Agenda — Pacifica City Council, September 12, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84059733437
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 840 5973 3437
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Comcast Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 September 12, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
September 12, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
CORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID-19) NOTICE

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

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

THIS TELECONFERENCED MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT

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

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

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

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

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

Please clearly state your full name for the record at the start of your public comment. • Before the Meeting: Written public comments for the record may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date by email to: [email protected] and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public City Council Regular Meeting 2 September 12, 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.
6:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION-Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: North Coast County Water District v. City of Pacifica, Superior Court of State of California – County of San Mateo, Case. No. 22-CIV-03493
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Bier
City Council Regular Meeting 3 September 12, 2022
Closed Session Report

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Suicide Prevention Month - September 2022 B. Proclamation - National Preparedness Month - September 2022 C. Proclamation - International Peace Day
D. Special Presentation - Pacific Coast Fog Fest

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 Dated 7/1/22 through 7/31/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 7/1/22 through 7/31/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Meeting held on July 11, 2022, the City Council Regular Meeting and Adjourned Special Meeting held on July 11, 2022, and the City Council Regular Meeting held on August 8, 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 City Council Regular Meeting 4 September 12, 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. Grant to Pacifica Community Television for Facility Purchase PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution Granting $50,000 to Pacifica Community Television to be Applied to Purchase of 580 Crespi Drive, Unit E, and appropriate $50,000 from the General Fund Unallocated Balance for this grant.

8. Notice of Completion - FY 2021-22 Pacifica Beach Parking Lots Seal Coat 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 the Notice of Completion for the FY 2021-22 Pacifica Beach Parking Lots Seal Coat Project; and Authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

9. Annual Agreements Over $50,000 for the Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division for FY 2022-2023.

PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Annual Agreements for the purchases of equipment, supplies, materials and services in amounts over $50,000 for FY 2022-2023 for routine and recurring maintenance, repairs and operations of Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division from Enterprise Funds (Funds 18 and 34) for a total of $360,000; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to these agreements.

10. Consultant Agreement for Smoke Testing Services between the City of Pacifica and Total Flow, Inc. in connection to the Wastewater Collection System Smoke Testing FY 2022-2023 (C038A)
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Consultant Agreement for Smoke Testing Services between the City of Pacifica and Total Flow, Inc. in the amount of $182,632 in connection to the Wastewater Collection System Smoke Testing FY 2022-2023 (C038A); approve budget authority in the amount of $210,000 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $27,368; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.

11. Adoption of Ordinance repealing and replacing Pacifica Municipal Code Chapter 12 - Tree Preservation and Chapter 14 - Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt 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”).

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 City Council Regular Meeting 5 September 12, 2022
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

12. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the Vacation of Portions of Hotel Way to Abandon any interest the City May Have to Those Portions of Street PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the Vacation of Portions of Hotel Way to Abandon any Interest the City May Have to Those Portions of Street

CONSIDERATION

13. Updates to the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt updates to the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics as recommended by the Council-appointed two Councilmember Ad Hoc Subcommittee, the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk.

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); City Council Regular Meeting 6 September 12, 2022

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
9/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for Dated 7/1/22 through 7/31/22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 7/1/22 through 7/31/22.

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 7/01/22 through 7/15/22 in the amount of $608,209.03 as written on regular checks numbered 60840-60907 & 60939-60989 (Attachment 1). These disbursements are for Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
• Disbursements dated 7/01/22 through 7/15/22 in the amount of $1,721,251.70 as written on regular checks numbered 60839, 60908-60938 & 60990-61004 (Attachment 2). These disbursements are for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023. • Disbursements dated 7/16/22 through 7/31/22 in the amount of $608,209.03 as written on regular checks numbered 61061-61172 & 61228 (Attachment 3). These disbursements are for Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
• Disbursements dated 7/16/22 through 7/31/22 in the amount of $380,963.92 as written on regular checks numbered 61006-61060, 61173-61227, 61229 & 61303-61316 (Attachment 4). These disbursements are for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT:

These disbursements are within budgeted appropriations.

ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60840-60907 & 60939-60989-7-1 to 7-15-22 (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 7
Pacifica City Council 2
September 12, 2022
FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 60839, 60908-60938 & 60990-61004-7-1 to 7-15-22 (PDF) FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 61061-61172 & 61228-7-16 to 7-31-22 (PDF) FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61006-61060, 61173-61227, 61229 & 61303-61316-7-16 to 7-31- 22 (PDF)
1 Packet Pg. 8
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:31 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 8:31 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 60840 - 60907
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 60840 $169.35 07/08/22 00092 0 AD BRAKES S OUTSTANDING 1 60841 $522.89 07/08/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 60842 $29.50 07/08/22 00136 0 ALHAMBRA S OUTSTANDING
1 60843 $469.89 07/08/22 00153 0 ALPINE AWARDS, INCORPORATED S OUTSTANDING 1 60844 $144911.35 07/08/22 04365 0 ALTEC INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60845 $460.40 07/08/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60846 $57.97 07/08/22 05005 0 AMERICAN TRANSIT SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 60847 $599.40 07/08/22 05502 0 BAY AREA BACKFLOW INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60848 $91.22 07/08/22 04524 0 BRUECK, CYNTHIA S OUTSTANDING 1 60849 $302.90 07/08/22 05567 0 CALPRO ROOFING S OUTSTANDING 1 60850 $5040.00 07/08/22 03814 1 CAPPSTONE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60851 $4462.73 07/08/22 00507 0 CHILDCARE CAREERS S OUTSTANDING 1 60852 $2395.86 07/08/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 60853 $65.00 07/08/22 03756 1 CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO S OUTSTANDING 1 60854 $366.00 07/08/22 05296 0 CLAIRE BREES S OUTSTANDING 1 60855 $6317.29 07/08/22 04446 0 COLORPRINT S OUTSTANDING 1 60856 $1727.00 07/08/22 05082 1 COLUMN, PBC S OUTSTANDING 1 60857 $725.52 07/08/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 60858 $2361.20 07/08/22 01374 1 CORE & MAIN S OUTSTANDING 1 60859 $500.00 07/08/22 00001 348 CORONA ARROYO, SANTIAGO S OUTSTANDING 1 60860 $11120.49 07/08/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60861 $20.00 07/08/22 00001 367 DART, MEADOW S OUTSTANDING 1 60862 $2225.30 07/08/22 00676 0 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 60863 $198.00 07/08/22 02945 0 DKF SOLUTIONS GROUP. LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60864 $51.49 07/08/22 00002 59 ELIZARES, JENNIFER (PETTY CASH) S OUTSTANDING 1 60865 $1526.00 07/08/22 05566 0 FELIX TARNARIDER S OUTSTANDING 1 60866 $14684.77 07/08/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60867 $68.00 07/08/22 03804 0 GODSOE, LIZ S OUTSTANDING 1 60868 $1138.25 07/08/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 60869 $175.00 07/08/22 05492 1 GREASE TRAP CLEANERS, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60870 $6960.00 07/08/22 00927 1 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC S OUTSTANDING 1 60871 $587.50 07/08/22 05453 0 INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES S OUTSTANDING 1 60872 $158.00 07/08/22 04494 0 ISIDRO, ALLEN S OUTSTANDING 1 60873 $73.13 07/08/22 05532 0 JOAN ARTHUR S OUTSTANDING 1 60874 $153.13 07/08/22 01014 0 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60875 $562.99 07/08/22 00002 60 LI, SHIRLEY (PETTY CASH) S OUTSTANDING 1 60876 $75.22 07/08/22 00001 244 MAGISTRADO, ANTHONY S OUTSTANDING 1 60877 $3000.00 07/08/22 01130 0 MIKE'S STUMP REMOVAL S OUTSTANDING 1 60878 $2808.23 07/08/22 04549 0 NAF SERVICES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60879 $526.00 07/08/22 03801 0 NAPIER, NORA S OUTSTANDING 1 60880 $1240.26 07/08/22 02486 0 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS S OUTSTANDING 1 60881 $486.86 07/08/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 60882 $606.41 07/08/22 02027 0 OLIVER PACKAGING AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60883 $78.00 07/08/22 03803 0 ORTEGA, SHIRLEY S OUTSTANDING 1 60884 $28.00 07/08/22 00001 314 PANOFSKY, PETER S OUTSTANDING 1 60885 $136.00 07/08/22 03802 0 PATINO, JOE S OUTSTANDING 1 60886 $116.43 07/08/22 01295 1 PETERSON S OUTSTANDING 1 60887 $88.00 07/08/22 02539 0 PITTSINGER, R JANE S OUTSTANDING 1 60888 $6425.00 07/08/22 02963 1 PKM CONSTRUCTION S OUTSTANDING 1 60889 $704.31 07/08/22 03782 0 PRIORITY 1 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 60890 $14283.75 07/08/22 03281 0 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:31 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 1 of 3 ends

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

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60840-60907 & 60939-60989-7-1 to 7-15-22 (5097 : Disbursements - Dated 7/1/22 through 7/31/22) 1 60896 $397.00 07/08/22 05542 1 STIRLING GOULET S OUTSTANDING 1 60897 $44023.91 07/08/22 02880 0 TOWNE FORD S OUTSTANDING 1 60898 $44660.36 07/08/22 03950 2 TOYOTA MATERIAL HANDLING S OUTSTANDING 1 60899 $8889.04 07/08/22 04670 0 U.S. TELEPACIFIC CORP. S OUTSTANDING 1 60900 $236.88 07/08/22 01647 0 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS S OUTSTANDING 1 60901 $45.63 07/08/22 02663 0 UNDERWOOD, EILEEN S OUTSTANDING 1 60902 $2843.76 07/08/22 01653 1 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) S OUTSTANDING 1 60903 $489.25 07/08/22 02922 0 UNLIMITED TOOL REPAIR AND FABRICATION. S OUTSTANDING 1 60904 $2877.69 07/08/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60905 $550.00 07/08/22 02816 0 WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGY TRAINERS S OUTSTANDING 1 60906 $1394.42 07/08/22 02987 0 WESTERN STATES OIL CO. S OUTSTANDING 1 60907 $110.57 07/08/22 00001 363 YEUNG, CHRISTIE S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 68 TOTAL AMOUNT: 353,630.36
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 8:31 Page: 4

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 88,687.65 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 91.22 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 3,219.32 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 7,556.49 0.00
027 PB&R - R DAVIES TRUST 50.00 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 44,660.36 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 20,430.06 0.00
072 MOTOR POOL REPLACEMENT FUND 188,935.26 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 353,630.36 0.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:31 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 60939 - 60989
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 60939 $3991.35 07/15/22 00009 8 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 60940 $14.61 07/15/22 00092 0 AD BRAKES S OUTSTANDING 1 60941 $401.50 07/15/22 02094 0 ASCAP S OUTSTANDING
1 60942 $200.00 07/15/22 04561 0 AVINA, ANGEL S OUTSTANDING 1 60943 $1555.29 07/15/22 00335 0 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 60944 $1357.13 07/15/22 00343 0 BOLANDER & SONS, L. PH. S OUTSTANDING 1 60945 $374.30 07/15/22 03402 1 BSN SPORTS, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60946 $100.00 07/15/22 04173 0 CALED S OUTSTANDING
1 60947 $289.86 07/15/22 05519 1 CARDIO PARTNERS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60948 $1366.20 07/15/22 00507 0 CHILDCARE CAREERS S OUTSTANDING 1 60949 $841.50 07/15/22 05082 1 COLUMN, PBC S OUTSTANDING 1 60950 $27.36 07/15/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 60951 $6280.00 07/15/22 04878 0 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP S OUTSTANDING 1 60952 $165295.25 07/15/22 02130 1 DRYCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60953 $77.00 07/15/22 00758 0 EXPERIAN S OUTSTANDING
1 60954 $7.00 07/15/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 60955 $28.13 07/15/22 00773 0 FEDEX S OUTSTANDING
1 60956 $1772.09 07/15/22 00870 0 GOVCONNECTION, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60957 $399.00 07/15/22 00926 0 HILTON IRENE S OUTSTANDING 1 60958 $2678.32 07/15/22 04859 1 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 60959 $1398.87 07/15/22 04999 2 IMAGE SOURCE S OUTSTANDING 1 60960 $9850.00 07/15/22 05534 0 JOHN W. HOWELL S OUTSTANDING 1 60961 $101.82 07/15/22 01812 4 KBA DOCUSYS S OUTSTANDING 1 60962 $706.20 07/15/22 01046 0 KIDWELL JO ANN S OUTSTANDING 1 60963 $281.40 07/15/22 04781 0 KING, KATHLEEN S OUTSTANDING 1 60964 $12946.25 07/15/22 05535 0 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60965 $6302.00 07/15/22 01087 0 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE S OUTSTANDING 1 60966 $570.00 07/15/22 01165 0 MILLER & O'BRIEN S OUTSTANDING 1 60967 $404.47 07/15/22 01183 0 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60968 $178.20 07/15/22 01194 0 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60969 $506.71 07/15/22 03477 1 NETWORK INNOVATIONS US INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60970 $3690.93 07/15/22 01206 0 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. S OUTSTANDING 1 60971 $95.62 07/15/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 60972 $531.81 07/15/22 04418 0 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60973 $90.76 07/15/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60974 $11609.20 07/15/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 60975 $575.00 07/15/22 05564 0 ROBERT SHAPIRO S OUTSTANDING 1 60976 $297.42 07/15/22 05041 0 ROSA MACK S OUTSTANDING 1 60977 $423.21 07/15/22 01402 1 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. S OUTSTANDING 1 60978 $100.00 07/15/22 04112 0 SAN MATEO COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGERS ASSOC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60979 $164.51 07/15/22 00022 9 SAN MATEO COUNTY INFORMATION SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 60980 $3800.00 07/15/22 00055 1 SAN MATEO MEDICAL CENTER S OUTSTANDING

Page 2 of 3 ends

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

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60840-60907 & 60939-60989-7-1 to 7-15-22 (5097 : Disbursements - Dated 7/1/22 through 7/31/22) 1 60981 $114.55 07/15/22 01461 0 SERRAMONTE FORD INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60982 $346.00 07/15/22 01498 0 SMART & FINAL S OUTSTANDING 1 60983 $158.85 07/15/22 00002 35 SOLIS, ELIZABETH ( PETTY CASH ) S OUTSTANDING 1 60984 $639.29 07/15/22 02642 2 T-MOBILE CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60985 $6000.00 07/15/22 05487 0 THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP S OUTSTANDING 1 60986 $235.00 07/15/22 01615 0 TOM'S AUTO BODY & PAINT S OUTSTANDING 1 60987 $281.95 07/15/22 04418 1 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60988 $2644.16 07/15/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 60989 $2478.60 07/15/22 01725 0 WINTZELL YLVA S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:31 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 84,167.02 0.00
005 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 297.42 0.00
007 S.L.E.S. FUND 289.86 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 1,361.51 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 2,025.57 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 165,295.25 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 178.20 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 963.84 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 254,578.67 0.00

Page 3 of 3 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022 NO FY 2021-2022 CHECKS ISSUED ON 7/1-7/6/22.

TOTAL = $353,630.36 + $254,578.67= $608,209.03

1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 60840-60907 & 60939-60989-7-1 to 7-15-22 (5097 : Disbursements - Dated 7/1/22 through 7/31/22) Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:38 Page: 1

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 60839 - 60839
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 60839 $1590865.00 07/07/22 00320 4 PLAN JPA S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 1 TOTAL AMOUNT: 1,590,865.00
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 8:38 Page: 3

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 821,100.00 0.00
066 SELF-INSURANCE FUND (W/C) 769,765.00 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 1,590,865.00 0.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:38 Page: 4

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 60908 - 60938
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 60908 $129.54 07/08/22 05005 0 AMERICAN TRANSIT SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 60909 $4410.00 07/08/22 00217 3 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS S OUTSTANDING 1 60910 $3589.25 07/08/22 00022 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO S OUTSTANDING 1 60911 $750.00 07/08/22 03947 1 GRANICUS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60912 $2625.00 07/08/22 05562 0 JENNIFER CORRALES S OUTSTANDING 1 60913 $984.38 07/08/22 01014 0 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60914 $563.48 07/08/22 01055 2 KONE INC S OUTSTANDING 1 60915 $550.00 07/08/22 05565 0 NANOGAN SCIENCE & SERVICES LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60916 $500.00 07/08/22 00001 112 PHIPPS, ELIZABETH S OUTSTANDING 1 60917 $800.00 07/08/22 05568 0 STERLING JOHNSON S OUTSTANDING 1 60918 $11940.60 07/08/22 05469 0 BCC BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60919 $9363.98 07/08/22 03741 0 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60920 $29.50 07/08/22 01757 1 CALIFORNIA ASSN OF PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS S OUTSTANDING 1 60921 $240.00 07/08/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 60922 $242.76 07/08/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 60923 $729.00 07/08/22 01757 0 CLEA S OUTSTANDING
1 60924 $50.00 07/08/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 60925 $350.00 07/08/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 60926 $100.00 07/08/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 60927 $110.00 07/08/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 60928 $4.00 07/08/22 01764 3 NATIONAL D.R.I.V.E S OUTSTANDING 1 60929 $838.60 07/08/22 01758 1 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION S OUTSTANDING 1 60930 $800.00 07/08/22 01759 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60931 $200.00 07/08/22 01760 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS S OUTSTANDING 1 60932 $420.00 07/08/22 01769 0 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 60933 $1401.16 07/08/22 01758 5 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 S OUTSTANDING 1 60934 $92.00 07/08/22 01758 4 SMC FIREFIGHTERS PAC S OUTSTANDING 1 60935 $945.00 07/08/22 01768 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #350 S OUTSTANDING 1 60936 $2778.50 07/08/22 01764 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 S OUTSTANDING 1 60937 $67014.00 07/08/22 01771 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856 S OUTSTANDING

Page 1 of 2 ends

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

1.b
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 60839, 60908-60938 & 60990-61004-7-1 to 7-15-22 (5097 : Disbursements - Dated 7/1/22 through 1 60938 $3121.37 07/08/22 01766 0 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 31 TOTAL AMOUNT: 115,672.12
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 8:38 Page: 5

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 95,951.15 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 2,923.83 0.00
065 SELF-FUNDED DENTAL PLAN FUND 16,667.60 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 129.54 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 115,672.12 0.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:38 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 60990 - 61004
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 60990 $12.90 07/15/22 00136 0 ALHAMBRA S OUTSTANDING
1 60991 $296.77 07/15/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60992 $917.07 07/15/22 04459 0 ARROWHEAD FORENSICS S OUTSTANDING 1 60993 $1000.00 07/15/22 05570 0 BLACKTOP PAVING S OUTSTANDING 1 60994 $4950.00 07/15/22 05483 0 CALIFORNIA CONSULTING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 60995 $695.00 07/15/22 05571 0 FBI-LEEDA S OUTSTANDING 1 60996 $100.00 07/15/22 05394 0 GAIL EDWARDS S OUTSTANDING 1 60997 $1425.00 07/15/22 00925 0 HF&H CONSULTANTS LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 60998 $39.41 07/15/22 00001 88 LUJAN, MATTHEW S OUTSTANDING 1 60999 $325.75 07/15/22 00001 90 MANSKER, STEVEN S OUTSTANDING 1 61000 $751.27 07/15/22 01124 0 MARATHON DISTRIBUTORS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61001 $1506.66 07/15/22 02027 0 OLIVER PACKAGING AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61002 $655.00 07/15/22 00356 0 PANINI TIME S OUTSTANDING 1 61003 $1987.47 07/15/22 05188 0 PUBLIC RISK, INNOVATION, SOLUTIONS & MGMT S OUTSTANDING 1 61004 $52.28 07/15/22 00001 347 TRAN, HENRY S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 15 TOTAL AMOUNT: 14,714.58
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 8:38 Page: 7

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 14,714.58 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 14,714.58 0.00

Page 2 of 2 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022 NO FY 2022-2023 CHECKS ISSUED ON 7/1-7/6/22.

TOTAL = $1,590,865.00 + $115,672.12 + $14,714.58 = $1,721,251.70

1.b
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 60839, 60908-60938 & 60990-61004-7-1 to 7-15-22 (5097 : Disbursements - Dated 7/1/22 through Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:48 Page: 1

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61061 - 61172
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61061 $765.57 07/22/22 00009 8 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 61062 $28338.89 07/22/22 03874 0 4LEAF INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61063 $2429.80 07/22/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 61064 $751.25 07/22/22 00045 2 ALBERTSONS / SAFEWAY S OUTSTANDING 1 61065 $330.00 07/22/22 04066 0 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61066 $209.31 07/22/22 00136 0 ALHAMBRA S OUTSTANDING 1 61067 $1525.00 07/22/22 02743 0 ALPINE MECHANICAL SERVICE COMPANY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61068 $260.27 07/22/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61069 $328.00 07/22/22 00175 1 AMERICAN RED CROSS S OUTSTANDING 1 61070 $606.59 07/22/22 00056 0 ARAMARK S OUTSTANDING
1 61071 $41.92 07/22/22 00009 1 AT&T LONG DISTANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 61072 $129.69 07/22/22 00009 2 AT&T MOBILITY S OUTSTANDING 1 61073 $24536.61 07/22/22 00258 0 BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 61074 $95.00 07/22/22 05127 0 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61075 $91.10 07/22/22 00381 0 C.H. BULL COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61076 $416.00 07/22/22 00014 5 CALIFORNIA STATE OF S OUTSTANDING 1 61077 $983.27 07/22/22 00510 1 CINTAS S OUTSTANDING
1 61078 $160.05 07/22/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 61079 $2136.00 07/22/22 05082 1 COLUMN, PBC S OUTSTANDING 1 61080 $73.95 07/22/22 02168 0 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 61081 $1430.55 07/22/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61082 $6096.69 07/22/22 00025 0 DALY CITY/CITY OF S OUTSTANDING 1 61083 $6700.00 07/22/22 05141 1 DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61084 $841.90 07/22/22 04354 0 DOOLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61085 $109.95 07/22/22 00489 0 ENTERSECT S OUTSTANDING 1 61086 $627.37 07/22/22 00745 0 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61087 $195.00 07/22/22 00775 0 FEDEX FREIGHT WEST S OUTSTANDING 1 61088 $2723.49 07/22/22 04814 0 FLEXIM AMERICAS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61089 $2319.64 07/22/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 61090 $26065.13 07/22/22 03616 0 GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH PLANNING INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61091 $3941.70 07/22/22 00892 0 HACH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61092 $4974.19 07/22/22 00919 1 HERC RENTALS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61093 $196.80 07/22/22 00926 0 HILTON IRENE S OUTSTANDING 1 61094 $263.92 07/22/22 02511 0 IDEXX LABORATORIES S OUTSTANDING 1 61095 $1000.00 07/22/22 05573 0 JOHN TENNYSON S OUTSTANDING 1 61096 $476.25 07/22/22 01014 0 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61097 $307.20 07/22/22 01046 0 KIDWELL JO ANN S OUTSTANDING 1 61098 $70.80 07/22/22 04781 0 KING, KATHLEEN S OUTSTANDING 1 61099 $119.22 07/22/22 03529 0 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61100 $1000.00 07/22/22 05574 0 LYDIA WILLIS S OUTSTANDING 1 61101 $158.11 07/22/22 00002 57 MANGIBIN, VIMA (PETTY CASH) S OUTSTANDING 1 61102 $6783.95 07/22/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61103 $4349.00 07/22/22 03955 0 MOFFATT & NICHOL S OUTSTANDING 1 61104 $2689.93 07/22/22 05018 0 NICK BARBIERI TRUCKING, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61105 $16991.60 07/22/22 01206 0 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. S OUTSTANDING 1 61106 $474.21 07/22/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 61107 $199642.69 07/22/22 01240 0 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. S OUTSTANDING 1 61108 $217.50 07/22/22 01758 3 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61109 $128.00 07/22/22 00001 82 PAUL LAVORINI S OUTSTANDING 1 61110 $500.00 07/22/22 03370 0 PEERY & ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED S OUTSTANDING 1 61111 $4043.35 07/22/22 01289 0 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT, INC S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:48 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 1 of 3 ends

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

1.c
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 61061-61172 & 61228-7-16 to 7-31-22 (5097 : Disbursements - Dated 7/1/22 through 7/31/22) 1 61117 $810.00 07/22/22 03720 0 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL S OUTSTANDING 1 61118 $176.26 07/22/22 01513 0 SOUTH CITY LUMBER S OUTSTANDING 1 61119 $5969.40 07/22/22 01531 1 ST. FRANCIS ELECTRIC, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61120 $1915.00 07/22/22 05108 0 TEN OVER STUDIO, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61121 $335.40 07/22/22 01599 0 THOMAS FISH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61122 $307.18 07/22/22 01647 0 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS S OUTSTANDING 1 61123 $4703.13 07/22/22 01653 1 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) S OUTSTANDING 1 61124 $3434.54 07/22/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61125 $60.08 07/22/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 61126 $3853.26 07/22/22 01673 0 VWR INTERNATIONAL S OUTSTANDING 1 61127 $90.00 07/22/22 05163 1 WEX HEALTH, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61128 $1478.18 07/29/22 00009 8 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 61129 $363.08 07/29/22 00056 0 ARAMARK S OUTSTANDING
1 61130 $419.53 07/29/22 00009 2 AT&T MOBILITY S OUTSTANDING 1 61131 $1076.00 07/29/22 00265 0 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST S OUTSTANDING 1 61132 $430.93 07/29/22 00001 369 CARTER, YULIA S OUTSTANDING 1 61133 $225.16 07/29/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 61134 $169.02 07/29/22 02168 2 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 61135 $14916.23 07/29/22 03787 0 CONTRACT SWEEPING SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 61136 $6730.00 07/29/22 05341 0 CREATIVE DIGITAL AGENCY INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61137 $36076.50 07/29/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61138 $219382.54 07/29/22 03121 0 D.W. NICHOLSON CORPORTATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61139 $128.00 07/29/22 00001 370 DESOUZA, COLIN S OUTSTANDING 1 61140 $262.89 07/29/22 00002 51 DIETERLE, DANA (PETTY CASH) S OUTSTANDING 1 61141 $26539.86 07/29/22 00352 0 G. BORTOLOTTO & COMPANY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61142 $328.13 07/29/22 02213 0 GARRATT CALLAHAN S OUTSTANDING 1 61143 $34542.14 07/29/22 04369 0 GHD INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61144 $63529.96 07/29/22 05220 0 GHIRARDELLI ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61145 $15197.50 07/29/22 05269 0 GOOD CITY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61146 $2693.64 07/29/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 61147 $4972.50 07/29/22 03616 0 GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH PLANNING INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61148 $2700.00 07/29/22 00925 0 HF&H CONSULTANTS LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61149 $399.00 07/29/22 00926 0 HILTON IRENE S OUTSTANDING 1 61150 $178.42 07/29/22 04086 1 JACK DOHENY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61151 $321.19 07/29/22 04085 0 JAMES FORD, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61152 $1772.40 07/29/22 05322 0 JDA ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61153 $397.84 07/29/22 01027 0 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA S OUTSTANDING 1 61154 $706.20 07/29/22 01046 0 KIDWELL JO ANN S OUTSTANDING 1 61155 $281.40 07/29/22 04781 0 KING, KATHLEEN S OUTSTANDING 1 61156 $1114.22 07/29/22 01095 0 LINDA MAR HARDWARE S OUTSTANDING 1 61157 $28910.65 07/29/22 04077 0 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP S OUTSTANDING 1 61158 $292.39 07/29/22 01183 0 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61159 $6655.00 07/29/22 04632 0 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD S OUTSTANDING 1 61160 $55472.88 07/29/22 00320 4 PLAN JPA S OUTSTANDING 1 61161 $247.81 07/29/22 01317 0 PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61162 $16764.05 07/29/22 04026 0 RANEY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, INC S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:48 Page: 4

CITY OF PACIFICA

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 190,817.53 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 26,539.86 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 35,032.77 0.00
012 HIGHWAY 1 IMPROVEMENT FUND 782.04 0.00
016 NPDES STORMWATER FUND 2,136.00 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 240,732.75 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 65,191.36 0.00
028 PB&R SPECIAL REVENUE 3,955.58 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 415,593.80 0.00

Page 2 of 3 ends

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

1.c
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 61061-61172 & 61228-7-16 to 7-31-22 (5097 : Disbursements - Dated 7/1/22 through 7/31/22) 035 BEACH PARKING FUND 80.83 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 38,891.14 0.00
067 SELF-INSURANCE FUND (LIAB) 55,903.81 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 3,728.97 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 1,079,386.44 0.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 8:48 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61228 - 61228
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61228 $341883.99 07/25/22 05495 0 W.E. LYONS CONSTRUCTION CO. S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 1 TOTAL AMOUNT: 341,883.99
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 8:48 Page: 7

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 341,883.99 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 341,883.99 0.00

Page 3 of 3 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022 NO FY 2021-2022 CHECKS ISSUED ON 7/16-7/21/22.

