Agenda packet — Pacifica City Council, August 22, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
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: 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 22, 2022

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
August 22, 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/86083392833
• To dial-in via phone:

Dial: 1-669-900-6833 And enter Webinar ID: 860 8339 2833 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 City Council Regular Meeting 2 August 22, 2022
comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Oral Communications” in the 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.
5:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION – Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2)(e)(5): (One Case- See Attachment A)
B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8. Property: 1220 C Linda Mar Boulevard, Pacifica (APN 023-281- 130). Agency negotiator: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager. Negotiating parties: City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography. Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment of lease.
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 City Council Regular Meeting 3 August 22, 2022
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 Vaterlaus
Closed Session Report

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.

1. Approval of Disbursements for 6/16/22 through 6/30/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 6/16/22 through 6/30/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Meeting held on July 11, 2022 and the City Council Regular Meeting and Adjourned Special Meeting held on July 11, 2022.

3. Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending June 20, 2022.

PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2022.

4. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending June 30, 2022.

PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending June 30, 2022.

5. Update Job Classification for the Director of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Position.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a resolution approving revisions to the job classification for the Director of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation.

6. Resolution of Support for the Reopening of Mack E. Mickelson Therapy Pool PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution supporting the reopening of the Mack E. Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool located at the Mills Health Center in San Mateo, California.

7. Notice of Completion for the Collection System Projects FY 2020-2021 Sacramento Easement
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 Collection System Projects FY 2020-2021 Sacramento Easement; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

City Council Regular Meeting 4 August 22, 2022

8. Notice of Completion for the Crespi Drive Sewer Mainline Improvements 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 Crespi Drive Sewer Mainline Improvements Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

9. Purchase Agreement with JM Squared Associates, Inc. to furnish two (2) new pumps at the Linda Mar Pump Station
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and JM Squared Associates, Inc., via sole source, in the amount of $430,819.44 for the purchase of two Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis pumps for the Linda Mar Pump Station; approve budget authority in the amount of $473,901.38 which includes 10% contingency in the amount of $43,081.94; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.

10. Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and MISCOwater for the purchase of two JWC Muffin Monster Grinders and Control Panel for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Grit Removal System
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and MISCOwater, via sole source, in the amount of $66,044 for the purchase of two JWC Muffin Monster grinders and Control Panel for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant grit removal system; approve budget authority in the amount of $76,000 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $9,954; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.

11. Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and De Nora Water Technologies, LLC for the purchase of ControlLogix System and Blower Unloading Valve in connection to the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Sand Filter Upgrade Project.

PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and De Nora Water Technologies, LLC, via sole source, in the amount of $131,000.00 for the purchase of ControlLogix System and Blower Unloading Valve in connection to the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) Sand Filter Upgrade Project; approve budget authority in the amount of $151,000.00 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $20,000.00; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project

12. Task Order No. 1 with TJC And Associates, Inc. - Consulting Services for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) Arc Flash Study (P031) and Electrical Condition Assessment (P037)
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and TJC And Associates, Inc. for Engineering Consulting Services in the amount of $134,932.00 in connection to Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) Arc Flash Study (P031) and Electrical Condition Assessment (P037); approve budget authority in the amount of $148,425.20 which includes 10% contingency in the amount of $13,493.20; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.

City Council Regular Meeting 5 August 22, 2022

13. Resolution of Intention By the City Council of the City Of Pacifica to Vacate Portions of Hotel Way and Setting the Public Hearing for September 12, 2022.

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution of Intention By the City Council of the City of Pacifica to Vacate Portions of Hotel Way and Setting the Public Hearing for September 12, 2022.

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 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. Public Hearing on Proposed Ordinances repealing and replacing Pacifica Municipal Code Chapter 12 - Tree Preservation and Chapter 14 - Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Waive the First Reading of and Introduce by Title an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and Replacing Chapter 12 (Preservation of Heritage Trees) and Chapter 14 (Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees) within Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

CONSIDERATION

15. Direction to Pacifica Voting Delegate Regarding Cal Cities 2022 Annual Conference Resolution - Proposed Bylaws Amendments
PROPOSED ACTION: Provide direction to Pacifica's voting delegate to support one resolution regarding proposed bylaws amendments to be considered by Cal Cities at the 2022 Cal Cities Annual Conference to be held in Long Beach, September 7 - 9, 2022.

City Council Regular Meeting 6 August 22, 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
8/22/2022
1 SUBJECT:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION – Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2)(e)(5): (One CaseSee Attachment A) CLOSED SESSION:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2)(e)(5): (One CaseSee Attachment A) ORIGINATED BY:

City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Pacifica City Council Letter (PDF)
Packet Pg. 7
August18,2022
Pacifica City Council
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Tolling Agreement
Dear Mayor Bier and Members of the Pacifica City Council:

The North Coast County Water District Board of Directors appreciates the City Council's vote to continue its consideration of the District's appeal of the coastal development permit proposed adjacent to our headquarters on 2400 Francisco Boulevard, and to direct City staff to coordinate with the District to evaluate the feasibility of alternate sites. Our Board feels this is a great step for our agencies to collaborate together to develop a workable solution for everyone involved.

After the August 8 appeal hearing, the District's legal counsel sent a draft tolling agreement to the City Attorney. The tolling agreement preserves the District's rights and maintains the "status quo" during the time that the CDP appeal is continued and we work together on an alternative site. This week, the City Attorney's office informed our legal counsel that the City will not enter into a tolling agreement. From the perspective of our Board members who attended the City Council appeal hearing, the Council's direction to staff, while not included in the formal action, contemplated entering into a tolling agreement to ensure collaboration and as a gesture of good faith that both parties are committed to resolving this dispute informally.

The District's appeal raised issues with the City's adoption and implementation of the Temporary Safe Parking Program, along with the City's issuance of the Francisco Boulevard CDP. The statute of limitations challenging the City's adoption of the TSPP expires at the end of this month, and that is why a tolling agreement is needed.

As the District has repeatedly indicated, we want to cooperate with the City to establish alternative sites that will decrease impacts on the District while improving the TSPP program overall. The District's proposed sites have the added benefit of taking sites out of the Coastal Zone, which would address concerns raised by the Coastal Commission. The District is not willing, however, to waive its CEQA claims regarding the City's implementation of the TSPP.

The District strongly urges the City Council to direct City staff to enter into a tolling agreement with the District. The Board does not want to have to file a writ to preserve its rights, however at the August 17 Board meeting, the Board directed our legal counsel to file a writ challenging the TSPP program if a tolling agreement is not entered into by August 25, shortly before the statute of limitations expires.
18839572.2
a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Attachment A: Pacifica City Council Letter (5105 : Closed Session - CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Attachment A: Pacifica City Council Letter (5105 : Closed Session - CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/22/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for 6/16/22 through 6/30/22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 6/16/22 through 6/30/22.

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 6/16/22 through 6/30/22 in the amount of $1,295,216.03 as written on regular checks numbered 60597-60838 and 61005 (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 60597-60838 & 61005 -6-16 to 6-30-22 (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 10
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 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 AUG1622 8:10 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 60597 - 60838
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 60597 $4478.65 06/17/22 00009 8 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 60598 $1040.95 06/17/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 60599 $827.82 06/17/22 00045 2 ALBERTSONS / SAFEWAY S OUTSTANDING 1 60600 $1117.03 06/17/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60601 $1017.83 06/17/22 05352 0 ANKAR CYCLES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60602 $533.00 06/17/22 00293 0 BEARING AGENCIES INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60603 $1000.00 06/17/22 05547 0 BERND K.E. BUETTNER S OUTSTANDING 1 60604 $1150.13 06/17/22 00343 0 BOLANDER & SONS, L. PH. S OUTSTANDING 1 60605 $729.00 06/17/22 00011 0 C.W.E.A. S OUTSTANDING 1 60606 $4950.00 06/17/22 05483 0 CALIFORNIA CONSULTING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60607 $7901.00 06/17/22 03814 1 CAPPSTONE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60608 $10413.40 06/17/22 00507 0 CHILDCARE CAREERS S OUTSTANDING 1 60609 $211.08 06/17/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 60610 $6610.00 06/17/22 05545 0 CITYZEN SOLUTIONS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60611 $1897.50 06/17/22 05082 1 COLUMN, PBC S OUTSTANDING 1 60612 $5490.00 06/17/22 05141 1 DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60613 $1759.45 06/17/22 02793 0 EAST PENN MANUFACTURING CO., INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60614 $226.00 06/17/22 05549 0 EC TREE SERVICE, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60615 $109.95 06/17/22 00489 0 ENTERSECT S OUTSTANDING 1 60616 $77.00 06/17/22 00758 0 EXPERIAN S OUTSTANDING
1 60617 $7.00 06/17/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 60618 $5242.19 06/17/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60619 $328.13 06/17/22 02213 0 GARRATT CALLAHAN S OUTSTANDING 1 60620 $1143.80 06/17/22 05540 0 GERMAN GODINEZ S OUTSTANDING 1 60621 $750.00 06/17/22 03947 0 GRANICUS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60622 $2500.00 06/17/22 04131 0 HDL SOFTWARE, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60623 $1000.00 06/17/22 03925 0 HIP HOUSING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60624 $1923.34 06/17/22 04859 1 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 60625 $1452.50 06/17/22 05453 0 INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES S OUTSTANDING 1 60626 $1574.73 06/17/22 01014 0 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60627 $125.24 06/17/22 01027 0 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA S OUTSTANDING 1 60628 $95.00 06/17/22 05333 1 KASEYA US LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60629 $334.41 06/17/22 03700 0 KIMBALL MIDWEST S OUTSTANDING 1 60630 $563.48 06/17/22 01055 2 KONE INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60631 $535.94 06/17/22 01070 0 LAURETTA PRINTING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60632 $24.08 06/17/22 03529 0 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60633 $96900.00 06/17/22 05424 0 LIFFEY ELECTRIC, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60634 $1600.34 06/17/22 01095 0 LINDA MAR HARDWARE S OUTSTANDING 1 60635 $104.56 06/17/22 00001 324 MARTINEZ, ROBERT S OUTSTANDING 1 60636 $29965.00 06/17/22 03790 0 MAZE & ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 60637 $8994.00 06/17/22 05533 0 MICMILLAN ELECTRIC S OUTSTANDING 1 60638 $104.56 06/17/22 00001 341 MOORE, JANELLE S OUTSTANDING 1 60639 $105.00 06/17/22 01378 0 MUSCIO SECURITY S OUTSTANDING 1 60640 $2882.13 06/17/22 04549 0 NAF SERVICES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60641 $176.41 06/17/22 00001 365 NASH, JULIE S OUTSTANDING 1 60642 $10100.00 06/17/22 04632 0 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD S OUTSTANDING 1 60643 $8213.90 06/17/22 01206 0 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. S OUTSTANDING 1 60644 $50.00 06/17/22 05550 0 NOURI FARANAK S OUTSTANDING 1 60645 $727.00 06/17/22 00001 299 O'CONNOR, BONNY S OUTSTANDING 1 60646 $84.85 06/17/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 60647 $146200.27 06/17/22 01240 0 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:10 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 1 of 5 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60597-60838 & 61005 -6-16 to 6-30-22 (5060 : Disbursements - Dated 6/16/22 through 6/30/22) 1 60653 $2274.25 06/17/22 00022 47 SAN MATEO COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS S OUTSTANDING 1 60654 $5000.00 06/17/22 04211 0 SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DIST. S OUTSTANDING 1 60655 $1514.59 06/17/22 01423 0 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP S OUTSTANDING 1 60656 $80.93 06/17/22 01513 0 SOUTH CITY LUMBER S OUTSTANDING 1 60657 $1436.46 06/17/22 01593 0 TESCO CONTROLS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60658 $6000.00 06/17/22 05487 0 THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP S OUTSTANDING 1 60659 $165.40 06/17/22 00001 347 TRAN, HENRY S OUTSTANDING 1 60660 $24.00 06/17/22 05135 0 TYGARJAS BIGSTYCK S OUTSTANDING 1 60661 $504.20 06/17/22 04418 1 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60662 $772.43 06/17/22 01655 0 UNITED ROTARY BRUSH CORP S OUTSTANDING 1 60663 $5458.15 06/17/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60664 $414.13 06/17/22 03980 0 VERITIV OPERATING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60665 $60.08 06/17/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 60666 $3343.65 06/17/22 01751 0 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60667 $242.76 06/24/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 60668 $240.00 06/24/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 60669 $50.00 06/24/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 60670 $350.00 06/24/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 60671 $100.00 06/24/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 60672 $110.00 06/24/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 60673 $4.00 06/24/22 01764 3 NATIONAL D.R.I.V.E S OUTSTANDING 1 60674 $246.00 06/24/22 01767 0 NPFBA S REISSUE
1 60675 $930.60 06/24/22 01758 1 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION S OUTSTANDING 1 60676 $439.00 06/24/22 01758 0 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS-LTD S OUTSTANDING 1 60677 $800.00 06/24/22 01759 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60678 $200.00 06/24/22 01760 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS S OUTSTANDING 1 60679 $420.00 06/24/22 01769 0 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60680 $1401.16 06/24/22 01758 5 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 S OUTSTANDING 1 60681 $2815.00 06/24/22 01764 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 S OUTSTANDING 1 60682 $1533.57 06/29/22 00009 8 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 60683 $92.00 06/29/22 04479 0 55 BACKFLOW TESTING AND SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 60684 $789.16 06/29/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 60685 $117.14 06/29/22 00136 0 ALHAMBRA S OUTSTANDING 1 60686 $305.96 06/29/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60687 $123.00 06/29/22 00175 1 AMERICAN RED CROSS S OUTSTANDING 1 60688 $216.56 06/29/22 00056 0 ARAMARK S OUTSTANDING
1 60689 $137.92 06/29/22 00009 0 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 60690 $292.59 06/29/22 00009 2 AT&T MOBILITY S OUTSTANDING 1 60691 $271.24 06/29/22 05558 0 ATLAS TRILLO S OUTSTANDING 1 60692 $95.75 06/29/22 04666 0 B & D DONOR RECOGNITION S OUTSTANDING 1 60693 $1164.68 06/29/22 00365 0 BROADMOOR LANDSCAPE SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 60694 $499.73 06/29/22 03402 1 BSN SPORTS, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60695 $23565.88 06/29/22 02502 0 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP S OUTSTANDING 1 60696 $286.06 06/29/22 00454 1 CAL-STEAM INC.#2504 S OUTSTANDING 1 60697 $4950.00 06/29/22 05483 0 CALIFORNIA CONSULTING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60698 $347.21 06/29/22 00452 0 CALPICO INC. S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:10 Page: 4

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 60597 - 60838
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 60699 $698.00 06/29/22 01690 0 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 60700 $1000.00 06/29/22 05555 0 CHRISTOPHER LAI S OUTSTANDING 1 60701 $1000.00 06/29/22 05554 0 CHRISTOPHER WELD S OUTSTANDING 1 60702 $3782.20 06/29/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 60703 $1213.50 06/29/22 05552 1 CIVICPLUS, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60704 $363.00 06/29/22 05082 1 COLUMN, PBC S OUTSTANDING 1 60705 $.29 06/29/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 60706 $169.02 06/29/22 02168 2 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 60707 $1254.76 06/29/22 04531 0 COOK, MICHAEL G. S OUTSTANDING 1 60708 $17604.66 06/29/22 01374 1 CORE & MAIN S OUTSTANDING 1 60709 $3380.34 06/29/22 04677 0 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60710 $5960.00 06/29/22 05341 0 CREATIVE DIGITAL AGENCY INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60711 $55504.46 06/29/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60712 $2412.31 06/29/22 03445 0 D&L SUPPLY COMPANY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60713 $21137.18 06/29/22 00025 0 DALY CITY/CITY OF S OUTSTANDING 1 60714 $45.91 06/29/22 02614 0 DISH S OUTSTANDING
1 60715 $1200.00 06/29/22 04321 0 DUBOCE JANITORIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 60716 $215.43 06/29/22 02610 1 ENVIRONMENTAL.COM, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60717 $7.00 06/29/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 60718 $2.52 06/29/22 00773 0 FEDEX S OUTSTANDING
1 60719 $1200.00 06/29/22 02092 0 FELIX RICH S OUTSTANDING 1 60720 $100.00 06/29/22 03823 1 GIBSON JR, EUGENE S OUTSTANDING 1 60721 $753.33 06/29/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 60722 $4714.06 06/29/22 02415 0 GYM DOCTORS S OUTSTANDING 1 60723 $4974.19 06/29/22 00919 1 HERC RENTALS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60724 $560.00 06/29/22 00925 0 HF&H CONSULTANTS LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60725 $25.85 06/29/22 00929 0 HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60726 $110.00 06/29/22 00924 0 HILL SCOTT S OUTSTANDING 1 60727 $1031.66 06/29/22 04999 2 IMAGE SOURCE S OUTSTANDING 1 60728 $257.02 06/29/22 02252 0 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER S OUTSTANDING 1 60729 $455.54 06/29/22 01014 0 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60730 $3500.00 06/29/22 01019 0 JOINT VENTURE: SILICON VALLEY NETWORK S OUTSTANDING 1 60731 $183.48 06/29/22 01027 0 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA S OUTSTANDING 1 60732 $434.69 06/29/22 03929 0 KENT CLEANERS S OUTSTANDING 1 60733 $579.68 06/29/22 01070 0 LAURETTA PRINTING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60734 $880.20 06/29/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60735 $3140.00 06/29/22 05533 3 MCMILLAN ELECTRIC S OUTSTANDING 1 60736 $1000.00 06/29/22 05553 0 MIKE WILSON S OUTSTANDING 1 60737 $142.50 06/29/22 01165 0 MILLER & O'BRIEN S OUTSTANDING

Page 2 of 5 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60597-60838 & 61005 -6-16 to 6-30-22 (5060 : Disbursements - Dated 6/16/22 through 6/30/22) 1 60738 $11030.50 06/29/22 03955 0 MOFFATT & NICHOL S OUTSTANDING 1 60739 $670.94 06/29/22 01172 0 MOORE INDUSTRIES-INTERNATIONAL S OUTSTANDING 1 60740 $28.46 06/29/22 01183 0 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60741 $2418.75 06/29/22 05416 0 MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60742 $299.00 06/29/22 05559 0 NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS S OUTSTANDING 1 60743 $9766.96 06/29/22 01206 0 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. S OUTSTANDING 1 60744 $160.89 06/29/22 03981 0 NORTHERN SAFETY CO. INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60745 $1037.01 06/29/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 60746 $12600.00 06/29/22 04280 0 PACIFIC COAST PAINTING CO S OUTSTANDING 1 60747 $689.44 06/29/22 01239 0 PACIFIC FIRE SAFE S OUTSTANDING 1 60748 $339.29 06/29/22 01289 0 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60749 $14473.95 06/29/22 00320 4 PLAN JPA S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:10 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 60597 - 60838
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 60750 $250.00 06/29/22 00001 115 POWERS, MATTHEW S OUTSTANDING 1 60751 $4737.50 06/29/22 05130 0 PREMIUM ROOFING AND WATERPROOFING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60752 $810.74 06/29/22 05350 0 PRODIGY PRESS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60753 $1377.15 06/29/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60754 $12037.00 06/29/22 03281 0 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 60755 $1165.94 06/29/22 03990 1 RICE LAKE WEIGHING SYSTEMS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60756 $2231.25 06/29/22 01367 0 RICE TRUCKING SOIL FARM S OUTSTANDING 1 60757 $12388.88 06/29/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 60758 $2950.62 06/29/22 05376 0 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60759 $2001.58 06/29/22 05199 0 SAGE VETERINARY CENTERS S OUTSTANDING 1 60760 $2635.20 06/29/22 00022 8 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLER S OUTSTANDING 1 60761 $5801.00 06/29/22 00022 17 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLER S OUTSTANDING 1 60762 $329.02 06/29/22 00022 9 SAN MATEO COUNTY INFORMATION SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 60763 $70.51 06/29/22 05197 0 SAN MATEO COUNTY MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL S OUTSTANDING 1 60764 $380.84 06/29/22 01461 0 SERRAMONTE FORD INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60765 $548.12 06/29/22 01409 9 SMCPCSA S OUTSTANDING
1 60766 $19700.00 06/29/22 01501 1 SMELLY MEL'S PLUMBING S OUTSTANDING 1 60767 $4181.73 06/29/22 04060 0 SOILWORKS LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60768 $9310.81 06/29/22 01570 0 SYNAGRO WEST, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60769 $881.00 06/29/22 01584 0 TECHNICAL SAFETY SERVICES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60770 $2637.50 06/29/22 05108 0 TEN OVER STUDIO, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60771 $21.60 06/29/22 01592 1 TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER S OUTSTANDING 1 60772 $28471.68 06/29/22 05527 0 THE 4 KIDS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60773 $448.49 06/29/22 04299 0 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60774 $170.20 06/29/22 01599 0 THOMAS FISH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60775 $83000.00 06/29/22 01607 0 TIDES CENTER-PACIFICA RES CTR S OUTSTANDING 1 60776 $949.96 06/29/22 01636 0 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60777 $530.00 06/29/22 01657 1 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 60778 $402.63 06/29/22 01812 3 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 60779 $5047.90 06/29/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60780 $250.12 06/29/22 02899 1 UTILITY TELECOM GROUP, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60781 $307.10 06/29/22 00898 2 VCA ANIMAL HOSPITALS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60782 $23.08 06/29/22 03980 0 VERITIV OPERATING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60783 $1303.17 06/29/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 60784 $184.13 06/29/22 01673 0 VWR INTERNATIONAL S OUTSTANDING 1 60785 $1761.30 06/29/22 01729 0 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60786 $1037.97 06/29/22 04999 1 XEROX FINANCIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 60787 $4500.00 06/29/22 05426 0 YIFTEE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60788 $255.60 06/30/22 00122 0 AIRGAS USA, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60789 $148.98 06/30/22 00136 0 ALHAMBRA S OUTSTANDING 1 60790 $2310.73 06/30/22 00138 0 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60791 $234.43 06/30/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60792 $228.65 06/30/22 03895 0 AMERICAN FIDELITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60793 $473.23 06/30/22 00056 0 ARAMARK S OUTSTANDING
1 60794 $436.00 06/30/22 00265 0 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST S OUTSTANDING 1 60795 $92842.90 06/30/22 02502 0 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP S OUTSTANDING 1 60796 $769.13 06/30/22 00381 0 C.H. BULL COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60797 $224.00 06/30/22 00014 5 CALIFORNIA STATE OF S OUTSTANDING 1 60798 $200.00 06/30/22 03814 1 CAPPSTONE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60799 $7308.00 06/30/22 02655 0 CAROLLO S OUTSTANDING 1 60800 $790.76 06/30/22 00483 0 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:10 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 3 of 5 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60597-60838 & 61005 -6-16 to 6-30-22 (5060 : Disbursements - Dated 6/16/22 through 6/30/22) 1 60813 $766.22 06/30/22 01027 0 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA S OUTSTANDING 1 60814 $122.66 06/30/22 01812 4 KBA DOCUSYS S OUTSTANDING 1 60815 $2507.75 06/30/22 04088 0 LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 60816 $187.59 06/30/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60817 $9750.00 06/30/22 04931 0 NATIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60818 $14626.19 06/30/22 04632 0 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD S OUTSTANDING 1 60819 $149.68 06/30/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 60820 $1287.90 06/30/22 01297 0 PARS S OUTSTANDING
1 60821 $499.00 06/30/22 03628 0 PERPETUA TECHNOLOGIES LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60822 $15442.08 06/30/22 00320 4 PLAN JPA S OUTSTANDING 1 60823 $4311.84 06/30/22 04651 0 PLAZO CONSTRUCTION S OUTSTANDING 1 60824 $43.00 06/30/22 05560 0 REBECCA M KABANA S OUTSTANDING 1 60825 $5199.36 06/30/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 60826 $2342.10 06/30/22 00055 0 SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 60827 $15060.00 06/30/22 05561 0 SAN PEDRO VALLEY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60828 $1667.14 06/30/22 01450 0 SEAVIEW TIRE & BRAKE CENTER S OUTSTANDING 1 60829 $2449.58 06/30/22 01546 0 STERICYCLE S OUTSTANDING 1 60830 $175.00 06/30/22 05542 1 STIRLING GOULET S OUTSTANDING 1 60831 $121.00 06/30/22 00001 366 STRATTON, KIRK S OUTSTANDING 1 60832 $1579.14 06/30/22 01587 0 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 60833 $170.20 06/30/22 01599 0 THOMAS FISH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60834 $120000.00 06/30/22 01607 0 TIDES CENTER-PACIFICA RES CTR S OUTSTANDING 1 60835 $50.00 06/30/22 00002 52 TRAYER, MICHELLE (PETTY CASH) S OUTSTANDING 1 60836 $3740.39 06/30/22 04576 1 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60837 $3238.00 06/30/22 02527 0 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 60838 $1807.44 06/30/22 02679 0 WESTERN TRUCK FAB S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 242 TOTAL AMOUNT: 1,275,315.16 TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 1 TOTAL AMOUNT: 246.00 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 0
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:10 Page: 7

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 743,820.39 246.00
005 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 41.08 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 10,100.00 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 11,714.33 0.00
016 NPDES STORMWATER FUND 5,000.00 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 220,324.91 0.00
019 PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE FUND 7,308.00 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 88,440.17 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 127,081.94 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 1,463.57 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 11,410.50 0.00
067 SELF-INSURANCE FUND (LIAB) 29,916.03 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 18,448.24 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 1,275,069.16 246.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:10 Page: 8

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61005 - 61005
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61005 $19900.87 06/30/22 04608 0 TRI COUNTIES BANK S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 1 TOTAL AMOUNT: 19,900.87
TOTAL # OF WIRES: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF VOIDED/REISSUED/UNCLAIMED CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00 TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 TOTAL AMOUNT: 0.00
TOTAL # OF UNISSUED CHECKS: 0
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:10 Page: 9

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 17,528.02 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 204.03 0.00

Page 4 of 5 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60597-60838 & 61005 -6-16 to 6-30-22 (5060 : Disbursements - Dated 6/16/22 through 6/30/22) 018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 1,399.14 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 769.68 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 19,900.87 0.00

Page 5 of 5 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022 NO FY 2021-20212 CHECKS ISSUED ON 6/16/22.

