Agenda packet — Pacifica City Council, October 10, 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 October 10, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
October 10, 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 October 10, 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 – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION – Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2)(e)(1): (One Potential Case)
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Vaterlaus
Closed Session Report
City Council Regular Meeting 3 October 10, 2022

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Special Presentation - California Department of Insurance B. Proclamation - Fire Prevention Week

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 8/16/22 through 8/31/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 8/16/22 through 8/31/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on September 12, 2022 and the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on September 26, 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.

City Council Regular Meeting 4 October 10, 2022

7. Resolution approving the contract amendment with Regional Government Services for Financial consulting services
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to extend the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Regional Government Services for Financial Services at the estimated additional cost of up to $80,000 to cover services through the end of the current fiscal year.

8. Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Approving Execution of Settlement Agreement among the City of Pacifica, Sierra Mountain Construction, Inc. (“SMCI”) Walter C. Smith Company, Inc. (“W.C. Smith”), Blocka Construction, Inc. (“Blocka”), Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”), Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”), and First Specialty Insurance Corporation (“First Specialty”) arising out of the Wet Weather Equalization Basin Project (“Project”), CIP # C030.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the resolution approving execution of Settlement Agreement among the City, SMCI, W.C. Smith, Blocka, Travelers, Scottsdale, Hartford, and First Specialty arising out of the Project.

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

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

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.

CONSIDERATION

9. Resolution Approving a Second Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with Recology of the Coast to extend the Term an additional ten years, with an option to extend an additional five years, approve the rate schedule set by Recology for single family residential and commercial rates for 2023, revise City fees to comply with applicable law, City Council Regular Meeting 5 October 10, 2022
and other various amendments; and Finding approval of the Second Amendment exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act; and Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution:
1) Approving a Second Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with Recology of the Coast to extend the Term an additional ten years, with an option to extend an additional five years, approve the rate schedule set by Recology for single family residential and commercial rates for 2023, revise City fees to comply with applicable law, and other various amendments; and
2) Finding approval of the Second Amendment exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act; and
3) Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment.

10. Short-term Rental Program Update and Discussion of Options for Future Amendments to Existing Regulations
PROPOSED ACTION: Discuss the City’s existing Short-term Rental (STR) Program and information about residential property sales resulting in subsequent STR use and provide direction on whether amendments to the STR Program regulations are warranted at this time.

11. Adoption of an Ordinance to enact a new Article 52 “Outdoor Commercial Permits” and to amend Section 9-4.2308 “Commercial and Industrial Uses Outside Structures” of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to conduct commercial activity outside of an enclosed structure (Text Amendment TA-122-22, File No. 2022-017) and finding the Text Amendment Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Adoption of Resolution Approving the Outdoor Permit Guidelines with standards for development relating to Outdoor Commercial Areas; and Adoption of Resolution Approving Maximum Application Deposit Fee for Outdoor Commercial Permits
PROPOSED ACTION:

1. Move to waive the second reading and adopt an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to Enact a New Article 52 ‘Outdoor Commercial Permits’ and to Amend Section 9-4.2308 ‘Commercial and Industrial Uses Outside Structures’ of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Create a Process for Commercial Businesses to Conduct Commercial Activity Outside of an Enclosed Structure and Finding the Text Amendment Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Text Amendment TA-122-22, File No. 2022-017),”

2. Adopt Resolution Approving the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines and Finding the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(File No. 2022-017) included as Attachment A to this staff report.

3. Adopt Resolution Approving a Maximum Application Deposit Fee for Outdoor Commercial Permits (File No. 2022-017) included as Attachment B to this staff report.

City Council Regular Meeting 6 October 10, 2022

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

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

HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:

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

View on the Internet:

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

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

Agendas are available at the City Council meeting

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

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

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/10/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for Dated 8/16/22 through 8/31/22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 8/16/22 through 8/31/22.

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 8/16/22 through 8/31/22 in the amount of $1,248,652.17 as written on regular checks numbered 61511-61711 & 802 (Attachment 1). These disbursements are for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT:

These disbursements are within budgeted appropriations.

ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61511-61711 & 61802-8-16 to 8-31-22 (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 7
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY SEP1322 8:09 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 SEP1322 8:09 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61511 - 61711
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61511 $337844.56 08/16/22 05495 0 W.E. LYONS CONSTRUCTION CO. S OUTSTANDING 1 61512 $5213.12 08/19/22 00009 8 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 61513 $715.72 08/19/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 61514 $632.00 08/19/22 04707 0 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE S OUTSTANDING 1 61515 $1194.14 08/19/22 00045 2 ALBERTSONS / SAFEWAY S OUTSTANDING 1 61516 $220.98 08/19/22 00136 0 ALHAMBRA S OUTSTANDING 1 61517 $48.40 08/19/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61518 $195.23 08/19/22 05005 0 AMERICAN TRANSIT SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 61519 $406.77 08/19/22 00009 0 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 61520 $1100.75 08/19/22 00001 199 BLAKE, BETINA S OUTSTANDING 1 61521 $2421.26 08/19/22 00335 0 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61522 $288.68 08/19/22 00001 328 CAMPANA, NICHOLAS S OUTSTANDING 1 61523 $486.01 08/19/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 61524 $58.79 08/19/22 02822 0 CITY AUTO SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 61525 $171.50 08/19/22 01092 0 COASTSIDE FIRE PROTECTION S OUTSTANDING 1 61526 $37.37 08/19/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 61527 $169.02 08/19/22 02168 2 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 61528 $1148.61 08/19/22 01374 1 CORE & MAIN S OUTSTANDING 1 61529 $350.00 08/19/22 05062 0 DARRYL PANG S OUTSTANDING 1 61530 $224.40 08/19/22 05440 0 DONNA NEWLAND S OUTSTANDING 1 61531 $1519.50 08/19/22 00690 0 DU-ALL SAFETY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61532 $1300.00 08/19/22 04321 0 DUBOCE JANITORIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 61533 $109.95 08/19/22 00489 0 ENTERSECT S OUTSTANDING 1 61534 $2772.00 08/19/22 05102 0 EPSTEIN + HOLTZAPPLE LLP S OUTSTANDING 1 61535 $77.48 08/19/22 00758 0 EXPERIAN S OUTSTANDING
1 61536 $14.00 08/19/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 61537 $58.08 08/19/22 00773 1 FEDEX S OUTSTANDING
1 61538 $10411.18 08/19/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61539 $28065.86 08/19/22 05220 0 GHIRARDELLI ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61540 $382.93 08/19/22 00871 0 GRAFIX SHOPPE S OUTSTANDING 1 61541 $3674.00 08/19/22 00875 0 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26577 S OUTSTANDING 1 61542 $110.00 08/19/22 00924 0 HILL SCOTT S OUTSTANDING 1 61543 $125.00 08/19/22 00927 1 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC S OUTSTANDING 1 61544 $1104.69 08/19/22 04999 2 IMAGE SOURCE S OUTSTANDING 1 61545 $2000.00 08/19/22 01885 0 JACKIE DICELLO S OUTSTANDING 1 61546 $190.00 08/19/22 05333 1 KASEYA US LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61547 $538.71 08/19/22 03700 0 KIMBALL MIDWEST S OUTSTANDING 1 61548 $26159.52 08/19/22 05535 0 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61549 $1020.00 08/19/22 01165 0 MILLER & O'BRIEN S OUTSTANDING 1 61550 $3371.00 08/19/22 01184 0 MUNICIPAL POOLING AUTHORITY S OUTSTANDING 1 61551 $189019.90 08/19/22 01240 0 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. S OUTSTANDING 1 61552 $699.57 08/19/22 01243 0 PACIFIC MANOR HARDWARE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61553 $163.71 08/19/22 00054 2 PAPE MACHINERY S OUTSTANDING 1 61554 $4835.00 08/19/22 01300 0 PEPPER BROS BUILDING MAINTENANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 61555 $4922.14 08/19/22 04948 0 PLUG-IT PRODUCTS CORP. S OUTSTANDING 1 61556 $2651.99 08/19/22 03782 0 PRIORITY 1 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 61557 $2133.87 08/19/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61558 $25.74 08/19/22 01795 0 ROSS, LAURIE S OUTSTANDING 1 61559 $5072.70 08/19/22 00022 8 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLER S OUTSTANDING 1 61560 $1500.00 08/19/22 00022 55 SAN MATEO COUNTY-AIRPORT COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE S OUTSTANDING 1 61561 $10397.22 08/19/22 01450 0 SEAVIEW TIRE & BRAKE CENTER S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY SEP1322 8:09 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 1 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 9/13/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61511-61711 & 61802-8-16 to 8-31-22 (5121 : Disbursements - Dated 8/16/22 through 8/31/22) 1 61567 $99.61 08/19/22 01550 2 STEWART CHEVROLET S OUTSTANDING 1 61568 $600.00 08/19/22 02638 0 SUGAR BEAR PLUMBING S OUTSTANDING 1 61569 $1175.00 08/19/22 02681 0 SUN RIDGE SYSTEMS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61570 $1175.00 08/19/22 02681 0 SUN RIDGE SYSTEMS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61571 $639.52 08/19/22 02642 2 T-MOBILE CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61572 $321.00 08/19/22 01592 1 TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER S OUTSTANDING 1 61573 $1633.49 08/19/22 01615 0 TOM'S AUTO BODY & PAINT S OUTSTANDING 1 61574 $928.79 08/19/22 01636 0 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61575 $504.20 08/19/22 04418 1 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61576 $9024.78 08/19/22 04670 0 U.S. TELEPACIFIC CORP. S OUTSTANDING 1 61577 $32.46 08/19/22 01652 0 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 61578 $1133.26 08/19/22 01812 3 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 61579 $2862.04 08/19/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61580 $85.71 08/19/22 00898 2 VCA ANIMAL HOSPITALS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61581 $1615.03 08/19/22 01673 0 VWR INTERNATIONAL S OUTSTANDING 1 61582 $23559.54 08/22/22 04608 0 TRI COUNTIES BANK S OUTSTANDING 1 61583 $2167.50 08/23/22 05058 0 CLIENTFIRST CONSULTING GROUP, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61584 $42382.50 08/23/22 01854 0 DYETT & BHATIA S OUTSTANDING 1 61585 $3106.25 08/23/22 04077 0 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP S OUTSTANDING 1 61586 $5569.00 08/23/22 00022 8 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLER S OUTSTANDING 1 61587 $8337.47 08/23/22 04211 0 SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DIST. S OUTSTANDING 1 61588 $21590.00 08/23/22 01531 1 ST. FRANCIS ELECTRIC, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61589 $12702.66 08/23/22 01587 0 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 61590 $1078.05 08/23/22 01636 0 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61591 $242.76 08/19/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 61592 $240.00 08/19/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 61593 $50.00 08/19/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 61594 $350.00 08/19/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 61595 $100.00 08/19/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 61596 $110.00 08/19/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 61597 $4.00 08/19/22 01764 3 NATIONAL D.R.I.V.E S OUTSTANDING 1 61598 $246.00 08/19/22 01767 0 NPFBA S OUTSTANDING
1 61599 $930.60 08/19/22 01758 1 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION S OUTSTANDING 1 61600 $439.00 08/19/22 01758 0 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS-LTD S OUTSTANDING 1 61601 $800.00 08/19/22 01759 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61602 $200.00 08/19/22 01760 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS S OUTSTANDING 1 61603 $420.00 08/19/22 01769 0 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61604 $1401.16 08/19/22 01758 5 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 S OUTSTANDING 1 61605 $2609.50 08/19/22 01764 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 S OUTSTANDING 1 61606 $16144.18 08/26/22 03874 0 4LEAF INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61607 $681.74 08/26/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 61608 $335.00 08/26/22 04707 0 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE S OUTSTANDING 1 61609 $132.75 08/26/22 04066 0 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61610 $108.99 08/26/22 00136 0 ALHAMBRA S OUTSTANDING 1 61611 $1325.70 08/26/22 00138 0 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61612 $2000.00 08/26/22 05670 0 ALLISON STANGEL S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY SEP1322 8:09 Page: 4

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61511 - 61711
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61613 $2392.18 08/26/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61614 $2000.00 08/26/22 05671 0 ARLEEN POZZOBON S OUTSTANDING 1 61615 $291.59 08/26/22 00009 2 AT&T MOBILITY S OUTSTANDING 1 61616 $271.00 08/26/22 00265 0 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST S OUTSTANDING 1 61617 $21707.00 08/26/22 00265 0 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST S OUTSTANDING 1 61618 $618.14 08/26/22 00293 0 BEARING AGENCIES INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61619 $3000.00 08/26/22 04924 0 BEREND DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION S OUTSTANDING 1 61620 $220.02 08/26/22 00001 173 BIANCULLI, RYAN S OUTSTANDING 1 61621 $214.00 08/26/22 00001 373 BIVENS, REGINALD S OUTSTANDING 1 61622 $1492.09 08/26/22 00335 0 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61623 $200.00 08/26/22 02118 0 BOOTZIN/ALEX S OUTSTANDING 1 61624 $2000.00 08/26/22 05669 0 BUDGET HOLDINGS INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61625 $3891.00 08/26/22 03814 1 CAPPSTONE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61626 $132.27 08/26/22 00001 352 CASTRO, ANGEL S VOIDED 1 61627 $3927.85 08/26/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 61628 $762.61 08/26/22 02822 0 CITY AUTO SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 61629 $2128.50 08/26/22 05082 1 COLUMN, PBC S OUTSTANDING 1 61630 $377.09 08/26/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 61631 $9794.93 08/26/22 04789 0 COMPUMERIC ENGINEERING INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61632 $10000.00 08/26/22 05551 0 CORDOBA CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61633 $953.72 08/26/22 04677 0 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61634 $1148.50 08/26/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61635 $606.00 08/26/22 05675 0 DANIEL AND ALDEN MILLER S OUTSTANDING 1 61636 $35640.21 08/26/22 00653 0 DELL MARKETING L.P. S OUTSTANDING 1 61637 $2263.53 08/26/22 05668 0 DEUROMODY HARRIS S OUTSTANDING 1 61638 $1200.00 08/26/22 02201 0 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61639 $45.91 08/26/22 02614 0 DISH S OUTSTANDING
1 61640 $4275.00 08/26/22 02130 1 DRYCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61641 $600.00 08/26/22 00690 0 DU-ALL SAFETY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61642 $498.00 08/26/22 01809 0 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT S OUTSTANDING 1 61643 $7.00 08/26/22 03047 0 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 61644 $643.54 08/26/22 00848 0 GFS CHEMICALS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61645 $299.00 08/26/22 00862 0 GOLDEN RULE CREATIONS S OUTSTANDING 1 61646 $9958.88 08/26/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 61647 $28615.13 08/26/22 03616 0 GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH PLANNING INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61648 $711.16 08/26/22 00990 0 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS S OUTSTANDING 1 61649 $1049.66 08/26/22 01014 0 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61650 $2000.00 08/26/22 05672 0 KAZUO ITO S OUTSTANDING 1 61651 $114.60 08/26/22 01812 4 KBA DOCUSYS S OUTSTANDING

Page 2 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 9/13/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61511-61711 & 61802-8-16 to 8-31-22 (5121 : Disbursements - Dated 8/16/22 through 8/31/22) 1 61652 $696.00 08/26/22 04780 0 KONA ICE OF SAN MATEO S OUTSTANDING 1 61653 $732.73 08/26/22 01078 1 LEHR AUTO ELECTRIC, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61654 $1084.89 08/26/22 01095 0 LINDA MAR HARDWARE S OUTSTANDING 1 61655 $1139.25 08/26/22 03522 0 MACKAY METERS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61656 $1600.00 08/26/22 04681 0 MARTINEZ, DAVE S OUTSTANDING 1 61657 $2959.65 08/26/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61658 $3694.00 08/26/22 05533 3 MCMILLAN ELECTRIC S OUTSTANDING 1 61659 $176.90 08/26/22 01154 0 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS S OUTSTANDING 1 61660 $9299.25 08/26/22 04077 0 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP S OUTSTANDING 1 61661 $900.00 08/26/22 05676 0 MIGUEL LOBETOS S OUTSTANDING 1 61662 $2000.00 08/26/22 05673 0 MIKE CRITTENDON S OUTSTANDING 1 61663 $1354.75 08/26/22 04165 0 MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN, INC. S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY SEP1322 8:09 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61511 - 61711
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61664 $971.22 08/26/22 01183 0 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61665 $437.50 08/26/22 01378 1 MUSCIO ELECTRIC S OUTSTANDING 1 61666 $506.71 08/26/22 03477 1 NETWORK INNOVATIONS US INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61667 $7874.58 08/26/22 04632 0 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD S OUTSTANDING 1 61668 $429.23 08/26/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 61669 $2412.37 08/26/22 02027 0 OLIVER PACKAGING AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61670 $896.12 08/26/22 01289 0 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61671 $892.35 08/26/22 04139 0 PET FOOD EXPRESS S OUTSTANDING 1 61672 $29.47 08/26/22 01295 1 PETERSON S OUTSTANDING
1 61673 $1572.65 08/26/22 04651 0 PLAZO CONSTRUCTION S OUTSTANDING 1 61674 $34.64 08/26/22 04948 0 PLUG-IT PRODUCTS CORP. S OUTSTANDING 1 61675 $763.97 08/26/22 01322 0 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 61676 $278.81 08/26/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61677 $5700.18 08/26/22 03281 0 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 61678 $9040.00 08/26/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 61679 $675.00 08/26/22 03720 0 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL S OUTSTANDING 1 61680 $1522.70 08/26/22 01422 0 SAN MATEO ELECTRONIC SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 61681 $2000.00 08/26/22 05674 0 SANDRA CAMPOS S OUTSTANDING 1 61682 $250.00 08/26/22 00001 192 SCHNEIDER, KEN S OUTSTANDING 1 61683 $2154.93 08/26/22 04860 0 SERRA YELLOW CAB S OUTSTANDING 1 61684 $1975.00 08/26/22 05677 0 SFO MEDICAL CLINIC S OUTSTANDING 1 61685 $600.00 08/26/22 01501 1 SMELLY MEL'S PLUMBING S OUTSTANDING 1 61686 $240.00 08/26/22 00049 12 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 61687 $1116.00 08/26/22 01531 1 ST. FRANCIS ELECTRIC, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61688 $505.45 08/26/22 00001 232 STAFFORD, JEREMY S OUTSTANDING 1 61689 $1279.69 08/26/22 02670 0 STEPFORD INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61690 $136.94 08/26/22 01546 0 STERICYCLE S OUTSTANDING 1 61691 $338.00 08/26/22 05576 0 STEVE KWON S OUTSTANDING 1 61692 $17506.25 08/26/22 05665 0 TELSTAR INSTRUMENTS S OUTSTANDING 1 61693 $50.20 08/26/22 01592 1 TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER S OUTSTANDING 1 61694 $170.20 08/26/22 01599 0 THOMAS FISH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 61695 $754.05 08/26/22 00001 312 TONDELLI-WALSH, NATALIE S OUTSTANDING 1 61696 $1000.00 08/26/22 01657 2 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 61697 $3460.71 08/26/22 01648 2 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF NORTHERN CA & NV S OUTSTANDING 1 61698 $304.12 08/26/22 02922 0 UNLIMITED TOOL REPAIR AND FABRICATION. S OUTSTANDING 1 61699 $2129.52 08/26/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 61700 $249.74 08/26/22 02899 1 UTILITY TELECOM GROUP, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 61701 $1192.15 08/26/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 61702 $275.30 08/26/22 01673 0 VWR INTERNATIONAL S OUTSTANDING 1 61703 $85.00 08/26/22 00001 372 WANG, JOYCE S OUTSTANDING 1 61704 $896.88 08/26/22 01701 0 WECO INDUSTRIES S OUTSTANDING 1 61705 $130.35 08/26/22 01707 0 WEST COAST CONTRACTORS SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 61706 $175.50 08/26/22 05163 1 WEX HEALTH, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 61707 $869.25 08/26/22 01722 0 WILSEY & HAM S OUTSTANDING 1 61708 $1037.97 08/26/22 04999 1 XEROX FINANCIAL SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 61709 $1858.85 08/26/22 01747 0 ZEP SALES & SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 61710 $12497.96 08/26/22 00771 0 DAVID L. SKROMME S OUTSTANDING 1 61711 $123557.00 08/26/22 05074 0 NORTHWEST DEMOLITIONS INC. S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 201 TOTAL AMOUNT: 1,224,785.04 Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY SEP1322 8:09 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA

