or something.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that you can say, “includes consideration of alternatives, including a new on ramp to SR1".

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she didn’t want two includes in the same sentence.

Mayor Bier stated she would rather not have that language in there at all, just say alternative strategies.

Councilmember Vaterlaus knows they have had a lot of complaints about this, but she can see

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 29 June 25, 2022
the alternative of having that on ramp as helping everyone. She was not a traffic engineer and she doesn’t know what would happen but she thinks it would alleviate problems that people think it is going to cause by getting people on the freeway faster and not backed up where they have to go up to Manor if they went on the freeway there. She stated that, as far as wording, she would like to leave that in there and study other alternatives also.

City Manager Woodhouse referred to the Mayor’s question about removing the reference to it, as mentioned by Acting Planning Director Murdock, they want to be transparent about what alternatives are being analyzed and that they are required to analyze that alternative as part of this project. He stated that, as PW Director Petersen said, there are other alternatives that have been analyzed. He stated that, for clarity, this is not a decision about the outcome of the project but being transparent about alternative that are already part of the record which is part of the goal in a General Plan discussion.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they received a public comment that was addressing traffic in general and forward looking in terms of our RHNA and how are they going to accommodate all this and those types of open-ended questions. She wonders if, in the General Plan, that is part of why they need to include these items. She stated that the commenter mentioned existing traffic issues on the highway and elsewhere and they didn’t feel the way the study for traffic was done addressed those concerns, let alone future growth. She asked Acting Planning Director Murdock and Vice Chair Hauser where they would have these discussions and where they can point as to places that planned growth or future growth due to our RHNA is going to have this traffic analysis happening.

Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to packet page 444, and stated that the General Plan analyzed the number of key intersections in Pacifica but did not analyze every intersection for existing and potential future conditions under the General Plan. They used the projection management program intersection to see the intersections which are part of a countywide transportation planning document, as well as non-CMP intersections, i.e., of more local importance and it analyzed the existing level of service and future level of service projected under the plan and indicated those instances where there might be degradation or continued under performance of level of service at those intersections. It identified that there will be problems at some of the intersections, including current challenging conditions that may potentially be made worse. He stated that, in that conversation, it was important to segregate what they are analyzing and why. He stated that there was a long history of analyzing traffic and congestion delay as part of the CEQA process and that is no more as within the last couple of years that standard has changed at the state level to what is known as vehicle miles traveled, a VMT analysis, and discussed in the EIR. They have challenges with achieving our VMT reductions, given a land use pattern, geographic location in the region, where jobs are located, etc. He stated it was very challenging, but from an environmental review standpoint, delay and congestion level of service are not directly applicable to the environmental review. He stated that, in the General Plan, there is still a standard for level of service in the hope of trying to maintain well flowing and operating streets and intersections in Pacifica. He stated that what is recognized is that funding resources primarily are constrained in the General Plan to resolving some of those existing conditions and there are limits under the current and anticipated funding as to what can be done. He stated that the General Plan just tries to acknowledge that and let it be known as a potential constraint factor when considering land use and other policy decisions in the General Plan.

Vice Chair Hauser added that the Commission had a lot of that conversation, spending a long time with Ms. Moore understanding the difference between VMT which requires a statement of

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 30 June 25, 2022
overriding considerations and level of service. One of the things that was helpful for them to understand as a Commission was that the reason they needed the statement of overriding consideration for VMT was really related to the fact that we don’t have transportation like BART in Pacifica and that is not something that is going to change with our General Plan. She stated that it feeds more into this kind of level of service versus VMT conversation. She thought it was helpful to hear at the Planning Commission level the two discussions about the signal on Hickey which has been a big topic of conversation, as well as future projects utilizing the CEQA determinations that this document uses. She wondered if Acting Planning Director Murdock could elaborate a little bit on that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he would speak to her first point and hopefully Ms.

Moore can address her second point. He stated that the General Plan includes the policy that supports signalization of the Hickey and Gateway intersection and it is a known point of traffic congestion currently and it doesn’t operate at acceptable levels of service in peak periods and the General Plan acknowledges that, until resources have been identified to signalize that intersection, it will continue to operate at a sub-satisfactory level of service. As far as the benefits of certifying the EIR, he thought Ms. Moore could speak to that. He stated that her Zoom is frozen and he asked Mr. Hill if he was available but, if not, he would address the point.

He then stated that, within the context of the General Plan update and the certification of the EIR as mentioned, they have a statement of overriding considerations that indicate that the city is not able to achieve the target reductions of VMT and they have that statement of overriding considerations to comply with CEQA and say, “nevertheless, there are compelling public interest reasons to adopt the General Plan and certify the EIR”. He stated that the good news is that it provides some measure of protection for future projects that are coming in and may, at a project level, confront those kinds of issues, given that the General Plan EIR has established that and it is not a new impact necessarily unless there is a significant identification beyond what was analyzed in the EIR and it minimizes the potential for additional environmental analysis or additional significant overriding considerations for projects that are consistent with the General Plan.

Mayor Bier stated that she didn’t see much talk about micro-mobility such as electric vehicles.

She may have missed it, but if not, she asked if they can add something in about it.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it was the topic of some discussion by the Planning Commission, and he thought Vice Chair Hauser could speak to some of those points.

He stated that they have tried to make some notes to that in the General Plan, including promoting bike shares and other kind of rental options, i.e., dock bike rental, in support for that and there is some more specific discussion in the Sharp Park Specific Plan on those topics, but he thought there was support in expansion of availability of those kinds of transportation devices but squaring that with public safety in terms of the high operating speed on which they can sometimes operate and the conflicts with pedestrian traffic that can occur depending on the design and the location of that use. He stated that the plan would support those alternative nonvehicular modes of travel and they could put more specific language about E-bikes and scooters, etc.

Mayor Bier stated that she heard the discussion in the Sharp Park Specific Plan on Thursday, and she thought it would be a good addition just like the micro-mobility term. She then referred to page 459, description of public transportation and transportation demand of management, and she stated that they adopted the seamless transportation principles. She asked if there was somewhere that they can add that description.

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 31 June 25, 2022
Acting Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it is totally minor but it says the Visalia School District instead of Pacifica, questioning what page it is on.

Mayor Bier stated that she couldn’t find it in the redline.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thought it may have gotten fixed.

Mayor Bier stated that it was under strategy to reduce school related peak hour auto congestion.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she had a second ago.

Mayor Bier reiterated that she couldn’t find it in the redline.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated they can forget it.

Mayor Bier asked if they had anything else in Chapter 5 and seeing none, she moved on to Chapter 6, open space.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the old Fairmont School was sold to St. Ignatius and she has gotten quite a few notifications about that. She asked if that was considered a park or private property. She thought it might be private property and was no longer a school district property. She asked how they determine that in the park section.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it is private property and not a public park. He stated that they proposed to indicate that as a semi-public land use and would reflect that it has public use like characteristics but not a public land use.

Mayor Bier stated that she was looking at letters submitted, and she will not mention their names, but there are a bunch of changes in language such as adding wildlife friendly to policy OC-128, and talking about wildlife barriers. She stated that they talked a lot about the wildlife barriers in the Open Space Committee and they are very concerned especially at that intersection, and she would appreciate that. She stated that they brought up the word about special status wildlife a lot instead of endangered species. She asks if changing those words makes a big difference, referring to CO-G-7.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it does have different meanings, as endangered species are a type of special status species but there are other classifications that are less threatened than endangered but also warrant special protections. He thought they would want to look at the particular context to make sure that the meaning that is intended is included in that policy. He asked if it is specifically OC-G-7 or CO-G-7.

Mayor Bier stated that it says CO-G-7.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that would be a conservation element.

Mayor Bier stated that they aren’t there yet.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked for clarification on OC-G-4 and OC-I-3, as she wanted to

2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 32 June 25, 2022
make sure that those two are consistent with what they say in the narrative about school districts and not having an agreement in the narrative under school playfields, 6-4. She stated that she didn’t have the right packet page number.

Vice Chair Hauser thought it was packet page 479.

Councilmember Beckmeyer knows that, in the past, they had articulated agreements with the school district about the use of fields, and it seems like OC-I-3 is aspirational and forwardlooking to perhaps creating some kind of cooperative arrangement, but they are also stating that the presently they don’t have it. She wondered if they feel those are okay or do they need to say anything more to emphasize that. She thinks this because, in so many instances, they are serving the same public and she always wants to see where they can have those overlapping cooperative relationships. She knows there is a history to being clear about and articulating a maintenance of facilities. She realizes it is complicated, but she was asking if there was a way to make sure they are allowing for a possibility of working out those complexities in service of our community. She asked Vice Chair Hauser if that item came up in their deliberations.

Vice Chair Hauser thought they did discuss it, adding that Acting Planning Director Murdock could elaborate on it. She stated that they discussed and, on packet page 501, they added an implementing policy OC-I-A, year round park use, and it says study waste and create usability of city park facilities on a year round basis, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission input in the identification of preferred solutions. She thought the more specific conversation on this pertained to the fact that there really aren’t a lot of places that have lightening after hours and there was a lot of focus on how they create an implementing policy that is broad enough to allow them to have those conversations and allows them to have some of the other better conversations that she is speaking about.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she now remembers that.

City Manager Woodhouse thought the language says explore joint use agreements is probably appropriate because Pacifica is unique in that a lot of the playing fields are school district run and, in the future, as a policy matter, if they want to enter into a joint agreement with the school district, that is applying some sort of operational capacity which, for financial reasons, is not done currently. He stated that exploring that in the future is a flexible language for this policy if those other policy drivers or financial conditions were to change, if that makes sense.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it does, and she then had another question but was not sure if it was appropriate at this time. She referred to the issues of artificial turf, and she knows it is a General Plan, not a specific site plan, etc., but she asked, if there are any commentary around that or anything the city specifically could or should be saying or is it handled at a different level. She stated that it was raised to her and she didn’t have an answer for the person who brought it to her attention.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that his initial reaction is that it is at a very detailed, different level and a complicated issue both financially decision and whether it is the school district or city’s making that decision and he thought, as they are not talking about the types of repaving or street treatments they will be using, and maybe that would be an analogy to talk about the surfacing of play fields.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed, and he thought an appropriate level of consideration for the General Plan, depending on the nature of the interest, could be exploring use of artificial

2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 33 June 25, 2022
turf to reduce water usage and simplify maintenance, assuming that was a true statement.

There are maintenance tradeoffs in shifting to artificial turf. He thought the Public Works Department would know more about that than the Planning Department, but as the City Manager mentioned, there are trade-offs, but specifying turf at specific facilities is probably too narrow for the General Plan, supporting the use of artificial turf where appropriate broadly for some public policy reason, such as reduced water usage, etc., is an appropriate type of policy that the General Plan could include.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it was interesting as he was reading Councilmember Beckmeyer’s comment the opposite way of where staff seemed to have taken it. He was thinking more in terms of his interest in plastics and why he would not want artificial turf used at city facilities and, given that an all-encompassing statement could be made in terms of all facilities all at once and perhaps this is the appropriate place to put a policy in about not using artificial turf. He thought that bears greater discussion with Council.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was where the question originated and she thanked him for taking it there.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought it would be helpful for staff to understand what the rational basis is for that and what public policy objective is he trying to achieve through discouraging the use of artificial turf for play fields and whether it should extend to private landscaping such as in front yards, back yards, etc., and where that policy direction should be focused.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, for him, it was definitely environmental and health question and why he favors going away from that. He appreciated that there is an environmental concern of not wanting to water grass during a drought which is the counter point to it. He was not sure about long term health effects on people regularly using the turf and he doesn’t like the idea of bringing more plastic into the environment than otherwise inclined, and that is his version of environmental concern in this instance, respecting the drought question as well as not wanting to introduce more plastics and chemicals into our environment.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that Councilmember Vaterlaus has her hand up and he can wait to say something.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she was going to say it was actually the opposite that someone was complaining about the artificial turf but there are definitely two sides because we are not going to have water and if they are recycling old plastic bottles to make turf, it might not be too bad. She stated that, in that same vein, with the lights issue, an increasing use of playing fields and schools, etc., with lighting, that may not be the right level here to discuss but at some point they can discuss that.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he was going to add that the turf versus grass policy discussion is a significantly complex one that is more appropriately done at a project specific level as the Council hasn’t had the benefit of a robust analysis of all of the factors, some of which were mentioned, and in San Francisco, the debate was extending the time throughout the various seasons that fields can be utilized because there is an insufficient number of fields and that is another policy factor to support athletics. He thought it would be challenging to have an overarching policy statement on one side or the other on this issue, that is a pretty specific one.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that her question was do they have anything in the document

2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 34 June 25, 2022
and her feeling at this juncture, without the benefit of a robust study, and looking at this, it is probably not something they would consider. She can’t imagine language they could insert at this point in time that would offer anything more than a statement of evaluating it at the time that a project is brought forward which is what they do anyway. She asked if Acting Planning Director Murdock had anything to add.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he wanted to respond to Councilmember Vaterlaus’ statement about park facility lighting. He stated that it is something that came up at the Planning Commission and one commissioner mentioned that, if unable to increase the number of fields available to assure that they are available for expanded use, including all times of the year and hours of darkness, and they had hoped not to venture into specifically prescribing lights for any specific facilities that hasn’t been analyzed in the environmental impact report and there are potential environmental consequences of that. They felt that the general policy that the Commission came up with to explore further options would allow that analysis and study to occur when specific options were being considered for specific facilities in the future.

Mayor Bier referred to packet page 486, OC-I-28, and she asked if they can add in wildlife friendly.

Acting Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier referred to OC-I-31, third bullet point, and asked if that already happened, replacement or rehabilitation of Highway 1 overcrossing between west and east Sharp Park.

Acting Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier stated that someone asked her about Figure 63, the coastal access and it was pointed out that 3, 6 and 7 are no longer available as coastal accesses. She asked if that is correct.

Acting Planning Director Murdock asked if she was saying 3 and 7.

Mayor Bier clarified that it was 3, 6 and 7.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he has not been to those sites recently, and to his knowledge, site #3 may be Lands End. He thought they could confirm the current conditions.

He stated that it was important to note that whether they may be currently impacted by coastal erosion may not eliminate the obligation of the property owner to restore such access and, thinking about the 20-year planning term for this document, they will want to strike the right balance of accuracy and concurrency with the likelihood of long-term conditions of the site.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that there was talk at Open Space about an overcrossing at Mori Point to Shelldance, and she realized there is a trail through there, but she stated that there were so many places that they could use pedestrian overcrossings to take people to the beach and the trails there and the Crespi location where many people cross the street all the time instead of one at Mori Point where there is no parking for any access there to do a pedestrian overcrossing.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that a while ago, in a conversation she was participating in with the Mayor, the thinking was that potentially there was parking there because Caltrans owns

2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 35 June 25, 2022
that land below Shelldance and there is some kind of way to expand to and she knows there is conversation happening with the Moose Lodge that the intensity of use of Mori Point and the homes along that trail is very exploratory but the possibility of whether there could be an overcrossing or a different undercrossing but that piece of land on the east side of the highway is, to her understanding, a Caltrans right of way or owned by Caltrans and potentially it offers the opportunity for parking. She agreed with her point that the busy crossing at Crespi is over Highway 1.

Acting Planning Director Murdock wanted to ask if there was general support of the concept of pedestrian overcrossing that is a method of safely crossing the highway and reducing traffic congestion and if those types of crossings need to be signalized. He imagined, to the extreme, too many overcrossings would possibly have a negative aesthetic impact in the community and, with so many issues in the General Plan, trying to strike the right balance, it would help if there are areas where overcrossings are particularly favored or disfavored so they can try to get the policy language correctly adjusted to support those. He stated that those can be very costly improvements and have a lot of complexity in terms of land ownership and all those details. He thought the city would want to focus its effort where the Council would be likely to support those types of overcrossings and not in wrong locations.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wondered how great the difference between and overcrossing at Vallemar versus an overcrossing at Shelldance and if essentially one or the other or both are in the middle rather than potentially both.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, without the benefit of the full analysis,, the Reina Del Mar overcrossing has been contemplated for a while in the General Plan and may be seen to have multiple benefits, not only for recreation but for the daily school influenced traffic in that location. He didn’t know how Council wants to find the right priority but it has come up in the various General Plan conversations in that context as well.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there is a pedestrian improvement along Highway 1 right of way, and maybe that would preclude the need for an overcrossing directly at Shelldance because it is close enough to an overcrossing that could be at the Vallemar and would solve that problem.

Mayor Bier thought it was mentioned in a different section because they are talking about wildlife corridors and that was the main reason they spoke about it at Open Space to create that corridor over to the point from the mountain.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he misunderstood.

City Manager Woodhouse referred to the Mori Point area, and stated in conversations coordinating with Caltrans, they were focused on signage directing to the undercrossing which is not a wildlife solution per se but more of a pedestrian solution in that vicinity.

Mayor Bier stated that they obviously know that the Crespi crossing is super dangerous and uncomfortable. She thanked them for catching the data on the Pacifica School District enrollment, and she saw that the Planning Commission got that and they are updating that data.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought, to split the difference with respect to the overcrossing discussion now, they could do a better job on the diagrams, indicating the purpose of the existing or potential future overcrossings to place the emphasis on pedestrians versus

2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 36 June 25, 2022
wildlife or both, depending on the nature and location. He thought they could take a look at that and see if they can be more precise.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she didn’t have any other items in this Chapter and she wondered if Vice Chair Hauser had anything she wanted to make sure Council is aware of. She remembers a conversation about hikers hut and she feels that the language got changed to clarify the purpose.

Vice Chair Hauser referred to the water usage, and pointed out that there was policy CO-G-5, in Chapter 7, that was generally about water conservation. The Commission felt that was the general place that guided the drought tolerant landscaping idea and she knows they talked about that more specifically on Monday and Thursday in regard to the Specific Plan. She stated that, in regard to hikers hut, that language was clarified the way they had asked for it, as they wanted to make clear that there were certain facilities available for people utilizing the trails and adding info and graphics to show where bathroom facilities were and adding additional information on what the hiker to wear to make sure this wasn’t something that was utilized as a sleeping quarters but something that was a facility when you’re hiking and a place to have a rest. Those changes were captured accurately and she appreciated what was said because there was a lot of conversation about this and to encapsulate it so clearly was helpful.

Mayor Bier asked if Councilmember Beckmeyer could take at the library section as it looks like they list the hours, i.e., 60 hours of service per week, on packet page 497. She wanted to know if that was accurate now.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they are currently under an expanded library hours pilot with the Library JPA.

Mayor Bier stated that you could just say that.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the statement is not accurate under our current pilot, and the hours could change in the future as well.

Councilmember Vaterlaus suggested prescribed amount.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought the philosophy is to provide as much access as possible and in some instances, that isn’t necessarily daytime opening hours and could be through various means of automated services, it can be book vending machines, and there are lots of strategies that libraries use for getting people access to their collections. She stated, if the goal is to have a general policy statement about supporting maximum access to library resources, she thinks they should say that and not necessarily pin it down to specific hours because it is a moving target and they have seen it change so many times when they had different hours with the JPA, shrink, contract, grow, and it changes frequently in terms of opening hours. She asked if Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck had anything to add as she knows he has been attending the JPA meetings with or in place of Councilmember O’Neill.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he has been in the audience while Councilmember O’Neill has been there and in general things do seem relatively in flux regularly during Covid time and it is hard unless they want to put something in there as he didn’t think it will service well in perpetuity to put that things are changing as that is what amendments are for. He stated that, if there is something to nail down now, that‘s great but otherwise he was comfortable with it

2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 37 June 25, 2022
because we aren’t where we land yet.

Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to packet page 501 and stated that there are two policies related to libraries, OC-I-60 and OC-I-61. He stated that what the narrative in the General Plan is trying to do is describe the current condition and sort of a baseline for the analysis and policies to include where necessary. He thinks they can reflect that the city is currently under the expanded pilot program but, historically, hours have fluctuated as resources have committed through the JPA, and to explain it is not fixed and it goes up and down. He stated that the Council can consider whether they feel like a policy to support some type of library services is appropriate, either in place of or as a complement to the two policies he mentioned.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she can’t open that document now, and she is looking at the regular plan. She asked if OC-I-60 says a single library / learning center.

Acting Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier said it does.

Councilmember Beckmeyer didn’t think they should be saying that as it is not the policy that they are pursuing presently based on community feedback. She thinks they need to make sure they look at it and look for a way to expand the oomph of this particular implementation policy because they are hoping to have a new library in Pacifica and she is going to go out on a limb and say before they redo this General Plan next time. She thinks that to Mayor Bier’s point, she asked if they need to say more about libraries in it. She stated that they have a long piece in the narrative.

Mayor Bier stated that she is glad she caught the single. She was just curious on what she thought.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in the narrative, there is a paragraph that talks to a branch library system that Council directed in 2017, on packet page 498, the first full paragraph, stating, In January 2018, Council selected two-branch library system strategy, one large fullservice branch at Sharp Park and one smaller self-service open access model branch at Sanchez.

Mayor Bier stated that they would want the guiding policies to match that. She stated that, on page 499, there is a paragraph about the Boys and Girls Club. She stated that they have changes with the club and she didn’t know how they can reflect that because they had a standalone club and should there be different language to show that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they are still North San Mateo County Boys and Girls Club is still called that and is the legal entity that operates those facilities in Pacifica and having the opening sentence about a national organization is accurate at least at this point and she didn’t think it was changing anytime soon. She concluded that it was a different operating model that they are doing than what it was before. She stated that we still have two schools.

She thought everything in the paragraph was still accurate, but she asked if they are looking for a more supportive statement.

Mayor Bier thought they are going to need more local support moving forward and she didn’t know if they just want to change something.

2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 38 June 25, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the last sentence, stating there was an opportunity to add another phrase, i.e., “the cost to join is nominal and program fees are low. However, about “community support to ensure longevity of the resource and necessity of the resource for Pacifica’s youth” or words to that effect. She thought it could introduce the notion of the community support piece. She stated that you often see them conclude that they pay the fee and they get the services, and she didn’t think they will be having that level of support going forward as she understands it because of the merging and there is going to be a need for more community involvement. She thought that was what Mayor Bier is trying to get to.

Mayor Bier stated that folks don’t think it is necessary but she wanted to make that note.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he is reading it in relation to how the Pacifica Resource Center blurb talks about where their money comes from and he is comparing the two and say language.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it was awkward because it is literally emerging now, and they know the stand-alone aspect is in place.

Mayor Bier didn’t think that will change.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it feels accurate as it, but if they want to add something about community support, there was no reason not to.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thinks they can leave it alone as, if they are going to change it and the fees are not going to be nominal anymore, and people are going to have to do fundraising so it can stay in business, the fee will still be nominal and what they said is accurate.

Councilmember Beckmeyer hoped she didn’t miss something Mayor Bier said, mentioning that at the outset, in Chapter 1, she was talking about services or leadership opportunities for youth and she wondered if she addressed that point and she missed it or if she thinks there is an opportunity in the section that starts with service for seniors, youth and families. She asked if there is an opportunity there or does it go somewhere else.

Mayor Bier thought there was an opportunity there. She mentioned youth programs, and asked if that was what Councilmember Beckmeyer was talking about, OCI62.

Councilmember Beckmeyer responded affirmatively, and stated that the mayor specifically mentioned.

Mayor Bier stated leader opportunities. She stated that the city needs to support the city’s youth and team programs and leadership opportunities and seek funding. She thought it would be great to add that in.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, in his notes from Chapter 1, Mayor Bier had specifically mentioned in the city’s organization and he asked if she wants to be that specific in policy OCI62 or allow generally to support leadership opportunities for youth.

Mayor Bier stated that just putting generally was fine. She then stated that they are done with Chapter 6 and are now on to Chapter 7.

2.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 39 June 25, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she doesn’t have attachment C as it keeps crashing.

She asked Mayor Bier what OC-I-58 says in her version.

Mayor Bier asked if it was the Civic Center.

Councilmember Beckmeyer responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier read periodically assess the functionality of the renovated City Hall and Civic Center to determine if they meet the city’s long-term needs. She then said they can move on to conservation.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated, before moving on to conservation, he had a question for Acting Planning Director Murdock. He stated that, at the beginning of the meeting, he was talking about a series of Planning Commission items that didn’t quite make it and he was letting them know they should have made it. He asked if he wanted to go over those as they go through these or just saying them so Council could give him a blanket yes to include them all. He wasn’t sure if he needed to do that as they go along or just assume they are going along with that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that what he had suggested in his recommendation is that Council go through its own questions and deliberations on the document and they could then revisit those additional suggested revisions and those indicated in the staff report for final confirmation. He was happy to take them in whatever order, but it may be hard to plug them in as they go. He thought, after going through and having familiarity of the chapters, it may be easier to go down the list. He stated that fits with what they talked about.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if they were on Chapter 7.

Mayor Bier stated that they were and she was searching her notes.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought this was the appropriate place to stick in that edit that Mr.

Harris recommends on page 544. He thought it was a matter of inserting “and” to say golf course and clubhouse as historic.

Mayor Bier referred to packet page 514, CO-I-11, and asked if they could add a bullet point to talk about runoff capacity and management. She stated that it makes a lot of sense to her as they are looking at the springs in Rockaway Beach and having a paragraph about it is going to be important when they are trying to address things like that to ensure that new developments do not cause flooding for communities downstream. She didn’t say it has to be that language but something around runoff capacity management would be a good idea.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if she was saying CO-I-11. He asked if anyone else heard that it was CO-I-11.

Acting Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in terms of runoff management capacity, there was a lot of different references in the document to regional board BMPs and our MPDS permit and he thought those capture in a more technical sense what the Mayor was referencing. She can’t comment on that and will have to sign back in. He thought PW Director Petersen may be able to offer some insight on that.

2.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 40 June 25, 2022
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he is happy to speak briefly to that point. He thought it was fine to have that additional clarification and he didn’t know that it would be inconsistent with any of the other policies. He stated that there are already requirements through the countywide storm water discharge permit, i.e., the Municipal Regional Permit for MRP for certain project types to comply with storm water treatment and drainage design. He stated that there are projects that are common in Pacifica that are below that threshold and it may be relevant to have the General Plan support those types of projects, also appropriately managing their runoff and designing to an appropriate storm type to ensure that they are not missing any projects below the threshold such as single family residential projects which are formally exempt from the more intensive storm water treatment requirements but are the most common project type in Pacifica.

City Manager Woodhouse clarified that the mayor’s computer crashed so she is getting another one and will be back with them in a minute. He thought it sounded like they can work that general language into this policy. He asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck if he would like to take over while the mayor signs back on or does Council want to take a break.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought a break was probably a good idea as they are probably going to have to restate that for her when she comes back and, as much as he would love going forward, he thought it was better to wait while she reconvenes with them. He called for a threeminute break and hope the mayor has rejoined them then.

Mayor Bier stated her computer crashed.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that before her technical difficulty, she was suggesting an addition to policy CO-I-11, related to runoff capacity management. He stated that, during that break, looking at the policies they have, there are a number that address similar aspects of this, but he didn’t know if any of them quite get to that, and he wasn’t sure that the policy is the best place to put it in, and he suggested that it may be a new policy and the reason is that the city has had a practice for some time requiring new development of all project types, single family and above, to address their storm drainage design to mirror the pre-development condition and is not contributing, which he thought was the spirit of what she is trying to accomplish. He stated that, as of now, they don’t have a clear policy in the General Plan or improvements to require that. He thought this would help formalize that and achieve her desired outcome as well more precisely that doesn’t quite fit with some of the other storm drainage related policies that are currently in the draft.

Councilmember Beckmeyer had a question on guiding policy, CO-G-5, asking if that language still has the italicized portion that says at the very end “development of a system to use recycled wastewater”. She thought they have already developed that system. She asked if PW Director Petersen could comment on that, adding that she would like expanding it. She stated that, in looking for additional partnerships such as with North Coast County Water or somebody, but it feels like the way the paragraph reads it hasn’t happened yet.

PW Director Petersen stated that she was having some issues finding where they are currently in the document, then stated she just found it.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it was on the first page of policy.

PW Director Petersen found it, referring to the water conservation.

2.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 41 June 25, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer responded affirmatively.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated, to be sure she is in the correct version, it is on packet page 512, and that would put her in the redline version that they are working through.

PE Director Petersen was having issues with that huge document that keeps crashing. She stated that they are working with North Coast County Water District with their recycled water, and that is something that they have the purple type in certain locations and currently it is being provided at a number of locations where they are irrigating and are continuing to move forward with that program.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, where it says development of assistance to use recycled wastewater, that they say something like “maintenance and expansion” or something else, but it is her aspiration to have recycled water going other places for irrigation.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed with her that COG5 needs to be updated. He referred to packet page 516, there is an implementation policy on that point and it talks about implementation and expansion of the water recycling projects and it recognizes that it is currently in operation but that the expansion would be desirable, and he thinks using expansion in the guiding policy would also work.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they replace development with expansion in the guiding policy and that brings it in alignment, and she found it and agreed.