TOTAL = $1,275,315.16 + $19,900.87 = $1,295,216.03

1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60597-60838 & 61005 -6-16 to 6-30-22 (5060 : Disbursements - Dated 6/16/22 through 6/30/22)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/22/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Meeting held on July 11, 2022 and the City Council Regular Meeting and Adjourned Special Meeting held on July 11, 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 July 11, 2022 (Attachment A) and the City Council Regular Meeting and Adjourned Special Meeting held on July 11, 2022 (Attachment B).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (PDF) Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 16

CITY OF PACIFICA

SPECIAL MEETING
July 11, 2022 (MONDAY) – 5:00 PM
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on July 11, 2022 at 5:02 PM 5:00 PM - SPECIAL MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the special meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Present
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Present
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call, with Councilmember Beckmeyer not present.

City Clerk Coffey explained the conditions for having Planning Commission 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 to the public. She also gave information on how to present public comments participating by Zoom or phone.

STUDY SESSION

1. Study Session regarding the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan PROPOSED ACTION: Receive an informational presentation regarding a status update of the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan.

Dep. PW Director Bautista began the staff report then turned it over to Consultant Ryan Orgill (Carollo Engineers) to continue the presentation.

2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 2 July 11, 2022
Ryan Orgill, Carollo Consultant, continued the presentation.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they didn’t receive a large response from Rockaway Beach Boulevard area.

Mr. Orgill stated that they noted that it was a spring that has been an ongoing issue and they can talk more about that in the Q&A, but they are developing solutions for that problem, also.

He then completed the presentation.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they mapped out the 10% and 5% events and it was the October 1% event that he found particularly eye opening and it became the forefront of his concern. Regardless of whether or not it was a 1% event, he thought it seemed like climate change is not getting better and it continues to be his concern going forward. He thought it would be nice to see a third entry on the table where it shows whether the model projects for the 1% event. He thought it was concerned that they weren’t able to capture it, but if the model holds then he supposed that is negligible.

Mr. Orgill stated that he wanted to touch on that a bit more. He stated that, with these types of rainfall events, it was extremely rare to get that large of an event happening in October. He stated that the big rainfall events in the Bay Area are historically starting in December and can last into February or March and, in terms of scoping the project and making sure they have a schedule, they were working off of the historic knowledge that is typically how things happen with a rain-bomb in October is hard to predict.

Paul Friedlander, Carollo consultant, emphasized that the purpose of the monitoring is to calibrate the model and, even though they captured the December storm, it allows them to model storms of the draining map and they don’t have to capture storms at the extremes to be able to model and calibrate it to be able to analyze those big events.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his concerns has something to do with patterns shifting as they go on, but he appreciated that they don’t have a crystal ball to monitor that as they like. He would like a third entry for those 1% events so they can add that into the mix of what they are looking at.

Mr. Orgill didn’t think that would be a problem.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, when they have development and they are going to have to increase housing supply, referring to RHNA numbers, if that increases the rain flow to the storm drain system as they have roof areas that went to the ground before but now roofs are not pervious and it drops them down and is it calculated in the plans they are making for the next two years.

Mr. Orgill agreed.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that, during the development when a developer builds homes on a piece of land, the pre-flow from the site must be equal or less than the post-developed flow running off the site and typically a lot of the runoff generated on the site is going to be equal or less than the post development flow. He asked if Mr. Orgill had anything else to add.

Mr. Orgill stated it was right and the city’s policies are set up to a point where future

2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 3 July 11, 2022
development isn’t going to significantly increase the amount of runoff coming into the system.

He stated that they worked with the Planning Department to understand that, with any new developments happening within the system and current applications, they will make sure that they will account for any increases or runoffs. He stated that it is not a major concern because of the way the city’s policies are set up.

Mayor Bier asked Acting Planning Director Murdock if he wanted to add to that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that PW Dep. Director Bautista largely covered the point he wanted to make. He stated that there was a policy they will see to formalize that approach in the General Plan discussion later in the meeting. He stated that, for projects under the city’s municipal regional permit for storm water discharges, many types of projects, such as larger sort they might expect to accomplish their RHNA, will be known as what are called regulated projects and they will have another layer of review to not only capture the amount by volume but also to treat that storm water to improve the water quality running off of the site. He stated that, on a number of bases, they would expect the flows from future development conditions to be less impactful to the city’s storm drain system.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they are going to have increased use of retention basins or is it going into storm drain systems and if a retention basin, how would that be accommodated if there is no physical way to have a retention basin on the project.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he will respond and then engineers can expand on it. He stated that there are different engineering methods to retain that storm water and the area method of dedicating portions of the site for that is one common method, but there are others that can use other three-dimensional approaches to retain water, pipes or other types of configurations that can be accommodated on space constrained sites.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, when they come back with the CIP in September, he would be curious to see the alternative methods to retention basin, as we have 2 or 3 retention basins now, and he would like to know if there are any others, and if the rest of the Council is interested as well, and if not, he could have a discussion with him.

PW Dep. Director Bautista asked the consultants if they had anything else to add regarding retention on the site.

Mr. Orgill thought Acting Planning Director Murdock covered it pretty well.

Councilmember Beckmeyer seconded Councilmember O’Neill’s request as she would be interested in that information as well, as they hear about retention basins and she discussed this with Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck when he was on the Planning Commission and his request for increasing retention basin sizes, and she was thinking about a particular project and was curious to hear about that. She then referred to them mentioning that they weren’t collecting data during the October 2021 event but had captured the data in the December event, and asked if they have data that the Department of Public Works collected, can that be incorporated into their model or is there anything illustrative for them in that.

Mr. Orgill stated that, in terms of storm drain and actual data collected, there is not a lot of hard data they can get and collect in storm drain systems, but they worked with the City’s operations staff to understand where flooding had occurred and where the issues they had in the system were during that October event and it was very helpful, as well as reaching out to customers

2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 4 July 11, 2022
and figuring out where there were issues. They got interesting videos and pictures that conveyed the gravity of some issues they are having and it has been very helpful.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had a question for him and staff. While she didn’t expect an answer now, but it was an item of concern for her which is what the funding horizon looks like for the CIP he is describing. She stated that, apart from our wastewater system which has its own rate structure, storm water is clearly another cost but has an unclear funding source to her. She wondered if he had any input, suggestions or knowledge about forthcoming infrastructure money, such as at county level, CCAG, etc.

Mr. Orgill stated that they have a task in their scope of services called a funding options task, and there are a few different things associated with that. He was not an expert with funding, and they have other experts in their company doing that. He stated that there are two pieces included in their scope, conduct an evaluation of different grant funding sources and do a high level literature research and to educate the city on potential areas of funding they need to pursue that would likely be successful. He stated that there was also another piece of it, looking into different ways of setting up the storm water utility at the city and another high level evaluation of how that would look and structured and what are the next steps the city could utilize to help fund some of these projects. He stated that the lack of available funds has been the biggest challenge from 2012 moving forward. He stated that the city was looking ahead this time to make sure they had a task in the master plan to help guide that process moving forward.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they will be bringing that back in September during the study session. He referred to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s earlier question regarding data, stating that city staff can look up historical data of any kind of rainfall events that have happened in California and he wanted to add that they can look that up as well.

Mr. Orgill stated that it would be more along precipitation rates. He stated that, when he said there wasn’t a lot of data, he meant by actual flowing pipes.

Mr. Friedlander thought there will be opportunities for grant funding but in the long term, they aren’t necessarily something they can depend on for funding storm water construction and that is important to know.

Mayor Bier stated that his volume was pretty low and they are having a hard time hearing him.

Mr. Friedlander reiterated that there will be opportunities for grant funding and long-term loans for storm water infrastructure but, over time, that isn’t something they can depend on and he thought it would behoove the city to look at other options for ongoing revenue.

Councilmember Vaterlaus referred to them mentioning that they have an idea for Rockaway and she asked if they could give a brief idea of what they plan for Rockaway and for Monterey Road, and Linda Mar also.

Mr. Orgill stated that he can give her a preview, but the next one will go into more detail as they are time limited at this meeting. He stated that, for Rockaway Beach, the initial plan is constructing an inlet in the source where the actual spring is which will necessitate building a pipeline across the street and down into a ditch that is across the street would be the solution there, then for Monterey Road, they looked at a couple of options, with the first being put into a new storm drain line with additional inlets as one of the issues happening there is that it is a steep road coming down and a lot of the runoff that is being conveyed through the street is

2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 5 July 11, 2022
bypassing an inlet there because it is undersized and they also have the Big Inch Creek that is growing pretty heavily. He stated that they can either put in a new storm drain line in the street right away with inlets to help mitigate that flooding issue, but the other concept they are leaning towards now is replacing Big Inch Creek with a storm drain pipeline which will provide additional capacity and alleviate some of those issues of erosion that have been happening in the channel which is the solution they are looking for. He then referred to lower Linda Mar, stating the solution they are recommending now is consistent with the 2012 master plan and that is what they call a relieve line, so they will be recommending parallel pipeline upstream of where the majority of the runoff being conveyed down to the lower Linda Mar area where it is actually occurring and redirect it around the bottleneck so they don’t have flooding happening by the shopping center.

Mayor Bier stated that they have a lot of constituents asking questions about these specific areas so the more general language they can provide will be helpful when they are answering questions.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that one of the councilmembers asked about them not being able to get the October numbers from that event and, if he remembered correctly, such as if that was the first time they turned on the equalization basin which was 2 million gallons, if they have records of what is normal flow with the sewer treatment and now the additional amount of stuff that went into the system because of the rain, and he asked if there was some algorithm or estimate they can give for the October event to have that included in the numbers.

PW Director Petersen stated that the EQ Basin has been in use before the October storm but they have information related to that and the pump station information which they can make available to Carollo if that would be helpful for them.

Councilmember O’Neill just wanted to be that, if they have it, they share it.

Mr. Orgill asked if the EQ Basin was for the sewer system.

Councilmember O’Neill agreed, adding that with all the bad sewer laterals and bad sewage pipes, there is a large infiltration of storm water that goes in there and it has to be treated and that is what overwhelms the sewage treatment plant and why they built the Equalization Basin.

He stated that they know they treated everyday whatever, 5 million gallons, in the sewer treatment plant, but if, in October after that event, they saw 10 million gallons, he thought it was safe to say they had 5 million gallons of rain. He stated he was a novice speaking.

Mr. Orgill stated that there was a lot of nuances there and it was a matter of what they call Rvalues, so it is a percentage of rain that enters those sewer systems. He stated that they are not unique in having I & I impacts to the treatment plant in the Bay Area but in terms of using that data to help quantify the runoff rates in the storm drain system, it is going to be hard to do because there is a lot of variables there.

Mr. Friedlander thought it was important for him to keep in mind that they can model more variables in the calibration that would allow them to do that.

Mr. Orgill stated that he was going to say that as well. He stated that they can run the October event through the model and see what flooding occurred. He stated that it was probably going to be a lot of the same areas that staff told them was happening. He stated that the question they get from that is that, when they have the large 100-year storm event or even higher, is it

2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 6 July 11, 2022
reasonable or cost effective to plan the storm drain infrastructure for something that is a risk system that already doesn’t have a funding source. He stated that is a policy decision that staff will have to make in terms of industry standards, as the design storms that they are running through the model are well in line with the industry standard.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he is 65 probably lived through 4 or 5 100-year events and they seem to be happening more often as climate change is happening. He stated that you talk to people and you talk about people on Anza, and stated it isn’t that you get the toilet overflow but a major damage. He thought it was worth our effort for our constituents to tell them that they spent $22 million on the equalization basin because ....... and this is why and what they are saying now is contradicting, to him, what is the point of the Equalization Basin if this is not going to be a variable for the storm drain. He stated that right now, our sewer system is acting as our storm drain in a lot of instances because of the poor sewer laterals and the seepage and the leakage. He thinks that needs to be a part of the equation in calculating a CIP because no one wants to see streets torn out several times to keep making the pipe bigger.

PW Director Petersen would like to jump in, stating that they have a lot of data that was collected related to their Linda Mar pump station and the pump station related to the storm drain. She agreed with Councilmember O’Neill that they have correlation related to the amount of water that came down and got into our sewer system and then went into our EQ Basin and they have an excellent wastewater engineer on our staff who was able to figure out a lot of that differential between the storm water and wastewater and they will share all that with Carollo and she thinks it will be very helpful for them. She thanked him for bringing it up as it was a good point.

Mayor Bier asked if Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck had a question or should they go to public comment.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he had a question. To emphasize what Councilmember O’Neill was saying, empirical observation would suggest that these low frequency storms seem to be happening with higher frequency and they do want to get as ahead of that curve as feasible. He stated that his question was on the Pedro Point area and he had sent an email on it earlier to PW Director Petersen around the Danmann / Kent area. He stated there was a project that he had been looking at for Planning a few years ago, and while he was there looking at it, one of the neighbors came out and showed him where it looked like there might be an underground spring that was possibly causing some sort of street damage at the time and that resident seemed to imply that there was a sinkhole forming as the result of an underground spring. He thought it seemed like there might be spring issues going on in the Pedro Point area, even just surveying some of the residents to see if they are aware of issues where an underground spring is having an effect and he thought incorporating that into the report would be a good idea.

PW Dep. Director Bautista thanked him for his comment. He stated that, in regard to the spring, their field services crew is documenting the locations of these springs and it will be incorporated into the document.

Mayor Bier thought it was important to go to public comment as they only have about ten minutes left in their time, and opened public comments.

City Clerk Coffey stated that she will be calling on public commenters at this meeting.

Mayor Bier asked how many hands they have now.

2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 7 July 11, 2022
City Clerk Coffey stated that they have three hands raised. She then introduced the speakers.

Bob Boles, Pacifica, stated that his wife, Christine will speak later. He stated that they live in the Manor District on the banks of the Big Inch Creek and experienced floods in their front, side and rear yards, and the neighbors down street suffered even more with permanent damage to their properties that they are still repairing. He then mentioned his thoughts on comments and the issue specifically along with suggestions.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that, when he moved into the area that had back-to-back 500- year storms, they were taken back quite unprepared. He then shared his concerns on the issue, concluding we have heard from mother nature.

Chaya Gordon, Pacifica, stated she is with Pacifica Social Justice and supported upholding the appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Council approval of this draft GPU.

Mayor Bier stated that they are taking public comment on the storm drain and she can come back again.

Ms. Gordon apologized and stated she would.

Sara Woodhull, Pacifica, stated she would add to the comments regarding considering the 100-year storms and possibly 500-year storms and agreed they should include those.

Lynn Adams, Pacifica, stated that she is speaking as a witness to a lot of the storms, as was here in 1997 when they had 3 inches in one hour, mentioning some of the particulars, and mentioned her thoughts on what they should consider.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she appreciated the consultants’ work. She then expressed her thoughts, personal actions and suggestions on the issue.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated that he appreciated the study going forward, and expressed his thoughts on the issue and information provided by PW Dep. Bautista, Ms. Boles and Councilmember O’Neill.

Mayor Bier closed public comments. She reminded them that it was an update session and she appreciated the information brought to the table with the next session being more detailed.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to follow up on a couple of public comments and ask for some report in September or when appropriate around the issue brought forward by the consultants of possibly undergrounding Big Inch Creek In terms of the environmental impact it might have, as well as any alternatives. She thought Chris Redfield was bringing up the idea of larger storm drain catchment but she would have to follow up with him on that. Per Mr. Boles’ comment, she asked if they could have some comment on the items that were recommended in 2012, what they were able to do and fund and what the result was as part of connecting with what they did in the past with what they are looking to for the future.

Mayor Bier asked if there were any comments and, seeing none, she thanked staff and consultants for all the information they provided and they will look forward to what they bring to

2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 8 July 11, 2022
them in the future. She then went on to the public hearing.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

PUBLIC HEARINGS

2. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation for City Council approval of a General Plan update and certification of an environmental impact report (EIR). Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status:

Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (File No. 2009-001) PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt a General Plan update and certify an environmental impact report.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he was joined by Alison Moore and Andrew Hill from Dyett & Bhatia and Chris Dacumos from Good City Company to be available for help with their expertise. He then presented the staff report.

Mayor Bier asked him to repeat the information about the evacuation.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the claim comes up in relationship to Assembly Bill 747 and has a requirement for General Plan Safety Elements to consider evacuation routes, locations relative to hazards and capacity for various evacuation scenarios, i.e., evaluating Highway One’s capacity in a major event to evacuate all impacted areas of the city and what that looks like under that planning scenario. He stated that level of analysis is not required at this point for the Pacifica General Plan update and timing triggers of that requirement in state law would apply to the city’s next adoption of the local hazard mitigation plan. He stated that last fall the Council adopted the most recent update to the local hazard mitigation plan and they might expect, in the next 4-5 years, to consider that AB 747 analysis. He then said that the Council could undertake that analysis sooner if interested in doing so, but there is no legal inadequacy for not including that analysis at this point in time.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to the safety mitigation plan, and asked when their next hazard mitigation plan set to be looked at again.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that those are updated on a five-year timeline and he thought there was a slight shift in the timeline due to Covid and they might expect in the 2025 time to seek Council approval of the next update. He stated that, prior to last year’s update, the prior update was in 2015.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, if they look at the local hazard mitigation plan and they change that, whether they then amend this General Plan to reflect the new information at that date.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the city can comply with AB 747 in a number of different ways. He referred to his mentioning its relationship to the hazard mitigation plan, stating he was trying to say that the legal timing requirement in state law is associated with the next adopted update to the local hazard mitigation plan and that analysis could be in the local hazard mitigation plan or it could be in a safety element amendment or both, but the timing is driven by the next adoption of the local hazard mitigation plan.

Mayor Bier asked if Council had any other questions and, seeing none, she invited the

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 9 July 11, 2022
appellants, Christine Boles and Mark Hubbell, to speak.

City Clerk asked the appellant if he wanted to save three minutes of their presentation time for rebuttal.

Christine Boles, appellant, stated that they have decided, and Mark Hubbell can confirm, that their presentation is just under eight minutes and they will reserve what is left but they would rather not be interrupted during the presentation. She added that her husband will be making a public comment on her computer later.

Mayor Bier asked if they see Mr. Hubbell as she didn’t want to start until he is present.

Ms. Boles stated she would text him.

City Clerk Coffey stated she has promoted him to panelist.

Mayor Bier stated that they can begin their presentation and they will not interrupt them and use what is left over for their rebuttal.

City Clerk Coffey informed them that the timer will not be displayed on the screen and asked if, when they reach the eight-minute mark, they want her to let them know they are at that mark.

Ms. Boles agreed, but just asked she do it quietly.

City Clerk Coffey stated she will start the timer as soon as they start the presentation.

Ms. Boles then began the presentation. She stated that they are appealing the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the 2022 General Plan and EIR. She asked, as they listen to their appeal, that they consider the safety and welfare of Pacificans who voted them into office and whether their decision protects and serve the interest of those whose lives are directly impacted by this General Plan. She stated that the hazard maps and policies have serious errors and omissions that need to be corrected. She stated that there is very little new information they are presented, such as several letters and emails sent over the past six months were not addressed by the Planning Commission, then showed them some examples. She stated the Plan did not include landslide data for the north end of town, and Acting Planning Director Murdock admitted these were wrong and said he was working on new maps but Planning Commission approved the General Plan before seeing them. She pointed out that Pacifica is the poster child for debris flow mudslides, referring to the 475 slides in 1982 which cost millions of dollars in property damage and killed three children. She pointed out the map the city provided on those sites, and stated that it was not complete, giving her examples of slides missing on the new map, then pointed to a subsequent map that also had missing landslides including the 2017 landslide that closed Highway One for 18 hours and Department of Conservation stated that they created the map only on data reported to them by the city. She reported other maps that have landslides missing as well. She then gave more data of what the city has done and she stated that they must make sure they are not creating landslide risks for the homes below. She stated that her letter included mitigation measures to add to the General Plan from Howard Donnelly and Dr. Frost but were never discussed by the Planning Commission and the new General Plan, other than the maps, does not mention debris flow.