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

Page 3 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 9/13/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61511-61711 & 61802-8-16 to 8-31-22 (5121 : Disbursements - Dated 8/16/22 through 8/31/22)

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 321,777.50 132.27
005 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 9,794.93 0.00
007 S.L.E.S. FUND 12,702.66 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 16,284.57 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 16,432.33 0.00
012 HIGHWAY 1 IMPROVEMENT FUND 945.27 0.00
016 NPDES STORMWATER FUND 5,867.17 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 229,671.86 0.00
019 PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE FUND 1,354.75 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 403,951.03 0.00
026 PARK IN-LIEU - CAP IMPROVMNT 1,033.59 0.00
028 PB&R SPECIAL REVENUE 2,154.93 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 43,045.30 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 6,816.90 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 123,557.00 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 29,262.98 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 1,224,652.77 132.27
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: TUESDAY SEP1322 8:09 Page: 8

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 61802 - 61802
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 61802 $23999.40 08/31/22 04608 0 TRI COUNTIES BANK S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 1 TOTAL AMOUNT: 23,999.40
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 SEP1322 8:09 Page: 9

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 18,887.44 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 106.00 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 4,755.96 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 250.00 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 23,999.40 0.00

Page 4 of 4 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 9/13/2022 TOTAL = $1,224,652.77 + $23,999.40 = $1,248,652.17

1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 61511-61711 & 61802-8-16 to 8-31-22 (5121 : Disbursements - Dated 8/16/22 through 8/31/22)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/10/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on September 12, 2022 and the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on September 26, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on September 12, 2022 (Attachment A) and the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on September 26, 2022 (Attachment B).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (PDF)
Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (PDF)
2 Packet Pg. 12

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 September 12, 2022

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
September 12, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on September 12, 2022 at 6:00 PM 6:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present and announced that the Council would meet in 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
Mayor Bier announced the business to be discussed and opened up public comments.

City Clerk Coffey stated that there were no hands raised for public comment.

Mayor Bier closed public comments and they went into closed session. 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting at 7:06 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.

2.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 September 12, 2022
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.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Kirk Stratton, Interim Police Chief; Chuck Pomicpic, Dep. Fire Chief; Sam Bautista, PW Dep.

Director; Raymund Donguines, Sr. Civil Engineer; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Ken Fong, IT Analyst; Elizabeth Brooks, Management Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Bier
Closed Session Report
City Attorney Kenyon stated there was no reportable action.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Suicide Prevention Month - September 2022 Mayor Bier stated that Frieda Edgette was representing the San Mateo County Behavioral Health Commission and was present to accept the proclamation, and then the mayor read the proclamation honoring Suicide Prevention Month.

Frieda Edgette thanked her for the proclamation and invitation to accept it on behalf of the San Mateo County Behavioral Health Commission, as well as her personal leadership and her passion for this issue has made a difference. She also thanked all Councilmembers, City Manager and the community to acknowledge this. She is on the commission as well as a youth committee member. She stated that the theme for this month attests to the fact that they can and do recover with support and resilience. She was curious about how many attending this meeting are or were impacted personally or knows someone who was, adding that they are experiencing extended effects of the pandemic in the community and mentioned some specific issues and useful resources for those in need.

Mayor Bier thanked her for her beautiful comments then opened up public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, thanked Mayor Bier for facilitating this effort, as she believed it was important to bring this to the community’s attention to be aware of this.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated he had comments on Consent items No. 4 and No. 8, and he wanted to make sure they aren’t skipped over as they move past the Consent calendar.

2.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 September 12, 2022
Erin Macias, Pacifica, asked if this was the time to comment on items not on the agenda.

Mayor Bier stated that it was not as they are in the special presentation.

Ms. Macias thanked Ms. Edgette for her presentation and she will put her hand down.

Mayor Bier closed public comments and asked the Councilmembers for any comments.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was 4 years old when his brother introduced him to what death was and, while he would tell more personal stories, time doesn’t allow. He referred to Ms.

Edgette mentioning the importance of learning how to speak to someone who is in this kind of pain, and he stated that, if you are approaching someone in that kind of pain, it was helpful to learn how to speak the language that will help them from where they are to a greater possibility.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thought all of them have been touched by suicide and is something she has never gotten over. She thanked everyone for being here and Mayor Bier for the mental health committee.

Mayor Bier thanked her and Ms. Edgette for being here.

B. Proclamation - National Preparedness Month - September 2022 Mayor Bier stated that Dep. Fire Chief Chuck Pomicpic of the North County Fire Authority is present to make a brief comment, then she read the proclamation honoring National Preparedness Month.

Dep. Fire Chief Pomicpic stated that North County Fire Authority thanked the Mayor and Council for recognizing National Preparedness Month, which creates opportunities for citizens to prepare their homes, businesses, families for various natural disasters, and urges everyone to prepare ahead of potential disasters to increase their chances for survival and mentioned their website where they can find suggestions and tips.

Mayor Bier thanked him for his service to the community, and then opened public comment.

Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speaker.

Erin Macias, Pacifica, stated that they can better serve North County firefighters and first responders if Pacifica’s code enforcement if they enforced the complaints on record regarding hazardous eucalyptus groves that are not maintained and encroaching on property lines of others as they deserve defensible space and the city needs to respond to the citizens who have brought it to their attention through proper channels.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Councilmember O’Neill thanked the Fire Department and Police Department for all the work they do, preparedness, education, etc.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck expressed thanks.

2.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 September 12, 2022
C. Proclamation - International Peace Day
Mayor Bier stated that they have Linda Peebles from Pacifica Peace People present to make comments, and thanked Delia McGrath for encouraging them to create this proclamation, then the mayor read the proclamation honoring International Peace Day.

Linda Peebles of Pacifica Peace People thanked them for this beautiful proclamation for peace, and she thought it said a lot about all the aspects that need to come together to make peace happen in Pacifica. She mentioned that, at this time, there is so much unrest, such as the war in Ukraine and other violence happening, and she thought this was a good moment to think about peace. She stated that their peace group is working locally to promote peace in many ways. She invited them to attend their activities for Peace Week, beginning on the 16th when they are having a public reading of Martin Luther King’s 1967 speech called “beyond Vietnam, a time to break silence” by many people at the Sanchez Art Center in the garden plaza and she hoped they turn out for that event, and mentioning some of their other activities.

Mayor Bier thanked her for letting them know about the event, then opened public comment.

Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speaker.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that it takes courage to promote peace and she thanked the peace people for their advocacy in this area and appreciated that they are teaching us all how to act peacefully locally.

Mayor Bier closed public comment, and asked Councilmembers if they had any comments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked Ms. Peebles for being here and inspiring her and our community by all the work of the Pacifica Peace People do that is a testament to peace being possible and she was grateful.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked Ms. Peebles for what she and her group does. He stated that he becomes introspective and meditative when they are giving these proclamations every year.

He is struck by the inner struggle and how it translates from the inside to outward in terms of approaching peace, actively and consciously breathing, waiting, thinking, etc., and thanked them for giving us the opportunity to pause for a moment and contemplate deeper.

D. Special Presentation - Pacific Coast Fog Fest
Mayor Bier stated that they had a presentation from Fog Fest president James Crowe.

City Clerk Coffey stated that Mr. Crowe was present.

James Crowe of Fog Fest thanked the mayor for the opportunity to talk about Fog Fest. He then began his presentation, mentioning the dates of September 24 and 25. He stated it started in 1986 which attracts visitors and raises funds for local community groups. He then gave an update on the changes such as new vendors, and participating non-profit groups, as well as members of the Fog Fest group.

Mayor Bier thanked him for the presentation. Mayor opened public comments, and seeing no one, closed public comments.

2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 September 12, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus states she was looking forward to having the Fog Fest again, and everyone is excited. She mentioned that this is the first time in a long time that all Councilmembers will be in the parade.

Councilmember O’Neill thanked all the volunteers that put this together, not only the organizing committee but the non-profits working many hours in the food booths, etc., and was the work of an entire village.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he is looking forward to having fun with our community, and echoed everything Councilmember O’Neill said, and he thanked Mr. Crowe for mentioning all the names of the participants.

Mayor Bier was also looking forward to it and thanked everyone for everything they do.

Councilmember Beckmeyer acknowledged Mr. Crowe for his work and leadership as he was leading a great team. She remembers volunteering for the event in the past, and she was wearing four T-shirts and took them off as she went to each booth where she was volunteering.

She thanked him for making sure it happened this year.

Mr. Crowe stated that he couldn’t do it without everyone, and he agreed that it was a village. He stated that people have asked him if he is going to paint his hair blue like the mermaid on the poster and he said he is to celebrate that it is true blue in Pacifica.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if any councilmembers wished to pull any items from consent and seeing none, she opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated he would speak on Consent item No. 4 for three minutes and, with their approval he will speak on Consent No. 8 for three minutes.

City Attorney Kenyon asked the mayor if those items were pulled by Council.

Mayor Bier stated that they were not.

City Attorney Kenyon then explained that, with consent items, at the time Council calls the consent calendar and mayor asks councilmembers if they would like to pull any consent items, then, if that occurs, any pulled items will be heard separately and the public will comment at that time. If no consent items are pulled, all speakers have three minutes to speak on all items on the consent agenda.

Mayor Bier asked that Mr. Stegink’s time be reset and she asked if Mr. Stegink heard what was said.

Mr. Stegink asked if anyone has pulled items.

Mayor Bier stated that they did not.

Mr. Stegink stated he will speak on items 4 and 8. He referred to item No. 4, the Anza Pump

2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 September 12, 2022
Station, and stated that under Mayor Beckmeyer’s term, the Crespi station at Anza was paid for, allocated but never installed after being destroyed and expressed his concerns about this item.

He strongly urged them to reject item No. 8, explaining his concerns on this item.

Erin Macias, Pacifica, echoed Mr. Stegink’s comments, expressing her concerns on these issues. She mentioned some specific events connected with the short-term rentals and expressed her concerns on this issue.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, thanked them for the revised minutes of the July 11 appeal hearing regarding the General Plan and all their work on the Heritage Tree Ordinance.

Jeromy Carpenter, Pacifica, referred to the item to change the rules on issues discussed by Council.

Mayor Bier stated that comment will happen during that item later on the agenda, as now comments are only on the Consent calendar, items 1-11.

Mr. Carpenter understood, and asked clarification that his time will restart.

Mayor Bier stated that it will.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that Jeremy Stafford was in line a couple of times but now he has dropped off for comment on the consent, concluding that maybe he was going to comment on oral communications.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

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

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.

2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 September 12, 2022
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”).

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%

2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 September 12, 2022
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
Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.

Jeremy Stafford, Pacifica, stated he is with the firefighters and invited everyone to the County Firefighters Chili Cookoff on September 24 at Central Park in San Mateo, from 11 am to 5 pm., mentioning a car show, beer, good chili, good time. He stated that it is bad timing because of the same weekend as the Fog Fest but they will be glad to see them if they come, adding that their county OES just got back in town after being out for 15 days.

Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, stated their scheduled office hours, their upcoming events and gifts for donations, the schedule for grocery pickups, continued program of unhoused on the coast, giving the process and staff phone numbers to apply.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, referred to a previous comment he made on the apartments on Esplanade beach where apartments were torn down regarding a concrete sticking out and hoped staff would address that before it falls on someone, as well as homeless living in campers in that area with a lot of trash in that area which is a health/safety issue. He referred to mosquitos invading several areas and questioned the city or county process for protecting health.

Mgmt. Analyst Brooks stated that Christine Boles is not responding.

Mayor Bier gave her another minute.

Mayor Bier stated that they can close oral comments now and, if she raises her hand again, they can address her.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Vaterlaus attended a meeting regarding Prop. 1, women’s rights issues. The Council of Cities was held in Sanchez in Pacifica and they are still getting comments. They had speakers about the Ohlone, and it was an event all the other cities enjoyed. She went to the CalCities Conference, and in the meetings, she attended Coastal Cities group, cannabis and economic development, climate action plan, creative solutions for homelessness, secrets to building tech economies and mayors and councilmembers group. She stated that there was a lot of good information, and they attend those meetings because they learn more every time, and education is important for everyone to continue learning. She thought it was important to attend and see other councilmembers throughout the state and listen to what other cities are doing, which is important for our city.

2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 September 12, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they all attended the League of Cities Conference at Long Beach, and he thought they all got some ideas to discuss with City Manager and Council to bring forward, such as regarding short term rentals, and grant opportunities. He thought it was well worth going.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that the CalCities meeting was of tremendous benefit in terms of professional development and professional networking, having the opportunity to hear how other communities in the state are addressing the same challenges we are addressing, and some are further ahead and we can borrow their ideas as they are happy to share. She stated one of the highlights for her was the possible approach to short term rentals that the city may want to explore. She thought the other opportunities she had and appreciated was the chance to speak with those who are involved in economic development and discuss ideas, what will work in Pacifica. She stated one phrase she came away with that absolutely resonated for her was creating world class opportunities for our visitors and our residents. She stated it crystalized what she believes in and what she wants, adding that sometimes economic development sounds like bring in big box stores, etc., and that isn’t what Pacifica is after. She attended the stakeholders meeting offered by Kosmont, who is working on an economic opportunities study for Pacifica. She stated she benefitted from what she heard in the portion of the meeting she attended but the mayor was there for the whole meeting and she will go over the recording to get the full context. She stated that continuing to work on those issues is important. At the event last week, she had the opportunity to participate in the Coastal Cities Group panel and it was a big room with rows of chairs, but she prefers tables as well. She was pleased at how full the room was and how engaged all the people from all over the state were in bringing up different issues and collaborating. She stated that they may bring up more information at a future meeting, but she appreciated the opportunity for that professional development.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck started by mentioning Ukraine being on his mind and hoping they find peace. He referred to Jeremy Stafford’s comment, and he stated that the next time he gets together with him he will learn how our Cal OES works, and he was thankful that they sent the engine and he was grateful that it came back in one piece. He stated that we had an incident in Shamrock Ranch over the Labor Day weekend, and he thanked the firefighters for protecting us.

He attended a Peninsula Clean Energy meeting and reported that they are going to have a program about electrifying fleets and he thought that would be charming if our city fleet could garner that assistance from PCE to become electrified, and he will take with the City Manager on that later. He stated that there were billing snafus and people might have been under-billed on the last cycle or two, about $8/household on average and there might be an adjustment coming. He stated that they are still 5% under the PG&E rates and might need to make a slight adjustment. He stated that we are on track for our 24/7 energy by 2025. He stated that they appropriated money for solar projects, including a project for disadvantaged communities in San Mateo County and Los Banos where they have REACH. He has been on vacation for the last three weeks, visiting a cousin of his in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He attended the Giant Twin Ball in Darwin, Minnesota, and thought it was an interesting/intriguing opportunity for economic development in this little town that otherwise is unknown and they draw in worldwide tourism because of this unique feature of their town. He stated that, while in Minneapolis, while he doesn’t care to bike ride, his cousin is a biker and they took walks around extensive bicycle infrastructure they have in Minneapolis. He asked about the homelessness issues they have and his cousin hooked him up with a friend of his who owns a café and he told him about the Avivo program they have where they took a big warehouse, stuck ready-made units for transitional housing. He stated it was an amazing program. He stated that he couldn’t go there

2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 September 12, 2022
without visiting the George Floyd memorial. In his travels, he also learned about Iran where they allowed 500 women into a soccer game for the first time. He then referred to CalCities Conference where he spends time with his fellow councilmembers, and stated that there was passion over paycheck which summed up nicely why they do what they do, as they feel passionately about our city to do what we can to make it the best city we can. He attended a panel on land use, CEQA and affordable housing covenants, and was a seminar for mostly lawyers, but there was one case, Keen vs City of Manhattan Beach, regarding short term rentals being in the coastal zone and what Manhattan Beach found out that they needed to zone and amended their coastal plan to accommodate changes they might make to short term rental ordinance down the road. He stated that there was one about defending institutions, promoting civic debate and rejecting personal attacks. He was impressed by the Riverside Police Chief who stressed the emotional intelligence of the police department. He stated that there was one about equitable and resilient communities, and it mentioned electrifying your fleet, and he remembered the PCE meeting. He attended the Coastal Cities Group where it was great to see that all of our coastal cities are having similar experiences as we try to work with the Coastal Commission. He stated that 2017 Tubbs Fire in Santa Rosa and 2018 campfire in Paradise, which was the worst emergency in the world, and he learned about fires often start outside of the town and that the severity zone maps should be coming out early next year. He stated that Mayor Bier was elected the at-large representative for the Peninsula Division of the CalCities, adding his congratulations to her. He went to one on Surplus Land Act (SLA), to know the impact before you transact. He stated that they have been talking about what the surplus land act means for how the city is conducting its business. He wanted to make sure he took the opportunity to get a robust understanding what the SLA means for us. He attended one on creative solutions to reduce homelessness and stated the quote he walked away with this is the issue of our time. They stressed the seven principles of the United States Interagency Council on homelessness. He stated that representatives from Berkeley, Orange County and San Mateo County were present, and he stated it was good to see Mike Callagy there, as they were talking about how we need to help citizens to get them off of the streets.