TOTAL = $1,079,386.44 + $341,883.99 = $1,421,270.43

1.c
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: FY 2021-2022 Disbursements 61061-61172 & 61228-7-16 to 7-31-22 (5097 : Disbursements - Dated 7/1/22 through 7/31/22) Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:05 Page: 1

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61006 - 61060
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61006 $132.75 07/22/22 04066 0 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61007 $7111.13 07/22/22 00138 0 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61008 $203.96 07/22/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61009 $609.75 07/22/22 05005 0 AMERICAN TRANSIT SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 61010 $692.61 07/22/22 00009 0 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 61011 $765.00 07/22/22 04799 2 BAYWORK S OUTSTANDING
1 61012 $318.10 07/22/22 05577 0 BENNETT & WILLIAMS VETERINARY CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61013 $1661.00 07/22/22 00382 0 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 61014 $691.00 07/22/22 00011 0 C.W.E.A. S OUTSTANDING 1 61015 $296.92 07/22/22 00454 1 CAL-STEAM INC.#2504 S OUTSTANDING 1 61016 $450.00 07/22/22 00398 1 CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61017 $450.00 07/22/22 00398 1 CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61018 $450.00 07/22/22 00398 1 CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61019 $450.00 07/22/22 00398 1 CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61020 $119081.00 07/22/22 00481 0 CCAG - CITY OF SAN CARLOS S OUTSTANDING 1 61021 $873.05 07/22/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 61022 $3448.50 07/22/22 05082 1 COLUMN, PBC S OUTSTANDING 1 61023 $69.99 07/22/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 61024 $1300.00 07/22/22 04321 0 DUBOCE JANITORIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 61025 $574.85 07/22/22 02793 0 EAST PENN MANUFACTURING CO., INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61026 $1350.00 07/22/22 04277 0 EASTMAN INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 61027 $7.00 07/22/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 61028 $12196.64 07/22/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61029 $3775.00 07/22/22 04760 0 FORENSIC LOGIC, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61030 $2104.98 07/22/22 00001 292 GLASGO, WILLIAM S OUTSTANDING 1 61031 $2823.36 07/22/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 61032 $556.91 07/22/22 00875 0 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26577 S OUTSTANDING 1 61033 $210.00 07/22/22 01014 0 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61034 $232.00 07/22/22 05578 0 JULIE-ANN BURKHART S OUTSTANDING 1 61035 $50.00 07/22/22 05579 0 KIM HUI JIN JOANNE S OUTSTANDING 1 61036 $1520.31 07/22/22 01070 0 LAURETTA PRINTING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61037 $4211.65 07/22/22 03779 0 MAXX METALS S OUTSTANDING 1 61038 $1177.30 07/22/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61039 $3740.00 07/22/22 01154 0 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS S OUTSTANDING 1 61040 $2000.00 07/22/22 02534 1 MILLARD TONG S OUTSTANDING 1 61041 $1859.84 07/22/22 05575 0 NATIONAL TELEPHONE MESSAGE COPR S OUTSTANDING 1 61042 $168.87 07/22/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 61043 $2500.00 07/22/22 01240 0 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. S OUTSTANDING 1 61044 $531.81 07/22/22 04418 0 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61045 $55.77 07/22/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61046 $474.30 07/22/22 00042 1 R & S ERECTION NORTH PENINSULA INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61047 $50.00 07/22/22 00001 55 RON FASCENDA S OUTSTANDING 1 61048 $400.00 07/22/22 00043 0 S.M.C.C.M.A. S OUTSTANDING 1 61049 $44.80 07/22/22 00022 20 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH S OUTSTANDING 1 61050 $78.78 07/22/22 02182 0 SERVICE PRESS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61051 $2658.70 07/22/22 00049 3 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 61052 $200.00 07/22/22 00049 11 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF S OUTSTANDING 1 61053 $38.00 07/22/22 05576 0 STEVE KWON S OUTSTANDING 1 61054 $4250.00 07/22/22 00044 5 SWRCB - ELAP FEES S OUTSTANDING 1 61055 $28471.67 07/22/22 05527 0 THE 4 KIDS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61056 $340.40 07/22/22 01599 0 THOMAS FISH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:05 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 1 of 4 ends

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

1.d
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61006-61060, 61173-61227, 61229 & 61303-61316-7-16 to 7-31-22 (5097 : Disbursements - Dated 7/1/22 TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 55 TOTAL AMOUNT: 226,840.63
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 9:05 Page: 4

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 51,453.07 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 21,339.00 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 83,972.87 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 24,383.78 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 31,181.67 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 1,122.00 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 13,388.24 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 226,840.63 0.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:05 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61173 - 61227
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61173 $497.37 07/29/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 61174 $1072.80 07/29/22 00138 0 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61175 $142.00 07/29/22 00001 371 AMATO, OLIVIER S OUTSTANDING 1 61176 $660.00 07/29/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61177 $24690.19 07/29/22 04579 0 APPLIED LANDSCAPE MATERIALS INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61178 $2642.00 07/29/22 00265 0 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST S OUTSTANDING 1 61179 $3967.75 07/29/22 03634 0 BAY POWER LLC GENERATOR SYSTEM DESIGN AND SER S OUTSTANDING 1 61180 $934.62 07/29/22 03402 1 BSN SPORTS, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61181 $106.00 07/29/22 00011 0 C.W.E.A. S OUTSTANDING 1 61182 $687.25 07/29/22 01690 0 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 61183 $1064.40 07/29/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 61184 $520.19 07/29/22 03246 0 COAST COUNTIES PETERBILT & COAST COUNTIES PAC S OUTSTANDING 1 61185 $681.25 07/29/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 61186 $645.06 07/29/22 00001 182 CUNANAN, SUZANNE S OUTSTANDING 1 61187 $988.88 07/29/22 00623 0 CUSTOM TOPS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61188 $394.99 07/29/22 02370 0 D & D COMPRESSOR, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61189 $1000.00 07/29/22 05584 0 DAN EVENHOUSE S OUTSTANDING 1 61190 $12497.97 07/29/22 00771 0 DAVID L. SKROMME S OUTSTANDING 1 61191 $7139.25 07/29/22 00653 0 DELL MARKETING L.P. S OUTSTANDING 1 61192 $355.25 07/29/22 04397 2 DENTONI WELDING WORKS, INC.-SAN LEANDRO S OUTSTANDING 1 61193 $55.91 07/29/22 02614 0 DISH S OUTSTANDING
1 61194 $13664.75 07/29/22 02130 1 DRYCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61195 $169.84 07/29/22 00714 1 EBI AGGREGATES-BRISBANE S OUTSTANDING 1 61196 $3031.00 07/29/22 05217 0 ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61197 $14400.00 07/29/22 05316 0 FIDDLER'S GREEN MOVING & DELIVERY S OUTSTANDING 1 61198 $4399.31 07/29/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61199 $645.06 07/29/22 00001 292 GLASGO, WILLIAM S OUTSTANDING 1 61200 $682.67 07/29/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 61201 $13230.00 07/29/22 03947 1 GRANICUS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61202 $3725.21 07/29/22 00927 2 HDL COREN & CONE S OUTSTANDING 1 61203 $264.98 07/29/22 04850 1 HOME DEPOT USA, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61204 $332.72 07/29/22 01014 0 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61205 $111.81 07/29/22 01812 4 KBA DOCUSYS S OUTSTANDING 1 61206 $180.47 07/29/22 01070 0 LAURETTA PRINTING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61207 $1224.49 07/29/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61208 $3589.78 07/29/22 05450 0 MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61209 $1571.85 07/29/22 05450 1 MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61210 $645.06 07/29/22 00001 341 MOORE, JANELLE S OUTSTANDING 1 61211 $180.00 07/29/22 00001 325 NANNI, DOMINIC S OUTSTANDING 1 61212 $300.00 07/29/22 04302 0 NORTH PENINSULA VET EMERGENCY CLINIC, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61213 $316.46 07/29/22 00054 2 PAPE MACHINERY S OUTSTANDING 1 61214 $8215.00 07/29/22 05500 0 PCD S OUTSTANDING
1 61215 $600.00 07/29/22 03782 0 PRIORITY 1 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 61216 $1221.01 07/29/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61217 $149.81 07/29/22 01337 0 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61218 $2359.01 07/29/22 05572 0 SAN FRANCISCO WINDOW AND DOOR CO, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61219 $1358.23 07/29/22 00001 368 SOO, KIM S OUTSTANDING 1 61220 $525.00 07/29/22 05583 0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INTERGOVERMENTAL TRAINING S OUTSTANDING 1 61221 $935.64 07/29/22 01592 1 TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER S OUTSTANDING 1 61222 $998.81 07/29/22 04576 1 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61223 $2386.89 07/29/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:05 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER

Page 2 of 4 ends

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

1.d
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61006-61060, 61173-61227, 61229 & 61303-61316-7-16 to 7-31-22 (5097 : Disbursements - Dated 7/1/22 CHECK RANGE: 61173 - 61227
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61224 $362.31 07/29/22 01673 0 VWR INTERNATIONAL S OUTSTANDING 1 61225 $550.00 07/29/22 02816 0 WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGY TRAINERS S OUTSTANDING 1 61226 $1500.00 07/29/22 04050 0 WINCAN LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61227 $1037.97 07/29/22 04999 1 XEROX FINANCIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 55 TOTAL AMOUNT: 145,608.27
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 9:05 Page: 7

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 63,269.50 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 15,991.76 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 28,064.75 0.00
026 PARK IN-LIEU - CAP IMPROVMNT 5,161.63 0.00
027 PB&R - R DAVIES TRUST 24,690.19 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 1,000.00 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 7,430.44 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 145,608.27 0.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:05 Page: 8

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61229 - 61229
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61229 $2735.50 07/22/22 01764 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 1 TOTAL AMOUNT: 2,735.50
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 9:05 Page: 9

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 2,735.50 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 2,735.50 0.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY AUG1622 9:05 Page: 10

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61303 - 61316
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61303 $242.76 07/22/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 61304 $240.00 07/22/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 61305 $50.00 07/22/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 61306 $350.00 07/22/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 61307 $100.00 07/22/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 61308 $110.00 07/22/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 61309 $4.00 07/22/22 01764 3 NATIONAL D.R.I.V.E S OUTSTANDING 1 61310 $492.00 07/22/22 01767 0 NPFBA S OUTSTANDING
1 61311 $930.60 07/22/22 01758 1 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION S OUTSTANDING 1 61312 $439.00 07/22/22 01758 0 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS-LTD S OUTSTANDING 1 61313 $800.00 07/22/22 01759 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING

Page 3 of 4 ends

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

1.d
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61006-61060, 61173-61227, 61229 & 61303-61316-7-16 to 7-31-22 (5097 : Disbursements - Dated 7/1/22 1 61314 $200.00 07/22/22 01760 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS S OUTSTANDING 1 61315 $420.00 07/22/22 01769 0 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61316 $1401.16 07/22/22 01758 5 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 14 TOTAL AMOUNT: 5,779.52
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 9:05 Page: 11

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 5,779.52 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 5,779.52 0.00

Page 4 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 8/16/2022 NO FY 2022-2023 CHECKS ISSUED ON 7/16-7/21/22.

TOTAL = $226,840.63 + $145,608.27 + $2,735.50 + $5,779.52 = $380,963.92

1.d
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61006-61060, 61173-61227, 61229 & 61303-61316-7-16 to 7-31-22 (5097 : Disbursements - Dated 7/1/22

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Meeting held on July 11, 2022, the City Council Regular Meeting and Adjourned Special Meeting held on July 11, 2022, and the City Council Regular Meeting held on August 8, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

At the City Council meeting held on August 22, 2022, the City Council directed staff to review the draft minutes of the Special Meeting held on July 11, 2022 and bring back to Council for review and approval. Staff has reviewed those minutes and made minor edits based on the audio recording of the meeting to provide additional detail and clarity. The draft minutes of the Regular Meeting and Adjourned Special Meeting are attached with no changes for Council's consideration for approval. Subsequently, draft minutes of the Regular Meeting held on August 8, 2022 have been prepared and are attached for Council's consideration for approval.

Move to approve the minutes of the following meetings:
(1) City Council Special Meeting held on July 11, 2022 (Attachment A); (2) City Council Regular Meeting and Adjourned Special Meeting held on July 11, 2022 (Attachment B);
(3) City Council Regular Meeting held on August 8, 2022 (Attachment C).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (PDF) Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 21
Pacifica City Council 2
September 12, 2022
Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 22

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. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : 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. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : 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. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : 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. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : 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. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : 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. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : 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. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : 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. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : 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 version of the General Plan that the Planning Commission approved 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 by Howard Donnelly the city provided to study and map on those sitesslides, and compared it to a new map showing debris flow landslides in 1982, areas susceptible to slides and actual slides, indicating that the new mapstated that it was not complete, giving her examples of slides missing on the new map.

She, then pointed to a subsequent map of historic landslides beyond 1982 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 from city records missing as well, referring to examples such as those on the Vista Mar site documented in her appeal and landslides from the 1998 El Nino. She then gave more data of what the city has done and she stated that sometimes the real risks are sometimes missing in new development applications as the geotechnical reports only look at the sites within property lines, but debris flow landslides can

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 10 July 11, 2022
start uphill and suggested 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 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 over the increasing reality of deadly or damaging wildfires in various areas of the city, and is taking encouraged him to take a positive action on the subject.

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 a specific example in 2007 that required an aircraft spraying fire retardant over the San Pedro Creek watershed, and that is old data. He stated that , 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 climate 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 the best available data 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 Zzone hHaven 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

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 11 July 11, 2022
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.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 12 July 11, 2022
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 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.

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 13 July 11, 2022
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 got involved with looking at the Vista Mar project and began learninged about the history of 1982 when there were homes destroyed and floods. sShe 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 way it is, as there is not a reference to the study and recommendations by the consultant who was paid to fully study what happened. 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

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 14 July 11, 2022
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 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

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 15 July 11, 2022
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.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 16 July 11, 2022
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 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.

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 17 July 11, 2022
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.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 18 July 11, 2022
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.

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.

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 19 July 11, 2022
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 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

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 20 July 11, 2022
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 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

2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 21 July 11, 2022
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 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

2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 22 July 11, 2022
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 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.

2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 23 July 11, 2022
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 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

2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 24 July 11, 2022
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 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.

2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 25 July 11, 2022
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 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.

2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 26 July 11, 2022
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.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 27 July 11, 2022
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 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. 49
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of July 11, 2022 City Council Special Meeting - tracked changes (5112 : 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. 50
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 51
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 52
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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”).

2.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 54
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 55
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 56
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 57
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 58
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 59
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 60
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 61
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 62
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 63
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 64
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 65
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 66
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 67
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 68
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 69
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 70
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 71
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 72
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 73
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 74
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 75
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 76
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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. 77
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 July 11, 2022
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor

2.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of July 11, 2022 Regular and Adjourned Special Meeting (5112 : 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: Comcast Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 August 08, 2022
August 08, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on August 8, 2022 at 7:00 PM 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 7:00 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; Kirk Stratton, Interim Police Chief; Bill Glasgo, Police Capt.; Chris Clements, Police Capt.; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Nelson Schlater, Wastewater Eng. Manager.; Maria Aguilar, WWTP Manager; Mike Perez, PB&R Director; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Alyssa Barranti, Management Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

Reading of 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 physical meeting location open to the public. She also gave information on how to present public comments participating by Zoom or phone.

Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment.

2.c
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 August 08, 2022
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember O'Neill
Councilmember O'Neill led the pledge of allegiance.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Chief of Police Daniel Steidle Retirement Mayor Bier read the proclamation honoring retired Police Chief Daniel Steidle.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if someone can check the sound for PCTV as she heard there was no sound.

Mayor Bier stated that they would wait. She stated she also received messages saying there is no sound. She suggested that they take a 5-minute break.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that the meeting can go on, even if there is no sound as they are broadcasting on Zoom, but because PCTV is not able to access sound it is up to the discretion of the presiding officer if she wants to take a recess.

Mayor Bier stated that she wanted to take the recess. She asked the City Manager to let them know if they resolved the problem.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he was checking with PCTV.

Mayor Bier is curious about procedure if the sound doesn’t come back.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, because the meeting is on Zoom digitally and there is sound, the meeting can proceed as it is not reliant on both means, adding that the City Attorney can elaborate on that. He stated that is what is stated on the agenda and it is up to the discretion of Council.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that he is correct and it is at the discretion of Council if they would like to take a longer recess or continue on with the meeting.

Mayor Bier thought it would be good to take a recess.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it is 7:15 and maybe they set a time of 7:30 or 7:45 and they move on and cancel the meeting as he agrees that most people watch it on TV and he thought it would be unfair.

Mayor Bier agreed that it would be unfair.

Councilmember O’Neill didn’t know what time to pick, as they have a lot of stuff to talk about.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they have an appeal item on the agenda that needs to be heard at this meeting and they probably should take a recess to some time and determine whether or not they can cancel the meeting, given that one item that really needs to be heard at this meeting. She stated that they can pick a recess time and they can discuss at that point the need to move on or cancel.

Mayor Bier stated that they will come back at 7:30, then reconvened and asked the City

2.c
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 August 08, 2022
Manager for an update.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that PCTV said they should have the sound up in 5 minutes.

He asked if they could turn closed captioning on so he could repeat that so viewers could see it.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it sounds like they are up and he stated that they will double confirm from PCTV.

Mayor Bier agreed.

City Manager Woodhouse stated PCTV confirmed that they have the sound back up.

Mayor Bier resumed the meeting and stated that they were talking about Chief Steidle. She thanked him for being here, and she thought he knows how much he means to the community and each of them will want to talk to him about that, and they went to public comment first and then they will talk with him. She stated that they have some dignitaries present to speak.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they have some representatives from the US Congress and state offices. She stated that Katrina Rill is present to represent Congresswoman Jackie Speier’s office.

Katrina Rill stated that she will miss Chief Steidle so much, as well as Congresswoman Speier.

She stated that he has seen her at endless Council meetings presenting congressional records and he is now entered into the congressional records and he can look at his own history on behalf of Congresswoman Speier. She thanked him for everything he has done for the community and their office, stating it has been a pleasure to work with him. She said she would read a piece of the congressional record and will go in the mail with the resolution from the city to him so he will have it in his hand soon. She then read it.

Chief Steidle appreciated that and thanked her.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they have a representative, Nicholas Hargis, from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s office dialing in.

Nicholas Hargis stated that he is a field representative for Congresswoman Eshoo, and on her behalf, he thanked Chief Steidle for his 29 years of service to Pacifica and 33 years in law enforcement. He thanked him for keeping the city safe, and stated his roles and community outreach are a shining example in public safety and they wish him the best in retirement.

Chief Steidle appreciated that and thanked him.

City Clerk Coffey stated that Congresswoman Eshoo’s office provided a flag that was flown over the capital and she did a screen share.

Mayor Bier stated that it was wonderful.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they have a representative, Joan Dentler, from State Senator Josh Becker’s office.

Joan Dentler stated she will defer to her counterpart in Assemblymember Kevin Mullin’s office, Daniel Vainish, who is also present and they will jointly present to him the California State

2.c
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 August 08, 2022
legislative resolution that she believes he also has in his possession. She stated he will do the speaking, but on behalf of Senator Becker who can’t be present, and has not had an opportunity to work very closely with him as he has only been in the Senate a short time, but they wish him all the best in Texas and she turned it over to Mr. Vainish.

Chief Steidle thanked her.

Daniel Vainish stated he is a field representative in Assemblymember Kevin Mullin’s district office. On his behalf, as well as Senator Josh Becker, he commended him for his 33 years of law enforcement service, including 29 years with the Pacifica Police Department, and in honor of his service, they produced a resolution that he should have received. He stated that he has worked nearly every assignment available and received over 100 letters of appreciation and department commendations. They wished him continued success in his new role as a captain of the Richardson Police Department in Texas.

Chief Steidle thanked him and appreciated it.

Mayor Bier thanked them for being present at this meeting and they appreciated each and every one of them. She asked if they will have the officers speak before they invite Chief Steidle to respond and then public comment.

Mayor Bier stated that they have Capt. Clements, Capt. Glasgo, Interim Police Chief Stratton.

Capt. Chris Clements stated that, before he shared his comments, he was asked to deliver comments sent to him by former Police Chief Jim Tasa, and he read his comments. Then Capt.

Clements added that Chief Steidle always faithfully served Pacifica and led their department with integrity, humility and commitment to community service during the most challenging times in our profession, as well as his commitment to the next generation of leaders in the police department and unwavering commitment to his profession and he will leave a mark forever on those honored to serve with him.

Chief Steidle thanked him and appreciated his comments.

Capt. Bill Glasgo echoed Capt. Clements, and Chief Tasa’s nice words. He stated that not only has he been a mentor, leader in the department and the community but also importantly a good friend and that is what he will miss most. He stated that he took a lot of them under his wing, and he attributes his successes to him and he thanked him for that leadership and mentorship. He wished him the best in Texas, and a lot of the police members feel the same way.

Chief Steidle thanked him and appreciated his comments.

Interim Police Chief Kirk Stratton stated that he and Chief Steidle have had many exchanges since he retired and he told and will say again that he should be very proud of him for what he did at the police department. He observed in the last three weeks is dedicated professionals serving Pacifica and not by chance but by his leadership during his whole career. He congratulated him.

Chief Steidle thanked him and appreciated his comments. He stated that, in the three weeks in his new department, he hasn’t had to abate a single whale and he doesn’t know what he is going to do with these skills that he has become so good at.

2.c
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 August 08, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they will miss him. He was present when he was appointed chief when Tasa left and now he is gone. He agreed that he has a unique set of skills, stolen sailboats that sink on the beach, at least 3 or 4 or 6 dead whales and then he got world famous restaurants like the Gorilla Barbecue and Taco Bell. He asked if Richardson, Texas, has a good barbecue place there.

Chief Steidle stated that they have about 300 of them.

Councilmember O’Neill thanked Chief Steidle for all he has done in Pacifica. When they called with any issue they took care of it and he appreciated what he did for everyone in Pacifica in his 29 years. He thanked him and hoped he enjoyed his semi-retirement in Texas.

Chief Steidle thanked him and appreciated his comments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has said many times how much our department and city benefitted from his leadership in terms of the focus of creating a family environment and something that people feel safe and can rely on their coworkers. She was grateful for him setting that tone and, with the present staff, they will continue that. She thanked him and wished him luck in Richardson, adding that he will adapt.

Chief Steidle thanked her and appreciated her comments.

Councilmember Vaterlaus wanted to know if they have fireworks in Richardson as that is another thing to add to his many issues that we have. She appreciated everything about him.

She started writing down words and kept going and it was too many, but he was special for 23 years, extremely funny, industrious, dedicated leader, education oriented. She stated that was cheesy but they have had many cheesy conversations. She thanked him so much for everything he has done, his candidness, and the laughter. She stated that, if she talked to him on the phone, they were laughing. She appreciated that as she could be serious and he would make her laugh. She thanked him and hopes everything is smooth there. She stated that, if he ever needs to cool off, he has Pacifica summer to come back to.