She pointed out that accurate hazard maps are critical to land use planning to ensure we are not creating more danger for residents and she was shocked that the properties on Esplanade where apartments fell in the ocean are still zoned high density residential, while others were

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 10 July 11, 2022
changed to the lowest allowed density. She asked the questions but the Commission never discussed it. She then pointed out that the only fire map in the General Plan is blank within the entire city limits while the EIR includes a map that seems more realistic, and they want that map included in the General Plan. She stated that it contains clear errors. The consequences are real and dire, not acceptable or representative of historical facts and need to be sent back for revision.

Mark Hubbell, appellant, stated that the city is almost in the 21st century plan but the exception being a lack of foresight in the mitigation of loss and damage by hazardous wildfires. He listened to fears from residents in various areas of the city, and is taking a positive action. He stated that the neighborhoods listed contain half of the total population. The city has a history of fire but mostly without loss of human lives, and mentioned specific example in 2007 and that is old data, so a new General Plan must be future facing to guide us through the next few decades. He stated that CalFire says new fire maps are in the process of being created with modeling features to replace obsolete maps. He referred to planet change, global warming, drought, etc., are already here and he hoped the city and agencies will subscribe to the real time data for the safety of Pacifica and will be available soon. His main concern with this General Plan is the absence of coherent evacuation plans. He stated that, Park Pacifica Valley, the only two available evacuation routes will be ineffective in accommodating the likelihood of thousands of vehicles heading to safety and these maps are missing information to access the safety and viability of routes in emergency scenarios as required by AB 747. He stated that the designated zone haven evacuation destination is only through two of the most highly fire prone areas of the city, and he stated that they need to send it back to the Planning Commission to be updated. He appreciated all the work put into this General Plan.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they had one minute and 55 seconds remaining.

Mayor Bier asked if they had questions for the appellants, and seeing no one, she opened public hearing.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they had 14 hands raised.

Mayor Bier stated that they will need to do two minutes.

City Clerk Coffey introduced the speakers.

Julie Starobin, Pacifica, stated that she supported the appeal as she thought Planning Commission’s approval was thoughtless and premature as Pacificans deserve decent maps and expressed her concerns on specific aspects.

Blue Murov, Pacifica, stated that Council should honor the appeal as, even though within legal bounds, it is incomplete and expressed her concerns on specific aspects.

Chaya Gordon, Pacifica, stated that she supported the appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation of the draft and expressed her concerns on specific aspects.

Deeg Gold, Pacifica, stated that she supports the appeal and then expressed her concerns on specific aspects.

Victoria Becker, Pacifica, stated that she was speaking for Pacifica Social Justice in support of this appeal and expressed her concerns on specific aspects.

2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 11 July 11, 2022
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, expressed her concerns on specific aspects, as well as appreciation on the appellants compelling information, and stated that the General Plan should be the best it can be and she supports this appeal.

Debra Etienne, Pacifica, stated that she was disappointed that the safety of Pacificans was not a top priority in the General Plan, and expressed her concerns on specific aspects.

Leo Leon, Pacifica, stated he was in support of the appeal and thought it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to review the figures used and best available data and expressed his concerns and thoughts on what will help Pacifica.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that he had concerns about meeting specific requirements but not what is the public interest, and he asked that they deal with the safety issues and send it back to the Planning Commission.

Denise Leonardi, Pacifica, stated that she supported the amendment on the draft and asked that that they update the map to address fire, flood landslide risks and other hazards, and expressed concerns on specific aspects.

Delia McGrath, Pacifica, stated that she had concerns and mentioned the specific aspects, such as having proper maps and she supported the appeal, expressing her gratitude for the appellants bringing this forward.

Carolyn Jaramillo, Pacifica, thanked the appellants for their appeal and their research efforts and she expressed her concerns on specific aspects and asked Council to listen to the concerns expressed and honor the appeal.

Paul Chervatin, Pacifica, appreciated staff’s work and the appellants and expressed his concerns on specific aspects that need to be updated and fixed, asking that the safety element be sent back to Planning Commission.

Erin Macias, Pacifica, echoed her concerns on the landslide maps, and expressed her concerns on other specific aspects such as fire risk and need for a comprehensive evacuation plan for the city.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thanked the appellants who filed the appeal, and she expressed her concerns and suggestions on various specific aspects.

Sara Woodhull, Pacifica, expressed her concerns on specific aspects and agreed with the appellants and asked that Council uphold the appeal and send the General Plan back to the Planning Commission as it needs more work.

Cassie Leonardi, Pacifica, stated she supports the appeal and then expressed her concerns on specific aspects and thought the appellants’ presentation was insightful.

Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated that he supports the appeal and expressed his concerns on various specific aspects that are unacceptable and need to be updated at least in the safety elements.

Bob Boles, Pacifica, mentioned some specific bills regarding safety measures, and stated the

2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 12 July 11, 2022
map needs to be re-drawn and re-evaluated by the Planning Commission and then mentioned concerns on other specific aspects.

Brooke Leonardi, Pacifica, stated that she supported the appeal and mentioned her concerns on the specific aspects, and asked that they send it back to the Planning Commission to be updated.

Victor Carmichael, Pacifica, stated that he supported the appeal and then mentioned his concerns on the process when it was approved by the Commission without having staff address their concerns.

Vicki Sundstrom, Pacifica, stated that she supports the appeal and expressed her concerns on various specific aspects.

Margaret Goodale, Pacifica, stated that she supports the appeal as well as all the knowledgeable comments and she expressed her concerns on specific aspects such as the plan matching what their insurance companies think.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, thanked the Planning Commission which he thinks is excellent and did an excellent job on this document. He acknowledged that it is not perfect but added that you aren’t going to find a perfect document. He then mentioned his positive thoughts on the various aspects discussed.

Marj Davis, Pacifica, asked Council to consider the comments made by all the speakers, uphold the appeal. She then thanked the appellants for the time they took to prepare a detailed appeal directly related to public safety and expressed her thoughts on the best process to completion.

Ellen Hage, Pacifica, stated that she supported the appeal and expressed her thoughts and concerns on specific aspects.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing. She then asked appellants to present their rebuttal.

Ms. Boles stated that she would like to get staff’s response first as these were all very moving comments, and she questioned if they were trying to defend not updating the documents.

Mayor Bier stated that they will have the appellant’s rebuttal first and then back for Council deliberation and they will have discussion at that time.

Ms. Boles stated she would then speak.

City Clerk Coffey asked if she wanted the timer to be shown or their presentation shown.

Ms. Boles didn’t know if Mark Hubbell wanted to speak as they are not in the same room.

Mr. Hubbell told her to take it away.

Ms. Boles said he was free to jump in. She stated that she was moved by all the speakers’ comments, and the history in Pacifica connected with climate change, etc. She stated she learned about the history of 1982 when she was doing research on a previous project before the Planning Commission and she felt that we can’t ignore the facts and let this document stand the

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 13 July 11, 2022
way it is. She stated that the hazards are real and she asked that Council please send this back.

Mayor Bier then brought it back for Council deliberation.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was aware they have Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser online but he didn’t see her yet. He was going to be asking her questions over the course of deliberation.

City Manager Woodhouse asked to comment on process. He stated that there were a number of very thoughtful comments from the public, many of which they have heard before and addressed throughout the various General Plan hearings, but some are topics that, at the first General Plan special meeting on June 25, Council made recommendations about policy revisions and they would be showing those revisions later in this evening at the adjourned special meeting session. He stated that not all the comments relate to the basis for this appeal hearing, and he stated that they can take time now to cover those suggested revisions or address the different issues raised in Public Comment now rather than, depending on the outcome of this appeal, waiting to the special adjourned meeting later. He stated that there are revisions Council suggested and they are prepared to show redline revisions in that item later that directly address some of the comments that were made. He raised that information for Council to discuss the process for proceeding. He stated that Acting Planning Director Murdock may have additional suggestions as well.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, before diving into those specific points, he wanted to touch generally on some of the public comments made as well as some of the points by the appellants. He reminded Council that the appeal relates to a recommendation by the Planning Commission and ultimately, with a recommendation, Council has the final decision of what to do in response to that recommendation. He stated that there is no right or wrong recommendation from the Planning Commission which seems suggested by some of the speakers. He stated that the Planning Commission weighed the information and made its best recommendation at that time. Staff incorporated many of those additional edits that Planning Commission requested into the information presented to Council which the City Manager alluded to. He stated that Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser as the liaison with respect to the General Plan recommendation also confirmed whether Planning staff’s modifications hit the mark as far as what Planning Commission had intended with that recommendation. He pointed out, as one speaker pointed out, there is a plan for evacuation during hazard events in Pacifica and is managed by the Police and Fire Departments. He stated that they can have Acting Police Chief Glasgo or Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh speak to what that process looks like. He stated that it is not the case, as could be interpreted from some of the comments, that there is not currently any plan for evacuation. He stated that the AB 747 analysis discussed is a very specific requirement in state law and they looked at additional details about evaluation routes, but it is not a plan for evacuation. The city has such a plan based on existing transportation network and existing resources and ability to coordinate among first responders. He added that, on the topic of evacuation routes, SB 99, as was mentioned in public comments, is a very brief provision in state law and it basically says the General Plan needs to identify residential development in any hazard area identified in the safety element that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. He stated that there are no criteria or guidelines for determining how to identify those locations and staff used judgment in identifying those locations in map in Figure 8-8 on packet page 4381. He stated that they mapped those areas using what staff thinks is reasonable judgment and they think the best interpretation of residential developments in SB 99 Is neighborhood units and they have several neighborhood units that have only one

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 14 July 11, 2022
way in and one way out and they have mapped those areas on Figure 8-8. He stated that they didn’t think the best interpretation of residential developments was small cul-de-sacs that might exist between broader neighborhoods which he stated was the ultimate judgment call of Council and that is the rationale staff used in preparing the map. He stated that, as with all elements, they can evolve with time as the needs of the city might evolve. He then reiterated the point made by the City Manager, i.e., they have slides with specific redline edits that they prepared for potential consideration later in the evening but they can jump into those whenever it suits Council.

Mayor Bier stated that they have heard many people express their concerns on the safety element, and she wanted to make sure that they are very clear that, if they decide to talk about all the things that were brought to them at this meeting through the appeal process, during the deliberation about the General Plan, they will have the time and patience to go through each one of these in detail as she believes the community deserves that. She is passionate about it, but it is important that they are very clear that they care about each and every one of the comments and they will take the time to address them during their deliberations later in the meeting and she needed to get that out as it was important to her.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that a theme for him now is going to boil down to the word continuity and part and parcel to that is the continuity of the meeting which is awkward because it starts with the General Plan in a special meeting and ends with the General Plan in a special meeting and, at this point, they are constrained by the context of the appeal but they may want to bring up some of the discussion they are having during this part of the agenda and discuss it in that part of it and given that this could be a final opportunity to discuss this through, he wants to be sure that, if that is the case, they do as thorough and robust a job as they possibly can as he hopes they have been doing the entire time. He stated that, if they need to walk over the same road a couple of times to make sure they see what there is, which is important to him. He referred to fire safety, and he thinks about the robust two-day seminar he attended on fire safety in April which was exhausting but he walked away with so much good information. He stated that, when experts from all over California were discussing fire maps, specifically the difference between threat maps and hazard maps, the specifically made a point that when looking at the threat and hazard maps, the average individual is not necessarily going to make heads or tails out of it as trained professionals would and when discussing publicly, it was important, stop, take a moment, slow down and do as robust a job as they can describing the difference between threat and hazard maps and how they are used. He hoped Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh can walk them through it, but the broader, general context is fire risk itself. He stated a commenter asked why the fire map was blank and that was a pure way of looking at a huge chunk at odds in the community that he can imagine. He stated that the greater question is whether the maps change their EIR policies that will ultimately mitigate hazards and asked what the relationship between the fire maps we have and how we keep people from burning down at the end of the day. He asked if Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh can teach them.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated that if everyone would go to the CalFire Office of State Fire Marshall’s severity zone maps, there are pages of descriptions of what the severity zone maps are, and the ones that were done in 2008 were the last maps done. He stated that the maps aren’t saying there is not a fire risks, and he thought it was important for Council and the public to know that there is a fire risk throughout the entire state of California including Pacifica and that is not what the maps are saying. The severity zone maps or LRA (Local Responsibility Area) only show high severity zones for LRA and it is not in a very high severity zones throughout the entire state, it doesn’t show that on the maps. If you pull up San Mateo County as a whole, there is a very small percentage of the county that is in a very high severity zone.

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 15 July 11, 2022
He stated that there are a lot of elements used to determine what that severity zone is, such as vegetation, topography, weather, history, the ember test that is done if a fire starts. He added that it was important for everyone to realize that the maps are used to evaluate hazards, not a risk, and that is the difference between the high severity zone maps. He stated that there is a risk in California for fire as we have fire everywhere in California but the hazard is different from San Mateo County to Shasta County to Riverside County, etc., and there are different hazards.

He appreciated everybody’s comments, and he is thinking that they have people confused on the maps. He thought Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck did a good job explaining as he was on that same conference call for two days, as it can be confusing. He asked everyone to go to the CalFire OES site and look at all the data on there as it is broken with questions and how everything is derived. He stated that CalFire, by law, has to update the severity zone maps and it hasn’t been done since 2008 and they are working on the SRA portion which is all State Responsibility Area and once that is done they will warp into what is called LRA which is going to affect Pacifica. They do the modeling and we get it and get to do a recommendation on that.

He did not have a time frame when that will be done but they hope it will be in the next year, but it could be even a year and a half. He stated that they tried to get the SRA maps done last year but they weren’t done. He appreciated everyone’s concerns with the maps, and there is a 100% fire risk in Pacifica, but this does not fall into the very high severities. He stated that he will take any questions.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his first question is whether there are any other maps they should be using and, if not, why. He asked how the General Plan address fire safety outside of the maps which are clearly not intuitive or user friendly to the average observer.

Acting Planning Director Murdock showed a map from the Environmental Impact Report so that it is clear to Council and the community that wildfire risk has been considered by the city in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the appropriate level of review based on wildfire threat has been incorporated in this process. He stated that it is Figure 3.14-1 from the EIR. He stated it is the fire threat map prepared by the state. He stated that, if they go to the website where they can download which is at a statewide scale, it is difficult to use. They provide geographic information system (GIS) data that allows you to do a finer scaled map for a particular locality which is what staff prepared for the EIR. It shows areas ranging from low to high fire threat based on CalFire factors that are evaluated in creating that map. The map informs the creation of those very high fire hazard severity zone maps. He stated that, as Dep.

Fire Chief Kavanaugh mentions, the map is not the same as a fire hazard severity zone map and it is a component of politics as very few local jurisdictions on the 2007-2008 timeframe adopted those maps recommended by the state. He stated that there is a lot of political push back from property owners, that are concerned that adoption of those maps are going to somehow adversely affect them in terms of their property insurance and other financial impacts, thus, few communities adopted those maps and why they are left with a blank space that some commenters described on the official state adopted maps. The state proceeded with finalizing their state responsibility area maps and that left a void in terms of information mapped for those fire hazard severity zones for local responsibility areas in Pacifica. He stated that they mentioned that in prior meetings, and they encourage the Council to have a very robust community discussion about those new maps recommended by the state when they come out and now is the time to swallow the pill and say that it is the risk they are confronting as a community to ensure that the fire hazard severity zone maps are actually formally adopted by the city and formally adopted by the state. He stated that they can’t have that conversation now as the maps are not out, but they have considered fire threat for the EIR and have not recommended including that fire threat map in the General Plan because of the likelihood for confusion. The General Plan law requires that they do include the adopted final fire hazard severity zone maps which has specific implications for development review and other policy

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 16 July 11, 2022
decisions. He thinks there is a high probability of misuse of the fire threat map as compared to the fire hazard severity zone map, and it is not staff’s recommendation at this time to include that until there is a more robust process that can provide clearer distinction of what that information is and the intended uses for it.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he wanted to check with Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser because, after watching many hours of robust deliberation of this diverse group of experts from various perspectives on land development who live in Pacifica and wish to keep themselves safe, as well as the rest of us, and asked if she could give him insight on why the Planning Commission felt comfortable making the recommendation of approval, given what they were looking at when it came to fire risk.

Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser stated that the City Attorney has asked her to clarify that she has been appointed liaison to Item 13 but now, for the record, she is speaking more as an individual planning commissioner. She stated that they did review it and they asked the same question of Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh and his team and she understood that it was also asked by Council on the 25th. She stated that the thoughtful response and explanation given made a lot of sense, but what bolsters that for her is that Figure 8-7, which has the fire hazard, is a map, but the policy themselves are not limited by the maps. She referred to SI94, 95, that are guiding and implementing policies and none of them are limited or solely in fire hazard zones but cover the whole city, whether you are in a fire risk, fire hazard zone or any area with no fire hazard. She thinks that Pacifica and California have taken this seriously and she thought the General Plan has done a good job doing that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to packet page 4379, where they can see the policies related to fire. He added that, as explained in the master response for the EIR and other public hearings on the General Plan update, there are additional existing law that is in place to protect the community and environment from wildfire and there are requirements to analyze wildfire risks under the CEQA for projects that are proposed that would trigger CEQA review. There are also components of the California building code already on the books that would allow the city, in risky locations, to ensure that wildfire risk is property evaluated and the site design and structural design are intended to mitigate wildfire risk as well. He stated that there are a number of complimentary policies and the General Plan is just one of those in terms of the policies that it would include. He then stated he would turn the microphone to Councilmember Beckmeyer.

Mayor Bier stated that, before she speaks, she wanted to clarify what she was saying before, i.e., that they have the opportunity in Item 13 to make changes and have detailed conversations about each item. That is what she meant and she then passed to Councilmember Beckmeyer.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to ask Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh, regarding the state responsibility area of the SRA maps coming first, and hopefully very soon after the LRA maps, and she heard him say was that these were last approved in 2008. She asked if he can tell them what happens when the new updated LRA arrives, such as what will happen with his department and how are those treated.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated that, once the review is done by the state, they are sent to all the local jurisdictions and Pacifica will receive those recommended maps. He isn’t sure the number of days for review (60 or 120) that the city has to either adopt the recommendation that the state has given or if they want to make changes to that document for our area. He stated that they have the ability to review, make changes or accept the document that has been provided after all the modeling done for the applicant review.

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 17 July 11, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he wanted to put a bookmark on the Milagra on ramp during Item #13 as it is not in the scope of the appeal they are hearing, and he heard it and wants to discuss it later. He referred to discussion of why they are approving maps the Planning Commission has not seen, and he thought the point was well taken when he said that, at the end of the day, Planning Commission made a recommendation to Council, the decision makers, that is unlike when they approve a development and, if there was an issue and it appealed to Council, they would make a decision one way or the other but ultimately they are the initial deciding body but they are not in this case but the recommending body. He stated that, at the end of the process, Council becomes the deciding body in the process.

Acting Planning Director Murdock understood, and he would say it in a different, i.e., when they receive a project to consider on appeal, they are being asked to determine if the Planning Commission did something wrong, and does Council need to fix it. When they are considering a recommendation by the Planning Commission, and as he mentioned there is no wrong recommendation but just the judgement of the Planning Commission to recommend their best thoughts on the General Plan and Council determines whether they agree with that recommendation or do they want to reach a different conclusion. He thought, specifically regarding some of the items raised on this appeal, Council has already seen that information, and it is not a guess as to what staff has done to address the Planning Commission’s recommendation and they have prepared the revised maps for Council to see and they can talk them through those to whatever extent there is interest by Council to understand what changes occurred between Planning Commission and the June 25 Council meeting.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck recalled that they enjoyed the maps presented to them at Council’s meeting and he will be happy to discuss them further if they feel the need. He thought the appellant brought up the USGS survey maps and whether or not they have updated data from the north. He thought something got lost as he listening and he can’t recall if the new data they were presented on that Saturday did update. He stated that there was a lapse in continuity between what is being appealed versus what they have already discussed past what is being appealed.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, he was happy to jump in but wants to be respectful to Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser as she has her hand raised.

Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser wanted to add a little nuance to what Acting Planning Director Murdock said, i.e., not only did the Planning Commission make a recommendation but, as a liaison, she was given the opportunity to review the hundreds of changes they recommended to ensure that staff had incorporated all of them and she thought all but 17 were formally incorporated into the document and the other 17 were formally presented at the meeting on the 25th and she believed that Council reviewed each one of them in depth following all the reviews of the element. She stated that, from that standpoint, it was not only been recommended and the requests that they made have been incorporated into the document that they reviewed on the 25th and is in the agendized item for later in this meeting.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to follow up on what Acting Planning Director Murdock offered. She wanted to move off of fire maps but staying within the realm of what has been brought forward by the appellant. She asked if he can speak to the landslide maps and the status of that, referencing what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck is saying with regard to the continuity and the changes presented to Council on the 25th.

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 18 July 11, 2022
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that there were two maps at issue. He stated that there was an issue of incomplete information on a map of debris flows, and he will address that one first. He stated that there was the issue of the debris flows where it was acknowledged in the 1983 seismic safety and safety element update. He stated that the official mapping of those hazards at that time was incomplete and only for the southern half of the city. He stated that was the information staff first came across when making their best attempt to respond to some of the public comments on that point. They provided that information through further engagement with the California Geologic Survey and were able to confirm that additional information was available from a different source that had the full city mapped out. They worked with the California Geologic Survey to pull that information out and combine it into a complete map of the entire city for those map debris flows. He was having problems with that map and he shifted to the other map of historic landslides that had occurred in the past and mapped by the state. The city used information specifically provided to them by the California geologic survey. After they reviewed the map staff created based on the information they gave the city, they stated that it was not right. They went back with them again to confirm actual historical landslides and the prior information also combined groupings of landslide risk and the map, revised Figure 8-X, actually has the correct information provided from the state of historic map landslides. Staff has acknowledged that it does not include every landslide that occurred in Pacifica and they think the focus of effort should not be on making Pacifica a landslide agency but using whatever resources they can bring to bear to get that information to the state so they can include it in their official maps. He stated that the benefits of that are obvious, such as they get correct information and more holistic information of that hazard and that information is more broadly available to all users of that geologic hazard information, including licensed professionals that prepare geotechnical hazard assessments. He stated that, if it is tucked simply in the Pacifica General Plan, they may not know to go find it there and he thought all roads, from staff’s perspective, lead to engaging with the state to get the information in their official maps and that is something they are prepared to do and forcefully support through staff’s actions. They would prefer not to seek out attempts to map those landslides on their own.

Mayor Bier asked if that includes sending them information they have received from our community.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it does, and it could include sending them the totality of the 1983 Howard Donnelly report and say that they believe they have missed some of the map landslides, and ask if there was a reason they didn’t map them or did the information not get to them in the appropriate form and they can make the decisions as relevant experts on whether to update the state maps with those landslide hazards.