Mayor Bier added on their time in Long Beach. She stated that the room was packed when Mike Callagy was speaking about the work that San Mateo County was doing around homelessness, the navigation center, project room key with the hotel, and it was innovative work that was happening in San Mateo County and people should be very proud of that and know that we need to keep doing the work and expanding the work city by city. She referred to Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck mentioning all the different kinds of opportunities to attend the different workshops. She also went to many different workshops. She stated that she had one interesting conversation with one of the vendors, the Davey Tree Company, who works in Pacifica all the time. She stated that they were talking about some CalFire grants that are coming up and she wanted to make sure we contact the people at Davey Tree and start talking about those CalFire grants for defensible space which is what Erin Macias was talking about as well. She stated that things do come together if we are talking to people, listening and connecting with people, and we can make things happen in Pacifica. She stated that being sworn in as the San Mateo County at-large member of CalCities Peninsula Division was an honor. She will be working with mostly mayors and councilmembers from across the county, So. San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Redwood City, Morgan Hill, Cupertino, Mountain View, Burlingame, Los Gatos, and she thought it would be great to participate in those conversations and learn about what our Peninsula Division really needs and bringing all the information we can to keep things going in that way. She will let them know what happens with that. She stated that Council of Cities was so great at Sanchez Adobe. She stated that, when they go to Council of Cities dinner, they hear about the $55 million project etc., but what we brought to the table was an opportunity for our fellow councilmembers tour the Sanchez Adobe and going to

2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 September 12, 2022
the new interactive center at Sanchez Adobe and hear from Dr. Cordero, our Ohlone representative, who spoke so eloquently and they had Mitch Postel from the County. She stated that it was well attended and people were so happy as it was a new experience for them.

She thanked Councilmember O’Neill for that idea and putting it together. She stated people were talking about it at Council of Cities and everywhere. She attended the Bike and Ped Committee for the region. She stated that Pacifica’s project for pedestrian improvement in Sharp Park has yet another round of scoring and it will go on to MTC next and hopefully they will get that funding, adding that PW Dep. Director Bautista was at that meeting. She stated that it matters when they go the extra mile and sit on the regional committees as they can get Pacifica represented. She thanked our PW Department for the applications and all the work they do to bring funding into our city. She attended the bike park fundraiser at Winter’s and the party for Jane Northrop who is retiring from her work at the Tribune and they will be doing a proclamation for her at Council’s next meeting. She stated that it was a great party with music, dancing, and she deserved it. She thanked her for all her work and can’t wait to honor her at the next meeting. She stated that they need volunteers for Meals on Wheels to deliver meals. She asked that everyone get the information out there, as it is important to get the meals out to people who can’t otherwise get out of their homes.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated his first communication is about the Housing Element update process whose information in Connect with Pacifica on Friday and soon a mailer will be going out to the community about our first virtual community workshop which will be on Wednesday, September 28, at 6 pm. He stated that there is more information available at PlanPacifica.org, and they can click on the Housing Element link. He stated that there is currently an online survey and there will be two more community workshops to follow in October. There will be more information coming out about that. He then stated that his other item is that there is a beach safety and surfing safety event that is occurring Sunday, September 18, at Linda Mar Beach. He stated that it is free and there is information on how to sign up was in Connect with Pacifica. He encouraged the public to participate and learn about safety. He learned that there was an incident at Linda Mar Beach where a gentleman was in trouble and a young person grabbed a surfboard, got out there and helped him out. He stated that it ended fine, but it speaks to the need for, when you are on the beach or in the water, to be aware of appropriate safety measures. He also spent the day at CalCities Conference, attending sessions and connecting with colleagues which was very valuable.

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
Sr. Civil Engineer Donguines presented the staff report.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.

Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.

2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 September 12, 2022
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that, on reading the agenda, he saw a name he isn’t familiar with, but it appears to be a continuation of a March 1, 2016 lawsuit, and he expressed his concerns on this issue, and recommending several councilmembers recuse themselves from this item.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that he was wondering about whether the city owns this and it sounds like it is in question. He urged Council to table this and find out if the city owns this parcel, and shared his thinking on the process.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he had a question for the City Attorney. He thought he took money from Robine Runneals during his campaign, and he asked if he needs to recuse himself from this item and does he have a conflict of interest.

City Attorney Kenyon stated he did not as there was a specific exemption in the law for campaign contributions that receiving a campaign contribution from anybody who comes before the city does not warrant recusal based on the political format.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that she helped him knock on doors and he regarded her as a friend, but he doesn’t need to recuse.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that he does not.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he attended a forum on the surplus land act and the staff analysis satisfied him, but he asked if there was any reason why HCD, the Department of Housing and Community Development might regard Hotel Way as city surplus land and require an exemption for the surplus land act before allowing them to vacate this unimproved land.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that she wanted to answer that question when she heard the public commenter. She stated that the city does not own that land. It is a right-of-way that was never accepted by the city and is not subject to the Surplus Land Act. They got it confirmed by HCD in a written confirmation from them as they wanted to confirm their opinions and they spoke to the HCD department of the state and they confirmed through email that they do not have to comply with the surplus land act for the vacation.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck appreciated that, adding that it seemed that the HCD department is not messing around lately when it comes to these matters and was verifying through them that this was not surplus land ahead of time.

Mayor Bier appreciated the explanation by the City Attorney and she thought it was necessary to say things as many times as they can so people are sure to hear them, specifically that this is not city owned land. She asked if anyone wanted to comment. She thought this seems very straightforward to her.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to 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 this street; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 September 12, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

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.

City Manager Woodhouse stated how they will proceed with the process of going through this item chapter by chapter, and then presented the staff report. He then stated that he was available for questions as well as the City Attorney and City Clerk were also involved in the process and are also available for questions and participation in the discussion.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wanted clarification on how they go through this, as the City Manager mentioned going through it page by page. He asked if they intend on doing that after public comment.

Mayor Bier stated it will be after public comment.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he received a public comment about part of this, referring to packet page 339, page 19 of the document, under No. 3, regarding Councilmembers requesting to put something on the agenda, and he stated that the first sentence of that item states that an individual councilmember can agendize an item by contacting the City Manager. He then referred and read the revision portion of the item. He wanted to ask if it takes more than one councilmember to agendize something, and his understanding is that it retains the ability for any councilmember to put anything on the agenda and, if a substantiative issue that requires more than an hour of staff time, it is agendized in a fashion that they can talk about whether they have majority buy-in and they can send the issue to be flushed out deeper with the adjustment of 7- 10 days comes as a result of having fairly limited staff resources and making sure that, if it is important enough to a Councilmember, they can agendize it and staff has the ability to add it on the agenda with enough time to get the work done. He asked if his understanding is in alignment with what the City Manager recalls or does he have further feedback on that section.

City Manager Woodhouse concluded that it was a question for him not Councilmember O’Neill.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed, adding that, if other staff has insight he would welcome that insight.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he summarized that provision very well, He explained that there are two aspects to it, one relates to the timing of introducing an item as Council is aware that they have the practice of releasing the agenda packets five days in advance of a Council meeting whereas the Brown Act only requires three days in advance. He stated that, with a 7- day in advance request to place an item on the agenda, that only allows two days for staff to research and wright a report and those two days happen at a time when he and staff are very busy with all the agenda reports and finalizing the packet. He stated that the at least ten days just formalizes that rule to allow a little bit more band width there for the preparation of that staff report. He stated that, in practice, Council has always been very good about being cognizant of

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 September 12, 2022
the time required and the urgency issue, i.e., if they would like to suggest an item but it can wait for a month or a few meetings from now, and he provides the feedback about staff availability and resources in that process. He stated that the other part of it is the key issue that, for any city business item that takes a lot of staff resources and public money to work on, that is always directed by a majority of Council as they set the budget, conduct goal setting annually to drive their priorities and where staff resources are going to be spent. When individually requested agenda items come up, if it is a controversial item that will take a lot of staff research and time and require a lot of work to write the report, then appropriately, it needs to be directed by a majority of Council and the concept would be that they can tee-up a very brief and quick staff report for the Council to discuss whether that is a priority for Council majority for staff to work on. He emphasized that one important key aspect of this provision is that it is the city manager’s responsibility to bring forward to Council complete staff reports that provide as much information as they can bring together about issues so Council can deliberate with all of the appropriate facts on the issue. He stated that they are not doing anyone, i.e., Council or the public, a favor if there is incomplete information brought forward to Council, and that is part of the driver. He hopes he validates the way he was thinking about it.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed that it did, and he asked if there is nothing in the rule to preclude that a single councilmember who agendizes this item from speaking robustly to fellow councilmembers on why they have agendized the item and why it is important to the councilmember that they have city staff directed to take a further look on whatever that item happens to be.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that is what mostly happens as often the report will say that a specific councilmember has raised this item and, as part of the presentation, the councilmember can give part of the presentation or state why they felt it important for Council to consider.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to a goal setting in which they only added one new item onto the work plan because of how they were aware of how valuable staff time is right now. He stated that in other places some municipalities where they need two councilmembers to put something on the agenda, but as they looked at best practices, it was common in other cities that it is an hour or two hour rule and if it takes longer than that to create a staff report, they need greater Council buy-in, and they verified this against other city best practices before coming to the conclusion that this would help them streamline time without taking away the ability for one councilmember to agendize an item.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has a question for the City Attorney in regard to the updating of policies such as these. She understands from the staff report that this was last updated in 2014 and she asked, in the attorney’s experience, if this was something that is done every year, every two years, ten years, how frequently do Councils go over these rules.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is not done frequently. She stated that she has regularly seen it happen every ten years but it has been shorter because these rules and policies are exactly as they say, i.e., they are City Council rules and policies and very often it is up to Council in place to determine if they want to follow those rules and protocols. If there is a new Council in place and feel they want to change the protocol, they may want to do it, thus, it can happen sooner than ten years, but the norm is anywhere between 5 and 10 years.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has no frame of reference. She knows they talked about this and did need to get it pushed a little bit in light of other priorities and that is why she

2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 September 12, 2022
was trying to re-acquaint herself with the timing framework.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was just a semantic issue, but asked if they can change oral communications to public comment. She says that they say it all the time as public comment, and she likes it better.

Mayor Bier stated that she was also going to bring that question up.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is totally up to the five Councilmembers to decide. She stated that, when they have deliberation, they can discuss that. She stated that there is no legal reason to call it public comment or oral communications, just as the pleasure of Council.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.

Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.

Jeromy Carpenter, Pacifica, stated he had two comments on this proposal, comparing it to a filibuster, and didn’t think it was good for a democratic debate on matters of importance to the community or Council, and the other comment was regarding Councilmembers expressing their views in a negative manner, expressing his specific concerns.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, referred to an incident by someone seven years ago, and he didn’t think they need to streamline meetings. He expressed his concerns about having no minorities on Council thus the need for district voting and gave various past situations and he suggested that they leave things as they are and treat any incoming member as an equal.

Erin Macias, Pacifica, asked if this was in goal setting and she agreed with Mr. Carpenter’s comments in silencing dissent as well as Mr. Stegink’s comments, and expressed her concerns, concluding that these amendments should be tabled and Council rethink the long-term ramifications of such a change.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that, as she listened to Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck, she believed many of the things that a councilmember may bring forward is based on community concerns, and shared her concerns on talking about having a voice for the community which she thought should be honored.

Dinah Verby, Pacifica, stated she was opposed to the changes in Section 11.3 in creating a new restriction on what is currently an unfettered right of a councilmember, and she expressed her concerns on the changes proposed which she feels undermines the intent of district elections and community engagement.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that he agreed with the previous speakers, and feels there is a lot of vague language that needs to be vetted by the City Attorney. He shared his specific questions and concerns on several issues.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she agreed with all the previous speakers that some of these changes undermine our democratic process and ability to bring important items for discussion, and expressed some specific concerns she had regarding the data received and the process.

Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, expressed his concerns on the issues in this item, and how he sees

2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 September 12, 2022
things playing out if the changes are made and thus is against the changes proposed.

Summer Lee, Pacifica, stated that she is adding her voice to all the previous speakers regarding this item and district elections to increase input from marginalized areas of the city, and this is a weirdly timed change to require a majority of Council regarding agendizing of an item that is controversial, and shared her other concerns on the logic of proposed changes.

Rick Nahass, Pacifica, stated his concerns about the proposed reasons for making these changes, which he thinks may be counterproductive in allowing the community to have a voice, and asked clarification on the scope of these changes.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, appreciated the questions raised by Councilmembers earlier regarding the process and she expressed her concerns regarding lack of additional public outreach and the timeframe, and suggested that it be tabled until after the election in November and requested a robust review of the appeal process and also agreed with other speakers that it should be tabled until one of the first meetings in 2023.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

City Manager Woodhouse referred to a consistent theme in the public comments, as well as Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s question prior to public comment, and in trying to clarify what that agendizing rule does or doesn’t change, he felt there was a lot of misunderstanding from the comments about what the rule does. He wondered if she would like him and the City Attorney to continue to explain that more or if, during deliberation, they express their views on it without him and the city attorney explaining it.

Mayor Bier thanked him. She was concerned that there is not enough understanding and, when she decided to do the full chapter by chapter discussion, she didn’t realize that it was going to limit the amount of information that was given to the public before they had a public comment. She thought it was going to be a more thorough review of the document so everyone could review it and the community could hear them do the full review and then they can send it back with direction. She thought it might be good to have a much more thorough explanation or if he had a power point that could be brought up so they can see the information. She asked for Council input.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he didn’t have a Powerpoint prepared on the document.

He stated that 95% of the changes recommended are language clarification and he believed there were only a few substantive issues that he thought Council would dig into and discuss, including the start time of Council meetings which relates to the late hour issue that have come up in comments, potentially the appeal hearing timing and the provision regarding agendizing meetings and possibly one or two others that come up. He asked her to let him know when they would like him to step up and explain more thoroughly the agendizing of items question.

Mayor Bier asked if he could do that now, and they can do it again when they discuss it.

City Manager Woodhouse started that, with the fact that every City Council decision is made by a majority vote of Council and how our local government democracy works and, in deciding and approving the budget, goals and priorities for the fiscal year and every single item Council considers on an agenda is decided by a majority of Council. He stated that each year Council approves what city staff’s work plan is and throughout the year, periodically, there are important priority issues that come up from the community or from councilmembers that can be agendized

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 September 12, 2022
to be discussed. He stated that there is nothing in the rule that prevents that from happening.

He stated that what changes, because councilmembers are mindful of how much staff time is an item going to take and should it be an item kicked to goal setting to be prioritized among all of the other priorities that the city is working on. He stated that, when a major issue comes up, and one of the best practices that most cities have, such as one commenter who read an excerpt from Half Moon Bay’s practice and is not inconsistent at all with what is being recommended in these rules. He stated that it is virtually the same, i.e., if there is a timeconsuming item, a very quick staff report can be prepared and brought to Council for them to decide how and when and if they handle that item. He stated that is how it currently works, and this rule is just making it more specific and changing the 7-day timeline to a 10-day timeline before a Council meeting for requesting that item. He asked City Attorney Kenyon if she has any additional clarification that he didn’t articulate more thoroughly regarding that rule. He stated that the theme he is getting to is that the comments from members of the community said that this change would interfere with civic discourse and debate and it doesn’t do that.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that she didn’t have anything new to add, but she can emphasize what the City Manager has already said, i.e., this 11.3 with regard to the agendizing of items from councilmembers, in no way limits any one councilmember from placing an item on the agenda and that is clear. One councilmember may go to the city manager ten days before the agenda posting and may request that an item be put on the agenda and it will be put on the agenda. If that request requires a significant amount of time which is a very common term as almost every city has Council protocols and rules, the issue that comes up is how you define a significant amount of time. She stated that, in most cities where she has seen their protocol, it varies from half an hour to an hour to two hours at the most. That is based on what Council decides is significant. In terms of whether it should be half an hour, an hour or two hours, that is something that should and can deliberate on, but in terms of whether or not it should be a definition for what is a significant amount of time, she recommends in all cities where she is a city attorney that the significant amount of time be defined because, as they heard at this meeting, it creates confusion and hard for staff to make that determination individually. She stated that section 11.3 related to agendizing in no way eliminates the democratic vote and the way our democracy is intended to work. They work by majority vote. She stated that, in this instance, they are allowing any councilmember, without another councilmember to support that request. She stated that, in a lot of communities, it does require two councilmembers to agree to place an item on the agenda and that has to be agendized. That is not what they have in these rules as the ad hoc committee has determined that they do want individual councilmembers to be able to place an item on the agenda which was important to the subcommittee and Council. She thanked the City Manager for clarifying that as she felt it was an important issue to make sure Council understands.

Mayor Bier asked if there were any comments before they start looking at the document. She didn’t see any response so she went to the beginning of the document, packet page 322, page 2 of the document.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that as Council goes through, if there are any editorial comments in explaining the rationale behind certain revisions, he was happy to jump in as is the City Attorney or City Clerk.

Mayor Bier stated that she is very concerned about the comments and the perception by the community that they don’t listen to them. She stated that she tries to listen to everyone and address everything that is brought up. She stated that Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck is good at that and she believes they do that as often as they can. She wants to make sure they address

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 September 12, 2022
everything before they make any decisions.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they make the comments when they get to that section.

Mayor Bier stated that was fine. She thanked staff for doing that. She pointed out the first change on page 2 and asked if any councilmembers had any comments on this one. She stated that they can feel free to unmute and speak. Seeing no one, she moved on to the next item.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to the Council meeting starting at 7 pm City Manager stated that one revision is that it has been Council’s practice at the 10 pm timeline to take the vote, not 9 pm and making it consistent with current Council practice.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they usually take the vote at 11 pm.

Mayor Bier stated that it actually says, as mentioned by a commenter, that there was another ordinance that stated that Council meetings need to end by 11 pm and ours does say that, but it adds that we can make a vote to extend the meeting.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, as part of the committee, he and Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck discussed starting meetings at 6 pm.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if it was 6 pm or 6:30 pm, as he recalled it being 6:30.

City Manager thought it was 6:30 pm that was discussed.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if the majority wants to start at 6:30 or keep it at 7 pm.