Chief Steidle thanked her.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they have had a whale wash up on the beach since he left, as he didn’t know if he was keeping track. Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it immediately occurs to him how annoying it is that he isn’t going to be with us and suggested he take that as a compliment. He will keep saying how much it meant to him when he clued into who he was, the integrity of his nature, having something that was casual enough but a discussion of the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. He stated that, when he brought it up, he thought Pacifica was in very good hands that we have a leader in policing who understands that distinction and leads according to it. He has had the pleasure of watching and working with him for years. He stated that it was extraordinary to meet a leader who challenges himself to grow, his own preconceived notions and biases and reevaluates himself regularly to constantly become the best possible leader in any given circumstance, and that is why he is annoyed he is leaving as he trusts him to be that kind of man and he is certain that they find someone who will rise to the occasion, but they are losing somebody who already rose to the occasion. He stated that he finds a personal bias when he thinks of Texas, but a man of his caliber is going to serve the people in Texas and bringing with him the spirit of the protection of people and the spirit of the law over what the letter of the law might dictate, and he thought they are in exceptionally

2.c
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 August 08, 2022
good hands and he is looking forward to an opportunity of healing that he brings as he takes the love and admiration that he has earned in Pacifica.

Chief Steidle thanked him and appreciated his comments.

Mayor Bier stated that she met him in 2005 and that is when he was promoted to Sergeant. At that time, 35% of our Pacifica 11th graders were binging and he and she did a lot of work around that topic, helping with compliance checks, responsible alcohol merchant awards program, Fog Fest, and he supported all of our prevention work. She wanted him to know that today, it is only 8% of our Pacifica 11th graders are reporting binge drinking. For the first time in her career, she had a young person tell her that alcohol is hard to get. She stated that they know how much he mattered as his work was incredibly important to our process and she honored her family and her nephew and she is forever grateful for that. She will miss him, love him and wishes him the best. She stated that she is inviting him to say something before they open to public comments.

Chief Steidle stated that, in this type of situation, he just speaks from his heart, which is when he speaks his best. He stated that it is hard to follow the comments. He stated that when he came to Pacifica and they told him he would be there 29 years and would be the chief, he would have told them they were crazy as he didn’t have any intent to rise to the top of the ranks. He stated that, through his career in Pacifica, he was mentored by good people and good leaders who insisted they worked hard and would accept nothing less than our best. He stated that they often mentioned that Pacifica didn’t have a lot of money and they need more staff and equipment, but he saw an upside to that. If you are a person who wants to come in and work and are willing to be mentored, there are so many hats you can wear at the police department and so many things you can do. He stated that, under the right mentorship, which he had, you can rise through the ranks as there have been good people since he started in 1993. He stated that, in the last seven years as Chief of Police, people talked about some of his accomplishments and while he appreciated that recognition, he thought none of those accomplishments are possible without the men and women who worked at the police department. He always said he helped with some of the ideas and pushed in the right direction, but it is the men and women wearing the uniform and go out and work hard every day that has made everything they do at the department as successful as it has been, and made him successful for which is forever grateful to all of them, past and present. He was grateful to his fellow executive team members for the experience over the last seven years working with all of them and having a broader knowledge of what each department does and how they operate at that executive level and how they think. He stated that for the first 24 years he thought mostly like a police officer and listening to city managers, such as Tinfow, Woodhouse, and his team members, he learned to broaden his horizons and he was thankful for all their support. He attribute all the things they mentioned at this time about his success and ability to move on to a larger department in a state where he wants to live and retire, but it is because of those experiences and that support and the work and time people have been willing to put in over the last 29 years in Pacifica that has allowed him to have the opportunity to continue his law enforcement career in an age when most people in California at his age are retiring. He thanked them all and he loves them all a great deal and he misses them. He is fortunate to be working with a great group of people in Richardson who welcomed him with open arms and are treating him like family. He stated that Pacifica will always be his home.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.

2.c
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 August 08, 2022
Marvin Artobern, Pacifica, stated he was representing Victims of Violence Organization.

Mayor Bier stated that these are comments for their Chief of Police, and if he would like to comment on something not on the agenda he can do that during oral communications. She reminded those in the queue that this is time to comment for Chief Steidle and anything not on the agenda can be discussed during oral communications.

Bill Tobin, Pacifica, stated that he raised his hands.

Mayor Bier thought he wanted to comment during oral communications, unless he wants to make a comment to the chief.

Mr. Tobin apologized and stated that his comment has to do with the city’s implementation of the oversized vehicle ordinance.

Mayor Bier stated that he will do that during oral communications and she will let them know when that is.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the next speakers.

Duane Wachtelborn, Pacifica, stated that it has been a great 26 years that he has worked for him and with him. He stated that they hit it off from day one and they were able to find that dynamic balance of friends and supervisor and employee and it was very easy to follow him both as the police chief and his friend because he knew the caliber of person he was and he knew he always had the best interest of the department as well as the city and officers who worked for him. He will miss him and whomever they get to fill his shoes will fill his shoes but not his role in that department. He wished him luck in Texas, sorry he left but that was his choice.

Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, stated that she was honored to work with him over her 12 years as the director of the PRC. She will miss his presence as their liaison on the PRC Board of Directors and she wished him well, and was grateful to have known him and work with him.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, congratulated Chief Steidle for his outstanding work and showing us how it is done. He thinks everyone in Pacifica knows who Chief Steidle and he thought Richardson will probably figure that out pretty soon. He stated that they want to see some photos and he can get back to them on that.

Bettina Blake, Pacifica, stated she is the Records Supervisor for the Pacifica Police Department. She stated that everything has been said, but she wanted him to know that he is truly missed as he was an outstanding leader and have been told that so many times at this time and other times as well. She wishes him the best and much success in Texas. She knows, if he does half the job there that he did here, he will succeed and make them very proud, and keep them just as safe as they are here. She thanked him for everything, believing in her, fighting for her and she hoped to see him soon. She missed him.

Mayor Bier closed public comments. She thanked Chief Steidle and stated that we will always be in touch with him.

Chief Steidle thanked her and appreciated her comments.

2.c
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 August 08, 2022

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if any councilmember wanted to pull an item from consent. Seeing none, she opened up public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, asked that Item #9 be pulled from the agenda so they can get a staff report on the proposed settlement of the RV ban lawsuit and shared her thoughts on this issue.

She also asked that, in item #11, Manor Drive be considered as part of the roadway safety plan study and shared her thoughts on this issue.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that she supported the staff recommendation to adopt this resolution regarding the safe parking program, and shared her thoughts on the issue.

Jennifer Barba, Pacifica, stated she is the owner of Perfect Pour Café in Pacifica, assumed the small business over 3.5 years ago and shared her thoughts on the progress they have made in the community.

Mayor Bier asked her if this was an item on the consent calendar.

Ms. Barba stated that she can’t download the agenda and she was told that they were speaking about the safe parking and on Francisco she talked to Ms. O’Connor and was told that they were going to talk at this meeting on the dedicated spots for the permitted parking on Francisco.

Mayor Bier stated that her opportunity to talk about that will be later in the agenda unless she wants to talk about the attorneys’ fees which is the item on the consent calendar but she can come back and talk at oral communications.

Ms. Barba asked how far down in the agenda is that.

Mayor Bier stated that oral communications is after the consent calendar and then there is an appeal right after that, so she has two chances.

City Attorney Kenyon suggested that they have the clerk ask the speakers, before they start speaking, what item they are speaking on.

Mayor Bier thought that would be helpful.

Marvin Artobern, Pacifica, stated that he is asking the Council to introduce and support new ordinance for Pacifica for safety from harmful energy.

Mayor Bier apologized for stopping him again, but he wants to talk during oral communications as this is for the consent calendar. She stated that they will have him back for oral communications.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he didn’t think they have to pull the item but he would favor a staff report on item #11, especially since in the past couple of weeks he has gotten a lot of questions on traffic safety concerns on Fassler and Manor. Personally, he stated that they can add to that list Linda Mar, between Alicante and Sheila. He would like a staff report and information on the scheduling, including when people will have the opportunity to give public

2.c
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 August 08, 2022
comment about the traffic safety study.

City Manager Woodhouse asked Mayor Bier if she would prefer information on that item now.

Mayor Bier stated that she would.

Agenda Item 11:

City Manager Woodhouse referred to the contract, and stated that PW Dep. Director Bautista and Sr. Engineer Schlater were present to talk about what that plan and scope of work is about.

PW Dep. Director Bautista presented the staff report. He then stated that Erin Ferguson of Fehr & Peers was available to answer any questions.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to packet page 210, and he thought they marked certain spots along the schedule that stay stakeholder meeting, and he asked if he was misinterpreting that to be community outreach.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that the stakeholder stated on the scope of work was actually for city stakeholders, such as engineering, police, fire, who are familiar with the system and can talk about the different conditions and deficiencies on the roadways, thus a very focused stakeholder group.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked when the public will have an opportunity to give the city feedback, as over the last few weeks, he has received substantial feedback about Fassler and Manor and he would love to give the public the opportunity to be able to tell that story to the city and hope that they can find solutions. If this isn’t the appropriate format for that, when will they have that opportunity.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that Consultant Ferguson can discuss the scope of work.

Consultant Ferguson stated that, to the extent there has been community input or concerns expressed about specific locations as they start the project, they would definitely want to learn from the Council on what they have already heard expressed by the community and be able to work from that basis of knowledge and they can see the data and compare that to what the community has already expressed in terms of concerns about certain roadways, intersections or behaviors that they see. She stated that the stakeholder group has an opportunity to learn more from local police and fire and others who see road user behavior on a day to day basis and take those different pieces of information, bring them together, identify potential treatments that can help address those behaviors and help create a priority set of projects for the city to be thinking about going forward and creating a priority set of projects and organizing them into a work plan so the city staff can think about funding because there are a lot of grant programs that can help fund road safety improvements and as they put the plan together they can look for what projects might be competitive for those different funding programs. She stated, to the extent that there has already been expressions of concern from the community, they would want what they were at the beginning to be sure and keep those in mind and integrate them into the data analysis that they are putting together.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he will make sure to funnel information as it comes in. He stated that Manor and Fassler have substantial problems with speeding and, while contemplating these two streets, he had a good friend who lived on Linda Mar between Alicante

2.c
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 August 08, 2022
and Sheila and their car got rammed into several times just being on the side of the road and he thought that was a hot spot. He stated that he sees that Esmeralda Crane has her hand raised and he thought she may have wanted to speak on this topic. He asked if he needs to pull #11 so that she has the opportunity to voice her concerns, he would be inclined to do that but, if he doesn’t need to pull the item to facilitate that, if the mayor was willing to reopen public comments, so she can speak on this item.

Mayor Bier stated she can reopen public comments if she would like to speak on this item. He thanked Ms. Ferguson for answering his question.

Steven Crane, Pacifica, was wondering how they can funnel the information to the consulting firm as they have many videos of accidents from the past year and other incidents that have occurred on Fassler and how would they get that information to them to concentrate on the various issues on Fassler and other places. He thanked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck for being their advocate.

Mayor Bier closed public comment and brought it back to Council.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck offered a suggestion that they can post something on Connect with Pacifica or something similar to get more feedback.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he will defer to PW Dep. Director Bautista and Consultant Ferguson, but similar to other projects like their Storm Drain Master Plan, he encouraged that comments about traffic and streets should come in to PW Dep. Director Bautista and Fehr & Peers is the city’s consultant and all the information should go through the Public Works department and maybe that type of portal will be set up as they have already established a scope of work but that was a question that they can answer.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they can set up a portal to receive those comments and he will be able to forward those comments to Ms. Ferguson as they become available and they will give enough time to the public to reach out to them and give them comments while Fehr & Peers gathers data for this project.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, as it is a major safety concern, he appreciates opening that portal to get some feedback.

PW Director Petersen pointed out that the city’s engineering department has received a number of comments over a period of time related to traffic. She stated that they will be sharing all of those with the consultant so they have the plethora of information that the public has been sharing with them over the years and that should help quite a bit. She stated that they are things that have already been discussed, and they have information on that which they can share.

Mayor Bier asked if there was anything else from Council, and then quickly commented on Item #9 as there has been a lot of questions coming in from the community and she wants the community to know that they will be gathering information and answering questions. She didn’t feel that she needs to do that now, but she will be answering those questions and get that out to the public.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to accept the consent agenda as proposed; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

2.c
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 August 08, 2022
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (Consent Calendar)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.c
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 August 08, 2022
PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending March 31, 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.c
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 August 08, 2022

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.

Lindsay Raike, Pacifica, stated she is the CEO of Warm Water Wellness, a 501c(3) non-profit born out of the need to advocate for the reopening of the Nicholson Therapy Pool at Mills Health Center in San Mateo and she shared her thoughts on this issue.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that Council candidates have been given a contract as a code of fair campaign practices, and shared her thoughts on this issue.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, expressed her appreciation on Ms. Moore’s comments. She then stated that she was speaking on the last Council meeting on July 11 where her and Mark Hubbell’s appeal on the General Plan safety element was denied, and she shared her thoughts on that issue.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, referred to a repave on Hickey Blvd., and he expressed his concerns regarding this project as well as the issue people living in cars on the street.

Jennifer Barba, Pacifica, stated that she is the owner of Perfect Pour Café in Pacifica, and she expressed her concerns regarding the temporary safe parking on Francisco which is in the works.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that item is on the agenda.

Mayor Bier asked that they stop the clock.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that she was talking about 2400 Francisco appeal from the water district which is on the agenda so she needs to comment during that time and not during oral communications.

Ms. Barba stated that she was talking about the temporary safe parking spot on Francisco Blvd.

Mayor Bier understands that she didn’t think the appeal was that specific. She asked if Council wants to bring her back to talk during the appeal.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he would prefer to give her whatever time is appropriate, including if what she is speaking on is not specific to the CDP but he would like to hear what the City Attorney might have to say on it.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that it was up to the discretion of the Council as she thought that comment was general in nature but it does touch on the appeal, and she thought the speaker could speak during oral communications on the general topic or wait and speak to the whole topic on the appeal, and that is up to the discretion of the Council.

Councilmember O’Neill wasn’t going to block her from talking but, if she was going to talk about that specific thing, it should be addressed.

2.c
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 August 08, 2022
City Attorney Kenyon recommended that she direct the speaker to keep her comments not on the specific safe parking program site which will be discussed on Item #14, but if she has general comments, she can continue to speak at this time.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if she has specific things she wanted to say, she stated that those could be directed at the time of the hearing on that specific topic, and general information that she started to share earlier and she wasn’t sure where the speaker was going, but it was of a general nature and it could be what she could share at this point in time. She stated that she wanted to say that she wasn’t sure she was hearing right but she thinks she is hearing voices at her home or wherever she is calling and in the interest of time, she asked that the reset the clock and give her a chance to give them her general comments and, if she has more specifics for the hearing item and she is able to come back to the phone at that time, that would be her thoughts.

Mayor Bier agreed. She then asked Ms. Barba to make general comments and if she has specific ones about the specific parking place, she can speak during the appeal.

Ms. Barba stated that generally she will speak about the nature of their business and how grateful they are to be serving the community on 188 Clarendon Blvd., where a local coffee shop that the assumed from an existing business, made it through Covid and have really made a go of that little spot and kept the lights on and smiles on their faces and have done a great service for the community and for visitors coming from other areas visiting Pacifica. She stated that they are located in a visitor serving area and they see a huge influx of visitors and serve a lot of people and have wonderful conversations with people near and far. They are grateful to be part of the community and she will come back for Item #14 and talk about how that specific line item would be challenging for their business.

Anita Rees, Pacifica, shared the PRC’s schedule and process for seeing citizens, mentioning several of their current programs for those in need.

Mayor Bier encouraged Mr. Tobin to raise his hand as this is when he would want to talk.

Brenda Maxwell, Pacifica, stated that she wanted to speak on the appeal by the water district in support of it, and she asked if she should wait for later.

Mayor Bier stated that she should wait.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember O’Neill stated that a lot of his committees shut down during the summer and he didn’t have a lot. He did mention that the Historical Society is having the Ohlone lunch on August 14 and they would be eating food cooked by Ohlone Indians in the Ohlone Café in Berkeley and they will be giving information about the Ohlone tribes. He stated that it was fun and interesting.

Councilmember Vaterlaus went to a lot of things. Earlier today, she met with Kevin Mullin’s aide and they talked about senate bills, energy audits, taxes in Southern California which interests everyone. She went to the Fairmont Homeowners Association meeting and they have concerns about the permitting for 7-Eleven and the garbage from 7-Eleven and they have never completed their landscaping projects. She did the CCAG meetings almost a month ago, and she didn’t have the information presently. She attended Relay for Life with other

2.c
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 August 08, 2022
councilmembers and walked a little bit and talked a lot. She attended the Fog Fest committee, Council of Cities in South San Francisco which was a thought provoking meeting where they talked about how the there is so much biotech there and they have massive amounts of money to spend on their public facilities which makes Pacifica look sad. She attended a banquet which was the unions and it was a good program. She attended the Emergency Preparedness Day at the San Mateo Fairgrounds and saw Bill Glasgo and several others from our CERT program. She attended the San Mateo County Convention and Visitor’s Bureau which was mainly hospitality and it was interesting to hear what the hospitality industry is doing all over the county. She won best lifter at her weightlifting and got first place for benching 215 pounds and had a great event on the weekend.

Councilmember Beckmeyer attended the Relay for Life which is near and dear to her heart as she and her husband are both survivors and she tries to attend and participate in that event every year if possible and, unfortunately, it was overlapping with the Democrats meeting for her and she wasn’t able to participate fully in the Democrats meeting but just listening in and she thought maybe someone else has an update, but she understands the topic was the work force housing which sounded like a very good program which is already completed by Jefferson High School District and the in process of Pacifica School District. She attended the Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee meeting and for the most fascinating presentation she is going to see if she can get a document that consolidates it so they can actually see the data that were presented, and there was a study that has been done and ten households throughout the county, 78 people applied for the opportunity to have an energy audit at their home which was conducted by consultants who went through and figured out, for a specific home in their specific situation, what does it take to electrify their entire home and get rid of gas and replacing all appliances, not necessarily doing everything at once, and what you do over time. She stated that it was a timely topic and one that she thinks a lot of people are particularly interested in becoming more aware of with regard to electric cars. She stated that one of the big issues she learned, and knew about it because Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck told her and they talked about PCE and presentations, and he has given her tidbits. She stated that often people need to upgrade their electrical panels so they can accommodate a car charging station. She stated that it wasn’t required but you can go faster and charge more. She stated that the big concern was making sure that, if you’re going to do that, you will leave enough room on the panel to accommodate all other electric appliances that they will eventually be needing and the goal is to try to help people understand all those pieces so that, when they are presented with the need to replace a heater, water heater, stoves or upgrading, they can have a reasonable look at what electric appliances might be. She stated that, every time she attends a presentation and met with some people individually on this topic, they are very interested in upgrading our REACH codes. She stated that every time this topic comes up, she makes sure to point out, in particular the water heater, and she describes that, if your water heater goes out, it’s an emergency and not the time to debate on what she should do and what her options are.

She stated that it is better if you are beginning to learn and the more that they can get that information out, she believes they are going to have a presentation coming on with PCE soon because REACH codes are going to be on Council’s agenda in the next few months. She wanted to help to enlighten people about those issues and it was an informative and important meeting. She stated that the message that they always have from BAWSCA, from Tom Francis, is that we are in a drought even though our region, relative to other regions has done very well primarily due to the locations where we get our water. She stated that Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir filled at nearly 92% this year and is almost unheard of across the rest of the state.

She stated that it doesn’t mean we don’t need to conserve, but the good news was that conservation was up in the month of July but we still need to do more.

2.c
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 August 08, 2022
Mayor Bier asked Councilmember O’Neill if he had something else to say before she goes to Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

Councilmember O’Neill wanted to respond to Councilmember Beckmeyer in regard to the teacher housing. He stated that the taxpayers did pass a bond to build the Jefferson High School District and they got a report that, out of 122 units, they only have 13 still available for all the pending applications. He stated that they successfully hired at least 15 teachers from other districts that came to the Jefferson District because of teacher and staff housing. He stated that it is interesting that the breakdown is roughly 60% certificated, meaning teachers and 40% classified which are custodians, school secretaries, etc. He thought that proves that recruitment and retention is important for this project as they move forward with the PSD Oddstad project.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that Mr. Redfield, prior to his being elected, accused him many times of being overly philosophical, and he wanted to confirm his suspicions as he begins his comments. He stated that he was listening to a Paul Simon Concert and a song came on that struck him as relevant, the lyrics “I’m going to tell my kids a bedtime story, a play without a plot.

Will it have a happy ending, maybe yes, maybe not. I’ll tell them, life is what you make of it.” He stated it was beautiful. He thanked them for humoring him as he begins as he is viewing his friends in Ukraine as they have this master constantly being a bully toward them as they try to get on with their lives and being unnecessarily cruel. His heart goes to Ukraine and he hopes they find a resolution shortly to this overbearing person. He stated he was great to see Councilmember O’Neill and Mayor Bier on the Zip Trips and see Pacifica get spotlight attention.

He stated that our firefighters have been ridiculously busy over the last month. He stated that they were in Mariposa fighting the fire in Yosemite, a dog rescue recently in Rockaway and our hillside behind Cabrillo lit on fire. He thought our firefighters have been doing a wonderful job.

He attended Relay for Life with fellow councilmembers, and he thought it was good to walk many miles with them and other Pacificans. He listened to the Planning Commission meeting regarding the Sharp Park Specific Plan and he was grateful for the time they are taking to assess out all the issues and get them right for Pacificans. He stated there was a CalCity speaker series in which Michael Tubbs spoke, who is the special advisor on Economic Mobility and Opportunity to Gavin Newsom. He stated he is the youngest mayor in a major American city, Stockton. He stated there was an Emergency Preparedness meeting on the 20th and he knows they will introduce Interim Chief soon but it was announced that Kirk Stratton is our interim chief. He stated that the 988 mental health hotline is now up and running, which is recent, and he encouraged everyone to be aware of it. He stated that September is Disaster Preparedness Month and North County Fire Authority has a YouTube channel up and running.

He mentioned Zone Haven before, and felt we have been blessed that it has been as wet this summer as it has been but he thought we should be aware of what our zone is so that, if there any evacuation, people are aware to look for the information. He stated that the Covid testing was still going on at the Francisco and Salada site, adding that they can go to covidtest.gov for free Covid tests. He attended the Pacifican Care Awards which was wonderful. He referred to Councilmember Vaterlaus mentioning Council of Cities where it was impressive to see what a city can do when they’re getting that much tax revenue.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they are not on TV.

Mayor Bier stated that they will take another 5-minute recess.

Councilmember O’Neill thought they were broadcasting now.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he heard it in the background.

2.c
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 August 08, 2022
Mayor Bier reconvened and asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck to continue.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he should wait as they have a sign saying that coverage of the meeting will return momentarily.

Mayor Bier asked the City Manager if he has an update.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they just sent an updated message that they are back up.

Mayor Bier asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck to continue.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated it was great to see what South San Francisco was doing with all that revenue. He attended the Peninsula Clean Energy meeting on the 28th. He stated that a battery storage project they have been working on has fallen through and they need those storage projects to make sure they meet their 24/7 goals they set and the goals the state set for us and we are looking for more opportunities for storage. He stated the good news is that they have been doing a lot of work with diversity equity accessibility and inclusion which they establish as being foundational to PCE. He stated that they are developing policies based on surveys and workshops. He stated that they had a fascinating discussion on messaging when it came to electricity versus gas, at which point he was reminded that, while it is currently convenient to use gas, we are perpetually surrounding ourselves with a volatile substance that is viable to combust as they remember San Bruno a few years ago, and it is also a poison. He stated that he has had an occasion when he comes home and someone forgets to turn the valve off on the stove, the smell hits his nose when he enters the room and panic sets in. He remembers those reasons to have gas is important as we try to do the right thing for the planet and us. He stated that he attended the Cope banquet with councilmembers and it was wonderful to be with the San Mateo Labor Council as well as many elected in the area at an inspiring event with a great opportunity to reconnect with San Mateo County. They had a meeting on the Boys and Girls Club Tuesday and went through the fundamentals of starting a new board and everyone in attendance was looking forward to the board creating a budget that assures the patents that the club will be financially stable going forward. He stated that it was great to see all the activities planned for the year and all the work the club staff was doing to bring the clubhouse physically up to ship-shape to serve the children in perpetuity. He stated that he and Councilmember Beckmeyer will be meeting the PCE staff regarding REACH codes on Wednesday, and looking forward to that as they gear up to bring that to Council in the next several months. He stated that he has seen the literature on the warm water wellness therapy pool a few times and, since it was brought up, he asked if other councilmembers are interested in bringing that resolution forward, he plans on following, and he saw a consensus and stated he would be happy to discuss it later with the City Manager but he wanted to voice his support now.

Mayor Bier thanked him for mentioning the 988 as it was important for our emergency mental health issues. She stated that the mayor’s mental health initiative has been working hard all year bring in training and connected with some funders and will be having a press conference soon because they are able to get some resources for our local non-profits and she encouraged the public to look for the press conference. She will tell them the good news after that. She attended the Economic Development Committee meeting, the Relay for Life which was beautiful and thanked the organizers. She went to the Open Space meeting, Pacificans Care event, Council of Cities. She stated that the Zip Trip was fun, and she thanked Councilmember O’Neill for being there with her. She thought it was wonderful to see Pacifica highlighted. She went to

2.c
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 August 08, 2022
Grocery Outlet doing a 5 for 5 for Pacificans Care which was successful. She stated that it was fun to be out there with the community. She thanked Pacificans Care for supporting our core agencies. She when to the CCAG Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee meeting. She stated that there was a lot going on at that level. She stated that the MTC distributes federal transportation funding from the Federal Highway Administration to projects and programs that improve safety, access to transit and bike and pedestrian projects, like safe rides to school.