Mayor Bier referred to packet page 527, CO-G-10, tree, and she knows they are currently working on their tree plan. They had a heritage tree policy and now they are looking at our urban forest but she thought they could beef it up a little bit to reflect the work they are doing on the trees.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he would need to understand more about the way they would improve that policy. He also wanted to point out packet page 531 where there is a specific policy about heritage trees and she might want to consider both of them in making her recommendation. He stated that the Planning Commission specifically added that redline to consider a canopy goal for heritage and non-heritage trees as part of the heritage tree ordinance. He stated that might be the beefing up she is imagining.

Mayor Bier stated that she needed reference to the work going on because they are going to have much more guidance around the trees. She thanked Planning Commission again.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that is why they hear so few questions coming out of him as they go along as he followed along with the Planning Commission hearings and, after going through a dozen hours of that, he can’t imagine more questions to come to his mind. He thanked Vice Chair Hauser and the Planning Commission as they did a remarkable job.

Mayor Bier agreed that it was amazing to watch.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he has notes where a councilmember had started talking about CO-G-7 on packet page 527, and he wanted to see if anyone had that in their notes to address any concerns.

Mayor Bier stated she needs time to find it.

2.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 42 June 25, 2022
Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to her earlier comment about endangered versus special status, and stated that this is an example where multiples of those terms are used, threatened, endangered and other special status species and it shows how there are different classifications and the status for each of them.

Mayor Bier found it and agreed that it is perfect. She asked Councilmember Beckmeyer if she had anything else for Chapter 7.

Councilmember Beckmeyer responded that she did not.

Mayor Bier referred to the Stanford young people coming and talking to them about EV stations and they might have added something in about that. She stated that, on the old version, it is CO-I-54 and she stated that they can add it in to the final action plan for greenhouse gas emissions.

Acting Planning Director Murdock needed a minute to find it.

Mayor Bier asked if the Planning Commission talked about that.

Vice Chair Hauser stated that they did. It really came to fruition on the Park and Ride discussion where they added a requirement that EV charging is put on that site specifically that exceeds the state and local low code requirements and they talked about it as a whole and how important it was.

Acting Planning Director Murdock was confirming that they have a mitigation measure in the EIR as well related to electric vehicles installation.

Ms. Moore responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier referred to packet page 540, CO-I-54, and was including it in the Climate Action Plan.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she was looking over the section about wildlife movement corridors because they were talking about that earlier and it seems like it came up in open space area they discussed formerly and they got feedback on this from Fish and Wildlife and she wanted to be sure that all of those points were captured and if there was anything else they needed to check in about.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, on packet page 549, there is a new policy that the Planning Commission recommended to include in the General Plan about wildlife movement corridor study and Ms. Moore made reference to that in her initial presentation. He stated that the city received a comment from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, suggesting a 12-month wildlife movement corridor study prior to adoption of the General Plan. Given the impact that would have to the city’s timeline, as well as the city’s limitations individually being able to undertake what is really a regional type of study, they felt this was the best balance in a policy approach and the Planning Commission supported that to participate in a regional or subregional study when funding is available and when the appropriate expert agency can guide that process.

Mayor Bier didn’t see anything else in Chapter 7 so they will move on to Chapter 8, the safety element.

2.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 43 June 25, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, there is more than one place in the General Plan that is topically appropriate, but the thing that jumps out at her that they have been hearing about a lot, and she wants to have a discussion one more time is the fire hazard maps, the appropriateness of the maps and what should be included in the General Plan update and also an update and reminder about the specific use of data for the landslide and debris flow maps.

Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to the fire hazard maps, stating that the map is on packet page 615 and it reflects the adopted state maps of fire hazard zones in high and very high fire hazard zones and it indicates that there are only very high fire hazard severity zone upon the final adopted map just outside of the city limits in the sphere of influence. He stated that they have checked multiple times with CalFire and spoke directly to their staff to validate that the General Plan does include the appropriate final adopted maps of very high fire hazard severity zone and they feel confident that the information is accurate and appropriate to be included in the General Plan. He thought it was important not to confuse where those zones are mapped on the official map, given that those zones have specific regulatory impact, not to confuse that with wildfire risk which is a different issue. They have acknowledged that wildfire risk does exist in Pacifica and is not eliminated at the city limits simply because the adopted maps do not show it. They have explained that there is an existing framework of regulations that sufficiently address wildfire risk in Pacifica and they can revisit the adopted maps when the State releases an update to those very high fire hazard severity zone maps which they expect within the next year and, hopefully by the end of this year. He stated that should be an opportune time for the city to revisit the fire hazard information and, if appropriate, depending on what the naps show, amending the safety element at that point in time, relying on the expert maps prepared by the relevant and responsible state agency. He stated that those existing legal provisions that would ensure that the city adequately addresses wildfire hazard, include the California building code and the wildland urban interface standards that the building official can require to be met with a site-specific assessment of potential fire risks. He stated that the fine grain of analysis could easily be missed even in updated fire maps. He stated that is a tool the city has to ensure that construction of projects is undertaken safely. He added that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for projects that undergo environmental review includes as a component of the analysis potential wildfire risk. He stated that those are two important components that are in practice regardless of whatever is in the General Plan. He stated that, in relation to landslide maps, as mentioned in his initial presentation, they have taken the public feedback very seriously and tried to make diligent efforts to engage with the Department of Conservation and specifically the California Geologic Survey. The staff at that agency, including Dr. Frost, has provided comments on the EIR related to the maps and analysis. He stated that there was a critique of the landslide inventory map that was included in the May 2022 package taken to the Planning Commission and was prepared with data provided by the California Geologic Survey. Subsequent to staff using that to create the map indicated that they thought there was an error in that data and they provided them with revised data which informed the revised map in the Council’s packet and they have had an iterative process with the state to use all available data that they have as the expert state agency to prepare a map of historic landslides in Pacifica. He stated that they also took feedback from the public and the California Geologic Survey to revise the debris flow maps, adding that the debris flow being a different kind of geological or geotechnical hazard, distinguished from the more deep-seated landslide maps movement issue, and they prepared a map that is also in the packet for Council that shows the debris flows that were mapped historically in Pacifica. He stated that both of them provided a different perspective and dimension of the geologic risks that exist in Pacifica.

He stated that, while the hillsides are beautiful and scenic, they are also potentially hazardous.

Those maps reflect past incidents that reflect the hazard. He stated that he needs to draw

2.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 44 June 25, 2022
Council’s attention and the public’s attention to packet page 583. While the other maps of the landslide inventory and the debris flow show historic incidents, the past is not always a predictor of the future and it showed that geologic incidents are prevalent in Pacifica and what figure 8-1 on packet page 583 shows is just how much of the city, almost all of it, that is mapped in area of seismic hazard and what those mean between the landslide zone and the liquefaction zone is that those are hazardous areas that the General Plan would require to undergo site specific geotechnical investigation to demonstrate that development could safely occur in accordance with accepted geotechnical engineering principles, such as development could be safe and not present a hazard. He stated that, whatever formulation of map that one might be able to create to show past geotechnical hazards, landslide, debris flows, etc., maybe it includes all of the landslides or maybe some are missing, but they all point to the same place which is what Figure 8-1 already accomplishes which is that, to develop in those zones, site specific geotechnical investigations will be required to demonstrate that those hazards are mitigated satisfactorily and the development can occur safely. They think that, in combination, they have the safeguard of Figure 8-1 triggering those site-specific investigations while also informing other decision making potentially of land use, circulation or other public policy decisions based on additional information about historic occurrences and landslides and debris flows.

Mayor Bier stated that there was a suggestion to have something refer back to the 1982 document. She asked him about that in their meeting and she asked if he can talk about that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, as many know, the city experienced a series of severe storms in the early 1980s, such as 1982 and 1983, and regrettably those caused significant landslides with property damage and loss of life. The city undertook a focused process as a consequence of those storms to study landslide risk in Pacifica. He stated that, in his opinion, those risk factors were driven in part by the massive subdivision of the hillside areas in Pacifica, much of it prior to the California Environmental Quality Act and more modern subdivision and land use planning principles that would require assessment of those hazards and the appropriate mitigation measures and the consequence of that was those hazards manifested in a very concerning way. He stated that the city undertook a comprehensive geotechnical assessment through Howard Donnelly & Associates and they prepared a report that consequently triggered a 1983 Safety Element Amendment. He stated that much time has passed since then and the signs of geotechnical engineering and environmental review has advanced and, while that is helpful information, it is not necessarily the information that should guide the city for the next 20 years, but he thought it was relevant to put it in context that the city has taken geotechnical and geologic hazards seriously over time and to put reference and, if possible, a link to that prior work so it can continue to be a resource to the extent that it is relevant to the science and the policy making decisions of the future.

Mayor Bier thought that would be great.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked Acting Planning Director Murdock for that extensive analysis of their maps. He stated that, looking at that map on Figure 81 on packet page 583, it was humbling to see that basically all Pacifica is in a landslide zone and with that sobering note leading into the necessity of site-specific analysis pretty much anytime someone builds near a hillside, of which Pacifica is predominant. He stated that it is a sobering note. He thanked him for all the detail and work they put in to make sure the maps are accounted for as much as possible. He stated that he might need to have him go over the fire stuff with him briefly because he was digging through his notes when he attended the wildfire conference in April as he remembers specifically that one of the presenters saying that it was important to go over fire hazard maps with the community because it is often something that gets lost in translation

2.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 45 June 25, 2022
between those who are reviewing them professionally and the community trying to make heads or tails of it. He stated that they were specifically talking about the difference between hazards versus risks and how, on a technical level, that is a big differentiation between how the professionals are reading the hazard maps versus the risk maps. He knows that he spoke to that a little bit, and because he was rummaging through his notes and split his attention, and he also sees that Deputy Fire Chief Sean Kavanaugh is present and it might be useful if he would like to go over hazard versus risk maps and why, at the end of the day, this CalFire map is the one that is the appropriate map for us to have in our General Plan.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated that, if there was anything he wants him to start with, he can go into it. He stated that a couple of things that take place with the severity zone hazard maps, i.e., flame links, topography, weather, burning conditions that are used, ember cast, and it is used to predict some of the risks and values as they look at the maps and move forward. He stated that some of the things used through the state to look at areas and develop what is a very harsh severity zone or high severity zone when it comes to SRA, and the LRA areas and local responsibility areas which we have. He stated San Mateo County and Pacifica is surrounded by SRA lands as the majority of SRA lands will always be in that high to very high severity zone throughout the entire state. He stated that, if they go to the Office of State Fire Marshal under CalFire, there is a sight called the frap maps and that is where you can pull up for all the counties, very high and high severity zones and how they get done. He thought Acting Planning Director Murdock brought up that the state is presently doing a review of all the maps, and they are doing the SRA portions of all the maps now in those reviews and the next will be the LRA, which will affect the local area, such as Pacifica. He stated that, once the State comes out with those recommendations, they get the opportunity to review those maps and have input as a community and as agencies to what they feel is right based on some of those criteria. He stated that another big thing that is used is they also look at fire history and, if you pull up those frap maps, they can go on to the website and look and if you pull up the entire state, what is in red under LRA, there is a box you can click for LRA, which is Local Response Area, you can see throughout the entire stated that there is not a lot of high severity zones surrounded if you take the entire state of California and their local areas. He stated that the eastern foothills of the bay such as in Southern California as you are talking about the fuels, history, type of weather that attributes to some of the fire growth. He stated that it is important for the public to know is these maps don’t say that there is not a potential for fire history, as that is not what it is about. There is always a potential for fires to occur, especially anywhere in the Mediterranean climate in California where they have the potential and we also have the potential in Pacifica and given the right weather with onshore breezes, some slopes, dry fuels and the potential is there. The maps are not saying that is not what can occur, but there is always a fire potential there and they address them.

Mayor Bier stated that she lives in Vallemar and they are surrounded by trees, open space, brush and many of her neighbors are very concerned about that and when they see the maps, they don’t understand and the simpler she can get that information to them, the better she can make them feel as they want to be sure that our General Plan is going to help keep them safe in fires.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated that they just held their wildfire permit preparedness event a couple of weekends ago and that was one of the things that they were talking about and when the maps were brought, it was not saying there is not a potential and that is not what this is. He stated that it was important for that education and have that out there into the public. He stated that he won’t say, on a benefit as one benefit we have about being on the coast is that we have fog, high humidity in the summertime and that all helps prevent rapid growth but at any time, if

2.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 46 June 25, 2022
you get the right weather, there is that potential. He stated that, if you look back over the history, we are very lucky with some of that because of the weather we have, but it can change.

Acting Planning Director Murdock wanted to draw Council’s attention to packet page 618. He stated that there are a few policies there that speak directly to this issue, such as SA-I-94, development review, and ensuring that the development proposals incorporate appropriate fire mitigation measures, including adequate provisions for evacuation and access by emergency responders and vegetation clearances that do not impact ESHAs or wetlands. The next policy 95 reflects coordination with North County Fire Authority and the permit plan review of new buildings in potentially fire prone areas, not limited to very high fire hazard severity zones but requiring that the assessment and judgment based on the site-specific condition. He stated that policy 98 on that same page promoted vegetation management to reduce the urban wild and interface fire hazards through public education and field reduction projects. He stated that the General Plan does include information about policies to support mitigating those risks.

Mayor Bier asked Acting Planning Director Murdock, because of concerns or questions about the 2014 maps, if he mentioned that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he didn’t and was happy to touch on that. He stated that, during the public comment process on the General Plan and EIR, there were statements made by the commenters that the city has ignored maps related to fire risk when, in fact, the 2014 draft General Plan had maps that showed fire risks and this General Plan was inappropriate. They looked into those comments and confirmed that the information in the maps that the commenters were referring to actually reflected draft maps that the state had released I 2007 and those maps were not ultimately adopted and do not reflect the actual adopted very high fire hazard severity zones. Staff confirmed in multiple different ways that the General Plan includes the correct final adopted fire hazard severity zone maps that Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh and that he mentioned in his earlier presentation.

Mayor Bier asked Vice Chair Hauser if she would like to add something as she was sure they had extensive discussion about this at the Planning Commission and that would be helpful for the community.

Vice Chair Hauser thought the Council has done a really good job asking the questions they asked as they asked a lot of similar questions that they didn’t get quite the same level of detail on the fire master in 2014 that was just given but they talked a lot about it. She stated that the one item that was on Acting Planning Director Murdock’s slide that did not make it into the redline draft but per his recommendation the Planning Commission recommended and hope Council will also recommend is the note being added to the fire map figure that essentially says that as new information is published where it is anticipated as early as this year, and as it becomes available, it gets integrated into this document or whoever is reviewing this document should go to that new data. She thought once it is in, that will encapsulate where the Planning Commission came down on this issue.

Mayor Bier then mentioned Chapter 9.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they may want to jump to packet page 292.

Mayor Bier stated she didn’t have any notes or questions for Chapter 9.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he just wanted to say this is where he wished

2.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 47 June 25, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill was present to give them his perspective on what it has to say about airport noise.

Mayor Bier stated that she will give them a bit more time, and then with no comments, she moved on to Chapter 10, implementation. She stated that this is a beautiful document and the amount of feedback they have gotten from the community has been amazing. She looked forward to what will come of it and the amendment they can make moving forward as they will be able to do that. They aren’t making any decisions today and there will be another opportunity to provide comment and let them talk about things.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wasn’t sure if this was the right time to bring it up but she wanted to hear more and understand better the discussions that Planning Commission had around annual program review and what Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to earlier at the outset about moving that time frame to February. She asked if he could go over that one more time.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, at the outset, they need to recognize and admit that having a General Plan that has not been comprehensively updated in over 40 years is not where the city wants to be and it is not a best practice. They need to prevent that from happening again. He stated that one way is to take a measurable step to doing that by ensuring that there is a periodic process for evaluating and revisiting the General Plan to make sure it is continuing to suit the community’s needs and undertake update sections as much and as often as necessary to ensure that it is continuing to meet the community’s needs. He stated that the way staff suggested and Planning Commission supported is to utilize the existing process that the city has to present to the Council each year a progress report on implementation of the General Plan, and all of the elements, including the housing element, comes to the Council early each year and a public comment opportunity required under state law and it allows staff, as well as the public, to comment on what is working well and what is not working well with the General Plan, and for Council to hear that feedback and determine together collectively whether it warrants further study and potential amendment of the General Plan. What was discussed by the Planning Commission was ensuring that the timing was such that it would support City Council’s goal setting process so that those priorities could be identified and properly resourced and planned for in the budget process. He then turned it over to Vice Chair Hauser to add more about the thought process and the importance of that to the Planning Commission.

Vice Chair Hauser appreciated his description and all the kudos that Council has given the Planning Commission. She wanted to recognize what really led to the discussion was how much help Commission got from staff and their level of detail and preparedness and from the community. She stated that the amount of thoughtful letters, emails, speaker who did their own research and helped them out with questions that helped staff research additional items, and that so affected their ability to in depth on this version of the document and that got into the bigger discussion of how they continue to do that and how do they continue to have that level of engagement and the spirit of providing a platform. She stated that Acting Planning Director Murdock went through how early they could do this as there was an original conversation about doing it in Q4 of the prior year and that didn’t give staff adequate time to prepare and come together and February was the earliest time they could do it and that is what Planning Commission recommended so they could have that additional time to think through and research the community input that they hope to continue to receive.

Mayor Bier stated that now is when they will review what they talked about or how did Acting Planning Director Murdock want the Council to proceed.

2.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 48 June 25, 2022
Acting Planning Director Murdock suggested that they go back to the slide he presented earlier with the additional amendments suggested to fully incorporate the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the one additional staff recommendation from the Fire Authority. He was happy to share his screen and bring them up. He stated that there are packet page references.

He will be able to readily go back and forth in the packet showing that on the screen but it was most important for Council to be able to have that discussion and deliberation and provide whatever feedback or confirmation they can on that. He needed time to prepare the screen.

Mayor Bier asked Council to do a time check and poll them to see what time they are looking at to close.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck didn’t have a particular time in mind as he thought they got through the majority of what he had envisioned they would get though, and he wasn’t sure that they would get this far before the end of the day. He thought, since they will have another opportunity to deliberate as they like and during that opportunity, they will be rejoined by their fellow Councilmember who by then will have reviewed the recording of today’s meeting, and that might be a better time to go through whatever final deliberations they might deem appropriate. He wants to go back to what was left out from Planning Commission and do they incorporate that as appropriate and go over what they discussed today as appropriate and deliberate to whatever extent. He felt that they were closer to the end of where they would want to stop, and he didn’t think they need to have a stopping period as they are automatically going to the appropriate place.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that what he read into her question was in terms of the entire day and when to cut off as, if the Council wants to get to it, the second agenda item is the Sharp Park Specific Plan study session to hear an update from staff on the progress on that and hear public input as appropriate. He thought City Attorney Kenyon can help with the specific motions about ending deliberation on Item #1 and opening up Item #2, but he didn’t know if she heard from Councilmembers about interest level after they review the input on the General Plan and then moving on to Item 2.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck forgot about item #2.

Mayor Bier didn’t think it was fair to Item #2 to continue with that today because of all they have done and how hard they have already worked. She asked for Council opinion.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed and would like to have a fresh mind to approach the Sharp Park Specific Plan and have Councilmember O’Neill with them and would like to hear from staff about the possible scheduling of that presentation and what that timeline would look like.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they can’t do it all today, as after this long, they don’t have it there to deal with it.

Mayor Bier stated that they will go over their review and the City Attorney can help them out.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he will put up the additional amendments from the Planning Commission and reminded them that there are packet page references so the Council can jump directly to the policies in question. He started with the general principle of updating all the labels on all figures in reference to the Sharp Park Golf Course as the historic Sharp Park Golf Course and Clubhouse to emphasize the historic nature of that. He hoped they can hear from Council to provide feedback and give head nods if no concerns and he will take that as a consensus and move on and he will make note of any exceptions that warrant further discussion

2.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 49 June 25, 2022
at some point if that works for the mayor.

Mayor Bier stated that it sounds good.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he hears no comments and questions concerning the Sharp Park item. Next is packet page 388, community design policy I-20 underground utilities.

Due to some document structuring, that is under a section headed with coastal zone and the Commission wanted to clarify that it should be applicable citywide with respect to the undergrounding policies and that amendment would be made with some minor new language and potentially relocating that policy to a different part of the Chapter.

Mayor Bier concluded no questions or comments.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated with the screen share, he can’t see all the Councilmembers heads so he asked that they chime in so he knows from an audio standpoint.

Mayor Bier has head nods from everyone.

Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to packet page 451, level of service standards at key intersections and he mentioned earlier that the Commission wanted to rephrase that so it is more encouraging to the improvements rather than concessionary that they can’t make any improvements and just wait and accept but rather to inspire the actual improvement and acknowledge that it will occur when design is funded at some point.

Mayor Bier stated acknowledgment from everyone.

Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to 5-4 on packet page 455, and it would distinguish more clearly between trails as being unpaved facilities and Class 1 facility being paved, and there is some distinction as far as the type of use and type of enjoyment of those facilities and the Commission wanted to distinguish that point and also clarify the Sharp Park berm is a trail meaning unpaved rather than a paved Class 1 facility adding the restrooms and changing room designation to the Mori Point trailhead where there is a restroom and it would adjust Figure 5-4.

Mayor Bier stated that they are good all the way.

Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to packet page 615, figure 8-7 and adding the note Vice Chair Hauser mentioned about update the figure as new adopted fire hazard severity zone maps become available to formalize the periodic revision and update as new information becomes available.

Mayor Bier stated head nods all the way.

Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to Chapter 10, implementation of packet page 310, deleting the work elementary so that it is clear that the subdivision regulations also can require dedication of land for schools and it may not be simply elementary schools but wherever schools may be using it as part of the subdivision.

Mayor Bier stated head nods all the way.

Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to page 311, Table 10-1, clarifying some of the acronyms used, RVLD is not a term used elsewhere in the General Plan and is actually very low

2.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 50 June 25, 2022
density residential, VLDR and similar examples of just changing the letters to match for consistency.

Mayor Bier stated that they were okay.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the last two are glossary definition change on packet page 628, clarifying that environmentally sensitive habitat areas may also be present outside the coastal zone.

Mayor Bier stated they were okay.

Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to the glossary definition of infill, on packet page 630, delete the limitation of residential so that it is all development, new buildings on scattered vacant lots and predominantly developed area or a new building process created by permitted lot splits.

Mayor Bier stated acknowledged all the way.

Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to the staff recommended change is correcting a factual misstatement that there are nine stations in the North County Fire Authority service area, not ten stations as mentioned in the document.

Mayor Bier stated they were okay.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated that they need to make it say nine fire companies.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated with the suggested modification by Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh of fire companies.

Mayor Bier stated no objection.

Vice Chair Hauser wanted to make sure they didn’t forget to discuss the map that Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to regarding the MUN change of definition.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that next was a couple of items in the staff report for City Council confirmation. He will next share his screen with the staff report. He stated that the first land use map was the three privately owned parcels at the corner of the Linda Mar school site and they have been changed in the redline version before Council to make them yellow to be low density residential consistent with the surrounding land uses. The next for City Council confirmation with respect to the property owner request at 44 Carmel Avenue in the West Sharp Park neighborhood and the owner has requested for a redesignation to high density residential. For reasons in the staff report including the desire to not make changes to the East West residential streets and keep the relatively low intensity character of that area, keeping the designation to low density residential and Planning Commission’s recommendation was to deny the property owner’s request. He then took the feedback to concur with Planning Commission’s recommendation. Next is between 4320 and 4400 Coast Highway site, and the site is proposed in the draft General Plan currently as service commercial and includes a range of industrial type uses and no residential use will be allowed. As explained in the staff report, the parcels immediately on either side of that along Highway 1 would be proposed designated at mixed use neighborhood and the property owner requested a land use change to be consistent with those adjacent parcels. Staff’s analysis was that there is a rational basis, taken the highway orientation of the site and its greater distance from other

2.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 51 June 25, 2022
areas for pedestrians from the Vallemar neighborhood and Rockaway Beach neighborhood but service commercial uses could be appropriate if the Council preferred those but, on balance, given the adjacency of the mixed use neighborhood sites to create a consistent type of land use and building pattern would be appropriate and probably the preferred option and to avoid potential incompatibility of service commercial uses which include salvage, auto wrecking and auto repair uses and those would not be compatible in such close proximity to mixed use residential and other types of lower intensity commercial uses and staff recommended redesignating that site and granting the property owner’s request and Planning Commission concurred with that and recommended granting their request.

Mayor Bier stated that the Councilmembers did not want to discuss it.

Acting Planning Director Murdock noted that one of the points of deliberation for the Planning Commission weighed in favor was the consideration of the site’s topography, service commercial type uses typically mean a lot if you are bringing in larger trucks or salvage vehicles or auto wreckers and they need room to maneuver and need flat sites. This site does not lend itself well to that without excessive grading and the Commission believed that mixed use project would likely be able to be cited more sensitively to the site and break up the building and have a better respect for the topography than a service commercial type of land use would.

Mayor Bier stated no one wanted to have a conversation about that and they would move forward.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, while he didn’t think there were any additional specific recommendations or request for Council input, he wanted to highlight some of the land use policies that were added to the General Plan in case they didn’t jump out in the redline version. He stated that there was a new policy, as mentioned by vice Chair Hauser, for minimum floor area ratio or FAR, as part of the zoning ordinance to establish appropriate minimum FARs in commercial and mixed use zoning districts and that gets to the core of ensuring that there is a proper balance and true legitimate commercial use as a component of mixed use projects and avoiding the so-called token commercial components of passed mixed use projects that some of them may be familiar with that the city has approved in the past and they are learning a lesson from that. He then referred to Chapter 6 with a new policy regarding year -round park use which they touched on this a little bit earlier in Council’s discussion. It was to study ways to increase usability of city park facilities on a year-round basis and they can see Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission input in the identification of preferred solutions. He stated that it initial came up in the specific consideration of lighting the fields to improve their usage throughout the year and later into the evening or earlier in the morning, but it could include a range of other potential improvements as well as they touched on artificial turf with the pros and cons or trade-offs associated with that and potentially other types of improvements for year round use that they may not be thinking of currently. He stated that there is a proposed policy in Chapter 7, conservation, which talked about the movement corridor study, and committing the city to participate in a broader process for that. In Chapter 8, safety element, the Commission added a policy to work with PG&E to encourage regular maintenance of electrical and gas facilities, including undergrounding electrical transmission and distribution facilities when feasible to minimize utility related disasters. He stated that there is a lot to unpack in that, but generally speaking, to ensure property maintenance and where possible undergrounding to mitigate hazards for Pacifica. They worked through the land use changes already. He was happy to go back to any of them or answer questions and hearing none, they will note Council’s acceptance of these items.

2.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 52 June 25, 2022
Mayor Bier asked him if they had any other section to go over with him.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he is looking at his notes and he didn’t think so.

He thought they covered all the formal items to present Council. He thanked them for their helpful input.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has a question about the new landslides map that was in packet page 642. She is asking the question in relation to their statement that they are going to have trenches on the map in the document around the fire hazard map, i.e., the language that will be updated when the appropriate maps are available or however that is going to be worded. She wondered if, in the debris flow source area map on page 643 or the landslide map on 642, they were limited in the database that they could access for purposes of substantiating the map that pertains to all of the town. She stated that there was some individualized information but it wasn’t consistent and her understanding was that they were going to be utilizing the map and updating it or supplanting it with some other source when it became available. Her question was whether they need to do any note to that effect on that map as well or has that already been done.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought there were elements of the need to update and data limitations in both of them, and he shared his screen to show the maps and they can take each in turn. He showed the proposed new Figure 8-X in the General Plan, the map landslide inventory which is the one where they went to the state, they provided comment, gave us data, created the map, they came back after the fact and said, sorry, there were some errors in that data. They went back again, gave them new data, and generated the final version for Council.

He stated that these are historic map landslides that the state has mapped. He noted earlier that the limitation of the map is simply that it reflects the landslide map by the state. To whatever end there may be a desire to have more landslides that are not on the map included in the general plan, a good place to put that energy and effort is to get the state to include those map landslides in this data source so that the next time they update it reflects potentially more landslides. He stated that the other data limitation that was mentioned in the staff presentation was on Figure 8-3B, the one shown on screen, the debris flow source areas. He stated that this was initially based on geographic information system, or GIS data, that was available from the state. He stated that, unfortunately, it only included the southern half of Pacifica and that was a criticism of that figure which is a fair criticism. They went back and the state confirmed that, for whatever reason, the digitized data in that format were not available for the northern half of Pacifica. However, there was a static plate map that could be used to create a map for the entire city. He stated that was what they did rather than sacrifice completeness or convenience and included the full city data in a form that cannot be as readily manipulated or used to support future analysis. They said elsewhere that, if and when this data becomes available in digitized form or if the city were to digitize itself through some process with the appropriate technical expertise, they will update this map so that it is in the format and form of the other maps in the General Plan. He stated that there are various data limitations that they have encountered but they tried their best to work through them and strike the right balance of completeness and accuracy in the data. He stated that the last point he will make is that they can put notes on every one of the maps to update them when new information becomes available. From his perspective, he thought that was implicit and the responsibility of staff to do that and an opportunity in the annual reporting process to say that they think new data are available and will doublecheck and update as necessary. He thought, given the particular sensitivity of the fire maps and knowing that there is a process culminating from this date related to the update, that was additional justification for that prior map figure specifically to have that acknowledgment and give credence to the community’s concerns, credence to Council’s concerns, and ensure

2.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 53 June 25, 2022
that it is know that, in the near term, there is likely to be an updated data set and a need to revisit that map.