Mayor Bier asked what other cities are doing.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that, since Covid, a lot of cities are moving their meeting start times earlier for different reasons, and that has been her experience that moving meetings to begin earlier than 7:30 or 7 pm is what she is noticing, for the reasons they have heard from public commenters. There is a feeling throughout the state that trying to get business done during normal business hours for Council meetings is something that a lot of cities are trying to grapple with.

Councilmember O’Neill would propose they start at 6 pm, because by the time they do roll call, pledge of allegiance, land acknowledgment, they are probably pretty close to 6:30 to when they can start the consent calendar. When members of the public want to come after the get off work and can make it.

Councilmember Vaterlaus didn’t mind starting at 6:00 but, if they have closed session an hour before, they sometimes have two items and they have to do two hours before, and she was not sure everyone is capable of doing that.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, with closed session and study session, they often will have an hour-long study session before a regular start time.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if, in those cases, they have the closed session start at 6 pm and

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 September 12, 2022
the agenda stay at 7 pm for the public part.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that you can’t change that time on a whim, and it has to be consistent.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, prior to being on Council, he worked 11:00 to 8:00 shifts and he specifically would have to request Mondays off to be able to be at the meeting on time, and subsequent to joining Council, he has limited his hours of availability to 5 pm. He still takes Mondays off but he is sensitive to the 9-5 sensibility and he didn’t want to go any earlier than 6:30 for the reasons mentioned and he thought that could be a happy medium so they get in a little earlier and get out a little earlier.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if there was a consensus of 6:30.

Mayor Bier didn’t think it was necessary, as people are used to a 7 pm start time and it might be confusing for them and they will miss things and she thought it would be a weird adjustment.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that you have to take into consideration what happens at 1 am because there are a lot of times when they go to 1 am, and they would only be there until 12:30 if they start a half hour earlier.

Mayor Bier didn’t know if they have a consensus or not.

Councilmember O’Neill didn’t hear a majority for any time.

Councilmember Beckmeyer has been thinking about it, as the world of work has changed so much since the pandemic but in the past, the idea that people would be trying to commute to get home to get to an in-person meeting at Council Chambers, and numerous boards and committees that she has participated in the community have their meetings starting at 7 pm because of people’s commute hours.

Mayor Bier stated that she finds it hard to get to the 6 pm off time meetings and she usually late.

She stated that they stay at 7pm
Councilmember Beckmeyer thinks the question is whether there is some way to tighten up either the agenda setting process or the timing of the meetings that would help make them not so late. She gets the idea of starting earlier to make the meeting end earlier, but she didn’t think starting earlier is very practical. She asked what else they can do to keep from 1 am meetings.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that the other option they discussed is the Planning Commission used to have the first and third Monday and the fourth Wednesday of the month was always their scheduled study session day. He didn’t know if they still do that, but when he was on the Commission, that is what they did. He asked if they want to consider second and fourth Monday and then say the second Wednesday of every month would be their third meeting of the month if they need to have one because of issues. He asked the city attorney if that is legal, some months having it on a second Wednesday and some months they don’t have it on a second Wednesday.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is legal, and they can do that and have done it, even without

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 September 12, 2022
a change in the protocols. They can always schedule special meetings and that is what it would be since it isn’t a regular meeting.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if, they always say second Wednesday, but he is open to whatever day they want, would that always be a special meeting.

City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively, as they would only have two regular meetings a month unless they want to change to have three regular meetings a month. That would mean that you have to have three regular meetings a month unless Council was to cancel the third regular meeting. She stated that most cities have two regular meetings a month and, if Council at that time feels that, given what they are facing in the next year, given their goal setting and goal priority, they are going to have a lot to do in the next year and they agree that we will keep every third Monday available for special meetings. Then city manager and staff always know that, if they need a special meeting, this is the Monday when councilmembers keep their calendars open and it will be easy to schedule.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he finds it much easier if he has a set date to schedule meetings.

He stated he is just saying second Wednesday, but he would keep that second Wednesday free for Council meetings.

Mayor Bier agreed that having a placeholder would help her schedule, as well as anyone else’s, even new councilmembers coming in that they know to have that.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if they want, they can have the third Wednesday because there won’t be two in one week.

Mayor Bier stated that it depends on committee and commission meetings.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that is emergency preparedness.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he doesn’t have the big calendar in front of him. He would favor that. He stated that, if they start at 7 pm, and if they need a third meeting in a month, they have a set date when they do it.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked what Councilmember Vaterlaus thinks about that.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thought that was fine but she was looking at the calendar and it gets confusing because of all the various committees. She didn’t know when they would place that commitment as Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck has something on the second Wednesday.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated it is the third Wednesday. He stated the second Wednesday looks clear to him.

City Clerk Coffey stated, regarding the second Wednesday, the Library Advisory Committee’s regular meeting schedule is for the second Wednesday of the month although they have not met since the beginning of the pandemic and have been canceled each month, but that is the regular scheduled meeting date.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they weren’t meeting since before the pandemic which is why he doesn’t have it on his calendar. He asked if City Clerk Coffey could help them find a date in time that would work, given the robust meeting schedule they have to navigate and

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 September 12, 2022
come back to them at a later time.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he was going to jump in about the second Wednesday and the Library Advisory Committee since it hasn’t met for a long time and there might be the possibility of looking for a new day and time for the LAC and allotting that time to Council.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought that makes sense to her.

Mayor Bier agreed as well.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought it was fair to say they will be having a busy year coming up with Housing Element, follow up from the General Plan, phases of the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency and things that tend to create those special meetings. She thought the idea of creating a placeholder and setting it on their calendar makes sense.

Councilmember O’Neill would prefer Wednesdays because staff is usually open until 7:30 on Wednesday nights and staff is not available on Wednesdays.

Councilmember Vaterlaus would prefer it on a week when they didn’t already have the Council meeting. She stated that, this week, she has a meeting every night of the week and she would like one night that’s free.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it would be the first Wednesday of the month and asked if there was a conflict. He asked the City Clerk if she had the calendar.

Mayor Bier thought there was so much more they have to discuss in this document.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, to that point, they could parking lot this issue of the special regular meeting date and bring that back as a separate stand-alone item for Council approval and amendment to this policy. He stated that they do handle special meetings on an ad hoc basis now and it might take a little bit more work to find the time and go through all the different meetings and prioritization of them to locate a standardized special meeting night.

City Clerk Coffey referred to the question of the first Wednesday of each month, they have regular meetings for the Beautification Advisory Committee.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that they are all scheduled on Wednesdays because staff is working until 7:30. He votes that they just parking lot this item, remain at 7 pm and they continue present practice.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that one thing on there is the notification that at 11 pm they decide they are going to vote on extending the meeting time period. She said it said 9:00 and then changed to 10:00 but they might as well change it to 11 pm.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he mis-spoke earlier that the 11 pm time isn’t further and says meetings will conclude by 11 pm unless a majority of councilmembers present vote to extend and then what used to be 9 pm and is now 10 pm time refers to.

Councilmember O’Neill stated amending the agenda.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed that it was regarding amending the agenda. He stated that

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 September 12, 2022
he has to plug his computer in.

Mayor Bier stated she is struggling going over this at all. She stated that, regarding comments made by the community, the timing of this conversation is eating at her.

Councilmember Beckmeyer understands that. She completely agrees.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they are going to adjourn the meeting and not talk about this anymore.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they needed to break it into different sections or table the item for a future meeting. She wasn’t sure what everyone would like to do, but Mayor Bier is staying that the approach she had envisioned, which made sense to her in light of what they have done recently with their other large project, and the difference is that they haven’t had a lot of time with this document nor the community and it feels that they have received strong feedback this evening.

Mayor Bier agreed, adding that is what her gut feeling is, i.e., they should table this to a different meeting as she didn’t think they were ready to talk about this.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they should have waited on the General Plan too, until they have a new body. If they keep waiting on things, then she didn’t think it is useful as a Council as they have September through December, four months, and they have to get things done and can’t put off everything because there might be a new Council.

City Manager Woodhouse will add to the conversation that they can take it up whenever, as Council had originally directed the goal of updating this policy before the end of the fiscal year.

Because of various work plan priorities and getting the ad hoc committee together and doing the research, it took longer than the end of the fiscal year. He stated that they have busy agendas coming up and the agenda management is always a challenge as they see on this agenda, that this is the only consideration item and it was intentionally a light agenda because they had numerous special presentations that were also time sensitive, and it is an art in trying to balance the agenda. He stated that it is completely the Council’s prerogative and they recently polled for picking out a couple of special meeting dates for City Council meeting in October and November. He stated that they will have more meetings to get the business done and they could table this to one of those meetings in the future. He stated that, if the Council didn’t want to make a decision about it at this meeting, they could go through more of the deliberations so the public hears the revisions that are being suggested and the rationale for them, and continue the meeting to a future date.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that goes more to what she was saying a few moments ago, that in terms of the opportunity to look over the information, hear it, understand it, discuss, and amend if they think they need to or add, but she thinks the idea of going through and making a decision doesn’t feel right as it is 10 pm and according to page 2, they should be having a discussion now which is what they are having, to discuss what they are going to do with tabling and moving forward to another agenda. She thinks they all see the benefit of looking at this in terms of the way they do their work and she thinks they should go through as much as they can, given their ending time of 11 pm and table the rest. She asked what Mayor Bier thinks about that.

Mayor Bier stated that it sounds better to her to be able to continue the meeting so they can

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 September 12, 2022
continue the items. She thanked her for that discussion. She then stated that they can go back and talk about it all.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that this is on packet page 322, and about Council beginning at 10 pm and thereafter, if the majority requested, will determine what issues will be completed at that meeting and which items will be continued to the next regular or special Council meeting.

She asked if that feels like what just happened and feels comfortable around how they can proceed. She didn’t think about that and had no association with the sentence she just read.

She thought this is a good process and unearthing something she felt could be a useful tool in terms of focus, meeting management and checking in.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated especially if they have a designated special meeting day that is consistent.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they are putting a little asterisk, a pin to come up with some language about that special meeting. She is making a note on her document margin about that, and they aren’t going to go through and try to figure out what that meeting is now but just add language about a third meeting.

Mayor Bier agreed. She then stated they are moving forward, and Councilmember Vaterlaus brought up changing oral communications to public comments and she agreed as she gets caught between the two.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she has another weird thing, i.e., says that the mayor may call for a break every two hours. She asked if that is how their bodies work.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she means arbitrary.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it says additional recesses may be called, but it seems odd to her.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it doesn’t hurt anything and he doesn’t want to spend 20 minutes talking about it.

Mayor Bier asked if they want to change oral communications to public comments.

Councilmembers Vaterlaus and Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they were talking about No. 3 on page 3.

Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that oral communications get changed to public comments.

Mayor Bier stated that throughout.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she got it.

Mayor Bier stated that the next change is in C.

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 September 12, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they could put public comments on items not on tonight’s agenda.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it says on Non-Agendized items.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he knows it says that but he was trying to make it simpler as sometimes people don’t understand it.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it was public comment or communication.

Councilmember O’Neill stated comments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer added on items not on the agenda.

Councilmember O’Neill stated on tonight’s agenda.

Mayor Bier stated that it might not be nighttime.

Councilmember O’Neill clarified that it says on this agenda.

City Attorney Kenyon suggested that they put on the posted agenda.

Councilmember O’Neill thought that sounds good.

Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded on the posted agenda.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that change all oral communications to public comments in the entire document.

Mayor Bier agreed.

City Attorney Kenyon mentioned to the City Clerk that they are also asking to change, instead of on Non-Agendized items, to on the posted agenda.

Mayor Bier stated she got that, and then stated that C is where the next change is and she asked if they agree with that. She thought it was fine.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to D, management of public comments.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that E is not their current practice but the day of the meeting.

Mayor Bier stated that they have to do D first and then they will move to E. She asked if everyone was okay with the changes in D.

Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed.

Councilmember O’Neill again stated that E is not their current practice as now is the deadline noon or 4 pm on the day of the meeting.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the deadline is currently noon.

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 September 12, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill asked if on the day of the meeting.

City Manager Woodhouse responded that it is on the day of the meeting.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that needs to be changed.

City Manager Woodhouse said that it says submitted by noon on the date of the City Council’s meeting.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was reading the lined-out portion.

Mayor Bier stated that there is red and green and she asked where the green comes from.

City Manager stated that it was during their version editing with different edits from different iterations of the document.

Mayor Bier understood and asked if they are ready to move one. She has some stuff for H and, after looking at it, she thought she would have to come back to that, as she has it circled but she thinks there is something there.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she was talking on E or a different one.

Mayor Bier stated she was talking about H.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, for context, and the City Attorney can add also, but for H and I, with oral communications, the reason for there not being discussion about the items is that they have to comply with the Brown Act where Council would discuss items needs to be agendized specifically and when they have oral communications, they aren’t agendized items that are raised and Council can’t discuss those items. He stated that clarifying questions is normal or asking staff to follow up is the normal practice unless the City Attorney wants to elaborate on that.

City Attorney Kenyon just wanted to confirm that those changes were primarily made to make sure that there is no confusion that they were complying with the Brown Act.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they want to put a reference in there, per the requirements of the Brown Act, City Council cannot respond to public comments or something to that effect.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they could if Council desires that.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it clarifies it a little bit.

Mayor Bier knows there are many times where they will ask questions based on public comments, and they address some of the questions made in public comment, but not during that time, but during Council Communications.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it says asking clarifying questions and referring the matter to staff and that is what typically happens.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they don’t need to do the wordsmithing now but ask staff to come back with it when they look at this the next time.

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 September 12, 2022
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, and she asked City Clerk Coffey that, instead of word snipping the document, just put it in the comments as she was doing above and that will be a note for staff to double check that item.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they want to put current Brown Act as they keep changing it.

City Attorney Kenyon knows that they will word snip it and it won’t say in order to comply with the Brown Act but it will get the message across.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they were looking at 4A now.

Mayor Bier agreed, stating she is fine with 4A.

Councilmembers O’Neill and Vaterlaus were okay with that.

Mayor Bier appreciated the changes in C. She would like to make sure there was a consensus anyway as it feels better to do that. She asked if that was why they thought to change that.

She thought it would be nice to hear the logic behind the changes if possible.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, one thing that is not addressed here is the spokesperson for a group of persons, and he asked if they are going to allow that spokesperson extra time because they are speaking for many people, as that is not addressed. He stated that he hears three people say they will give their time to someone and they want him to get nine minutes. He asked if they want to put that in there or leave it the way it is.

City Attorney Kenyon added that there is always the discretion for the mayor to suggest that, depending upon the request, even if it is not included in the protocols.

Mayor Bier stated that it was just a request for a spokesperson but that is not necessarily what happens.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if the mayor was asking for clarification on paragraph C.

Mayor Bier stated she was, as she thought, as they go through it, it would be helpful to have the logic behind the changes that were made.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, on C, the practice has been that the mayor is the presiding officer over the procedural aspects of meetings and here the change was made that, at the discretion of the mayor to allow additional public input seemed to be what they do in practice rather than Council voting on that. He stated that it is Council’s decision about how formal they want to be about that process.

Councilmember Vaterlaus likes the way it is written.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.

Mayor Bier agreed also, and then moved on.

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 September 12, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill likes the idea of the city talked about that they get ten minutes and then three minutes for rebuttal.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if for appeals.

Councilmember O’Neill responded affirmatively, but added about explaining the rebuttal process.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thought it takes three minutes to explain it.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it is hard to predict how many minutes they would want to reserve.

Councilmember O’Neill stated, if they only use seven minutes for their presentation, they still only get three minutes for rebuttal, not banking.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was up to ten minutes and allowing three minutes for rebuttal.

Councilmember O’Neill agreed, but added that, if they do it in eight, they don’t get to bank the two minutes.

Mayor Bier agreed that it was a good policy.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck also agreed and asked if that was how they used to do it a decade ago. He thought that was how it was when they first started attending meetings and then it changed and he didn’t remember how that happened.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it was interesting to note that is how the policy was originally written but ever since he has been here, it has been the ten with reserving three of the ten and either way, as the commenter also spoke, there seems to be more appeals and that adds time to the appeal and it could go either way and, as Councilmember Vaterlaus stated, clarifying the process takes time as well and if they can be as clear as possible, then it is only a three minute difference or six minute difference as they have appellant and the applicant to get the same thing.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it sounds like they are deciding to restore the words and three minutes for rebuttal and strike the option to reserve up to three minutes for rebuttal.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed.

Councilmember Beckmeyer also heard if they shall give up to ten minutes for their opening presentation.

Councilmember Vaterlaus and in the comments on the side it says and up to three minutes additionally.

Councilmember Beckmeyer is concerned about that because she is afraid it will introduce into people’s minds the idea that it might change and they can’t count on ten minutes and maybe it will be that they get up to ten minutes and this time they only get eight minutes or six minutes.

She understands what they are saying.

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 September 12, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated a maximum of ten minutes.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated no more than ten minutes.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she doesn’t want to wordsmith it but that is what people could think when they read it and it could be concerning to them. She asked that they put a little asterisk in that comment for staff to word snip that so it’s clear.

Mayor Bier stated that they can move forward to D. She thought there was public comment around this.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it was in the comments submitted before the meeting.

Mayor Bier stated no.

City Attorney Kenyon thought that statement was with regard to Council behavior as opposed to addressing the public.

Mayor Bier appreciated that input.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they softened some of the ambiguous language, such as the slanderous and obscene remarks.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that there is a lot of rights mentioned in the second line of B, and she asked if they can strike the words “and that” in the middle, i.e., “the public have the right to address the Council includes the right to make remarks that member of the City Council may find critical, unpleasant ...”
Mayor Bier stated that she dropped off and Councilmember Beckmeyer didn’t notice.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought she was in deep thought over what she just said.

Mayor Bier reiterated that she dropped off and came back.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was suggesting dropping three words out of the sentence and changing “includes” to “including”.

Councilmember O’Neill liked that.

Mayor Bier agreed. And stated that they were at C.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he was okay with C.

Mayor Bier stated that they were not in City Council Decorum. She stated she was fine with A.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he was okay with B.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it was fine.

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 September 12, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated he was fine with C.

Mayor Bier asked if the comments were for this paragraph.

City Attorney Kenyon didn’t think so, but that it was further down.

Mayor Bier asked that she let her know when she sees that. She stated she was okay with C and asked if everyone was okay with D.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated C, D and E are good.

Mayor Bier stated that E has some changes that they might want to look at.

City Attorney Kenyon believes it is E.

Mayor Bier referred to the monopolizing discussion time including posing too many questions.

City Attorney Kenyon noted that it is the existing language.