She stated that there is a 4-year funding cycle, and there was $32.6 million available for a project funding in San Mateo County and CCAG and BPAC review all the applications and BPAC sent two members, and she was one of those members. She spent many hours reviewing and scoring 29 applications which took her at least an hour per application to review it, score it and put in all the information. Pacifica had two applications and she thanked staff for those applications. She was honored to be able to score them. She stated that it was interesting to see all the different projects out there, and it was important for the community to understand that, when we have these plans in place, such as the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan, as that is when you have funding available and the project applications need to be filled out and submitted and then they are reviewed. Everything takes time, but she thought it was very interesting to see all the different projects, including projects from BART. She was honored to be able to score those. She stated that she is a new member of the Coast Pride board of directors and proud to be on that board. They had a retreat where they hung out with horses at a ranch in Half Moon Bay. She stated that we now have representation from Pacifica and Coast Pride will be serving fully from Pescadero to Pacifica.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse has one announcement. He introduced our Interim Police Chief Kirk Stratton. He will come and make some comments after he provides information on his background. He came to Pacifica after retiring in 2020 from Colma after 27 years there with the last 6 years as the Colma Police Chief. He is an active member of the California Police Chiefs Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. In his years of retirement, he has remained very active. He is an administration of justice adjunct professor in the San Mateo County Community College District and an instructor for the South Bay regional training consortium, the Police Academy. His experience in San Mateo County, Colma, in close proximity to Pacifica made him an excellent choice for the interim chief for the time period until they complete the recruitment and hire a permanent chief. He is confident that he will continue to lead, along with Captains Clements and Glasgo, this department which has exceptional policing operations, ethics and culture as they carry out the new recruitment. He is publicly introducing him as this is the first City Council meeting since he was hired.

Interim Police Chief Stratton hoped they can meet in person soon. This status is how it was when he retired, with everything in Zoom and he is used to this platform. He thanked the City Manager for his kind words and for selecting him. He didn’t realize how much he missed the profession until he dove back in. He stated that what is very comforting is that the city staff has been nothing but helpful and professional. He received a very warm welcome, not only from the Police Department but city staff also. He stated that it has been a smooth transition, in his third week, and he looks forward to the next few months and assisting them with transitioning a new police chief. He also looked forward to meeting everyone. He will keep it brief, as these meetings appear to go longer than the ones they had in Colma but he will get used to it. He thanked everyone for the warm welcome.

Mayor Bier welcomed him.

2.c
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 August 08, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck welcomed him, adding that his credentials are impressive. He had the pleasure of a bit of email correspondence with him and he would love to grab a cup of tea or coffee to meet him and welcome him to Pacifica.

Interim Police Chief Stratton looked forward to it.

Councilmember O’Neill welcomed him and thanked him for taking the job.

Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that it was his pleasure and it was good to meet him.

Mayor Bier agreed, and looked forward to meeting him in person. She thanked him for doing this for Pacifica.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

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

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

Mayor Bier asked if any councilmembers had ex parte conversations or communications with the appellant.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he had a conversation with Joshua Cosgrove with the water district a couple of days ago.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she also had a conversation with Joshua Cosgrove.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he had a conversation with Joshua Cosgrove this afternoon.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated she asked Joshua Cosgrove if he talked to other councilmembers and he said yes, so she didn’t have a conversation with him.

Mayor Bier stated that she had a conversation with Tom Piccolotti. She mentioned that Emily Longfellow was serving as special counsel to the city.

Acting Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked Acting Planning Director Murdock to briefly go over the CEQA exemption. She knows the sections but she would appreciate if he can elucidate it a bit more.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that she want to direct her attention to packet page 239 which discusses the categorical exemptions applicable to the Coastal Development Permit

2.c
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 August 08, 2022
approval action taken by the Planning Commission. He stated that class 1 refers to Section 15301 of the CEQA guidelines, administrative regulations adopted by the state to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the exemptions include text that describes the nature, range of activities or uses or projects that would be encompassed within those exemptions. He didn’t want to read them, but items such as operation repair, etc., would be covered under the class 1 existing facilities exemption. He stated that class 4 has a description of types of uses, including minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water and/or vegetation that don’t involve removal of significant vegetation and various examples provided, such as one regarding minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment. Staff’s analysis of the minor nature of the single parking space, given it is on an existing street, consists of existing uses of the street including parking of vehicles, as well as oversized vehicle parking and habitation constitute no change in the existing use and they are utilizing existing facilities that are already there and are overall extremely minor in nature and have no potential for significant impact on the environment. He stated that the third category in the general rule for common sense exception wraps it up by saying, if it is clear that the activity in question would not have any potential significant impacts, it is also exempt under that common sense exemption and, in this case, the extremely minor nature of one oversized vehicle parked in this location on an existing street where those types of vehicles are already being routinely parked, there is essentially no change in the condition from an environmental analysis standpoint.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked, if they were to make a change in the location, if this would require the whole item to go back to court.

Acting Planning Director Murdock thought it may be a question for special counsel.

Special Counsel Emily Longfellow thought that is kind of expanding and not within the consideration of Council that there are some issues that are not before them at this time, such as the settlement agreement and the temporary safe parking program. She stated that the issue tonight is Council’s consideration of this one particular CDP permit that the Planning Commission approved and was appealed by the Water District. She didn’t think there was a firm answer to that question, other than there are some implications that may possibly occur in the future but this issue is whether or not that the findings can be made under the Local Coastal Plan with respect to this particular appeal on this particular single parking spot.

Mayor Bier invited the appellant, General Manager Adrianne Carr, and senior counsel Robin Baral.

Adrianne Carr, NCCWD General Manager, stated that Robin Baral will be starting their presentation. She asked Mr. Baral how much time they want to reserve at the end.

Special Counsel Robin Baral, Hanson Bridgett, suggested they reserve 2-3 minutes.

Ms. Carr agreed, and asked that staff let them know the time.

Counsel Baral briefly mentioned their role with the NCCWD. He gave an overview of their role as government agencies in collaborating for the best approach to implement the safe parking program in a manner that works the best for both agencies. He stated that they felt it was unfortunate that city staff has rebuffed the district’s effort to find an informal, mutually satisfactory resolution of the issues the district has raised, thus, they are moving forward with this appeal with litigation as the last resort if the appeal is denied. He asked that the city accept

2.c
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 August 08, 2022
the appeal and direct staff to relocate the site to an alternate site outside of the coastal zone.

He thought it was important to note that the district’s position is that issuing a CDP for Francisco is in violation of the coastal act, and the Coastal Commission staff has concurred as noted in their letter and that is relevant to this appeal regardless of the fact that the Coastal Commission does not have jurisdiction of this appeal. He stated that the information in the staff report are relevant from the Water District’s perspective as to the findings that the city should make in connection with the CDP and they incorporated the staff’s report into their appeal. He referred to the CEQA claims, and stated that the district’s claim is that the CEQA is exemption are invalid as a matter of law and that it is appealed. He stated that, if the CEQA exceptions are challenged, there is a two-step process that the court would go through as the findings, as a matter of law, falls within the scope of an exemption and there is substantial evidence to support those findings. He stated that the district has determined that eight of those criteria would be satisfied but only one would need to be found to be the case for those exemptions to be challenged. They believe that the use of the exemptions were not appropriate, given that they are a substantial expansion of a 72-hour parking program. He stated that General Manager Carr has some visuals to show how the location of the oversized vehicle at the corner could interfere with traffic circulation and other concerns. He stated that the information contained in the staff report shows that there is potential inconsistencies with the city’s LCP as it pertains to implementation of the program and that is indicative of a CEQA issue. He stated that these are the legal claims, and they have limited time to speak, but there are also going to be operational issues which General Manager Carr will speak to, i.e., as important or more important to the district. They are perplexed that there has been proactive efforts to find alternative sites that have largely been rebuffed. He stated that their position that the sites should be located outside the coastal zone. He knows the commission has a similar point and they are trying to help the city get to a point that would achieve that result.

NCCWD General Manager Carr stated that the oversized vehicle parked long term at this location would impede the district’s emergency operation and would also impact the district’s planned headquarters’ upgrade projection as the planned construction would last more than a year and would be a nuisance to program participants, and they wouldn’t want to subject someone in an RV spot to that construction. She stated that the renovation includes moving the front entrance of their building onto Francisco Boulevard and it is currently on Brighton. It is properly on Francisco which is going to be designed with the Sharp Park Specific Plan as the major throughway. She stated that putting the RV in front of their site is equivalent to putting the spot in front of City Hall or Council Chambers in addition to walking signage. She referred to a slide showing the existing condition along Francisco at Clarendon and their drawing shows how the intersection would look with the RV, including blocking the visibility of several signs. She then shows another slide which is zoomed out to show more of their planned headquarters upgrade and they have designed the project to include diagonal parking which would add several parking spaces to the neighborhood and an RV in this location would block the design feature that is the desire of their board of directors and staff. She stated that the city has the authority to relocate the site under the settlement agreement and operating agreement. She stated that they have reached out multiple times to the city to propose alternative sites, such as their Skyline tank site which could be used for one of the vehicles and is located outside of the coastal zone, near public transit, supermarkets and other important facilities. She stated that they are speaking for the NCCWD and they would like to consider their proposal to accept the appeal and deny the CDP, and possibly direct staff to relocate the site for Francisco Boulevard to an alternative site outside the coastal zone. She stated that staff and the board will be available to answer any questions.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to a statement that the site has the potential to impede

2.c
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 August 08, 2022
emergency operations, and asked if they could elaborate on how the parking spot might impede emergency operations.

General Manager Carr stated that they are an emergency responder when there is a potential earthquake or large fire, and their building turns into an emergency operation center and they would be the place where people would need to come in order to get information and provide information about an emergency and they feel putting an RV that is designated for 29 days at a time would interfere with that ability to have the emergency response they need to have at their facility.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if there is an inconveniently located vehicle in a place where vehicles are currently able to park at any time, what is the current plan in case of emergency vis-a-vis that spot, at any given time, might already be taken up.

General Manager Carr agreed that the spot might be taken up, but in the middle of the night there are no spots taken up.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if she would say there is not a contingency plan in place.

General Manager Carr stated that the district has an emergency response plan in place.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they said Council should direct the city attorney to enter into a tolling agreement. He never heard that wording and he asked what is a tolling agreement.

Special Counsel Baral stated that a tolling agreement is where claims the district has would be paused while they try to work out an informal resolution to the issue. It involves statutes of limitations with regard to raising claims. He stated that, in the absence of a tolling agreement, they need to file their claims to preserve them so they don’t run the statute of limitations and the tolling agreement allows flexibility for parties to work in good faith to resolve their issues informally.

Councilmember O’Neill assumes that it gets back to 60 days to appeal or have to hear the appeal within 60 days of the filing. He stated that they mentioned that, if there is something placed there, it would interfere with some diagonal parking spaces in the new building and he assumed that they are planning on having the cars head forward towards their parking lot and they will be moving the sidewalk and putting car parking into their yard. He asked how many parking spaces would this vehicle possibly take, according to their design.

General Manager Carr stated that they would add four parking spaces if they are able to do the diagonal parking but, if they are not able to add the diagonal parking spaces, they would have the existing condition which she thinks it is minus 2 or 3 spaces which the RV would take up.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he has been reading it for almost a week and had conversation with our outside counsel to follow up on points of interest, and it occurred to him that 10 minutes is not a lot of time for them to paint the full picture and he appreciated that the audience might want to see a fuller picture. He stated, if they want to elaborate on why this violates the LCP or why the CEQA exemptions don’t hold water or how it was improperly noticed or how it might constitute an unlawful zoning amendment, he was welcome the opportunity to hear that perspective in real time to paint that picture and be conversive in it rather than passive.

2.c
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 August 08, 2022
Special Counsel Baral stated that, if it is an invitation to speak, he can go into some detail. He referred to the CEQA exemption, and stated that the legal standard requires two steps, i.e., does the activity fall within the scope of an exemption as a matter of law and the answer is yes, and the next step is did the agency support the use of that extension with substantial evidence and their position that the use of these exemptions does not fit within the legal scope of the exemptions. He stated that the staff report noted an ambiguity as to whether a 3-year program is temporary or not, and that was the legal issue and a court would review that issue de novo, and it would be up to the court to decide whether it is legally appropriate. He stated that, under that situation, substantial evidence doesn’t come into the picture but a legal question. He stated that, if a court determines that it is an appropriate use of the exemption, it then becomes a question of whether the findings support that exemption supported by substantial evidence and that obligation is on the city as a lead agency and not the water district’s obligation, and the court would look at whether the city was able to support its findings. He stated that the water district’s position is that those findings would be problematic and for the common sense exemption, they brought up findings that were made relative to the oversized vehicle ordinance.

He stated the Coastal Commission has also taken a position that the oversized vehicle ordinance and the TSPP programs are interrelated and whether they are the exact same approval, they believe those findings are relevant to whether there would be impacts related to how the oversized vehicles are parked. He stated that they are relative findings but might not be directly at issue but related from the district’s perspective.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he hears him saying that they are looking at what the Coastal Commission is saying and apparently they are saying the oversized vehicle ordinance and temporary safe parking program are interrelated, and as he hears that and was aware of this process for years, he is thinking that they are two programs, and then he thinks that he is waiting for the Coastal Commission to describe their understand about whether or not these are related as they haven’t been living it the way he was living it, let alone other councilmembers, and he hears some of what he is saying but it feels like something that is relatively simple as, to his mind ,these are distinct things. He asked, with the understanding that they are distinct, if they are recommending that he wait for Coastal Commission to tell him the understanding for him to decide that these are distinct. He apologizes but he is trying to make sense out of something that is getting jumbled in his mind as he is trying to understand.

Special Counsel Baral stated that there were discussions between the city attorney’s office as to whether this appeal would be continued a second time and the district’s opinion was that, to continue the appeal, they would need to enter into a tolling agreement and they would be happy to do that while they continue to try to work these issues out. He stated that the response was that the city would not enter into a tolling agreement so they decided to go forward with the appeal and it occurring prior to the Coastal Commission having weighed in.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked him, and added an open ended question as to any of the other nuances of the case, and he was open if he would like to speak to it and flesh out what he is telling them.

General Manager Carr stated that the previous discussions she had with the city were after the July 2020 City Council meeting where a similar but different program was considered by Council and she followed that, checked in with the city manager the following month to get an update to see where everyone at the city was at on this program, and she was told that the city was no longer considering the site in front of their building.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked how long ago that was.

2.c
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 August 08, 2022
General Manager Carr stated it was August 2020 when she last communicated with the city manager about the parking spot at 2400 Francisco as it was proposed as part of the earlier program. She saw a notice of agenda and she saw the TSPP was on for that agenda but she heard from the city manager that their site was no longer being considered and she had meetings with planning staff about their new building and they knew their plan and timeframe and they talked with PW Dep. Director Bautista about the diagonal parking in October or November 2021 and that was before the settlement agreement was entered into. She stated they talked about the diagonal parking and he was very open to it and positive about the diagonal parking with her and their architect team and they were excited about adding spaces, happy to improve the signage or safety or put stop signs to make this a safe diagonal parking, but they want to make it a nice feature and they are excited about their new building, as it will be something in the Sharp Park neighborhood and they like to be good neighbors. She thought, to not get notice at all about this program and they found out when their planning application was being reviewed on March 20 and planning comments came back and was incomplete. She stated that it was incomplete but she thought it was common and they needed things to check.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if it was March of this year.

General Manager Carr stated that it was March 20, 2022. She stated that they got the application back on April 19 that said their application was incomplete and they mentioned several things they were doing, but the one surprising comment from Engineering was that they asked they remove diagonal parking as it creates an unsafe condition. They met with Planning the next week and they said they would have to meet with Engineering to see why they said that, and they said that the actual location they proposed as no parking is where the RV spot has been approved. She was surprised and stated that no one called her from the city to say that it was coming up. She stated that it was disappointing as she would have liked to have notice.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.

Jennifer Barba, Pacifica, stated she was with Angelique Ricarte, owner and acting manager of Perfect Pour Café, located at 188 Clarendon Road, diagonal to the proposed temporary safe parking spot proposed for 2400 Francisco Blvd. She shared the challenges they have had in this visitor serving zone, and her concerns regarding this proposed RV parking spot.

Christine Boles, Pariciva, referred to packet page 250, and she stated that five RV parking spaces are in jeopardy, and she expressed her thoughts on this issue, was in favor of the appeal and suggested that Council find alternative locations outside the coastal zone so they have a backup plan.

Brenda Maxwell, Pacifica, stated that she is in support of the appeal of the water district, and shared her thoughts on the process and concerns on the issues.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, shared his concerns on this issue as well as thoughts on other options to solve this problem.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns on this issue, and expressed the need to work out a solution for all.

2.c
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 August 08, 2022
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated that he fully supports Council’s denial of the appeal and expressed his thoughts on the issue and appreciated all the efforts made on this crucial program.

Samuel Casillas, Pacifica, stated that the homeless situation deserves a better effort, and he shared his thoughts on the process for a coordinated safe RV parking program.

Ed Markey, Pacifica, stated he is in support of the water district’s appeal and shared his concerns on the process regarding this issue.

William Bradford, Pacifica, stated that he was objecting to the process on this program and agreed with the water district, expressing his thoughts on the issue and suggestions for starting over.

General Manager Carr asked if she could comment before Council begins deliberation.

Mayor Bier stated that there will be rebuttals before that.

General Manager Carr sated that she will wait for the rebuttal.

Mayor Bier thanked her, and then asked City Clerk Coffey if there was time left for that.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they had 2 minutes and 34 seconds remaining for the rebuttal. She stated that she would bring up the district’s Counsel Baral also. She stated that, if they don’t need the slides, she can display the timer while they do their rebuttal.

Mayor Bier asked Counsel Baral what they would prefer.

Counsel Baral stated that without the slides is fine. He will speak a few points in the rebuttal.

He referred to a few comments, and the district agrees there are clearly impacts associated with this program that need to be analyzed. They agree about the implementation of with piecemeals as noted in their letter, and they agree that the ordinance authorizes housing, not just parking, as well as the CDP. He referred to the alternate side issue, and he thought there was nothing that prevents the city from directing staff to find alternative sites, but the program guides state that the city needs to provide notice to the PRC and there is no other criteria as long as the alternate spot meets the criteria for safe parking. He had a meeting with the city attorney’s office to discuss the district proposal and the city attorney confirmed that all that would likely be needed is a resolution to swap out the listing of where the sites are and potentially a CDP, but the district’s position is that there shouldn’t be any sites located in the coastal zone. He stated that, based on the feedback he received from the city attorney’s office, all that is needed is a resolution to change the location of this site. He stated that the district proposed three sites and submitted that information to the city. He stated that Skyline site with the unutilized tank property could accommodate one or potentially more spots pending further review and there are issues that need to be resolved before that would work in collaborating with the city. He stated that, from the district’s perspective, it was a potentially viable spot and is outside of the coastal zone and would provide a much safer secure location for program participants because the district does have intention to renovate and this spot would be far away from any major construction the district is proposing. He stated that their request is that Council approve their appeal, deny the CDP and direct staff to find alternate sites outside of the coastal zone.

2.c
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 August 08, 2022
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that most of the public comments center around a temporary safe parking program and the oversized vehicle ordinance and she wanted to make clear that the scope of the Council’s review at this meeting. She stated that the city, as the applicant, has applied for a Coastal Development Permit for one on street temporary safe parking spot located on Francisco Blvd., that the Planning Commission granted. She stated that, due to the location of the parking spot, Council is the body with the jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, not the Coastal Commission in this case, and the issue before Council is whether or not to approve, deny or modify this particular CDP as described in the application as presented to the Planning Commission. She stated that the Council’s decision of whether or not to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision approving the permit should be based on whether or not this particular permit for this particular spot is consistent with applicable local coastal program policies and whether the CEQA exemptions can be made. She stated that the scope of Council’s jurisdiction at this time on the permit appeal is limited to the jurisdiction that the Planning Commission had to below, that is whether or not to approve, deny or modify this particular proposed CDP permit for this particular parking spot. She stated that what isn’t at issue is the temporary safe parking program which was approved in February 2022 or the oversized vehicle ordinance itself. She stated that what is at issue here is this spot which was described in the city’s application which is what the Planning Commission considered. As such, it wouldn’t be appropriate in the context of this appeal to discuss alternative sites. It is beyond Council’s purview at this time to consider these when you are talking about this particular appeal. She stated that matters that have been previously approved by Council, which includes the issue of the temporary safe parking program and the oversized vehicle ordinance, are not before Council at this time in the context of this particular appeal. She also wanted to clarify some assertions made with respect to the Coastal Commission staff’s position. The Coastal Commission has appealed jurisdictions for those parking spaces that are within their appeal zone and the Coastal Commission staff has positions with respect to its own appeal process which is a two-step process, i.e., whether or not there is some substantial issue and whether or not it can be put up to a full hearing. She stated that the decision hasn’t been made yet and any position or opinion by the Coastal Commission staff as set forth in the staff report isn’t binding on Council at this meeting. The Council has its own independent appeal jurisdiction and that is what Council is doing at this meeting pursuant to its own simple code and the Coastal Commission has not made any decision with respect to its own appeals and Council has adopted that safe temporary parking program previously. She referred to CEQA, and stated that there is evidence to support Council’s decision should it find to support the CEQA exemptions here, and it was important to note that they have heard a lot about the impact or the potential impacts that parking could have in general and how those impacts should be considered, but at this time, the Council is just looking at this o ne 10x30 temporary parking spot which is in a location in an existing right-of-way where the parking already is allowed for oversized vehicles and the issues with respect to the district’s counsel discussed previously mostly has to do with implications of the program itself. She stated that they are talking about this one spot, and she believes, as set forth in the staff report, there is substantial evidence that this one spot falls under Category 1 and 4 and there is substantial evidence to uphold the support of those exemptions. She stated, with respect to notice, this has to do with the separation of the temporary safe parking program that was approved previously, there was appropriate notice given for that program which was considered by Council and was independent on discretion previously and notice was given at this meeting for this particular appeal and notice was given with the Planning Commission’s first CDP and notice has been complied with.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

2.c
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 August 08, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, before they close the public hearing, he saw that Bill Tobin has raised his hand and he appreciated that he had difficulty connecting earlier and he wasn’t sure if she might have interest in hearing him before they close the public hearing.

Mayor Bier stated that they can open it back up to hear from Mr. Tobin.

Bill Tobin, Pacifica, wanted to comment on the TSPP program as it relates to activities on the Lundy Street parking spaces. He noticed inconsistencies in implementation of the program and expressed his thoughts on this issue.

Mayor Bier apologized and stated his time was up.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he would like to clarify some additional points, based on public comments and the appellant’s presentation. He thought they need to have Council consider this appeal in the right context. He stated that the appellant has attempted to structure this as a no parking versus oversized vehicle parking question and they are talking about one parking space as part of the TSPP which, in addition to being exempted from the 72- hour parking limitations of the Municipal Code, there is also a required enrollment in a robust set of program components due to Pacifica Resource Center to help transition the program participants out of vehicular housing and into permanent housing. He stated that there is already oversized vehicle parking allowed on this segment of Francisco Blvd., and it is a false question presented to Council to suggest that denying this CDP would somehow eliminate oversized vehicle parking in this location, but that is factually untrue. He stated that the question is whether this is an appropriate space, can the findings be made for a coastal development permit for those vehicles to park there that already parking in this area and to allow program participants to be enrolled in the TSPP program through the Pacifica Resource Center. He thought it was important to focus on what the question is for Council as part of the appeal. He added that it was important to clarify that representations made by the appellant about their potential future water district headquarters project, he is sure those are factual as to their intentions, but with respect to the city, the project application is incomplete and no action has been taken by the city to approve or deny the project and there is no permit approval granted to the water district at this point to construct the building, much less the on street diagonal parking configuration that they have described and it is really a distracting point with respect to this particular CDP application as no such approval has been granted for that project and the city has ultimate domain through the city engineer over the public right-of-way, such as Francisco Blvd., including the design and configuration of travel ways and on street parking areas. He stated that the question is fully within the city’s domain to approve or not approve that diagonal parking. He referred to a statement made by a public commenter with respect to the 3-year nature of the TSPP and an option to renew, and that is not how the program has been approved by Council in the adopting resolution for the TSPP. It indicates a 3-year term for that and the CDP as conditioned by the Planning Commission and presented to Council with tonight’s appeal would only allow the CDP to be in effect for as long as the temporary safe parking program is in effect. He stated that, in full disclosure, he agreed that the Council, at some future time, could amend that resolution or adopt a different resolution to extend the program but that has not been contemplated and not currently part of the temporary safe parking program. He asked PW Director Petersen or PW Dep. Director Bautista to speak about some of the engineering considerations that went into identifying the Francisco Blvd. space for appropriateness, in terms of a temporary safe parking program location.

2.c
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 August 08, 2022
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that, regarding that space, Engineering looked at multiple areas to park and only 13 spaces were found in the city. He stated that Engineering assessment was done on city streets that were wide enough, looking for at least 10 feet parking width and at least 10 feet travel lane next to that space, and started looking at non-residential areas for locations to minimize impacts in residential neighborhoods and this space fits the criteria. He referred to a question regarding parking utilization, and based on studies that were done, a parking supply study that was conducted for the Sharp Park Specific Plan shows that this block is only 25% to 50% parked during the weekend and 50% to 75% during the weekday.

Mayor Bier stated that she was going to comment first. She wanted General Manager Carr and everyone at the water district to understand that she shares the disappointment that we were not able to come together and collaborate as these relationships are really important to individuals and the community and it is going to be really important moving forward that we are able to sit down together and work together for the betterment of our community and she was sorry that it didn’t happen soon enough and they are at this point instead.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he didn’t get a thorough understanding from staff as to why they are here. He asked if Special Counsel Longfellow would give them an introduction of who she is, why is she here and not the city attorney.

Special Counsel Longfellow appreciated the opportunity to respond. She stated that the city is the applicant for this particular CDP and, as the applicant, the city attorney’s office, City Attorney Kenyon and Assistant City Attorney Bazzano, have been working with city staff with respect to the application and essentially project component. She is present as Counsel to advise the City Council to ensure that there is a fair hearing and due process is followed, and keep the separation between the city attorney’s office that is assisting with this application and assisting staff with the application and her role is to ensure the fair hearing process and advise Council, and as a note, the city attorney’s office has not been advising Council with respect to this appeal and they have only been working with staff with respect to the application.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they have reached out to her with questions and she has been very helpful. He thanked her for being here. He stated that, when she spoke a few moments ago, she said a lot in a short time period and he may or may not have to reference what she said but he wanted to acknowledge that.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that she is happy to jump in if he has any questions.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to a statement that PW Dep. Director Bautista was asked about the potential of putting more parking spaces where we are going to be putting this RV, and he wanted to ask him a question that will pertain to a comment he is going to make. He asked if it is viable, from an engineering perspective, that the water district could put those four diagonal spots in or are there other engineering considerations that preclude it.

PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that, during his preliminary review of the plan, he thought that the diagonal parking would have been acceptable, however, as this area is a priority development area, diagonal parking would probably not be advisable because they want to make the area into a multi-module friendly area and diagonal parking takes up space needed for bikes and pedestrians in favor of cars as well as a safety factor. He stated that knowing they have those PDA, they want to promote bicycle and pedestrian safety in the area and that is why he thought diagonal parking would not be in the best interest of bicycle and pedestrian safety.

2.c
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 August 08, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the tricky thing is that there have been so many things brought up and they are confined to what Planning Commission discussed in this one spot within that context, and he could go off on so many tangents for so many community concerns but he has to bring it back. He pointed that it is now 10:45 and he asked if he should make a motion to extend the meeting.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to midnight; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (to extend the meeting to midnight)
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he is left with two lingering common questions. He appreciated the nature of the lawsuit has made it so that, as they are formulating the safe parking program and discussing it, it hasn’t been in the public because they are in the middle of a lawsuit and that is how that works, but it also denies them the opportunity to have that discussion with the community that probably should have led them to this place under more ideal circumstances. He wasn’t sure if his question falls within the scope and stated Special Counsel Longfellow can feel free to cut him off. He asked Acting Planning Director Murdock, generally, why is it that they aren’t asking for an EIR.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the answer rests in the analysis contained in the staff report that he attempted to articulate in this meeting, i.e., the nature of this program space that is the subject of the appeal is very minor in nature and falls within more than one categorical exemption pursuant to adopted state law governing environmental review. He thought that any project could undergo environmental review, but doing environmental review in very minor projects is a resource and time consuming undertaking. While CEQA is intended to be protective of the environment, it also recognizes some things categorically are not going to have significant environmental impacts, hence the name categorical exemption. He stated that the categories of uses that are defined by the Secretary of Natural Resources is categorically determined by that appointed state official not to have a significant effect on the environment.

He stated that, when you have the facts to support finding that a particular activity fits within one of those categorical exemptions, the presumption is that it will not have a significant environmental impact. Through staff’s analysis of applicable categorical exemptions, including Class 1 and Class 4, staff believes in their expert opinion that, in doing this as experts in land use projects, there is evidence to support applications of a categorical exemption and an EIR is not required or appropriate in this instance.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, at the heart of what they are trying to accomplish, there is so much hypothetical discussion going on and so much about what could go wrong or go right, and what they are trying to accomplish is that a parking spot is being used as a parking spot to which they hear the response from the community is what if things go wrong from that point. He appreciates that but, on the other hand, what they are trying to accomplish and doing everything they can to insure is that, at the end of the day, a parking spot is being used as a parking spot.

He stated that, in theory, that parking spot could be used continuously on a 72-hour rotation, and he appreciated that it is kind of a reach of hypothetical. He is saying that, hypotheticals aside, is what they are trying to enact and they want to see if they can accomplish that. He mentioned that Planning Commissioner Greg Wright is on the call, and he would like to ask him if he has any insights or perspectives he would like to lend. He knows it wasn’t an easy

2.c
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 August 08, 2022
Planning Commission meeting, as he watched it and reviewed it.

Mayor Bier thanked him for saying that as that was the next thing she brought up as she understands it was an interesting Planning Commission meeting and things happened during that meeting, and it would be good for Council to understand exactly how the decision came to be made. She asked Commissioner Wright if he had any comments which would be helpful for her to understand how their decision was made.

Commissioner Wright stated he would try to keep his comments brief. He stated that staff and the Commission worked very hard to wrap their heads around this issue. They did feel a little bit of time pressure due to the lawsuit and they felt like they needed to make a decision to bring back to Council for further consideration. He stated that they asked a number of questions to better understand exactly what the program entailed so they would understand exactly what they were considering for this particular spot. He stated that they understood that it was a spot that was in a use currently allowed and the change in the program was to extend the period of time. There were a number of conditions by participants that would be placed on them by the Resource Center. He stated that it was a complicated, long process and they did their best to make the best decision they could under the time constraints and they decided, in the end, to side with staff and support and approve the position. He asked if there were any further questions he can clarify.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck understood there was a condition of approval put in toward the end regarding reporting out essentially on how the program is going, especially in regard to the concern about emergency response. He asked if he can elaborate on what that condition was and how they came to it and how that made certain members of the Commission feel better about voting to approve.

Commissioner Wright stated that there were a number of questions that came up around that, i.e., a passionate discussion about that and he would ask Acting Planning Director Murdock to clarify for him what the exact wording is, as he doesn’t have in his memory, before he comments further.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that condition of approval No. 5 included in the Planning Commission’s approval required that, after not less than two months and not more than four months of operation, the applicant (the city) shall prepare a written operational review report summarizing operation of the program space in relation to the adjacent North Coast County Water District facility for review and consideration by the City Manager. The applicant shall confer with the water district to seek its input into the report. He stated that what that came out of was essentially a sympathetic audience among the Planning Commission for representations made by the water district during the public hearing process that they were concerned about impacts to their operations. He stated that Council heard some of those claims at this meeting under the guides of this appeal. He state that staff believes there is sufficient evidence to dismiss and discount those claims by the water district but Planning Commission included this reporting mechanism so at least there was a formalized feedback opportunity and the city would be required to engage with the water district after the spaces have become operational for some period of time so that, in the event that there is some unanticipated consequence, there is an opportunity to report that back for the City Manager to hear it and, if appropriate, report that to Council to consider some amendment to the space or the TSPP appropriate at that point in time.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there was a comment made earlier that this would be the

2.c
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 August 08, 2022
equivalent of living at City Hall and while the road adjacent to City Hall is too narrow to put an RV and they put as many spaces as they could in their corporation yard to be as sensitive as they could. He is grateful that the water district has reached out to suggest spaces that we might use, but unfortunately, the scope of what they are discussing at this meeting is too narrow to have that discussion. He added that, outside of the discussion they are having at this meeting, he thought they would be open to that discussion if the context were right, especially if there is going to be construction there. He stated that the point is well taken by staff that, right now, the details of that haven’t been hammered out, especially at the point in time when there might be construction there, he would be interested for the sake of facilitating a smoother construction by the water district as well as helping a member of our safe parking program to not have to listen to construction at all hours. He stated that, if they would lend us that space, they would be much more open to that as there would be an appropriate moment where it would make perfect sense. He added that it might not be a bad conversation and he would be willing to speak outside of the context of this appeal where they can’t incorporate that into what they are hearing at this meeting.

Councilmember O’Neill asked Special Counsel Longfellow if we have the Coastal Commission making a decision on August 12.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that they are making a substantial issue determination in the first stage.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, if they hear the appeal and agree with the appeal, those four spots that are subject to the appeal to the Coastal Commission, if they will be out of the program.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that the first stage is whether or not there is a substantial determination hearing and then it would have to go to the full Commission and, depending on what they say, that is down the road and there are two courses for the Coastal Commission’s consideration and, at that time, it is likely that that would take those sites out unless there could be some other resolution made. She stated that the determination hasn’t been made and there are things that need to happen before that determination.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, if Council was to deny the appeal tonight and the Coastal Commission, at some point was to approve their appeal and uphold the appeal of eliminating those four sites, what the repercussions would be for this site, being it is in the coastal zone.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that, as she mentioned earlier, the appeal process for the location for these particular parking sites, all within the coastal zone, there would be no impact for this particular CDP with respect to how the Coastal Commission decided on the appeals that are under their jurisdiction. She said, due to the location of this particular spot on Francisco Blvd., Council is the final decision making body for this appeal and the decision would stand irrespective of what decision the Coastal Commission made on the parking spaces within its appeal jurisdiction. She stated that they are two separate issues and that is one of the reason they stated before that, in staff’s opinion or the Coastal Commission’s opinion eventually on their appeals doesn’t have any bearing for the city’s jurisdiction to determine this appeal at this meeting.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, if the Council denies the appeal, whether the water district go to the Coastal Commission to appeal it.

2.c
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 August 08, 2022
Special Counsel Longfellow stated her understanding is that this is the final appellant body for this particular permit. She stated that there are potentially other actions that the water district could take, but as far as this appeal, it is within Council’s jurisdiction, not the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction, due to the location of the parking site. She reiterated that this is the final appellant’s administrative body, City Council and not the Coastal Commission.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he is unclear as his understanding was that any decision the city makes in the coastal zone was appealable to the Coastal Commission.

Special Counsel Longfellow asked Acting Planning Director Murdock to correct her if she has this understanding incorrectly, but she understands that there is a locational line, a road line where properties that are to the east of that line, where the coastal development permits are appealed to the City Council if they are within a certain location and coastal development permits that are beyond that road and CDPs that are within a different area, those could be appealed to the city or the Coastal Commission, but this particular appeal is constrained in its location. Due to that location, she stated that Council is the determining body.

Councilmember O’Neill wanted to be sure he is understanding it correctly that the end of the coastal zone is the western curb of Francisco Blvd.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated she will defer to Acting Planning Director Murdock on that one.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the extent of the coastal zone overall extends beyond Francisco Blvd. Into Highway 1, but what is relevant for his line of questioning is where the delineation of the coastal zone appeals jurisdiction, which is a subset of the coastal zone where, per statute, there are defined locations that local actions on coastal development permits are appealable to the Coastal Commission. In those locations, Council can be an immediate appeal body but not required to act on an appeal and whatever the final local action, whether final Planning Commission or Final City Council action, that local action is appealable to the Coastal Commission. He stated that the subject site of the Francisco Blvd. Safe parking program location is not within the appeals jurisdiction and not appealable to the Coastal Commission.

Councilmember O’Neill thought it was Mr. Baral who said he had a conference with the city’s legal counsel, which he assumed was City Attorney Kenyon, not Ms. Longfellow, and he thought the city could switch parking spaces out as long as they maintain the 13 spaces.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that she can’t speak directly to that issue, but her understanding is that there is some process to change sites, however the issue for this consideration is that that discussion is a separate discussion. She stated that it is legally possible but, for this meeting, that would have to be something they would consider or brought back or direction given to staff. At this time, it is just centering on this de novo hearing that Council is having and what she means by de novo is that City Council is hearing all information with respect to this appeal on this particular permit that was approved by the Planning Commission and is restricted to the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission when it considers the permit and that is not the whole program, and it is not the alternative sites or not the oversized vehicle ordinance itself.

Mayor Bier asked her if that was where the tolling agreement comes in. She stated that they can’t talk about those specific sites at this meeting and they understand that. She wants to, so

2.c
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 August 08, 2022
she asked if that is where the tolling agreement comes in.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated she was not involved in the discussions of the tolling agreement as that was what the city attorney was involved in, and she thought the tolling agreement was simply to allow this particular hearing to be extended and any claims that the water district may have with respect to other issues would be essentially paused, but not being involved, she can’t speak to the specifics of that particular issue.

Councilmember Beckmeyer appreciated everyone’s thoughtful and careful questions for our Counsel and staff and for the appellant. She reviewed the Planning Commission meeting and she read the transcript over and over, and she stated that it was one of the most contentious difficult Planning Commission decision that she was personally aware of, and she didn’t serve on the Planning Commission unlike three of her fellow councilmembers but she sees their expertise and appreciate and respect it. She understands that a lot of what they talk about are things that she doesn’t have a background in. She felt that the experts they rely on for this decision making had a no in the first vote which was very telling to her. She reviewed the reasons why it was a no, notwithstanding the traffic engineer staff delineating this area as allowable for parking, but at one point Chair Berman said it feels too tight there. She stated that one consideration she knows is not very often a factor but is in this particular location is that the freeway is right there. She stated that they have the freeway above them, that constrains the feeling of that spot. As she is thinking about all the issues and what she is hearing about the proposed plans for the water district redoing, she was inclined to take whatever measure or step it is that they need to take, relying on Council to help them figure that out, to have more consideration of this item. She stated that, in four days, the Coastal Commission is going to weigh in on its own on the larger project that the city is engaged in, temporary safe parking program, they are going to weigh in on spots within their jurisdiction and, while it doesn’t have any bearing on this item in fact, she thought it does in a practical matter. She is struggling with that and, returning to the deliberation that the Planning commissioners had, the position that Council is in working with our partner, NCCWD, on behalf of all of our taxpayers, ratepayers, etc., she wasn’t sure what the appropriate action is, how to phrase it or what to do. She can tell them what she wants to happen, i.e., further discussion with NCCWD before any temporary parking place goes in at that location. She stated that, if that has implications for a tolling agreement or whatever it needs to look like, she didn’t know what the first step for Council looks like. She stated that she will defer to Counsel and maybe Councilmember O’Neill. She thinks they know where she is going and she will stop talking and let the Mayor decide if Councilmember O’Neill should speak.

Mayor Bier agreed that he can speak.

Councilmember O’Neill thought another consideration that they haven’t mentioned is he thought there is a bus stop at that corner and he sees people standing there waiting for a bus. He would be open to following Councilmember Beckmeyer’s idea of continuing this to another date and allowing discussions regarding other options moving forward.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she read in detail every discussion that the Planning Commission had and she has served on the Commission, and she thought the decisions are very difficult. She stated that this decision was not easy for Council when they made it, as they didn’t arbitrarily throw a dart and picked the spot. As PW Dep. Director Bautista said, we purposely made locations that were not in front of residential homes, not directly in front of businesses, and all of it was difficult. She stated that there are very few locations where those items fit, and we don’t have an industrial area or a place out of the way from every place else,

2.c
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 August 08, 2022
and all of it is difficult. She then stated she wasn’t sure they can put this off longer because of the appeal process and she would have to ask that question of legal counsel.

Special Counsel Longfellow thought the basic issue is the decision that needs to be made by City Council at this meeting, which is set forth in the staff report, is whether or not to deny, uphold or modify the Planning Commission’s decision at this time. She stated that the decision should be made on this particular spot. To the extent that Council wants to direct staff is a separate issue to return or consider alternate locations. She stated that they can do that, and another thing to consider is that it would be possible for Council to deny this appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision on this particular spot and, separately, direct staff to work or analyze potentially different parking locations that may be appropriate apart from their decision on this particular space in this CDP.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought the last thing that Ms. Longfellow said hit the nail on the head.

He was hearing some sort of consensus that all of them are in favor, on some level and some way, of exploring alternatives. He stated that it sounds like their duty is to either uphold or deny the appeal and he was inclined to deny the appeal based on the evidence that is before him, but it sounds like they’re all interested in exploring on some level what it would look like to look at the other potential sites. He stated that it occurs to him, because they would vote one way or the other at this time, rather than continue, that doesn’t mean they can’t give strong direction that they would like to continue that conversation with the water district past this appeal.

Mayor Bier wanted to say, ongoing back to what Councilmember Beckmeyer was talking about and she fully agrees, the Coastal Commission hasn’t even had their meeting or talked about this yet, and she thought, whether in regard to this particular space or not, it is going to have a really big effect on how decisions are made about this moving forward. She thought that she would prefer to have it go back to Planning so they can talk about it after the Coastal Commission has their meeting on Friday.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to have Ms. Longfellow or Acting Planning Director Murdock clarify what the scope is of the Coastal Commission’s consideration in terms of the substantial determination is on Friday and he added that it is only the first step in the process. He didn’t know if there was anything substantially informative that will come out of Friday’s hearing. He also says that, while the water district has suggested some potential sites, the evaluation of a feasible site is very complicated with many factors and they don’t know the feasibility at all and that could be a very long process as there is another agency involved with jurisdiction regarding one of the sites, the zoning is applicable and may require public hearings which is a very elongated process and Council is very familiar with all of those complexities regarding other sites. He stated that if either Ms. Longfellow or Acting Planning Director Murdock could speak a little bit more specifically to that first step for the Coastal Commission and reiterate what Ms.

Longfellow said that there is the appeal regarding this specific site for a decision and then separate action that he has already reached out to the Executive Director from the water district about any interest in other sites and exploring those as a separate action.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he will respond with respect to the substantial issue hearing on Friday. He stated that, as mentioned, the Coastal Commission appeal process is a two-step process. Friday’s meeting on August 12 is the substantial issue hearing, which means that it is simply an inquiry into whether the appeal that was filed by the appellant is likely to implicate any important coastal act consistency question, but not a determination on the final action on the appeal and whether there is full merit to the appeal and whether the city’s action can be upheld or if it needs to be overturned. He stated all that will come out of the Friday

2.c
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 35 August 08, 2022
hearing of the Coastal Commission is whether the Coastal Commission assert jurisdiction and set the date for a future appeal hearing or not. If the answer is no, which is a possibility, then the city’s CDPs would take effect and there would be no appeal here, and that could be a quick resolution to the appeal process in favor of the city’s action, or as the Coastal Commission staff has recommended, they may find a substantial issue and determine that a future hearing date on no particular legal timeline would occur at some future date. He stated that only after conduct of that future appeal hearing date would the city know definitively whether or not the CDPs would be approved or denied.

Special Counsel Longfellow thanked him for that clarification, and she agrees. She stated that one other issue of clarification is that the meeting on Friday before the Coastal Commission with respect to whether or not there is a substantial issue really doesn’t have any bearing for Council’s determination at this meeting. The Council’s determination on this particular CDP is within the Council’s appeal jurisdiction and not bound persuasively or firmly otherwise by the Coastal Commission’s determination and there is likely a difference of opinion between what the city is considering is an appropriate jurisdiction for the Coastal Commission to have in this case, and she stated that they are going to take issue with the substantial issue determination argument that staff has put forth by the Coastal Commission and she would like to make it clear that for those separate issues, the Coastal Commission has its own process and evaluation that it does that is not binding on City Council and Council has its own independent discretion and jurisdiction with respect to this particular CDP.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that the Coastal Commission is irrelevant in regard to this decision at this meeting. He stated that Ms. Longfellow said Council’s purview is either approve, uphold the appeal or deny the appeal. He stated that many times on Council, they have modified a Planning Commission decision, such as added a condition, deleted a condition, etc. He asked why a continuance would not just be a modification and direction to staff to go and look at whatever needs to be done to modify this decision.

Special Counsel Longfellow thought the difference in the typical Planning Commission appeals that come before Council have to do with a particular site such as a home remodel project or development project. When the Municipal code talks about imposing conditions are modifying the decision of the Planning Commission, it has to do with the application that was set forth before the Planning Commission. She stated that, in contrast here, the Council is analyzing a CDP for the project is an application for a permit for this particular location. The application set forth is this particular parking spot location. She stated that there can be modifications and conditions such as she noted there were some markings and signage and those would be appropriate but to change the location of that parking spot would essentially be changing the nature of the application itself and the nature of what the Planning Commission considered.

She stated that, should City Council wish to consider alternate locations, that would be a separate process and it would be possible to deny the appeal at this meeting, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and, separate and apart from that, direct staff to continue its analysis in working with the walking district to potentially consider different sites and return to the City Council as a separate step.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if he was to make a motion of upholding the appeal with a condition that staff meet with the water district in the future, what would be the words he would need.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that upholding the appeal or denying the appeal. She thought the appropriate motion would be separate. The first motion would be a motion to den

2.c
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 36 August 08, 2022
the appeal as set forth in the staff report, i.e., deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision of the CDP at issue and then a motion would be taken on that issue.

The separate motion would be direction to staff to continue working for the analysis of potential alternative sites and return to the Council and Planning Commission at a future date after the analysis has been done.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he will throw that out for discussion with his fellow councilmembers. He stated it would have to be two motions, one denying the appeal with a second motion directing staff to continue meeting with the water district to look at other discussions. He asked if then they could move forward with a vehicle being there.

Special Counsel Longfellow agreed, and the impact of that particular scenario would be denying the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission’s decision would be approval of the permit and that would allow that space to be used and allowed part of the program and the second direction to staff would allow a further analysis and further discussion and continuation of that portion of the process while simultaneously allowing the permit to go into effect.

Councilmember O’Neill asked why they could not uphold the appeal with direction to staff that may be a modification of the approval for directing staff to meet with the water district. He thought they will also have to look at some sort of consideration or interaction with SamTrans for the bus stop.

Special Counsel Longfellow asked if it was with respect to this particular permit or with respect to future locations.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that there is a bus stop at that corner.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it was around the corner on Clarendon.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he stands corrected.

Special Counsel Longfellow thinks that is kind of the factual scenario that staff would take into consideration if directed to consider alternative locations and that would definitely be considered. Staff would recommend that it is possible to allow this particular permit to go into effect while simultaneously continuing that discussion for potential alternative locations.

Mayor Bier thought they were clear on what she was recommending, but what does Council think. She stated that, if they can do everything they possibly can to create this collaborative relationship with the water district so they can move forward together instead of separately, she thinks they need to do everything they can to do that. Right now, she didn’t think it feels like their partners in anything and that is not how they should be working. She thinks they need to do whatever they can to make sure that the come together. She stated that they are coming to us with ideas and the only way we will be able to talk about these ideas is if they have time and are sitting around a table and talking it through. She stated that, if they deny the appeal and they are able to use that spot which they don’t even know as there is so much grey area with the Coastal Commission and everything that the water district is bringing to them, she doesn’t think that they should deny the appeal.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that, to be clear, it is within Council’s jurisdiction to uphold the appeal and they would take Council’s findings pursuant to the discussions at this meeting, and return with a resolution at a future date to set forth why the findings can’t be made for this particular permit, and they would be happy to do that as well.

2.c
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 37 August 08, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated he would like to make a couple of clarifying comments that he thinks would help. He stated that, if Council decides to uphold the appeal, there will essentially not be a program parking spot on Francisco there and the city will be forced to find a 13th spot somewhere else in the city without knowing whether the sites that the water district is offering are feasible. He stated that another alternative that he will throw out is that the Council could deny the appeal but also direct separately delaying implementation of the spot until the feasibility of the site that the water district is suggesting is evaluated. He reiterated that they can deny the appeal but the PRC is not going to site a client there next week, and will wait until we know whether the other site is feasible or not and it has been vetting through whatever hearings need to happen and a zoning change, before an OSV is cited on that, i.e., just another alternative and he stands corrected if either Ms. Longfellow or Acting Planning Director Murdock sees any problem with that one.

Special Counsel Longfellow agrees with that alternative as something that is within Council’s discretion.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to revisit the issue and ask for a clear explanation again of the tolling agreement and what the purpose of that is. She is thinking about the implication of whatever decision they make at this time, and what action is the NCCWD board going to take and is that foreseeable. She stated that, when they talk about more time, what does that look like legally. She stated that they have constraints around appeals and legal action, etc.

Special Counsel Longfellow thinks that, as she was not a party to the tolling agreement, they will hear from the City Attorney.

City Attorney Kenyon clarified that, since they are not talking about the appeal but a separate issue related to a tolling agreement, the tolling agreement as it relates to any future potential litigation that the NCCWD is anticipating, they can discuss that with the district at any time. The reason that the tolling agreement wasn’t discussed for purposes of the appeal was because they had a time constraint for the appeal of 60 days and she understood that there was no agreement to toll unless they did not go forward with the appeal. She stated that the process they will be going through, should Council direct staff to consider alternative sites and Council were to deny the appeal, NCCWD and the city could then enter into a tolling agreement regarding any future litigation related to that future discussion on alternative sites prior to their statute of limitations running when they could lodge a court action challenging Council’s final decision. She stated that, by taking the action tonight would not forego Council’s or city’s opportunity to discuss a tolling agreement with NCCWD.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she understood her correctly that is if they deny the appeal.

City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked what if they uphold the appeal.

City Attorney Beckmeyer stated that there would be no need for a tolling agreement because there will be no parking spot at the Francisco site and there will be no action as they will have upheld the appeal as NCCWD is requesting and they will have no basis for a lawsuit.

Councilmember O’Neill asked what would be the thing that forces them to look at the alternative sites.

2.c
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 38 August 08, 2022
Special Counsel Longfellow asked him to clarify that question.

Councilmember O’Neill stated the main attraction in terms of discussing this location is the fact that they have offered alternative sites. He stated that he knows they can’t talk about them, but how do they do what they need to do but still have this site available if it is the last measure.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that, if this site were to be the last measure, the action that Council would take would be to deny the appeal which would be upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the CDP for this location and, as pointed out by the City Manager, they would direct staff to participate in negotiations about the appropriateness of these alternate sites and continue discussion and they would direct staff to delay the implementation of this particular permit. That would be the direction Council takes to make sure that this particular site, if it turns out to be the most appropriate location after consideration, it remains as it is approved.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to Mayor Bier’s point of trying Kumbaya, what if they upheld the appeal and directed staff to delay the implementation of the parking until consideration, and would achieve the same thing that the city manager mentioned.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated it was her understanding that, if they uphold the appeal, it would get rid of that parking spot. The city would have to go through an application process to put it before the Planning Commission and then the Cit Council again. She stated that upholding the appeal would be the final determination for this particular parking spot.

Councilmember O’Neill now sees the difference.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked the city manager for bringing forth the idea that they could simultaneously deny the appeal and hold off on implementing the site before they fully talked it through with the water district and he liked that idea a lot. He stated that Anita Rees has been with them the entire time and a question occurred to him that she is qualified to answer, and his question to her is that his understanding is that, at the last count, all eight of the sites that are not in the coastal zone have been taken up by people who are seeking to be permanently housed outside of their vehicle and his understanding was that a wait list had begun to be developed for the other five sites when they become available after these processes in which they are engaged. He stated his question is how long is the waiting list Anita Rees stated that they currently have one person ready to go and another that is pending an assessment.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded that they have up to two people who might benefit from this site, if and when it becomes available.