Mayor Bier asked if they had any questions or comments for Acting Planning Director Murdock or Vice Chair Hauser.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Vice Chair Hauser if there was anything else she wants to add.

Vice Chair Hauser didn’t have anything, adding thanks for having her.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked her for the thorough job all Commissioners did which he appreciated.

Mayor Bier thanked her for being with them all day. She stated that they have decided that they are not going to be addressing Item #2.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, at this point, it seems that Council wasn’t going to take up item #2 and, as mentioned at the outset of this special meeting regarding General Plan and EIR will be adjourned to July 11. He asked City Attorney Kenyon to join to help with the proper language for what Council may be interested in doing at this point, both for the sharp Park Study Session portion of this meeting and the General Plan EIR.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they all did a fantastic job, and she was impressed with the public, Council and Planning Commission liaison, Vice Chair Hauser, who were amazing, and staff as well. She stated that she has concluded it is the consensus of Council that they want to adjourn this meeting, and if they are prepared to do that, her suggestion is that they adjourn this special meeting to the special and regular meeting of the Pacifica City Council on July 11. If Council does not want to adjourn the specific plan, depending upon timing, then she would ask Mayor to adjourn Item 1 of this meeting to a special meeting on July 11. She is not sure if the calendar on July 11 can handle both the General Plan discussion, as well as the Sharp Park Specific Plan. She stated that, if City Manager Woodhouse wants to chime in on that suggestion, that is the only caveat they can adjourn the whole meeting to July 11 or just a portion of it.

City Manager Woodhouse thought the July 11 agenda looks like it will be robust, and his question for the City Attorney is could the Sharp Park Specific Plan study session be continued to a date to be determined. Acting Planning Director Murdock mentioned that the Planning Commission is going to take up continuing their deliberation about the Sharp Park Specific Plan on Monday, July 18, and Council doesn’t have a regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second half of July so there is July 11 special and regular meeting and then there is August 8 regular meeting. He supposed, depending on Council’s preference, there could be a special study session created in there to be determined to discuss the Specific Plan.

City Attorney Kenyon stated her suggestion is to just adjourn Item 1 to the special/regular meeting on July 11 and say nothing about the Sharp Park Specific Plan and Council can decide at a future date when to have that study session as there are no special noticing requirements for that other than the 72-hour Brown Act notice. She suggested that they adjourn item 1 to the special/regular meeting on July 11, 2022.

Mayor Bier stated that sounds great. She thanked everyone for all their hard work at this meeting. Mayor Bier adjourned Item 1 to a special meeting on July 11, 2022. She asked City

2.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 54 June 25, 2022
Attorney if that was good enough.

Acting Planning Director Murdock clarified that it was the special and regular meeting.

Mayor Bier stated it was the special and regular meeting.

City Attorney Kenyon confirmed that it was the special and regular meeting.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

CONSIDERATION

2. Discussion of the Sharp Park Specific Plan and its Development Process PROPOSED ACTION: Receive staff presentation.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

ADJOURN
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of June 25, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86083392833
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 860 8339 2833
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Cable Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 June 27, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
June 27, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on June 27, 2022 at 5:30 PM 5:30 PM - STUDY SESSION
Tree Ordinance Update - Amend Pacifica Municipal Code Chapter 12 - Tree Preservation and Chapter 14 - Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a report and provide input on the Draft Tree Preservation and Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees Ordinances Mayor Bier called the study session to order at 5:34 p.m.

She stated that the study session will be on the tree ordinance update. She stated that study sessions should have a little bit more freedom and she hopes they will be able to hear from others, such as can they promote Tree City Pacifica members to panelist to ask questions. She asked the City Manager if that was okay.

City Manager Woodhouse thought it was Council’s prerogative about promoting people, but they do take public comment on study session items.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that her usual suggestion, as indicated by the City Manager, is that it is clearly up to Council, but they can ask questions of people in the public without moving them up to panelists and that is always okay during public comments, but not allowed during oral presentations when they have oral communications without subjects on the agenda, but when they have an item on the agenda, Council can ask questions of potential commenters with concurrence from the rest of the Council.

Mayor Bier introduced PW Director Lisa Petersen.

PW Director Petersen asked the City Manager if the PowerPoint will be available.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he needs to check whether Management Analyst Alyssa Barranti has the PowerPoint that was submitted and if she can share that, but if not, he can allow PW Director Petersen to share it directly from her computer.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti stated she will pull it up.

2.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 June 27, 2022
PW Director Petersen stated that she would be joined with PE Dep. Director Bautista, as well as consultants from Davey Resource Group, Allison Steere and Tina McKeand. She then presented the staff report.

Mayor Bier asked if Councilmembers had any questions before they go to public comment.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that previously a Tree person mentioned the pines, and we have them as heritage trees. The tree person said every pine in Pacifica has pine pitch canker.

She asked why they still show them as heritage trees when everyone of them is ill.

PW Director Petersen stated that there are different degrees of pine pitch canker as some trees can have an infection but not something that is imminently killing the trees but there are some that are dying. She stated that is the assessment they do when they take a look at a tree. She stated that there are many Monterey pines and the goal was to not clear cut those trees but evaluated them to see how severe the disease is as it is hard to tell and only an arborist would know.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti announced the speakers.

Gail Benton Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated the Tree City Pacifica reviewed the draft carefully and emailed their request for changes and additions to all Councilmembers on Sunday. She then addressed the highlights of those requests.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thanked staff on the work they have done on this important issue for the climate and our community. She also appreciated the work Tree City Pacifica has done to analyze and document their requests. She then expressed her thoughts and concerns on this issue and that citizens have the possibility to give input. She also thought the PB&R Commission needs to be a key partner in the process.

Mayor Bier closed public comments. She thought it would be a good idea to go through the ordinance section by section. She stated Tree City Pacifica sent several items and they are lucky to have them as they are spending their time thinking about trees only. She asked if Councilmembers wanted to through the ordinance section by section or start with something else.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he had the email Gail Benton Shoemaker sent them last night, but it is just loading now. He wanted to go through it in those terms and after that the mayor’s process sounds fine.

Mayor Bier stated she went through the ordinance with Tree City Pacifica and she wrote down a lot of the changes section by section and will be happy to do that. She asked Councilmember Beckmeyer for her thoughts on this.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought going through section by section would be great. She appreciated that the mayor met with Tree City Pacifica as she didn’t have a chance to meet with them and she would like her to guide them through the particular points that were impactful and they need to be clear on.

2.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 June 27, 2022
Mayor Bier stated she was happy to do so. She stated that it was nice that they were happy with a lot of it and it shows all the good work our city’s staff has done. She stated that one thing that stood out from the beginning is the number of trees in a grove. She will be happy to discuss ten trees with Council and see how they feel about that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was thinking about recent development that came to them on appeal or were big projects like the one that was parallel to Rockaway Beach Avenue which Cindy Abbott referred to which now has eight trees on the property. She is trying to get a visual of ten trees versus 20 trees and she wondered about the thoughts of the Councilmembers who were on the Planning Commission in terms of a condition for a project to come forward, and their experience with the number of trees in a grove or how often it came up, what kind of workload impact it will be.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, as he had the least amount of planning experience on the Commission, this is when he would turn to the Acting Planning Director Murdock and ask him if he would be kind enough to give them some insight in that vein.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought the question of how to define and regulate rows of trees is an interesting one, and he can understand the benefits of doing that in favor of tree protection. He thought it was important to look at how grove is defined in this proposed ordinance. He stated that where they would typically encounter a similar type of circumstance under current regulations at the Planning Commission level is when a property owner is proposing to remove 20 or more trees on their home property. He stated that the definition of grove and what number they would set for it, they would have a different set of parameters for how that terms is defined. He stated that it would potentially include trees on another property and not clear whether the protected tree status would kick in if even a single tree in that grove were proposed to be removed and were not. He thinks there needs to be a clearer understanding of the relationship of a particular project and the removal of one or more trees to the overall grove and what the intent of that mechanism is. He thought it would make sense if the entire grove was proposed for removal but, short of that, there was work that needs to be done to clarify the relationship and intent of this ordinance to removal of some smaller portion of the grove.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that made it more confusing for her. She can see that it depends on what is happening. She thought it was not one size fits all, such as 10 trees in one place and 20 trees in another place and if some need to be removed, they need to be removed.

She thought it could be on an individual basis instead of a strict definition.

Mayor Bier thought, when they were talking about this, they were concerned about logging and we wanted to make sure that is addressed and she was happy to put the ten trees in this definition.

PW Director Petersen stated, for clarification of what Mayor Bier said, that this is old language that has been in the logging ordinance for many years and this is just transferring it and putting it into Chapter 12, because the ordinances were very difficult to locate and there is no change, just putting it all in one spot and how it has been utilized in the past 20 years or so that it has been in place, it would be anticipated to be utilized the same way.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked her, stating it makes sense.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it makes it much easier for him to go along with ten trees.

2.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 June 27, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in the spirit of a more flexible study session guidelines, he wanted to pose a question that the consultants could chime in, regarding the work he did with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, forest management practices as sometimes removal of trees is necessary for the overall health and benefit of the rest of the trees in a grove. He stated he has limited experience in that, but he asked a question of PW Director Petersen and the consultants about how they are handling that in the ordinance. He stated that, if they have a grove of trees, it was necessary to remove some in that grove for their health. He questioned how this definition relates to that practice.

Consultant Tina McKeand believes that individual trees can be removed and it does not affect the logging ordinance language which is to prevent the entire grove from being removed and the individual trees would follow the rest of the ordinance.

Mayor Bier referred to the next section which the Tree City Pacifica was talking about was Section 412.04, application for a tree removal permit. She thought it goes back to include the ISA basic tree assessment forms and about 3/4 of the way down the paragraph in A says an arborist report and they would like to add “including ISA basic tree assessment form”. She thought they have mentioned over and over that this is important. She remembers being on the Commission and at her first meeting, they stated that they had a tree appeal. She thought it would make it easier for a lot of people to have that.

PW Director Petersen wanted to provide clarification related to this. She stated that the city currently does request the ISA basic tree risk assessment form in circumstances where they feel that it is needed, but they don’t ask for it in all cases because they don’t always feel it is needed and it is an additional cost. She stated that they have been told from the arborist that the cost for a person to get an arborist report for a tree is going to be anywhere from $400-$600 and, when you ask for the ISA report, you will be adding approximately another $200 to the cost. She stated that it is important to know that and she agrees that they are very important in particular cases but not necessarily required in all cases and, in phase 2, they would be doing the risk assessment policy which will be playing into this same element of the ISA basic tree risk assessment forum.

Consultant McKeand wanted to add more information. She stated that the risk assessment is specific to risk and trees can have another reason why they are failing that may not create a risk and it would be underlined in the arborist’s report. She stated that not every tree would benefit from a risk assessment. She stated that, in her experience, it doesn’t keep arborists from disagreeing as two arborists doing the same risk assessment form may come up with different outcomes.

Mayor Bier stated that she will advocate for it because Tree City Pacifica has been talking about it the entire time in a lot of the sections.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had a clarifying question. He appreciated updating the heritage tree ordinance, but the way he is reading it, it is not connecting in his mind that they are talking about all trees or just heritage trees requiring the ISA report.

PW Director Petersen stated that they are talking about any trees that are under the definition of protected trees which, under that definition, is also heritage tree and that would be any tree 12 inches in diameter or greater, any tree in Pacifica.

2.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 June 27, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, in that context, it is easy for him to go along with the report for those trees specifically. He referred to an appeal, not sure if it was Salada or a neighborhood in Manor where it was “he said” versus “he said” and no definitive report and was a messy appeal hearing because there was nothing definitive. He thought that was one instance in which this definitely would have helped. He stated that these special trees, etc., would require the report and that seems reasonable to him.

Mayor Bier asked PW Director Petersen asked if it offered a point system.

Consultant McKeand stated that it does, adding that part of the challenge is, because the tree is failing, it doesn’t mean it is actually high risk as there are a lot of things that go into risk including targeting the sizes and the part that is likely to fail.

Mayor Bier asked if they have nods to add that in.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they should be clear on exactly what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was saying, as she thought she heard him saying he wanted to include the ANSI for protected trees but not necessarily all trees that are requesting a removal permit. She asked if she has that correct.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought that was the context within which they are discussing this.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was a suggestion of the language that was submitted, specifically where the phrase in the arborist’s report appears in the first sentence and restates it in the amendment. She stated at the end, where it says “the applicant must be required to provide plot, plan or survey drawn to scale depicting the trees and any improvement on the property and/or an arborist report”, they would then add the new language to say “including an ISA basic tree risk assessment form will be required for removal of a protected tree.” She reiterated that it was the arborist report including the ISA basic tree risk assessment form will be required for removal of a protected tree.

City Attorney Kenyon added that they aren’t changing it in the general definition section where it would apply to potentially more than just the protected trees.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated under Section 4-12.04, “Applications for Tree Removal Permits”.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed, stating she wanted to make that clarification that they are not amending the definition of arborist report.

Mayor Bier stated that, in the next session discussed, the numbers and letters are mixed up, but going down the same sections A, B, C, onto the next page, it says A which she thought was supposed to be D, and the next one says B and she thought it was supposed to be E. She thought staff could change that later. She asked PW Director Petersen if that was correct.

PW Director Petersen agreed. She stated that it was still a draft and they are working on it and some of the numbers are off.

Mayor Bier asked if the one that says B but is E covers groves also to mitigate the adverse effects of tree removal.

2.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 June 27, 2022
PW Director Petersen stated that this one is talking about mitigating adverse effects of tree removal where a tree removal permit is required. She stated that they have typically been saying that, if they are removing a tree and it is under the definition of a protected tree, you need to do the replacement. If you look at the definition of protected trees, under there is any groves of trees.

Mayor Bier referred to after 1,2, 3, it says replacement trees be a minimum of 1.5 inches measured with calipers and unless otherwise approved by the director, and they would like to say, “and/or 15 gallon,” as that is how it is stated in other cities. She asked input from the professionals.

Consultant Allison Steere stated that she can speak to that. She explained that 1.5 inch caliper is a standard measurement in the nursery industry and it makes it so a person could purchase a tree that is a containerized tree, a bare root or a balled and burlap tree and they would all be measured the same way, a standard practice.

Mayor Bier asked if it was okay to add to that and/or 15 gallon.

Consultant Steere thought it was redundant.

PW Director Petersen added that it was important to know that not all 15-gallon trees might be

1.5 inch and you might end up with a smaller tree and that was one of the reasons it was put in there, but ultimately, it was up to Council’s discretion as how they would like that to be.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she wanted to ask about that, i.e., could you have a 15- gallon or 24 inch box with a tiny tree in the middle of it. She thought they were talking about was a tree of robust enough size to be growing quickly and getting an established tree and not a baby one.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thought they should leave that one alone as she thinks they are opening a can of worms if you say 15-gallon as it could be anything.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought she heard what Ms. Shoemaker was speaking to was it was more common to the citizens if they are making the ordinance themselves that might be the reason.

Mayor Bier stated that Ms. Shoemaker raised her hand and she asked Council if they were okay hearing from her and the City Attorney if it was okay to do so.

City Attorney Kenyon stated it was as it was a study session and there is much more flexibility in terms of procedure.

Mayor Bier asked and got agreement from Council.

Ms. Shoemaker stated that they have a landscape architect who is part of Tree City Pacifica and they discussed this with him. He said that most of the nurseries that they work with, including the nurseries the city works with, don’t really use that measurement. They use 15- gallon or 24 inch box and maybe there is a way of saying that it must be at least 1.5 inches and a 15-gallon tree so it is easy to work with nurseries. She stated that, while it is only one landscape architect, he has done a lot of work locally.

2.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 June 27, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, when he hears the Planning Commission talk about their various projects, they usually use the nomenclature of a 24-inch box and he sees that as an option.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that 15-gallon, 24 inch box , as stated in the draft, with a minimum tree size of 1.5 inches measured with calipers and the two are integrated to avoid the big box tiny tree situation.

City Attorney Kenyon thought that was a drafting question and they can draft it so that the intent is describe it as a 15-gallon, 24 inch that, at a minimum, must have 1.5 inches measured with calipers. She stated that they will draft that if that is Council’s consensus later as it is not necessary now in a study session.

Mayor Bier asked and thought Councilmember Vaterlaus was okay with that. She then stated that they were passionate about, under No. 5, is that no tree will be removed until a building permit is finalized. She thought they could get some information from PW Director Petersen or Acting Planning Director Murdock about what that means. She asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck if he has any thoughts about that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his initial thought is that he is okay with that language but he would like to hear Acting Planning Director Murdock’s insight.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought the concept is sensible and there is no point in removing a tree until such time as the project approval is reasonably foreseeable and construction is reasonably perceived to occur. He thought he was asked the question previously, and he explained that there are instances where a grading permit may also need to be issues and sometimes it is requested in advance of a building permit. He stated that trees can get in the way of site grading that is approved and he thought, if there was some accommodation for allowing a building permit grading to occur, that could be a better accommodation, otherwise applicants would be forced to delay their preparatory grading until such time as they also have a building permit and that can have overall project timeline impacts for development.

PW Director Petersen thought they can get Acting Planning Director Murdock’s opinion on, but there is something in the ordinance that states, “while the tree removal application process is underway, the building permit issuance that associated administrative approvals will be delayed until the tree permit decision and any appeals are finished.” She didn’t know if he thought that would allow enough wiggle room that someone could get a grading permit. They sometimes do delay things like finalization of the electrical permits and she asked his thoughts on that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he would like some time to think about that language in the context of the question as he isn’t sure exactly what a tree encroachment permit means such as it is the same thing as a heritage tree permit application to ensure it would apply to the right sets of circumstances.

PW Director Petersen pointed out that grading itself could be hazardous to any tree that they might want to protect, and it was important to understand that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer certainly didn’t want to put words in Tree City’s mouth but she is now concerned that there is a difference between a building permit and a grading permit, i.e., the mayor mentioned that they are very concerned about making sure this is in there, and they

2.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 June 27, 2022
weren’t considering the grading permit as being another step in the process that could have implications for trees. She stated that the building permit is a separate issue. She asked how they rectify it to make sure that the edit is doing what is being requested and why is it being requested, specifically is it accomplishing the purpose for which it was requested.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if it would be something along the lines that a tree permit won’t be issued until a grading permit has been issued unless there is no grading permit issued, in which case the tree permit won’t be issued until a building permit is issued.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that something she is asking the Council to think about is that a lot of times when they get these development applications, they are very fact specific and usually these types of conditions would be conditions of approval in the project and they should be.

She stated that they are tailored to the specific needs of that project. She stated that this issue, which she believes they should address, is one that can be addressed through conditions of approval, and she asked Acting Planning Director Murdock what method he thinks would be the best method to address this issue for these projects, i.e., to try to craft one rule in the ordinance.

She appreciated Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s proposed draft, but she asked how that covers all the potentialities that could arise when they are normally dealing with projects that are very careful in how they draft the conditions of approval to address issues just like this that they may not know about until they actually have the application materials in front of them to know what they’re grading, what the building permit’s issue is and what the timing is. She asked him if he has any thoughts on that. She stated that her job is to spot the issue and she did that and she thinks they should hear from him on the potential way to solve the issue.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that there are two types of projects in Pacifica, administrative projects requiring a building permit only and discretionary projects that require certain permits usually approved by the Planning Commission before the city can issue a building permit. He stated that they want to be sure that the approach they take accounts for both types of processes, and it is currently the process that the city will not issue a building permit where a heritage tree permit is required until that permit is received. He also stated that, for a discretionary permit, the city will not issue a building permit until all discretionary permits are granted, including the heritage tree removal authorization. He thought they are looking for a different mechanism, i.e., even if a heritage tree removal permit has been granted, the trees cannot be removed until a building permit is issued. He wasn’t sure that is the exact way he is reading the language and they may want to take a look one more time to make sure it is addressing the actual issue. Once they focus on that, figuring out where to insert grading permits, the Council could tilt the balance in favor of tree protection and not allow any of the trees to be removed until all required development related permits are issues, including a building permit and grading permit. He stated that is not what the potential consequence is, including other valuable public policy interests, such as ensuring grading is done during the time of year where it is least likely to rain and include runoff. He stated that developers are very sensitive to this timeline and are trying to be respectful of the city’s concerns about grading in the rainy season and want to commence their grading, complete it and begin some of the initial stages of construction during that time of year, generally May through September, when they don’t have to take extraordinary measures or get special permission to do so. He stated that there are some interrelated issues in the development process that they need to carefully think through so as to not frustrate other desires of Council related to resource protection.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that part of his read in terms of the request had something to do with the idea that they don’t know that they are going to go through with the project and might

2.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 June 27, 2022
start removing trees before they know it is going to actually come to fruition. He stated that is what they are trying to stop from happening.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, to that end, it was possible that a simple provision such as no tree being authorized for removal under a heritage tree removal permit may be removed until all permits required for the development have been issued. He stated that tilts it towards the full protection side and they could possibly spend time thinking about whether that is the right balance and what are the secondary consequences.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that, if that were the case, they would want to draft an exception for the circumstances that he mentioned. She stated that this is not something they will be able to draft at this time, and she thinks it is a good idea for Council to deliberate on this concept thoroughly so staff can get an idea of what the consensus is so they can draft something. If possible, they may be able to draft something based on their conversation, but she is not hopeful. She thought it would be very helpful if they can hear Council’s consensus on how they would like to see this dealt with. She stated that the issues clearly presented by Acting Planning Director Murdock are that they could adopt a general rule, as you don’t want to put in so many exceptions that they eviscerate the rule. So, if they want a general rule, they need to keep in mind that they want a general rule without a lot of exceptions. The other issue that she and Acting Planning Director Murdock agree on is that there may be unusual circumstances related to a discretionary development permit application that they may want the grading of the tree to be done before the building permit is issued for various reasons. She stated that they can’t think of them all now, but there may be good, valuable reasons that they will want to allow some exceptions to allow for that, and the question is how broad would that exception have to be in order to cover situations that they can’t even think of at this time. She was wondering if there was a way to address this generally but give Planning staff and Planning Commission and perhaps ultimately Council, if it is ever appealed, to really decide on a case-by-case basis based on the project in front of them, i.e., what is the timing for removal of the tree.

Consultant McKeand stated that, while not discounting any of those comments, she wanted to add a little more information. She stated that part of getting the arborist report on a construction site is to identify the tree protection zone and grading itself can’t harm the roots of a protected tree. She stated that the other consideration is that the way the wording is written now is that it is illegal to harm a protected or heritage tree and you might unknowingly do that if you haven’t gotten an arborist report yet, and regarding grading during the dry season, she understands that as she comes from a construction standpoint as well as an arborist’s standpoint, but causing damage to the root system during the dry part of the year without applying supplemental watering would also be something an arborist would call out as a tree protection specification and could actually kill the tree as well. She stated that the combination of damaging during the roots during the dry season, not providing supplemental watering and not knowing where the tree protection zone is, you may lose trees if they are not protected prior to that.

Mayor Bier thought that was the whole point, to protect them prior to that, which is how she sees it. She wasn’t sure how to deliberate that fully.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if it would be appropriate to insert some sort of language about bonding the trees. He didn’t know if the consultant or City Attorney has insight.

Consultant McKeand stated that you can bond a tree. They talked about it in the beginning but they thought it was excessive and likely didn’t fit the needs of your community.

2.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 June 27, 2022
Consultant Steere referred to Section 12.010, tree protection and preservation plan, and stated that No. 7, performance security, whether by security bond, cash deposit or security acceptable to the city shall be required prior to issuing a tree encroachment permit. She thought that might be addressing what he is suggesting.

Mayor Bier didn’t know if they gave direction or not.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that she doesn’t have direction.

Mayor Bier stated that they just want to make sure the tree is protected as people can’t take down a tree before their project is full.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the point made by Consultant McKeand, i.e., if you damage the roots during a dry season grading because you didn’t do the watering, you are defeating the whole purpose. She stated that Acting Planning Director Murdock asked what the intent of this and the intent is to protect the trees, and she asked if that means building and grading. She felt it does.

Mayor Bier agreed with her.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if they want to allow the discretion, the exception that the City Attorney was referring to, she thought they would have Planning Commission approval if they brought it forward.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought it depends on the mechanism that Council builds into the orders. He thought it was possible that a project that would not otherwise go to the Planning Commission might be caught in this situation, i.e., a single-family residence on a hillside lot in the R1 district might not need to go to the Planning Commission but for some exception if that is what Council wanted. He thought the City Attorney mentioned that trying to get some guidance on the range of situations that Council would want to provide some relief to that strict limitation which would make sense. He stated that, unless the timing of the grading would advance other public interests, such as grading within the dry season and there are one or two exceptions they can anticipate that would allow the grading to proceed before issuance of a building permit, but not taking the lid off and having too many exceptions such that it undercuts the intent. He referred to his comments earlier about being aware of the secondary consequences, and to put a finer point on that, he stated that they will often see in medium and large sized projects was that the review involved for the building permit was much more extensive and time intensive than to review for a grading permit in most instances. He stated that the grading needs to be completed before they can begin building in most circumstances.

He stated that, what they will is that the developer will come in quickly to begin review of the grading permit so they can begin grading some months prior to ultimately receiving a building permit. He stated that, if Council would go the “full protection route” and require that both the grading permit and building permit be issued, the practical effect is that projects might be delayed from 3-6 months from when they would otherwise be able to begin that site preparation and grading work. He stated that is the consequence of that type of timing component.

Councilmember Vaterlaus gets the point of this, but the practicality of it doesn’t seem like it is going to happen. She stated that, if you take them on an individual basis anyway, if they start putting these requirements in and a discretionary project will have to go to Planning, it could take them 3-4 years more to go to Planning based on grading and a tree. She stated one size

2.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 June 27, 2022
doesn’t fit all and it seems like these are individual processes that could be taken up by the Planning Department, not necessarily in the ordinance.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that there is already an arborist report happening in this instance of all the scenarios that they have been talking about.

PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if that could be part of the arborist review, and would they be looking at that, and if they were talking about a tree protection plan, wouldn’t they be taking into account that it is the dry season and it needs to be watered.

PW Director Petersen agreed, adding that they could make sure that, when they are doing that, they are putting something in related to that. It could be part of the review of the arborist report.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought that was the appropriate place because she can’t think of every possible scenario. She stated that she was comfortable with the arborist report being the extra layer of checking because it will be a specific project being brought forward at a specific time and she thought that is going to be part of their check list.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he would offer some insight into how the development review process actually works. He stated that it is often a lengthy process and they might prepare an arborist report for a proposed removal of heritage trees or grading within a drip line that might necessitate their removal months, if not years, before even knowing when the project would go to hearing and when an approval decision might be granted by the city. He thought it was asking a bit much to expect an arborist at some very preliminary stage in a project before it has even been submitted to the city as the applicant is preparing all of its required informational items to submit to the city to anticipate the timing of when grading might commence relative to the project construction. He thought it makes sense in concept, but he wasn’t sure that, in practice, it would be the right time, unless there was an implementation component post approval secondary validation of the findings and specific construction timing recommendations, but that adds another layer of bureaucracy on to the applicant and the project process.

City Attorney Kenyon suggests what she believes she is hearing to get some confirmation. She stated that she will ask Council a question to see if this is the consensus she is hearing. She stated that Council would like to provide protection for the trees prior to a grading permit issuance and building permit issuance. However, Council is also interested in allowing the Planning Director, at some point, the discretion to determine if an exception to this rule might be warranted based on the particular circumstances of any application before the Planning Director. She stated she was focusing on the discretionary permits, adding that Acting Planning Director Murdock also mentioned non-discretionary permits, and stated that, with regard to the discretionary permits, she would work with the Acting Planning Director to figure out what would be the general health and safety issues that could arise that would warrant allowing a grading permit issuance prior to a tree removal permit, as the grading is not going to occur near the protected tree. She stated that, if that is the consensus, her recommendation is to confirm that with Council and staff will try and craft that language for them, reiterating that they don’t need to craft the language at this time, but needs to get consensus on the direction for this particular provision that they want staff to craft.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought what she just described captures what she is thinking.

2.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 June 27, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought the point of it was that somebody doesn’t take the land prior to getting permits and go and chop down all the trees. She thought that was the whole point of this segment, and then they don’t go through with their project and the trees are cut down.

Mayor Bier thanked her for covering that. She stated that it was 6:47pm and there are a lot of things, but there were two big things they mentioned. One was in the noticing for the appeals, i.e., ten business days instead of ten calendars days.

Councilmember Vaterlaus disagreed. She stated that everything else they have is ten days and it is not like they have to deliver things in person but do it by computer so she thinks they should leave it the same as their other appeal process they have within ten days.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that consistency about appeals processes is important to the city to try to minimize confusion from applicants and appellants.

Mayor Bier thought that was what was going to come back.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was going to go in the opposite direction in that their regular appeals should be ten business days also.