City Manager Woodhouse stated except for the red underlined which is new.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that she thought the comments were directed at the existing language or she could be wrong.

Mayor Bier thought they were talking about monopolizing discussion time, including posing too many questions. She thought that goes back to making it so they aren’t able to deliberate as much. She stated that councilmembers ask questions all the time.

Councilmember O’Neill thinks they have to understand that Roberts Rules of Order allow councilmembers to close debate and call for the question.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed and added for edification that the only penalty for anyone violating any of these protocols is just a potential for a public censure of a councilmember which would require another meeting where that issue would be agendized for Council, and all her years, she has never seen a Council censure a councilmember for violation of protocol. She stated that there is a remedy but it is simply a censure.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it could be like a filibuster in the Senate where a member gets up and starts reading “Green Eggs and Ham” to delay the vote. He thinks the Council itself has to have the right to call the question at some point.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they have that right and can vote on it.

Councilmember O’Neill agrees.

Mayor Bier didn’t think that statement is necessary. She stated if you want to talk about a filibuster, that is fine, but she didn’t think they should keep Council from asking questions, and she thought that was perception.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has no problem with councilmembers asking questions as

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 September 12, 2022
you learn and sometimes it prompts more questions going down a road.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that Councilmember O’Neill and Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck can correct him if he is wrong, but he thought the focus on this revision was the aspect of too many questions that do not facilitate further deliberation, general understanding or bring the issue to closure. He stated that it is really that filibuster concept because questions related to the matter and furthering understanding and deliberations is part of the process. He stated that this is getting at the filibuster situation.

Mayor Bier thought it should just talk about filibustering and not statements.

City Manager Woodhouse was open to any suggestions on language to clarify.

City Attorney Kenyon stated, to that point, she would want to more clearly define filibustering.

She thought that was the attempt by coming up with this definition by the subcommittee, but they can come up with other definitions.

Mayor Bier thought the too many questions and on an issue that doesn’t sit right with her.

City Attorney Kenyon stated she was doing fine without her.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it was not too many questions on an issue, but too many questions that don’t facilitate further deliberation on an issue. He stated that they could clarify that somehow.

Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested that they take out the “too many”, monopolizing discussion time including posing questions on an issue that do not facilitate furthering deliberations is a mouthful.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, just throwing for discussion, if they want to set a time limit, such as every councilmember has five minutes and then it has to go to another councilmember but can go back to the other person, so everyone gets their time for discussion, but they can be repeated.

Mayor Bier thanked him for throwing that out.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck feels that it is the rule of the chair to identify when it might be useful to start redirecting the focus to another councilmember.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he is okay with that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck knows a part of the reason they were looking at this when they were looking at other boards and what best practices are in other places, and they thought it might be a good idea to address this issue of those who more erroneously start monopolizing the time for the sake of undermining the business at hand rather than trying to further the discussion and that is where this attempt at nomenclature is derived.

Councilmember Beckmeyer has a proposal on the part added at the end where it starts “or monopolizing discussion time”. She proposes striking the words “too many”, striking the word “facilitate” and changing the word “furthering” to “further”.

2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 September 12, 2022
Mayor Bier thinks that’s a little better as it is not like you are asking too many questions as they want questions.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if this is almost kind of addressed by the term “grandstanding”.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she has a little problem with that. She feels, the way grandstanding is defined in this, she would personally strike the entire second sentence that states with “it”. She would start that sentence with the word “grandstanding” and also strike “on the Council dais”. She stated “There will be no grandstanding on any issue. Grandstanding is the use of an individual Council seat in a disrespectful and inappropriate manner to state a point of view ...” She feels that it is a little wordy in what they are trying to say what grandstanding is.

She believes it is important to define it but is defined too many times.

Mayor Bier agreed.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if she wants to put there will be no grandstanding or filibustering on any issue.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that will then have to define filibustering and as the city attorney will probably advise them.

City Attorney Kenyon thanked her.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if they say there will be no grandstanding or filibustering, then they will need to insert another sentence after they define grandstanding.

City Attorney Kenyon stated, for the record, she thinks filibustering is being addressed in the last redline sentence or phrase at the end of the paragraph as that was intended to address filibustering and she didn’t think there was a need to address it in the first sentence. She added that they could, but they would want to use the same definition that they have in the last phrase, but that would be redundant.

Mayor Bier thought scratching out including posing too many questions, as she didn’t think that was a good thing to have there.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that there is a clause that comes after the posing questions on an issue, then it clarifies what is problematic about the way in which they are being posed.

Mayor Bier thought it was the posing of questions because you can be filibustering without asking questions and she didn’t think it had anything to do with questions, just the general discussion on an issue that doesn’t facilitate further deliberation. She reiterated that it doesn’t have anything to do with questions.

Councilmember Beckmeyer hears what she is saying on monopolizing discussion time.

City Attorney Kenyon suggests, “or monopolizing discussion time, including ... she apologized that she is having trouble reading her writing.

Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested, “in ways that do not further deliberation, general understanding or bringing issues. She sees what Mayor Bier is saying which is take the word question out of it completely, not just too many but also the word question.

2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 September 12, 2022
Mayor Bier agreed.

City Attorney Kenyon thanked her and she thinks her writing says “or monopolizing discussion time in a manner which does not facilitate for further deliberation,” just get rid of questions and “in a manner which does not...”
Mayor Bier agreed as they want to be able to ask as many questions as they can.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed, “discussion time in a manner ...” City Attorney Kenyon added “that does not facilitate or further”.

Councilmember Beckmeyer and City Attorney Kenyon were trying to clarify the terminology.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she loved it.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed.

Mayor Bier asked if everyone else was okay with that.

Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill also responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier thought, in F, it was important for an explanation for the community to understand the process they already do as in a city manager system or structure, this is what they are already doing.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that he can do that. He stated that there was a quote from the Half Moon Bay policy and this is what is very consistent with that. This specifies, which is the practice in most Council manager forms of government, that the importance of the questions coming through the city manager is for efficiency. They could have five different councilmembers asking questions directly of department directors where it is all the same question, and if the questions come through the city manager, they can efficiently consolidate and get the information to the entire Council prior to the meeting and that is why that system exists if that helps with the explanation.

Mayor Bier stated, to be fair, she feels that it works really well and the community understands that, when she poses a question and she sends it to the city manager and he sends it to a staff member and she gets an answer very fast and thorough and she doesn’t feel like it gives more power to the city manager but helping Council get the right information from the right person and department.

Councilmember O’Neill added that it is distributed to all five of them.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.

Mayor Bier also agreed.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, as a member of the public, he would go to Council

2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 September 12, 2022
meetings for years and, over time, he developed personal relationships with city staff as a result, especially during intermissions or before or after the meetings. He would talk to them and had the ability. When he became a councilmember, he learned about the Council management structure which is common through many cities and he had to unlearn going directly to city staff because it messes things up a little. He stated that he often mails the city manager and may copy the department head as it is hard to break himself of that habit. He talked to a government affairs official for PCE and as they were discussing, he reminded him of the way generally in all cities, the Council management structure operates and as a member of the public, he was not aware of how that structure operates and is common in many cities.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she has had other city managers and it was exactly the same, such as when Lorie Tinfow was the city manager, they went directly to her.

Mayor Bier stated that she was fine with leaving it as-is. She stated, in Order of the Agenda, there are a lot of things redlined and she thought they might be able to get an explanation for that.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the clarifying note there is that all of the redlined items have been moved into a new section called regular agenda items and any track changes on those items are reflected in that later section 4. He stated that, scrolling down past all of the track changes redlined. He then thought the section number is incorrect. Section 4 is consent calendar, Section 5, Council Communications, and Section 6, Regular Agenda Items. He stated that Section 6 shows the track changes to those regular agenda items. He stated that it is a little cluncky in managing the track changes when you’re re-ordering the document for readability.

Councilmember Beckmeyer gets it.

City Manager Woodhouse pointed out, under special presentations, the committee added, with the issue of trying to manage the length of times of meetings and the agenda, trying to limit special presentations to more than 20 minutes collectively. He stated that this meeting was a little bit of an exception because they had four time-sensitive special presentations and proclamations that had to go in the month of September, but typically, they would only have one or two and do them in the 20-minute time period.

Mayor Bier stated this is an attempt. She stated that was one and two, and they were good with two. She wondered why the part in Section 2 of the last sentence was being taken out.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked where they are posted, as she thought there should be a copy at the library.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it is struck out because that says that, at the Council Chambers, there is new law about posting of the agenda or reports which this section is talking about, and there are copies posted at City Hall, copies of the agenda that are sent to the libraries and they always have copies of the reports at the physical Council meetings, and City Clerk Coffey can clarify that.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they have a full agenda packet available at the physical locations, and at the Council Chambers when they are in person, including the staff reports with their attachments. She thought, they were responding to the nature of the meetings being virtual now versus in person and they have full agenda packets at the Civic Center currently without

2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 September 12, 2022
the physical meeting location.

Mayor Bier asked if there can be a reference of that.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they are sending physical paper copies to the libraries.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they are having the libraries post the agenda outline that they also post at the Civic Center, Community Center and Council Chambers, but not the full agenda packet which, depending on the attachments and number of reports, it could be upwards of anywhere from 400 to 1000 pages.

Mayor Bier stated that there might be community members that the only way they can read it is at the libraries.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they have the physical copy at City Hall.

City Clerk Coffey stated that the physical copy of the agenda is at City Hall and they are also made available at Council Chambers on the date of the meeting when they have an in-person meeting. She added that the libraries are equipped with computers and she believes they have library staff available to assist with accessing online materials.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that the time was 10:45 pm.

Mayor Bier thanked him but she didn’t think they will be extending the meeting as she thought they will end at 11 pm and continue the meeting.

Councilmember O’Neill thought that was a consensus, but he wanted to be sure.

Mayor Bier stated that she was asking.

Councilmember Vaterlaus was in agreement.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was her understanding.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it was fine by him. He asked if they were asking to make sure there is a copy of the agenda in the libraries.

Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier stated that it was not the agenda, but the report.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was the whole agenda packet.

Mayor Bier stated that they need to have it available in as many places as they can for them as that is one of the concerns with the community that is not acceptable.

City Manager Woodhouse would like to talk about this a little bit as the physical printing and distribution of the entire agenda packet, depending on how big, as City Clerk Coffey stated it could be 1000 pages, and it is quite onerous to do. He stated that they have it available at City Hall and it is rarely accessed at City Hall. It is also at the Council Chambers. He thought the Council could decide if they want multiple copies distributed all around the city, they would do

2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 35 September 12, 2022
that, but it is a significant undertaking as well as a significant amount of paper with some question about frequently that is actually accessed versus electronically accessed at a library computer if someone needs assistance or at City Hall.

Mayor Bier suggested that they leave that sentence in and leave it at that.

City Manager Woodhouse stated it was fine as they do that, i.e., posted and available at Council Chambers. He stated that the reason they struck it out is because now they are not doing in person meetings at the Council Chambers as the reports aren’t there because no one can get into the Council Chambers.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated the really can say when they are in person meetings.

Mayor Bier stated that sounded good.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought one additional thing needs to be included which is the statement City Clerk Coffey made and City Manager Woodhouse just reinforced, which is that the full agenda packet is available at City Hall, which right now is at the Community Center and right now there is no physical paper copy available at Council Chambers. She thought the intent of the process is not to write policies for what might prove to be two more months of not having in person meetings and the intent is that eventually, City Hall is going to be re-occupied and is a place with a specific address and location and Council Chambers will be where they conduct their meetings in person. She asked if they should be stating in this paragraph that the agenda packet is available and all staff reports and attachments is available for public review at City Hall.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated just at City Hall and is consistent wherever City Hall is located is where it will be.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated in this document it only talks about Council Chambers. She stated that, what the mayor said about restoring the last sentence, they never talk about the part that is at City Hall.

City Manager Woodhouse had a suggestion as what is weird about this, asking City Clerk to scroll back up, and for some reason this just falls under the consent calendar discussion, and he would recommend that they come back with a paragraph, unless it is already in there but in a different location, that talks about where the physical agenda packet will be provided.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it then doesn’t just pertain to consent calendar reports but pertains to all of the reports. And they will clarify that it is provided at City Hall, and there will also be a copy at the Council Chambers when they are doing in-person meetings. He thought state law continues to require at City Hall as well.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed that they will include City Hall and they will move the entire reference to all of it somewhere else in the document that is higher up or pertains to everything, not just the consent agenda.

City Clerk Coffey thought, other than striking this phrase, her read on this was the intent of this statement was that, because this is under the consent calendar, her take is that each of the

2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 36 September 12, 2022
consent calendar items, even though not discussed individually, they are considered as a whole and each item will have a staff report that is sufficient to inform the public of each item on the consent calendar and that those staff reports are available to the public. That is her read on it, and she thought they were striking this portion of this phrase because it was taking away from the emphasis that each consent calendar item will have a staff report that adequately discusses it.

Councilmember O’Neill agreed with her.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the topic of where the agenda packets are physically provided will be addressed in a different section.

Councilmember Beckmeyer understood.

Mayor Bier referred to Section 7.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, for quick clarification, there was wording choice changes the committee wanted to make regarding deliberation versus discussion and discuss versus debate, etc.

Mayor Bier was okay with the changes on page 11.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked her what page she referred to.

Mayor Bier stated it was packet page 331, page 11 of the document. She suggested they talk about the abstention, the redline on No. 12.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that City Attorney Kenyon can clarify regarding the legal requirements.

City Attorney Kenyon stated the strikeout was simply to clarify that, when someone abstains for non-political or format issues or actual financial conflict issues, their abstentions only have effect on the quorum, and there still can be a quorum. If there was a political or format conflict, there could not be a quorum but she also thinks this is an attempt to try to address that there is no reason to state why you are abstaining when you abstaining for a non-legal reason, i.e., if you are not abstaining for a political or format issue, which by law you have to state your abstention and the reason for it, then there is no reason to state why you are abstaining from voting.

Mayor Bier stated that made more sense to her.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it was 10:55 pm.

Mayor Bier saw that, 10:56 pm, and she asked if they should stop there.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated if she wanted them to stop at the bottom of packet page 331.

Mayor Bier responded affirmatively and stated they could begin on the next page when they continue the meeting.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.

2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 37 September 12, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they have to move to continue this to a date.

Mayor Bier stated that they do need a motion.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to continue the item to their next regular meeting.

Mayor Bier thought the city manager will have to look at it.

Councilmember O’Neill stated a date to be determined.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he would say a date to be determined, and he asked the City Attorney if that is an appropriate motion where they have flexibility in determining when they can fit this into a future agenda.

City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to continue this item to a date to be determined; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (to continue this Agenda Item to a date to be determined) MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m.

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 September 12, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86083392833
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 860 8339 2833
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: 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 26, 2022

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
September 26, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on September 26, 2022 at 5:00 PM 5:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present and announced that the business to be discussed in Closed Session as stated on the Agenda.
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION-Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: Patricia Lee v. City of Pacifica et al, Superior Court of State of California – County of San Mateo, Case. No. 21-CIV03524 There were no public comments.

Council recessed to Closed Session.
5:30 PM - OPEN STUDY SESSION
Study Session #2 regarding the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan PROPOSED ACTION: Receive an informational presentation regarding the status of the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan following the Study Session held on July 11, 2022 and provide comments and direction to City Staff.

Mayor Bier reconvened to the study session at 5:30 p.m.

PW Assoc. Civil Engineer Enriquez mentioned the items they will be covering in their presentation, concluding with a Q&A session. He stated those present will be the Carollo consultants, Paul Friedlander and Assoc. VP Ryan Orgill. He then passed it on to Mr. Orgill for the presentation.

Mr. Orgill said he was having a problem with the process and might have to have his consultant, Paul Freelander, make the presentation.

2.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 September 26, 2022
Mayor Bier suggested he log off and log back in as he can’t hear them.

City Attorney Kenyon suggested that someone text him that they can hear him but he won’t be able to hear questions.

Mr. Friedlander said he would do that.

Mr. Orgill then stated that he had it fixed.

Mr. Orgill then presented the staff report.

Mr. Friedlander added clarification that anyone having questions can ask during the presentation.

Mr. Orgill agreed and continued with the presentation.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they wanted them to questions during the presentation or save them until after the presentation.

Mr. Orgill stated he could ask the question now.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have 6 inches for 100-year volume, and he asked if that is an industry standard or federal government. He asked where those numbers come from.

Mr. Orgill stated that information is published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and they have a tool on their website, recently updated, that allows you to go anywhere in the United States, click on a particular location and it will tell you what these design storm volumes are and it is a standard approach to estimating those volumes and published data that is available from the government. He then asked if there was any other question on the design storm as he knows there was a question related sizing the system to 100-year event and they provided an answer to that question. He didn’t know if they want to talk about that further now or wait to the end.

Mayor Bier stated that there are no outstanding questions now.

Mr. Orgill continued the presentation.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the chart displaying the 100-year volume, and that is for existing, not with climate change.

Mr. Orgill responded affirmatively. He stated that it was published data and this includes those same line items but with the increase expected associated with climate change.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck understood, adding that he was not seeing the 100-year with climate change and he asked if we have that data.

Mr. Orgill stated that they do. He clarified that the point of this slide is why they analyze the system again but they will be included in the report, and it will be roughly 20% higher than that six number that they documented in the previous slide.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked how much higher.

2.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 September 26, 2022
Mr. Orgill reiterated that it was roughly about 20%.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was asking because he thought it was important to see that data, including the community, and he appreciated that, at the end of the day, it will be cost prohibitive to plan to a 100-year, and he preferred the 1% nomenclature. He thought they should have the data in front of them to have the conversation to the degree they prefer and he would appreciate seeing it.

Mr. Orgill stated that they can do that. He then continued the presentation.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that a resident had spoken to wastewater employees and was told the reason lower Linda Mar floods is because the pipe going from the Linda Mar pipe station to Calera Creek is not big enough, and he asked if that is true.

Mr. Orgill stated that, with the pipe associated with the pump station, what they found is that the actual storm drains in the ground are undersized and that is what is leading to the flooding.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that it is not true that it is the pipe from Linda Mar pump station to Calera Creek which is the correct size and it is actually the mains under the streets that are messed up. He asked why that wasn’t corrected when they did the Equalization Basin and the streets were torn up.

Mayor Bier stated that PW Director Petersen popped up.

PW Director Petersen thanked Councilmember O’Neill for that question and she wanted to note that when the resident brought up that question, there was some confusion that was going on related to storm drain system and related to the sewer system. She stated that it is the sewer system that goes from Linda Mar over the hill to the Calera Creek. The storm drain system does not do that and it is going out either at Linda Mar or at Anza and ultimately increasing the size of the sewer pipe going over the hill to Calera Creek is not going to impact our storm drain system. She stated that there might have been some confusion about that.