Mayor Bier thought it would include the one that occurred in 2017.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they will need to send any maps information they have and that 2017 landslide occurred in Caltrans right-of-way and it is not clear to staff if Caltrans officially mapped that up but it is an example where they can engage with Caltrans and ask them to send whatever information they have on that to the state’s California Geologic Survey seismic hazards mapping program and try to get it integrated into the official maps.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if the appropriate venue for making this happen be including a policy in the General Plan that, as we become aware of these landslides, we send to the state to update.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought that could be an appropriate avenue and/or

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 19 July 11, 2022
considering some specific ordinance on this particular issue to give more specificity than the General Plan might be able to do as the particular obligation of different parties, whether private parties or public agencies and what their respective obligations are. The benefit of that is that they would have the force of law to require them to do it as well as a mandatory obligation under the ordinance. He stated that they may not be able to obligate state agencies but they can definitely obligate the city and any private parties operating in Pacifica under the circumstances or threshold identified in that ordinance for mapping and reporting landslides.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded that the ordinance might be a more thorough way of doing it than writing a new policy.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought it could be and would require a more robust discussion and a separate undertaking that they city needs to resource. He stated that it sounds like there is a lot of community concern and energy to address that hazard with a focused effort, as a couple of sentences and policy in the General Plan is not going to get them there, although it could provide initial support to prioritize that but they will need to take a focused effort with an ordinance and have the community conversation and Council decision in that venue.

Mayor asked if they can decide to do both.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated they can do both.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if he can explain the difference between debris flows and landslides, as they heard a huge number but those could be a trickling of water which is a tiny debris flow.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated, that while he is not a licensed civil engineer or engineering geologist, generally, landslides are used to describe more deeply seated large mass movements of earth and debris flow is a term used where shallower, more channelized flows of earth and other debris and material are typically aggravated through heavy saturations from rainfall and channelized in a sort of a valley of hillsides and then rushing downhill. The larger and deeper they are and the farther they are able to run, they can then sometimes become what are called debris avalanches as, much like snow, avalanches they obtain achieve a lot of speed, mass and a lot of destructive force and that is why they are an important hazard to identify and recognize and ensure that appropriate engineering interventions are included in site specific geotechnical reports for a particular development.

Vaterlaus asked if, after the major landslides in 1982, the city developed programs to alleviate a lot. She knows the city can’t alleviate all landslides and debris flows but she asked if there were measures to alleviate the risk in a lot of locations after that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought, given the 40 years that has past, some of that knowledge has been lost. He thought PW Director Petersen and speak more about the ongoing activities in her department, but Planning staff understands some focused efforts were made in the Park Pacifica neighborhood where drainage improvements and some debris flow containment or mitigation structures were constructed at particularly hazardous locations to help minimize those hazards learning from the experiences of those very traumatic impactful events of 1982 and 1983. He did not know of any citywide infrastructure effort, but those most impacted areas in the back of the valley did have a number of property specific interventions identified and constructed. He stated that, as far as a citywide approach, the outcome of that

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 20 July 11, 2022
1982-1983 period was an update to the seismic safety and safety element as mentioned, and citywide policies addressing new development were included in that to ensure that there was sufficient assessment of site-specific geotechnical hazards and the immediate surroundings of those site. He stated it was important to recognize that happened in a particular point in time and he thought that what the city did in 1982-1983 was commendable which responded to immediate community needs. He stated that it happened before that particular issue was standardized and systematized at a statewide level. The seismic hazards mapping act of 1990 was enacted this experience occurred in the city and it charged the state with undertaking a comprehensive statewide seismic hazard mapping program, including seismic induced landslides with impaction hazards and other hazards so that there is a statewide map of those zones. If they look at Figure 8-1 in the General Plan Update, nearly the entire city has been identified in the seismic and geologic hazard zone, triggering that mandatory site-specific geotechnical investigation for development. He stated that much has changed since the early 1980s , 1970s and 1960s and much of those impacted areas were subdivided and intensively developed and there are now provisions in place to provide that type of analysis and it is complimented again, much like the fire hazard issue, by geologic and soils hazard assessment and mitigation required through the CEQA process as well and large subdivisions of this sort that occurred, such as in Park Pacifica and Linda Mar, would require a much more focused analysis of those types of geologic hazards, drainage and debris flow, containment walls and other types of mitigation measures will be component of subdivisions in new developments these days that were not a part of those Park Pacifica subdivisions and developments in years past.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought it was telling that they keep hearing about the tragedy of 1982, but he was not hearing of similar such tragedy transpiring since then. It occurs to him that, while he is not clear on the history, in that moment in time or in a possible tragedy since then, but the city made a concerted effort to do everything they could to make sure that such a tragedy did not happen again and our policies have been keeping us safe. He referred to the idea brought up during the appeal of the landslide potentially performing from outside of the site itself, and asked if there was any policy in place currently to address it going on to another property or coming down from another property and, if not, should they.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that his assessment of applicable requirements for site specific geotechnical hazard investigations is that it does not clearly charge those design professionals as engineers with analyzing conditions beyond the site. He stated that it is good engineering practice to consider those potential hazards, but strictly speaking, it is ambiguous at best, whether they would be obligated to do that in preparation of that type of report. He thought the appellants are suggesting that the 1983 seismic safety and safety element would do a better job than the current General Plan in that regard, and he thought there may be a fair argument to make on that point with respect to policies that are more generalized in the proposed General Plan. He didn’t think that including a policy in the safety element is going to achieve the desired outcomes as he understand them from the appellants, and he clarifies that you can have a good policy basis to support that type of analysis in the General Plan but it is only going to affect projects and activities that require some consideration of the General Plan as part of their approval. He stated one example is a project permit for a discretionary permit that might go to the Planning Commission and require that finding to be made for General Plan consistency but that is the minority of projects in Pacifica. He stated that, when he says that an ordinance might be a better approach for addressing this issue, in mandating that design professionals go beyond the minimum requirements of state law for their geotechnical assessments in Pacifica, he means that they can apply that through a local amendment in the building code when that is updated later this year and/or in a stand-alone ordinance to indicate

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 21 July 11, 2022
assessing hazards, upslope and downslope, that are relevant to not only the structure’s design in ensuring the structure is safe, but that it is not going to cause adverse impacts downslope and not going to be impacted adversely from hazards that may be present off site but upslope.

He stated that the main caveat he wants Council to understand with that type of requirement is that it can require a consideration in whatever fashion that the ordinance might specify, but there are practical and legal limitations to conducting particular detailed assessments, such as soil borings or reconnaissance investigations on another property owner’s property without that property owner’s consent. He thinks that needs to be understood as the potential limitation of that future process, but at a minimum, they could at least explain that it is Council’s intent that the maximum amount of investigation of those offsite hazards should be taken into account so they have a more holistic and 360 assessment when they are doing a site specific geotechnical investigation.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought, if the building element winds up being the smoother way to accomplish it, he would favor it. He stated that it sounds like they have a second thought on an ordinance coming out of this appeal. He thought they will have to give direction, but he would favor that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated his screen is now working to show the debris flow figure, and he hoped it will work this time. He asked them if they see the map. He pointed out that it was the updated figure 8-3b that was the outcome of the Planning Commission’s recommendation. He asked that they look at the version of the figure presented to the Planning Commission which only had information for the southern half of Pacifica and was in a slightly different cleaner form as it used the GIS (geographic information system) data to create it. He stated that the scrapped that and went to the paper-based maps that were a bit grainier but provides the information on a citywide scale and it corrects the omission of information for the northern half of Pacifica and utilizes the data from the California Geologic Survey to address the map debris flows from prior occurrences.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought that was what he was getting to earlier about updating data in the north. He asked if there was a United States geological survey map that they are aware of but we are not using, and if so, why not.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he cannot profess to know all of the map geologic information out there between the various expert agencies like the U.S. Geologic Survey and California Geological Survey, but he can say that staff is open to incorporating whatever geologic information for Pacifica that Council feels is appropriate. He stated that it all helps to paint the picture of the level of risk that exists in our community and they are not trying to sidestep that but trying to strike the right balance of helpful information without being overwhelming with that information and using information that supports a particular policy or decision. He stated that this information helps describe the extent of that geologic risk throughout our community as does Figure 8-1 which he mentioned earlier with the extensive seismic induced landslide and liquefaction hazard zone information that reflects the very broad risk exposure for geologic hazards in Pacifica.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he sees that Allison Moore has come on, and before she goes, he is looking at the footnote on packet page 4348, 8-3b which says that the source is USGS so that is what she was apparently about to say. He stated that they have the maps, and he asked if the maps change the EIR policy to mitigate hazards or where is the nexus between maps and mitigation of hazards versus policy and mitigation of hazards, such as where is the overlap, where does one end and the other begin, as he concludes the goal is to mitigate

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 22 July 11, 2022
hazards and keep a tragedy from happening, such as happened in 1982, and keep people alive and their houses intact.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he will speak to the policy component and Ms.

Moore can speak to the relationship of this information to the EIR analysis that was prepared for CEQA. He stated that there is a robust list of policies in Chapter 8 which is the safety element of the draft General Plan and generally speaking all roads lead to a site specific geotechnical hazard investigation. He stated that there is more than one way that refers but the key and fundamental way, in his opinion, is that, as a result of state law reflected in Figure 8-1 which is in areas of mandatory investigation which includes those seismic landslide hazard zones and liquefaction hazard zones and nearly all types of development are going to require a site specific geotechnical hazard investigation to determine whether engineering principles can mitigate those geologic risks to a suitable level that the site can be developed safely. He thought they have acknowledged a limitation in the minimum requirements of state law to look at the site and the structure in the development being proposed without an explicit mandate to look beyond the site. He stated that it is good engineering practice and many engineers do that, but there is no requirement for them to do that that he is aware of and that is where Council can intervene and broaden that requirement beyond what the state’s minimum requirements are and get to some of that concern that the appellants have about perceiving that the 1983 element is more protective of public health and safety. He didn’t think that was the case because, as mentioned, many projects are not subject to that General Plan policy in terms of findings for their approval and, through an ordinance, Council could actually effectuate that for many more, if not all, types of projects that might be of a concern for Pacifica.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought, as we are trying to keep us safe, ordinance is the way to go.

Mayor Bier agrees with that. She also reminded them about what they are doing. She knows they are going through everything which she thinks is important and she wants to do it during Item #13 as well. She stated that they can carry on but they are an hour and 15 minutes over time. She stated that it doesn’t really matter this is the most important topic they are ever going to talk about, but she wanted to say to Brian Martinez that she was sorry he had to wait so long but they will get to him.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck also thanked Mr. Martinez, but stated that it is the nature of the appeal and addressing safety is the nature of the appeal specifically and why he is trying to do his due diligence. He referred to Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser and the extraordinary job the Commission did, and then asked what she saw when she was looking at the safest element and why were they comfortable sending it to Council without looking at the maps.

Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser thought they talked about the policy and she agreed with what Acting Planning Director Murdock just said, and they got a lot of these comments in the first meeting and a lot of written comments and reviewed all the comments on the EIR as well, and the first large portion of their deliberation was asking the same questions that Council is asking and that the community asked in this appeal. She stated that they took very detailed lists of all of the questions that came before them to make sure that they created a platform and got the answers the questions. She stated that, from a logistical standpoint, she felt comfort able knowing that Council was going to review the maps with the updated information and she has asked staff to confirm that the maps are 100%, and confirmed that they do not need change and all the recommendations that the Planning Commission made were included, if not in the redline, then in the presentation that was made to Council on June 25. Based on the large amount of both general and implementing policies, besides the ordinance idea that is coming

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 23 July 11, 2022
up, she can’t imagine what additional policies could be recommended here beyond what is in there.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck had a question for Acting Planning Director Murdock about the high density residential on Esplanade, and was not sure what part of the map it was, and usually when they do an appeal hearing, they talk about ex-parte communications, and he talked to Christine Boles ahead of time. He didn’t know if it was necessary to say it before. He was referencing some that as he was going through this.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated, before he addressed his question about land use designations on Esplanade Avenue, he wanted to make one final point about the interface of policies and to Councilmember Vaterlaus’ question about actual physical improvements in response to these hazards. He stated that Policy SAI 14, packet page 4352 was a good example of a policy that is in the safety element that addresses what are known as geologic hazard abatement districts. He stated that it is a component of state law that allows cities to address these kinds of hazard across specific property lines. They can put mechanisms in place to seek to abate them pro-actively rather than waiting for some unfortunate tragedy to occur. He stated that it was another tool that the General Plan would support for Council to consider under appropriate circumstances and he wanted to give that example for Council. He thought Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was interested in the land use maps in Chapter 4, land use element of the General Plan. He is trying to get to the particular figure that shows it but he clarified that, in prior statements, there was a perception or belief that the General Plan proposed the properties on Esplanade Avenue at medium density residential and they were proposed at high density residential which is the same land use designation included in the 1980 land use plan for those areas. He thought they can talk about that in more detail in a later hearing at this time, as there are reasons not to change those land use designations currently, such as they have already indicated that those land use designations in the certification draft local coastal land use plan sent to the Coastal Commission and they want to be cautious not to affect that process adversely by changing significant components or policies in that plan at this point in time. He stated that another component is that any future development there would need to comply with other policies including policies in the local coastal land use plan and local coastal program that require new development not to require shoreline protection and it may not be possible to achieve those high density residential densities and the more units on the site in terms of theoretical units that could be developed, the more valuable in private property ownership to potentially support a transfer of development rights. So, if you could transfer of high density and forego all those future development rights is a greater economic incentive for that. He thought the most striking component is that the city is in eminent domain action for three of the properties on Esplanade where the city previously demolished the apartment buildings on those sites and the city has identified and confirmed its right to acquire those properties through eminent domain and, once that property ownership change occurs and the city owns the property, no residential development of any type will be undertaken on those properties. He thought there were multiple reasons not to look to the change land use designation at this point but when that change in property ownership occurs, that might be an appropriate time to undertake a land use designation change.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated it was Figure 4-3, but he thought he addressed everything he was concerned about. He then referred to him bring up something that was brought up many times by comments which was the LCP consistency. He asked if there was an inconsistency that he should be discussing later on in the evening.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he was welcome to discuss it again. He stated that

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 24 July 11, 2022
they have acknowledged that the potential exists for elements and components of the General Plan update to be inconsistent with the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan which is currently in effect as they recognize that those documents need to be consistent for the provisions in the General Plan to be implemented in coastal zone, such as some land use designation changes have the potential to be inconsistent with the 1980 Local Coastal Land use Plan. There is a policy in the General Plan that expressly clarifies that where a conflict exists between the General Plan and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan that is certifies by the Coastal Commission, the certified Local Coastal Land Use Plan would prevail. He stated that it will be a fact specific and issue specific analysis for the city staff to determine where those conflicts may arise and clarify when the 1980 LCLUP will be relied upon. He stated that the alternative is undesirable and Council had consensus on this point on June 25 which is to delay any action on the General Plan for the entirety of the city to basically forego that action and to sacrifice that authority for Council and waiting for the Coastal Commission to certify the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and Council was not in favor of delaying a city wide General Plan update and recognizing that most of the buildings, people, development and land area of the city are outside the coastal zone and a General Plan update is sorely needed from the 1980 General Plan. He stated it is appropriate to advance the General Plan at this point in time and use that policy to resolve any conflicts until the Local Coastal Land Use Plan is certified.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if the best available data is in this Plan.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought all reasonable data from authoritative sources is in the Plan and staff has acknowledged that there may be information that is not contained in the official maps from the state and good effort should be put in to try and rectify that moving forward but the information contained in the General Plan is adequate, accurate and appropriate to support City Council adoption of the General Plan.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there was a comment about technical reasons versus public interest, and he wanted to say something on that unless Acting Planning Director Murdock has something to add. He hears what Planning Commission has been going through and what Council has been going through, and as they are addressing this, they are developing potential ordinances on the fly and that, while technical reasoning is a basis for checking the boxes, he stated that, as they are deliberating they are doing everything they can to address public interest as they understand it at any given moment. He stated that the last thing on his list is traffic. He stated that one commenters, who is more of an expert on traffic issues than he is, brought up a list of things, and the big traffic issues that came out of outreach, and he asked where that list is, how was it addressed, as complete streets requirements was the way he interpreted the next comment and addressing all thorough fares and whether or not the circulation element is aligned with land use.

Acting Planning Director Murdock referred to a point he made, and said he would emphasize one or two things. What is being asked of the Council is hard, as most City Councils since 1980 has undertaken a comprehensive General Plan update and the more time that has gone by, he feels the harder it is to do it as they think they need to keep doing more and more work to make a perfect document and one lesson learned from that is that the longer you wait and the more time that goes by, things change and you can never catch up. They have the never ending attempt to get a perfect document and the world is constantly changing. He thought the relevant point of reference in that respect is whether this 2020-40 General Plan they prepared for Council to consider is a marked improvement over the 1980 General Plan and he thought that was the fair comparison as everything else is wondering if they can do more, make it better and continually improve. He stated that the answer is yes. They have acknowledged a number

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 25 July 11, 2022
of areas where further analysis would be beneficial for the document and they have committed with prioritized resources in mind by the Council to undertake that work where community interest warrants it. He stated that, ultimately, it is one of Council’s core responsibilities to be the body that interprets that community interest and community need and its priorities. He stated that what they have outlined for Council in previous meetings is that there is a process already in place each year to report out on what is working well or not working well with limitations and hopefully the newly adopted General Plan and to prioritize whatever those issues are as part of the city’s goal setting process and are not in this situation ever again as 40 years or more have gone by before they really made meaningful improvements to the General Plan so it never gets so far off from the point that it is not serving the community’s best interests. He stated that it is professional opinion that the 1980 General Plan is no longer serving the community’s best interests and the community will be much better off when the 20-40 General Plan is prepared but ultimately the decision needs to be made by Council. He stated that, with respect to public comments on transportation issues, it is important to disentangle environmental impact report related transportation issues and General Plan related transportation issues. He stated, as they mentioned earlier, congestion is not an appropriate basis for significant environmental impacts in the EIR and that is why there is not a more robust analysis of those types of impact in the EIR. He stated that the General Plan does include a variety of intersection and roadway segment analyses for level of service, congestion and potential improvements, and hopefully Ms. Moore can elaborate more on what those issues are, but he will briefly touch on the other two points. First, there is a minimal requirement in the General Plan state law that requires the city to map and identify and generally describe the major thoroughfares in town and relate those to the land use plans. He stated that the city has done that, as all land use plans include the major roadways and street network in Pacifica, which meets the minimum requirements of General Plan law and it is not clear to him what more needs to be done in that regard to have a legally adequate General Plan. He stated that, with respect to complete streets, there is a policy that requires an assessment of the city transportation and investment in decision making to consider multiple modes, not simply automobile as the primary mode of travel and he agrees that the General Plan is not going to solve all the community’s transportation issues, but at the General Plan level for the city overall very broad high level plan, this plan includes policies that say the city must consider in its transportation decisions and investment more than just automobiles and they have done that by including much more robust information on bicycle networks and facilities, and the Planning Commission had a very robust discussion on that and continues to discuss that as part of the Sharp Park Specific Plan. The city has undertaken in the General Plan references the recently updated bicycle and pedestrian master plan and has a very robust discussion of non-automobile modes of transportation and this is a large leap forward, in his opinion, to address complete streets and multi-mobile transportation along the lines of what the public comments mentioned.

He asked Ms. Moore if she would like to talk more about the transportation analysis.

Ms. Moore stated her comment is about how future land uses and trips generated were included in the traffic modeling and in the traffic counts for the existing conditions as well as future conditions, impacts to roadway congestion are included in Chapter 5. Based on where the traffic analysis indicated that there would be more congestion in the General Plan, there are specific policy recommendations related to certain interceptions, coordination with the count or Caltrans on improving congestion, such as along highway one, and those were taken into account. From a VMT perspective, the way that works is that they use a CCAG model, VTA model, and the way that is set up is that it takes improvements by buildout in transportation analysis zones and includes that in the context of regional changes as well. To do both VMT analysis and an estimate of where additional congestion might occur and both those studies were taken into account as part of the preparation of the General Plan and the EIR.

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 26 July 11, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser if she has any other comments that have occurred to her over the course of everything.

Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser stated that there was a lot of discussion on the circulation element and one of the things she appreciated were the implemented policies that required these complete streets and talked about congestion on Highway One, Hickey and Skyline, and she thought all the CI-G-1 through 10, all of the CI-I-1, were thoughtful policies and she was looking forward to seeing them starting to be implemented in the city.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that all of his questions have been asked and answered to his satisfaction. He mentioned that, as a Planning Commissioner, he heard of a development on Beach Boulevard and he had no problem with it except that there was only one evacuation route in the neighborhood which was known to have the seawall in that area and the retaining wall was inclined to breach. He stated that it occurred to him that, in a worst-case scenario during a winter storm, and someone had an emergency, there was a far-off potential for a catastrophe to strike and a breach of the wall and them not being able to get out. He stated that, at that time, it occurred to him that there was a perfectly good alley behind the houses that neighbors aren’t letting them to use for this development as an evacuation route and, in a worst-case scenario, he will not be able to live with himself if something were to happen and he voted yes for the project and somebody died as a result of him approving the project. He stated that it was a much heavier trip and bigger scale in which, in his current role, there is nothing he can do to alleviate tragedy when you are talking to 40,000 people, but he can say that he has done everything he can imagine to evaluate what has been presented to him in this appeal and public comments over months, if not years, and he does everything he can to bring the document to a place where he feels comfortable voting at least to deny the appeal, as they get to discuss the document one more time before the evening is through. He stated he is comfortable denying the appeal at this time so they can discuss the General Plan later in the evening.

Mayor Bier recognized that two of the appellants have raised their hands and all the questions asked by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck were on her list and probably everyone else’s and she acknowledged that they had raised their hands and probably wanted to speak again. She thought it was really important for the appellants to understand that each and every one of the points they brought up she fully intend on digging into in Item #13 and that is why she is prepared to deny the appeal and move into that conversation so they can make some changes based on all the things they brought to the table. She asked if there were any comments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she will keep her comments really brief. She wanted to acknowledge the concern that the appellants are showing for our community, as well as the concerns that all the individuals who spoke at this time expressed. She agreed with Mayor pro Tem and Mayor’s position on denying the appeal. She wanted to make it clear that there is a difference between determining a deficiency due to some shortcoming and not meeting a legal requirement and what the appellants, council, citizens, staff may desire to be the case, to incorporate into the plan to make sure that we are protecting ourselves and why wouldn’t they want to do that. She stated that they heard that questions multiple times over this process. She wants to make it clear that they are not saying they don’t want to make our town safe or that it is not important, but it was difficult and slippery. She has had a hard time getting her own arms around that nuance difference between determining if something is legally falling short of the mark and deficient versus as expansive and inclusive as they may want it to be. She referred to the Mayor’s point about wanting to dig into these things to the point that Mayor pro Tem brought forward and Acting Planning Director Murdock stated about the need for an ordinance around

2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 27 July 11, 2022
landslides and that kind of thing, as there are other solutions to address the issues that are clearly valuable and important to our community, and is not happening in this General Plan.

She thought there are some more useful and direct tools that they can explore and will explore.

She wanted to make that statement about the difference between finding something legally deficient or inaccurate at a legal sense versus as expansive and inclusive as they can possibly make it.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that what she said made sense to him.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the General Plan update and certify an Environmental Impact Report; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Mayor Bier clarified that they are going to talk about them in the next item. She stated that they all need a break before they move on.