Mayor Bier was thinking of changing it across the board.

Councilmember Beckmeyer likes the idea of not having one thing be different than all the others as they have a confusing enough process as it is and have to constantly remember that for trees it is another fitting.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought, for consistency, they keep it calendar days for the moment but perhaps there is an appropriate time to come back to the question of everything across the board at a later date.

Mayor Bier agreed.

Ms. Shoemaker stated that, in terms of consistency, the current number of days for a heritage tree is seven, and she didn’t think it was consistent with the statement about all appeals being ten calendar days, and they are hoping that they can all be 20 calendar days, but something that has at least two weeks of the offices being open so people who are confused, as now the postings say to go to Santa Maria Avenue. She thought it would be great to be across the board.

City Manager Woodhouse thought Ms. Shoemaker identified one reason they are going through this process to update the heritage tree ordinance and improve things such as the appeals period to be consistent with our other practices, taking it from 7 to 10 days.

Mayor Bier thought they have a consensus about that. She stated the next thing is under violations 412.13, and really stating that it is not only any person violating any of the provisions but and/or business as well.

PW Director Petersen asked to jump in with a clarification. She stated that, the definition says “person shall mean individuals, firm, association, tree removal service, corporation” and it is actually covered under that term.

2.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 June 27, 2022
Ms. Shoemaker appreciated being allowed to speak. She thought it would be very confusing to tree businesses to find under definitions under person that they are included, and where it is not in violations. She stated Tree City Pacifica would not only like to see that tree companies understand they could have fines and fees but there is a possibility they could lose their license, and, in other cities when someone called a tree company and they come, they say they can’t do that without a permit or they lose their license. She stated that propels the homeowner to get a permit. She stated that having this language protects homeowners who know nothing about ordinances because tree companies are diligent about getting permits from homeowners before they start to work.

Mayor Bier asked if there were any thoughts or comments about that. She appreciated that, under the definition, maybe it can be clearer.

PW Director Petersen stated that they can take a look at that.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that, instead of relying on the definition, they can state it in that section.

Mayor Bier thought that would be helpful.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they will restate it again.

Mayor Bier asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck if he saw anything else in the emails. She thought there was one more she wasn’t seeing fully.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the first one she mentions is 4-12.01 in tweaking some of the language there.

Mayor Bier asked him if she mentions 4-14.07. She stated she has notes but they’re not clear.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that comes later, which is maintenance and preservation of City trees in 14, and they haven’t gotten to Chapter 14.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated 14.07 was the risk form.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she is wrong.

Ms. Shoemaker agreed this is the last big thing that Tree City Pacifica identified under the removal of city trees, the same posting language in Chapter 12 be added to Chapter 14 so the neighbors are notified, posted on the website and the mitigation for removal of city trees be the same 2-1 replacement ratio and it will actually help when City trees come up in front of appeals because this ordinance will define what mitigation should be.

Mayor Bier thought they should talk about that. She agrees about the noticing which should be the same across the board. She asked if PW Director Petersen had a comment on that.

PW Director Petersen stated that talking with the City Attorney’s staff, part of the goal was not to repeat things over and over and that language related to city trees is actually in Section 12 and talks about when city trees are removed you have to have a 2-1 replacement and they have always done the notification and will continue to do it. She stated that, while the City Attorney can also add her comments, their goal is to try to streamline it so everything is not repeated but it mentions city trees under Section 12 related to those elements.

2.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 June 27, 2022
Mayor Bier asked if it was okay to add the notification data in that section again.

PW Director Petersen agreed that they can do that in the replacements if they want.

Mayor Bier thought that would be great, and asked if the Councilmembers agreed.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they might not see it if they aren’t reading 12.

Mayor Bier agreed. She stated she had nothing else, and asked Councilmembers if they had anything.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wasn’t sure if Ms. Shoemaker was going to say one more thing before they deliberate on that last point.

Mayor Bier asked Ms. Shoemaker if she had one more thing.

Ms. Shoemaker stated that there are small things in the letter they sent to Council. She thought they have discussed all the big ones. She asked, if they should send it to the consultant, Acting Planning Director Murdock or someone else via the city attorney, that they can let them know or PW Director Petersen and PW Dep. Director Bautista can share it with people. They are grateful for the study session and ability to participate and advocate for these changes.

Mayor Bier thanked them for all the work they have done.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought PW Director Petersen would share with the City Attorney.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that she already has and they have been all over it. She stated that it has been shared with everyone and they don’t have to resend anything as they have it all.

Mayor Bier called a break.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the regular meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Present
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Late 8:35 PM
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present

2.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 June 27, 2022
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call, noting that Councilmember O’Neill is absent.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director; Dan Steidle, Police Chief; Ron Myers, Fire Chief; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Ryan Marquez, Assoc. Civil Engineer; Mike Perez, PB&R Director; Alyssa Barranti, Management Analyst; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

City Clerk Coffey explained the conditions for having City Council meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 (as amended by AB 361), to conduct necessary business as an essential governmental function as a teleconference meeting with no meeting location open to the public. She also gave information on how to present public comments participating by Zoom or phone.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier then read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck
Closed Session Report
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there was no reportable action from the June 21, 2022 closed session.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Pacifica Resource Center Annual Report
Mayor Bier stated that they will get the Annual Report from the Pacifica Resource Center by Anita Rees.

Anita Rees stated that PRC has been around for nearly 50 years and, during that time, they have continued to support the economic security of families and individuals in Pacifica. She stated that their ultimate vision is that everyone in Pacifica has all the things they need to thrive in this community. Her presentation showed how they served Pacifican families, with groceries, sheltering and support for children and others during the holidays and school supplies for children. She then gave specific details of their programs for providing food, preparing taxes, preparing for the future with access to government supportive programs, providing housing, safe parking permits, etc. She gave details on their plans for future expanded programs and goals for the future. She gave the PRC phone number and contact names for those reaching out to get some of these services.

Mayor Bier thanked her and asked Councilmembers if they had any questions or comments.

City Manager Woodhouse thanked Ms. Rees for the update, and he wanted to clarify the safe parking permit program, i.e., will be limited to eight spaces that have not been appealed in various forms for the initial launch until the appeal hearings are done for the additional five spaces.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked Ms. Rees for being at the meeting. He thought the duplicative numbers can get confusing when you are not a part of the industry and he wanted to focus on

2.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 June 27, 2022
the 1 in 7 families that they help as he knows it is not duplicated. He thought it looked more like 1 in 10, not 1 in 7. He thanked her for the extra work she has taken on and the newly developed robust programs and it was amazing to see how PRC is growing to help what is a Bay Area wide crisis that will affect Pacifica. He is grateful that PRC is in our community.

Ms. Rees stated that the 1 in 7 families is unduplicated. She stated that what they have seen between last year and this year is that the number of units of service they provide has more than tripled, although they don’t have the specific numbers yet. She stated that the whole previous year was around 42,000 units of service and this year it is already at 105,000 units.

She stated that, thinking about their small staff, they have found ways to creatively support people as quickly and thoroughly as possible and why they have been able to provide more services.

Mayor Bier asked her if she can define a unit.

Ms. Rees stated that a unit would be that she gave a family of 5 groceries, and that would count as 5 units as it is for each person who has been touched, thus, over 100,000 units of service is definitely duplicated and it points to the breadth of the work they do. When someone comes in for groceries, they don’t leave with just groceries but try to provide as much support as possible.

She stated that groceries is part of their entry point or housing is their entry point, and they make sure they are also connected to groceries and other services.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked her for all she does for people, and as mentioned by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck said, words cannot express how much we appreciate everything they do and the people they help appreciate them as well.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked her and her staff for everything they do in the community.

She always points out the opportunity they provide for people who want to give and give back through the fundraising they do, the activities they have, the fundraising events they have through the opportunity to participate in holiday joy, support the Thanksgiving programs, and back to school programs and she feels there is always an opportunity for everyone at whatever level they wish to participate to support the work of PRC. She knows they are going into a strategic planning phase and she heard her say there is going to be extension services to Pescadero, and she was curious about that. She also asked, if, currently or through their strategic planning process, whether they will be able to report to the community the demographic of people in terms of families, with number of children, children under the age of 5, single parents with students in schools to try, without getting into personal information, getting a picture for the community of the description of those that they are supporting.

Ms. Rees referred to her question about Pescadero, stating it is only for unhoused on the coast outreach work that they are extending through Pescadero. They have been doing that work through Half Moon Bay and when the county requested proposals for homeless outreach work in particular, the requirement was to do all of the coast, not just Pacifica. She stated that when they initially entered, they only applied for Pacifica, and they asked them to do it through Half Moon Bay, and they did that as they are our neighbors, and now they have asked us to go down to Pescadero. She thought the plan is to have one unhoused on the coast staff person to cover south of Pacifica through Pescadero. The need is less than in Pacifica thus one person could cover that geographic area. They are looking for someone who speaks Spanish, given the demographics in that area. She stated that it is a different population and they will connect anyone who is unhoused in those areas to the core agencies there, and they won’t necessarily providing services for them in Pacifica, although some case management will happen here,

2.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 June 27, 2022
although it will most likely be in the fields, but the services at PRC will still be 95% for Pacificans and they will be connecting people for the other core agencies for the other types of services they provide in Pacifica. She referred to her point around the demographics, stating that she was happy to provide that as a lot of the information she can already share with the services they provide and she is happy to provide that information in the future. She stated that some things may take more, such as figuring out how many single parents with a school age child is a little bit more than they have the capacity to do, but they can with the right pulling up data.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought it helps people sees that they are neighbors and peers.

They may not be in a position where they are presently needing services, but to be able to have an identification such as their child’s friends to get a different point of view.

Ms. Rees agreed.

Mayor Bier stated that what she sees about PRC is that they give people hope when some people feel hopeless. Having those connections and the services that provide dignity and hope just lead to the next thing for that person. Without that, it is hard to get anywhere and she really appreciates that about PRC and all the services that they have provided for her, her family, her friends, and it is forever important and in her heart. She stated that her relationship with Ms.

Rees was important and she appreciates her professional efforts as well as personally.

City Manager Woodhouse noted there is one hand raised from an attendee if she wanted to do comments.

Mayor Bier stated that she was sorry she forgot about that. She then opened up public comment.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti stated that there was one hand raised and she introduced the speaker.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that the mayor is forgiven. She wanted to express, along with Council, a big thank you to Ms. Rees. She compared the Resource Center’s increased workload to the canary in the mine, reminding us that we all as a community need as a whole to be watching out for each other. She stated, especially with the housing element coming, they want to strengthen that voice for our community and provide a safe path to help those be permanently housed and strengthen ways to prevent displacement, prioritize ways to increase low income housing. She stated that the work the Resource Center is doing is incredible. She is grateful but we have to remind ourselves that this is an economic recovery from Covid and there are some in our community that are struggling more than others and we need to be aware of that and do what we can.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if any Councilmember wanted to pull an item. Seeing no one, she stated that they could go to public comment or take a motion first.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they need public comment first.

Mayor Bier opened public comment.

2.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 June 27, 2022
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.

Tony Williams, Pacifica, stated that he is hoping to get an opportunity to speak on an issue at Seaweed Cannabis Dispensary in Rockaway that they are dealing with planning.

Mayor Bier explained that they were on the agenda where they are commenting on a consent Items 1 through 10. She stated that oral communication will be coming up. She stated that he can raise his hands during oral communications as they want to hear what he has to say.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, had a question on Item 3, the handrails on the pier. She was surprised to read that GHD’s estimate for the work was $750,000 and we only got one bid for $3.2 million, a big difference and she looked on the website but there was no information so she expressed her thoughts on trying to understand the process and get clarification to a possible discrepancy.

Mayor Bier closed public comment.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought it would be helpful to ask the question they received and get a response from staff in the discrepancy.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the item on consent is rejection of bids, as there was only one bid and much more than the engineers’ estimate and leads to the recommendation to reject the bids. He stated that staff is in the process of evaluating the potential reasons for why the one bid received was so high and looking at the process for rebidding the project. He thought Assoc. Civil Engineer Marquez may not have any more to add.

Mayor Bier asked if Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was happy with the answer.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was.

Mayor Bier asked if there are any questions or comments about the consent items and, if not, she asked for a motion.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Councilmember O’Neill)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ABSENT: O'Neill

1. Approval of Disbursements for 5/01/22 through 5/15/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 5/01/22 through 5/15/22.

2. Cancellation of July 25, 2022 City Council Meeting

2.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 June 27, 2022
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve cancellation of the July 25, 2022 regular City Council meeting.

3. Rejection of Bid for the Pacifica Pier Handrail Repair Project PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Reject the Bid for the Pacifica Pier Handrail Repair Project.

4. FY 2021-22 Street Asphalt Base Repair Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Change Order #2 for the FY 2021-22 Street Asphalt Base Repair Project

5. Adoption of a resolution to certify the approval of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to enter into this transaction with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services for the purpose of providing Child Care and development services and to authorize the designated personnel to sign contract documents for fiscal year 2022-23, the Continued Funding Application, and all related contract documents.

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Agreement to This Transaction with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services for the Purpose of Providing Child Care and Development Services and to authorize the Designated Personnel to Sign Contract Documents for Fiscal Years 2022-23.”

6. Agreement to terms with the Pacifica School District for rental space for Child Care services in the amount of $157,248 for the 2022-2023 school year.

PROPOSED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to sign the 2022-2023 contract with the Pacifica School District for rental space for Child Care services in the amount of $157,248, an amount which is included in the 2022-2023 budget

7. Second Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for On-Call Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Good City Company PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Good City Company, by increasing the contract amount by $100,000 with a total not to exceed amount of $220,000 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.

8. Approving the professional services agreement between the City of Pacifica and Teri Black & Company, LLC., the executive recruiting firm and direct the City Manager to execute a contract for services.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the Resolution approving Amendment No. 1 to the Consultant Services Agreement dated May 5, 2022, to Teri Black & Company, LLC to continue the executive recruiter services; approve budget authority not to exceed $63,400; and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents related to this project, based on the attached proposal (Attachment 2).

9. Adoption of “An Ordinance Amending Article 1 Within Chapter 1, “City Council” Of Title 2 Of the Pacifica Municipal Code Relating To Rules And Procedures For City Council Meetings“ (Status: CEQA Exempt)

2.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 June 27, 2022
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt by Title Only and Waive further reading of “An Ordinance Amending Article 1 Within Chapter 1, “City Council” Of Title 2 Of the Pacifica Municipal Code Relating To Rules And Procedures For City Council Meetings” and finding the ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

10. Adoption of Ordinances adding Sections 7-2.214 (Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee) of Title 7 and Chapter 21 (Construction Vehicle Impact Fee) of Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code
PROPOSED ACTION:

1. Move to Adopt by Title an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Establishing a Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

2. Move to Adopt by Title an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Establishing a Construction Vehicle Impact Fee and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Bier opened Oral Communications.

Tony Williams, Pacifica, stated he wanted to speak to an issue they are dealing with at Seaweed Holistics in Rockaway. He explained the problem and their efforts to fix the problem regarding the city’s front window requirements and offered their request for help from Council.

Mayor Bier thanked him for bringing that issue to them, then closed Oral Communications.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she attended a lot of events but wanted to address one item. She attended an all-day meeting on Saturday and wanted to let Pacificans know they care about Pacifica and not spend their whole day in a meeting and get berated by the public. She was disappointed in the behavior of some individuals during that meeting as they do this for all of them. She appreciated that they don’t try to beat Council up as it is not fair.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he would follow up with something he heard at Cal Cities last year which stuck with him, a phrase recommended that “I cannot hear you when you are yelling at me.” He stated that at any point in time, some of them are able to hear loudness better than others but, generally, even if he can hear it, he hears it better when he doesn’t have to hear through it. He again shared his feeling with Ukraine as he watches the war which is heartbreaking. He attended the Emergency Preparedness meeting where they got an update on Mori Point and the Commission is getting excited about putting a tent at Fog Fest and giving the community information about preparedness. He stated the next meeting is July 20. They also pointed out that Connect with Pacifica has a lot of good information about things in terms of emergency preparedness and he recommends it. He was the delegate at the ABAG general assembly conference and business meeting which was strongly about housing, discussing the Bay Area Housing Financial Authority potentially putting a $1 billion measure on a future ballot to try and help housing for preservation, production, etc. and discussed if it’s a good idea and how to best go about it. They were talking about looking at the Regional Housing Needs Allocation numbers (RHNA) were allocated and how they need to reassess how they distribute those numbers for the next cycle. Given how large Pacifica’s numbers were, he listened as they

2.b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 June 27, 2022
made the recommendation. He sent a letter to city staff as Mayor Bier brought up the notion that they could bump their inclusionary ordinance up to 20% and after doing his study, he went through his notes and John Dugan of San Carlos speaking at the ABAG meeting in terms of deed restricted housing, instead of being capped at 45 or 55 years, but going on in perpetuity.

He then wrote a letter to staff about the best time to have that discussion, which might be during the housing element and definitely during goal setting. He stated that it was a robust housing discussion for several hours. He attended the city Democrats meeting where Tom Piccolotti, Director of North Coast County Water District spoke and they can expect an 11% water reduction as we are not getting much rain. He learned a lot about desalinization and it seemed to be an area where he was interested about its potential as a solution. He learned something about the purple pipe recycle water program and how you can go to NCCWD building and get some water to take home for flowers, etc. He tuned in to both of the Planning Commission meetings this week on the Sharp Park Specific Plan. He stated that the Peninsula Clean Energy meeting was going on during the Thursday meeting and he will be playing catch up for about two hours of that meeting. He stated, at the Peninsula Clean Energy meeting, there was an RFP that went out for the 15 public photovoltaic projects which includes our solar project on the Civic Center building and they just put out that RFP and that will hopefully be approved soon and we will get solar power for a city building. They approved the budget and made sure that our energy rates would shift on July 1 and will remain 5% under that which PG&E offers. They received a REACH code update and they will have a REACH code discussion in the future as they should be releasing those updates too. He attended the meeting on Saturday. He had the honor of attending the Constitution Sunday which they put on every year on the Sunday before the 4th of July at Holy Cross Lutheran. He was compelled to attend, as Quentin L. Kopp spoke.

In absence of Captain Glasgo, he was asked to read the Gettysburg Address which gave him the opportunity to meditate on a lot of the very interesting energy they are seeing in our country lately and he boiled it down to that freedom has something to do with protecting each other’s rights and when we are in the practice of protecting each other’s rights we do not need to work as hard to protect what we think our rights are, that is, common respect which seems lacking lately in national discourse. He enjoyed a free concert in Stern Grove on Pride Day. Earlier on this day, he went to the One Shoreline meeting and they passed their budget. He mentioned meeting a couple of times with Jeremy, the VP of the Fire Union and they asked him to give a shout out to those on Valdez who banded together as a neighborhood when there was a fire going on at Pacifica’s Pride Day on June 4, and the neighbors were outside and were able to assist in the logistics of the fire department as they put out a fire and it was a beautiful community moment and the Fire Department asked him to shout out to Valdez for being present in that moment.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she won’t restate anything on events she and Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck attended together, but regarding the independent yesterday, Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck did not read the Gettysburg Address but delivered it. It was amazing, especially how she learned he came to be asked to step in and do that five minutes before he did it and it was nicely done. She stated that the Mayor read the Declaration of Independence and it was very well done. She stated that she could be proud of that as she was. She enjoyed the day. She stated that Rev. Nibbe likes jazz and he always has jazz musicians but being that jazz is such a unique American art form, and it is fitting. Regarding the NCCWD presentation at the Democrats’ meeting, she stated Chair Picolotti was there and gave a great overview of different capital projects that they are doing and Mayor made great points about opportunities for communicating and collaborating and she thought it might be nice in the future, if possible, to invite them to come and have a presentation at Council or have a joint meeting of some kind to hear about the projects going on in Pacifica and become more informed and share information.

She attended a subcommittee with Cosmat which is the company working on our Economic

2.b
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 June 27, 2022
Opportunity studies, along with Councilmember O’Neill, staff and consultants, to get ready for that project to launch. She had a study meeting with a citizen who has been helping her with things involved in the Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee and gave her information on a meeting she missed regarding REACH codes, so she is prepared when they have an oncoming meeting with Peninsula Clean Energy. She referred to their previous meeting and commended Mayor Bier on doing a great job with running that meeting which was a significant investment of time.

Mayor Bier enjoyed her time at Holy Cross the previous day with Pastor Nibbe, adding that she was blown away at the meeting with Quentin Kopp. She watched the Planning Commission meetings in preparation for their General Plan meeting on Saturday, and she has spent most of her time in the past couple of weeks preparing for that. She attended the Pacifica School volunteers meeting. She also attended the Eagle Scout ceremony Sunday and there were three sets of siblings which made her emotional being there and listening to their process and how much they care about how they present themselves in the world and help our community. That was followed by a meeting of the United Against Hate meeting with Congresswoman Speier.

She stated that [Millbrae] Councilmember Fung was there and spoke about what happened to him and there were other attendees who talked about resources in the county.

Assemblymember Kevin Mullin also spoke. She stated that it was amazing to be there, but it was sad and frustrating as well. She had heard about the Pride flag burning at Sunset Ridge, and after their wonderful Pride celebration, hearing about the flag burning and then attend the meeting held by Congresswoman Speier blended together and emotional, adding the ruling against Roe v Wade which has made everything so heavy. She stated that, in response to the flag burning, they are having a unity event and collaborating on that with Coast Pride and Pacifica School District at Sunset Ridge School the following day from 5-6 pm, with many people coming to share a few minutes each and the Pacifica Library will be there with a popup library with different kinds of books and literature. There will be face painting and some goodies to show people that no matter what, we are standing together in solidarity which is about love.

She appreciated having the opportunity to respond in a way like that which we couldn’t do without Coast Pride. She has learned so much from them in the past few months and she appreciates what they are doing for us.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse referred to the Unity event theme mentioned by Mayor Bier and stated that years ago Pacifica joined the Stand United Against hate campaign and they created posters which he will take to that Unity event to hand them out to anyone who is interested in putting them in their business or residence. He stated that he wrote in Connect with Pacifica announcing that Fox 2 KTVU, will be featuring Pacifica on July 29 in their Zip Trips programs which they relaunched post-Covid. He stated that it was an exciting opportunity for Pacifica as they will come and do an hour long live broadcast. He wanted to mention that they are currently conducting a survey so community members can give input on the hidden gems and special places in Pacifica and they want to hear from everyone. He didn’t have the website link but if they google zip trip Pacifica survey 2022, it comes up and they can key in on that survey to let them know your favorite cafes, restaurant, hike, etc. He stated that they have been so busy and he hasn’t had much opportunity to do one thing he loves to do is leadership, and on Wednesday, he will be on a panel with city managers presenting and talking with the San Mateo County Leadership Consortium for their public sector leadership program and all San Mateo County cities have employees who participate in the consortium. He stated that it was exciting and energizing to talk to our future leaders.

2.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 June 27, 2022
Mayor Bier asked if this was the last meeting when they will have Police Chief Steidle.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is Chief Steidle’s last Council meeting with Pacifica.

Mayor Bier thought maybe they should tell him how much they appreciate him.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, typically for retiring employees of long tenure like Chief Steidle, the Council does do proclamations, but they didn’t have that scheduled for this meeting, but they do plan to schedule that for a future Council meeting. He was sure he would probably be pleased to come and receive any positive comments.

Mayor Bier stated that he has done so much for all of us for so long and she is so grateful for all he has done for the city and how supportive of their prevention work and she learned so much from him on that.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she is going to miss him as well, adding that his sense of humor is amazing. She thanked him for being here and for everything he has done for Pacifica.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked him and stated that she has commented before about her appreciation for the family atmosphere he created in PPD and the standards he set. She stated that is something that persists, and having culture that is imbedded is what carries forward and is his legacy.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he is confident with the idea of finding someone who is going to be able to get the respect, thought and care to our community that he has risen to, but he don’t know how it is going to happen. He stated that Chief Steidle has presided over a time in which it is very difficult, from the remnants of a tragedy in Pacifica and making sure we are able to address mental health as well as dealing with a national conversation that brings people out who vary between having legitimate concerns about their own community and coming from a great deal of fear stemming from a national issue that they want to make sure our community navigates through to be sure our community is addressed and unite. He stated that the first time he clued in to who he was happened when he brought up the spirit of the law and he has revisited that with him as he is a man who goes to the spirit of the law over a sense of rigidity of the law at the detriment of our community, adding that he always keeps in mind the spirit with which our officers are supposed to serve and has been invaluable and sincerely loved by this Council and irreplaceable and he is grateful.

Mayor Bier stated that it would be wonderful if they could hear him, but it is okay that he heard them. They will see him before he goes. She then reminded everyone to be safe on the 4th of July, adding that they will have a lot of fun at Frontierland Park.

Councilmember Vaterlaus added, no illegal fireworks.

Mayor Bier asked if they needed a break before going to the first public hearing, and she concluded that they were okay with moving on.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

11. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal

2.b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 June 27, 2022
Authorization, and Recommendation for City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21, filed by Brendan and Eamon Murphy, for construction of a three-building mixed-use project with 3,165-square feet (sf) of commercial floor area and 19 residential units, and associated condominium subdivision, at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420). The proposed General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment would have city-wide applicability and allow residential uses to be established either in the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor or in residential-only buildings on a site that also contains a commercial use (horizontal mixed-use) with approval of a use permit.

Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (File No. 2016-004).

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to DENY the appeal, UPHOLD the Planning Commission’s adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), approval of Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, and recommendation for City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21, and APPROVE the revised project by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A, including approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, and the conditions of approval and MMRP in Exhibits A and B to the Resolution, respectively; and to INTRODUCE, WAIVE the first reading, and READ by title only, an Ordinance included as Attachment B and entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21 to rezone property to the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district, to add certain residential uses as conditionally permitted uses in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district; and to approve a development agreement with certain public and private benefits including off-site improvements, to allow construction of a mixed-use commercial and residential project consisting of 3,165 square feet of commercial area and 19 residential condominiums at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162- 420).”
Acting Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.

City Manager Woodhouse added that, regarding staff’s changed recommendation at this time, Acting Planning Director Murdock did reach out and speak directly with both the appellant and the applicant.

Mayor Bier asked for a consensus and asked the City Attorney if she had something to say.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that she thought they needed her, but they clearly don’t.

Mayor Bier stated that they needed a general consensus from Council before going on.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that, given the strong staff recommendation to continue the hearing and if Council agrees with that recommendation, she would recommend that, if they have a consensus to continue it, the mayor open public comments and provide the public with their

2.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 June 27, 2022
opportunity to speak but, since the topic of discussion is to continue, they ask the commenters to keep their comments to the issue of the continuance rather than getting into the substance since it will be clear that, after the consensus, the Council will not be considering the appeal at this meeting.

Mayor Bier thought they have a consensus to do so, but she wanted to be very clear on how this is going to move forward because the last time it was difficult for them. She asked Acting Planning Director Murdock if the appellant was clear about everything and, if not, that they take time to make sure she is.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, as mentioned by the City Manager, he spoke with the appellant earlier in the afternoon and his impression is that she understands and acknowledges the reason for the continuance but had intended to make a brief remark during the time afforded to the appellant.

Mayor Bier agreed. She then opened up public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.

Leo Leone, Pacifica, stated that he fully supports the continuance, adding that there is good reason that staff made such a recommendation and they will have time to pursue the details and will be getting into them going forward.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that she hoped she wasn’t overstepping what she is not supposed to say. She felt it was an exciting potential for these parcels to create low income housing, sharing her thoughts on the issue. She was glad Council will continue the appeal hearing to do the best to create low income housing.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated he supports the continuance, adding that they have been forced into rushing a lot of things so he felt it was appropriate to take the time necessary to get it right.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti stated that Stan Zeavin would be speaking for the appellant, Margaret Goodale.

Ms. Goodale stated he was not speaking on this issue.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they should ask the City Clerk to move the appellant up as a panelist as she does get 15 minutes as well as the applicant, should they want to speak.

City Manager Woodhouse clarified that her duration is 10 minutes.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed.

Mayor Bier asked if there were any other speakers.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti stated that Stuart Welte’s hand was raised.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that Mr. Welte is the applicant.

Mayor Bier thanked the speakers and she then invited the appellant to speak.

2.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 June 27, 2022
Margaret Goodale, Appellant, stated that she supports the continuance, especially following the recent court decision. She stated that getting in compliance with CEQA is very important and the court decision says the foremost principle under CEQA is that the legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such a manner for the fullest possible protection to the environment within a reasonable scope of the statutory language and with narrow exceptions, CEQA requires an EIR whenever a public agency proposes to approve or carry out a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. She stated that they should not wait for another court case and get an EIR and use the time profitably and stop pussyfooting around.

Mayor Bier concluded that they are not asking questions at this time.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they need to ask the applicant if they would like to speak.

Mayor Bier stated that her list of the agenda said questions came next, but she wasn’t sure.

She stated that they would like to hear from the applicant.