Mayor Bier stated that Civil Engineer Raymond Donguines also has his hand up.

Sr. Civil Engineer Donguines stated that PW Director Petersen answered the question.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that the resident was inaccurate in his statements.

Mr. Orgill continued the presentation.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked him to go back to the slide on the Rockaway area. He was confused on the staff report, as the spring wasn’t called out specifically and he wasn’t sure if that was accounted for along with the rest. He asked if they could address the spring specifically in future reports as, in his mind, that is a major point of concern, but presumably not the only one. He stated it is helpful when reading the thing.

Mr. Orgill agreed that they can do that.

Mayor Bier stated that it helps for their community to know that they are addressing it. She appreciated that.

2.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 September 26, 2022
Mr. Orgill stated that was the main driver for that project and they will definitely note that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that her question goes back to the area on Anza and lower Linda Mar but on the other side of Linda Mar Boulevard and she wanted to know if they could address that or they can go to it when he finishes the presentation.

Mr. Orgill stated that they can go back to that slide. He stated that the flooding on Anza is not a pipe issue, but the issue is that the inlet themselves are undersized and this project would include replacing those with larger inlets that would mitigate that flooding issue.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she didn’t see it reflected on that slide, but the area of concern is on the other side of Linda Mar Boulevard, on the other side of the red line where they are proposing the new pipeline.

Mr. Orgill asked if it was the flooding that is happening near the shopping center.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it was on Montezuma and Desolo. She wondered if that meets the modeling and do they consider that to be a problem.

Mr. Orgill stated that is where the flooding showed up in the model and their solution to the problem is to scalp off upstream of that area and redirect it around. He stated that, if they look on the east side of the map, there is a black dot where there is an interconnection between a 36-inch green pipe which is in the existing storm drain and essentially all that flow is now making its way down to Desolo and Montezuma where it is flooding. He stated that this main is meant to bypass that around the restriction.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked him for that clarification.

Mr. Orgill then continued the presentation.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he understands what grants are, and he was assuming he was speaking about forming a special sewer or storm water district.

Mr. Orgill stated that it was similar to that.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if it would be a revenue source that they would get a loan and fix a bunch of this stuff or is it collecting it and then fixing it several years down the road.

Mr. Orgill stated that, if you try to get loans now, you can get them and pay them back later.

How that would be funded would be to figure out a way to pay for them with the money they already have or set up a storm water utility to help pay them back. He stated that, with a storm water utility, they would start building up a rate base and, if you aren’t successful in getting a grant or loan, you will be building the money to actually permit the projects.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, at $25 million for all the projects, there are 40,000 people in Pacifica and that is quite a chunk of money and they can’t charge people $1,000 a month for storm water and he would assume that, if they form a special district, this may not be his forte, but he asked if they could do a 218 election or a citywide election bond to form that or he asked the legalese logistics of forming utility district like that.

2.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 September 26, 2022
Mr. Orgill stated that he didn’t know the answer to that but he can get an answer for him. He stated that they have a special group of rate study people at Carollo where they are doing the analysis. He didn’t have the specifics on that, but he stated that he can get back to him on that.

City Manager Woodhouse added that storm water infrastructure funding is an immense challenge to all cities and jurisdictions now as it is not a direct enterprise service structure like wastewater which can be in some cities and, with various infrastructure bills and conversations with legislators related to grant sources, it is a hot topic. He stated that floating a $25 million general obligation bond is a big deal for voter approval. He stated that borrowing that money is a big deal with the ongoing debt service obligation that would be required and interest rates are higher now than when they were when they borrowed for the Civic Center project. He stated that it is a big challenge and they were identifying some of the ideas that need to be looked at further and they don’t have answers now.

Mr. Orgill completed the presentation.

Consultant Friedlander added that, as City Manager Woodhouse articulated, the real challenge is how you fund this kind of project. He stated that there are different mechanisms but none of them are easy to do and are a challenge for cities throughout the Bay Area and the country.

Councilmember O’Neill assumed that it was probably best to do some sort of district because it is one big project if it is done versus like trying to save for a house and, if they want to pay cash for a house and the house keeps going up, and that is what is going to happen with this but he referred to prioritization and asked if we have any figures as to how many people are affected by each of the flooding issues, such as Anza, etc. He would like to look at the expiration, and referred to a storm district and everyone is paying and that would drive the cost lower for everyone or is it more feasible to have a storm district in the area that is being done, such as what would be the cost of a homeowner in lower Linda Mar, etc., if you formed a district just in that area to do that. He assumed they would need 66% to form a district and a resident on Cape Breton or Oddstad is not being affected by the flooding and trying to get a citywide storm district could be a bigger challenge than others. He stated that, as they were looking at options, he would like to see that option on the table.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he wanted to clarify that, when he is saying geographical districts, what he is referring to is an assessment district model as opposed to a special district operation and he wanted to be sure that is correct and he stated that Consultant Friedlander can respond to the difference between assessment district approaches and setting up an actual utility based on rates.

Councilmember O’Neill thought he was doing a hybrid between assessment and storm district and he would like to see a discussion or analysis over which is most efficient to get the job done at the lowest cost, as well as methodology in how you form that. He asked if that is something Council votes on or is it the people in the assessment district or citywide and you need 67% to do it, as he thought that was part of the analysis they need to have to make a decision on this.

He added that it is hard to give guidance if you aren’t familiar with the different options and the pros and cons of the issues on which they are giving guidance.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the question he would ask, stating that PW staff could chime in, was about the scope for this master plan. He didn’t know if it includes a detailed assessment of the pros and cons of different financing models and they get very complicated for our typical outside financing team to evaluate the pros and cons of the various models are. He

2.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 September 26, 2022
could be wrong, but that is part of the scope.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, if wastewater is an enterprise fund, could some of the money in the enterprise fund do the design so when they apply for a grant, they are a step ahead because they have design already taken care of. He asked if that is something wastewater can pay for.

City Manager Woodhouse thought the short answer is no, as wastewater and storm water are separate utilities, and he stated that the city attorney may be able to weigh in, as there may be some overlap between the two because of I&I issues that would justify that overlap or share of funding.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that was the linkage he was thinking of, i.e., being able to use wastewater funding for design purposes because of the I&I.

City Manager Woodhouse thought that is something legally that they would need to evaluate further.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that she didn’t have any information to analyze or give any response on that at this meeting. Her suggestion is that, given the questions, they go back with Carollo and look at these options. She stated that there are options but, for Council to get into specifics about the actual funding, she wasn’t sure, from a legal perspective, they were prepared to have that discussion at this meeting.

Mr. Friedlander thought he might answer questions regarding from they were tasked with a high level looking at alternatives. He stated that they would need to give more detailed studies on some of these issues.

Mayor Bier asked if there were any more questions from Council or they can go to public comment and come back and discuss more. She asked Mgmt. Analyst Brooks for some instructions on how to do public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Brooks asked if City Clerk Coffey had the instructions at her disposal.

City Clerk Coffey gave the directions for the public to speak.

Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, thanked the consultants for their work in trying to help them understand these issues. She then presented questions she had on several of the issues such as the 100-year storm, including the legal implications, etc. When she ran out of time, she stated she would send in her other questions.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated this was a very comprehensive study, and he expressed his thoughts on the issue that will be ongoing, such as not being in favor of breaking it up into assessment groups.

Bob Boles, Pacifica, stated that the issue of having a special assessment district is interesting, and expressed his thoughts on that in general.

Mayor Bier closed public comment. She stated that there were a few questions and she asked

2.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 September 26, 2022
if there are any responses to those.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought the most intriguing question was regarding any legal issues that might stem from flooding and he thought the City Attorney can help with that one.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, in City Attorney Kenyon’s absence, he didn’t have an answer but it would be one that they would look into as he thought City Attorney Kenyon would say those kinds of legal risks are going to be very case specific as to what happens and depend on multiple factors as the current case is and it would be very difficult to make generalizations about that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought they may be able to get more specifics later. He referred to the 100-year storm events, and he wasn’t sure how to articulate a question, but that atmospheric river bomb cyclone event they had last October was eye opening. He was listening to the news recently and they talked about a volcanic eruption in Tonga in January that sent so much water vapor into the air that is exacerbating global warming for the foreseeable future, but regardless of the years, maybe the odds just went up. He thought it seemed that storms are getting more frequent and he thought the 100-year planning is cost prohibitive and would involve rerouting the entire system in certain ways and he appreciates that isn’t where they want to go but he thought it bears discussing and he would love the experts to weigh in and make him feel better about not going the 100-year route. He asked what a 100-year route would look like and how prohibitive is it and how lacking in resources are we or how much does he not have to worry.

Mr. Friedlander stated that one approach to take would be that, when they design a specific project that they identify as a 50-year storm and size up for 100-year storm, and they can evaluate the cost in doing that on a project by project basis. He stated that they wouldn’t give a big system that would handle a 100-year storm because you do it in individual pieces. He stated that was more of a bite size approach to be dealing with the areas identified by the current analysis. He apologized about the confusion about the numbers and they will try to clarify that moving forward. He stated that they had a number of 5.32 inches for the 24-hour 50- year storm and they modeled 6.44 inches and that is a 21% increase based on climate change.

He stated that all the numbers are based on existing information. He stated that there was a climate that future numbers are based on different kinds of projections and everyone needs to understand that there is a lot of uncertainty in how they project that. He stated that the number of 6 inches for the 24-hour 100-year storm is in between the existing 5.32 inch 50-year storm and the future 6.44. He stated that they didn’t show any numbers with climate change for this 100-year storm, but they can do that. He hoped that clarifies what those numbers.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck appreciated that they will make every effort in the future to give them as much information as possible as they thrive on more, not less, when it comes to information.

He stated that, because of the uncertainty he referenced, that is why he is trying to err on what is the most protection we can figure out how to orchestrate for our city. He thought it was a citywide issues, not merely a specific neighborhood issue and we need to work on this together as over time as things get worse, we are all going to be in this together. He would prefer taking an approach where we are physically capable and are on the side of caution while appreciating that things aren’t getting better.

Mr. Friedlander referred to asking about how we can be more comfortable with this whole thing and he added that based on the analysis and what they have heard from the community, he thought they have identified the major points where there is flooding and whatever design storm

2.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 September 26, 2022
they have, those seem to be the most critical points and prioritizing those projects you are prioritizing the community’s needs.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he hears him saying that, with those specific projects, it will be making some of our hardest hit areas more ready for that 1% event and that does make him feel a little bit better about it, even though he would create a retention basin over the entire city if he could.

Mayor Bier referred to one commenter bringing up the data from the past 40 years and she realizes it is a hard stretch to get all that data for them, but it would be interesting to go back just a little ways to see the data on the how many storms and floods have been in the past ten years.

Mr. Orgill stated that the one that happened in October was definitely a 100-year storm or probably more.

Assoc Civil Engineer Henriquez stated that they can look into that and go back ten years as she is asking and get that information for her.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they have the information they wanted from Council. He stated that he thought it was a city problem and everyone should contribute but he was more concerned about, if it has to go to a vote, getting a 67% vote for a bond issues.

Assoc. Civil Engineer Henriquez stated that, when they started the master plan, they didn’t get too involved with the formations of assessment districts or storm water utilities but they knew they were going to pursue grants and loans for the most part and the assessment districts and storm water utility was going to be a rather exhaustive effort in and of itself. He stated that PW Director Petersen may have more information.

PW Director Petersen reiterated, as discussed by Mr. Friedlander, the scope related to funding for this master plan which is typical for all the master plans she has been involved with, it tends to be relatively high level and she could see that, once Council identified their priorities and if the agree with the priorities being put forward, what happens, if staff digs in and starts looking at some of those funding options being provided by the consultants in the master plan and digging in to see which ones may be the most viable for those particular projects that are of interest to Council.

Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed that this issue, as well as the seawall, are both citywide issues, not just district.

Mayor Bier appreciated them bringing up Lauren Avenue as during rains, it might not flood at the bottom but it is dangerous, even going out to your car and she appreciated that being on the list. She asked if they need any more information from Council.

Assoc. Civil Engineer Henriquez didn’t think so, but he asked PW Director Petersen if she had anything else.

PW Director Petersen stated that they basically wanted to get Council’s input related to the prioritization, the way the design was being designed with the 50-year storm with climate change included in that and jumping it by 21% to include the climate change perspective and any other comments. She has written down their comments, but they were just looking for any

2.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 September 26, 2022
input so they can massage the draft and master plan to get everything into it.

Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested reenforcing and echoing the comments from councilmembers about the citywide nature of so many of these issues. While there may not be an impact of a specific flooding event in her neighborhood that is happening in another neighborhood, there can be something coming up in her neighborhood that they don’t know about yet and developing and reinforcing that notion of one city that has to deal with all their problems. She stated that there is a magnitude issue. She appreciated Councilmember O’Neill asking them to look in the future regarding financing possibilities and opportunities for funding projects. She felt an important data for her was what the magnitude of how many homeowners, properties, etc., are, and we need numbers. She stated that there may be an opportunity for both strategies and they are talking about the whole city, whether a special district or other financing. She stated that, when they bring this back in the future, she would like more detail on how those districts are formed, what it looks like and whether, if they are in an area in a third categorized project priority and a relatively smaller amount of money, that is something that a neighborhood could undertake in seeking to bring it forward sooner than priority 3 and is there a strategy for that. She asked if they can have that whole city approach of the overarching plan but, within that, can there be an assessment district model or formation of a special assessment, etc.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it may be absurd, but when Monterey is flooding and the cars that are parked curb their wheels which causes the water to go over the sidewalks, she asked if they could give them some notification because that is part of the problem as it causes giant overflow that makes it go over the sidewalk into people’s houses but if the water could continue down the street, it would solve a lot of those issues. She didn’t know if they can notify people and she wondered how they can go about that before they get that fixed if something happens.

Assoc. Civil Engineer Henriquez asked PW Director Petersen if she has any comments.

PW Director Petersen thought it could be a matter of notification and sticking with them about not doing it. She wondered if they are anticipating a lot of flooding and they may be hesitant not to curb their wheels as they be afraid that their car will go down the street, but they can do some outreach with community education related to that and hopefully once they get some of the projects in place the amount of flooding going down the street won’t happen anymore.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he wanted to see if City Attorney Kenyon might be able to give him more information about his earlier question if she is present.

City Attorney Kenyon asked him if he can repeat the question.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that one of the callers had a legal issue around flooding and he thought he would echo that and see what her thoughts might be, generally, what legal issues could arise from flooding if we don’t deal with this or is it incumbent on the homeowners to suck it up.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that this is a very lawyer answer and this is what she does, but all the questions related are very fact specific. She can say that, generally, if flooding arises out of a 100-year, 200-year event that is not anticipated and was not directly related to an infrastructure piece that they constructed and designed, then there is usually not liability, but if our infrastructure in any away contributes to the flooding, that is a very fact-based analysis and

2.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 September 26, 2022
it depends on the facts. She stated that, generally, if it is 100-year flood or 200-year flood, and they did the best they could in planning our capital projects, and the flooding occurred in any event, then there may not be any liability. If it is something where we design a capital project that, in some way, they created the flooding, that is something we have to look into in terms of what they could have done differently and there could be liability. She stated that it is all very fact specific.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it pretty well tracks with what City Manager Woodhouse said earlier. He stated that it is an inverse circumstance where they know there is an area in town that regularly has flooding and they don’t address that, there is liability that results from knowing that there is regularly flooding in a specific area and they are not addressing it.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that it depends on what is causing the flooding. She stated that, if it is something related to our infrastructure that we haven’t fixed, perhaps, but if related to just 100-year storm that we could not have predicted, and there happens to be a lot of them, they don’t have the obligation to anticipate that there are going to be continuous 100-year storms unless there are facts in evidence to assure that we need to construct our infrastructure to address those storms. She stated that it does happen periodically. When she first started, they were designing for a 50-year and now you have to plan as it is more evident that we are having more flooding, more rain, more climatic instances of catastrophic events and it is now getting into some understanding that this could be the new norm and it is all going to depend on what the storm look like, what does that flooding look like, what did our infrastructure look like and what was the damage done to that property, caused by the flooding or caused by some other factor.

Mayor Bier thanked them for all their work and they appreciated them. They look forward to more information as we move forward. She then stated that they will take a break until the 7:00 start of their regular meeting.
7:00 PM - OPEN REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Bier reconvened the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Kirk Stratton, Interim Police Chief; Raymund

2.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 September 26, 2022
Donguines, Sr. Civil Engineer; Lawrence Henriquez, Assoc. Civil Engineer; Ryan Marquez, Project Manager; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Tommy Yu, IT Manager; Bonny O’Connor, Senior Planner; Elizabeth Brooks, Management Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

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.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgement.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck
Closed Session Report
City Manager Woodhouse stated there was no closed session report.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Pius Garcia
Mayor Bier stated that they were coming together in honor of Pius Garcia, and then read the proclamation honoring his passing.

PW Director Petersen extended the PW Department’s deepest sympathies to his family, and stated it was also difficult for so many of his coworkers. He was well loved and respected and they miss him.

Building Maintenance and Park Superintendent Gino Assereto stated that Mr. Garcia began his career on July 8, 1996 working with street repair crew for two years, then joined the building maintenance crew and worked on several projects throughout the years and he was respected for his abilities and knowledge and will be deeply missed by everyone.

Mayor Bier thanked Mr. Garcia’s wife for being present, and stated that she could share if she wanted but if not, that was fine. She then asked if there was any public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speaker.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that she was speaking as the executive director of the Sanchez Art Center. She stated that their center opened the same year that Mr. Garcia joined the city and he was always so appreciated. When they needed help, they were happy when he responded as he was a pleasure to work with, etc.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that another city employee’s hand was raised.

Building Maintenance Specialist Rolando Siliezar was Mr. Garcia’s partner and they worked together for over ten years. He stated he had the ability to address every job site in a professional manner and quick to show his expertise and shared that with him. He was very

2.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 September 26, 2022
talented, smart and a good mentor. He will definitely miss him very much.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he did not know Mr. Garcia very well, but he gave his condolences. While not having known him, he has talked to people in town about him and they have repeated over and over his kindness.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he saw him sometimes and he was always pleasant, always smiling and willing to please. He extended his sympathy to his family for their loss which is hard when sudden and unexpected. He thanked his family for sharing him with his time working in Pacifica.