Anita Rees responded affirmatively.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wanted to factor into a little bit of the human element of people who are waiting for a safe place to try and get housed. What he doesn’t know is how ACLU is going to look at the way they’re deliberating, how long it’s taking them and at what point they might be annoyed. He didn’t know whether the sites that the water district is suggesting are feasible.

They might be, and He will be delighted if they are but he doesn’t know that part. He stated that he was looking at evidence that suggests that there is enough evidence before him that he

2.c
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 39 August 08, 2022
is comfortable denying the appeal and also comfortable saying that they direct staff to look at those other sites in a reasonable time frame because there are people waiting for a safe place to be while they are trying to better their circumstance. He stated that if it is a short enough time, he would love to assess whether or not there is a preferred site while simultaneously making sure that they have the site available for our promise to the ACLU.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked, if you take all the emotion out of it and just go by the facts, whether it fits in with the staff report with the facts to deny the appeal. She says it does and she feels like she agrees with what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck just said, that they deny the appeal, hold off on placing a vehicle in that location, collaborate with the water district to see if they can find an alternative and search for other alternatives at the same time. Meanwhile, they have the space and this is the negotiation.

Councilmember O’Neill asked they want to make a motion as it is 11:41 p.m.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she will make that motion.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer is saying no.

Mayor Bier asked if they meant to extend the meeting.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they will need to do that.

Councilmember O’Neill made a motion to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she moved that they deny the appeal and leave the space empty and collaborate with the water department and look at additional spaces.

Councilmember O’Neill would second that.

Special Counsel Longfellow clarified that the motion was to deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and delay implementation usage of the parking space at issue for what period of time.

Councilmember Vaterlaus suggested 60 days.

Mayor Bier didn’t think it was long enough to do a feasibility study for all the spots they recommended.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked the city manager how long it would take.

City Manager Woodhouse suggested that they ask that question of Acting Planning Director Murdock and PW Director Petersen as there is a lot to discuss and evaluate as it involves a third public agency and he agrees that 60 days is probably not long enough as they don’t know zoning wise or otherwise whether there is public hearing and there probably would be a Planning Commission meeting.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he was aware of three potential spaces and one seems to be the stronger of the three that would warrant some further evaluation. He stated, as City Manager Woodhouse mentioned, the NCCWD is not the only public agency at that site that has an interest in their operations and the use of that site, and that public agency has withdrawn

2.c
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 40 August 08, 2022
its public opposition but that is not necessarily the same as support. He added that, if they were to support it, it was not clear what legal mechanisms might be needed in terms of modified easements or other operating agreements as those details need to be flushed out with the city’s attorneys and their attorneys. He stated that, considering what the zoning requirements would be are also relevant, and with respect to the zoning and permitting analysis, he thought 60 days would be sufficient for that, but perhaps the more challenging component is some of the physical evaluations, vehicle maneuverability, etc., and is more in PW Director Petersen’s wheelhouse and he will allow her to speak to that.

PW Director Petersen thought that they have already looked at some of the spots and she already has a good understanding about them. She believes that they can do it within the 60- day period for sure.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they would be more comfortable with 90.

PW Director Petersen thought they could do it sooner than 60 days from the engineering analysis and she didn’t think they need 90.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated, to be clear, he wanted to make sure they understand that they are talking about the feasibility evaluation, not necessarily any implementation steps, such as legal agreements, authorization from other governing boards, zoning processes that might be involved and those almost certainly would extend beyond a 60-day feasibility evaluation.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the feasibility evaluation is 60 days.

Councilmember O’Neill agreed to the amendment to the motion. He was the second.

Mayor Bier stated that they can still discuss before they go to a vote.

Special Counsel Longfellow agreed, adding that she wanted to make sure that she is trying to write down all the conditions for this motion, and she clarified that the motion on the table would be to deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and delay implementation of the parking space at issue and she would suggest, for a reasonable time, not to exceed 60 days which is what she heard, to allow an analysis of feasibility of alternative sites. She asked if they are talking specifically a feasibility study and not the feasibility of the different legal constraints should there be any with alternative sites. She asked if that was correct.

Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has concerns as she feels that staff had an opportunity to do this kind of collaboration and looking at this and did have an incentive, and she feels that, if they deny the appeal, they still don’t and she thinks that is harsh. She knows it sounds terrible, but it is how she feels and she thinks they all had so much pressure on them over the entire situation that it just didn’t work out, but they already have the approval for the site. She feels that, if they can’t have a serious and fruitful collaboration between these two public agencies, for lots of reasons stated at this meeting, it might need to be the case that the city looks for another site altogether. She feels that provides more of an incentive for the collaboration than a bird in the hand. That is where she is. She hates to be this heavy but

2.c
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 41 August 08, 2022
that’s her job. She stated that every now and then she has to really pull it and be unpleasant.

In this particular case, she is not a fan of denying the appeal. She realizes there is a motion on the floor and they can discuss and asked questions and that is her discussion.

Mayor Bier added that, before Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck goes, she feels the same way and she said it a lot more articulately than she has been able to do. She stated that they have an opportunity to look at more than one space. When she thinks about the ACLU, it isn’t that they don’t want any space as they have the opportunity to look at more. She didn’t think they should deny the appeal.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the point is not lost on him. He thought it would be nice if they had been collaborative out of the gate, and it would have been nice if they could have consulted our constituents as they took a great deal of painful discussion trying to think about what the absolute best site would be to consider and came to the conclusion that this was one of the 13 to the best of their ability to discern what, within their authority, would be a good place to put it. He stated, all of that aggravation notwithstanding, his question is that they have an agreement with the ACLU and the reason they are here to begin with is because of the pain of litigation and the money spent, and now that they are on the other side of that with an agreement with them, he would love to be collaborative with the water district and find spots that are preferred. He asked what the effect is on the agreement they made and how long can they reasonably take before the people they made that agreement with for the sake of putting the real hard part behind us and say it is time to revisit this again, and they just approved $550,000 along with other attorney fees, and before he feels comfortable trying to rework what sites they are going to use and he needs to know what is a reasonable timeframe at this point before they shoot themselves in the foot again.

Special Counsel Longfellow added that first of all, if the Council were to uphold the appeal and deny this spot, it would be difficult to locate another parking spot on Francisco Blvd., and also the consideration that the water district may not have the incentive to negotiate once their appeal is upheld and, with respect to the settlement agreement with the ACLU, if this parking space isn’t implemented, that does raise the risk of the ACLU objecting to the city’s implementation of the settlement agreement and there could be a risk that the city is facing there, and those are all points of risk that she would like to state for the record and point out as information.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they need to make a motion to extend the meeting as it is 11:51 p.m.

Mayor Bier thanked him.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.)
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that, in her motion, she was not limiting the feasibility of another site to just the water district sites. She stated that it wasn’t specific that it would be a water district site. She thought, if they could find another site in that time period, that would be great as well, but she thinks they need to keep the site while they are looking. She stated that

2.c
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 42 August 08, 2022
it does follow all the qualifications.

Mayor Bier stated that she has been pretty clear about how she feels about this, and she thinks that, in order for them to work well with the water district, they need to uphold the appeal.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he would rather not have a denial, however, on the advice of Counsel, he thinks they need to do it this way to maintain the site. He stated that they are going to deny the appeal but require that a feasibility study for an alternative site and delaying implementation of the sites for an “X” amount of time. He stated that, based on what Counsel said, that is the best they can do.

Mayor Bier asked if there was a direction for a tolling agreement or is that something totally separate.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if Counsel thinks they need to have a tolling agreement, then they have a tolling agreement.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that the issue, if they uphold the appeal and then NCCWD has no incentive to negotiate with them versus if they deny the appeal and the city doesn’t have an incentive to work with NCCWD. She is trying to find a third alternative and she was not sure that, what has been proposed really hits the mark for her. She asked if there was a way to delay this while those negotiations are taking place and return to this very topic at a date certain so that everyone has an incentive to get this decision worked through quickly, amicably and collaboratively. She thought it would probably require a tolling agreement, but she wasn’t sure.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that the issue before Council at this time is limited to the denial, upholding or modification of the appeal and the Planning Commission approval to the extent that they could continue the item to a date certain without a decision. If they would like to continue this item for a future date to think about it further, that could possibly happen, but before the Council at this time is the decision to uphold, deny or modify the appeal.

Councilmember O’Neill thought the main issue they have to decide at this time is because they extended it as in 60 days they have to make a decision on a Planning Commission hearing. He stated that they have offered to do a tolling agreement to extend that time out so they can maintain their rights under law. He asked, if they were to do something such as upholding the appeal with a modification that they sign a tolling agreement to maintain their rights and extending it further.

Acting Planning Director Murdock asked Ms. Longfellow if she can help Council understand what they are talking about with the tolling agreement. He thought it was not a tolling agreement to allow this appeal hearing to occur beyond some Pacifica Municipal code timeline.

He stated the tolling agreement to allow the NCCWD to sue Pacifica over the temporary safe parking program enactment.

Special Counsel Longfellow agreed. She stated that there is a difference between extending their right to appeal for this particular administrative repeal. The tolling agreement is with respect to some arguable CEQA challenges and other challenges. She wasn’t involved in that tolling agreement discussion, but the larger issues under the tolling agreement were other legal challenges besides this particular appeal hearing.

Acting Planning Director Murdock asked her to correct him if he is mistaken, but he stated that

2.c
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 43 August 08, 2022
City Council, by hearing the appeal at this meeting, and taking whatever action they take, i.e., continue or take some final action, they will satisfy the specific and Municipal code requirement to hear the appeal and any discussion of a tolling agreement is to keep the options open for the water district to sue Pacifica over CEQA and other claims unrelated to this permit. He wanted Council to clearly understand that they are keeping the door open for them to sue the city by entertaining a tolling agreement if that was where the Council goes.

Councilmember O’Neill thanked him for that clarification.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he was hearing that, if they decide to continue this item, that would effectively allow them that neutrality to try to build their relationship that they seem to be seeking and continuing is the most likely avenue to allow for a positive relationship to develop.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that is one possible course of action. She reminded Council that it was her understanding that there is a motion on the table and before moving on too far from that motion, she asked that they get some closure on that motion before considering a motion to continue. She reiterated that the motion she has that is still on the floor was to deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision, delay the implementation of the parking space for 60 days during which time staff is directed to analyze alternative sites and determine if those are feasible sites.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he withdraws his second but suggested she keep that verbiage as they might use some of that.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to add a couple of things to help them coalesce a little bit.

He thinks it is clear that, if the decision is to uphold the appeal, then there will not be a parking space in the program on Francisco and the city will need via their settlement agreement with the ACLU find a 13th space somewhere else in the city and they don’t know how the ACLU will react to that or on what timeline. He stated that the other general comment he wanted to make, and considering Councilmember Beckmeyer’s statement about incentives on one side or the other, as a City Manager, it is not a question of incentives. Whatever the Council directs he will do and attempt to do it as best as possible in the timeline directed by Council. He stated that he can’t speak for the NCCWD and their incentive, but whatever Council directs is what he will work to implement.

Mayor Bier asked if they can continue the item and direct staff to work with the water district in the meantime.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that they can continue to a future date, whether a certain date at this point and separately direct that work.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he understands that they have a motion on the floor.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he withdrew his second so there is no motion on the floor.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they are waiting for a second motion or is the motion gone.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it died for loss of a second.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that no one asked for a second. She stated that her motion stays on the floor to see if there is a second.

2.c
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 44 August 08, 2022
Mayor Bier asked if there was a second.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he will second the motion for the sake of conversation. He stated that he is asking about the continuance to decide how he is going to vote on it. He stated that he is willing to vote against the motion he seconded for the sake of a continuance if there is a consensus that it is a good idea to continue it. He stated that he is comfortable with the motion so far is basically because of what the City Manager just said which is that it is their job is to do what the Council tells them to do. He stated that ultimately staff takes their direction and up to this time, staff has done their best with the direction Council has given them so far, and he thinks there is substantial evidence to deny the appeal in which case staff will then take the new direction which is to do everything they can to work with the water district. He added that, if there is consensus on the table that continuing would be the most neutral, peaceful, helpful effort to develop a relationship, then he will vote no and they can make a motion to continue. His stated that his primary concern is to honor the agreement they have made with the people suing the city and work toward the best approach will be in that context. He stated that, if a continuance isn’t going to incur the wrath of further litigation, he would be happy to vote for that after he votes against this motion.

Mayor Bier stated that she isn’t clear about the double voting thing.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that she is trying to get it straight, and she thought, if Council feels like it would like to vote for a continuance on the matter, she suggested that they take the initial motion off the table by withdrawing the second. She stated that what they would be doing is making a decision on the appeal, and if they want to continue the hearing, she recommends not making a decision on this appeal as that would negate the ability to continue it in the future.

She reiterated that, if they wish to continue the hearing, the motion would be to continue the hearing to a future date and she would withdraw the second and the motion regarding the substantive determination on the appeal. She also reiterated that what is on the floor is the determination and motion to deny the appeal, and if they want to wait on that and continue it, she stated that he withdraw the second which would withdraw the motion and make a new motion to continue to a future date.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he will withdraw his second and asked, after it dies and they continue it, will that hurt them in terms of the lawsuit.

Special Counsel Longfellow asked if he is asking in respect to the ACLU lawsuit.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck responded affirmatively.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that she can’t tell him what the ACLU’s view is going to be in implementing the temporary safe parking program and parking spaces which is what they are looking at. She thought it was a risk and continuing to the next month or no more than next 60 days would be conservative and would be the most defensible to show good faith that the Council is considering the site, but she thought the risk is lower if they continue this to more than 60 days.

Mayor Bier acknowledged that he withdrew his second and asked if there was a second for the motion on the floor.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he seconded Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s motion.

2.c
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 45 August 08, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that he didn’t make it yet.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated, for clarity, she thought the second was withdrawn for the first motion on the table and it is no longer on the table. She stated that, if they want a motion to continue, she suggests that someone make that motion fresh so they are clear and the records are clear and then there is another second for the motion to continue to a future date not to exceed 60 days.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to continue this item to a date certain, not more than 60 days for a feasibility study by city staff and the water district’s staff; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

City Clerk Coffey stated, for clarification, that the vote was to continue the item to a date certain.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that it should be to a date certain, September 26.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, stating that it is the second Council meeting in September and the last one before the 60-day deadline.

City Clerk Coffey asked if she heard a second by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated she did not.

City Clerk Coffey acknowledged that the second was by Councilmember Beckmeyer. She took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 4-1 (No: Vaterlaus) (to continue this item to a date certain, September 26, and direct a feasibility study by city staff and the water district’s staff for alternative sites) City Manager Woodhouse referred to the remaining items and the looming hour, and of the three remaining items, the housing element engagement discussion is time critical and the CalCities’ appointee voting delegate is time critical but Item #15 is not as time critical as those, so if they want to reorder the items and, if Council wants to extend the meeting further to get all three done, that would be great, but it is up to Council, and he was just giving them the priority on those items.

Mayor Bier asked if they want to continue one of them.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, regarding item 15, PW Director Petersen can confirm that it can be pushed.

Mayor Bier asked Council if they thought they could “knock” them out.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it is interest rate sensitive.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thought they can do that quickly.

Councilmember O’Neill didn’t think they will be lengthy.

Mayor Bier suggested they go and see what happens and make a motion to extend the meeting one more time and try to do all three.

2.c
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 46 August 08, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the meeting to 1:05 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (to extend meeting to 1:05 a.m.)
RESULT: TABLED [4 TO 1] Next: 9/26/2022 7:00 PM
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Beckmeyer
NAYS: Vaterlaus

CONSIDERATION

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

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

PW Director Petersen stated that WW Sr. Engr. Manager Schlater will give them a quick overview and then will pass it to Carollo consultant Paul Friedlander.

WW Sr. Engr. Mgr. Schlater presented the staff report.

Carollo consultant Friedlander completed the staff report.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speaker.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, thought it was an important issue, and shared his thoughts on the timing for addressing important items.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he wanted to mention the one question he asked PW Director Petersen prior to the meeting, i.e., the WW treatment plant has a 30-year life and he asked how long this extends the effective life of our WW treatment plant by authorizing this at this time.

PW Director Petersen stated that they will anticipate another 30 to 80 years of life from the system and they would be continuing to replace equipment to allow the wastewater plant to last as long as feasible and this is an important component.

2.c
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 47 August 08, 2022
Mayor Bier asked for a motion if no other comments,
Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve the item as stated; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5 - 0
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

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

Acting Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they anticipate a dedicated website.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated, regarding whether it is the Plan Pacifica URL or a different one, he didn’t think they have made that decision, but they will have a dedicated approach to send everyone to the website with centralized housing element update information but that is not a part of the standards for the Pacifica.org website.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he will have a deliberative comment after public comment. He then referred to a public comment regarding the NIMBYs and bananas are well entrenched in city politics, and stated that he knows what NIMBY is but he asked if he could tell what a banana is.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it has been a while, and it is not a technical term, but it is about build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated he was glad they are addressing this issues, and expressed his concerns and thoughts on this issue.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that she was wanted to suggest an immediate citywide mailer to educate the public on the importance of this issue and offered other suggestions for the process.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, shared information on legal requirements for community engagement and mentioned her thoughts on the process.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

2.c
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 48 August 08, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he wanted to take a moment on this as this is an important issue to him. He stated that the irony is not lost on him that they are discussing public engagement at 12:45 at night. He agreed with statements of a couple of the commenters that they should send at least a physical postcard to every house in Pacifica to alert them to what they are doing and how they can get involved. He would prefer to have three meetings, not just two, and he referred to the Plan Pacifica process where they had different meetings in different parts of the city to accommodate everyone, and thought of having surveys on the website. He referred to the idea of utilizing consultants, and he thought they were already going to be doing that, and asked if Acting Planning Director Murdock could comment on that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the item was not prepared by staff to describe the overall undertaking of updating the housing element with all the parts and resources, etc., and based on the question, he stated that they have engaged a consultant, Good City Company, which supported the city in a number of planning efforts over the last year and have expertise assisting a number of communities in San Mateo County who are further ahead in their housing element update process. He stated that a fortunate outcome of their late start in the process is that they will get to learn from the experiences of the other cities that have gone through the process, and also having the advantage of their HCD comment letters coming back before we finalize our draft for HCD review and there are a number of efficiencies to be gained to manage the difficult timeline they are confronting including bringing in expert help to assist them in the process.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought it sounded like some of the things that Ms. Moore mentioned were exactly the path the city is on for the sake of going as quickly as we can. He referred to the idea of hybrid meetings, and thought that, while he appreciated the notion, he didn’t think we are set up for hybrid meetings.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the notion of hybrid meetings is intriguing, and as mentioned by the City Manager in the past, the technology involved in undertaking hybrid meetings can be expensive and difficult to implement. He can take note of it, but depending on the in person meeting venue that they may end up with as part of their plan, it could be possible.

He stated that, if there is an opportunity, he won’t want to miss it, but he can’t commit that we would have the resources to implement such a system on our own for the housing element update.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it was interesting reading through the comments as, at any given moment, they are either doing the best job possible or the worst job. He stated that there were six comments that stood out and he read through them, i.e., postcards, mailed surveys, updates in the Tribune, multiple avenues for participation, etc. and he liked the comments.

Mayor Bier agreed with most of the things he mentioned as she thought it was important for them to get information out in as many ways as they possibly can and she agreed with adding a third meeting.

Councilmember O’Neill also agreed, if they can, to send out a postcard in the beginning with the full schedule, and an absentee ballot, a paper survey, locations for holding the meetings, such as IBL, etc. and three meetings.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought they could also have the physical surveys located at the library.

2.c
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 49 August 08, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that the issue with that, some person could grab the entire stack with 100 there.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that you could have them behind the desk and request it.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they aren’t going to police it in the library but they can have a mail in ballot to control it.

Mayor Bier asked that they take a time check.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had a quick question for clarification. She asked if the Mayor was asking if they need to extend the meeting.

Mayor Bier stated that it was 12:53 and they still have one more item.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to extend to 1:10 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (to extend meeting to 1:10 a.m.)
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was looking at packet page 327, second paragraph down where a comment is made about adoption of the housing element update for more than 120 days but less than one year beyond January 31, 2023 would require the city to complete any rezoning required to accommodate the RHNA 6 allocation by January 31, 2024 rather than January 31, 2026, and she read it 100 times and she doesn’t get it. She asked for an explanation.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that she was describing one of the consequences of not adopting the housing element within 120 day grace period. He stated that, if they adopt on time or within the grace period, cities are afforded three years to accomplish the rezoning. If they don’t adopt it by the 120 day grace period, they will have to complete any required rezoning within one year of the required deadline and it forced them to take the action sooner if they want to achieve certification by HCD, and that is the stick coming into play.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he wanted to touch on two points. He appreciated all the feedback from Council and two of the Council requests have financial impacts and he wanted to be transparent about that. He stated that they have not budgeted in specifically a citywide mailer, stating that the last mailer he thought they did cost at least $5000 and, while they can find a way to make one mailer work, he didn’t know that multiple mailings of that scale would be easy to accommodate within the available financial resources for that undertaking. He added that the meetings also have additional financial costs. He stated that they can find a way to make a third meeting work but he didn’t fully understand what the intent is, such as Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck talked about a second meeting to expand accessibility but for the same purpose.

He conceptualized the potential third meeting occurring after receipt of HCD comments to take the Housing Element back to the community to vet those HCD comments so there is a validation with the community and not just pulling the rug out from everything they said and now they do something different because HCD told them. He stated that they may have to do that but at least there is an opportunity to discuss those changes with the community, and having the flexibility to potentially do that or get feedback from Council would be helpful.

2.c
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 50 August 08, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated that those are related to the points he wanted to make. He stated that the concept of a third meeting that is a later meeting in the sequence carries with it timeline considerations that could push them beyond the 120-day grace period and force any rezonings within that year period and that would be the consequence of that. He stated that they want to get clarification about what the purpose and when a third meeting should be if that is Council’s direction. He stated that concept of a third meeting later in the process will also be more expensive because it’s a meeting of a different scope and design than just doing two of the same meetings within the same week, for scheduling flexibility for community input would be less of a cost. He also clarified that Council approved $20,000 extra in this year’s budget for additional community engagement related to the housing element and they have that budgeted to cover this process and will need to hire and solicit proposals from firms to facilitate these community engagement meetings in this process and they don’t know what will fit within that $20,000 scope and, if they exceed it with a mailer, etc., they will come back to Council to figure out how to do that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his initial read is, as laid out, there is going to be one virtual meeting in September and one in person meeting in October, and he is saying for that meeting in October add another meeting that is approximately the same for the sake of communal flexibility have one location in the southside and one location in the northside so those who are mobility constrained might be able to make it and for those who can’t make one date, may be able to make the other day so as they do the analysis on the feedback from two meetings and they can take place simultaneously because they are just gathering the data from part 1 and part 2 of the same meeting. He stated that, in terms of mailers, he would think a postcard to give them a physical place to sign up as well as a virtual place and from there, not all 38,000 are going to sign up for a mailed survey and he would hope the price will facilitate that. He was willing to talk about what the price is going to be and authorize it, especially if less than $10,000.

Mayor Bier also thought, if they make really good use of the mailer and put a lot of information on it, explanation, schedule, etc. that would be better spent.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they could mail out one mailer, but she didn’t see mailing surveys to people as you will never get them back and it is a waste, but one mailer explaining everything to people. She stated that some people don’t always participate because they don’t want to. She stated that you can’t get everybody involved as there are a lot of people who don’t want to participate and she thought one mailer is good and they have given everyone the opportunity. If you can’t use a computer and you got a mailer, you have an alternative and you can ask a friend for help.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was saying that they can allow people to sign up to receive surveys and for those who take the time to write a letter back to the city asking for a physical survey, those are the people who will probably complete a physical survey.

Mayor Bier asked Acting Planning Director Murdock if he had enough direction.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he did.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he was confirming that what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s suggestion was about a second meeting is what the Council is supporting.

2.c
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 51 August 08, 2022
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

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

City Clerk Coffey presented the staff report.

There were no public comments.

Councilmember Vaterlaus nominated Mary Bier as the delegate and Tygarjas Bigstyck as the alternate; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they want to do it.

Mayor Bier stated she did.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed and the only thing he wants to add is, with Covid being what it is, do they want to designate a third, and no one did.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5 - 0
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 1:05 a.m.

Councilmember Vaterlaus wished the mayor a belated happy birthday and suggested they adjourn the meeting in honor of her birthday.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.c
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of August 8, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting (5112 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

STAFF CONTACT:

Sam Bautista, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works
650-738-3767
[email protected]
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On January 22, 2016, the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency along the Pacifica coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard due to El Nino storm activity. Extreme wave heights for extended periods of time caused top-of-bluff retreat at several locations along the Pacifica coast and damage to City infrastructure. Since this date, the Director of Emergency Services has proclaimed the existence of other local emergencies along this same stretch of coastline. These emergencies are described below:
• Failure of the sea wall and promenade on Beach Blvd. (in the vicinity of Santa Maria Avenue), which have been repaired, from the January 22, 2016 storm. • The 300 & 400 block of Esplanade experience episodic bluff erosion. In recent years (2016-2018), the bluff erosion has progressed to a point where the erosion is now threatening public infrastructure and utilities.
• Undermining of a seven-foot diameter storm drain outfall and concrete headwall for the discharge of Milagra Creek into the Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of 700 Palmetto Avenue from the January 22, 2016, storm. Construction is scheduled to restart in February of 2021 due to project delays.
• A failure of the seawall and promenade on Beach Blvd. in the vicinity of Santa Rosa Avenue and the Pier was discovered on December 16, 2020. Ocean waves, king tides, and high swells undermined a portion of the sea wall and created a large void (25’x25”) between the pier abutment seawall connection, affecting the sidewalk and promenade.

City staff and contractors stabilized and repaired the large void on January 22, 2021.

The sidewalk and promenade restoration were completed on February 22, 2021.