City Clerk Coffey stated that the motion passed unanimously.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the Special meeting at 8:41 p.m., called a ten-minute break and then reconvened for the Regular meeting.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
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: 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 July 11, 2022
REGULAR and ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING
July 11, 2022 (MONDAY) – 7:00 PM
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on July 11, 2022 at 8:51 PM 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:51 p.m.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director; Bill Glasgo, Acting Police Chief; Ron Myers, Fire Chief; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Lawrence Henriquez, Assoc. Civil Engineer; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Bonny O’Connor, Sr. Planner; Tommy Yu, IT Manager; 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 to the public. She also gave information on how to present public comments participating by Zoom or phone.

2.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 July 11, 2022
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Brian Martinez Retirement
Mayor Bier read a proclamation acknowledging the retirement of Brian Martinez from Public Works.

PW Director Petersen stated that Public Works has felt so fortunate to have had Brian Martinez for 30 years working for Public Works, and the proclamation included all the contributions he made to the Public Works Department and the city and they were grateful for all he has done and they wish him the best in his retirement.

Councilmember O’Neill thanked him, and he has known him since he has been on Council and possibly before that as he has been dedicated, honest and forthright. He stated that the city will be at a loss without his knowledge but he knows he is going to retire, ride a motorcycle across country and enjoy himself. He was sorry he couldn’t make his retirement party.

Councilmember Vaterlaus has known him for 20 years and was going to say the same thing Councilmember O’Neill said, as he always say what it was and it was important to get the out there. She appreciated that and she will miss him.

Councilmember Beckmeyer appreciated him as he taught her what she needed to know and she knew nothing about wastewater, long before she ran for Council. He has been nothing but helpful, polite, respectful and responsive. She thought he was a model of what we all want to be. She stated that Councilmember O’Neill missed some great speeches at the retirement event, one that she can’t even paraphrase well, but she loved the reference to the Mt.

Rushmore of Wastewater and she has to bump off one of his people from the Mt. Rushmore of Wastewater in order to put Brian Martinez on there.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he didn’t know him until he asked for a tour of our storm drain system. He stated that they talked about how a lot of people don’t know the difference between wastewater and storm water and he was one of those people. It became obvious to him that he needed to catch up in a hurry and Brian Martinez was the one giving him a tour of the pump stations in Linda Mar and Highway One. As he was giving him the tour and teaching him how the system works, he was referencing his decades of knowledge from having lived on Anza and knowing exactly what living through that flooding is like. He stated that it wasn’t that they are losing this institutional knowledge of over 30 years but knowledge coupled with being a true Pacifican, having been raised here and acting upon his job from the perspective of someone who wants to do it right as, at the end of the day, it is his true home. He will be missed.

Mayor Bier stated that what she remembers about Brian Martinez growing up, he was the cool guy that she was too shy to talk to. She stated that watching him in his whole career has been amazing and reading the proclamation shows that he was the man of Wastewater and did so much work for our city. She understands if he didn’t stay with them but they will miss him so much. She saw some hands and opened public comments.

City Clerk Coffey introduced the speakers.

2.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 July 11, 2022
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated he met Mr. Martinez in 2013 when they had issues regarding the Linda Mar flooding and to say he is not a stand-up guy would be an understatement. He stated that he had picked him out right away when he started in the Public Works business when he first met him, and he is a big guy with big shoes to fill to keep up with what he has done with the Plant, etc. He stated he is the real deal and he wished him luck in his retirement.

He hoped they bug him to come back to help out when needed.

City Clerk Coffey stated Remi Tam had his hand raised but may not be able to unmute himself.

Mayor Bier stated that he can always send his comment to Council and they will be sure that Mr. Martinez gets it, and then closed public comments.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if there were any items Councilmembers would like to pull from the consent calendar.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck didn’t know if he needed to pull the minutes to make a couple mild adjustments and asked the City Attorney.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that he did not.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, following public comments, he will make a couple of minor adjustments.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

City Clerk Coffey introduced the speakers.

Brenda Maxwell, Pacifica, stated that she raised her hand accidentally and was waiting for public comments.

Robert Hutchinson, Pacifica, stated that he couldn’t download the agenda and he asked if Item 6 was on the consent calendar.

City Clerk Coffey stated that it was.

Mr. Hutchinson asked why they are doing virtual meetings, as he didn’t understand. He gave his thoughts and suggestions on what laws were in effect that applied and what the city was allowed to do to meet safely.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she wanted to speak on item 6, giving her thoughts and options on the issue to be more creative for those who are not technically savvy.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought they will be talking about going back to in person later and he will save his comments on that. He stated that he thought it was a good idea to continue, given the spikes in Covid recently, and he asked the City Attorney if she had some perspectives on the requirements for triggering AB361.

2.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 July 11, 2022
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there are orders from the state that allows teleconference and Zoom meetings due to the Covid pandemic and Pacifica is following all those guidelines.

Regarding to the reference to the CDC guidelines, they are the guidelines that the state has mandated that they follow and that is where the social distancing comes from. She stated that the ability for Council to go into Zoom meetings is based on AB361, cited in the resolution.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck then referred to packet page 27, second line from the bottom, it say “Mayor pro Tem appreciated having an abscess” and he thought he said in that moment, was “having not asked in advance”. He referred to packet page 54, seven paragraphs down in the very last line, “in general, they would pay for getting real fireworks or not”, he thought he said was “in general, if they would vote for getting rid of fireworks or not”. He asked that, if they can pass the consent with those two minor corrections to the minutes, that was his motion.

Councilmember Vaterlaus seconded the motion.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

1. Approval of Disbursements for 5/16/22 through 5/31/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 5/16/22 through 5/31/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on June 13, 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

2.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 July 11, 2022
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. Approve Purchase Agreement with Parkson Corporation for Bar Screen Repair PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Approve the Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Parkson Corp. for the repair of two existing Bar Screens located at Linda Mar and Sharp Park Pump Stations in the amount not to exceed $210,797 and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents.

8. Notice of Completion for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the FY 2021-22 Base Repair Project; and Authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

9. Notice of Completion for the Frontierland Park Drainage & Walkway Improvement Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting improvements and directing the City Manager to file a Notice of Completion for the Frontierland Park Drainage & Walkway Improvement Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

10. Approve New Job Classifications, Reclassifications, and Compensation Schedules PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution approving new job classifications and reclassifications, including compensation schedules as detailed in the staff report.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
City Clerk Coffey introduced the speakers.

William Bradford, Pacifica, stated he lives in East Fairway and they believe Council and staff have violated the Brown Act in finalizing the list of neighborhood streets that allows over-sized vehicles and violated the CEQA requirements and expressed his thoughts on the issue, asking that they void all decisions.

Remi Tam, Pacifica, expressed his concerns and specific recommendation on the ongoing issues on fireworks, giving a specific example.

Erin Macias, Pacifica, stated she would like the city to agendize the issue of short-term rentals, giving her concerns and suggestions in this issue. She added that she would like the IT department to make the city’s website easier to find items the public is interested in.

Robert Hutchinson, Pacifica, stated that no one is being mean to Council, just caring about the city and being enthusiastic, and he expressed his thoughts on this issue.

Brenda Maxwell, Pacifica, expressed her disappointment with City Manager, Council, PRC and Planning Commission regarding their decisions on RV parking permits, specifically sharing

2.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 July 11, 2022
her thoughts on the issue and requested they rethink their decisions.

Ed Markey, Pacifica, stated he was speaking on the over-sized vehicle lodging and shared his thoughts and concerns on this issue.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that, while she knows she can’t discuss the appeal hearing content, but then shared her thoughts and concerns about the process which she thought was unfair. She then referred to the comment about being mean to Council when they are just trying to make the city better and shared her thoughts on the issue. She also expressed her concerns on the fireworks issue.

Phil Lindsay, Pacifica, stated his thoughts and concerns about RV parking on Ridgeway Drive and the vetting process.

Sharon Lindsay, Pacifica, referred to the need for an EIR for RV parking on Ridgeway and other areas and expressed her specific thoughts and concerns.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was on vacation and had nothing to report.

Councilmember Vaterlaus went to the Sunset Ridge Unity Day which was a great experience and was worthwhile for the community. She met with the chair of the Fog Fest and it is going forward. She went to Brian Martinez’ retirement party and most of her meeting are coming up this week.

Councilmember Beckmeyer had a couple of meetings with citizens about things about REACH codes and concerns on what the city might do in terms of changing building codes around electrification. She received a phone call from an individual concerned about seawall and she was going to attend the farewell for the chief but had to be postponed due to illness. She was only in her part of town, the south end in Linda Mar, and her observation of the 4th of July was that it was less intense than in the past. She thanked the community and was praying for that in terms of peace.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck reiterated that his heart and mind is with Ukraine every day. He enjoyed that Unity event at Sunset Ridge and it was lovely to see elected officials come to Pacifica from all over the county. He stated that the gentleman from Fire House 71 showed up to show their support which was awesome. He was looking forward to saying goodbye to the chief and he left some BBQ in the police station for them and he thought it would have been nice to say goodbye to him. He stated that there was a North County Fire Authority meeting and was a big couple of weeks checking in with Fire Department and meeting with Fire Chief Ron Meyers before the meeting to get a deeper understanding. He stated that the budget was adopted for North Coast County. He enjoyed the 4th of July with John Nibbelin and his son cooked a wonderful BBQ. He referred to the PRC board meeting, stating that they are expanding their personnel and getting more office spaces, as well as getting a second van to allow people to order food and de-stigmatize the need to get services. He stated that, currently, PRC serves one in seven Pacificans but they could easily be serving half of all Pacificans. He stated that their back to school program is getting underway, and the public can donate backpacks. He stated that we are No. 3 in the county in terms of homelessness, and the good news is we are down from No. 2, but the numbers went up and we are third behind Redwood City and East Palo Alto. He stated that they passed their budget and we are toward

2.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 July 11, 2022
the end of budget season everywhere. He stated that they raised the term limits on the board members to six years. He stated that this year there will be a virtual Palm-a-Palooza, the big fundraising event for PRC every year. He stated that Brian Martinez’ party was awesome and he was looking forward to being in the Fog Fest parade, adding that Covid is still a thing so he asked everyone to be as safe as they can get themselves to be, and as someone who has experienced Covid recently, he recommended getting vaccinated which is why he thinks he did not get as sick as he might have.

Mayor Bier thanked Coast Pride and Pacifica School District for working closely with the city for our unity event which was a response to a LGBTQ Pride flag that was burned at Sunset Ridge.

She stated that it was a beautiful event, and she thanked the firefighters when they pulled up in the fire engines which she thought was really cool. She thanked everyone who came out to speak as their collaboration with Coast Pride is so important to work are doing and will be doing moving forward. She was informed today that another flag was stolen from Oceana High School and she thinks something is going on there. She stated that we need to address it by being together and showing our strength and love. She attended Brian Martinez’ retirement and she spoke to many citizens in the past couple of weeks and she has about six or seven walks and talks with different constituents and enjoyed spending the time learning that most of them are concerned about the General Plan. She stated that it has been a little quiet and, as others said, most of her meetings are this week.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he has two quick announcements. He stated that Acting Police Chief Bill Glasgo is going to complete the second part of his second announcement. He wanted to speak about kicking off the new fiscal year focused on the Council’s new priorities and, in terms of the upcoming Housing Element process, they are in the process of designing what the public engagement strategy will look like for the housing element and, as Council remembers, they budgeted an additional $20,000 for this fiscal year budget related to implementing robust public engagement in that process, and Acting Planning Director Murdock and he will be putting together a strategy to bring to Council on their August 8 meeting to consider the public engagement process for the Housing Element update and get that rolling.

He stated that his second item is, over the last month or more, he and outgoing Police Chief Steidle, as well as Captains Clement and Glasgo, interviewed many applicants for the Police Chief’s Advisory Panel and were able to select ten panelists, and he was taking this opportunity for Acting Chief Glasgo to announce the panelists with short versions of their bios, and it will be public information with their longer bios will be posted on the police department’s website. He stated that the police chief’s advisory panel is a best practice that not a lot of communities have it, but our policing work plan after the murder of George Floyd it was identified as something they wanted to do but they needed to wait until they could meet in person and they couldn’t do it in the middle of Covid. He stated that it was a two-way communication channel to meet with the police chief and command staff and give feedback from the community to them to learn about policing in Pacifica and give feedback the other way as well. He stated that process launched with Chief Steidle and the first meeting was held during his last week. He then asked Acting Chief Glasgo to announce that membership.

Acting Police Chief Glasgo stated that they identified ten panelists to be part of the new Chief’s Advisory Panel. The first panelist is Janet Fausta, lifelong resident of Pacifica, living in the Vallemar neighborhood with her husband and two children, very involved in the community with sports, school activities and beach cleanup days, 17 years of working in the medical field at UCSF and office administrator, with experience working in a culture of rich diversity. She

2.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 July 11, 2022
challenges herself in professional and personal life and will be able to bring the panel her opinions and experiences that could help make a positive impact concerning community issues.

The next panelist is Michael Frenna, a proud member of Pacifica since 1963, living in Fairway Park area along with his wife and has two children. He is an area director for USCW Local 5, a 26,000 members of hard working retail workers union serving Northern California and firmly believes his years spent in this industry can provide the necessary optics, personality and perspective to better serve Pacifica and the Chief’s Advisory Panel. Third panelist is Michael Mau, a longtime Pacifican in Linda Mar who has been an active community member for many years, working on various city commissions, chair of Pacifica PB&R Commission, neutral member of the Pacifica’s Rent Advisory Task Force, on the Pacifica’s Age Friendly Task Force and is currently a commissioner on the San Mateo County Commission on aging. His intention is to bring neutral and partial and common sense viewpoints to this advisory panel. The fourth panelist is Carlos Ambrozak, a coastal California native for 23 years and a Bay Area resident in the Edgemar neighborhood of Pacifica. He has been building large scale software systems since his teens, leading global teams in aerospace, gaming, streaming and finance. He has done non-profit work with the Trust for Public Land and taught robotics to young adults. His career and life experience bring a community-minded and team oriented perspective that will serve the Chief of Police Panel well. The fifth panelist is Gary Furlong, a 22 year resident of Pacifica in the Pedro Point neighborhood with his husband, and a retired business planner with a diverse work history and has lived in many different areas of the country that enables him to bring a valuable perspective to the panel. The sixth panelist is Armetta Parker, who has been a resident of Pacifica since 2011, an active consultant in community engagement volunteer. She brings a breath of experience and perspective in communications, including crisis management, public relations and marketing. She and her family live in the Westview neighborhood at Milagra Ridge. The seventh panelist is Holly Smallie who resides in San Pedro Point with her family and three rescue dogs. She is currently the director of compliance at a local cannabis retail business and previously spent more than 20 years working to support individuals with developmental disabilities, mental health conditions and developmentally struggling with academic and emotional behavior disorders. She is passionate about helping others, rescuing animals and supporting our most vulnerable community members. The seventh panelist is Sean Holle, Pacifican who lives in the Westview neighborhood. He is a practicing certified safety professional, and believes that he can serve the community of Pacifica by participating as a member on the Police Chief’s advisory panel. He stated that Kristina Ireson is an almost lifelong Pacifican and after leaving for college and other career opportunities, she now lives in Linda Mar with her husband and young child. She is a social worker, mental health therapist and educator who is passionate about community engagement and ensuring that all stakeholders have a voice at the table. The final panelist is Maria Oropeza, a 24-year Pacifican who lives in the back of the valley, born and raised in San Francisco and moved to Pacifica to be closer to the ocean and surrounded by its mountains. She has been retired for almost seven years after a 31-year career in law enforcement and brings knowledge and experience to serve the Police Chief’s advisory panel.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he has no additional communications.

Mayor Bier thanked Acting Police Chief Glasgo for being here, adding that it will be interesting to see how that plays out and she thought it will be good for our community.

Acting Police Chief Glasgo agreed.

2.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 July 11, 2022

PUBLIC HEARINGS

11. 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 (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 CONTINUE the item to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on August 8, 2022.

Sr. Planner O’Connor presented the staff report.

Mayor Bier asked if anyone was present from NCCWD that wanted to say anything.

City Clerk Coffey stated that Adrianne Carr of NCCWD was present.

Mayor Bier asked the City Manager if they want to give her a moment to speak.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed if she would like to.

Adrianne Carr, NCCWD, thanked them for extending the hearing to August 8 as that was a fine request for them also.

Mayor Bier appreciated her being here and she looked forward to their conversation. She then opened the public hearing for comments on the continuance.

City Clerk Coffey introduced the speaker.

William Bradford, Pacifica, stated that he agreed with the postponement and asked that Council research the application of the appeal to all 13 spaces as the issues apply to all 13 spaces.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to continue the item to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on August 8, 2022; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

CONSIDERATION

12. Update on Returning to In-Person City Council Meetings PROPOSED ACTION: Hear an update about the status of the pandemic and confirm continuation of remote Zoom-based meetings for City Council and Commission/Committee meetings through September, returning to in-person meetings

2.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 July 11, 2022
beginning with the October 10, 2022 City Council meeting.

City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to a previous comment that not everyone is not technically savvy and Zoom might be an impediment to some people participating and he thought there was a phone component to Zoom.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that there is a phone component so you can telephone, adding that they had some commenters at this meeting who phoned in.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his next concern has to do with how people become aware of how to phone in on a Zoom call, and he asked what noticing do they do so that they are aware that people are aware they have the option to phone in.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, other than when they started Zoom and continued normal social media, the agenda packet has all the detailed instructions on how to phone in.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, if people aren’t aware prior that it is a Zoom meeting, how do they find out that it’s a Zoom meeting.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it is part of the agenda packet which is the main vehicle when the meeting is announced, and City Clerk Coffey may be more specific about this, but it says on the actual agenda cover virtual via Zoom.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked for those who do not have computers how they get an agenda packet.

City Clerk Coffey stated that there are various ways to obtain copies of the agenda and information. It is available on the city’s website on the City Council’s agenda page as well a meeting portals, and hard copies of the agenda are posted at the Community Center at the front glass doors as well as at the City Council Chambers that is the meeting location which is now Zoom and it has the Zoom link dial in information and alternative ways to participate in the meeting which is viewing on Comcast Local Channel 26 and on the livestream or on the PCTV livestream which is also available on the city’s website under live stream. Agenda copies are available at the Community Center / Civic Center. They also send out emails to an email distribution list with links to the agenda materials for those on that list. They have a small list of people who receive hard copy agendas in the mail.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they also send them to the two libraries.

City Clerk Coffey stated that she didn’t recall that the libraries are on their hard copy agenda lists but they can add the libraries to that list if needed.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they used to be. He thought, being that there seems to be some concerns, he asked if it was possible to put a big banner on the city’s website that currently all meetings are Zoom.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they currently do have a banner on the home page that indicates that the meetings are virtual at this time and it links to Council’s agenda webpage which has

2.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 July 11, 2022
more information on how to participate and view the meetings.

Mayor Bier asked if they can also put it in the Tribune in a big way so people can see it.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they can pay for ads in the Tribune. If the Tribune wanted to cover the results of this item and continuing Zoom, the city could encourage them to cover that information.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thought they get better participation, as it is now 10:00 pm and they have 25 people, and they didn’t have 25 people when they had in-person meetings. She thought it provides the opportunity for more people to attend these meetings than did so inperson.

Mayor Bier thought continuing to do it virtual until October is the safest for all of them and the community.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they will want public comments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed that, with the spike in cases, it was not the right time to be in public meetings and be bringing people together.

City Clerk Coffey introduced the speakers.

Robert Hutchinson, Pacifica, referred to grocery workers, retail workers, concerts, and thought they could have a meeting in person as it is not the end of the world and there are ways to be safe. He didn’t think it was legal the way they are doing it. He stated that they are cutting out a large segment of the population. He is in advertising and owns a little ad agency but he talks to big ad agencies that do million dollar studies on what works and they all don’t put all their money in the internet as most people can’t go past doing crossword puzzles on the internet or going to their Facebook page. When it comes to something like this, they are lost even though they might be online every day. It doesn’t mean that they can do this and that is for young and old people. He stated October is a long time.

Zorin Carlos, Pacifica, asked, regarding postponing to October, if there is a reason they are not following the CDC recommended guidelines. He referred to Mr. Hutchinson’s comment, stating standard businesses are open, schools are open, we can wear masks, people are vaccinated. He may not be understanding why we are concerned, as he understands there are increasing cases but there are also protocols to follow that and, if they follow what the professionals are saying in CDC or the California government mandates, they can do it in person.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, as a grocery worker who regularly attends concerts and had Covid a month ago, and they have had multiple Councilmembers who have contracted Covid, multiple staff members and entering into what they knew would be a robust General Plan updated process where many people would presumably wind up crammed into a comparatively small room compared to the group of people expected. Based on constituent comment, they decided it would be in everyone’s best interest, during a massive spike, to go back to Zoom. He stated that, as a grocery worker, he has been watching lots of fellow workers who have had to miss work and that puts a strain on business when a number of people who cannot do their job

2.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 July 11, 2022
from home can’t sow up to work because they are not allowed to per guidelines. He stated that, after a concert he last attended, he had already had Covid by the time he was at that show but one person he was attending with had tested positive shortly after. He stated that the point is well taken as he would prefer to be in person and he would like to throw out for consideration and to be brought back in the future because he agrees that October is probably a better time to go back to in person, given the present spike, and he would like to explore the hybrid model with something as simple as seeing how other municipalities dealing with hybrid are doing and whether it is feasible that Pacifica could adopt it and the reasons being, if they are going to have to consider spikes periodically, it would be good instead of turning it off like a light switch of going back to Zoom then going back to in person, and having attendees who would rather be in person being annoyed that we don’t have an in person option, he would favor having both available and, if an issue, they can do what they feel comfortable with and not have to worry about turning it on or off as it is continuity and consistency is his theme at this meeting, and he would like to explore what hybrid might look like for us and what would be required. He thought that agendas in libraries would also be a good idea. He would also be fine if the mayor wanted to explore putting ads in the Tribune. He stated that, as a grocery worker and someone who advocates for mask wearing, he goes to work every day and thinking that he is dealing with the public and he sure doesn’t want to get Covid again, but he notices that, when he has a mask on, it is harder to work over the eight-hour period on his feet to the point that he finds he is more easily agitated because he isn’t getting oxygen to his brain and every day he has the discussion with himself as to whether he wants to wear a mask, lash out at customers, so it is more complicated, such as what they want, what is responsible and that is what they are trying to work their way through.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that, during this segment, she looked up Daly City, Belmont and San Bruno and all of them are holding virtual meetings at this time and all the county meetings she is attending are all virtual as well.

Mayor Bier stated Half Moon Bay is, too.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she only checked a couple of them.

Mayor Bier asked if they were finished with this item.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they need a vote.