Stuart Welte, Applicant, stated he was one of the architects for Environmental Innovations in Design as well as another architect , Mark Wommack, present as well, but he didn’t need to speak. They were happy to use the time between now and the next available scheduled date to speak further with the appellant, Ms. Goodale, and her biologist. He stated that they have evolved with two biologists hired by the applicant as well as the CEQA team who reviewed reports and studies and subcontracting biologist by CEQA consultants, thus, many biologists involved in the project. He stated that they have made a huge effort to allow a large portion of the site, almost 50%, to be allowed to remain as is and worked to provide a project that does has affordable housing and a contribution to that affordable housing program. He stated that this could be an example how everyone can live together, wetlands, affordable housing, etc., integrated into the existing fabric of the area. He thanks them for continuing and they look forward to seeing all of the at the appropriate time and reach out with Ms. Goodale to find time with her and/or her group to speak about the project in the meantime.

Mayor Bier confirmed with City Attorney that she can close public hearing.

City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier then closed the public hearing and asked for a motion.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to continue the item to a date to be determined; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Councilmember O’Neill)
RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ABSENT: O'Neill

12. Conduct Public Hearing to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Annual Report from the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District as modified by City Council, Approving the

2.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 June 27, 2022
Program Expenditures, and Assessing the Levy for the Fiscal Year 2022-23 at the same rates as in the Fiscal Year 2021-22.

PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Conduct the Public Hearing
2) Rule on Oral and Written protests, if any; and
3) Adopt a resolution approving the annual report of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District Advisory Board, as amended, and continuing the assessments levied in 2021-22 without change in Fiscal Year 2022-23.

Asst. City Manager Carter presented the staff report.

There were no public comments.

Mayor Bier stated they were open to questions from Council.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated she would make a motion.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they must first check with the Asst. City Manager or City Clerk to formally confirm there were no protests.

City Clerk Coffey was not aware of any protests that have been received, and they can confirm that with Asst. City Manager Carter.

Asst. City Manager Carter was not aware of any protests received.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to approve the BID as presented; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Councilmember O’Neill)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ABSENT: O'Neill

CONSIDERATION

13. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City a Ballot Measure Regarding a ½ Cent Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax for General City Revenue Purposes and Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City’s General Municipal Election with the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City a Ballot Measure Regarding a ½ Cent Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax for General City Revenue Purposes and Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City’s General

2.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 June 27, 2022
Municipal Election with the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services.

A Transactions and Use Tax is a General Tax that requires a 2/3 majority vote of the City Council (4 out of 5 Councilmembers) to be placed on the ballot and a simple majority vote (50% + 1) of the voters to pass. Tonight's action by the City Council, if adopted, would place the proposed revenue measure before the voters of the City of Pacifica for their consideration.

Mayor Bier called for a 5-minute break, then reconvened the meeting. She then welcomed Councilmember O’Neill to the meeting at 8:35 pm for the Consideration Item #13.

City Manager Woodhouse introduced Asst. City Manager Carter and Brian Moura, Sr. Advisor from RGS as well as City Attorney Kenyon for any questions that relate to the city attorney’s purview. He then began the staff report.

Mr. Moura continued the staff report.

City Manager completed the staff report.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if that chart stated that Brisbane was bringing in $2 million per year with their half cents sales tax.

Mr. Moura stated that, what Brisbane is going to put on the ballot in November are two different measures, first, a half-cent sales tax that they don’t have now but will be the ninth city with Pacifica potentially being the tenth if such measures were put on the ballot and passed. He stated that Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck is correct that they are estimating that a half-cent transaction and use tax in Brisbane would bring in $2 million. He stated that the other item they are putting on the November ballot is a new business license tax for hotels. He stated that Brisbane currently collects 14% on their transient occupancy tax but their view of the transient occupancy tax is that is something the people who rent the hotel rooms pay, not the hoteliers.

They are saying that they believe that the hoteliers should pay a business license tax and they are proposing a new business license tax of $2.50 per room per day for hotels, motels and Airbnb or anyone leasing out rooms. Those are the two measures they put on Brisbane’s ballot at their most recent Council meeting.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if that was $2 million for both measures combined or just for the half cent.

Mr. Moura stated it was just for the half cent. The business license tax would be an estimated additional $250,000.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was amazed when he saw that number because Brisbane’s population compared to Pacifica is tiny.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that Brisbane has a significantly different commercial and industry base than Pacifica and some of that tax might be coming from that sector.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought that made more sense. He then stated that Council has the benefit of reading staff reports and attending several meetings on the same topic and he knows

2.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 June 27, 2022
not everyone in the audience has the same benefit. He stated that they briefly touched on the $2.6 million that they currently get from 1% versus the $2.6 million they would be getting from the half cent. He asked if they could take a moment so that the community is thoroughly informed of how it is possible that a half cent and one cent would both equal $2.6 million. He also asked for more information about leakage and how, at the end of the day, they equate.

Mr. Moura stated that, as indicated on the earlier slide, the difference between a sales tax and a transaction and use tax is that the sales tax is based on the point of sale which means it is based on transactions that occur in the city of Pacifica. In a transaction and use tax, it is based on where the goods are delivered. As a result of that, the basis of the transaction and use tax is different. They found, in reviewing the potential measure with HDL which is Pacifica’s sales tax consultant, Pacifica has a considerable amount of what is called sales tax leakage which, in layman’s terms, means a lot of retail transactions among Pacifica residents don’t occur among Pacifica merchants but at merchants in places like Colma, Daly City, South San Francisco and San Bruno. To the extent that the half cent transactions tax is able to capture some of those transactions, particularly as it relates to things like online sales, purchases of vehicles, etc., that is the reason the city will get approximately $2.6 million from the half cent transaction tax which roughly equals the amount of money they are getting from the 1% point of sales tax.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he started hearing in the background the music that plays when PCT is in hiatus. He asked if everything is okay with PCT now.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he would check with the IT staff monitoring that.

City Attorney Kenyon thought they should go on until they know that it isn’t working.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck appreciated that they have gone over all of this thoroughly, but he wanted to make it crystal clear how they are coming to this conclusion for the community, so he asked them to go over the half cent in relation to the county and how, if we don’t take up that half cent slack, that is the only half-cent available that the county might take it instead and rendering Pacifica unable to have this opportunity again in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Moura stated that he is correct, adding that it also relates to a question that may come up from residents who will recall that, a number of years ago, Pacifica placed a one cent sales tax on the ballot and that is no longer a choice that they have because, in California, the total amount of transaction and use taxes in any given county is limited to 2%. What has happened over the last several years that there have been a number of county and countywide transaction and use tax measures, both from the county and from the County Transportation Authority, to the point where there is only a half cent of capacity left. He is correct that it is possible that, down the road, Transportation Authority, County or someone else could take that half cent they are talking about now. He stated that it also explains why the eight cities they showed on the earlier table can only raise either a quarter cent or half cent sales tax in this county whereas, if they look at the transaction and use tax proposals in other counties going on the November ballot, they will see three-quarters or one cent by cities in other counties. That is because, in their counties, the county and the TA has not yet used up the additional capacity.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that PCT is up and running.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck heard the music stop in the background. He appreciated the information. He then asked the City Manager to remind them about what kinds of personnel cuts or service cuts they are looking at if they don’t pass this half cent measure.

2.b
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 June 27, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated that information previously provided to City Council, and is in this staff report as well, and they did is, hypothetically, if you took the $2.7 million structural deficit and divided it evenly across departments, which is not necessarily how policy decisions would be made about budget cuts, but if you did divide those across all of the departments, you would be looking at a 6% cut and, based on the average salary and benefits for different categories of employees, hypothetically you would be looking at a cut of two position from general government, five positions from Police, three positions from Fire, two positions from Planning and Building, two positions from Public Works and two positions from Parks, Beaches and Recreation. He stated that Pacifica, based on a 2019 study update, averages over all departments, about 23% lower staffing than comparable jurisdictions in our area, and we are already at a skeleton level of employees and those cuts would be devastating to services to the public.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded that, what they are talking about for a half cent sales tax is raising $2.6 million for up to a $2.7 million deficit that we are projecting, and even if we successfully pass this half cent measure, we are still $100,000 shy of where we would like to be to break even.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, based on today’s projections, regarding to prudent expenditure containment and economic development efforts, all are very important to this threelegged stool of balancing operational budget and they would, as currently, work very hard on economic development to bridge that $100,000 gap.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his next question for either City Attorney or City Manager is regarding packet page 1254. He thought placing a general revenue measure on ballot, which he thought they have to do during an election year unless, in case of an emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the City Council, and he took it to mean that, on staring at a $2.7 million deficit, if it should happen not to go through this year, and they are looking at a position in which they need to let go of five police officers, three firefighters, many staff members and then next year they look at that and think that they either do that or try and put it on the ballot in an off year, and if all Councilmembers agree on that, they could do that again next year if they determine that it is a big emergency and they tell everyone that it is an emergency again this year and would it be an option in a worst case scenario.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that it would require a resolution setting forth what the basis of the financial emergency is.

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

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti stated that there were no hands raised.

Mayor Bier closed public comment and brought it back to Council.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he just saw a hand pop up.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.

Dinah Verby, Pacifica, thanked the City Manager for seeing her hand. She was positive on the need for this revenue and understands the issues around the structural deficit and asked for

2.b
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 June 27, 2022
clarification on why it needs a majority rather than a two-thirds majority vote, and mentioned her thoughts and questions on the issue, in addition to needing a Plan B or C as not many people are planning to vote for it.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated that Pacifica is one of the last cities to put a tax measure on the ballot and we are at the end of the road on this, and shared his thoughts on the serious consequences of this issue if not passed.

Mayor Bier closed public comments. She thought it would be good to answer some of the questions, such as why is it 50% plus one.

City Attorney Kenyon referred to why it is a simple majority, it is a general purpose tax, not a special tax which requires a two-thirds vote and is specifically designated for a specific purpose such as police, fire, street paving, and the only purpose, but this is general tax and going into the general fund for all municipal services. If none of the fund revenues are being designated for any specific purposes but a general purpose, it is just a majority vote. She asked if the Mayor wanted her to touch on the campaign issue which is a legal issue and not just a Council decision, as there is a legal prohibition on Council that, once they place the measure on the ballot, the city is prohibited from organizing any campaign. What they can do, and she is certain that staff will do, is provide informational material only and respond to questions regarding the tax and what it will be used for, etc.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have had a lot of meeting about this, and his questions have been covered and articulated by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he had something that resembles a question and he is throwing it out for Council consideration and is doing it to accentuate the fact that, on the County level, that half cent can be taken away from us. He then referred to page 1262, the third whereas, where it says the city wishes to maintain vital local services and local control with funding that cannot be taken by the state to address community needs and priorities. He interpreted that as the county could take that half cent away from them if the measure were passed on the county level so he proposed that it be tweaked to say “state and county”. He wants to accentuate the fact that, if they don’t use it, the County can use it on theirs.

Councilmembers were in agreement with that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to packet page 1272, there is a feature that, if passed, there is a citizen’s oversight committee written into it which says, “although not otherwise required by state law, the city council shall, by resolution adopted before the operative date of this chapter, establish a citizens’ oversight committee to review the revenue and expenditure of funds from the tax imposed under this chapter. The members’ terms and qualification, and duties and scope of the committee, shall be as established by the resolution.” He stated that it reminded him of our engage community city goal which includes creating opportunities to expand public participation, increase communication and build community. He thought that was an opportunity where they know tax isn’t a popular thing but we need it or things will not be good and they are giving the community the opportunity say exactly how the money is spent to ensure that, not only is it needed, but being spent in all the right places and doing it voluntarily.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that no one likes a tax, but it was important to keep in mind what they are supporting, i.e., their city. She stated that, when she thinks about first responders, she thinks about our police, fire and EMTs and also about our Department of Public

2.b
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 June 27, 2022
Works. She stated that they are the ones who come out when a tree falls in the middle of the night and the thought of eroding those services in any way is terrifying to her as the work they do is essential and they help to make our community what it is and the idea of losing positions for her is devastating. And, considering our weather impacts on our community, such as last year, she knows the funds will go where the ballot says they will go as that is where we spend our money. She stressed that is our people and staff and that’s what keeps our city great. She doesn’t love the idea of a tax and is very sensitive to the timing, but the city needs support as it is going into a significant structural deficit. She can’t comment on the reverse and nature of the tax, but she thought Mr. Moura may have something to add, such as an example of a purchase of $100 or $200, as she filled her car with gas the other day and it was $100. She gets that it is real, and she wondered if he can put it in context of what a half cent means in TUT.

Mr. Moura stated that it would be an additional half cent on items that are received in Pacifica and where they would pick up the additional revenue on online sales, vehicle sales where they don’t get the 1% sales tax because Pacifica doesn’t have auto dealers such as in other cities.

In terms of whether it is a progressive or regressive tax, he thought they could argue both sides of that point.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thinks that people forget that the gas went up and we pay that too as well as all the city’s employees. They need to keep their employees and pave our streets, and they need everyone they have now and they will have to keep going forward. They can’t go backwards or pay less for the things they need to purchase and they are doing their best for Pacifica.

Mayor Bier feels the same way, and doesn’t see another way now so this is what they need to do. They have talked about it, as mentioned by Councilmember O’Neill, and they don’t have a lot to add except that it is exactly what they need.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was thinking about Councilmember Beckmeyer’s question early, stating that out of $100 it is 50 cents, which puts it into perspective for him.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City a Ballot Measure Regarding a half cent Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax for General City Revenue Purposes and Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City’s General Municipal Election with the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and to provide Election Services with a slight amendment to the third whereas in the resolution and county as discussed; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Councilmember O’Neill then left the meeting at 9:23 pm.

2.b
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 June 27, 2022

14. Adoption of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Operating and Capital Budget.

PROPOSED ACTION: Hold a public hearing, review and move to adopt the following resolutions:

1. Adopt the resolution approving the FY 2022-23 Operating and Capital Budget;

2. Adopt the FY 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program appropriation of $1.205 million from the Roy Davies Trust Fund by 4/5 vote

3. Adopt the resolution establishing GANN Appropriation Limit for FY 2022-23;

4. Adopt the resolution approving the City's annual review of the Investment Policy included as Exhibit A to the resolution, with no changes for FY 2022-23; and

5. Adopt the resolution approving the City's FY 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule as included as Exhibit A to the resolution.

City Manager Woodhouse thanked Asst. City Manager Carter for the effort she has put into this budget, as well as the entire finance team, and a huge list of acknowledgements that they will see in the budget book his transmittal memo with a paragraph that is called acknowledgments with a significant number of staff and effort that went into this. He stated that the other aspect of the budget book they will see this year, thanking Asst. City Manager Carter and Mgmt. Analyst Barranti, as well as others in Finance, is that they evolving the quality of the city’s budget book towards GFOA awards of excellent standards, and there is a significant amount of data and other documents in there in addition to the most important thing which is the quality of work of the budget and the balancing and the budget book as a product has improved significantly which has taken a lot of time, particularly Asst. City Manager Carter’s time, and he now will let her guide them through the presentation.

Asst. City Manager Carter thanked him for his kind words, then presented the staff report.

There were no public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the City Manager did an exceptionally good job hiring Asst.

City Manager Carter for their team. He then stated that her work was a sight to behold, and he thanked her for all her work in collaboration with the entire city staff.

Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the City Manager mentioning the budget book, and she wanted to show the public what the budget book looked like. She stated that the format to which he referred to was that there were lots of graphs and charts that aren’t just numbers they have seen in the past, and she referred to packet page 1350 regarding department work programs, which has a narrative on what each department does and what their projects and priorities are. She stated that, while many people think budgets are too much, if you look at the numbers, such as the City Manager referring to the layout changes, it is a description of all the restricted enterprise funds and specifically states what each one is and what it is for, and the capital improvements budget is very interesting as it tells you what all the project are that are coming up but also shows the future fiscal years and which year they project being able to pay for the project they want to do, and in some cases it is underfunded but an important project and it demonstrates where our fiscal standing is. She stated that the last piece is the fee structure.

She requested the City Manager and Asst. City Manager put copies of this budget in the library as they have done with the General Plan updates and Sharp Park Specific Plan so that they are accessible. She thought they have one available at City Hall (Community Center) so, if people

2.b
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 June 27, 2022
want to peruse it, they have the opportunity to do it while not online as they may not have the technology to do that.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they would be happy to do that as it was a great idea. He stated that one of the administrative tasks is, after adoption of the proposed budget by Council, they will do the final proof read and refinement to make sure every chart is labeled properly, and he suggests that, with the final version, it will be that and they will get it out there but also online as well.

Mayor Bier was glad she went through that, as it was wonderful to look through it all and it made her want to read it more as the visual stimulation makes it so much nicer to take in the information as not everyone understands a chart. She stated that they need a motion.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they have to be separate or all together.

City Attorney Kenyon stated it can be together.

City Manager Woodhouse pointed out that, in the recommendation the Roy Davies resolution requires a 4/5 vote.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to adopt the budget and accept the $1.2 million Roy Davies amount spent and accepted as presented; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.b
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of June 27, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5078 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

STAFF CONTACT:

Sam Bautista, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works
650-738-3767
[email protected]
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On January 22, 2016, the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency along the Pacifica coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard due to El Nino storm activity. Extreme wave heights for extended periods of time caused top-of-bluff retreat at several locations along the Pacifica coast and damage to City infrastructure. Since this date, the Director of Emergency Services has proclaimed the existence of other local emergencies along this same stretch of coastline. These emergencies are described below:
• Failure of the sea wall and promenade on Beach Blvd. (in the vicinity of Santa Maria Avenue), which have been repaired, from the January 22, 2016 storm. • The 300 & 400 block of Esplanade experience episodic bluff erosion. In recent years (2016-2018), the bluff erosion has progressed to a point where the erosion is now threatening public infrastructure and utilities.
• Undermining of a seven-foot diameter storm drain outfall and concrete headwall for the discharge of Milagra Creek into the Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of 700 Palmetto Avenue from the January 22, 2016, storm. Construction is scheduled to restart in February of 2021 due to project delays.
• A failure of the seawall and promenade on Beach Blvd. in the vicinity of Santa Rosa Avenue and the Pier was discovered on December 16, 2020. Ocean waves, king tides, and high swells undermined a portion of the sea wall and created a large void (25’x25”) between the pier abutment seawall connection, affecting the sidewalk and promenade.

City staff and contractors stabilized and repaired the large void on January 22, 2021.

The sidewalk and promenade restoration were completed on February 22, 2021.

Monitoring of the repaired area is on-going.
3 Packet Pg. 100
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
• On December 29, 2020, another failure of the seawall occurred approximately 150-200 feet north of the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Santa Rosa Avenue. A void, approximately 10’ deep by 15’ long, was found behind the seawall and was repaired with geotextiles and concrete slurry on January 5, 2021. Full restoration of this section was complete in February 2021. Monitoring of the repaired area is on-going. • On January 14, 2021, a combination of high tides and large waves damaged a forty-foot section of the Pacifica Municipal Pier’s west facing deck and concrete railing. Following this event, the Pier was closed due to safety concerns. City staff requested a structural engineering assessment of the above deck pier elements and a proposed repair and associated cost from a local engineering consultant. This information was provided to the City by the end of March 2021. The pier was reopened on April 2, 2021, but the damaged portion was fenced off for safety reasons. The City is currently moving forward with a repair project and is designing the repair. Construction will be funded by grant money provided through a Senate Bill 129. The City Council approved a resolution on December 13, 2021, to approve the application of the state grant funds for the repair of the pier and the application has been sent to the State Department of Parks and Recreation for processing. On May 13, 2022, the City received a Coastal Development Permit waiver from the California Coastal Commission to perform this work. A bid opening for the repair was held on June 9, 2022 and the City received one bid, which was $2 million above the project budget. Staff is recommending rejecting the bid, then prequalify other contractors for a future re-bid of the project. The City hopes to receive more competitive prices during the re-bid.

The City Council first ratified this proclamation (Attachment 1) at its regular meeting of January 25, 2016. Since that date, additional damage had occurred along Beach Boulevard and Esplanade Avenue as noted above.

Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on January 25, 2016, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency exists within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard every 30 days with July 11, 2022, being the most recent.

The City is using a combination of city staff, contractors, and consultants to manage the discussed emergency work. Staff will bring recommendations to the Council to end the emergency designation for projects on the list once conditions stabilize and the projects are no longer in need of the emergency designation.

The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:
3 Packet Pg. 101
Pacifica City Council 3
August 08, 2022
Engineering
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline From Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (PDF)
3 Packet Pg. 102
"ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline From Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (5061 :
"ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline From Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (5061 :

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

STAFF CONTACT:

Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works / City Engineer (650) 738-3771
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a report regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at Pacifica State Beach. After Public Works staff investigated the report, it was determined that the storm drain pumping system and roof/bathrooms were damaged during the fire. The engines were destroyed, and the pumps needed to be replaced.

The damage to the pump station threatened and continues to threaten the safety of persons and properties within the watershed due to the risk of flooding without an operational pump station.

The City of Pacifica’s Emergency Plan and Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empower the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, to proclaim the existence of a local emergency when there is an actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and properties within this City.

The proclamation is subject to ratification by the City Council within 7 days, pursuant to the Pacifica Municipal Code. The proclamation of the existence of a local emergency further designates the City Manager or designated representative to act on behalf of the City for public assistance and for individual assistance for purpose of receipt, processing and coordination of all inquiries and requirements necessary to obtain available State and Federal assistance.

Additionally, pursuant to Section 3-15.09 (A) of the Pacifica Municipal Code, in cases of an emergency the City Manager is authorized to proceed at once to replace or repair any public facility without adopting plans, specifications, or working details, or giving notice for bids to let contracts. The City must comply with Public Contract Code Section 22050, which provides a process for City Council’s review of the emergency action if notice of bids to let contracts for public projects will not be given because of the emergency.

In this case, the City Manager has determined that the damaged pump station threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure, which 4 Packet Pg. 105
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
requires immediate attention and constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code Section 1102.

Such conditions are, or are likely to be, beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency design and repair pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-15.09 without giving notice for bids to let contracts. Immediate action is, and continues to be necessary, due to the clear and imminent danger presented by any storm event that could occur during the time the storm water pump station is non-functional. Flooding could occur to areas upstream of the pump station, causing health and safety issues, as well as extensive property damage. As such, on April 8, 2020, the City Manager did proclaim the existence of a local emergency within the City and the need to continue the emergency action continues as the repair will take approximately 8-14 months or longer. The Proclamation of Local Emergency is attached to this staff report as Attachment 1.

City staff has contracted with the civil engineering firm of Schaaf & Wheeler of San Jose, California to assist the City with the rehabilitation of the pump station. In addition, the pump station has been cleared of any fire damaged debris and the damaged pumps/engines have been removed. On July 13, 2020, the City Council approved construction services agreement for rebuild and re-installation of a pump and gear drive, the renovation of bathrooms, purchase and installation of new stainless-steel doors, and repair pump station wet-well grates. As part of the on-going maintenance for the pump station, staff purchased a new pump which was approved by the Council at the August 9, 2020 City Council meeting. An emergency purchase agreement with Herc Rental for a temporary rental engine was also approved on September 1, 2020 and will remain in place until the pump station is operational. On October 12, 2020, temporary measures were completed to allow for a non-standard system of pumping at the Anza Pump Station until final repairs are completed. This work included a new pump, transfer switch, temporary roof, portable generator connections, and exterior double doors have been installed. Staff is continuing to evaluate and monitor storm water flows and purchased two new sump pumps to accommodate flows.

On May 10, 2021, City Council approved the purchase of two new Caterpillar engines utilizing the City’s established Sourcewell Cooperative Purchase Agreement. The rehabilitation plan is currently 100% completed, and staff has completed the engineering review. The roofing plan was approved by the Building Department. Staff has also completed selection of the Construction Management firm which was from the established On-Call Construction Management list. Staff is in the process of discussing permitting requirements for the overall project with the California Coastal Commission.

Staff completed the field portion of a topographic survey to support a PG&E application to reestablish natural gas service at the Anza Pump Station to supply the natural gas to run the prepurchased natural gas engines to drive the pumps. The City entered into an agreement with PG&E to tap the gas main and install a new gas meter. The City has also engaged a gas pipeline contractor for a quotation on installing the gas service line from the gas main to the gas meter. In addition, the City has submitted the Caltrans Encroachment Permit application required for gas service line construction on Highway 1 and has obtained a separate emergency Coastal Development Permit request with the California Coastal Commission for installation of the new gas line and a redundant pump/engine that was approved.

During a storm event on the morning of December 16, 2021, the City experienced some flooding in the lower Linda Mar area due to the temporary nonstandard pumping system that has been in use at Anza pump station due to the fire damaged pump station engines in March of 2020. This temporary system has been in place because the City has been working to reach 4 Packet Pg. 106
Pacifica City Council 3
August 08, 2022
agreement with the California Coastal Commission on the remaining permitting requirements for the permanent pumping system. The City faced several significant stormwater related events from October 2021 through December 2021 and will face more with the continuing storm season. Replacement of this temporary system is considered an emergency and staff is moving forward with construction of the permanent system. To further improve operations between now and when the Anza Pump Station Repair Project is completed, the City recently purchased a small diesel engine that will be used to drive one of the existing smaller stormwater pumps, thereby improving pump station resiliency in the interim. Staff issued a public request to prequalify bidders for the Anza Pump Station project in December 2021. Ultimately, two contractors were deemed qualified to bid on the project. Both contactors submitted bids for the project in February of 2022. The contractors specialize in pump stations.

As of May 1, 2022, the Anza Pump Station Repair Project’s General Contractor, DW Nicholson (DWN), has begun the work and is focusing on providing project equipment submittals and requests for information (RFIs). DWN is also onsite and commencing with some of the demolition inside the pump station in preparation for installing the new roof in the June/July timeframe. City consultant team members Schaaf and Wheeler (engineer of record providing construction support) and Ghirardelli and Associates (third-party construction manager) are working closely with City staff to process paperwork and response to questions and issues as they arise. Additionally, fencing was installed around the perimeter of the pump station building for safety related to the active construction site, at the beginning of June 2022. Active construction has commenced at the Anza Pump Station site. The Contractor is installing internal structural elements to support roof installation which is anticipated to be completed late August or early September. The Contractor continues to submit shop drawing submittals and requests for information, which the City’s construction management team reviews and responds to accordingly. The City has increased the number of portable bathrooms to a total of nine units.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on April 13, 2020, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency at the Anza Pump Station every 30 days with July 11, 2022, being the most recent.

The City is using a combination of city staff, consultants, and contractors to manage the emergency work related to the Anza Pump Station repair project. The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach. Staff will continue to update the Council on the progress of this emergency work monthly through the emergency declaration Council reports
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to continue this local emergency.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:
4 Packet Pg. 107
Pacifica City Council 4
August 08, 2022
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (PDF)
4 Packet Pg. 108
RESOLUTION NO. 19-2020

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY AT THE

ANZA PUMP STATION AT THE PACIFICA STATE BEACH
______________________________________________________
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.05 of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) designate the City Manager as the Director of Emergency Services; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 4-2.05(a) empower the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when said city is affected or likely to be affected by an emergency, subject to ratification by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.02 of the PMC defines "emergency" as the “actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within this City caused by such conditions as earthquake, hazardous materials, plane crash, landslide, tsunami, epidemic, flood, riot, fire, or other conditions, including conditions resulting from a labor controversy, which conditions are or are likely to be beyond the capability of control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of this City, requiring the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat”; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to confirmation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, on Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a report regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach; and WHEREAS, after Public Works staff investigated the report, it was determined that the storm drain pumping system was damaged during the fire and that the engine and the motors would need to be replaced; and
WHEREAS, the damage to this pump station threatens the safety of persons and properties within the watershed due to the risk of flooding that can occur without an operational pump station; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that the damaged pump station threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure due to the risk of flooding and requires immediate attention and repair and as such constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code section 1102; and WHEREAS, such conditions are beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency repair pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-15.09 without giving notice for bids to let contract, ATTACHMENT 1

4.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5062 : Continuance pursuant to Public Contract Code 22050; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2020, the City Manager, in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of local emergency in the City of Pacifica, after determining that the damaged condition of the Anza Pump Station is likely to create conditions of disaster or extreme peril which will be beyond the services, personnel and equipment and facilities of the City; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 4-2.05(a) the City Council must take action to confirm the proclamation within 7 and in accordance with Public Contract Code section 22050 which requires confirmation by 2/3 of Council within 14 days of the emergency action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said Proclamation of Existence of Local Emergency, as issued by said City Manager in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, which is attached hereto as Attachment “A”, is hereby ratified and approved by the City of Pacifica City Council.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said local emergency is confirmed to exist and shall be deemed to continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Pacifica.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during the existence of this local emergency, the powers, functions and duties of the Director of Emergency Services, and the emergency organization of the City of Pacifica shall be those prescribed by state law, by the existing ordinances and resolutions of the City of Pacifica, as well as this resolution and any subsequent emergency orders of the City Council. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of April 2020, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers: Martin, Beckmeyer, Vaterlaus, Bier, O’Neill NOES, Councilmembers: None.

ABSENT, Councilmembers: None.

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers: None.