Councilmember Vaterlaus gave her condolences, and she thought a person working for the city for 25 years is incredible. She stated that she has heard great things about him and she thanked his family for allowing him to work with the city.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought the biggest confirmation of his willingness to share his time and talent is how much he is missed and how much his coworkers speak of him and how difficult this has been for them to accept and pull together and move on as it is difficult when you lose someone you love. She stated that it is clear that all the people he worked with adored him. She extended her condolences to the family.

Mayor Bier thanked his wife for being with them as she knows it isn’t easy. She was going to comment on his 25 years of service and what happens when you have an employee for that long is that they become family. She has seen that his coworkers in his department and she wanted her to know how much he was appreciated.

City Manager Woodhouse thought the nature of the city organization as a tight family unit comes out and he sends his sympathies to his wife and family for their loss. He didn’t want to overlook the incredible contribution and public service to the community and democracy that an employee like Mr. Garcia commits his entire life. He stated that he committed his entire life and the personal side has come out and the social contribution is important. They will miss him and he was an incredible person.

Mayor Bier thanked his family and sent them all their love.

B. Proclamation - Jane Northrop
Mayor Bier stated that they would now celebrate someone who worked in our community for a very long time, Jane Northrop. Mayor Bier thanked her for being here and then read her proclamation honoring her retirement.

Ms. Northrop thanked Council and stated it was a pleasure to work with them. She thanked Chris Hunter for hiring her and staff of the original Pacifica Tribune and she thanked Peter Loeb and the investor of the Coastside News Group for keeping the community news group alive as a locally owned community newspaper. She thanked Clay Lambert who is the editor, and working with him was a great experience and she appreciated that opportunity as well as everyone else on the staff and she thanked the Pacifica Tribune and thanked Council for the proclamation.

Mayor Bier appreciated her, and she stated that Daniel Vainish was present representing Assemblyman Mullin’s and Senator Becker’s offices.

2.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 September 26, 2022
Daniel Vainish stated that he was present representing Assemblyman Mullin’s and Senator Becker’s offices with a joint certificate for Jane Northrop for all her accomplishments, and then read the certificate.

Ms. Northrop thanked him for that and thanked Assemblymember and Senator as well.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, congratulated her and thanked her for all her hard work. She wished her a fun retirement.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, also congratulated her on her retirement. She stated that it was wonderful to see her around time and now she can have a good time and not be working. She looked forward to seeing her in the future and thanked her for her years of reporting on our community.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Councilmember O’Neill thanked her for her efforts and longevity with the Pacifica Tribune and Pacifica. He stated that their sons were in Boy Scouts together, and she was there when he was on the school board and he thanked her for her efforts and all her reporting to keep everyone tuned in on what was going on in Pacifica.

Ms. Northrop thanked him for his kind comments.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she has been there for 26 years, and going to meetings, which is a chore and she thanked her for everything she has done all these years and was sorry she missed her celebration. She asked her to enjoy her retirement but still be Pacifica.

Ms. Northrop thanked her and stated she will be in Pacifica.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was sorry he missed her celebration and he stated that everywhere he went he saw her at every event. He thought he still will but it was amazing that she has been there covering everything and it has been extraordinary all the love she has put into covering this community.

Ms. Northrop thanked him for his kind words.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked her for all she has done for our community. She stated that the proclamation reminded her that it goes beyond the Tribune and the other local media such as the Pacifica Community TV and hearing about her original school district. She thanked her for the work on the video on School House Rot to get attention to the need for the first bond that helped get the school building up to speed so they had moved on to additional funds approved by the community. She thanked her as a district employee and a citizen.

Ms. Northrop thanked her, and remembered that was a wonderful project and was happy to produce that show.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he forgot but thought that helped pass the bond.

2.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 September 26, 2022
Mayor Bier thanked her, adding that she was able to attend her party and thought it was wonderful. She thanked her for covering the triumphs and tragedies of her family and she appreciated and trusted her. She thanked her for all her years of service and looked forward to having coffee with her.

Ms. Northrop stated that would be great and she appreciated all the love she always showed her. She stated that it was wonderful getting to know her family and how that tragedy changed Pacifica.

Mayor Bier thanked her for being with them tonight.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if there were any councilmembers wishing to pull an item from consent.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he would like to make a comment on Item #5, but no questions.

Mayor Bier stated that was okay and they will go to public comments first then come back to him for his comment.

Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she wanted to comment in Items #4 and 9. Item #4, fireworks, and she pointed out that, while there were less on this year’s Monday, there are more on weekends when people are off the next day, and added further comment. On Item #9, roadwork and repaving in Manor area, she expressed her concerns and proposed options on the issue.

Adam Kerin, Pacifica, stated he had similar comments on Item #9 as Ms. Boles expressed, and added personal concerns on safety issues on the issue.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

City Manager Woodhouse referred to one speaker asking a question on financials related to the July 4 item, and stated that there was a summary table on packet page 102 that shows the expenditures of all the departments on July 4 and amount of revenue that the 8% charge did raise exceeding those expenditures. He wasn’t sure that is what was being referred to or not, but that information is in the report.

Mayor Bier thought they were also asking how much the non-profits made. She asked if Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was going to comment on.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bier asked the city manager if he would explain the funding they received for the pedestrian and bike work on Esplanade.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, for that question, he would turn it over to Director Petersen.

2.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 September 26, 2022
PW Director Petersen stated that the city received a grant fund for doing the bike lane on Esplanade and, to answer the question that has been coming up, the reason that NCE did not get this work was because it had been given to a different consultant that has more experience in bike/ped projects so it is not that the project work is not getting done, but they chose a different consultant that they thought would be a better fit and the project is going to be moving into design in the near future and they hope to get it out soon.

Mayor Bier stated it was a pleasure sitting on that bike and pedestrian committee and being able to split a project that is a good thing. She referred to Councilmember O’Neill for his comment.

Councilmember O’Neill wanted to thank City Manager Woodhouse for moving forward and looking at the consulting firm for all those different grants for which the city applied. He talked to them at the League of Cities and he knows we have PW, but he hoped to see some PB&R or possibly police or other departments have some grants for them become available. He stated he was told that, in October, there was an available grant for Park & Rec or possibly a bike park.

He thought that would be exciting if they can move forward on that. He stated that a big part of this project is that they do the monitoring afterwards which is hard and difficult to report back to the grantors and report on the progress of the various stages. He thought that was an important part of the project and contract.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve the Consent Calendar, 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

1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 8/01/22 through 8/15/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 8/01/22 through 8/15/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on August 22, 2022 and the City Council Special Meeting held on August 31, 2022.

3. Adopt Resolution Amending the City's Conflict of Interest Code to Revise the List of Designated Employees
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution amending the City of Pacifica Conflict of Interest Code to revise the list of Designated Employees and repealing Resolution No. 50-2020.

4. Report on July 4, 2022 Activities
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the staff report on July 4th 2022 activities.

2.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 September 26, 2022

5. Resolution approving First Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for consult services in connection with grant funding between the City of Pacifica and the firm California Consulting.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and California Consulting to extend the Agreement for one year at an additional cost of $60,000; and authorize the City Manager to exercise another optional two-year extension.

6. First Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for Professional Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, by increasing the contract amount by $132,000 with a total not to exceed amount of $792,000 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.

7. Third Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for On-Call Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Good City Company PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve the Third Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Good City Company, by increasing the contract amount by $100,000 with a total not to exceed amount of $320,000 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.

8. Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction and Additional Engineering Services During Construction
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for the Anza Pump Station Repair - Gas Service Line Construction and Additional Engineering Services During Construction:

A. Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Construction Services Agreement with Casey Construction, Inc. (Attachment “A”) in an amount not to exceed $185,100 and authorize a budget authority in an amount not to exceed $222,120 which includes a contingency in an amount not to exceed $37,020 or twenty percent (20%) of the Construction Services Agreement amount;
B. Authorize the City Manager to approve and execute Task Order No. 3 (Attachment “B”) with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc. for Additional Engineering Services During Construction (ESDC) in the amount not to exceed $30,000 and authorize a budget authority in an amount not to exceed $34,500 which includes a contingency in an amount not to exceed $4,500 or fifteen percent (15%) of the proposed fee; and
C. Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the listed contingency amounts.

9. Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services related to the FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing Project.

2.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 September 26, 2022
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services in the amount of $147,000.00 in connection to the FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing Project (Attachment 1); approve budget authority in the amount of $161,700.00 from the Street Construction Fund (Fund 9); and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related with the project.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.

Bruce Wright, Pacifica, stated he is the board chair of the Boys and Girls Club in Pacifica, and he gave them a quick update on their progress over the past four months, reporting on the attendance at close to capacity at the various sites, Yosemite, IBL Middle School, and program updates .

Jeremy Stafford, Pacifica, stated he is the District VP for the Pacifica Firefighters Association, and he thanked the Council for letting them take them for a ride during the Fog Fest and he stated that they are doing their part to be a part of the community.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated a neighbor reported dangerous overgrowth on the Hickey sidewalk uphill of Monterey and stated that they complained about it for over a year but the problem persists. She provided photos to PW and thanked the response from Raymund Donguines in PW and forwarded his response to the neighbors and added her suggested fix for the problem.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Vaterlaus attended the Fairmont Homeowners Association meeting and appreciated being able to hear their issues and she updated them on what is going on in their district, and while they work for everyone in the city, it was nice to be able to talk to homeowners specifically. She referred to talking with a constituent regarding transportation and he had a lot of good ideas and she will put them on paper and submit them. She attempted to get on the Fog Fest Board but it didn’t happen. She attended the SMC Emergency Preparedness meeting and they are switching platforms for the SMC Alert so people might be getting notifications that the platform is changing. She suggested, if you aren’t already signed up for SMC Alert, that you do that. She asked if there was any possibility that it could be switched from an opt in to an opt out platform so that everyone would be notified. She stated that it was difficult to do that, but she thought they are considering trying to get that to happen. She attended the special CCAG Legislative meeting and they got an update. She attended the Age Friendly Cities awards and she thought Mayor Bier did an excellent job talking about our age friendly resources and what she has done to make us an Age Friendly City. She stated that the Democrats discussed the ballot initiatives. She attended Rancho Days which she fondly remembers taking her kids there while they went in circles and circles, making the candles, dipping the wick into each bucket of wax and she still has those candles. She attended a Cal Cities event at Filoli which is nice to get together with all councilmembers on the peninsula. She thanked the Fire Department for letting them ride in their 1949 Mack fire truck, which was fun and nice to be high and be able to see everyone. She thought the Fog Fest was more attended than she has seen in the past. She stated that it was a great turnout on a perfect day. She stated that Council of Cities in Foster City went into total detail on their seawall project which was approved by the members in Foster City, which is a seven mile project encompassing the length of our whole city

2.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 September 26, 2022
in their seawall project. She stated it was enlightening to see what they are doing there and the possibilities that something could be done similarly here. She stated that the person giving the presentation was Louis Sun who was in our PW Department and is now the head of PW in Foster City. She stated it was nice to see him and great to talk to other councilmembers.

Councilmember O’Neill attended the LAFCO meeting and they had a presentation on how San Mateo County is going to be reaching their RHNA numbers, which was interesting on how they did it with the challenges they are facing and how they are going to try and do it. He went to Commute.org Board of Directors meeting and attended the San Mateo County Visitor’s Bureau mixture in Burlingame which was fun. He passed out some of Pacifica jack cheese there as it was a raffle drawing prize. He stated that they talked to all five of them, Police Chief interviews for the new police chief that they wanted in the new police chief. He thanked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck for attending the Library JPA meeting in his place as he had a lot of things scheduled that happened at the same time the meeting was taking place. He attended the Filoli League of Cities event and he attended Fog Fest and rode on the fire truck. He thanked the Fire Department for that. He stated that it was nice riding in the back which is a different perspective than when he normally rides in the front in December. He stated that Fog Fest seemed very busy and he thought it was one of the hottest Fog Fests on Saturday and it was fun with the new normal.

Councilmember Beckmeyer attended the Economic Development Committee meeting on the 14th but was unable to stay for the whole thing, but was there for Katie Berkshire who is one of the co-owners of Table Wine who gave a very excellent presentation on the development of her business over time from their original location in Linda Mar Shopping Center and then moving to Sharp Park, successes, learning experiences with great perspectives on the increasing vibrancy of the small businesses in Sharp Park and how excited she was to be part of that after previously not being interested in relocating there. She left that meeting to go to a very exciting training where she learned so much to prepare to participate in something she ended up not being able to participate in, but she shared that it was through the Resource Conservation District and it was the first flush training which she became aware of through the Rotary Climate Action team. She stated that it was getting ready for the very first big rain of the year when there is sustained runoff to have folks trained to go out and collect samples, which has been going on since 2000 that they have reported the data to capture water samples at specific locations that were creek outfalls that flow to the ocean in terms of what the contamination rates are that get into the ground water and this year they added another test they’re doing for pesticides. She stated that the northern most collection spot is at the San Pedro Creek outfall near the north end of San Pedro shopping center where it goes under Highway 1 and there are spots all the way down Montara, in Half Moon Bay and south of Half Moon Bay. She was trained, ready, on call, ready to go and they got rain on Sunday and they thought that would be the first flush, but it wasn’t quite enough rain and it turned out the first flush was on Monday or Tuesday and she had to go to work. She thanked John Keener and Roger Mascio for carrying forward with their team and doing the collection as they have been doing for many years. She was looking for the opportunity to possibly participate next year. She stated that the Pacifica Democrats meeting was enlightening. They talked about the statewide ballot measures and it was the first time she presented a couple of them and she learned what she left out and she will be more thorough the next time. She had a very good presentation with thorough questions from the audience. She had the great pleasure to sit in for Councilmember Vaterlaus at the CCAG meeting because she had a conflicting meeting that night. She stated that, if you drive Highway 1 at all, you see the signs about the high occupancy vehicle lane and the toll lanes that are already operating in the southbound direction but coming north from Whipple Avenue north they will be in effect as of early 2023 and they think the tolling will probably begin in February

2.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 September 26, 2022
and it brought to her mind the signs they see on the freeway forever, but suddenly it will be done and you need to have a special transponder when you drive through FastTrak and it has a switch on it and, if you drive in those lanes, you can have free or reduced tolling if you have the right number of people in the car, but the only way the transponder knows that is if it can flip the switch on the transponder and you have to get a different FastTrak transponder that you have in your car. She will be going to the website 101expresslanes.org for information how to get that transponder. She stated that there was a great presentation about greenhouse gas reductions and how transportation and staples for carbon neutrality by 2045. The biggest takeaway for her was the vehicle miles traveled and the need to reduce driving our vehicles. She stated that, when you talk about the lofty greenhouse gas reduction goals, they bring it down to her biggest takeaway was that they need to be looking at reducing your average vehicle miles traveled from 25 miles a day to 19 miles a day or 17 miles a day. She stated that we grapple with this all the time by living on the coast as we don’t have good public transportation and not every employer has the power ban or some other means to getting them to have multiple people in a vehicle instead of one. She stated that the third thing about the meeting that was so fun was, having heard the Mayor talk about being part of the Bike and Ped Committee for the CCAG and scoring different applications, she got to cast a vote instead of Councilmember Vaterlaus for the One Bay Area Grant program, OBAG, which included the Pacifica project and will move our project to the next phase of approval for Sharp Park and we won’t hear until early in the year if it has been approved by MTC and she was hopeful that it will be, and it will bring over $2.1 million of bike and pedestrian lane work to Sharp Park.

Mayor Bier thanked her for talking about that project which was exciting. She attended the CCAG Bike and Pedestrian Committee meeting and they discussed that and hopefully that will go through the MTC and they will see what happens. They also discussed the micro-mobility pilot project that will be coming up and she will give them more information about that as they move forward. She thanked her for talking about Katie at table one and she gave an engaging presentation to EDC and another thing they talked about that night was moving forward with Blues and Brews and there is going to be a really cool event coming in October with Blues and Brews and they talked about the Shop Pacifica program and there was a lot of good things going on with our Economic Development Committee and it has been good to be there. She stated that there were a couple of hands up. She asked if he wanted to say something now.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated after she gives her communications.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that Katie was passing out cards at Fog Fest to remind all the small businesses that they’re going to do a Palmetto event the day after Thanksgiving so save the date. The small businesses are going to have an event that day and that is really a great thing and they’re planning way ahead. She also said she is planning for Pride for next year which is going to be good and a much bigger event than it was. She stated that, regarding the transponders, she has had that transponder for several years now and, instead of being a big giant thing, it’s tiny and so much better than the old one and she suggested that they get those newer transponders.

Mayor Bier stated that she wanted to talk about the Age Friendly celebration. She stated that all of the work that has been done to keep Pacifica an age friendly city has been done by Roy Ernst and he has led the charge through the entire process through the last three years and in partnership with the PRC, they are doing housing presentations to our seniors, talking about how to apply for senior housing and how to go through the process. There has been a couple of presentations on that which is one of the arms of the Age Friendly City program and the other arm is the transportation arm through senior services and it’s the attach a ride program where

2.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 September 26, 2022
seniors can get taxi rides for $5 one way and can include a friend. She stated that is an awesome program through Senior Services and they have Cindy Abbott who is working on the Age Friendly business program and they will be moving forward with that coming up and definitely all the work has been done by other people and she wanted to make that clear that Roy is in charge of that and she thanked him. She stated that it was a pleasure to be at the Coastal Cleanup day and they got to hear everyone honor Jim and Anna who were the original founders of the Beach Coalition and that was really great. She thanked Lynn Adams who was on the Pacific Beach Coalition for always having such a wonderful event for our community.

She went to Steal the Event, and she is a new board member on Coast Pride. She got her orientation and had the first meeting. She stated that they will be partnering with the City of Pacifica and others to talk about debriefing last year’s Pride event and then moving forward with planning as they have a meeting scheduled for October 4, and she thought it was great that they get to move forward with that. She moved on to discussing Fog Fest and thanked the Fog Fest Organizing Group. It was amazing to be back and it was delightful. The parade was awesome. The vendors were awesome. The music was awesome. She had a work booth there as well and they were talking to all the young people about substance use and talking to tiny little kids about mental health and asking them what is something they can do to help themselves feel better when they are mad or sad, and they said take deep breaths. She stated that it was wonderful to see how education has changed and how our young people are learning to have different coping mechanisms. She stated that, with all these things that happened at the Fog Fest, she can’t express her gratitude as it was so much fun.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he will begin by remembering Ukraine and his thoughts and prayers. He attended the Democrats meeting, Rancho Day, and, as Councilmember O’Neill alluded to, he attended the Library JPA meeting in his place and some of the highlights were the big lift presentation and how there is a 1.5 month gain in reading growth for the kids who are part of the big lift program which is huge rather than losing some of the learning over the course of the school year. They maintained and might even grow a bit off of the programs that come out of our local libraries. He stated that they approved the adopted budget for 2022-23 and they had a very cool pitch program with the first in person meeting in the years since Covid and they have the pitch program component that they do where, during staff development day, the staff will pitch programs that they think will be cool and the most popular ones will be implemented.