Monitoring of the repaired area is on-going.
3 Packet Pg. 130
Pacifica City Council 2
September 12, 2022
• On December 29, 2020, another failure of the seawall occurred approximately 150-200 feet north of the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Santa Rosa Avenue. A void, approximately 10’ deep by 15’ long, was found behind the seawall and was repaired with geotextiles and concrete slurry on January 5, 2021. Full restoration of this section was complete in February 2021. Monitoring of the repaired area is on-going. • On January 14, 2021, a combination of high tides and large waves damaged a forty-foot section of the Pacifica Municipal Pier’s west facing deck and concrete railing. Following this event, the Pier was closed due to safety concerns. City staff requested a structural engineering assessment of the above deck pier elements and a proposed repair and associated cost from a local engineering consultant. This information was provided to the City by the end of March 2021. The pier was reopened on April 2, 2021, but the damaged portion was fenced off for safety reasons. The City is currently moving forward with a repair project and is designing the repair. Construction will be funded by grant money provided through a Senate Bill 129. The City Council approved a resolution on December 13, 2021, to approve the application of the state grant funds for the repair of the pier and the application has been sent to the State Department of Parks and Recreation for processing. On May 13, 2022, the City received a Coastal Development Permit waiver from the California Coastal Commission to perform this work. A bid opening for the repair was held on June 9, 2022, and the City received one bid, which was $2 million above the project budget. Council rejected the bid and authorized the project to be rebid.

The City Council first ratified this proclamation (Attachment 1) at its regular meeting of January 25, 2016. Since that date, additional damage had occurred along Beach Boulevard and Esplanade Avenue as noted above.

Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on January 25, 2016, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency exists within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard every 30 days with August 8, 2022, being the most recent.

The City is using a combination of city staff, contractors, and consultants to manage the discussed emergency work. Staff will bring recommendations to the Council to end the emergency designation for projects on the list once conditions stabilize and the projects are no longer in need of the emergency designation.

The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
3 Packet Pg. 131
Pacifica City Council 3
September 12, 2022
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline From Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (PDF)
3 Packet Pg. 132
"ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline From Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (5085 :
"ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline From Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (5085 :

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

STAFF CONTACT:

Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Sam Bautista, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works / City Engineer (650) 738-3771
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a report regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at Pacifica State Beach. After Public Works staff investigated the report, it was determined that the storm drain pumping system and roof/bathrooms were damaged during the fire. The engines were destroyed, and the pumps needed to be replaced.

The damage to the pump station threatened and continues to threaten the safety of persons and properties within the watershed due to the risk of flooding without an operational pump station.

The City of Pacifica’s Emergency Plan and Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empower the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, to proclaim the existence of a local emergency when there is an actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and properties within this City.

The proclamation is subject to ratification by the City Council within 7 days, pursuant to the Pacifica Municipal Code. The proclamation of the existence of a local emergency further designates the City Manager or designated representative to act on behalf of the City for public assistance and for individual assistance for purpose of receipt, processing and coordination of all inquiries and requirements necessary to obtain available State and Federal assistance.

Additionally, pursuant to Section 3-15.09 (A) of the Pacifica Municipal Code, in cases of an emergency the City Manager is authorized to proceed at once to replace or repair any public facility without adopting plans, specifications, or working details, or giving notice for bids to let contracts. The City must comply with Public Contract Code Section 22050, which provides a process for City Council’s review of the emergency action if notice of bids to let contracts for public projects will not be given because of the emergency.

In this case, the City Manager has determined that the damaged pump station threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure, which 4 Packet Pg. 135
Pacifica City Council 2
September 12, 2022
requires immediate attention and constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code Section 1102.

Such conditions are, or are likely to be, beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency design and repair pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-15.09 without giving notice for bids to let contracts. Immediate action is, and continues to be necessary, due to the clear and imminent danger presented by any storm event that could occur during the time the storm water pump station is non-functional. Flooding could occur to areas upstream of the pump station, causing health and safety issues, as well as extensive property damage. As such, on April 8, 2020, the City Manager did proclaim the existence of a local emergency within the City and the need to continue the emergency action continues as the repair will take approximately 8-14 months or longer. The Proclamation of Local Emergency is attached to this staff report as Attachment 1.

City staff has contracted with the civil engineering firm of Schaaf & Wheeler of San Jose, California to assist the City with the rehabilitation of the pump station. In addition, the pump station has been cleared of any fire damaged debris and the damaged pumps/engines have been removed. On July 13, 2020, the City Council approved construction services agreement for rebuild and re-installation of a pump and gear drive, the renovation of bathrooms, purchase and installation of new stainless-steel doors, and repair pump station wet-well grates. As part of the on-going maintenance for the pump station, staff purchased a new pump which was approved by the Council at the August 9, 2020 City Council meeting. An emergency purchase agreement with Herc Rental for a temporary rental engine was also approved on September 1, 2020 and will remain in place until the pump station is operational. On October 12, 2020, temporary measures were completed to allow for a non-standard system of pumping at the Anza Pump Station until final repairs are completed. This work included a new pump, transfer switch, temporary roof, portable generator connections, and exterior double doors have been installed. Staff is continuing to evaluate and monitor storm water flows and purchased two new sump pumps to accommodate flows.

On May 10, 2021, City Council approved the purchase of two new Caterpillar engines utilizing the City’s established Sourcewell Cooperative Purchase Agreement. The rehabilitation plan is currently 100% completed, and staff has completed the engineering review. The roofing plan was approved by the Building Department. Staff has also completed selection of the Construction Management firm which was from the established On-Call Construction Management list. Staff is in the process of discussing permitting requirements for the overall project with the California Coastal Commission.

Staff completed the field portion of a topographic survey to support a PG&E application to reestablish natural gas service at the Anza Pump Station to supply the natural gas to run the prepurchased natural gas engines to drive the pumps. The City entered into an agreement with PG&E to tap the gas main and install a new gas meter. The City has also engaged a gas pipeline contractor for a quotation on installing the gas service line from the gas main to the gas meter. In addition, the City has submitted the Caltrans Encroachment Permit application required for gas service line construction on Highway 1 and has obtained a separate emergency Coastal Development Permit request with the California Coastal Commission for installation of the new gas line and a redundant pump/engine that was approved.

During a storm event on the morning of December 16, 2021, the City experienced some flooding in the lower Linda Mar area due to the temporary nonstandard pumping system that has been in use at Anza pump station due to the fire damaged pump station engines in March of 2020. This temporary system has been in place because the City has been working to reach 4 Packet Pg. 136
Pacifica City Council 3
September 12, 2022
agreement with the California Coastal Commission on the remaining permitting requirements for the permanent pumping system. The City faced several significant stormwater related events from October 2021 through December 2021 and will face more with the continuing storm season. Replacement of this temporary system is considered an emergency and staff is moving forward with construction of the permanent system. To further improve operations between now and when the Anza Pump Station Repair Project is completed, the City recently purchased a small diesel engine that will be used to drive one of the existing smaller stormwater pumps, thereby improving pump station resiliency in the interim. Staff issued a public request to prequalify bidders for the Anza Pump Station project in December 2021. Ultimately, two contractors were deemed qualified to bid on the project. Both contactors submitted bids for the project in February of 2022. The contractors specialize in pump stations.

As of May 1, 2022, the Anza Pump Station Repair Project’s General Contractor, DW Nicholson (DWN), has begun the work and is focusing on providing project equipment submittals and requests for information (RFIs). DWN is currently onsite and working. City consultant team members Schaaf and Wheeler (engineer of record providing construction support) and Ghirardelli and Associates (third-party construction manager) are working closely with City staff to process paperwork respond to questions and issues as they arise, and manage the construction work. Active construction continues at the Anza Pump Station with focus on the roof installation, which is anticipated to be completed mid-September. Project continues to finalize electrical equipment submittals and continuing coordination with the engine supplier. In addition, a new 2-inch gas service line for the new gas engines is out for public bid.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on April 13, 2020, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency at the Anza Pump Station every 30 days with August 8, 2022, being the most recent.

The City is using a combination of city staff, consultants, and contractors to manage the emergency work related to the Anza Pump Station repair project. The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach. Staff will continue to update the Council on the progress of this emergency work monthly through the emergency declaration Council reports
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to continue this local emergency.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (PDF)
4 Packet Pg. 137
RESOLUTION NO. 19-2020

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY AT THE

ANZA PUMP STATION AT THE PACIFICA STATE BEACH
______________________________________________________
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.05 of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) designate the City Manager as the Director of Emergency Services; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 4-2.05(a) empower the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when said city is affected or likely to be affected by an emergency, subject to ratification by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.02 of the PMC defines "emergency" as the “actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within this City caused by such conditions as earthquake, hazardous materials, plane crash, landslide, tsunami, epidemic, flood, riot, fire, or other conditions, including conditions resulting from a labor controversy, which conditions are or are likely to be beyond the capability of control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of this City, requiring the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat”; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to confirmation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, on Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a report regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach; and WHEREAS, after Public Works staff investigated the report, it was determined that the storm drain pumping system was damaged during the fire and that the engine and the motors would need to be replaced; and
WHEREAS, the damage to this pump station threatens the safety of persons and properties within the watershed due to the risk of flooding that can occur without an operational pump station; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that the damaged pump station threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure due to the risk of flooding and requires immediate attention and repair and as such constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code section 1102; and WHEREAS, such conditions are beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency repair pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-15.09 without giving notice for bids to let contract, ATTACHMENT 1

4.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5086 : Continuance pursuant to Public Contract Code 22050; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2020, the City Manager, in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of local emergency in the City of Pacifica, after determining that the damaged condition of the Anza Pump Station is likely to create conditions of disaster or extreme peril which will be beyond the services, personnel and equipment and facilities of the City; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 4-2.05(a) the City Council must take action to confirm the proclamation within 7 and in accordance with Public Contract Code section 22050 which requires confirmation by 2/3 of Council within 14 days of the emergency action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said Proclamation of Existence of Local Emergency, as issued by said City Manager in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, which is attached hereto as Attachment “A”, is hereby ratified and approved by the City of Pacifica City Council.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said local emergency is confirmed to exist and shall be deemed to continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Pacifica.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during the existence of this local emergency, the powers, functions and duties of the Director of Emergency Services, and the emergency organization of the City of Pacifica shall be those prescribed by state law, by the existing ordinances and resolutions of the City of Pacifica, as well as this resolution and any subsequent emergency orders of the City Council. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of April 2020, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers: Martin, Beckmeyer, Vaterlaus, Bier, O’Neill NOES, Councilmembers: None.

ABSENT, Councilmembers: None.

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers: None.

CITY OF PACIFICA
Deirdre Martin, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

4.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5086 : Continuance

PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to confirmation by the City Council at the earliest possible time; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, on Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a call regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach; and WHEREAS, after Public Works staff investigated, and determined that the storm drain pumping system was damaged during the fire; and
WHEREAS, the damage to the pump system threatens the safety of persons and property, including critical public infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, such conditions are or are likely to be beyond the handling capabilities of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency repair; and
WHEREAS, the City provides this written notification to the San Mateo County and State CalEMA’s Regional and Headquarter offices of a proclamation of local emergency; and WHEREAS, such proclamation shall be subject to confirmation by the Pacifica City Council at the earliest possible time.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that, in accordance with State Law and the City of Pacifica Municipal Code, the Director of Emergency Services proclaims the existence of a local emergency for the Anza Pump Station.

DATED: April 8, 2020
By:_____________________________
Kevin Woodhouse
Director of Emergency Services
Attachment 1

4.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5086 : Continuance

4.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5086 : Continuance

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On March 16, 2020, the City Manager, acting in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to PMC 4-2.05(a) and executed the "Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19")" ("Proclamation"). On March 18, 2020, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 18-2020 to ratify the Proclamation of local emergency due to COVID-19 (Attachment 1). The City’s Proclamation was sent to San Mateo County Offices of Emergency Services and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) and allows the City to seek state and federal funds relating to the emergency.

This proclamation of local emergency was based on the following findings.

BACKGROUND:

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. On January 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a Public Health Emergency for the United States of America. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) determined the virus presents a serious public health threat, requiring coordination among state and local health departments to ensure readiness for potential health threats associated with the virus.

On March 3, 2020 both the Director of Emergency Services of the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Health Officer issued proclamations of local emergencies based on the imminent and proximate threat to public health from the introduction of COVID-19 in San Mateo County. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors ratified both proclamations on March 10, 2020.
5 Packet Pg. 142
Pacifica City Council 2
September 12, 2022
On March 4, 2020 Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for broader spread of COVID-19.

On March 11, 2020 the WHO declared a global pandemic due to the significant spread of the virus and the increased numbers of confirmed cases worldwide.

On March 13, 2020, then President Donald J. Trump issued a Proclamation Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak finding that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constituted a national emergency, beginning as of March 1, 2020.

As of June 15, 2021, the California Governor terminated the Executive Orders that put into place the Stay Home Order and the Blueprint for a Safer Economy, and also phased out the majority of executive actions put in place since March 2020 as part of the pandemic response, leaving a subset of provisions in place that facilitate the ongoing recovery. Governor’s Orders currently in effect were N-07-21 and N-08-21, both adopted on June 11, 2021.

The California State Public Health Officer issued a new Order on June 11, 2021 to be effective June 15, 2021, which supercedes all prior State health orders. Restrictions that ended on June 15, 2021 include: physical distancing, capacity limits on businesses and the County tier system.

Starting on June 15, 2021, California reopened the economy and the state moved beyond the Blueprint for a Safer Economy system. All sectors listed in the current Blueprint returned to usual operations based on general public health recommendations. Starting on June 15, capacity and distancing restrictions were lifted for most businesses and activities.

In March 2020, the City closed public access to many City facilities, consistent with the State and County health orders in effect at that time. City operations continued with adjusted programs and services, staffing levels and modified operations to support a predominantly remote work model in order to protect public safety and to limit the potential for exposure to the COVID-19 virus. The City has further modified its operations and guidelines based on the orders and guidelines that went into effect on June 15, 2021.

Governor’s Executive Order N-08-21 continues modifications of the Brown Act to allow for local legislative bodies to hold meetings via teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, and supersedes the provisions previously set forth in Executive Order N-29-20, paragraph 3. These provisions of Executive Order N-08-21, subsection 42 applied though September 30, 2021.

On August 2, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo issued Order No. C19-12 mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, with limited exceptions. This Order was issued due to evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant circulating in San Mateo County. This variant is highly transmissible in indoor settings. San Mateo County Health Order No. C19-12 was ordered effective at 12:01 am on August 3, 2021 and will continue to be in effect until extended, rescinded, superseded, or amended in writing by the Health Officer.

On September 16, 2021, Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) was signed by the Governor and went into effect immediately upon signature as urgency legislation (codified under Government Code § 54953). AB 361 amends the Brown Act to provide additional provisions that allow meetings of 5 Packet Pg. 143
Pacifica City Council 3
September 12, 2022
legislative bodies to be conducted via teleconference.

Order No. C19-12 issued on August 2, 2021 by the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings remains in effect. The City's current practices at City facilities conform to the Health Order currently in effect.

In late November 2021, a new concerning COVID-19 variant was discovered and identified as the Omicron variant. The Omicron variant spreads rapidly even amongst some vaccinated individuals.

In December 2021, in response to the rapid spread of the Omicron variant, the California Department of Public Health issued guidance requiring masking indoors through January 15, 2022. This requirement was subsequently extended to February 15, 2022.

On January 8, 2002, the California Department of Public Health issued Updated Guidance for Local Health Jurisdictions on Isolation and Quarantine of the General Public (Link). This guidance updates isolation and quarantine recommendations in alignment with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recommends additional mitigation measures to exit isolation and quarantine, and clarifies that fully-vaccinated persons who are booster-eligible, but have not yet received their booster dose are now recommended to quarantine per updated CDC recommendations. The San Mateo County Health Department may adopt stricter guidance but has not done so as of the date of this report.

With COVID-19 case rates subsiding in early February 2022, on February 9, 2022, the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that San Mateo County would align with the state in lifting its indoor mask mandate for vaccinated persons beginning February 16, 2022.

Effective March 1, 2022, the State revised its mask mandate requirement such that unvaccinated individuals are no longer required to mask in indoor public settings; however, it is strongly recommended that all persons, regardless of vaccine status, continue indoor masking.

Universal masking shall remain required in specified high-risk settings such as public transportation; health care settings; congregate settings; long term care facilities; and in K-12 schools and childcare settings. As of March 11, 2022, the universal masking requirement for K12 and Childcare settings was terminated.

CURRENT ANALYSIS:

There have been no changes to State or County Health Orders or mandates with respect to COVID-19 that have a material effect on the City’s operations since the last update brought to Council at the August 8, 2022 regular meeting. The state of emergency issued by the Governor remains in place. The County of San Mateo Health Office and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continue to strongly recommend that residents stay up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines, get tested if symptomatic, and that all persons regardless of vaccine status continue to wear a mask indoors in public settings and on public transportation. San Mateo County Health expects to begin offering updated COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccines effective against the original strain of the virus and the Omicron variants at its community clinics beginning the week of September 12.

FISCAL IMPACT:
5 Packet Pg. 144
Pacifica City Council 4
September 12, 2022
None by this action; however, continuation of the local emergency will facilitate the ability for the City to request resources including financial support and reimbursement from the State Office of Emergency Services (OES) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for costs incurred in preparation and/or response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 145

5.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5113 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5113 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5113 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5113 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5113 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5113 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of a Resolution Making Findings as Required by AB 361 to Continue to Permit the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to Conduct Teleconferenced Meetings Due to Health and Safety Concerns Relating to COVID-19
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt a Resolution making findings pursuant to AB 361 to authorize the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19.

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
650-738-7409
[email protected]
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:

On March 4, 2020 Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for broader spread of COVID-19. On March 16, 2020, the City Manager, acting in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to PMC 4-2.05(a) and executed the "Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19")" ("Proclamation"). On March 18, 2020, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 18-2020 to ratify the Proclamation of local emergency due to COVID-19 and continues to affirm the existence of the local emergency.

Beginning with the Special City Council Meeting held on March 18, 2020 for the purpose of adopting Resolution No. 18-2020 ratifying the City Manager’s Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus (“COVID-19”), all City Council, Committee and Commission meetings have been held via videoconference using a Zoom Meeting or Zoom Webinar platform with no physical meeting location open to the public. The Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20 suspended certain requirements of the Brown Act to allow for public meetings to be held via teleconferenced meetings, either via audio or video or both, for all members of the body to participate from remote locations with no physical meeting location open to the public.

The Governor’s Executive Order N-08-21 issued on June 11, 2021 provided local jurisdictions a 6 Packet Pg. 152
Pacifica City Council 2
September 12, 2022
basis upon which to continue conducting public meetings via videoconference without a physical location open to the public under the relaxed provisions of the Brown Act until September 30, 2021.

Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) was signed by the Governor on September 16, 2021 and went into effect immediately upon signature as urgency legislation (codified under Government Code § 54953). AB 361 amends the Brown Act to provide additional provisions that allow meetings of legislative bodies to be conducted via teleconference. Its provisions allow a local agency legislative body to meet without complying with the standard teleconferencing requirements of the Brown Act if the Governor has proclaimed a State of Emergency and any of the following occurs:
1) State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing,
2) the meeting is being held for the purposes of determining, by a majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees;
3) the legislative body has determined that as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

In addition, AB 361 adds new procedures and clarifies the requirements for conducting remote meetings, including the following:
• Public Comment Opportunities in Real Time - a legislative body that meets remotely pursuant to AB 361 must allow members of the public to access the meeting via a call-in option or an internet-based service option, and the agenda for the remote meeting must provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the body in real time. A legislative body cannot require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting.
• No Action During Disruptions - in the event of a disruption that prevents the local agency from broadcasting the remote meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control that prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from taking any further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access is restored.
• Periodic Findings - Government Code § 54953(e)(B) requires the legislative body to hold a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risk to the health or safety of attendees.
6 Packet Pg. 153
Pacifica City Council 3
September 12, 2022
AB 361 will sunset on January 1, 2024.

DISCUSSION:

At the regular meeting of the City Council held on October 11, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 63-2021 making findings as required by AB 361 to permit the City Council and City Committees and Commissions to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to the health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19. The resolution also directed staff to agendize for Council consideration no less than every 30 days the need to continue to utilize teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361. The City Council subsequently adopted Resolution No. 69-2021 on November 8, 2021; Resolution No. 80-2021 on December 13, 2021; Resolution No. 01-2022 on January 10, 2022; and Resolution No. 07-2022 on February 14, 2022 re-affirming the findings required by AB 361 to continue to conduct teleconferenced public meetings due to COVID-19 risk.

With the COVID-19 update provided at the City Council meeting held on February 28, 2022, it was reported that although the Omicron variant spread rapidly during and after the December 2021 holiday season, with positive case rates spiking in mid-January 2022, there had been a dramatic decrease in positive cases in the third week of February, the health effects of the Omicron variant generally much less severe for vaccinated persons, and San Mateo County has a 93.9% vaccination rate for 5+ age. Effective February 16, 2022, the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that Health Officer Order No. c19-12 (For The Wearing of Face Coverings In Workplaces And Public Settings issued on August 2, 2021) was rescinded in full.

As a result of the decrease in case rates, lower health risks and higher vaccination rates, at the City Council meeting held on February 28, 2022, the City Manager had recommended the return to in-person City Council and City Committee and Commission meetings beginning March 14, 2022. The City Council approved of the return to in-person meetings beginning March 14, 2022 by majority vote at the February 28, 2022 City Council meeting.

At the City Council meeting held on May 23, 2022, with the increase in COVID-19 incidence and transmission and the vulnerability of certain segments of the population, the City Council authorized public meetings of the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to return to teleconferenced meetings with no physical location open to the public due to the health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19 with the adoption of Resolution No. 23-2022, and the City Council continued those findings on June 13, 2022, July 11, 2022, and August 8, 2022 with the adoption of Resolution Nos. 26-2022, 41-2022 and 46-2022, respectively.

Current Analysis:

There have been no changes to State or County Health Orders or mandates with respect to COVID-19 that have a material effect on the City’s operations since the last update brought to Council at the August 8, 2022 regular meeting. The state of emergency issued by the Governor remains in place. The County of San Mateo Health Office and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continue to strongly recommend that residents stay up-to-date with 6 Packet Pg. 154
Pacifica City Council 4
September 12, 2022
COVID-19 vaccines, get tested if symptomatic, and that all persons regardless of vaccine status continue to wear a mask indoors in public settings and on public transportation.

The enclosed Resolution continues to make the required findings under AB 361, and if adopted, it will allow the City to continue to conduct City Council and City Commission and Committee meetings via teleconference with no physical location open to the public, to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19, as well as during other state-proclaimed emergencies, such as earthquakes or wildfires, where physical attendance may present a risk.

The resolution also directs staff to agendize for Council consideration no less than every 30 days the need to continue to utilize teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361 if found that there is a continued risk to public health and safety.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“An Engaged Community” - includes taking actions to restore trust in city government, expanding communication, and building community.
“Maintaining a Safe Community” - includes support our first responders (police, fire, public works), responding to emergencies, protecting people, property, businesses, and our infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, storm and waste water), and engaging in emergency preparedness and prevention activities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (PDF)
Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 155
Pacifica City Council 5
September 12, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA MAKING FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY AB 361 TO PERMIT THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY

COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNCIL TO CONDUCT

TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS DUE TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS RELATING TO COVID-19
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, as part of the State of California’s response to address the global COVID-19 outbreak, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for broader spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, at 12:11 p.m., the City Manager, in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of local emergency in the City of Pacifica, after determining that the rapidly widespread of COVID-19 is likely to create conditions of disaster or extreme peril which will be beyond the services, personnel and equipment and facilities of the City and executed the “Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”)” (“Proclamation”); and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 18-2020 ratifying the “Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”)”, which continues to remain in place; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the Governor of California executed Executive Order N-29-20 which suspended and modified specified provisions in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section § 54950 et seq.) and authorized local legislative bodies to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and address the local legislative body; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo issued Order No. C19-12 mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, with limited exceptions due to the COVID-19 Delta variant circulating in San Mateo County and evidence of the Delta variant being highly transmissible in indoor settings; and
6 Packet Pg. 156
Pacifica City Council 6
September 12, 2022
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, the Governor of California executed Executive Order N-08-21 which extended the provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 concerning teleconference accommodations for public meetings through September 30, 2021; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the Governor of California signed into law Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361, Rivas) (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) amending Government Code § 54953 and providing alternative teleconferencing requirements to conduct public meetings during a proclaimed state of emergency; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica has conducted public meetings of City Council and City Committees and Commissions via teleconference from March 18, 2020 through March 13, 2022 under the modified provisions of the Brown Act as allowed for by Governor’s Orders N-29-20, N-08-21 and/or N-15-21 in effect at the time; and WHEREAS, AB 361 (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) imposes requirements to ensure members of the public are able to attend and participate in public meetings conducted via teleconference, including:
• Notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option;
• The legislative body shall take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored; • Prohibits the legislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and specifies that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body and offer comments in real time;
• Prohibits the legislative body from closing the public comment period until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed; and WHEREAS, the City has already implemented and is in full compliance with the requirements listed above when conducting public meetings via teleconference, which are now codified in Government Code § 54953(e)(2)(B-G); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code § 54953(e)(B), the legislative body shall hold a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees. The City Council must make these findings no later than 30 days after the first teleconferenced meeting is held pursuant to AB 361 (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) after September 30, 2021, and must also make these findings 6 Packet Pg. 157
Pacifica City Council 7
September 12, 2022
every 30 days thereafter, in order to continue to allow teleconference accessibility for conducing public meetings; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo issued Order No. C19-12 mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, with limited exceptions. This Order was issued due to evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant circulating in San Mateo County.

This variant is highly transmissible in indoor settings. San Mateo County Health Order No.