CITY OF PACIFICA
Deirdre Martin, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

4.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5062 : Continuance

PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to confirmation by the City Council at the earliest possible time; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, on Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a call regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach; and WHEREAS, after Public Works staff investigated, and determined that the storm drain pumping system was damaged during the fire; and
WHEREAS, the damage to the pump system threatens the safety of persons and property, including critical public infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, such conditions are or are likely to be beyond the handling capabilities of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency repair; and
WHEREAS, the City provides this written notification to the San Mateo County and State CalEMA’s Regional and Headquarter offices of a proclamation of local emergency; and WHEREAS, such proclamation shall be subject to confirmation by the Pacifica City Council at the earliest possible time.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that, in accordance with State Law and the City of Pacifica Municipal Code, the Director of Emergency Services proclaims the existence of a local emergency for the Anza Pump Station.

DATED: April 8, 2020
By:_____________________________
Kevin Woodhouse
Director of Emergency Services
Attachment 1

4.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5062 : Continuance

4.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5062 : Continuance

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On March 16, 2020, the City Manager, acting in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to PMC 4-2.05(a) and executed the "Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19")" ("Proclamation"). On March 18, 2020, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 18-2020 to ratify the Proclamation of local emergency due to COVID-19 (Attachment 1). The City’s Proclamation was sent to San Mateo County Offices of Emergency Services and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) and allows the City to seek state and federal funds relating to the emergency.

This proclamation of local emergency was based on the following findings.

BACKGROUND:

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. On January 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a Public Health Emergency for the United States of America. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) determined the virus presents a serious public health threat, requiring coordination among state and local health departments to ensure readiness for potential health threats associated with the virus.

On March 3, 2020 both the Director of Emergency Services of the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Health Officer issued proclamations of local emergencies based on the imminent and proximate threat to public health from the introduction of COVID-19 in San Mateo County. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors ratified both proclamations on March 10, 2020.
5 Packet Pg. 113
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
On March 4, 2020 Governor Gavin 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 broader spread of COVID-19.

On March 11, 2020 the WHO declared a global pandemic due to the significant spread of the virus and the increased numbers of confirmed cases worldwide.

On March 13, 2020, then President Donald J. Trump issued a Proclamation Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak finding that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constituted a national emergency, beginning as of March 1, 2020.

As of June 15, 2021, the California Governor terminated the Executive Orders that put into place the Stay Home Order and the Blueprint for a Safer Economy, and also phased out the majority of executive actions put in place since March 2020 as part of the pandemic response, leaving a subset of provisions in place that facilitate the ongoing recovery. Governor’s Orders currently in effect were N-07-21 and N-08-21, both adopted on June 11, 2021.

The California State Public Health Officer issued a new Order on June 11, 2021 to be effective June 15, 2021, which supercedes all prior State health orders. Restrictions that ended on June 15, 2021 include: physical distancing, capacity limits on businesses and the County tier system.

Starting on June 15, 2021, California reopened the economy and the state moved beyond the Blueprint for a Safer Economy system. All sectors listed in the current Blueprint returned to usual operations based on general public health recommendations. Starting on June 15, capacity and distancing restrictions were lifted for most businesses and activities.

In March 2020, the City closed public access to many City facilities, consistent with the State and County health orders in effect at that time. City operations continued with adjusted programs and services, staffing levels and modified operations to support a predominantly remote work model in order to protect public safety and to limit the potential for exposure to the COVID-19 virus. The City has further modified its operations and guidelines based on the orders and guidelines that went into effect on June 15, 2021.

Governor’s Executive Order N-08-21 continues modifications of the Brown Act to allow for local legislative bodies to hold meetings via teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, and supersedes the provisions previously set forth in Executive Order N-29-20, paragraph 3. These provisions of Executive Order N-08-21, subsection 42 applied though September 30, 2021.

On August 2, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo issued Order No. C19-12 mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, with limited exceptions. This Order was issued due to evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant circulating in San Mateo County. This variant is highly transmissible in indoor settings. San Mateo County Health Order No. C19-12 was ordered effective at 12:01 am on August 3, 2021 and will continue to be in effect until extended, rescinded, superseded, or amended in writing by the Health Officer.

On September 16, 2021, Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) was signed by the Governor and went into effect immediately upon signature as urgency legislation (codified under Government Code § 54953). AB 361 amends the Brown Act to provide additional provisions that allow meetings of 5 Packet Pg. 114
Pacifica City Council 3
August 08, 2022
legislative bodies to be conducted via teleconference.

Order No. C19-12 issued on August 2, 2021 by the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings remains in effect. The City's current practices at City facilities conform to the Health Order currently in effect.

In late November 2021, a new concerning COVID-19 variant was discovered and identified as the Omicron variant. The Omicron variant spreads rapidly even amongst some vaccinated individuals.

In December 2021, in response to the rapid spread of the Omicron variant, the California Department of Public Health issued guidance requiring masking indoors through January 15, 2022. This requirement was subsequently extended to February 15, 2022.

On January 8, 2002, the California Department of Public Health issued Updated Guidance for Local Health Jurisdictions on Isolation and Quarantine of the General Public (Link). This guidance updates isolation and quarantine recommendations in alignment with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recommends additional mitigation measures to exit isolation and quarantine, and clarifies that fully-vaccinated persons who are booster-eligible, but have not yet received their booster dose are now recommended to quarantine per updated CDC recommendations. The San Mateo County Health Department may adopt stricter guidance but has not done so as of the date of this report.

With COVID-19 case rates subsiding in early February 2022, on February 9, 2022, the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that San Mateo County would align with the state in lifting its indoor mask mandate for vaccinated persons beginning February 16, 2022.

Effective March 1, 2022, the State revised its mask mandate requirement such that unvaccinated individuals are no longer required to mask in indoor public settings; however, it is strongly recommended that all persons, regardless of vaccine status, continue indoor masking.

Universal masking shall remain required in specified high-risk settings such as public transportation; health care settings; congregate settings; long term care facilities; and in K-12 schools and childcare settings. As of March 11, 2022, the universal masking requirement for K12 and Childcare settings was terminated.

CURRENT ANALYSIS:

There have been no changes to State or County Health Orders or mandates with respect to COVID-19 that have a material effect on the City’s operations since the last update brought to Council at the July 11, 2022 regular meeting. However, the County of San Mateo Health Officer update as of August 2, 2022 reports that San Mateo County remains in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) High/Red COVID-19 Community Level category, as does most of the Bay Area region, with a longer phase of high transmission of COVID-19 that experienced in prior periods. Substantial COVID-19 virus transmission in San Mateo County influenced by the BA.5 variant that is now dominant in California. The Health Officer’s August 2, 2022 update is the most recent available on the San Mateo County Health website as of the time of this agenda publication. The CDC recommends that residents wear a mask indoors in public and on public transportation, and the San Mateo County Health urges residents, even those who are vaccinated and boosted, to wear high-quality (N95/KN95) masks indoors, businesses and event hosts to consider requiring masks for participants in indoor activities. Transmission of COVID-19 5 Packet Pg. 115
Pacifica City Council 4
August 08, 2022
remains high in our community, reflecting the continued dominance of the BA.5 variant.

Vaccination remains very important to protect against severe illness and death.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None by this action; however, continuation of the local emergency will facilitate the ability for the City to request resources including financial support and reimbursement from the State Office of Emergency Services (OES) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for costs incurred in preparation and/or response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 116

5.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5075 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5075 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5075 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5075 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5075 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5075 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of a Resolution Making Findings as Required by AB 361 to Continue to Permit the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to Conduct Teleconferenced Meetings Due to Health and Safety Concerns Relating to COVID-19
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt a Resolution making findings pursuant to AB 361 to authorize the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19.

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
650-738-7409
[email protected]
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:

On March 4, 2020 Governor Gavin 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 broader spread of COVID-19. On March 16, 2020, the City Manager, acting in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to PMC 4-2.05(a) and executed the "Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19")" ("Proclamation"). On March 18, 2020, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 18-2020 to ratify the Proclamation of local emergency due to COVID-19 and continues to affirm the existence of the local emergency.

Beginning with the Special City Council Meeting held on March 18, 2020 for the purpose of adopting Resolution No. 18-2020 ratifying the City Manager’s Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus (“COVID-19”), all City Council, Committee and Commission meetings have been held via videoconference using a Zoom Meeting or Zoom Webinar platform with no physical meeting location open to the public. The Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20 suspended certain requirements of the Brown Act to allow for public meetings to be held via teleconferenced meetings, either via audio or video or both, for all members of the body to participate from remote locations with no physical meeting location open to the public.

The Governor’s Executive Order N-08-21 issued on June 11, 2021 provided local jurisdictions a 6 Packet Pg. 123
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
basis upon which to continue conducting public meetings via videoconference without a physical location open to the public under the relaxed provisions of the Brown Act until September 30, 2021.

Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) was signed by the Governor on September 16, 2021 and went into effect immediately upon signature as urgency legislation (codified under Government Code § 54953). AB 361 amends the Brown Act to provide additional provisions that allow meetings of legislative bodies to be conducted via teleconference. Its provisions allow a local agency legislative body to meet without complying with the standard teleconferencing requirements of the Brown Act if the Governor has proclaimed a State of Emergency and any of the following occurs:
1) State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing,
2) the meeting is being held for the purposes of determining, by a majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees;
3) the legislative body has determined that as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

In addition, AB 361 adds new procedures and clarifies the requirements for conducting remote meetings, including the following:
• Public Comment Opportunities in Real Time - a legislative body that meets remotely pursuant to AB 361 must allow members of the public to access the meeting via a call-in option or an internet-based service option, and the agenda for the remote meeting must provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the body in real time. A legislative body cannot require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting.
• No Action During Disruptions - in the event of a disruption that prevents the local agency from broadcasting the remote meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control that prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from taking any further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access is restored.
• Periodic Findings - Government Code § 54953(e)(B) requires the legislative body to hold a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risk to the health or safety of attendees.
6 Packet Pg. 124
Pacifica City Council 3
August 08, 2022
AB 361 will sunset on January 1, 2024.

DISCUSSION:

At the regular meeting of the City Council held on October 11, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 63-2021 making findings as required by AB 361 to permit the City Council and City Committees and Commissions to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to the health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19. The resolution also directed staff to agendize for Council consideration no less than every 30 days the need to continue to utilize teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361. The City Council subsequently adopted Resolution No. 69-2021 on November 8, 2021; Resolution No. 80-2021 on December 13, 2021; Resolution No. 01-2022 on January 10, 2022; and Resolution No. 07-2022 on February 14, 2022 re-affirming the findings required by AB 361 to continue to conduct teleconferenced public meetings due to COVID-19 risk.

With the COVID-19 update provided at the City Council meeting held on February 28, 2022, it was reported that although the Omicron variant spread rapidly during and after the December 2021 holiday season, with positive case rates spiking in mid-January 2022, there had been a dramatic decrease in positive cases in the third week of February, the health effects of the Omicron variant generally much less severe for vaccinated persons, and San Mateo County has a 93.9% vaccination rate for 5+ age. Effective February 16, 2022, the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that Health Officer Order No. c19-12 (For The Wearing of Face Coverings In Workplaces And Public Settings issued on August 2, 2021) was rescinded in full.

As a result of the decrease in case rates, lower health risks and higher vaccination rates, at the City Council meeting held on February 28, 2022, the City Manager had recommended the return to in-person City Council and City Committee and Commission meetings beginning March 14, 2022. The City Council approved of the return to in-person meetings beginning March 14, 2022 by majority vote at the February 28, 2022 City Council meeting.

At the City Council meeting held on May 23, 2022, with the increase in COVID-19 incidence and transmission and the vulnerability of certain segments of the population, the City Council authorized public meetings of the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to return to teleconferenced meetings with no physical location open to the public due to the health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19 with the adoption of Resolution No. 23-2022, and the City Council continued those findings on June 13, 2022 and July 11, 2022 with the adoption of Resolution Nos. 26-2022 and 41-2022, respectively.

The County of San Mateo Health Officer update as of August 2, 2022 reports that San Mateo County remains in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) High/Red COVID-19 Community Level category, as does most of the Bay Area region, with a longer phase of high transmission of COVID-19 than experienced in prior periods. The number of patients hospitalized in San Mateo County with COVID-19 was 58 as of August 1, 2022 and has fluctuated between 30 and 60 for most of the last two and a half months; this number of hospitalized patients is comparable to the height of the Delta surge a year ago. The Health Officer’s August 2, 2022 update is the most recent available on the San Mateo County Health 6 Packet Pg. 125
Pacifica City Council 4
August 08, 2022
website as of the time of this agenda publication. The CDC recommends that residents wear a mask indoors in public and on public transportation, and the San Mateo County Health urges residents, even those who are vaccinated and boosted, to wear high-quality (N95/KN95) masks indoors, businesses and event hosts to consider requiring masks for participants in indoor activities. Transmission of COVID-19 remains high in our community, reflecting the continued dominance of the BA.5 variant. Vaccination remains very important to protect against severe illness and death.

The enclosed Resolution continues to make the required findings under AB 361, and if adopted, it will allow the City to continue to conduct City Council and City Commission and Committee meetings via teleconference with no physical location open to the public, to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19, as well as during other state-proclaimed emergencies, such as earthquakes or wildfires, where physical attendance may present a risk.

The resolution also directs staff to agendize for Council consideration no less than every 30 days the need to continue to utilize teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361 if found that there is a continued risk to public health and safety.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“An Engaged Community” - includes taking actions to restore trust in city government, expanding communication, and building community.
“Maintaining a Safe Community” - includes support our first responders (police, fire, public works), responding to emergencies, protecting people, property, businesses, and our infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, storm and waste water), and engaging in emergency preparedness and prevention activities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (PDF)
Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 126
Pacifica City Council 5
August 08, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA MAKING FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY AB 361 TO PERMIT THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY

COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNCIL TO CONDUCT

TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS DUE TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS RELATING TO COVID-19
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, as part of the State of California’s response to address the global COVID-19 outbreak, Governor Gavin 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 broader spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, at 12:11 p.m., the City Manager, in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of local emergency in the City of Pacifica, after determining that the rapidly widespread of COVID-19 is likely to create conditions of disaster or extreme peril which will be beyond the services, personnel and equipment and facilities of the City and executed the “Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”)” (“Proclamation”); and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 18-2020 ratifying the “Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”)”, which continues to remain in place; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the Governor of California executed Executive Order N-29-20 which suspended and modified specified provisions in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section § 54950 et seq.) and authorized local legislative bodies to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and address the local legislative body; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo issued Order No. C19-12 mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, with limited exceptions due to the COVID-19 Delta variant circulating in San Mateo County and evidence of the Delta variant being highly transmissible in indoor settings; and
6 Packet Pg. 127
Pacifica City Council 6
August 08, 2022
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, the Governor of California executed Executive Order N-08-21 which extended the provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 concerning teleconference accommodations for public meetings through September 30, 2021; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the Governor of California signed into law Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361, Rivas) (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) amending Government Code § 54953 and providing alternative teleconferencing requirements to conduct public meetings during a proclaimed state of emergency; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica has conducted public meetings of City Council and City Committees and Commissions via teleconference from March 18, 2020 through March 13, 2022 under the modified provisions of the Brown Act as allowed for by Governor’s Orders N-29-20, N-08-21 and/or N-15-21 in effect at the time; and WHEREAS, AB 361 (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) imposes requirements to ensure members of the public are able to attend and participate in public meetings conducted via teleconference, including:
• 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;
• The legislative body shall take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored; • Prohibits the legislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and specifies that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body and offer comments in real time;
• Prohibits the legislative body from closing the public comment period until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed; and WHEREAS, the City has already implemented and is in full compliance with the requirements listed above when conducting public meetings via teleconference, which are now codified in Government Code § 54953(e)(2)(B-G); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code § 54953(e)(B), the legislative body shall hold a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees. The City Council must make these findings no later than 30 days after the first teleconferenced meeting is held pursuant to AB 361 (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) after September 30, 2021, and must also make these findings 6 Packet Pg. 128
Pacifica City Council 7
August 08, 2022
every 30 days thereafter, in order to continue to allow teleconference accessibility for conducing public meetings; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo issued Order No. C19-12 mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, with limited exceptions. This Order was issued due to evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant circulating in San Mateo County.

This variant is highly transmissible in indoor settings. San Mateo County Health Order No.

C19-12 was ordered effective at 12:01 am on August 3, 2021; and WHEREAS, in December 2021 and January 2022 the COVID-19 Omicron variant has been observed by scientists and medical professionals to spread rapidly even amongst some vaccinated individuals and continues to present a health and safety risk to the general public; and
WHEREAS, effective February 16, 2022 the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that Health Officer Order No. c19-12 (For The Wearing of Face Coverings In Workplaces And Public Settings issued on August 2, 2021) was rescinded in full); and WHEREAS, to the County of San Mateo Health Officer strongly recommends getting vaccinated or boosters for COVID-19, improve ventilation throughout indoor spaces as much as possible, wear a well-fitting mask in crowded indoor public places, and continue to follow State isolation and quarantine guidance to prevent the spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, as of June 30, 2022, San Mateo County has moved from the “Medium/Yellow” to the “High/Red” category for COVID-19 community levels within the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) rubric based on the higher of new admissions and inpatient beds metrics in the past 7 days, driven by increasing hospitalizations in San Mateo and San Francisco counties and demand on local health care systems; and WHEREAS, as of August 2, 2022, the County of San Mateo Health Officer update indicates that San Mateo County remains in the CDC “High/Red” COVID-19 community level category with a longer phase of high transmission of COVID-19 than experienced in prior periods, transmission of COVID-19 remains high in our community reflecting the continued dominance of the BA.5 variant, and the number of hospitalized patients has fluctuated between 30 and 60 for most of the last two and a half months and is comparable to the height of the Delta surge a year ago; and
WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has cautioned that some people and communities, such as our oldest citizens, people who are immunocompromised, and people with disabilities, are at higher risk for serious illness due to COVID-19 and should take additional precautions such as avoiding crowded indoor activities with poor ventilation; and
6 Packet Pg. 129
Pacifica City Council 8
August 08, 2022
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2022, June 13, 2022, and July 11, 2022 the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution Nos. 23-2022, 26-2022 and 41-2022, respectively, making findings as required by AB 361 to permit the City Council and City Committees and Commissions to conduct teleconferenced meetings to due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the City cannot ensure that social distancing can be maintained by Councilmembers, Commissioners, Committee members and/or members of the public in Council Chambers or at other locations where City Committees and Commissions regularly meet for the duration of meetings in order to safeguard the most vulnerable populations, and COVID-19 variants and transmission rates remain an imminent and serious risk to public health.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby declares that the recitals set forth above are true and correct, and incorporated into this resolution as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby declares that a state of emergency as a result of the threat of COVID-19 still exists and continues to impact the ability of members of the public, the City Council, Council appointed Commissions and Committees, City staff and consultants to meet safely in person and would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees.

SECTION 3. The State of California and the City of Pacifica continue to follow safety measures in response to COVID-19 as ordered or recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), California Department of Public Health (DPH), and/or County of San Mateo, as applicable, including facial coverings when required. Based upon that guidance, in person attendance indoors at public meetings continues to present a health risk for certain segments of the population, necessitating teleconferencing to allow for meaningful public participation options for all Pacifica constituents.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to the findings listed in this Resolution, the City Council and Council appointed Commissions and Committees are authorized to utilize teleconferencing to conduct public meetings pursuant to AB 361 and Government Code § 54953, as amended thereby.

SECTION 5. The City Council determines that, every 30 days, it will reconsider the circumstances of the emergency and review whether it continues to directly impact the ability of the Council and appointed Committees and Commissions members to meet safely in person.

SECTION 6. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City 6 Packet Pg. 130
Pacifica City Council 9
August 08, 2022
Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. Effective Date: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 8th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 6 Packet Pg. 131
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 Rivas. Open meetings: state and local agencies:
teleconferences.
(1) Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown 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 providing 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 over 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 allowed to address the legislative body at each teleconference location, that the legislative 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 agency’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 provisions, 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 law, the California Emergency Services Act, authorizes the Governor, or the Director of Emergency Services when the governor is inaccessible, to proclaim a state of emergency under specified circumstances.

Executive Order No. N-29-20 suspends the Ralph M. Brown 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 6.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, as specified.

This bill, until January 1, 2024, would authorize a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Ralph M. Brown Act when a legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency, 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 would require legislative bodies that hold teleconferenced meetings under these abbreviated teleconferencing procedures to give notice of the meeting and post agendas, as described, to allow 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 legislative body. The bill would require the legislative body to take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event 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 would prohibit the legislative 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 legislative 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 would require a legislative body to make specified findings not later than 30 days after the first teleconferenced meeting pursuant to these provisions, and to make those findings every 30 days thereafter, in order to continue to meet under these abbreviated teleconferencing procedures.

Existing law prohibits a legislative body from requiring, as a condition to attend a meeting, a person to register the person’s name, or to provide other information, or to fulfill any condition precedent to the person’s attendance.
92 Ch. 165 — 2 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) 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 Bagley-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 physically 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 Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act 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 state body at the meeting, and that a state body has a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, as specified.

This bill, until January 31, 2022, would authorize, subject to specified notice and accessibility requirements, a state body to hold public meetings through teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe 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 existing 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 offer public comment. The bill would require that each state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing provide notice of the meeting, and post the agenda, as provided. The bill would 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 organization 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, would authorize, subject to specified notice and accessibility requirements, a legislative body, as defined for purposes of the act, to hold public meetings through teleconferencing and 92 — 3 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) to make 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 legislative body holding a public meeting pursuant to these provisions, the bill would suspend certain requirements of existing law, 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 legislative 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 legislative body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. The bill would require that each legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing provide 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 Legislature’s intent, consistent with the Governor’s Executive Order No. N-29-20, to improve 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 laws 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 would declare that it is to take 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 provision 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 Ch. 165 — 4 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) and make 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 legislative 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 legislative body, or the public, as a condition of participation in or quorum for a public meeting, are hereby suspended.
(2)  For a legislative 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 legislative 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 observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, consistent with the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), shall have satisfied any requirement that the legislative 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 individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and resolving any doubt whatsoever in favor of accessibility.
(2)  Advertise that procedure each time notice is given of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer 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 — 5 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (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 observe the meeting and offer public comment. As to any instance in which there is a change in the means of public observation and comment, or any 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 available 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 legislative 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 transparency and provide the public access to legislative body meetings.
(g)  This section shall remain in effect 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 any other provision 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 observe 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 physically 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 observe and address the meeting telephonically 92 Ch. 165 — 6 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) 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 make available any physical location from which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment.
(d)  If a state 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 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 individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and resolving any doubt whatsoever in favor of accessibility.
(2)  Advertise that procedure each time notice is given of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer 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 observe the meeting and offer public comment. As to any instance in which there is a change in the means of public observation and comment, or any 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 available 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 effect 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 — 7 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) 54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislati
ve 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 agency, except as otherwise provided 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 agency in connection with any 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 provisions of law 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 any 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 agency. 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 legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall provide 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 legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

6.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (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 would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, 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 subdivision 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 any 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 have 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 vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would 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 emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(2)  A legislative body that holds a meeting pursuant to this subdivision 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 provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3. 92 — 9 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) 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 give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer 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 legislative 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 prevents 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 event 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 take 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 legislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time.

6.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (3)  If a state of emergency remains acti
ve, 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 legislative 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 subdivision, “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 legislative body of a local agency in person, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. Local agencies shall conduct meetings subject to this chapter consistent with applicable state and federal civil rights laws, including, but not limited to, any 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 agency in connection with any 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 provisions of law 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 any 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 agency. 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 legislative body 92 — 11 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory o ver
which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall provide 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 legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agency from providing the public with additional teleconference locations.
(c)  (1)  No legislative body shall take 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 subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 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 would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, 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 subdivision 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 any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter 92 Ch. 165 — 12 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19)

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 give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer 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 legislative 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 prevents 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 event 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 take 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 legislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must provide an opportunity for 92 — 13 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) the public to address the legislati
ve 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 legislative body, that requires registration to log in to a teleconference may be required to register 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 register, pursuant to subparagraph (F), to provide public comment until that timed public comment period has elapsed.
(ii)  A legislative body that does not provide 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 register pursuant to subparagraph (F), or otherwise be recognized for the purpose of providing public comment. (iii)  A legislative body that provides 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 register, 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 legislative 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 subdivision, “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 Ch. 165 — 14 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) of the legislati
ve body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided 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 agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law 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 any 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 agency. 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 legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall provide 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 legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agency from providing the public with additional teleconference locations
(c)  (1)  No legislative body shall take 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 subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 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 — 15 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) 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 would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, 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 subdivision 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 any 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 legislative body of a local agency, in person except as otherwise provided in this chapter. Local agencies shall conduct meetings subject to this chapter consistent with applicable state and federal civil rights laws, including, but not limited to, any 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 agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law 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 any 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 Ch. 165 — 16 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) legislati
ve body of a local agency. 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 legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall provide 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 legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

6.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) 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 any 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 Government 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 effective on or before January 1, 2022, but this bill becomes operative 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 agency meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic and future applicable emergencies, by allowing broader access through teleconferencing options consistent with the Governor’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 subdivision (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 allowing 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 Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government 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 regardless 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 Ch. 165 — 18 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (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 Government 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 physical 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 physical location over 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 families while preserving the public’s right to access information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.

SEC. 9. This act is an urgency 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 providing essential services like water, power, 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 — 19 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19)

6.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5076 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2022.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Fiscal Sustainability remains one of the City Council Strategic Goals, which includes planning for and implementing long-term financial health and stability. A key component of this goal includes preparing a quarterly financial report that would provide readers with an executive summary of the City’s current economic conditions related to the annual operating budget.

Staff is pleased to implement the new financial reporting practice on a quarterly basis that started last fiscal year to ensure accountability and transparency in managing public funds. This work is especially meaningful as we are monitoring the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the local economy and the City’s financial health.

This report reflects the financial results for the 3rd Quarter of FY 2021-22. On June 28, 2021, the City Council adopted the structurally balanced FY 2021-22 Budget that included the revenue assumptions going into the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, as the COVID situation is still uncertain, it is remains critical to continue monitoring the City’s financial position at the end of each quarter.

Finance staff has completed the third quarter of the Fiscal Year 2021-22. The Third Quarter Financial Report summarizes the City’s General Fund and is not meant to be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions. This report intends to provide the Council and the public with a broad overview of the City’s fiscal condition, as the General Fund is the primary operating fund of the City and is used to account for most operational activities.

This report provides an update on the financial status of the City’s General Fund by outlining the revenues and expenditures for the quarter ending March 31, 2022.

General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund and is used to account for day-to-day activities. It receives unrestricted revenues and provides the City’s general administrative services, law enforcement, fire, public works, parks, beaches and recreation, and community development-related activities such as planning, building, and engineering. Revenue sources include but are not limited to property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax (TOT), business 7 Packet Pg. 157
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
registration, and current fees for services such as parking charges, engineering, planning, and building permit fees, and recreation services.

The Third Quarter Financial Report for the City of Pacifica provides the financial status update of the City’s General Fund by outlining the revenues and expenditures as of March 31, 2022.

The Financial Report is prepared on a cash basis; therefore, only the revenue received by March 31, 2022, is reflected in the analysis. Likewise, expenditures are recorded when paid using the cash basis method of accounting.

With the completion of the Third Quarter, General Fund Revenues were at $31.7 million (80% of budget), and Expenditures were $27.7 million (74% of budget).

General Fund Operating expenditures are on target at the end of the Third Quarter, although total expenditures increased over the Third Quarter of the prior year. This is primarily due to higher salaries and benefits related to implementation of new MOU provisions and timing of filling vacancies. However, some departmental expenditures are slightly lower than prior year third quarter, mainly due to the timing of payments for goods and services and lower personnel cost due to the timing of filling vacancies in those departments.

Overall, the FY2021-22 Budget appears to be on track with revenues and expenditures performing as expected. The City’s operating expenditures are at 74% of the budget at the end of the Third Quarter. The slight increase in expenditures from prior year quarter is mainly attributable to salaries and benefits, including public safety staff overtime. These are only preliminary numbers as additional booking entries may occur throughout the year and during the fiscal year-end that may modify some figures presented in this report. However, overall it is encouraging that the budget appears to be on target at the end of the Third Quarter.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There is no reasonable alternative to this informational item, as not accepting the 3rd Quarter Financial Report will not change the City’s financial condition as of the end of the quarter ending March 31, 2022.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

This item furthers the City’s efforts toward Fiscal Sustainability.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the Council’s acceptance of this report.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Q3 21-22 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1(PDF) 7 Packet Pg. 158
City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2021‐22
ThirdQuarter Financial Report
1 OVERVIEW
This Third Quarter Financial Report is an analysis of the unaudited financial status of the City’s General Fund from July 2021 through March 2022. The City of Pacifica has
completed the Third Quarter of the Fiscal Year 2021‐22.

The Third Quarter Financial Report will summarize the
City’s General Fund, and is not meant to be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions. The intent of this report is to provide the Council and the public a broad overview of the City’s fiscal condition, as the General Fund is the primary operating fund of the City and is used to account for most operational activities. The information presented in this report is unaudited and additional
adjustments may occur during the year-end process.