City Manager Woodhouse would like to get concurrence from Councilmembers about the October 10th date, and Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck threw out the hybrid evaluation. He stated that nothing has really changed for our situation related to that as we are behind the technology curve in our City Council Chambers and have a very thinly stretched IT and City Clerk and other staff situations and trying to implement that is more difficult for us, but not impossible. They also have technology questions related to PCT and that is the information that informed the Council’s decision about our phone in for public comment hybrid model when they went back to in person and nothing has changed on that. He expressed a workload concern to really try to explore and purchase. He stated that some cities are trying to implement hybrid but are delayed from supply chains from the technology unavailability. He stated that it is something they can explore more in the future but he wanted to be very diligent about informing Council on what the impact with staff and money would be to pursue that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he didn’t have a sense of urgency suggesting that, when they go back to in person in October, it is simultaneous with the implemented hybrid model but

2.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 July 11, 2022
he is suggesting that, if they are going to go back to Zoom shortly after going back to in person in October which this experience suggests is a distinct possibility, he thinks they should start gathering data sooner than later so they can make an informed decision. He appreciates that the workload is what it is. He was just throwing that out for Council consideration, i.e., if they want some information back that more robustly entails how it is working in other places and what it would take to make it happen here.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he is fine with the October meeting, and his only concern is the fact that, with back to school in August and September, they are going to have more people frequently exposing and seeing each other and he didn’t know if even October will be realistic as at this point this current variant is more virulent than measles and more contagious and easier to get. He again had no problems with shooting for October and reevaluating and depending on the shape of the Council Chambers. He didn’t want to sit on sawhorses and tables like Amazon desks.

Mayor Bier thought they have a consensus of October. She then asked if they go to the next item or should they take a break. She asked the City Attorney if she needs to call to order the adjourned special meeting.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they need to adjourn the regular meeting and calling to order the special adjourned meeting.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Bier adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:18 p.m.

ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING - IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING REGULAR MEETING Mayor Bier called the adjourned special meeting to order at 10:18 p.m.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he wanted to publicly state that he did watch the Zoom recording of the June 25 meeting and has read the materials and can participate in this event.

Mayor Bier thanked him and appreciated it.

PUBLIC HEARING:

Mayor Bier called the Adjourned Special Meeting to order at 10:18 p.m.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he wanted to publicly state that he did watch the Zoom recording of the June 25 meeting and has read the materials and can participate in this event.

Mayor Bier thanked him and appreciated it.

13. 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:

2.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 July 11, 2022
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 stated that he is joined by the General Plan update team, including consultants from Dyett & Bhatia, Alison Moore and Andrew Hill as well as Chris Dacumos from Good City Company. He then began the staff report.

Consultant Alison Moore continued the staff report.

Acting Planning Director Murdock continued the staff report.

Mayor Bier asked if he was going to go through chapter by chapter.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it was overall organized in that fashion from beginning to end.

Mayor Bier thought that would be helpful for her.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he hoped they can work through each slide, get a head nod and they feel comfortable that they got it right and move on to the next one so they don’t have to come back. He stated that, if anything proves particularly challenging and they want, they can put a pin in it and come back to that for further discussion to hopefully work through the slides. He then continued the staff report.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if he can change it such as the schools in Pacifica as they have a couple of private schools in Pacifica that will have demographics and he didn’t know if they want to include preschools or just elementary or TK-12 schools.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they can make that change, as they tailored it to reflect the specific mention of the school district statistics they have but he didn’t see any problem to broadening to all schools in Pacifica.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they should make sure that, as Acting Planning Director Murdock has requested, they have Council consensus that the current change requested by Councilmember O’Neill is agreed by a majority of the Council so staff will know to implement that change and they will not have to return back to this particular edit.

Mayor Bier asked if they have a consensus, and concluded that they do.

Acting Planning Director Murdock continued the staff report.

2.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 July 11, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that Kimco recently applied and 230 units approved to tear down Burlington Coat Factory and build another multi-story apartment building there. He stated that he doesn’t mention Linda Mar Shopping Center yet Kimco, the owner of Linda Mar Shopping Center seems to be looking in that direction. He asked if they want the name of Linda Mar in there.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the three example sites are locations identified in the draft General Plan land use element for more intensive mixed use redevelopment. He has to pull it up but his recollection is that they have not done that planned use designation change to the Linda Mar Shopping Center, and they are keeping in mind that this is carrying forward the work through 2014 to try to finalize the General Plan update. He stated that they can revisit the land use designation for the Linda Mar Shopping Center or other shopping centers, perhaps in the housing element update where they are identifying sites for significant numbers of additional housing units. He stated that it would be hard to do that, given the size of the site and the potential number of units at this stage, but that is the reasoning for why it is not listed.

Councilmember O’Neill thanked him and had a thumbs up.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was too, but asked that they make note of that for discussion during the housing element as she felt that way about Linda Mar Center for some time and it was very encouraged to find out months ago about their development plan in Daly City.

Acting Planning Director Murdock continued the staff report.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked, in relation to what Councilmember O’Neill brought up about Linda Mar, is it because this is a PDA specifically that they are mentioning it in conjunction with Fairmont and is there a place that they could do the same language because it is not a PDA in relationship to Linda Mar Shopping Center.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought it was possible, and with respect to the Fairmont Shopping Center, it did come up on June 25 in the context of the PDA location, and interest in trying to maximize that shopping center as it is in the PDA may have more potential to get funding or other supportive components from regional entities because it is in the PDA. He stated that there is nothing stopping Council from making similar statements, just not reflecting the Linda Mar Shopping Center as it is not in the PDA.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked Councilmember O’Neill on his thoughts.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have to look into what is the definition of Priority Development Areas, and he thought it was part of the enterprise zones or something recently with some grant funding opportunities. He thought the only one in Pacifica was at the top of Skyline for a lot of minority economic challenged areas. He thought they should also include other governmental land such as the right-of-ways of CalTrans and some water district and school district properties that are on huge lots that could be available for some sort of Housing Elements.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that her question is do they do that here or in the Housing Element update.

Acting Planning Director Murdock offered his opinion that any robust land use changes at this

2.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 July 11, 2022
point would be potentially difficult to incorporate into the General Plan adoption at this evening if Council goes in that direction. He thought robust land use changes that are supportive of additional housing units are contemplated as part of the housing element process in a robust community engagement process that the City Manager mentioned earlier and he asked that they focus the energy towards that process that will follow shortly after the General Plan adoption.

Councilmember Beckmeyer was okay with that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock continued the staff report.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if he was talking about transfer density rights from Esplanade to another development in town.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that was what he was describing and it was a possibility for sites located in hazard zones such as the coastal erosion hazard location for those Esplanade Avenue bluff top sites. He thought the likelihood of that occurring on those sites is no at this point due to the eminent domain proceedings but demonstrating the point that density can actually help effectuate transfers of development rights and another reason in support of not changing that venue designation.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, if the city is the owner under eminent domain and it has the existing zoning, if the city could get cash, sell those development rights to another developer for affordable housing somewhere.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that was not an issue he has explored in any detail and the city has a variety of ways to support affordable housing including increasing the density in other locations, and that is something staff could look into but he doesn’t have an answer for that now.

Mayor Bier stated that she wanted to simplify it that they don’t want high density land zoning on bluffs because of bluff erosion. She understands what he is saying and he understands the community’s concern about the land zoning there as they don’t want to build on those bluffs.

Acting Planning Director Murdock continued the staff report.

Mayor Bier referred to on ramps and overcrossings and asked if the same language can be used in both sections.

Acting Planning Director Murdock did not see why not, adding that PW Director Petersen could offer her opinion as she is more familiar with the project and the various procedural aspects of it and outside agencies.

PW Director Petersen was sure that would be fine, as they are seeing similar things.

Mayor Bier stated that, if there is consensus on Council, they can strike out that language of the new on ramp and use the language below.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked clarification that she is saying to ger rid of the sentence that the project also potentially through the end of it and then instead insert additional alternatives.

2.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 July 11, 2022
Mayor Bier asked him to repeat what he was saying.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if she was saying to get rid of the last sentence under Manor Drive overpassing that this project also potentially includes .... and get rid of that and insert additional alternatives that use similar words.

Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was fine with that.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to make sure and check with PW Director Petersen about the city’s contractual obligations about specifically evaluating the Milagra on ramp alternative, as well as other alternatives. He stated that the only thing that occurs to him is whether they need to be careful about being very transparent that the on ramp will be evaluated and other alternatives as well.

PW Director Petersen stated that, to be transparent, it is true that they need to take a look at it.

They are going to be looking at other alternatives, and that would be one of the alternatives. To be transparent, it could be something Council wants to leave in there so that residents don’t misunderstand that and know the city has to look at that. Just because they take off the verbiage specifically and are more general, it doesn’t negative the city’s responsibility from having to look at that. She thought it would probably be more transparent but ultimately she leaves that up to how Council wants to do that.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she would leave the wording as they changed it currently.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought the questions was less whether or not they are going to do the study which they are, and he has spoken in not being committed, pending the results of the study to how his vote will come down in the future. By the time they get there, they don’t necessarily know what the make-up of the Council will be or how the study might influence how they are looking at it. He thought, to the point in terms of the community, they don’t necessarily want to memorialize this project for the next 20 years. He is trying to respect how undecided he is in relation to the community.

Mayor Bier agreed, as it doesn’t necessarily need to be spelled out like that in the General Plan as they are going to be studying it regardless.

Councilmember Beckmeyer knows that they have heard from the community on the issue of an on ramp in this vicinity; however, what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck just said is true that it is already going to be studied and the question is do they open to a phrase they use to memorialize it in the General Plan. She wants to go back to what the City Manager was saying, in terms of contractual obligations and she didn’t know what he was specifically referring to.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it was half a question to the Public Works Director but he thought they were obligated to evaluate that on ramp in addition to other alternatives. He stated that, to draw the difference between project-specific evaluation and what would be appropriate for a General Plan policy, and he would ask Acting Planning Director Murdock when a project consistency is being considered, the project would be consistent with this policy because it would have evaluated alternatives, including an on ramp. He was trying to get that they might not need to specifically mention that one but they want to be transparent that it is one of the alternatives that would be evaluated.

2.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 July 11, 2022
Acting Planning Director Murdock was also struggling the balance between transparency and reflecting generality that all options are on the table. He thought there was some benefit to considering rephrasing the second sentence that the Manor Drive overcrossing narrative where it could basically reflect the city is obligated under whatever the funding source is to evaluate an on ramp as well as additional alternatives and at least there is a mention that the city is obligated to evaluate it but not necessarily pursuing the on ramp of its own volition and strike the balance.

Councilmember O’Neill agreed with him as he thinks they need to articulate that this is required to look at. He thought they add something to the effect of Milagra on ramp and the thing at Paloma was a turnaround which he mentioned earlier, and put the Paloma location and the on ramp and other alternatives so all three are mentioned.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought one idea is that, for some of the more complicated edits like this, there may be an opportunity at the right moment to take a brief recess and ask staff to actually do some wordsmithing and bring back an additional revised phrasing, as it might be hard to mentally picture all these edits and see if they make a step forward in Council’s preference towards a consensus on what this might look like.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if this one of those pins to come back to at the end.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought it might need a pin.

Mayor Bier thought that would be great.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck appreciated this special session so he was not sure if rules are different but he wanted to give a time check and it is 10:58.

Mayor Bier stated it is 10:57.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they were looking for a motion.

Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to continue the meeting until midnight; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if staff thought that was enough time.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that if you can talk faster, as he wasn’t sure as there was still a large amount of information to get through.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they can amend it to 1:00 a.m.

Councilmember Beckmeyer was not fine with that but she agreed.

Mayor Bier stated that this was their opportunity for the General Plan and if she is trying to make decisions at 1:00 a.m. and her brain is hurting already, she has to think of her brain in relative to what they are talking about, so she didn’t think 1:00 a.m. was healthy.

2.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 July 11, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill referred to the City Attorney, stating that they were keeping this meeting open and continuing it to another date and he asked if they can do that again.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they can.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they want to go until midnight and, at 11:45p.m., they do what they did previously and continue this to a different date.

Mayor Bier stated that she would appreciate that and they need a consensus for that.

All Councilmembers agreed.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they are revising it again and continuing and the meeting now ends at 12:00 a.m.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that whomever made the original motion should withdraw that motion.

Councilmember Beckmeyer withdrew the motion.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that the seconder needs to withdraw the second.

Councilmember Vaterlaus withdrew the second.

Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to extend this meeting until midnight; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

Councilmember O’Neill made a friendly motion that they stop at 11:45 p.m. to determine the next date certain to continue this meeting.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed. She asked the City Attorney if she wants a new motion.

Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed.

Mayor Bier asked City Attorney if they need a new motion again.

City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively. As long as the maker of the motion agrees with the amendment and seconder, that can happen.

Councilmembers Beckmeyer and Vaterlaus agreed.

Councilmember O’Neill suggested that any of the pin stuff Acting Planning Director Murdock brings back on whatever next date certain.

Mayor Bier stated they have to vote on the motion first.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed.

City Clerk Coffey took a roll call vote.

Vote: 5-0 (extend meeting to 11:45 p.m.)

2.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 July 11, 2022
Mayor asked Councilmember O’Neill what he was saying about the pin.

Councilmember O’Neill was suggesting that he goes through as much as he can today and anything they need to pin back such as this one, they handle it the next day and that give staff time to do the verbiage that they want to do.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed that they have a pin in this one for now. He then continued the staff report.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if he was taking out the bullet points on that, and is it going to be a sentence or bullet points.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it was proposed to still have bullet points. He then continued the staff report.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had two additional comments he wanted to make at some point and he asked if he should make them while they are going through any given chapter or after he goes through the edits.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, if it is okay, it would be his preference to make them after they go through the already identified edits and they can circle around to discussion and he can go back to the slides if that will be helpful.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that there was a little typo or formatting challenge in the second line where it says northern.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, in the staff report, they had a footnote mentioning that these are pulled from the final stylized version and a lot are carried over and they will be cleaned up in the final formatting of the document. He then continued the staff report.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck and Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh went to the seminar and he asked if this was the right verbiage he mentioned to achieve what they want to do at all the different levels.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh would know better, but he thought everything he has seen, hazard is the right nomenclature that they are looking for in this document.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh agreed, stating it is the fire severity zone hazards.

Mayor Bier thought it was important to the community to bring the map in the EIR into this document as well, and she asked his thoughts around that. She thought it was simple but maybe it’s not as simple as she thinks to bring the map into the General Plan.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it was possible. He stated that staff has not recommended that due to the high potential, in staff’s assessment, for confusion in relation to that map. He stated that when someone is looking to the map to understand where the high fire hazard severity zones are located and they understand all the triggers that might come from state law, one might conclude it is the one that shows more areas and it is not actually the case.

He stated that they think it would be confusing and, given the level of fire threat shown in that

2.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 July 11, 2022
map and the relatively general statewide scale of that map, they think the potential exists for people to inappropriately use it at a parcel level and it is not how that map is intended to be used. He thought there were a couple of reasons and ways they think that information could be misunderstood and misused in a way that could be potentially unhelpful but, if that is their recommendation, he will be happy to discuss it further.

Councilmember O’Neill sides with staff.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agrees, and she had another issue on this but she didn’t want to get off this point and when they are done canvassing, she has one other thought about the wording.

Mayor Bier stated that it makes one more pitch. She asked if it were possible to have a more detailed explanation and include the other map.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought one potential option is to make a brief reference somewhere in the discussion of the prior risk in town and mention the map and include a link to the map but not have the visual there that could be so readily misunderstood the use without really bringing the community along in a discussion of fire maps so it is understood clearly what the distinctions are between information. He thought there might be a way to get the information available and minimize the potential for misuse.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that she is concerned about confusion and making sure that the document is internally consistent thus has concerns with attaching the map.

Mayor Bier asked about the link.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that she is comfortable with the suggestion Acting Planning Director Murdock is making.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought that is the problem, it seems simple and it’s not simple, and along with the link, did he think it might be appropriate to add a blurb about the difference between hazards maps and threat maps and why the threat map is not included and the hazard map is. He asked if that was too much information for that.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is not normal to have that kind of narrative or explanation about why you are not including something in the General Plan. She stated that this is a general document and is not the overarching plan for the city, but it is titled General Plan for a reason. When you start getting into a lot of specifics and trying to explain why you are not including certain portions in your General Plan, it creates more confusion by the very nature of it as you then need to have more explanations to explain the explanations and, while she is not saying it will snowball in this case, but it can snowball. She agreed with Acting Planning Director Murdock’s suggested implementation but to try to explain why we’re only attaching the link as opposed to the map, you can see how it can build on itself.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh didn’t know how the language is going to come out, but the 2008 map is stated as the recommended map and he almost wondered if they should change adopted to recommended, and update the figure as the new statewide recommended fire hazard and severity zone maps become available.

Acting Planning Director Murdock asked him if it was the case that a local agency is supposed

2.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 July 11, 2022
to actually adopt the maps as recommended or suggest modification and he thought it could be open ended on what updated map is supposed to be included and ultimately it should be the map adopted by the city.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated that is true, and once the LRA maps come out, they have 120 days to adopt or do their recommendations and either make changes or say they are good with the state’s recommended map. He stated that he wants to make sure that, if this is the wording, they are clear so that when people are reading it and the public is reading it, there is not any confusion and that is where they are trying to do.

City Attorney Kenyon asked if he was saying that it will be adopted and this language is accurate, because it sounded like he said that there will be a recommendation but that, within a certain period of time, the city will have to either adopt that recommended map or another map, and there will be an adopted fire hazard severity zone map at some point by the city. She asked if that is correct.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated that it is correct, and he was stating that recommended, and he is going back to 2008 and if they go onto the maps of 2008, but it states on the site, the recommended map, which is the final map in December 2008. He stated that wording may be changed as it has been 14 years and there may be a different word than recommended. He was just going by what was in 2008.

City Manager Woodhouse offered a clarification to say update this figure as new, recommended fire hazards severity zone maps are adopted by the city.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh thought that would also work.

Mayor Bier stated she dropped off and is not clear on what she missed and asked if they talked about the link.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that, at this point, her understanding from staff is that the recommendation would be to change that language to update this figure as recommended fire hazards severity zone maps are adopted by the city.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh thought that was good wording.

Councilmember O’Neill also thought it was pretty good.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they are going to attach a link to the other maps.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he had suggested to Council was that, in the narrative leading into the discussion about wildfire hazards in Pacifica they could briefly mention that there is an additional fire threat map that can help to inform the level of wildfire risk in Pacifica and provide a link to that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that the way it reads it is like instructions to someone and she thought they were trying to do is inform the community or reader of the General Plan, and she asked if it should say this figure will be updated as ... everything he said, i.e., as a declarative statement as opposed to a directed. She was interested in Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s opinion on that.

2.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 July 11, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that since it is being added to a figure, he would concur.

Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested that they say this figure will be updated.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, to eliminate passive voice, they could say the city will update this figure as new ...

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed, adding that they don’t like passive voice.

Acting Planning Director Murdock continued the staff report.

Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser reminded them that the Planning Commission had also talked about updating the Sharp Park Golf Course everywhere to say Golf Course Clubhouse put the word “historic” in front of it, including on Figure 6-1 but that was kind of an everywhere universal change and it was discussed on the 25th. She stated that the change to MUN on Figure 4-7 and the discussion about Figure 8-3b. She stated that all of those were discussed and she didn’t see them in this list and she wanted to be sure that nothing got forgotten.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it wasn’t staff’s intention to exclude those changes that received Council concurrence before but to highlight these particular text edits today.

Mayor Bier thought there was a pin somewhere.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they can go back to that Chapter 5 item.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that PW Director Petersen did draft some suggested language for that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that so did Councilmember Beckmeyer. She stated she can go first.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if Acting Planning Director Murdock or PW Director Petersen had that or did they want him to read it.

PW Director Petersen stated that she can read that, and she asked if Acting Planning Director Murdock wanted to put it back on the screen so everyone can see what it said before.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he can bring up that policy or they can show the text if it is a text from her email.

PW Director Petersen stated that it is.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to send her version to Acting Planning Director Murdock by email.

Acting Planning Director Murdock is not able to share his entire screen and he will just share the Word window and the language from PW Director Petersen.

Mayor Bier stated that it is tiny, so she suggested he read it.

2.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 July 11, 2022
Acting Planning Director Murdock asked PW Director Petersen if she wanted to go through her proposed edit.

PW Director Petersen stated that the edited is in the first paragraph and changing the one recommended edit to this new edit that is highlighted. She stated that the sentence is the same - the Manor Drive overcrossing is planned to be widened and coordinated signal control recommended to be added at the intersection of Manor Drive with Oceana Blvd. And Palmetto Avenue. The revised edit would then say - the project will also potentially include an on ramp, roundabout or other alternatives that achieve similar congestion relief objectives.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that her only suggestion was to change “potentially include” to “may”, specifically “will also potentially” to the word “may”.

Mayor Bier asked for councilmembers’ thoughts on that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was fine with that.

Councilmember O’Neill was impressed that Councilmember Beckmeyer at 11:45 she came up with a may.

Councilmember Vaterlaus was fine.

Mayor Bier stated she had one thing she wanted to talk about but she asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck if he had a couple of things he wanted to say.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had a couple of minor things. He stated that it seemed that they were close to vote not having to continue this to a date certain. He didn’t want to derail that as these are very minor things and, if they would derail it, he will retract them. On packet page 700, there is Figure 7-1, hydrology, and it was brought to his attention that Brooks Creek is labeled in the wrong place and should be labeled somewhere in the Pedro Valley Park vicinity.

He asked if that was simple.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed it was a simple edit. He thought Brooks Creek was currently labeled in the area he mentioned and it was just a simple shifting of that sliding over and it doesn’t look like he can annotate, but basically just down into the right is the correct placement for the Brooks Creek label based on some other official topographical maps from the USGS. He pointed out that there is an area that actually may also be known as Sanchez Creek or Sanchez Fork and they could work to revise those labels to make sure that at least Brooks Creek is replaced in the correct location and potentially adding Sanchez Creek or Sanchez Fork as appropriate to that extent.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked him, and his next comment is that the appropriate place would be element No. 6, open space and community facilities, and he was having a conversation with a customer who pointed out that he didn’t know that fishing, archery range or beach bathing is really included in there. He tried to find it, but he couldn’t. He stated that the sport recreational draws by included in a narrative somewhere or is that too complex.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought that was a relatively straightforward edit to include further description of those kinds of recreational activities and they can make that change.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, if his customer is listening, he found lots of records as to

2.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 July 11, 2022
hiking and he wasn’t concerned about that.

Mayor Bier asked Councilmember Beckmeyer if she had something else.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she didn’t, asking if her hand was up.

Mayor Bier stated that one thing a community member brought up the evacuation maps or evacuation plans, and she knows Acting Planning Director Murdock mentioned that they have an evacuation plan and she asked how they can make that very clear in the General Plan.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought they make reference to it, and he needs a minute to look for that reference. He thought they could try to amplify that if needed to make it clear that we do have one and not for lack of an evacuation plan and there is additional analysis of those evacuation maps that will be forthcoming in compliance with AB 747 and it will give more information about their capacity and potential issues with evacuation routes in a different hazard scenario.

Mayor Bier stated that, if our community is looking at it, they will know where to go to find the evacuation plan.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought that was a stickier issue. He stated that the Police Department intentionally does not publish that plan. It is a public record that is available if people want to review it in person but they try to maintain some level of security related to that because of the potential for misuse by bad actors of key evacuation routes and the city’s process for managing that. He thought Acting Police Chief Glasgo might be able to speak more to that point.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was curious if there is active reference to Zone Haven as they just mentioned Zone Haven and they are on the same page.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they can certainly add a reference to that retool.

Acting Police Chief Glasgo stated that it has generally been the thought behind not making those plans public for the very reason which Acting Planning Director Murdock just mentioned is why they don’t put that out there as there is a possibility for bad actors to take advantage of our strategic responses to any type of evacuation and things of that nature.