C19-12 was ordered effective at 12:01 am on August 3, 2021; and WHEREAS, in December 2021 and January 2022 the COVID-19 Omicron variant has been observed by scientists and medical professionals to spread rapidly even amongst some vaccinated individuals and continues to present a health and safety risk to the general public; and
WHEREAS, effective February 16, 2022 the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that Health Officer Order No. c19-12 (For The Wearing of Face Coverings In Workplaces And Public Settings issued on August 2, 2021) was rescinded in full); and WHEREAS, to the County of San Mateo Health Officer strongly recommends getting vaccinated or boosters for COVID-19, improve ventilation throughout indoor spaces as much as possible, wear a well-fitting mask in crowded indoor public places, and continue to follow State isolation and quarantine guidance to prevent the spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, as of the week of September 5, 2022, the County of San Mateo Health Officer and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) continue to strongly recommend that all persons, regardless of vaccine status, continue to mask in indoor public settings; and WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has cautioned that some people and communities, such as our oldest citizens, people who are immunocompromised, and people with disabilities, are at higher risk for serious illness due to COVID-19 and should take additional precautions such as avoiding crowded indoor activities with poor ventilation; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2022, June 13, 2022, July 11, 2022 and August 8, 2022, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution Nos. 23-2022, 26-2022, 41-2022 and 46-2022, respectively, making findings as required by AB 361 to permit the City Council and City Committees and Commissions to conduct teleconferenced meetings to due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the City cannot ensure that social distancing can be maintained by Councilmembers, Commissioners, Committee members and/or members of the public in Council Chambers or at other locations where City Committees and Commissions regularly meet for the duration of meetings in order to safeguard the most vulnerable populations, 6 Packet Pg. 158
Pacifica City Council 8
September 12, 2022
and COVID-19 variants and transmission rates remain an imminent and serious risk to public health.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby declares that the recitals set forth above are true and correct, and incorporated into this resolution as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby declares that a state of emergency as a result of the threat of COVID-19 still exists and continues to impact the ability of members of the public, the City Council, Council appointed Commissions and Committees, City staff and consultants to meet safely in person and would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees.

SECTION 3. The State of California and the City of Pacifica continue to follow safety measures in response to COVID-19 as ordered or recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), California Department of Public Health (DPH), and/or County of San Mateo, as applicable, including facial coverings when required. Based upon that guidance, in person attendance indoors at public meetings continues to present a health risk for certain segments of the population, necessitating teleconferencing to allow for meaningful public participation options for all Pacifica constituents.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to the findings listed in this Resolution, the City Council and Council appointed Commissions and Committees are authorized to utilize teleconferencing to conduct public meetings pursuant to AB 361 and Government Code § 54953, as amended thereby.

SECTION 5. The City Council determines that, every 30 days, it will reconsider the circumstances of the emergency and review whether it continues to directly impact the ability of the Council and appointed Committees and Commissions members to meet safely in person.

SECTION 6. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. Effective Date: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
• • • • •
6 Packet Pg. 159
Pacifica City Council 9
September 12, 2022
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 12th day of September, 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. 160
Assembly Bill No. 361
CHAPTER 165
An act to add and repeal Section 89305.6 of the Education Code, and to amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of, and to add and repeal Section 11133 of, the Government Code, relating to open meetings, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
[Approved by Governor September 16, 2021. Filed with
Secretary of State September 16, 2021.]
legislative counsel
’
s digest
AB 361, Robert Rivas. Open meetings: state and local agencies:
teleconferences.
(1) Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency, as those terms are defined, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate. The act contains specified provisions regarding the timelines for posting an agenda and providing for the ability of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public.

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

Existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, authorizes the Governor, or the Director of Emergency Services when the governor is inaccessible, to proclaim a state of emergency under specified circumstances.

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

92 6.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, as specified.

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

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

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

Existing law prohibits a legislative body from requiring, as a condition to attend a meeting, a person to register the person’s name, or to provide other information, or to fulfill any condition precedent to the person’s attendance.
92 Ch. 165 — 2 —

6.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) This bill would exclude from that prohibition, a registration requirement imposed by a third-party internet website or other online platform not under the control of the legislative body.
(2) Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend any meeting of a state body. The act requires at least one member of the state body to be physically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.

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

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

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

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) to make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the legislative body. With respect to a legislative body holding a public meeting pursuant to these provisions, the bill would suspend certain requirements of existing law, including the requirements that each teleconference location be accessible to the public and that members of the public be able to address the legislative body at each teleconference location.

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

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

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

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

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) and make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the legislative body.
(b)  (1)  For a legislative body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all requirements in this article requiring the physical presence of members, the clerk or other personnel of the legislative body, or the public, as a condition of participation in or quorum for a public meeting, are hereby suspended.
(2)  For a legislative body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all of the following requirements in this article are suspended:
(A)  Each teleconference location from which a member will be participating in a public meeting or proceeding be identified in the notice and agenda of the public meeting or proceeding.
(B)  Each teleconference location be accessible to the public. (C)  Members of the public may address the legislative body at each teleconference conference location.
(D)  Post agendas at all teleconference locations.
(E)  At least one member of the legislative body be physically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.
(c)  A legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, consistent with the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), shall have satisfied any requirement that the legislative body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. A legislative body need not make available any physical location from which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment.
(d)  If a legislative body holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, the legislative body shall also do both of the following:
(1)  Implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable modification or accommodation from individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and resolving any doubt whatsoever in favor of accessibility.
(2)  Advertise that procedure each time notice is given of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e).
(e)  Except to the extent this section provides otherwise, each legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section shall do both of the following:
(1)  Give advance notice of the time of, and post the agenda for, each public meeting according to the timeframes otherwise prescribed by this article, and using the means otherwise prescribed by this article, as applicable.
92 — 5 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (2)  In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, also give notice of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment. As to any instance in which there is a change in the means of public observation and comment, or any instance prior to the effective date of this section in which the time of the meeting has been noticed or the agenda for the meeting has been posted without also including notice of the means of public observation and comment, a legislative body may satisfy this requirement by advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time. Advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time shall include, but need not be limited to, posting such means on the legislative body’s internet website.
(f)  All legislative bodies utilizing the teleconferencing procedures in this section are urged to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the otherwise applicable provisions of this article, in order to maximize transparency and provide the public access to legislative body meetings.
(g)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 31, 2022, and as of that date is repealed.

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) or otherwise electronically, consistent with the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), shall have satisfied any requirement that the state body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. A state body need not make available any physical location from which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment.
(d)  If a state body holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, the state body shall also do both of the following:
(1)  Implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable modification or accommodation from individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and resolving any doubt whatsoever in favor of accessibility.
(2)  Advertise that procedure each time notice is given of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e).
(e)  Except to the extent this section provides otherwise, each state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section shall do both of the following:
(1)  Give advance notice of the time of, and post the agenda for, each public meeting according to the timeframes otherwise prescribed by this article, and using the means otherwise prescribed by this article, as applicable.
(2)  In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, also give notice of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment. As to any instance in which there is a change in the means of public observation and comment, or any instance prior to the effective date of this section in which the time of the meeting has been noticed or the agenda for the meeting has been posted without also including notice of the means of public observation and comment, a state body may satisfy this requirement by advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time. Advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time shall include, but need not be limited to, posting such means on the state body’s internet website.
(f)  All state bodies utilizing the teleconferencing procedures in this section are urged to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the otherwise applicable provisions of this article, in order to maximize transparency and provide the public access to state body meetings.
(g)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 31, 2022, and as of that date is repealed.

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) 54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislati
ve body of a local agency shall
be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4)  For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

6.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (d) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
(C) The legislative body shall conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. (D) In the event of a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the body shall take no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored. Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1.
(E) The legislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time.

6.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (3)  If a state of emergency remains acti
ve, or state or local officials have
imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the legislative body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(A)  The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B)  Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i)  The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii)  State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
(4)  For the purposes of this subdivision, “state of emergency” means a state of emergency proclaimed pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act (Article 1 (commencing with Section 8550) of Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2).
(f)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory o ver
which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19)

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) the public to address the legislati
ve body and offer comment in real time.

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

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) of the legislati
ve body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4)  For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

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

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) legislati
ve body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

6.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (b) The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds and repeals Section 89305.6 of the Education Code, Section 2 of this act, which adds and repeals Section 11133 of the Government Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of this act, which amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of the Government Code, all increase and potentially limit the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
(1) By removing the requirement that public meetings be conducted at a primary physical location with a quorum of members present, this act protects the health and safety of civil servants and the public and does not preference the experience of members of the public who might be able to attend a meeting in a physical location over members of the public who cannot travel or attend that meeting in a physical location. (2) By removing the requirement for agendas to be placed at the location of each public official participating in a public meeting remotely, including from the member’s private home or hotel room, this act protects the personal, private information of public officials and their families while preserving the public’s right to access information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.

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

The facts constituting the necessity are:

In order to ensure that state and local agencies can continue holding public meetings while providing essential services like water, power, and fire protection to their constituents during public health, wildfire, or other states of emergencies, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.

O
92 — 19 — Ch. 165

6.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19)

6.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5114 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Grant to Pacifica Community Television for Facility Purchase RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the Resolution Granting $50,000 to Pacifica Community Television to be Applied to Purchase of 580 Crespi Drive, Unit E, and appropriate $50,000 from the General Fund Unallocated Balance for this grant.

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
650-738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Pacifica Community Television (PCT) serves as the City’s local cable access provider, broadcasting City public meetings for residents to be able to be engaged with City business and airing public service announcements, commercials, economic development/business promotion, and other educational programming that supports and promotes City services, economic development, and public information. During the pandemic, PCT assisted the City in providing essential health and safety information to the community. PCT facility/studio is located at 580 Crespi Drive, Unit E. PCT also provides services to Half Moon Bay, unincorporated areas of coastal San Mateo County, and numerous special districts in the region.

Over the past couple years, the 580 Crespi Drive complex of business units was purchased by a new owner who obtained City approval of a subdivision to create commercial condominiums.

As a result of this conversion, business tenants at 580 Crespi Drive are being asked to purchase their units for ownership, or to move out upon expiration of their lease. Over the past year, PCT has pursued the viability of purchasing their unit. If successful in their purchase, they would be able to seamlessly continue to provide community television services without disruption that would be caused by trying to secure and set up a different facility/studio.

As summarized in the attached letter from PCT, they have negotiated a below-market purchase deal for their unit at $775,000, and are requesting a $50,000 grant from the City, to be combined with a $50,000 grant from Half Moon Bay, and a to-be-determined grant (but likely at least $100,000) from the County, to assist with their down payment. This collaborative assistance from PCT’s major clients will enable them to financially plan for and meet their on-going facility mortgage payments and continue uninterrupted and secure community cable services into the future.

PCT’s services are critical to broadcasting City public meetings in order for community members to engage in City business. If PCT had to relocate their facility/studio, their services could be significantly disrupted, impacting community members’ ability to engage remotely in public meetings. In order to continue this uninterrupted community benefit, the City Manager recommends granting PCT their $50,000 request in this unique circumstance. 7 Packet Pg. 186
Pacifica City Council 2
September 12, 2022
Additionally, the City’s agreement with PCT dates back to July 2007 and is now expired. The City Manager recommends that the agreement be updated this fiscal year and that the City’s handling of Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) fees of approximately $135,000 per year to PCT in addition to $49,550 annual contract fees for public broadcast, be reviewed during agreement negotiations to ensure mutual benefit and legal compliance in the use of PEG fees.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council could choose to not provide this grant or provide a lower amount than requested by PCT.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The continued viability of local cable access television relates to the City Council’s Goal of An Engaged Community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Approval of this grant will decrease the General Fund Unallocated Balance by $50,000.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
7 Packet Pg. 187
Pacifica City Council 3
September 12, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING A ONE-TIME GRANT OF $50,000 TO PACIFICA COMMUNITY TELEVISION TO BE APPLIED TO PURCHASE OF A BUSINESS CONDO AT 580 CRESPI DRIVE, UNIT E WHEREAS, Pacifica Community Television (PCT) serves as the City’s local cable access provider, broadcasting City public meetings and airing public service announcements and public information; and
WHEREAS, the 580 Crespi Drive complex of business units was purchased by a new owner and legally converted to business condominiums forcing tenants to purchase their units; and
WHEREAS, PCT have negotiated a low-market purchase deal for their unit at $775,000 and are requesting a $50,000 grant from the City, to be combined with a $50,000 grant from Half Moon Bay and a to-be-determined grant from the County to assist with their down payment; and
WHEREAS, PCT’s uninterrupted services are critical to broadcast City public meetings to engage community members in City business.

RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that the City Council hereby:
• approves the one-time $50,000 grant to PCT to be used towards the down payment for the purchase of 580 Crespi Drive, Unit E, and authorizes the City Manager to execute the required contract documents
• amends the FY 2022-23 Budget to appropriate the same amount from the General Fund Unallocated Fund Balance
• authorize the City Manager to renegotiate the City agreement with PCT to review the City’s remittance of Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) fees in addition to the annual public broadcast contract fees to PCT to ensure mutual benefit and legal compliance in the use of PEG fees
• • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 12th day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
7 Packet Pg. 188
Pacifica City Council 4
September 12, 2022
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ _________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 7 Packet Pg. 189

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Notice of Completion - FY 2021-22 Pacifica Beach Parking Lots Seal Coat Project RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file the Notice of Completion for the FY 2021-22 Pacifica Beach Parking Lots Seal Coat Project; and Authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

STAFF CONTACT:

Ryan Marquez, Project Manager
[email protected]
(650) 738-3769
Sam Bautista, Deputy Director of Public Works
[email protected]
(650) 738-3771
Lisa Petersen, Director of Public Works
[email protected]
(650) 737-3767
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On April 11, 2022, Council awarded a construction services agreement to Dryco Construction, Inc. for the FY 2021-22 Pacifica Beach Parking Lots Seal Coat Project in an amount not to exceed $209,000, including contingencies and change orders.

The Pacifica Beach Parking Lots Seal Coat Project completed pavement maintenance on four beach parking lots in Linda Mar & Rockaway Beach, all of which are heavily utilized for public parking throughout the year. There was a portion of the North Linda Mar parking lot that was not completed due to the Anza Pump Station work but will be finished after the pump station work is complete.

There was one construction change order issued to the contractor during the course of construction in the amount of $17,643 to increase the pavement dig outs for needed areas and to deduct the work in the North Lot to be completed at a later time. With this change order and amendment, the final construction cost for the project was $191,888.90.

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 the City intends 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 8 Packet Pg. 190
Pacifica City Council 2
September 12, 2022
contract law protects subcontractors from contractors who may not pay them properly. It also protects the City from claims against the City for any nonpayment on the part of the contractor.

The City withheld 5% of the contract amount, $9,594.45, 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 1) 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:

Approval of the Notice of Completion is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Maintaining a Safe Community: This project performed pavement maintenance that will promote public health and safety.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the filing of the Notice of Completion. The total project Source and Use of Funds table is shown below. It should be noted a portion of the balance will be used to complete the maintenance on the northern portion of the North Linda Mar lot once the pump station work has been completed.

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Fund 22 - Capital Improvement Fund $250,000.00
Total Source of Funds $250,000.00
Construction Cost ($191,888.90)
Total Use of Funds ($191,888.90)
Project End Balance $58,111.10
ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Notice of Completion (DOCX)
8 Packet Pg. 191
Pacifica City Council 3
September 12, 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
FY 2021-22 PACIFICA BEACH PARKING LOTS SEAL COAT 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 Dryco Construction, Inc., on August 3rd, 2022; 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 12th day of September 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 Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney 8 Packet Pg. 192
ATTACHMENT 1

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR THE FY 2021-22 PACIFICA BEACH PARKING SEAL COAT PROJECT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California, by Sam Bautista, City Engineer of the City of Pacifica, California, that the contract awarded to Dryco Construction., Inc. on April 11, 2022, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications 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 3 rd day of August 2022
and that acceptance of completion of said work was ordered by the City Council of said City, adopted on the 12
th day of September 2022, and that the name of the surety on the contractor's bond for labor and materials on said project is Travelers Casualty and Surety Company.

That said work consists, generally of asphalt base repairs, pavement striping and markings and other miscellaneous work.

Name and address of Owner: City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, California 94044
Sam 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.

Sam Bautista, P.E.

City Engineer
Executed at Pacifica, California, on September 12, 2022.

8.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Notice of Completion [Revision 1] (5104 : Notice of Completion - Beach Parking Lots Seal Coat Project)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/12/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Annual Agreements Over $50,000 for the Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division for FY 2022-2023.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve Annual Agreements for the purchases of equipment, supplies, materials and services in amounts over $50,000 for FY 2022-2023 for routine and recurring maintenance, repairs and operations of Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division from Enterprise Funds (Funds 18 and 34) for a total of $360,000; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to these agreements.

STAFF CONTACT:

Maria Aguilar, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works (Wastewater) (650) 738-4660
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

During the FY 2022-23 budget approval process, the Council approved funding for Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division (WW) Operations and Maintenance Expenditures (Fund 18) and WW Capital Improvements Program (Fund 34). The Council approved funding for the WW chemical expenses for the purchase of the polymer supply, the WW UV supplies and services for the ultra-violet disinfection system equipment, and the Anza Pump Station Repair Project that includes equipment rental services.

Each fiscal year, WW estimates the quantity of services, equipment, supplies and materials that will be needed for recurring maintenance, repairs, and operations during the fiscal year. Items that are proprietary and sold only through the manufacturer, have only one authorized distributor in the area, or have proven to be the only product/service acceptable are sole-sourced.

The following are supplies, materials or services that were deemed by staff to be sole source procurement, or the least cost compared to known vendors:

Polymer Chemical Supply:

Polymer is used in gravity belt thickeners and centrifuges at the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (Plant) to thicken and dewater sludge during wastewater treatment process. It is imperative that the polymer dosed in the centrifuge reacts well with the wet sludge to produce a clear centrate (wastewater liquid and polymer byproduct) that goes back to the Plant’s headworks to be retreated. Having a clear centrate is an indication that the sludge has been dewatered well, thus producing a dryer bio-solid cake. Moreover, the centrate should be clear of 9 Packet Pg. 194
Pacifica City Council 2
September 12, 2022
solids prior to going back to the headworks for retreatment so as not to clog and/or damage the pumps and other equipment.

Up to the late 2009, the Plant used various types of polymers but ended up clogging the pumps, and the biosolids produced were not the desired dryness. Because of constant equipment breakdown more manpower was needed to keep the Plant in operation. These on-going issues prompted staff to invite polymer manufacturer representatives to run their polymer through our system. Clarifloc WE-2123 (Clarifloc) polymer supplied by Polydyne, Inc. and Zetag 8818 (Zetag) supplied by Kubwater have similar and excellent performance. However, the cost of Zetag is $2.18 per pound or $5,014 per tote while the cost of Clarifloc is $1.75 per pound or $4,025 per tote - a net saving of $991 per tote or $44,595 annually for 45 totes if Clarifloc is used. Based on Clarifloc being the lessor cost per pound, a Purchase Order with Polydyne is recommended. A Purchase Order in the amount of $200,000 is recommended and will cover the polymer chemical expenditure for WW for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, as projected by staff.

Trojan System UV 4000 Original Replacement Parts:

The Plant uses ultra-violet (UV) to disinfect its effluent prior to discharging to Calera creek. UV disinfection is a physical process that instantaneously neutralizes microorganisms as they pass by ultraviolet lamps submerged in the effluent. The process adds nothing to the water but UV light, and therefore, has no impact on the chemical composition or the dissolved oxygen content of the water. For this process, the Plant utilizes the Trojan System UV4000 manufactured and trademarked by Trojan Technologies (Trojan).

The following are reasons why Trojan System UV4000 Original Replacement Parts from Trojan Technologies have been determined to be Sole Source commodities:
• In the Engineered Submittal Package for the Trojan System UV4000. Trojan provided an equipment performance guarantee stating that the system will meet the required level of disinfection provided that the system is operated and maintained in accordance with recommendations made by Trojan.
• In order for this equipment guarantee to be maintained, it is imperative that the appropriate components and replacement parts be used in the system. There are key replacement parts and system components that directly influence the performance and reliability of the system. Among these critical replacement parts are the UV lamps, sleeves, electronic ballasts, wiper seals, printed circuitry etc. • Without using lamps, ballasts, and other components that are approved and validated by Trojan, they cannot guarantee that the system will provide the required germicidal output. Subsequently, they cannot guarantee that the required UV dose is being delivered, if lamp output, ballast efficiency and system programming is unknown. • In order to keep the equipment performance guarantee intact, it is recommended that specialized system components be purchased and contracted from Trojan Technologies which has propriety rights to Trojan System UV4000 original replacement parts.

A Purchase Order in the amount of $100,000 is recommended and will cover the UV replacement parts expenditure for WW for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, as projected by staff. 600 Horsepower (HP) Engine Rental from Herc Rental at Anza Pump Station:

On Monday, March 16, 2020, a fire incident damaged the Anza Pump Station (Anza PS). Three 9 Packet Pg. 195
Pacifica City Council 3
September 12, 2022
engines and two of the three engine-driven pumps were destroyed, making these units nonoperational and requiring replacement. Consequently, the damage to the pump station threatens the safety of persons and properties within the watershed due to the risk of flooding that can occur without an operational pump station. Therefore, on April 8, 2020, the City Manager, in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of local emergency in the City of Pacifica. Then on April 13, 2020, the City Council during their regular meeting, ratified and approved the Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station. The said local emergency is confirmed to exist and shall be deemed to continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council.

While the above critical equipment has been ordered and reconstruction of Anza PS is in progress, a temporary diesel engine is in place to drive the remaining pump to keep Anza PS operational. On September 1, 2020, an Emergency Purchase Agreement with Herc Rental for the rental of a temporary 600 HP engine was approved and will remain in-place until the pump station is back to its normal operation.

Staff has continued to update Council on the requirement for the temporary engine rental to maintain operation during the design and construction of the Anza Pump Station Repair Project through an Emergency Proclamation report that is provided at the first Council meeting of each month. In FY 21-22, approximately $76,000 was spent on the rental fees. In December 2021, the City re-negotiated the monthly rental rate down to approximately $5,000 a month.

A Purchase Order in the amount of $60,000 is recommended and will cover the 600 HP Engine Rental from Herc Rental expenditure for the WWTP for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, as projected by staff.

For the above reasons, the City Manager is recommending the approval of the Annual Purchase Orders for the purchases of equipment, supplies, materials and services in amounts over $50,000 for FY 2022-2023 for routine and recurring maintenance, repairs and operations of Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division from Enterprise Funds (Funds 18 and 34) for a total of $360,000.

Staff continues to assess any purchases of equipment, supplies, materials and services that will be over $50,000 during the fiscal year, and will bring back those items to the City Council for approval.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may choose not to approve the Annual Agreements; however, doing so would delay the treatment of wastewater and is likely to violate the Plant’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and would also result in increased risk of pump station failure, which would cause flooding and could threaten the safety of persons and property, including public infrastructure. The City Manager does not recommend this alternate action.

RELATION TO CITY GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Annual Purchase Orders is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: The Annual Purchase Agreement for the polymer and UV supplies will ensure continuous treatment of wastewater at the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant and compliance with its NPDES permit, while the Annual Purchase Order for the rental of the engine will ensure continuous operation of the Anza Pump Station.
9 Packet Pg. 196
Pacifica City Council 4
September 12, 2022
• Maintaining a Safe Community: The Annual Purchase Agreement for the polymer and UV supplies will ensure continuous treatment of wastewater at the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant and compliance with its NPDES permit, while the Annual Agreement for the rental of the engine will ensure continuous operation of the Anza Pump Station.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Source and Use of Funds spreadsheet is shown below.

Vendor Total Use
of Funds
Funds Total
Project
Source
Estimated
Project End
Balance
Polymer $ 200,000 Enterprise Fund (Fund 18) $ 200,000 $ 70,000 Chemical Account No.

Supply 18.940741.52342.0000.000
Trojan System $ 100,000 Enterprise Fund (Fund 18) $ 100,000 $ 1,300 UV4000 Original Account No.

Replacement 18.940741.52341.0000.000
Parts
600 HP Engine $ 60,000 Enterprise Fund (Fund 34) $ 60,000 $ 2,000,000 Rental Account No.

34.900000.52800.C036.000
Total $ 360,000 $ 360,000
No additional budget authority is necessary as sufficient funds have been allocated in the Wastewater Enterprise Fund FY 2022-23 budget for these purchases.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Purchase Agreement Polydyne FY 2022-23_Signed (PDF)
TrojanPartsFY2022-23PurchaseAgreementSigned (PDF)
Emergency Purchase Memo - Herc Rental signed (PDF)
9 Packet Pg. 197
Pacifica City Council 5
September 12, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING FY 2022-23 AGREEMENTS FOR THE PURCHASES OF EQUIPMENT, SURPLIES, MATERIALS AND SERVICES OVER $50,000 IN PUBLIC WORKS WASTEWATER

DIVISION
WHEREAS, each fiscal year, Wastewater Division estimates the quantity of services, equipment, supplies and materials that will be needed for recurring maintenance, repairs, and operations during the fiscal year. Items that are proprietary and sold only through the manufacturer, have only one authorized distributor in the area, or have proven to be the only product/service acceptable are sole-sourced; and
WHEREAS, During the FY 2022-23 budget approval process, the Council approved sufficient funding for Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division (WW) Operations and Maintenance Expenditures (Fund 18) and WW Capital Improvements Program (Fund 34) that includes these purchases; and
WHEREAS, the City’s purchasing policy requires all contracts in access of $50,000 per year to be approved by the City Council; and
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that the City Council hereby approves the FY2022-23 purchases as further detailed in the table below:

VendorTotal
Use of
FundsFundsTo
tal Project
SourceEstimat
ed Project End
Balance
Polymer $ 200,000 Enterprise Fund (Fund 18) $ 200,000 $ 70,000 Chemical Account No.

Supply 18.940741.52342.0000.000
Trojan System $ 100,000 Enterprise Fund (Fund 18) $ 100,000 $ 1,300 UV4000 Original Account No.

Replacement 18.940741.52341.0000.000
Parts
600 HP Engine $ 60,000 Enterprise Fund (Fund 34) $ 60,000 $ 2,000,000 Rental Account No.

34.900000.52800.C036.000
Total $ 360,000 $ 360,000
• • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 12th day of September 2022, by the following vote:
9 Packet Pg. 198
Pacifica City Council 6
September 12, 2022
AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ _________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 9 Packet Pg. 199

Page 1 ends

Pacifica City CouncilSeptember 12, 2022

Pacifica City Council
September 12, 2022