GENERAL FUND
General Fund Financial Condition: With three-forths of the year complete, General Fund Expenditures are at 74% of
projections, and revenues are at 80%. These figures exclude budgeted once-a-year operating and capital transfers.

Revenue exceeded expenditures for the third quarter as
revenues are typically more during the third quarter due to the timing of certain key revenues such as property tax, franchise fees, and sales tax. This year’s outlook is more optimistic compared to the prior year when the City
collected 64% of budgeted revenues at the end of the Q3.

Both expenditures and revenues are explained in more
detail below. The 49% increase in revenues over the third quarter from the prior year is due to the receipt of ARPA funds in July, 2021.
*Excludes operating and capital transfers
The General Fund Balance as of March 31, 2022 is $17.7
million. This is based on the audited fund balance as of the end of fiscal year 2020-21, excluding transfers and factoring in year‐to‐date revenue, expenditure, and encumbrance
activity.

Expenditures. Departmental operating expenditures are
on target at the end of the third quarter. The Planning & Building department show lower expenditures compared
to the budget in salaries and benefits category due to
vacancies and timing of payments for contractual services.

The General Government, Public Works, and PB&R
Departments are on target with their budget. Police and Fire Departments costs are slightly ahead of budget as a result of overtime costs exceeding budet. Nondepartmental is also slightly ahead of budget, due to certain expenses like insurance premiums being spend at the beginning of the year, but are expected to be at or slightly under budget by the end of the year. All
departments have an increase from the same quarter in
prior year, which are mostly attributed to increases in salaries and benefits as per new MOU provisions and filling vacancies. The following chart summarizes year‐to‐date
combined expenditures and encumbrances by
department as of the third quarter:

Revenues: The following is a summary of revenues as of
the end of the third quarter:

General Fund
Revenues by Type
Qtr 3
FY2020-21
Qtr 3
FY2021-22
FY2021-22
Budget
% Change
Q3 FY21 vs
Q3 FY22
Qtr 3
% Budget
Received
Property Tax 8,066,435 11,376,736 13,924,864 41% 82%
Sales Tax 1,438,607 1,589,423 2,559,413 10% 62%
Transient Occupancy Tax 806,879 857,319 1,750,423 6% 49% Other Taxes 3,419,057 3,460,943 5,454,306 1% 63%
Department/Program 5,402,272 6,979,645 10,179,827 29% 69% Grants 1,444,754 5,752,301 5,763,312 298% 100%
ERAF 737,600 1,726,995 88,000 134% 1962%
Total General Fund
Revenues 21,315,605 31,743,362 39,720,145 49% 80%

7.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Q3 21-22 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1 (5081 : Q3 Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2021‐22
ThirdQuarter Financial Report
Property Tax: Property Tax is the City’s largest revenue source. The first installment of the Property Tax payment was remitted to the City by the County of San Mateo in
December 2021 and the second and third installment in
January and March 2022. The City has received roughly 82% of the budgeted Property Tax revenue through March 31,
2022. The 41% change from the prior year 3rd quarter is due to certain payments being received on April 1, 2021 and recorded in the forth quarter vs. March 31, 2022 or second quarter this year. Asside from the timing of revenue being recieted, property tax has grown by 5.3% from last year.

Sales Tax: As of March 31, 2022, the City has received
about 62% of our budgeted Sales Tax revenues. There is a two month lag on the receipt of sales tax revenues and so the 62% only represents seven months of allocation. The Sales Tax revenue is about 10% higher than prior year third quarter showing the City’s recovery from the effects of COVID.

Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT): TOT revenues are
remitted approximately 30 days after the end of each
month, and revenues are not accrued at quarter‐end (as
they are at the end of the fiscal year), the third quarter reflects the months of July to February of TOT receipts. The TOT revenues show a increase of 6% compared to the third quarter of the prior year as hotels continue to rebound from COVID pandemic but the overall decline in occupancy rates of business and international travelers may still cause a lag in the hotel industry compared to the pre-COVID level.

Other Taxes: These include franchise tax, business license, utility users tax, ½ cent public safety sales tax and cannabis operations tax. Payments for most of these taxes are
remitted 30 days after the end of the month. As such, 63% of the budget has been received as of March 31, 2022,
representing about eight months of the reporting. The
total revenue is on a par with the prior year with only 1% more received as the third quarter.

Department/Programs: These include building permits,
engineering and planning fees, charges related to Parks, Beaches & Recreation programs and rentals. The City
received 69% of budget at the end of the third quarter.

Permits and planning fees tend to fluctuate based on the timing of projects, but the overall budget appears to be on track.

Grants: These include Police and all COVID-19 related
grants. The increase in grant revenues reflects the $4.6 million American Rescue Plan Act allocation from the State which was conservatively budgeted at $4.2 million based on the initial estimate. Last fiscal year’s third quarter revenue were from the CARES Act funding.

Excess ERAF: Although, the overall projection for the
Excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)
revenue of $2.5 million is consistent with the prior
allocations, the FY 2021-22 General Fund Budget only
included $88,000 of it to fund the community grant
program to local non-profit organizations as previously directed by the Council. The $1.5 million were allocated towards the Civic Center CIP and the remainder of $0.9
million was budgeted in the Disaster Recovery Fund,
which explains the budget variance over the prior year.

Based on the third quarter’s distribution, the Excess ERAF allocation exceeded the Budget, however all additional
funds in excess of the budget have been allocated to the Disaster Recovery fund per City policy. The properjournal entries will take place at the year-end to reflect this.

SUMMARY
Overall, staff is pleased to report that the FY2021-22
Budget appears to be on track with revenues and
expenditures performing as expected. The City’s
operating expenditures are at 74% of the budget at the
end of the third quarter. The slight increase in
expenditures from prior year quarter is mainly
attributable to salaries and benefits, including overtime.

These are only preliminary numbers as additional
booking entries may occur throughout the year and
during the fiscal year-end that may modify some figures presented in this report. However, overall it is
encouraging that the budget appears to be on target at
the end of the third quarter.
2 7.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Q3 21-22 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1 (5081 : Q3 Financial Report)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending March 31, 2022.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending March 31, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

The City Council adopted Administrative Policy 39 - Investment Policy to reflect current law and best practices in accordance with Government Code Section 53600 et seq. The policy provides guidelines for prudent investments and efficient cash management and requires the City to provide the governing body a report regarding the City’s investment activities on a quarterly basis to ensure “compliance” with the statement of investment policy.

The investment policies and practices of the City of Pacifica are strictly based on state law and prudent money management. The investment of funds for the City is directed to the goals of safety, liquidity, and yield, while meeting the cash flow needs of the City through a prudent investment of unexpended cash.

All funds are invested in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy and the authority governing investments set forth in the California Government Code, Sections 53601 through 53659. The investment policy for bond proceeds is contained in the relevant bond documents approved by the City Council at the time of the issuance of the debt.

As shown in the Treasurer’s Report (Attachment 1) the City’s investments are in external investment pools listed at cost, as well as its fair value, not amortized cost, in compliance with Governmental Accounting Standard Statement 31. The City’s cash and investment portfolio, at fair market value, as of March 31, 2022 is $49,114,592 of which $17,665,481 is placed with the State Controller’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), $7,972,615 is placed with US Bank, $387,273 is in the PARS Trust, $129,862 is placed in Bank of New York (BNY Mellon), $3,001,080 is in Roy Davies Trust, $19,941,420 in the Tri Counties Bank operating accounts, and $3,445 in Petty Cash held by various departments. The City included the checking account balances as part of the total investment report. Although checking accounts are not typical investment accounts, including those balances show the total cash on hand for the quarter.

The City’s investment portfolio decreased by $1,911,167, from $51,025,759, this reporting quarter ending March 31, 2022, compared to last quarter ending December 31, 2021. The slight decrease is primarily attributable to normal operating payments to vendors, payroll and annual debt service payments net of sales tax and other normal revenue receipts. The second 8 Packet Pg. 161
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
installment of the Property Tax, the City’s largest revenue source will be remitted in the following quarter.

The Treasurer’s Report includes details of cash and investments which are held by institutions.

The report also summarizes the City’s cash position and distribution across funds for the quarter ending March 31, 2022. Historical cash flow trends are compared to current cash flow requirements on an ongoing basis to ensure the City’s investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all reasonable anticipated operating requirements.

As of March 31, 2022, the portfolio contains sufficient liquidity to meet at the next six months of expected expenditures by the City.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There is no reasonable alternative to this informational item, as not accepting the 3rd Quarter Treasurer’s Report will not change the City’s cash position as of the end of the quarter ending March 31, 2022.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

This item furthers the City’s efforts toward Fiscal Sustainability.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this report, but Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports detail some of the fiscal activities that directly affect the City’s financial standing.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 – Treasurer's Report 03-31-22(PDF)
Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (PDF) 8 Packet Pg. 162
City of Pacifica
Treasurer's Report
March 31, 2022
Portfolio Summary
Par Value
GASB 31 Fair
Market Value Book Value % of Portfolio
General Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank $ 17,279,685 $ 17,279,685 17,279,685 35.18% Payroll Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank 526,424 526,424 526,424 1.07% Workers Compensation Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank 12,756 12,756 12,756 0.03% Senior Services Account with Tri Counties Bank 2,113,141 2,113,141 2,113,141 4.30% Turbo Data Account with Tri Counties Bank 9,415 9,415 9,415 0.02% Roy Davies Trust- Principal Account-Ladder Acct (Business) with City National Bank 2,973,165 2,973,165 2,973,165 6.05% Roy Davies Trust- Interest Account-Public Funds - Checking Acct with City National Bank 27,915 27,915 27,915 0.06% Petty Cash - Held by various Departments 3,445 3,445 3,445 0.01% Cash $ 22,945,945 $ 22,945,945 $ 22,945,945 46.72%
Investments
California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) $ 17,665,481 17,466,807 17,665,481 35.97% Bank of New York Mellon-Fund 91 - Cash & Short Term 129,862 129,862 129,862 0.26% Deutsche Bank-Cash-Earmarked for debt service - Energy Retrofit Lease 13,415 13,415 13,415 0.03% US Bank - Money Market Fund* 7,972,615 7,972,615 7,972,615 16.23% PARS Post-Employment Benefit Trust** 387,273 387,273 387,273 0.79% Total Investments $ 26,168,647 $ 25,969,973 $ 26,168,647 53.28% Total Cash and Investments $ 49,114,592 $ 48,915,918 $ 49,114,592 100.00% Yulia Carter Date
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer
*Includes available cash from the City's issuance of the 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bonds totaling $25.929 million. The initial proceeds were shown in the Cash and Investment report as of September 30, 2017. ** PARS Trust - Public Agency Retirement Services - invests in Capital Appreciation funds for the City's OPEB trust and Moderate Index funds for Pension trust.

The above investments are consistent with the City's Investment Policy and are allowable under current legislation of the State of California. Investments are selected using safety, liquidity, and yield as the criteria. The City has sufficient cash flow to cover anticipated expenditures through the next six months. 8/8/2022

8.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment 1 – Treasurer's Report 03-31-22 (5080 : Q3 Treasurer's Report) City of Pacifica
Treasurer's Report
March 31, 2022
Reconciliation to General Ledger
Description Bank Account # Amount
Tri Counties General Checking Account xx0541 $ 17,279,685 Tri Counties Payroll Account xx6915 $ 526,424
Tri Counties Workmens Comp Account xx1341 $ 12,756
Tri Counties Senior Services Account xx5996 $ 2,113,141 Tri Counties Turbo Data Account xx9758 $ 9,415
City National Bank Roy Davies Trust-Principal xx5367 $ 2,973,165 City National Bank Roy Davies Trust-Interest xx7033 $ 27,915 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) xx1614/xx1007 $ 17,665,481 Bank of New York Mellon xx0166/xx0167 $ 129,862
Deutsche Bank - Energy Retrofit Lease S80844.1 $ 13,415 US Bank - 2016 Refunding xx5000 $ 4,842
US Bank - 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bond-Project Fund xx2001 $ 4,029,156 US Bank - 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bond-Interest xx2003 $ 1 US Bank - 2019 Taxable Pension Obligation Bond Refunding-Debt Service xx4000 $ 0 US Bank - 2019 Taxable Pension Obligation Bond Refunding-Cost of Issuance xx4003 $ 3,066 US Bank - 2021 Civic Center Bonds xx9000 $ 3,935,550
Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) - Post Employment Benefit Trust $ 387,273 Petty Cash $ 3,445
Total Cash per Bank Statements $ 49,114,592
Description GL Account # Amount
Cash in Bank xx.xxxxxx.11000.xxxx.xxx $ 20,515,832
Cash in Bank - Payroll xx.xxxxxx.11002.xxxx.xxx $ (488,653) Petty Cash xx.xxxxxx.11100.xxxx.xxx $ 3,445
Investments - LAIF 01.000000.11290.0000.000 $ 17,664,837 Investments - LAIF 22.900000.11292.0000.000 $ 644
PARS Trusts-Pension 01.000000.11297.0000.000 $ 193,857
PARS Trusts-Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 01.000000.11298.0000.000 $ 193,416 Reserve Cash-2014 Wastewater Revenue Refunding 18.940000.11032.0000.000 $ 0 Reserve Cash-2017 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Project 18.940000.11033.0000.000 $ 4,029,156 Reserve Cash-2017 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Interest 18.940000.11034.0000.000 $ 1 Cash with Fiscal Agent 22.900000.11022.0000.000 $ 13,415 R Davies Trust - Principal 27.900000.11293.0000.000 $ 2,973,165 R Davies Trust - Interest 27.900000.11296.0000.000 $ 27,915 Cash Reserve - 2016 Cost of Issuance 40.880000.11025.0000.000 $ 4,836 Cash Reserve - 2016 Lease Payment 40.880000.11026.0000.000 $ 6 Cash Reserve - 2019 POB Refunding 40.880000.11036.0000.000 $ 0 Cash Reserve - 2019 POB Cost of Issuance 40.880000.11037.0000.000 $ 3,066 City of Pacifica 2021 Project Fund xx.xx0000.110xx.0000.000 $ 3,935,550 Debt Service Reserve Fund - 2004 TAB 91.960000.11019.0000.000 $ 129,862 Cash with Fiscal Agent 91.960000.11020.0000.000 $ 0
Total Cash per General Ledger $ 49,200,351
Tri Counties Bank reconciliation adjustments and timing differences $ (85,759) Total Reconciled GL Cash $ 49,114,592

8.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment 1 – Treasurer's Report 03-31-22 (5080 : Q3 Treasurer's Report) 1 | P a g e
City of Pacifica
Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms
Agency: Federal agency securities and /or Government-sponsored enterprises.

Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR): The official annual financial report for the City of Pacifica. It includes a combined set of statements for each individual fund and account group prepared with the accounting requirements established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). It also includes supporting schedules necessary to demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal and contractual provisions, extensive introductory material, and a detailed Statistical Section.

Bankers’ Acceptance (BA): A draft or bill or exchange accepted by a bank or trust company.

The accepting institution guarantees payment of the bill, as well as the issuer.

Book Value: The value at which a security or investment is carried on the financial records of its owner. This value may be the original cost of acquisition of the security or original cost adjusted by amortization of a premium or accretion of a discount. The book value may differ from the security’s current market value.

Broker: A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a commission.

California Local Government Debt: Is bonds, notes, warrants, or other evidences of indebtedness of any local agency within California. California local government debt is a permitted investment under the California Government Code. The Government Code does not specify minimum credit ratings for local government debt in which local agencies may invest.

Certificate of Deposit (CD): A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate.

Large-denomination CD’s are typically negotiable.

Collateral: Securities, evidence of deposit of other property which a borrower pledges to secure repayment of a loan. Also refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure deposits of public monies.

Coupon: (a) The annual rate of interest that a bond’s issuer promises to pay the bondholder on the bond’s face value. (b) A certificate attached to a bond evidencing interest due on a payment date.

Dealer: A dealer, as opposed to a broker, acts as a principal in all transactions, buying and selling for his own account.

Debenture: A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer.

Delivery versus Payment: There are two methods of delivery of securities: delivery versus payment and delivery versus receipt. Delivery versus payment is delivery of securities with an

8.b
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5080 : Q3 Treasurer's Report) 2 | P a g e
exchange of money for the securities. Delivery versus receipt is delivery of securities with an exchange of a signed receipt for the securities.

Derivatives: (1) Financial instruments whose return profile is linked to, or derived from, the movement of one or more underlying index or security, and may include a leveraging factor, or (2) financial contracts based upon notional amounts whose value is derived from an underlying index or security (interest rates, foreign exchange rates, equities or commodities).

Discount: The difference between the cost price of a security and its maturity when quoted at lower than face value. A security selling below original offering price shortly after sale also is considered to be at a discount.

Diversification: Dividing investment funds among a variety of securities offering independent returns.

Federal Credit Agencies: Agencies of the Federal government set up to supply credit to various classes of institutions and individuals, e.g., S&L’s, small business firms, students, farmers, farm cooperatives, and exporters.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): A federal agency that insures bank deposits, currently up to $250,000 per deposit.

Federal Funds Rate: The rate of interest at which Fed funds are traded. This rate is currently pegged by the Federal Reserve through open-market operations.

Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLB): Government sponsored wholesale banks (currently 12 regional banks) which lend funds and provide correspondent banking services to member commercial banks, thrift institutions, credit unions and insurance companies. The mission of the FHLB is to liquefy the housing related assets of its members who must purchase stock in their district Bank.

Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA): FNMA, like GNMA was chartered under the Federal National Mortgage Association Act in 1938. FNMA is a federal corporation working under the auspices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is the largest single provider of residential mortgage funds in the United States. Fannie Mae, as the corporation is called, is a private stockholder-owned corporation. The corporation’s purchases include a variety of adjustable mortgages and second loans, in addition to fixed-rate mortgages.

FNMA’s securities are also highly liquid and are widely accepted. FNMA assumes and guarantees that all security holders will receive timely payment of principal and interest.

Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC): Consists of seven members of the Federal Reserve Board and five of the twelve Federal Reserve and Presidents. The President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is a permanent member, while the other Presidents serve on a rotating basis. The Committee periodically meets to set Federal Reserve guidelines regarding purchases and sales of Government Securities in the open market as a means of influencing the volume of bank credit and money.

8.b
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5080 : Q3 Treasurer's Report) 3 | P a g e
Federal Reserve System: The central bank of the United States created by Congress and consisting of a seven-member Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., 12 regional banks and about 5,700 commercial banks that are members of the system.

Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae): Securities influencing the volume of bank credit guaranteed by GNMA and issued by mortgage bankers, commercial banks, savings and loan associations, and other institutions. Security holder is protected by full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Ginnie Mae securities are backed by the FHA, VA or FmHA mortgages. The term “pass-throughs” is often used to describe Ginnie Maes.

Issuer: Any corporation, government unit or financial institution which borrows money through the sale of securities.

Liquidity: A liquid asset is one that can be converted easily and rapidly into cash without a substantial loss of value. In the money market, a security is said to be liquid if the spread between bid and asked prices is narrow and reasonable size can be done at those quotes.

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): A special fund in the State Treasury which local agencies may use to deposit funds for investment. All interest is distributed to those agencies participating on a proportionate share determined by the amounts deposited and the length of time they are deposited. Interest is paid quarterly via direct deposit to the LAIF account. The State keeps an amount for reasonable costs of making the investments, not to exceed one-quarter of one per cent of the earnings.

Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP): The aggregate of all funds from political subdivisions that are pooled together for investment and reinvestment.

Market Value: The price at which a security is trading and could presumably be purchased or sold.

Master Repurchase Agreement: A written contract covering all future transactions between the parties to repurchase – reverse repurchase agreements that establishes each party’s rights in the transactions. A master agreement will often specify, among other things, the right of the buyerlender to liquidate the underlying securities in the event of default by the seller-borrower.

Maturity: The date upon which the principal or stated value of an investment becomes due and payable.

Money Market: The market in which short-term debt instruments (bills, commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, etc.) are issued and traded.

Mutual Funds: Referred to in the Government Code, Section 53601(l) as “shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies.” The Mutual Fund must be restricted by its by-laws to the same investments as the local agency by the Government Code. These investments are Treasury issues, Federal Agency issues, State of California and City (within California) debt obligations, Bankers Acceptances, Commercial Paper, Certificates of Deposit, Negotiable Certificates of Deposit, Repurchase Agreements, Reverse Repurchase Agreements,

8.b
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5080 : Q3 Treasurer's Report) 4 | P a g e
and Medium Term Corporate Notes. The quality rating and percentage restrictions in each investment category applicable to the local agency also apply to the Mutual Fund.

Negotiable: Term used to designate a security, the title to which is transferable by delivery.

Offer: The price asked by a seller of securities. (When you are buying securities, you ask for an offer). See Asked and Bid.

Open Market Operations: Purchases and sales of government and certain other securities in the open market by the New York Federal Reserve Bank as directed by the FOMC in order to influence the volume of money and credit in the economy. Purchases inject reserves into the bank system and stimulate growth of money and credit; sales have the opposite effect. Open market operations are the Federal Reserve’s most important and most flexible monetary policy tool.

Par Value: The amount of principal of a security that must be paid at maturity. The par value may also be referred to as the “face amount” of a security.

Portfolio: Collection of securities held by an investor.

Primary Dealer: A group of government securities dealers who submit daily reports of market activity and positions and monthly financial statements to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and are subject to its informal oversight. Primary dealers included Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – registered securities broker-dealers, banks, and a few unregulated firms.

Principal: Describes the original cost of a security. It represents the amount of capital or money which the investor pays for the investment.

Prudent Person Rule: An investment standard. In some states the law requires that a fiduciary, such as a trustee, may invest money only in a list of securities selected by the custody state – the so-called legal list. In other states the trustee may invest in a security if it is one which would be bought by a prudent person of discretion and intelligence who is seeking a reasonable income and preservation of capital.

Qualified Public Depositories: A financial institution which does not claim exemption from the payment of any sales or compensating use or ad valorem taxes under the laws of this state, which has segregated for the benefit of the commission eligible collateral having a value of not less than its maximum liability and which has been approved by the State to hold public deposits.

Rate of Return: The yield obtainable on a security based on its purchase price or its current market price. This may be the amortized yield to maturity on a bond the current income return.

Repurchase Agreement (RP or Repo): A holder of securities sells these securities to an investor with an agreement to repurchase them at a fixed price on a fixed date. The security “buyer” in effect lends the “seller” money for the period of the agreement, and the terms of the agreement are structured to compensate him for this. Dealers use RP extensively to finance their positions. Exception: When the Fed is said to be doing RP, it is lending money, that is, increasing bank services.

8.b
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5080 : Q3 Treasurer's Report) 5 | P a g e
Safekeeping: A service to customers rendered by banks for a fee whereby securities and valuables of all types and descriptions are held in the bank’s vaults for protection.

Secondary Market: A market made for the purchase and sale of outstanding issues following the initial distribution.

Security: An investment instrument, other than an insurance policy or fixed annuity, issued by a corporation, government, or other organization which offers evidence of debt or equity.

Securities & Exchange Commission: Agency created by Congress to protect investors in securities transactions by administering securities legislation.

SEC Rule 15C3-1: See Uniform Net Capital Rule.

Structured Notes: Notes issued by Government Sponsored Enterprises (FHLB, FNMA, SLMA, etc.) and Corporations which have imbedded options (e.g., call features, step-up coupons, floating rate coupons, derivative-based returns) into their debt structure. Their market performance is impacted by the fluctuation of interest rates, the volatility of the imbedded options and shifts in the shape of the yield curve.

Treasury Bills: A non-interest bearing discount security issued by the U.S. Treasury to finance the national debt. Most bills are issued to mature in three months, six months, or one year.

Treasury Notes: Medium-term coupon-bearing U.S. Treasury securities issued as direct obligations of the U.S. Government and having initial maturities from two to ten years.

Uniform Net Capital Rule: Securities and Exchange Commission requirement that member firms as well as nonmember broker-dealers in securities maintain a maximum ratio of indebtedness to liquid capital of 15 to 1; also called net capital rule and net capital ratio.

Indebtedness covers all money owed to a firm, including margin loans and commitments to purchase securities, one reason new public issues are spread among member of underwriting syndicates. Liquid capital includes cash and assets easily converted into cash.

Yield: The rate of annual income return on an investment, expressed as a percentage. (a) Income Yield is obtained by dividing the current dollar income by the current market price for the security. (b) Net Yield or Yield to Maturity is the current income yield minus any premium above par or plus any discount from par in purchase price, with the adjustment spread over the period from the date of purchase to the date of maturity of the bond.

8.b
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5080 : Q3 Treasurer's Report)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Approving Execution of Settlement Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Plaintiffs, Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen Sanders Pertaining to Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Relating to Litigation in Geary, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt the resolution approving execution of Settlement Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Plaintiffs, Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen Sanders through their undersigned counsel of record pertaining to attorneys’ fees and costs relating to litigation in Geary, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780.

STAFF CONTACT:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
(510) 273-8780
[email protected]
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Lawsuit
On March 15, 2021 the ACLU, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and Disability Rights Advocates filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Pacifica on behalf of the Plaintiffs challenging the City’s Oversized Vehicle (OSV) Ordinance and its Vehicular Habitation Ordinance. The lawsuit alleges that the OSV Ordinance (Pacifica Municipal Code Sections 4-

7.1204 and 4-7.1205) and the Vehicular Habitation Ordinance (Pacifica Municipal Code 4-

7.1114) are unconstitutional. It further alleges that the OSV Ordinance violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and California Government Code §11135. Through the lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the OSV Ordinance and the Vehicular Habitation Ordinance are unconstitutional, a preliminary and permanent injunction directing the City to cease all efforts to enforce the Ordinances, restitution for fines and penalties collected under the Ordinances, and attorney’s fees and costs.

Shortly after the Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, they filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“PI Motion”). Through the PI Motion, Plaintiffs sought an injunction to block the City from enforcing the OSV Ordinance. The PI Motion was heard on May 17, 2021. While the Court did not issue a ruling, it expressed concerns about the City’s enforcement efforts and about the City’s decision to not make a map of locations where OSV’s could park available to the public. On July 14, 2021, the Court entered a preliminary injunction (“Preliminary Injunction”) based on the stipulation of the parties. The Preliminary Injunction required the City to make available on its website, at City Hall and at Pacifica libraries a list and map of the already existing places where OSVs can safely park.
9 Packet Pg. 170
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
The November 2021 Settlement
Plaintiffs and the City reached a Settlement Agreement (Agreement Date of November 23, 2021), filed with the Court, that provides for entry of a stipulated injunction (the “Injunction”), subject to the approval of the Court, on the terms set forth in the Injunction. On April 6, 2022, the Court entered its order approving the Injunction on the stipulation of the Parties, including among other things, the following terms:
• Plaintiffs will dismiss their lawsuit.
• The City will refund certain fines paid resulting from citations received under the Oversized Vehicles Ordinance up to the date the settlement agreement is signed. • The City will develop and staff will recommend to the Council a Safe Parking Permit Program to be implemented by the Pacifica Resource Center. • The City will be able to resume enforcement of its Oversized Vehicle Ordinance and will have the option of towing oversized vehicles not participating in the Safe Parking Permit Program that park on City streets for longer than 72 hours or that or that have more than five unpaid parking citations.
• The City and the Plaintiffs will attempt to agree on an amount of attorneys’ fees due to Plaintiff. If those efforts are not successful, the Court will resolve whether and what amount of attorneys’ fees the Plaintiff is entitled to.

The Proposed Settlement of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The Parties, through their counsel, conferred in good faith and have now reached a proposed settlement for resolution of Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with the litigation. The negotiated proposed settlement provides, among other things, that the Plaintiffs will dismiss their lawsuit with prejudice and the City will pay the sum of $550,000 within 10 business days of the date the Agreement is fully executed to Plaintiffs’ attorneys. This settlement amount is significantly lower than the initial demand. The proposed settlement also provides that Plaintiffs will support the City’s submissions in response to any Coastal Commission appeals with a “friend of the court” or interested-party submission.