City Manager Woodhouse asked him to correct him if he is incorrect, but one of the misconceptions about using the word “plan” in evacuation plan is what he always has been instructed is that the plan is to do what police and fire with public safety tells you to do in the evacuation because the fire could have cut off a certain thing and you can’t have a fixed plan route. He stated that it is a really important thing, a process, and there are routes where, in some neighborhoods there is only one way out but you don’t want someone to automatically say that is where they should go, and they need to via their zone follow what police and fire are telling them to do. He stated it was important for the community to understand.

Acting Police Chief Glasgo agreed, adding that it is why they always push out to know your zone and he thanked Councilmember Vaterlaus for mentioning that as zone haven is a very good tool for all of our community members to understand the zone in which they reside and Capt. Clements has been extremely transparent in pushing that information out to all Pacificans and our Emergency Disaster Preparedness Safety Commission has also done the same thing

2.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 July 11, 2022
about pushing out, knowing your zone, knowing alternate routes and they encourage the community to check that out on their website.

Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed that’s what she wrote to zone haven but also evacuation changes depending on what’s going on, as you can’t drive down Fassler if you have fire hoses crossing Fassler and then things change and you have to go around. If you automatically think it is in one direction, it is not, and you have to follow what is given to us at the time as it definitely changes.

Mayor Bier stated that one thing she heard a lot about at this time was the inclusion of affordable housing and she wanted to make it clear that they will be doing that in the housing element update.

Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that they discussed on June 25 that this General Plan is a really important baseline for undertaking some very pro-housing policies if that is what City Council wants to do. He stated that we were lacking those kinds of densities and tools in the 1980 General Plan but the increased densities and additional support for infill development will be really helpful launching pads or points for Housing Element discussion and finding where they are going to locate the additional units they have to plan.

Mayor Bier stated that she was giving a time check because they said 11:45.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that was if they needed to continue it but it doesn’t sound like they need to do it.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was ready to make a final comment and then a motion unless anyone else has something to offer. He asked the City Attorney, when he makes the motion, should he tack on at the very end with amendments made during tonight’s meeting.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that, before he makes the motion, she would like to thank everyone, the public, Council, and most of all the staff that worked diligently on this whole process over and over, and Planning Commission as well. She thanked everyone involved as this was a huge, giant project.

Councilmember O’Neill would like to rephrase and echo what she just said, as he knows it has been a huge amount of work. He was on the Planning Commission in the late 80s when they talked about doing this. He stated that this document is not fixed in time and it can be amended. He stated that, when we passed the US Constitution, immediately afterwards there were 12 amendments submitted for the Constitution, 10 of which were enacted. He stated that, since then, we have done 27 amendments to that. He stated that this can be amended and there are challenges coming down the road and there will be Uber airplanes and someone who wants to do a hydrofoil Linda Mar Beach for the community and things are going to move along and it will have to be adapted and amended. He stated that with updated charts, data, etc., and he thanked staff for leading this initiative and former Director Wehrmeister and the public for all their input.

Councilmember Beckmeyer added her appreciation to the Planning Commission for coming up with the suggestion about the annual update opportunity, annual review as part of the annual report back to Council and the change and timing that staff recommended so we have that

2.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 July 11, 2022
automatically built-in prompt and an opportunity for everyone to make those tweaks and amendments if needed.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, before Council considers a motion, they wanted to confirm for the record, and Ms. Moore can do that, and discussing the additional edits and revisions that Council made after conclusion of staff presentation. They analyzed everything brought into at this meeting and recommended for City Council adoption and he wanted to confirm if any of the edits would trigger additional environmental review.

Consultant Moore stated that Council has recommended several edits and additions to the General Plan, the majority for all of the edits and additions in the narrative or existing policies or minor text edits made to clarify or correct information in the proposed plan. She stated that the changes do not constitute new information or change any findings of significance in the EIR.

Councilmember O’Neill thanked Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser for staying up so late.

Mayor Bier asked Acting Planning Director Murdock to clarify the landslide maps one more time.

Acting Planning Director Murdock asked which aspect of the landslide maps needed clarification.

Mayor Bier stated what they decided to do with them.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, coming into this meeting, they clarified that they incorporated complete information available from the state and USGS with respect to the fire maps debris flows and previously they only had the southern half of the city and they have corrected that to include the entirety of the city for debris flows and they also worked with California Geological Survey (CGS) staff to correct the data that they initially gave to the city for historic landslides mapped in Pacifica and correct that to depict the mapped landslides in their possession at CGS and they discussed in the appeal hearing to put energy in whatever means the city has to control its processes or encouraging other public agencies and private party individuals to ensure that reports of any major landslides that occur in Pacifica are reported and sent to the state with the intention to get the state to update its maps as comprehensively as possible to provide the broadest benefit of that more comprehensive landslide mapping finished.

Mayor Bier appreciated the explanation. She then wanted to thank our community for continuing to participate. She thought they have carefully addressed all the things they brought to the table and they will be able to continue to address all the things that they continue to bring to the table. She feels that they have done their due diligence and really care about all the things they presented to them and were able to address them at this meeting. She feels good about that and knows they can do amendments moving forward and she encourage them to stay on them to do those amendments as they see fit.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that Acting Planning Director Murdock was going to look at expanding geotechnical analysis to extend up and down slopes during the Building Element update.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that is a logical time to consider that as it is squarely related to local topographical and geological circumstances that can justify local amendments to the Building Code and he thought that would be an opportune time to address the point and it is already on schedule to come up later this year as part of the triennial building code update for

2.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 July 11, 2022
the 2022 Building Code.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he saw that Suzanne Moore had her hand up and he was not sure if they reminded the public that they weren’t taking public comment at this meeting as they were continuing the meeting from the 25th where they had already taken public comment, and he wanted to make that clear. He thanked staff and Planning Commission, and Vice Chair Hauser. He asked for some numbers ahead of time and he asked for them late but what he got was a sense that they had, over the last 13 years, four planning directors working on this, five different city managers 13 or 14 different mayors, many City Councilmembers, many Planning Commissioners, many different staff members, community members and it strikes him that 13 years of working on this to get them here at some point when the timeline gets long enough, continuity falls to shambles, and he thought it was amazing that they have worked on this and brought it to fruition through various iterations to get to this point. He stated that they have made it a point that they will have the report on how the General Plan is being implemented in February so they can specifically address it during goal setting in March. He stated that the point is well taken that they would love to have more time to perfect it, but it is a form of perfection that maybe could never exist but, given that it is a living, fluid document that we can amend. He stated that, if that group together do the studies and come back to Council in February when they review it and make those recommendations so they can go into goal setting with the recommendations in mind. He stated that it was not for lack of wanting to hear them but they need a document to stabilize and create the community as we need it to be and that is what they are stepping into, referring to it as the end of the beginning.

Councilmember O’Neill agreed that this is the end of the beginning and the beginning. He stated that Churchill said it best.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, with that having been said, he moved that they 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); adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA; Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with CEQA; 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 incorporate all maps and testimony into the record by reference, with amendments made during tonight’s meeting; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

ADJOURN ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING
Mayor Bier adjourned the Adjourned Special Meeting at 11:58 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

2.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 July 11, 2022
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor

2.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5102 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/22/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending June 20, 2022.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 738-7402
[email protected] <mailto:[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 have implemented this new financial reporting practice on a quarterly basis starting last fiscal year to ensure accountability and transparency in managing public funds. This report reflects the financial results for the 4th 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. Financial recovery from the pandemic is still unfolding, and it remains critical to continue monitoring the City’s financial position at the end of each quarter.

Finance staff has completed the fourth quarter of the Fiscal Year 2021-22. This report intends to provide the Council and the public with a broad overview of the City’s fiscal condition. The Fourth quarter Financial Report summarizes the City’s General Fund and is not meant to be inclusive of all financial and accounting transactions.

The 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 registration, and current fees for services such as parking charges, engineering, planning, and building permit fees, and recreation services.

The Fourth 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 June 30, 2022. The Financial Report is prepared on a cash basis; therefore, only the revenue received by June 30, 2022, is reflected in the analysis. Likewise, expenditures are recorded when paid using the cash basis method of accounting.
3 Packet Pg. 73
Pacifica City Council 2
August 22, 2022
With the completion of the Fourth quarter, General Fund Revenues were at $43.3 million (109% of budget), and Expenditures were $36.9 million (96% of budget).

General Fund Operating expenditures are on target at the end of the Fourth quarter, although total expenditures increased over the Fourth 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 fourth 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 is ending the year on track with revenues and expenditures performing better than expected. The City’s operating expenditures are at 96% of the budget at the end of the Fourth 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 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 Fourth quarter.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There is no reasonable alternative to this informational item, as not accepting the 4th Quarter Financial Report will not change the City’s financial condition as of the end of the quarter ending June 30, 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:

Q4 21-22 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1(DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 74
City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2021‐22
Fourth Quarter Financial Report
1 OVERVIEW
This Fourth Quarter Financial Report is an analysis of the unaudited financial status of the City’s General Fund
from July 2021 through June 2022. The City of Pacifica
has completed the Fourth Quarter of the Fiscal Year
2021‐22. The Fourth 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 the fiscal year
completed, General Fund Expenditures are at 96% of
projections, and revenues are at 109% of the Revised
FY2021-22 Budget. These figures exclude budgeted oncea-year operating and capital transfers. Revenue exceeded expenditures for the Fourth Quarter with this
year’s results more positive compared to the prior year when the City collected 104% of budgeted revenues at
the end of the Q4. Both expenditures and revenues are
explained in more detail below. The 20% increase in
revenues over the Fourth Quarter from the prior year is due to the receipt of one-time ARPA funds in July, 2021. *Excludes operating and capital transfers
The General Fund Balance as of June 30, 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 Fourth Quarter.

The Planning department show lower expenditures in
salaries and benefits category due to vacancies and
timing of payments for contractual services.

Additional year-end entries related to costreimbursable transactions will likely occure during the year-end process. The General Government, Police,
Public Works, and PB&R Departments are on target
with the budget. The Fire Department costs are
slightly ahead of budget as a result of overtime costs
exceeding budet. 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 by department as of the Fourth Quarter:

Revenues: The following is a summary of revenues as
of the end of the Fourth Quarter:

Property Tax: Property Tax is the City’s largest revenue source. All the installments of the Property Tax
payment were remitted to the City by the County of San
Mateo.

General Fund Qtr 4
FY2020-21
Qtr 4
FY2021-22
FY2021-22
Budget
% Change
Q4 FY21 vs
Q4 FY22
Qtr 4
% Budget
Revenues 35,687,916 43,343,228 39,720,145 21% 109%
Expenditures 33,979,022 36,871,064 38,308,363 9% 96%
General Fund
Expenditures by
Department
Qtr 4
FY2020-21
Qtr 4
FY2021-22
FY2021-22
Budget
% Change
Q4 FY21 vs
Q4 FY22
Qtr 4
% Budget
Expende
d
General Government 5,024,509 6,091,684 6,188,551 21% 98% Police Department 10,114,604 10,352,101 10,611,060 2% 98% Fire Department 6,983,578 7,575,879 7,101,477 8% 107%
Planning & Building 2,409,539 2,953,719 3,832,577 23% 77% Public Works 3,946,616 4,250,202 4,673,066 8% 91%
PB&R 4,384,857 4,679,330 4,861,545 7% 96%
Non-Departmental 1,115,320 968,148 1,040,087 -13% 93%
Total General Fund
Expenditures 33,979,022 36,871,064 38,308,363 9% 96%
General Fund
Revenues by Type
Qtr 4
FY2020-21
Qtr 4
FY2021-22
FY2021-22
Budget
% Change
Q4 FY21 vs
Q4 FY22
Qtr 4
% Budget
Received
Property Tax 14,744,238 15,804,449 13,924,864 7% 113%
Sales Tax 2,544,002 2,843,566 2,559,413 12% 111%
Transient Occupancy Tax 1,531,550 1,610,725 1,750,423 5% 92% Other Taxes 5,577,966 5,006,948 5,454,306 -10% 92%
Department/Program 8,655,007 10,548,244 10,179,827 22% 104% Grants 1,897,553 5,802,301 5,763,312 206% 101%
ERAF 737,600 1,726,995 88,000 134% 1962%
Total General Fund
Revenues 35,687,916 43,343,228 39,720,145 21% 109%

3.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Q4 21-22 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1 (5100 : FY 2021-22 Q4 Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2021‐22
Fourth Quarter Financial Report
The City has received roughly 113% of the budgeted
Property Tax revenue as of June 30, 2022. Although, some adjusting entries may occur during the year-end, the
increase from the prior year 4
th quarter reflects on a high
appreciation in property values.

Sales Tax: As of June 30, 2022, the City has received about 112% of our budgeted Sales Tax revenues. The Sales Tax
revenue are recorded about 12% higher than prior year
Fourth Quarter. Some year-end adjusting entries may
slightly reduce this number, but it is a good sign that the Sales Tax is performing above the budget estimates
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 Fourth Quarter reflects the months of July to May of TOT receipts. The TOT revenues show a nice increase of 5% compared to the Fourth 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, 92% of the budget has been received as of June 30, 2022, representing only ten months of the reporting.

The total revenue is less than the prior year with 10% less received as the Fourth Quarter due to payment delays.

Department/Programs: These include building permits,
engineering and planning fees, charges related to Parks, Beaches & Recreation programs and rentals. The City
received 104% of budget at the end of the Fourth 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 Fourth 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 Fourth Quarter’s distribution, the
Excess ERAF allocation exceeded the Budget,
however all additional funds in excess of the budget
will be transfered to the Disaster Recovery fund per
City policy. The proper journal entries will take place at the year-end to reflect this transaction.

SUMMARY
Overall, staff is pleased to report that the mid-year
budget projections were pretty accurate, and
FY2021-22 Budget appears to be ending the year on
track with revenues and expenditures performing as
expected. The City’s operating expenditures are at
96% of the budget at the end of the Fourth Quarter.

The slight increase in expenditures from prior year
quarter is mainly attributable to salaries and
benefits, including MOU increases and overtime.

These are only preliminary numbers as additional
booking entries may occur 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.
2 3.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Q4 21-22 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1 (5100 : FY 2021-22 Q4 Financial Report)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/22/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending June 30, 2022.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending June 30, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 738-7402
[email protected] <mailto:[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 June 30, 2022 is $58,174,597 of which $17,451,787 is placed with the State Controller’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), $8,274,492 is placed with US Bank, $342,510 is in the PARS Trust, $232,074 is placed in Bank of New York (BNY Mellon), $3,001,260 is in Roy Davies Trust, $26,720,195 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 $9,258,918, from $48,915,918 this reporting quarter ending June 30, 2022, compared to last quarter ending March 31, 2022. The decrease is primarily attributable to normal operating payments to vendors, payroll and annual debt service payments net of normal revenue receipts in the last quarter of the year.

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 4 Packet Pg. 77
Pacifica City Council 2
August 22, 2022
ending June 30, 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 June 30, 2022, the portfolio contains sufficient liquidity to meet 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 4th Quarter Treasurer’s Report will not change the City’s cash position as of the end of the quarter ending June 30, 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 06-30-22(PDF)
Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 78
City of Pacifica
Treasurer's Report
June 30, 2022
Portfolio Summary
Par Value
GASB 31 Fair
Market Value Book Value % of Portfolio
General Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank $ 26,193,772 $ 26,193,772 26,193,772 44.85% Payroll Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank 526,424 526,424 526,424 0.90% Workers Compensation Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank 12,756 12,756 12,756 0.02% Senior Services Account with Tri Counties Bank 2,113,247 2,113,247 2,113,247 3.62% 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 2,973,366 2,973,366 2,973,366 5.09% Roy Davies Trust- Interest Account-Public Funds - Checking Acct with City National Bank 27,894 27,894 27,894 0.05% Petty Cash - Held by various Departments 3,445 3,445 3,445 0.01% Cash $ 31,860,319 $ 31,860,319 $ 31,860,319 54.55%
Investments
California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) $ 17,679,402 17,451,787 17,679,402 30.27% Bank of New York Mellon-Fund 91 - Cash & Short Term 232,074 232,074 232,074 0.40% Deutsche Bank-Cash-Earmarked for debt service - Energy Retrofit Lease 13,415 13,415 13,415 0.02% US Bank - Money Market Fund* 8,274,492 8,274,492 8,274,492 14.17% PARS Post-Employment Benefit Trust** 342,510 342,510 342,510 0.59% Total Investments $ 26,541,894 $ 26,314,279 $ 26,541,894 45.45% Total Cash and Investments $ 58,402,213 $ 58,174,597 $ 58,402,213 100.00% 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. 8/22/2022

4.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment 1 – Treasurer's Report 06-30-22 (5101 : FY 2021-22 Q4 Treasurer's Report) City of Pacifica
Treasurer's Report
June 30, 2022
Reconciliation to General Ledger
Description Bank Account # Amount
Tri Counties General Checking Account xx0541 $ 26,193,772 Tri Counties Payroll Account xx6915 $ 526,424
Tri Counties Workmens Comp Account xx1341 $ 12,756
Tri Counties Senior Services Account xx5996 $ 2,113,247 Tri Counties Turbo Data Account xx9758 $ 9,415
City National Bank Roy Davies Trust-Principal xx5367 $ 2,973,366 City National Bank Roy Davies Trust-Interest xx7033 $ 27,894 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) xx1614/xx1007 $ 17,679,402 Bank of New York Mellon xx0166/xx0167 $ 232,074
Deutsche Bank - Energy Retrofit Lease S80844.1 $ 13,415 US Bank - 2016 Refunding xx5000 $ 305,636
US Bank - 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bond-Project Fund xx2001 $ 4,030,188 US Bank - 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bond-Interest xx2003 $ 1 US Bank - 2019 Taxable Pension Obligation Bond Refunding-Debt Service xx4000 $ 1 US Bank - 2019 Taxable Pension Obligation Bond Refunding-Debt Service xx4001 $ 3,066 US Bank - 2021 Civic Center Bonds xx9000 $ 3,935,600
Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) - Post Employment Benefit Trust $ 342,510 Petty Cash $ 3,445
Total Cash per Bank Statements $ 58,402,213
Description GL Account # Amount
Cash in Bank xx.xxxxxx.11000.xxxx.xxx $ 35,085,484
Cash in Bank - Payroll xx.xxxxxx.11002.xxxx.xxx $ (2,099,929) Petty Cash xx.xxxxxx.11100.xxxx.xxx $ 3,445
Investments - LAIF 01.000000.11290.0000.000 $ 17,678,758 Investments - LAIF 22.900000.11292.0000.000 $ 644
PARS Trusts-Pension 01.000000.11297.0000.000 $ 173,550
PARS Trusts-Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 01.000000.11298.0000.000 $ 168,960 Reserve Cash-2017 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Project 18.940000.11033.0000.000 $ 4,030,188 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 $ 2,973,366 R Davies Trust - Interest 27.900000.11296.0000.000 $ 27,894 Cash Reserve - 2016 Lease Payment 40.880000.11026.0000.000 $ 305,636 Cash Reserve - 2019 POB Refunding 40.880000.11036.0000.000 $ 1 Interest Account - 2019 POB Refunding 40.880000.11036.0000.000 $ 3,066 City of Pacifica 2021 Project Fund xx.xx0000.110xx.0000.000 $ 3,935,600 Debt Service Reserve Fund - 2004 TAB 91.960000.11019.0000.000 $ 129,963 Cash with Fiscal Agent 91.960000.11020.0000.000 $ 102,111 Total Cash per General Ledger $ 62,532,155
Tri Counties Bank reconciliation adjustments and timing differences $ (4,129,942) Total Reconciled GL Cash $ 58,402,213

4.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment 1 – Treasurer's Report 06-30-22 (5101 : FY 2021-22 Q4 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

4.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5101 : FY 2021-22 Q4 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.

4.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5101 : FY 2021-22 Q4 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,

4.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5101 : FY 2021-22 Q4 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.

4.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5101 : FY 2021-22 Q4 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.

4.b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5101 : FY 2021-22 Q4 Treasurer's Report)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/22/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Update Job Classification for the Director of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Position.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt a resolution approving revisions to the job classification for the Director of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation.

STAFF CONTACT:

Irene P. Camarena, Human Resources Manager
650-738-7303
[email protected]
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
650-738-7301
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City’s Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department Director, Mike Perez, has announced his retirement after 31 years of service to the City of Pacifica. The retirement is effective at the end of 2022. In preparation for the upcoming recruitment, staff reviewed and revised the job classification for the position that has not been updated for 20 years. The PB&R Department Director job description has been revised to reflect updated characteristics, duties and responsibilities, and desired skill set for the position.

Staff recommends that the Council adopts the attached revised job classification that has been reviewed by the City Manager’s Office, Human Resources Department, and the current incumbent.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Do not approve the recommended revisions to the job classification or provide staff with an alternative direction.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The recommended action is consistent with the following Council goal:
“A Strong City Workforce Infrastructure” includes strategies to address employee retention and attraction challenges, engaging staff in decision-making, and recognizing staff.

FISCAL IMPACT:
5 Packet Pg. 86
Pacifica City Council 2
August 22, 2022
There is no fiscal impact to updating the job classification. There are no changes to the compensation for the Director of PB&R position, which is included in the budget.

ORIGINATED BY:

Human Resources
Administrative Services
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Director of PBR Aug 2022 V2 REDLINED by MP-IC FINAL (PDF) RESOLUTION Update Job Description Parks Beaches and Recreation Director HR-IC (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 87

ATTACHMENT A

DIRECTOR OF PARKS, BEACHES, AND RECREATION

DEFINITION
This Executive Leadership position reports to the City Manager, with responsibility for the Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation. Under general direction, the Director performs responsible professional and technical work in administering, promoting, organizing, planning and directing the development and operations of the City’s Park, Beaches and Recreation Department programs.

The Director of Parks and Recreation plans, directs, and coordinates the work of the Parks and Recreation Department; implements policies and establishes procedures related to department functions; develops and administers the department budget; drives staff development and culture; and establishes and maintains liaison to the public.

SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED
Administrative direction is provided by the City Manager. Responsibilities include direct and indirect supervision of professional, technical, and clerical positions.

ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (Illustrative Only) • Serving as part of the City’s Executive Team working with the City Manager this candidate should be a creative, entrepreneurial, career-minded, team-player with a commitment to inclusiveness and excellence.
• This is an experienced recreation and community services class, which requires exercising independent judgment and initiative in prioritizing, scheduling, assigning, and coordinating work.
• This position also requires knowledge of the provision of recreation and related services to a variety of age groups, the ability to organize and oversee the work of staff and/or volunteers, a strong customer-service orientation, and the skill to relate to a variety of individuals, families, and groups from various socio-economic backgrounds.

DESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS
• Inspirational leader who develops and guides staff in making decisions, promotes a collaborative team environment culture committed to continuous learning and improvement.
• Represents the Department before the Parks and Recreation Commission, City Council, and outside organizations.
• Passion for public services and customer services.
• Value public engagement and promotes diversity in a multi-cultural community that represents a tremendous variety of recreational interests. • Able to cultivate relationships with external partners at the local, regional, and state level.
• Comfort in juggling many competing demands and priorities while maintaining a consistent vision and work plan.