The Council is being asked to approve the terms of the proposed settlement as set forth in the settlement agreement included as Attachment 1 (“Settlement Agreement”). The agreed-upon settlement amount avoids further litigation and is less than what a Court may order if the settlement is not agreed upon and Plaintiffs file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs for the Court’s determination.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council could reject the Settlement Agreement which would result in Plaintiffs filing a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs which could expose the City to payment of additional attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“A Healthy and Compassionate Community” includes addressing affordable housing and mental health services, investigating strategies related to homelessness, and supporting youth services.
9 Packet Pg. 171
Pacifica City Council 3
August 08, 2022
FISCAL IMPACT:

The monetary settlement amount is $550,000, which is significantly lower than the initial demand. If the settlement is not approved, the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs awarded by the Court may significantly surpass this amount. The City’s legal defense costs in opposing a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs will also be incurred.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Exhibit A: Settlement Agreement (PDF)
9 Packet Pg. 172
Pacifica City Council 4
August 08, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING

EXECUTION OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND

PLAINTIFFS, SEAN GEARY, LINDA MILES, JARED CARR, HARRY BODE AND STEPHEN SANDERS PERTAINING TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS RELATING TO LITIGATION IN GEARY, ET AL. V. CITY OF PACIFICA, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01780 WHEREAS, On March 15, 2021 the ACLU, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and Disability Rights Advocates filed a class action lawsuit (Geary, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780) against the City of Pacifica on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode and Stephen Sanders, challenging the City’s Oversized Vehicle (OSV) Ordinance and its Vehicular Habitation Ordinance in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; and
WHEREAS, the lawsuit alleges that the OSV Ordinance (Pacifica Municipal Code Sections 4-7.1204 and 4-7.1205) and the Vehicular Habitation Ordinance (Pacifica Municipal Code 4-7.1114) are unconstitutional and further alleges that the OSV Ordinance violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and California Government Code §11135; and
WHEREAS, through the lawsuit, Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the OSV Ordinance and the Vehicular Habitation Ordinance are unconstitutional, a preliminary and permanent injunction directing the City to cease all efforts to enforce the Ordinances, restitution for fines and penalties collected under the Ordinances, and attorneys’ fees and costs; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2021, the Court issued a limited injunction that required the City to make available on its website, at City Hall and at Pacifica libraries a list and map of the already existing places where OSVs can safely park; and WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and the City reached a Settlement Agreement (Agreement Date of November 23, 2021) which has been filed with the Court [ECF 68], that provides for entry of a stipulated injunction (the “Injunction”), subject to the approval of the Court, on the terms set forth in the Injunction, including but not limited to staff’s recommendation that the Council approve a Safe Parking Permit Program to be implemented by the Pacifica Resource Center; and the City’s refund of certain fines paid resulting from citations received under the OSV Ordinance.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the Parties will attempt to negotiate Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with the prosecution and settlement of the Action, which Defendant contests; and
WHEREAS, the Parties, through their counsel, conferred in good faith in negotiations for resolution of Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with the litigation.

WHEREAS, the City and the Plaintiffs, through their attorneys, have negotiated a proposed settlement agreement pertaining to Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees and costs. 9 Packet Pg. 173
Pacifica City Council 5
August 08, 2022
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into the settlement agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A to completely and finally resolve Plaintiffs’ claims for attorneys’ fees and costs in the Complaint.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby approves the settlement agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A and authorizes the City Manager to execute the Settlement Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Plaintiffs in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, with minor revisions that may be approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, and to execute any other necessary documents to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
• • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 8th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 9 Packet Pg. 174
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
This settlement agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen Sanders (“Plaintiffs”), and the City of Pacifica (“Defendant” or “City”) (together, “Parties”), through their undersigned counsel of record.

RECITALS
A. On March 15, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint in the action entitled Geary, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“Action”), ECF No. 1, alleging various claims that Ordinance 480-C.S. (“Human Habitation Ordinance”) and Ordinance No. 855-C.S (“OSV Ordinance”) violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and others who reside, have resided, or seek to reside in recreational vehicles (“RVs”) in the City. In their complaint, Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Defendant denies the factual allegations and legal claims contained in the complaint.

B. On June 1, 2021, the City filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was subsequently withdrawn without prejudice, that denies that it has violated Plaintiffs’ rights in any respect and maintains that it has valid defenses to the claims set forth in the complaint; C. On July 14, 2021, the Court entered a preliminary injunction (“Preliminary Injunction”) and vacated the City’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, based on the stipulation of the parties. [ECF 55]
D. Plaintiffs and the City reached a Settlement Agreement (Agreement Date of November 23, 2021) which has been filed with the Court [ECF 68], that provides for entry of a stipulated injunction (the “Injunction”), subject to the approval of the Court, on the terms set forth in the Injunction. The Settlement Agreement provides that the Parties will attempt to negotiate Plaintiffs’ claim for attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the prosecution and settlement of the Action, which Defendant contests.

E. On April 6, 2022, the Court entered its Injunction on the stipulation of the Parties. [ECF No. 71]
F. The Parties, through their counsel, have conferred in good faith and have negotiated the terms of this Agreement to avoid the expense of continued litigation with respect to Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with this litigation.

G. The Parties desire now to settle completely all claims for attorneys’ fees and costs which are set forth in the Complaint, which was filed in the Action. 1 9.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Exhibit A: Settlement Agreement (5079 : Resolution - Approving Settlement Agreement Re: Geary, et.al. v Pacifica (Case No. 3:21- 2 TERMS OF AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions contained herein, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

1. Settlement Payment
The City agrees that within ten (10) business days of the date when this Agreement is fully executed, the City will pay FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($550,000.00) to Plaintiffs’ attorneys for costs and attorneys’ fees, of which the receipt and sufficiency hereof is acknowledged, in full consideration and inducement for this Agreement.

Payment for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees will be made in the following manner: Payee “American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.” Should payment be made through a wire transfer, the banking information is as follows:

Payee: American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California Bank: MUFG Union Bank
400 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Routing Transit Number: 122000496
Account Number: 3121000941

2. Dismissal of Action
Upon receipt of the settlement payment pursuant to Paragraph 1 hereof, Plaintiffs shall promptly file a dismissal with prejudice of all claims presented by Plaintiff’s Complaint, with the Court to retain jurisdiction for three years following the date of dismissal of the Action, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit 1 hereto.

3. Responses to Coastal Development Permit Appeals
Plaintiffs agree that they will support the City’s submissions in response to any Coastal Commission appeals (including but not limited to the appeal of CDP-438-22 dated June 24, 2022 submitted by Dina Micheletti and the appeal of CDP-438-22 dated June 22, 2022 submitted by Jeff Guillet) with a “friend of the court” or interested-party submission, noting that the safe parking program results from a settlement that confers a significant benefit on vehicularlyhoused Pacificans, and is actually in line with the environmental justice principles that the Commission is required to pursue.

4. Releases
Plaintiffs and their heirs, attorneys, agents, successors and assigns hereby release Defendant and its departments, heirs, successors, present and former employees, officers, members, councilmembers, attorneys, agents, insurers, successors and assigns from any and all claims, demands, obligations or causes of action, whether based on or arising under federal or state law, which Plaintiffs ever had, now have, or which may later appear, whether known or

9.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Exhibit A: Settlement Agreement (5079 : Resolution - Approving Settlement Agreement Re: Geary, et.al. v Pacifica (Case No. 3:21- unknown, for any expenses, fees and/or costs (including attorneys' fees and costs sought in connection with the prosecution and settlement of the Action), whether anticipated or unanticipated, resulting from, arising out of, connected directly or indirectly with or relating in any way to the OSV Ordinance and/or this Action.

Defendant and its departments, heirs, present and former employees, officers, members, councilmembers, attorneys, agents, insurers, successors and assigns hereby release Plaintiffs from any and all claims, demands, obligations or causes of action, whether based on or arising under federal or state law, which Defendants ever had, now have, or which may later appear, whether known or unknown, for any expenses, fees and/or costs (including attorneys' fees and costs sought in connection with the prosecution and settlement of the Action), whether anticipated or unanticipated, resulting from, arising out of, connected directly or indirectly with or relating in any way to the OSV Ordinance and/or this Action. This release does not restrict Defendant from enforcing the OSV Ordinance or any applicable law against Plaintiffs.

The above releases do not apply to any future claims to enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement.

The Parties agree as further consideration and inducement for this Release that they shall apply to all unknown and unanticipated injuries, both to person and property, and all unknown and unanticipated damages and claims resulting from the matters and things herein above mentioned. The Parties acknowledge that they have been advised by legal counsel and are familiar with the provisions of California Civil Code § 1542, which provides as follows:
"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS THAT

THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR

SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF

EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND THAT, IF KNOWN BY HIM OR

HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER
SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY."

5. Authorization
Each individual or entity that executes this Agreement represents and warrants, in their personal capacity, that they are duly authorized and empowered to enter into this Agreement on behalf of themselves or the Party they purport to represent. Plaintiffs’ counsel specifically represent and warrant that they are authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of Plaintiffs and have received Plaintiffs’ express permission to execute this Agreement on their behalf.

Plaintiffs’ counsel further represent and warrant that Plaintiffs have been fully informed of this Agreement and its terms, including but not limited to the binding effect of this Agreement, the release provisions, and the provisions stated in Paragraph 6 of this Agreement. Any dispute between Plaintiffs and their counsel or with respect to attorneys’ fees shall in no way affect the validity of this Agreement.
3 9.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Exhibit A: Settlement Agreement (5079 : Resolution - Approving Settlement Agreement Re: Geary, et.al. v Pacifica (Case No. 3:21- 4 6. Knowing and Voluntary
This Agreement is an important legal document that has been voluntarily and knowingly executed by the Parties. The Parties, and each of them, through their counsel, specifically represent that, prior to signing this Agreement:
(a) they have each been provided a reasonable period of time within which to consider whether to accept this Agreement;
(b) they have each carefully read and fully understand all of the provisions of this Agreement; and
(c) they are voluntarily, knowingly, and without coercion entering into this Agreement based upon their own judgment.

Plaintiffs, and each of them, further specifically represent that, prior to signing this Agreement, they have conferred with counsel of their choice to the extent desired concerning the legal effect of this Agreement, and that the legal effect of this Agreement has been adequately explained to them.

7. Denial of Liability
This Agreement provides for the settlement of disputed claims in this Action, the allegations of which are denied and contested, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as an admission by the City of any liability of any kind, all such liability being expressly denied.

8. Entire Agreement
This Agreement embodies the entire understanding and agreement between the Parties with respect to the matters referred to herein. This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, understandings, negotiations, or discussions, either oral or in writing, express or implied, between the parties to the same. No other representations, covenants, undertakings or other prior or contemporaneous agreements, oral or written, respecting such matters, which are not specifically incorporated herein, shall be deemed in any way to exist or to bind any of the Parties. Each of the Parties acknowledges that they have not executed this Agreement in reliance on any such promise, representation, or warranty.

9. Modification
This Agreement may not be modified except by a writing executed by each Party or through court order.

10. Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

9.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Exhibit A: Settlement Agreement (5079 : Resolution - Approving Settlement Agreement Re: Geary, et.al. v Pacifica (Case No. 3:21- 5 Facsimile signatures and signatures in PDF format transmitted by email shall be deemed originals.

11. Successors and Assigns
The obligations set forth in this Agreement shall be binding on the Parties and their successors and assigns.

12. No Waiver of Terms of Agreement
The failure to insist upon compliance with any term, covenant or condition contained in the Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of that term, covenant, or condition.

13. Severability
If any provision of this Agreement or the application of this Agreement is adjudicated to be void, invalid or unenforceable, such action shall not make the entire Agreement void, but rather only such provision. All remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

14. No Third Party Beneficiary
The terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, and is made solely and specifically for their benefit. No other person shall have any rights, interest or claims hereunder or be entitled to any benefits under or on account of this Agreement or the Injunction as a third-party beneficiary or otherwise.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties, through their undersigned counsel, hereby enter into this Agreement.

For Plaintiffs:

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern
California
Date: By:

Grayce Zelphin
Counsel for Plaintiffs Sean Geary, Linda
Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen
Sanders
July 27, 2022

9.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Exhibit A: Settlement Agreement (5079 : Resolution - Approving Settlement Agreement Re: Geary, et.al. v Pacifica (Case No. 3:21- 6 Date:

Disability Rights Advocates
By:

Thomas Zito
Counsel for Plaintiffs Sean Geary, Linda
Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen
Sanders
Date:

Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
By:

M. Stacey Hawver Counsel for Plaintiffs Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen
Sanders
Defendant
Date:

CITY OF PACIFICA
By:
7/27/2022

9.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Exhibit A: Settlement Agreement (5079 : Resolution - Approving Settlement Agreement Re: Geary, et.al. v Pacifica (Case No. 3:21-

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Notice of Completion for the Equalization Basin Water Cannon and Check Valves Installation Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Equalization Basin Water Cannon and Check Valves Installation Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

STAFF CONTACT:

Nelson Schlater, P.E., Senior Wastewater Engineer
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E., DPW Deputy Director/City Engineer
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Wet Weather Equalization (EQ) Basin is a key facility to mitigate storm-related sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) in the Lower Linda Mar neighborhood. This project is one of the major elements in the City’s comprehensive approach for mitigating SSOs and complying with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued Cease and Desist Order and corresponding Consent Decree.

EQ Basin Project construction was completed in 2020. City staff identified cost-effective measures that will result in lowering operations and maintenance costs by performing modifications to the basin wash down system and pump discharge valving through the Equalization Basin Water Cannon and Check Valves Installation Project. The project included installation of new check valves and water cannons; piping appurtenances; and supporting work.

The City Council approved an agreement with GSE Construction Company to complete the project on August 9, 2021, for a construction contract amount of $139,700 and established a budget authority of $165,000. The final contract construction cost for the project was $157,835, which included two change orders in a total amount of $18,135. The two change orders were for additional work approved by the City to add more hose connections to each of the four water cannons and modify water supply piping and appurtenances for better operations.

As the project is now complete and staff is satisfied with the contractor’s work on the project, it is appropriate to record the formal Notice of Completion with the San Mateo County Recorder's 10 Packet Pg. 181
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
Office. This recorded document is the legal notice that the City considers the project complete and that we intend to pay the contractor for the full and complete contract price. This also puts all subcontractors and suppliers on notice that if they have any claims for payment from the contractor, they have 30 days to file claims for payment against the City. This provision of contract law protects subcontractors from contractors who may not pay them properly. It also protects the City from claims regarding any nonpayment on the behalf of the contractor. The City withheld 5% of the contract amount, $7,891.75, as retention to make sure that all subcontractors and suppliers have been paid. The City will release the retention if no claims are received.

The City Manager is recommending the adoption of the attached resolution accepting completion of the project and the filing of the Notice of Completion (Attachment “A”) with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to adopt the resolution accepting completion of the project, but as the work has been satisfactorily completed, the contractor may file a claim against the City for nonpayment of retention if there are no claims.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Adoption of the resolution accepting completion of the project is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes improving the sewer collection system and would help eliminate Sanitary Sewer Overflows.
• Maintaining a Safe Community: includes protecting people, property, businesses, and our wastewater infrastructure
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the filing of the Notice of Completion. Project funding was available from the Wastewater Enterprise Capital Fund 34. The final total construction cost amounted to $157,835.00, which is within Council’s approved project budget of $165,000.00.

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Wastewater Enterprise Capital Fund 34 (Construction) $ 165,000.00 Total Source of Funds $ 165,000.00
Actual Construction Cost $ (157,835.00)
Total Use of Funds $ (157,835.00)
Estimated Project End Balance $ 7,165.00
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Notice of Completion (PDF)
10 Packet Pg. 182
Pacifica City Council 3
August 08, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

ACCEPTING COMPLETION AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE

NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE EQUALIZATION BASIN WATER CANNON AND CHECK VALVES INSTALLATION PROJECT (C031)
_____________________________________________________________________ RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that WHEREAS, the City Engineer of the said City has filed with the City Clerk of said City, his Certificate as to the completion of all of the work provided to be done under and pursuant to the contract between said City and GSE Construction Company, Inc. on November 19, 2021, and
WHEREAS, it appears to the satisfaction of this Council that said work under said contract has been fully completed as provided in said contract and the plans and specifications therein referred to,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered as follows:

1. That acceptance of completion of said work be, and it is hereby, made and ordered.

2. That the City Manager is directed to file for record with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo, Notice of Completion thereof, pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 8th day of August 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
____________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ __________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 10 Packet Pg. 183

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

CITY OF PACIFICA

EQUALIZATION BASIN WATER CANNON AND CHECK VALVES INSTALLATION

PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California, by Segundo S. Bautista, City Engineer of the City of Pacifica, California, that the contract awarded to GSE Construction Company Inc. on August 10, 2021, has been completed in accordance with the bid documents for said work filed with the City Clerk, and approved by the City Council of said City.

That said work and improvements were actually completed on the 19th day of November 2021 and that acceptance of completion of said work was ordered by the City Council of said City, adopted on the 8
th day of August 2022, and that the name of
the surety on the contractor's bond for labor and materials on said project is Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland.

That said work consisted of the construction of new check valves and water cannons, piping appurtenances, and supporting work.

Name and address of Owner: City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, California 94044
Segundo S. Bautista, P.E.

City Engineer

VERIFICATION
The undersigned states that he is the City Engineer of the City of Pacifica and that he makes this verification on behalf of said entity; that he has read the foregoing, and knows the contents thereof, and that the facts stated therein are true.

Segundo S. Bautista, P.E.

City Engineer
Executed at Pacifica, California, on________________ 2022.

ATTACHMENT "A" 10.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment A - Notice of Completion (5069 : Resolution - NOC Equalization Basin Water Cannon and Check Valves Installation

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Agreement with Fehr & Peers for Local Roadway Safety Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize the City Manager to execute a Master Consultant Services Agreement (Attachment 1) and Task Order No. 1 (Attachment 2) with Fehr & Peers in an amount not to exceed $79,865 for the preparation of a Local Road Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).

STAFF CONTACT:

Ryan Marquez, P.E.

Project Manager
(650) 738-3769
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E.

DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E.

DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Federal regulations require each State have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). A SHSP is a statewide data-driven traffic safety plan that coordinates the efforts of a wide range of organizations to reduce traffic accident fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. In coordination with federal, state, local and private sector safety stakeholders, the SHSP establishes goals, objectives, and emphasis (or challenge) areas. The SHSP address the 4Es of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services.

While the SHSP is used as a statewide approach for improving roadway safety, a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) can provide local and rural road owners with an opportunity to address unique roadway safety needs in their jurisdictions, while contributing to the success of the SHSP. The process of preparing an LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety problems and recommend safety improvements. Preparing an LRSP facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of improvements and actions that can demonstrate a defined need and contribute to the statewide plan. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges. An LRSP provides a framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local and rural roads.
11 Packet Pg. 185
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
In June 2020, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) approved $8 million in grant funding for preparation of LRSP’s on a first come, first serve basis. Furthermore, it is now required for a local jurisdiction to have LRSP’s completed to apply for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding, which the City has been awarded in the past and plans to apply for in the future.

In August of 2021, staff applied for and was awarded a grant to complete a LRSP. Furthermore, in June of 2022, City Council approved budget to supplement this grant award in order for the preparation of a LRSP. In order to assist in completing the LRSP, staff requires assistance from traffic engineering consultant services. Public Works staff maintains an on-call list of prequalified consultants in different areas of expertise. After discussions with on-call traffic engineering consultants, staff found Fehr & Peers to be well qualified for this work, completing many other local jurisdiction's LRSP’s.

The plan formation is anticipated to take eight months and will include select stakeholder involvement throughout. The stakeholder group could include other City departments such as Police and Fire as well as school district and/or Safe Routes to School representatives. The LRSP takes a data first approach, which means analyzing collision and other relevant data rather than relying on anecdotal experiences. The plan will produce a toolbox of countermeasures that will allow City staff to apply these measures to traffic safety issues as they arise. Furthermore, the plan will prioritize roadway safety improvement locations, and produce preliminary conceptual design information for the top five priority locations. This plan will aid the City in identifying areas in the greatest need of safety improvements and will serve as a tool to pursue funding, such as HSIP, for roadway safety improvements. Lastly, the plan will be updated approximately every five years in order to ensure the most up to date countermeasures and data is being used.

It therefore the City Manager's recommendation to authorize entering into a Consultant Services Agreement with Fehr & Peers for producing a Local Roadway Safety Plan in the amount of $79,865 and to authorize the City Manager to execute all agreement related documents.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Alternative action could be to amend the scope of work but that would result in a fee change that may go over of the $80k budget.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of this item is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise. This LRSP will identify roadway safety improvement ,which staff can prepare grant application to fund such improvements.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of this item is $79,865 of the budgeted $80,000 for this work. The following is the Source and Use of Funds for the project:
11 Packet Pg. 186
Pacifica City Council 3
August 08, 2022
Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Street Construction Fund 09 $ 40,000
Caltrans Grant $ 40,000
Total Source of Funds $ 80,000
Consultant Services Agreement $ 79,865
Total Use of Funds $ 79,865
Estimated Project End Balance $ 135
ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement (PDF) Attachment 2 -Task Order 1 for LRSP (PDF)
11 Packet Pg. 187
OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1

MASTER AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Master Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 8th day of August 2022, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Fehr & Peers [a corporation] (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY requires On-Call Traffic Engineering & Transportation services in connection with the Local Roadway Safety Plan;
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified to perform such services; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has agreed to provide CITY with such services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.

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

ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.1. Scope of Services. CONSULTANT agrees to furnish services pursuant to a Task Order in the form set forth in Exhibit A, Task Order, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Services").

1.2. Compliance with Law. The Services shall be performed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and orders.

1.3. Time is of the Essence. CONSULTANT agrees to diligently prosecute the Services. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence.

1.4. Professional Competence. CONSULTANT represents that it has the professional skills necessary to perform the Services and that it will perform the Services in a skillful and professional manner. CONSULTANT represents that it has all the necessary licenses to perform the Services and shall maintain them throughout the term of this Agreement.

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

ATTACHMENT 1

11.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers

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

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

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

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

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

ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION

2.1. Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with the rate and schedules specified in a Task Order. However, in no event shall the amount the CITY pays to CONSULTANT for work done under a Task Order exceed the total compensation specified in the Task Order (“Cost Ceiling”) of $79,895.00.

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

11.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers performance of the Services. Within 35 days after receipt of each such invoice, CITY shall verify the accuracy of the invoice, correct the charges where appropriate and as discussed and mutually agreed with CONSULTANT, and make payment to CONSULTANT in an amount equal to the amount of such invoice, as verified or corrected by CITY. No payment hereunder shall be construed as evidence of acceptance of any of CONSULTANT's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONSULTANT on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in CONSULTANT's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder. CONSULTANT shall not stop or delay performance of the Services under this Agreement on account of payment disputes with CITY.

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

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

ARTICLE 3 - TIME OF PERFORMANCE

3.1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the second signature and shall remain in full force and effect until December 31, 2024 (the "Term").

Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be extended for successive one-year term(s) upon mutual, written approval by the City Manager or his/her designee and CONSULTANT. Work authorized by a Task Order shall be performed in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Task Order.

3.2. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by CITY upon written notice to CONSULTANT.

3.3. Final Payment. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation for Services performed up to the time of such termination, it being understood that any payments are full compensation for the Services rendered under this Agreement.

3.4. Other Remedies. Nothing in this Article 3 shall be deemed to limit the respective rights of the parties to terminate this Agreement for cause or otherwise to exercise any rights or pursue any remedies which may accrue to them.

ARTICLE 4 - DESIGNATED CONTACTS

4.1. CITY Contact. CITY designates Sam Bautista, P.E. QSD/QSP its Deputy Director of Public Works as its contact who shall be responsible for administering and interpreting the terms and conditions of this Agreement, for matters relating to CONSULTANT's performance under this Agreement, and for liaison and coordination between CITY and

11.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers CONSULTANT. In the event CITY wishes to make a change in CITY 's representative, CITY will notify CONSULTANT of the change in writing.

4.2. CONSULTANT Contact. CONSULTANT designates Eric Womeldorff, Principal as its contact, who shall have immediate responsibility for the performance of the Services and for all matters relating to performance under this Agreement. Any change in CONSULTANT's designated contact shall be subject to written approval by CITY.

ARTICLE 5 - INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

5.1. Indemnification. CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to claims, liability, loss, damage, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees, awards, fines, penalties, or judgments, arising out of or relating to the Services (collectively "Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its Officials, officers, employees and agents (the "CITY Parties"), except to the extent the Claims are attributable to CITY Parties' gross negligence or willful misconduct. CONSULTANT shall defend the CITY Parties as required by California Civil Code Section 2778, and with counsel reasonably acceptable to those parties. CONSULTANT shall have no right to seek reimbursement from the CITY Parties for the costs of defense.

If CONSULTANT is a “design professional,” as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(c), CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Indemnitees harmless against Liability only to the extent such Liability arises out of, pertains to, or relates to CONSULTANT’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. In such an event, the cost to defend charged to CONSULTANT shall not exceed CONSULTANT’s proportionate percentage of fault.

The obligations contained in this Section 5.1 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause for the full period of time allowed by law and shall not in any way be limited by the insurance requirements of this Agreement.

5.2. Health and Safety. CONSULTANT may perform part of the Services at sites which contain unknown working conditions and contaminated materials. CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for the health and safety of CONSULTANT's employees during the performance of the Services.

5.3. Insurance. CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants, and other agency shall procure, provide, and maintain at all times during the performance of this Agreement, and for such additional periods as described herein, the insurance listed below with insurers licensed to do business in the State of California and with a Best's rating of no less than A:VII.

A. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance providing bodily injury liability and property damage, to protect against all liability arising out of the use of any owned, leased, passenger or commercial

11.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers automobile at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit and $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall apply to hired and non-owned autos.

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

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

D. Workers Compensation Insurance. Workers Compensation insurance, occupational disease insurance and employer’s liability insurance shall be required with minimum limits as required by law, covering all workplaces involved in this Agreement.

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

5.3. The Certificates shall be on forms acceptable to CITY. CONSULTANT shall also furnish CITY with original endorsements with the following documentation:
• Precluding cancellation or reduction in coverage before the expiration of thirty (30) days after CITY shall have received written notification thereof from CONSULTANT by United States mail;
• Providing that CONSULTANT's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, and include a “separation of insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability (cross-liability endorsement);
• Excepting CONSULTANT’S professional liability insurance, naming CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees, and agents as additional insureds (“Additional Insureds”); and

11.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers • Providing that for any claims relating to CONSULTANT's services hereunder, CONSULTANT's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees, and agents, and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY for itself, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees, and agents shall be in excess of CONSULTANT's insurance and shall not be contributory with it.
• It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverages requirements and/or limits shall be available to the Additional Insured, including but not limited to any umbrella or excess insurance.

Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be the greater of:
(a) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (b) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured.

F. Material Breach. If CONSULTANT fails to maintain insurance coverage or provided insurance documentation which is required pursuant to this Agreement, it shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. CITY, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from CONSULTANT resulting from said breach. Alternatively, CITY may purchase the required insurance coverage, and without further notice to CONSULTANT, may deduct from sums due to CONSULTANT any premium costs advanced by CITY for such insurance. These remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies available to CITY.

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

If to CITY: City Manager
540 Crespi Dr
Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 738-7409
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038
Email: [email protected]

11.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers If to CONSULTANT: Eric Womeldorff, Principal
332 Pine Street 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104
P:(415) 685-4022 [email protected]

MISCELLANEOUS

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

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

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

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

Any violation by CONSULTANT of the requirements of this provision will constitute a material breach of this Agreement, and the CITY reserves all its rights and remedies at law and equity concerning any such violations.

11.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers

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

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

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

6.13. Third Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with, or cause of action in favor of, a third party against either the CITY or CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT’s Services hereunder are being performed solely for the benefit of CITY. CITY shall be an express third-party beneficiary of all contracts between CONSULTANT and any subcontractors or subconsultants in connection with any services performed in connection with, or in furtherance of, this Agreement.

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

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date ____
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
CONSULTANT: FEHR & PEERS
By: Date
Eric Womeldorff, Principal
Attest:

By: ___________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

7.21.22 11.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers

EXHIBIT A

TASK ORDER

11.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers

EXAMPLE OF
TASK ORDER NO. ________

CITY OF PACIFICA
AND
__________________________
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct _______________ to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below, in accordance with the provisions of the Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica (“CITY”) and _______________ (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated ________________ (“MASTER AGREEMENT”)
SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK
The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Attachment “A” – Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT. Compensation for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be as set forth in Attachment “B” – Compensation, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided under this Task Order shall not exceed ____________________ ($____________) (“Cost Ceiling”).

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

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

Approved this _______ day of _____, _______.
[Signatures on Next Page]

11.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers

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

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
_______________________________
By: Date
By: Date

11.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

11.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers ATTACHMENT “B”

COMPENSATION

11.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Fehr & Peers Master Consultant Services Agreement [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers TASK ORDER NO. 1

CITY OF PACIFICA
AND

FEHR & PEERS
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct Fehr & Peers to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below, in accordance with the provisions of the Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica (“CITY”) and Fehr & Peers (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated August 8, 2022 (“MASTER AGREEMENT”) SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK
The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Attachment “A” – Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT. Compensation for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be as set forth in Attachment “B” – Compensation, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided under this Task Order shall not exceed seventy nine thousand and eight hundred and sixty five ($79,865) (“Cost Ceiling”).

SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed by May of 2023 or as extended in writing by the City Manager.

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

Approved this _______ day of _____, _______.
[Signatures on Next Page]
ATTACHMENT 2

11.b
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment 2 -Task Order 1 for LRSP [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers for LRSP)

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

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
_______________________________
By: Eric Womeldorff, Principal Date
By: Date

7.21.22 11.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment 2 -Task Order 1 for LRSP [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers for LRSP) ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

11.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment 2 -Task Order 1 for LRSP [Revision 1] (5063 : Approval of agreement with Fehr & Peers for LRSP) Mr. Ryan Marquez, P.E.

June 24, 2022

Page 2 of 6 ends

Pacifica City CouncilAugust 8, 2022

Pacifica City Council
August 8, 2022