5.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Director of PBR Aug 2022 V2 REDLINED by MP-IC FINAL (5103 : Update job classification for the Director of Parks, Beaches, and Senior Planner

Page 2 of 5 ends

• Acuity in reading the political environment and adjusting appropriately to maintain constructive and productive relations.
• Demonstrated track record for all aspects of organizational development and management.
• Understanding of the regional parks, recreation, open space and trails business. • Partner with other agencies and volunteer groups to maximize effectiveness of departmental programs.
• May be assigned disaster service worker responsibilities. • Performs other related duties as required.

EXAMPLES OF DUTIES (ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY)
Management reserves the right to add, modify, change, or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations so that qualified employees can perform the essential functions of the job.

Duties may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Maintains close liaison and working relationship with state, county and local public agencies and private organizations in relationship to parks, and community human and leisure service matters. • Direct and participate in the development and implementation of goals, objectives, policies, procedures and priorities for the City and the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department.
• Develops and works with staff to implement comprehensive recreation program opportunities.
• Keeps current with changes in the practices and knowledge needed to provide efficient and effective park and recreation services.
• Maintains a competent and motivated work force by training, developing, disciplining, and evaluating the performance of subordinates. • Plan, promote, organize, and supervise a comprehensive and diversified community recreation, cultural, social, and human services program and administer these programs in the best interest of the entire community. • Direct the coordination of parks and recreation programs and plans for facilities with other City departments, divisions, community groups, schools and other organizations as required.
• Analyzes the effectiveness of programs and delivery systems and recommends operational changes.
• Evaluates work progress, resolves work problems, and determines additional needs on an on-going basis.
• Plans and directs the selection, training, supervision, and evaluation of department staff.
• Prepares and administers the annual department budget as directed by the City Manager.
• Develops and assists in the administration of PB&R capital improvement projects. • Identifies and applies for grants and directs staff as appropriate in the administration and preparation of grant reporting.
• Prepares requests for proposals for services.
• Directs the coordination of assigned functions and programs with other City departments as well as outside agencies.
• Directs the creation and implementation of marketing plans for various recreation programs and events.

5.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Director of PBR Aug 2022 V2 REDLINED by MP-IC FINAL (5103 : Update job classification for the Director of Parks, Beaches, and Senior Planner

Page 3 of 5 ends

• Collects, completes, analyzes, and maintains a variety of records, reports, contracts, agreements, and policy manuals pertaining to various division functions and programs.
• Implements principles and practices of program administration including budgeting, purchasing and personnel management.
• Oversees, coordinates, and implements safe work procedures for assigned work units or divisions.
• Prepares and presents staff reports for the City Council and varying Commissions. • Provides high-level staff support to various City Council subcommittees and appointed citizen committees.
• Works closely with representatives of other public and private organizations, including educational, community, and county groups.
• Performs related duties and responsibilities as required.

QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:
• Principles, practices, and service delivery needs into public administration, parks, recreation, and community services administration.
• Federal, State, local ordinances and codes applicable to parks and recreation. • Contract negotiations and budget administration.
• Practices and techniques of budget preparation, monitoring and control. • Principles and practices of organization, administration, personnel management, employee relations, supervision, training and organizational development. • Recreation, cultural, athletic, social and human services needs of all age groups. • Principles and practices of employee and volunteer supervision, including work planning, assignment, direction, review, and training.
• Applicable regulations and rules related to the program areas and facilities.

Skill in:
• Effectively organize, coordinate, direct and evaluate the staff and functions of a governmental parks and recreation department.
• Identify budget administration problems and devise procedural changes to resolve same.
• Interpret, apply and enforce applicable Federal, State and local ordinances and codes.
• Train, organize, supervise, and motivate departmental staff. • Prepare clear and comprehensive correspondence and reports. • Exercising sound independent judgment within general procedural guidelines. • Maintaining accurate program records and files.
• Establishing and maintaining effective relationships with those contacted during work. • Effectively represent the Department before the City Council, Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission, the public and other organizations. • Reviewing organizational and administrative problems and exercise good judgment in making timely and informed decisions.
• Communicating clearly, effectively, and diplomatically, orally and in writing.

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills

5.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Director of PBR Aug 2022 V2 REDLINED by MP-IC FINAL (5103 : Update job classification for the Director of Parks, Beaches, and Senior Planner

Page 4 of 5 ends

and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be:
• Equivalent to graduation from an accredited four-year college or university with major course work in recreation administration, business or public administration, or a field related to recreation or hospitality.
• Five (5) years of professional management experience in parks, recreation, cultural services or a closely related field, which included a high-level budget and finance experience, with at least two (2) years of supervisory or administrative experience in recreation management.
• Possession of an advanced degree in recreation or public administration is desirable. • Ability to work a flexible schedule including evenings and weekends as needed.

LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS
• License Requirement: Possession of a valid California Class C Driver's License and a satisfactory driving record.
• Possession of, or ability to obtain, first aid and CPR certificates prior to completion of probation.

TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT USED
Knowledge of Microsoft Office 365-Word, Excel, Public, Outlook, and other software programs) calculator, copy and fax machines, telephone.

PHYSICAL DEMANDS
The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.

While performing the duties of this job, the employee is frequently required to sit, talk and hear, use hands to finger, handle, feel or operate objects, tools, or controls; and reach with hands and arms. The employee is occasionally required to walk. Employee must maintain physical condition appropriate to performance of job duties which may include sitting for long periods of time and operating assigned office equipment and maintain stamina to attend and participate in evening meetings as assigned.

The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 35 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision and the ability to adjust focus.

WORK ENVIRONMENT
The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.

Incumbents generally work in an office environment with extensive public contact.

Incumbents may be required to work in the field on occasion. The noise level in the work

5.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Director of PBR Aug 2022 V2 REDLINED by MP-IC FINAL (5103 : Update job classification for the Director of Parks, Beaches, and Senior Planner

Page 5 of 5 ends

environment is usually quiet but can be moderately noisy. The noise level when in the field can be quite noisy.

SELECTION GUIDELINES AND GENERAL INFORMATION
Formal application, rating of education and experience; oral interview and reference check; job related tests may be required.

The duties listed above are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work that may be performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the position if the work is similar, related or a logical assignment to the position.

The job description does not constitute an employment agreement between the employer and employee and is subject to change by the employer as the needs of the employer and requirements of the job change.

Revised Date: August 22, 2022
Bargaining Unit: Unrepresented Management
Title: Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Compensation: $14,741 - $16,859

5.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Director of PBR Aug 2022 V2 REDLINED by MP-IC FINAL (5103 : Update job classification for the Director of Parks, Beaches, and

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

AUTHORIZING THE REVISIONS TO THE PARKS, BEACHES, AND

RECREATION DIRECTOR JOB CLASSIFICATION
1 WHEREAS, Article 4, Section 2-4.401 of the Pacifica Municipal Code establishes a civil service personnel system and procedures for the administration of personnel matters; and WHEREAS, said Chapter requires that the City Manager, as Personnel Officer, prepare and recommend to the City Council a position classification plan, class specifications, and revisions thereto; and
WHEREAS, said Chapter requires that personnel rules and policies be adopted by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation position will become vacant in December 2022 due to retirement, and updating the job description of the position Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Director will reflect the current service level provided by PB&R department;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Director job classification is hereby revised and amended with no change to the salary schedule to the Unrepresented Management and Confidential Employees MOU;
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on August 22, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_______________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

5.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: RESOLUTION Update Job Description Parks Beaches and Recreation Director HR-IC (5103 : Update job classification for the

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/22/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution of Support for the Reopening of Mack E. Mickelson Therapy Pool RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the attached resolution supporting the reopening of the Mack E. Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool located at the Mills Health Center in San Mateo, California.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

The Mack E. Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool (“Mickelson”) is an ADA-accessible warm water therapy pool constructed in the City of San Mateo over 25 years ago using charitable contributions from the residents of San Mateo County. For over 25 years, the pool had been open to community residents of all ages. Its healing, warm water provided a vital resource for chronic pain management and rehabilitation for seniors, disabled individuals, patients recovering from surgeries, children with special needs, and pregnant women. Patrons drove from across the Bay Area, including Pacifica, Half Moon Bay, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose, to use the facility for physical rehabilitation. In June 2021, Sutter Health, its current owner, permanently closed the pool after its original closure in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mickelson is the only facility of its kind in San Mateo County and there are no comparable warm water therapy pools on the Peninsula able to adequately accommodate the residents who previously relied upon the pool to treat and prevent significant health issues. In the interim, those community members who did rely upon it are suffering from acute and chronic physical pain and mental anguish without it, impacting their ability to live with dignity. Closing Mickelson has removed a valuable healthcare resource of San Mateo County residents. There is currently no plan to construct an adequate and accessible replacement warm water therapy pool in San Mateo County, and any plan to do so would require significant financing as well as several years of design, planning, permitting, and construction.

Many recognize the importance of the pool and there is growing support within the San Mateo County community for its reopening. Over 4,800 patients, caregivers, and community members have signed a petition to reopen Mickelson to increase the health, independence, and dignity of residents who rely upon it. State and local representatives including Assembly Speaker pro Tempore Kevin Mullin and Senator Josh Becker have expressed their support of the initiative with letters to Sutter Health asking for their commitment to find a solution. The cities of Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, Foster City, and Half Moon Bay, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, the San Mateo Labor Council, and the Sequoia Healthcare District have all passed 6 Packet Pg. 94
Pacifica City Council 2
August 22, 2022
resolutions calling for the pool's reopening. The Peninsula Health Care District has offered to finance the necessary upgrades and operating costs of the facility.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council could choose to not adopt the resolution of support.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Support for the reopening of the Mack E. Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool is consistent with the Council goal of “A Healthy and Compassionate Community.” FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to this recommendation.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
6 Packet Pg. 95
Pacifica City Council 3
August 22, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA IN SUPPORT OF REOPENING THE MACK E. MICKELSON ARTHRITIS AND REHABILITATION CENTER

THERAPY POOL LOCATED AT THE MILLS HEALTH CENTER IN SAN MATEO,

CALIFORNIA
___________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the Mack E. Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool ("Mickelson") is an ADA-accessible warm water therapy pool located in San Mateo, California at Mills Health Center, which is operated by Sutter Health; and WHEREAS, Mickelson was constructed over 25 years ago using charitable contributions from residents of San Mateo County; and
WHEREAS, for over 25 years, thousands of San Mateo County residents who suffer from health issues, including permanent disabilities, debilitating injuries, autoimmune disorders, and mobility impairments have used Mickelson to rehabilitate and mitigate physical decline; and WHEREAS, both intervention and prevention are equally critical components of an equitable and effective healthcare system; and
WHEREAS, Mickelson's ability to provide both preventative and interventionist therapies to residents of San Mateo County suffering from health issues makes it an asset to the community at large and even more so to elderly residents and residents with mobility impairments; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the COVID-19 pandemic, Sutter Health, its subsidiaries, and its employees receive significant financial benefits for providing healthcare services in San Mateo County from both public and private contracts; and WHEREAS, in March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Sutter Health ceased operating Mickelson; and
WHEREAS, in June 2021, Sutter Health publicly announced its intent to permanently close Mickelson; and
WHEREAS, as a direct result of Sutter Health's decision to close Mickelson, residents of San Mateo County who previously relied upon Mickelson to treat and prevent significant health issues are now suffering from acute and chronic physical pain and mental anguish, which in turn decreases the independence of those residents and impacts their ability to live with dignity; and
WHEREAS, over 4,800 patients, caregivers, and community members have signed a petition to reopen Mickelson to increase the health, independence, and dignity of those residents who rely upon it; and
WHEREAS, there are no comparable warm water therapy pools able to adequately accommodate the residents of San Mateo County who previously relied upon Mickelson; and WHEREAS, there is currently no plan to construct an adequate and accessible 6 Packet Pg. 96
Pacifica City Council 4
August 22, 2022
replacement warm water therapy pool in San Mateo County, and any plan to do so would require significant financing as well as several years of design, planning, permitting, and construction; and
WHEREAS, estimates provided by Sutter Health suggest that reopening Mickelson with any required repairs or upgrades would cost approximately $250,000.00; and WHEREAS, warm water therapy pools in the region can and do operate profitably and safely under relevant COVID-19 regulations.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California that considering the foregoing, the prompt reopening the Mack E. Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool for community use is the most prudent option to preserve and improve the health of residents in San Mateo County who now rely upon, or who will rely upon, warm water therapy to maintain their health, independence, and dignity. The City Council urges Sutter Health to take advantage of the Peninsula Health Care District’s generous offer to fully fund any necessary repairs, remodeling, and operational costs of the Mickelson therapy pool until a new facility becomes available in the area. * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 22nd 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. 97

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/22/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Notice of Completion for the Collection System Projects FY 2020-2021 Sacramento Easement 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 Collection System Projects FY 2020-2021 Sacramento Easement; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

STAFF CONTACT:

Nelson Schlater, P.E., Engineering Manager - Wastewater (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:

Public Works Wastewater Division (PW-WW) Collections group regularly conducts scheduled cleaning and inspection of the city’s sewer system. Staff identified several segments in the sewer collection system around the Sacramento easement area which requires replacement to prevent sewage overflows. The Sacramento easement is located in the East Sharp Park neighborhood, and the easement encompasses the public right-of-way on Loma Vista Terrace just east of Sacramento Terrace, and also the easement in the wooded area between Loma Vista Terrace and Talbot Avenue.

On May 5, 2021, City Council approved the plans and specifications; bidding; and authorization to award and execute a construction agreement not to exceed $500,000, including 10% contingencies, for the Collection System Projects FY 2020-2021 Sacramento Easement Project.

EPS Inc. dba Express Plumbing was the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for the project with a bid of $269,950. On August 11, 2021, the City entered into an agreement with EPS Inc. dba Express Plumbing to complete the project for a construction contract amount of $269,950 and established a budget authority of $296,945. The final contract construction cost for the project was $285,227 which included three change orders in a total amount of $15,277. The three change orders were for additional work approved by the City to adjust a manhole frame and cover, perform force account work on utility conflicts, and slurry seal Loma Vista Terrace.

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 7 Packet Pg. 98
Pacifica City Council 2
August 22, 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, $14,261.35, 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 $285,227.03, which is within Council’s approved project budget of $296,945.00.

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Wastewater Enterprise Capital Fund 34 (Construction) $ 296,945.00 Total Source of Funds $ 296,945.00
Actual Construction Cost $ (285,227.03)
Total Use of Funds $ (285,227.03)
Estimated Project End Balance $ 11,717.97
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:
7 Packet Pg. 99
Pacifica City Council 3
August 22, 2022
Attachment A - Collection System Project Sacramento Easement Notice of Completion (PDF) 7 Packet Pg. 100
Pacifica City Council 4
August 22, 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 COLLECTION SYSTEM PROJECTS FY 2020-2021 SACRAMENTO EASEMENT (C005I)
_____________________________________________________________________ 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 EPS Inc. dba Express Plumbing on August 11, 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 22nd 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 7 Packet Pg. 101

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

CITY OF PACIFICA
COLLECTION SYSTEM PROJECTS FY 2020-2021 SACRAMENTO EASEMENT (C005I) 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 EPS Inc. dba Express Plumbing on August 11, 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 18 th day of
July 2022 and that acceptance of completion of said work was ordered by the City Council of said City, adopted on the 22nd day of August 2022, and that the name of the surety on the contractor's bond for labor and materials on said project is Ohio Casualty Insurance Company of New Hampshire.

That said work consisted of the construction of new sewer line, sewer line rehabilitation, new manhole 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" 7.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment A - Collection System Project Sacramento Easement Notice of Completion (5087 : Resolution - NOC Collection System

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/22/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Notice of Completion for the Crespi Drive Sewer Mainline Improvements 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 Crespi Drive Sewer Mainline Improvements Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

STAFF CONTACT:

The City of Pacifica and California River Watch have negotiated a settlement agreement in which the City has agreed to formalize many of its sanitary sewer practices. As part of this agreement, the City is required to repair sanitary sewers within 15 days, or as soon as is feasible thereafter, in locations whose inspection results revealed Grade 5 defects. A Grade 5 defect is assigned to a pipe segment where portions of the pipe are missing and/or have significant holes whose overall condition will worsen over time and may lead to additional pipe failure. This condition will result in sanitary sewer flows leaking into the surrounding environment affecting soils which could ultimately impact the ground surface (e.g., sinkhole). In addition, extraneous groundwater and rain-induced infiltration will enter the pipe which increase the flows into the pipe that could result in surcharging or overflowing the sanitary sewer. Based on the above, Grade 5 defects need to be addressed as soon as is feasible.

A City-conducted Closed-Circuit Television (“CCTV”) inspection of a portion of the Crespi Drive sanitary sewer revealed five (5) Grade 5 defects. Three prospective bidders were contacted and all three toured the project location. Two bids were received even though the City reached out on multiple occasions requesting the third bidder submit. The low bid received for the Project was for $73,037.50. The low bid was greater than the threshold requiring an informal bid (> $60,000), which necessitates additional time for advertising per the City’s Municipal Code. Due to the urgency of repairing the broken sewer pipe, an Urgent Purchase Procurement was employed, that was signed off by the City Manager. On December 16, 2021, the City awarded and executed a construction agreement with the low responsive and responsible bidder, EPS Inc. dba Express Plumbing for the project with a bid of $73,037.50. The final contract 8 Packet Pg. 103
Pacifica City Council 2
August 22, 2022
construction cost for the project was $73,037.50 and there were no change orders on the project.

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 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, $3,651.88, as retention to make sure that all subcontractors and suppliers have been paid. The City will release the retention if no claims are received.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

FISCAL IMPACT:

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Wastewater Enterprise Capital Fund 34 (Construction) $ 73,037.50 Total Source of Funds $ 73,037.50
Actual Construction Cost $ (73,037.50)
Total Use of Funds $ (73,037.50)
Estimated Project End Balance $ 0.00
ORIGINATED BY:
8 Packet Pg. 104
Pacifica City Council 3
August 22, 2022
Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Crespi Drive Sewer Mainline Improvements Project Notice of Completion (PDF) 8 Packet Pg. 105
Pacifica City Council 4
August 22, 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 CRESPI DRIVE SEWER MAINLINE

IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
_____________________________________________________________________ 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 EPS Inc. dba Express Plumbing on December 16, 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.

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

CITY OF PACIFICA

THE CRESPI DRIVE SEWER MAINLINE IMPROVEMENTS 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 EPS Inc. dba Express Plumbing on December 16, 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 19 th day of
April 2022 and that acceptance of completion of said work was ordered by the City Council of said City, adopted on the 22nd day of August 2022, and that the name of the surety on the contractor's bond for labor and materials on said project is Ohio Casualty Insurance Company of New Hampshire.

That said work consisted of the construction of sewer line rehabilitation 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

Segundo S. Bautista, P.E.

City Engineer
Executed at Pacifica, California, on________________ 2022.

ATTACHMENT "A" 8.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment A - Crespi Drive Sewer Mainline Improvements Project Notice of Completion (5089 : Resolution - NOC Crespi Drive

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/22/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Purchase Agreement with JM Squared Associates, Inc. to furnish two (2) new pumps at the Linda Mar Pump Station
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and JM Squared Associates, Inc., via sole source, in the amount of $430,819.44 for the purchase of two Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis pumps for the Linda Mar Pump Station; approve budget authority in the amount of $473,901.38 which includes 10% contingency in the amount of $43,081.94; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.

STAFF CONTACT:

Nelson Schlater, P.E., Engineering Manager - Wastewate
(650) 738-3767
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

During the FY 2022-23 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget approval process, the Council approved funding for the Linda Mar Pump Station Repair Project. Purchase of new electric pumps was included in the funding approval for the Linda Mar Pump Station Repair Project.

The Linda Mar Pump Station’s (LMPS’s) existing electric-driven pumps are the workhorse pumps for the Linda Mar Basin, conveying wastewater from this Basin to the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant for treatment. The two LMPS electric-driven pumps are approaching 50- years old and are at the end of their useful service life. They have performed admirably during their lifetime, with City Staff performing standard preventative maintenance and replacement of small component parts. During the storm event of October 23rd, 2021 and October 24th, 2021, when over 6.8-inches of rainfall was recorded at the Weather Underground’s Linda Mar Weather Station, these two pumps operated at full capacity for well over 24-hours without any glitches. But due to their age and importance to the collection system, they require replacement.

The existing pumps were manufactured by Fairbanks Morse Pumps who has been furnishing wastewater pumps for over 100 years. Fairbanks Morse Pumps was purchased by Pentair Nijhuis and now goes by the name of Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis. The replacement pumps would be manufactured by Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis and have the exact same dimensions as the original pumps, and therefore will not require costly changes to the existing suction and discharge piping. As part of prior work done by City consultants, other manufactures of this pump type could be installed but this would require costly changes to the suction and discharge piping and could delay the pump installations. Additionally, purchasing the Pentair pumps will reduce the complexity of operations and maintenance requirements due to staff familiarity with 9 Packet Pg. 108
Pacifica City Council 2
August 22, 2022
this type of pump that is already on-site. Therefore, staff recommends replacement with the same sized Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis pumps.

The following show the need to purchase the two new electric-driven pumps from Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis from JM Squared Associates, Inc., which have been determined to be Sole Source commodities:
• JM Squared Associates, Inc. is the exclusive authorized Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis distributor for municipal pumps and pump parts for Northern California. • JM Squared Associates, Inc. is the exclusive authorized Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis distributor for field installation, service and repair facility for Fairbanks Nijhuis pump products.
• JM Squared Associates, Inc. is the exclusive authorized Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis distributor to sell Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis pumping equipment products, OEM parts, and services.

For these reasons, the City Manager is recommending the approval of the Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and JM Squared Associates, Inc., via sole source, in the amount of $430,819.44 for the purchase of two Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis electric-driven pumps and appurtenances for the Linda Mar Pump Station.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may choose not to approve the purchase agreement with JM Squared Associates, Inc. via sole source and direct staff to issue a Request For Proposal (RFP). However, doing so would delay project delivery and will increase project cost and the pumps are needed to assure workability of the Linda Mar Pump Station during winter storm events. The City Manager does not recommend this alternate action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Purchase Agreement with JM Squared Associates, Inc. is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: This project will replace end of service life electricdriven pumps at the Linda Mar Pump Station.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost of purchasing the two pumps and appurtenances for the Linda Mar Pump Station is $430,819.44. City staff recommends including a 10% contingency for any additional parts or services needed to complete the project. The Source and Use of Funds spreadsheet is shown below.

Total Use of Funds
Purchase Agreement $ 430,819.44
Contingency (10%) $ 43,081.94
Total Cost $ 473,901.38
Total Project Source
Enterprise Fund (Fund 34) $590,000.00
9 Packet Pg. 109
Pacifica City Council 3
August 22, 2022
Account No. 34.900000.52800.C004.000
Estimated Project End Balance $116,098.62
No additional budget authority is necessary as sufficient funds have been allocated in the Wastewater Enterprise Fund FY 2022-23 budget for this project. The total cost of $473,901.38 is within the project budget of $590,000 allocated for this project.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Purchase Agreement- JM Squared_20220822_LindaMarPumps (PDF) 9 Packet Pg. 110

Page 1 ends

Pacifica City CouncilAugust 22, 2022

Pacifica City Council
August 22, 2022