Some of the winners this year was one where they are going to put period supplies in the women’s restrooms and he thought that was cool. They will start loaning out karaoke machines, art supplies and swim passes. They already had programs for park passes and museum passes and they are going to try and get together with local pools so folks who may have trouble getting a swim pass over the course of the summer will have accessibility. They also made sure they knew that state tutoring has become available and the bittersweet news was that we didn’t get the grant funding through the state for our libraries that we had applied for, but we are still in the running for phase 2 of the grant program so we are still in it even though we didn’t get it this round. The next JPA meeting will be in person in Atherton on November 14.

He followed Councilmember O’Neill to a local agency formation commission meeting which he talked about and it was interesting hearing how the county is doing their housing element and in general, watching the meeting was interesting. He attended Filoli. They had a Peninsula Clean Energy retreat with a 4.5 hour meeting, a little longer than their normal meetings. They began by giving them an update on the diversity equity accessibility and inclusion policy that we have been working on rigorously for a while and they weren’t quite ready for prime time yet but they made sure to stress that PCE commits to making diversity equity accessibility inclusion a priority during decision making up to and including the meeting they had on Thursday. He stated that it was a big overarching meeting on how they are doing with our strategic plan. The two specific things that are the big picture they were rigorously working on is the 24/7 clean energy by 2025

2.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 September 26, 2022
with the idea being that, even if we accrue enough clean energy into our system, it is not necessarily being used during off-peak hours and technically they are 100% clean energy and there are times when we have to borrow off the grid and it was not necessarily clean energy.

He stated that they are trying to build up where we get our energy to the point where we don’t have to go off the grid for unclean energy during those off peak times. He stated that the interesting part of that conversation had to do with over building our system and, in order to get to that point where we’re at 100% 24/7 clean energy, we have to weigh overbuild and what was interesting was that 99% of 24/7 was way less of an overbuild than 100% 24/7. He stated that there are financial discussions that come into play depending on how we move in that direction but it seems like a strong place to start that might wind up being 99% and we figure out how to kill that last 1% to get ourselves to the 24/7 goal. He stated that the other major goal is decarbonization by 2035 which largely boils down to statewide policies and incentives that will be kicking in around the 2030 or 2031 area to help folks to electrify where otherwise gas would be the go to. He stated that, as we are discussing on the local level whether or not we want to do burnout code for current development, the state is already starting to make sure that we can get there regardless of how quickly we, on the local level wind up getting there. That is good news and interesting statistic over $100 million has been saved for our customers over six years and the next PCE meeting will be on October 27 at 6:30. He stated that first, in Council of Cities and Foster City, one fact that Councilmember Vaterlaus left out was that, when they passed the bond measure for their seawall, it was 81% approval which he thought was a beautiful thing and it was great to see Louis Sun. He stated that regarding Fog Fest, so much has been said already. It was great to ride in the old fire truck but seeing so many people. He stated that he was going back and forth between his preferred booths and between various music and food and every other staff was another person. On that first day, he felt like he hadn’t accessed all the names of the people he knew in so long because he hasn’t seen them in so long and every time he saw someone he hadn’t seen for two years, he remembered their names 30 seconds late and over and over again that was the experience and finally having our community come together was a beautiful thing to behold. He was excited for the housing element meeting coming up on Wednesday at 6 p.m. He was excited for the Special City Council Reach Code meeting that will be happening tomorrow at 6 p.m. He was sure the City Manager will be reminding them of both.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse thanked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck for the reminder about the upcoming City Council meetings as it is a busy week as mentioned that, in addition to this meeting, the following night is a study session regarding the triennial building codes update, including REACH codes and Peninsula Clean Energy representatives will be on hand to help us during that conversation. Again, it is a study session and an initial high-level talk and input about what options exist and what the actual state required building code updates will be and high level about options related to REACH codes. On Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. is the first Housing Element community engagement workshop and we are hoping for a good crowd. This one continues to be 100% virtual. He stated that the rough agenda will be posted up on the Housing Element webpage but an overview of what the agenda will be for the night is, of course, welcoming and meeting logistics, a high level view of why we’re holding this, why they are doing the housing element update, why it matters and introducing the housing element.

They will discuss needs and trends. There will be a discussion about sites and policy overview but this workshop is not intended to get into specific site discussions as that is part of the late October workshop after initial analysis of sites is completed. In the virtual environment, they hope to break up into small group discussions for community members to talk with community members. Everybody is probably used to this breakout format for those discussions and talk

2.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 September 26, 2022
about next steps. He stated that was a high level overview of the agenda for Wednesday night.

He stated that they have those two meetings this week. He was disappointed to miss the return of Fog Fest due to family obligations which took him out of state. He saw pictures and heard lots of information and reports back about it and it was a huge success. He stated that city staff were able to answer a lot of questions and provide a lot of information to the community. They ran out of Shop Pacifica flyers and had to print more and make them available and he thought that was a great thing. He stated that they got a great aerial using the city’s bucket truck for aerial photograph of Palmetto during Fog Fest by Steven Johnson and that is a picture that will definitely be used as it was an impressive one. He announced that their grant-funded chipper program is coming back in November and, beginning this week, information will be provided in Connect with Pacifica. The dates and locations are November 7 with a route through Linda Mar, Park Pacifica and November 9 Linda Mar southern area routes, Rosita, Perez and more, that will be the focus of continuing the grant funded chipper program as they were using up the previous grant money they were awarded and he hoped they get great participation in that program as they have in the past.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wouldn’t mind a brief bio break, but he wanted to say that he has been seeing Elizabeth doing the reach out for the housing element at the Farmers Market and it has been really good to see her out two weeks in a row and seeing the outreach that the city is doing. He was looking forward to Wednesday.

Mayor Bier stated that they can have a break and return at 8:32 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

10. Consideration of 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). (Continued from 8/8/22).

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the 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 explained the item was an appeal and stated that they would need a motion to reopen the public hearing, as well as hear a staff report and response from the appellant.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck so moved; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (to re-open the public hearing)
Mayor Bier stated that they will now hear a staff presentation from Planning Director Murdock and Sr. Planner O’Connor as well as hearing from the appellant, North Coast County Water District represented by General Manager Adrianne Carr.

2.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 September 26, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse thought, although this is a continuation meeting, it might be good to have Special Counsel Emily Longfellow briefly explain why she is participating at this meeting for context.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that, as she mentioned at the initial hearing, she is participating because, in this unique case, the city is the applicant for this coastal development permit and, in order to advise the Council and keep the roles of City staff as advocate for the project and she is the special counsel to advise the City Council.

Sr. Planner O’Connor presented the staff report.

Mayor Bier stated that it was time for the appellant.

Special Counsel Longfellow wanted to confirm that, prior to allowing the appellant to speak, they should get the typical allotted time for such items and she understood it was ten minutes with three reserved for rebuttal if they so choose.

Mayor Bier confirmed that, and then stated that they have the North Coast County Water District Representative and general manager Adrianne Carr.

City Clerk Coffey asked if Council would like her to promote the appellant representatives.

Mayor Bier agreed.

Representative Carr stated that they had a couple of people joining them, Directors Joshua Cosgrove and Anne DeJarnatt would also like to make some comments.

City Clerk Coffey asked if Ms. Carr would like to reserve some time for rebuttal.

Ms. Carr stated that was fine.

City Clerk Coffey asked clarification that she would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal and take seven minutes for her presentation.

Ms. Carr stated that it sounds like an okay plan and they will see when they get to the seven minutes. She stated that first they will have Joshua Cosgrove and she asked if Anne DeJarnatt had joined them.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they do have Anne DeJarnatt as a panelist.

Ms. Carr stated that was great.

Board member Cosgrove wanted to work with Council to resolve this spot as the board worked hard to develop alternate spots and they greatly appreciate Council’s action in August to continue this hearing. He thought there was pressure on Council from the City Attorney or City Manager that the ACLU will sue them again if they uphold their appeal or continue the hearing.

He called Bill Freeman, the lead attorney with the ACLU on Friday and discussed this alternate spot. He talked to him on Friday and they had a very positive conversation. He reviewed with him the location on Sharp Park Road and told him that the board was willing to partner with the city and fund a spot at the RV park on Palmetto to give them time, 6-8 months, to work through

2.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 September 26, 2022
the challenges on Sharp Park Road site. He also talked to PRC Director Rees who thought it was a great time to talk to the RV park about a spot that is six months or longer. He stated that Bill Freeman specifically said he could tell Council that, as long as the spot is not in Siberia, which he interpreted this to mean that he and his clients would consider the alternative spots as the ACLU and his clients do not want to sue but just want 13 spots. He also said he would talk to his clients about his conversation and this alternative spot. If they are working together to fill another spot or potentially two spots on Sharp Park Road and providing a spot on the RV Park for six months or so to work through the challenges, he believes they can solve this. He stated that General Manager Carr and Director DeJarnatt will also speak but now he will close, asking respectfully that Council either uphold the North Coast Appeal or continue the item again to work together as this was their chance to lead and work with them.

Representative Carr stated that they appreciated Council for taking action to continue the hearing and direct staff to work with the district on alternative sites and allows time for them to work on the issue and they had two productive meetings with city staff and believe that the district’s proposed alternative site is a promising alternative site for the TSPP. She stated that the district respectfully requests that City Council approve the appeal or continue the hearing to allow more time to resolve this issue and they also supports city staff’s alternative action to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. She stated that the city’s program is not a parking program but a temporary housing program and the district’s facility at 2400 Francisco Blvd., serves as the district’s headquarters and corporation yard and include the board meeting room where they hold all board and committee meetings, all staff offices, etc., i.e., that site is the hub for all district operations and where all customers come for anything related to the district. The district wants to work with the city and relocate this one temporary housing parking spot and they recognize there may be some items that need to be worked through with the alternative locations and the district is committed to work through those items in order to relocate this parking spot. She stated that the district is willing to consider other alternatives that may include financial assistance with the relocation of the spot to help pay for necessary improvements at a proposed location or help pay for a spot at the San Francisco RV Park. They would have preferred to collaborate with the city on temporary housing parking spots when the city was evaluating where these spots would be located earlier but that didn’t happen so do it now as it is already underway.

Director DeJarnatt thanked them for the opportunity to address colleagues on the City Council.

She stated that the district disagrees with the city’s legal position and they understand that City Council may agree with the district’s legal position. The district’s legal team is present and ready to respond to any questions Council has about the district’s legal position. They understand the pressure the city is under to implement the temporary safe parking program and they are present as they want to resolve this quickly and amiably and continue the good working relationship and collaboration that the water district and City Council have had for many years.

They are asking Council to consider how they would feel if a temporary housing spot was placed right in front of City Hall or in front of Council Chambers because that is proposed for their district headquarters which included their Board of Directors’ chambers and they ask Council to look at the greater good and what is best for the residents of Pacifica who both the city and the district serve. As they are in the middle of the issue and not close to resolution yet, she thought they need is more time to come to an agreement and the district respectfully requests that Council either approve the appeal or continue the appeal hearing to allow more time to resolve the issue as it appears that the time is the thing they are short of. The district also supports City staff’s alternative action to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.

2.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 September 26, 2022
Mayor Bier appreciated their being here. She then opened up the public hearing..

Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.

William Bradford, Pacifica, concurred with all the arguments the district has and expanded those arguments mentioning his concerns on this issue and his suggestions for resolution.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, acknowledged the concerns of North County Water District and Perfect Pour Café and the water districts suggestions for an alternative space and expressed her thoughts and concerns on this issue.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she supports the Safe Parking Program and the spaces needed to be provided as part of the settlement with the ACLU and she trusts PRC in reviewing the applications and running the program as they have a proven track record in doing that. She expressed her specific concerns on this issue as well as possible options.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated he supports staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal and expressed his concerns and proposed possible options on this issue.

Mayor Bier stated she would close public hearing.

Councilmember O’Neill thought the appellant has three minutes for rebuttal.

Mayor Bier asked City Clerk how much time they have left.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they have three minutes and 14 seconds left.

Representative Carr stated that she doesn’t have any more comments and turned to the two directors to see if they have any desire to make any more comments.

Director Cosgrove appreciated their consideration and he was good.

Director DeJarnatt agreed with Director Cosgrove that she said what she wanted to say but was very concerned that they serve the same population and they are so close yet so far away.

She thinks, with a little more time, they can settle this very well and everyone will be satisfied with the outcome. She urged them to continue the hearing if possible.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated, prior to Council deliberation, similar to the August 8 meeting, the issue before Council is whether or not to approve, deny or modify the permit as described in the city’s application as was presented and considered by the Planning Commission and it isn’t within Council’s discretion at this meeting in considering the appeal to make decisions with respect to the desirability of the alternative sites and any determination with respect to this could still occur through an alternative process, however, not for this appeal hearing.

City Manager Woodhouse added that he was going to say a similar thing, and at the last hearing, Council did direct, as a separate matter for staff to work with the water district staff in evaluating alternative sites and they have begun that process and those sites are very complex but that is a separate matter from the narrowness of this appeal consideration. He also added

2.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 September 26, 2022
that he wanted to be sure to point out that five of the programmed parking spots are virtually in front of City Hall, PW municipal corporation yard which services an immense amount of permit activity and visitors and he pointed that out as clarification.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked the City Manager for clarification. He was going to say something similar and, if the roads in front of City Hall were not so narrow, he probably would advocate for putting the parking program there. He stated that the pressures he feels are not from City Manager or from City Attorney but from the ACLU and those who are sincerely seeking stable housing. He asked Special Counsel Longfellow if she heard anything that was new at this meeting that she hadn’t heard before and is there a legal angle they haven’t heard before, may have missed and should consider a more robustly than they had to look at in the past and is there anything legally speaking that they are missing.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that her interpretation of what was heard at this time and the additional comments that were submitted by the water district are similar to what were raised before and she thought the substance in the record still shows that there is substantial evidence on the record that Council could deny this appeal in its discretion and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he can start in terms of deliberation. He was inclined to vote to deny the appeal at the last meeting and did a lot of wrestling with the thought that it was a fairly clear legal record for denying the appeal and he suspended that predilection for the sake of trying to work with North Coast County Water District and he was hoping that, after they are through at this time, they will still have the opportunity of working with them. He appreciated the NCCWD’s approach that they prefer to work with us collaboratively to address their concerns by finding a mutually beneficial alternative path. He stated that, to those ends, Council has formed an ad hoc subcommittee to work with NCCWD to address their concerns, but that process is separate from this appeal determination and does not impact his decision on the appeal. He thought, based on the merits of the appeal, he has enough evidence in front of him to deny the appeal but because he will be voting to deny the appeal, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to work with NCCWD after this appeal hearing but that this is separate from the collaboration he would wish to do and after denying this appeal, he would hope that the city will still have the opportunity of seeking what will work for their mutual best interest and will make extra effort to open communication and go from here, rather than this being an ending.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he would like to see if Planning Commissioner Greg Wright has any comments to make.

Planning Commissioner Wright stated that he was happy to review what it is they went over at Planning Commission, but he believes this is in Council’s purview as far as making a decision.

He stated that the Commission did struggle with this issue, and their first vote failed to pass and proximity to the water department was one of their considerations and they added condition No. 5 to partially alleviate some of this concern by asking for PW to file a report with the City Manager and requiring water department input to establish an effort to open up communication.

They were able to pass it as conditioned. He stated that it is also his hope that they can all work together to get this resolved, but it is for Council to decide.

Mayor Bier thanked him for being present at this meeting.

Mayor Bier stated that she heard some new things at this time, such as about the ACLU and the name of Bill Freeman was thrown out and she asked if they know who he is.

2.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 September 26, 2022
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she can respond to that even though she isn’t responding on the appeal. She can talk about the ACLU related to that litigation. She stated that Bill Freeman is the lead counsel on the ACLU litigation and he is the one they have been negotiating with.

She stated that they are not aware of any of these conversations that he has had with North Coast County Water District and it does not comport to what he has been saying to us. She cannot confirm or deny what is being said as they have not heard that, as that is different from what they have heard from Mr. Freeman in terms of his concerns with us moving this spot, in part because he is going to want to know why we can’t move other spots which is the issue in the event that other spots aren’t approved by the Coastal Commission and she is sure he is going to expect that they find other spots for those as well. She stated that there is a lot to deal with in terms of the ACLU litigation and they have a settlement agreement in place and we have threat from Mr. Freeman and the ACLU that, if we were to uphold this appeal, there could be potential litigation from them.

Mayor Bier really appreciated the effort coming from the water district, i.e., talking to the ACLU, talking with Anita Rees, suggesting SFRV Park. She knows they tried that route in the past before and they weren’t very cooperative with us and she knows Ms. Rees and PRC did have a space there at one point. She was interested in that piece of the conversation and that can maybe happen later. She asked if there was a legal reason why they cannot continue the item.

Special Counsel Longfellow stated that, legally, it is within Council’s discretion to continue the item, however, she would like to reiterate that there is a legal threat from the ACLU that was presented with additional legal risk to the city if the item was continued as they could consider it potentially a violation of the settlement agreement by withholding that particular parking spot from being used as part of the program. She stated that decision would entail some legal risk to the city.

City Manager Woodhouse added that he did check in with Anita Rees today at PRC and there are currently two potential participants on the waiting list for the program and that factors into the ACLU position about delaying this program further.

Councilmember O’Neill made a motion that they deny the appeal; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

Mayor Bier thought they needed to discuss it for a little bit more before they vote on it.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that was fine. He stated that no one was talking.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she appreciated the fact that the water district wants to work with us and she doesn’t see where this parking spot interferes with any of their entrances, exits, but just eliminates a possible street parking spot and is in the public right of way, wide enough. She appreciated that they are trying to find a solution, and she thought this could set a precedence and she is worried about that, worried about the ACLU, and she felt they didn’t need these lawsuits. She stated that we tried our best, and took a really long time going over every possible site in the city to find these spaces and they did not hide this from the public and was publicized, people knew about it, and maybe they should have given direct notice to the water district but it is on our public street and she feels that she has mentioned all of these facts the last time when they voted and she worries about the repercussions if they were to extend or uphold the appeal.

2.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 September 26, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer was fine with the entire thing to be frustrating and difficult. She hears a lot of people saying that they want them to work together and at the end of the day each organization and each individual will take action in its own best interest. While she hoped that they were going to come to an amicable resolution, they still have a legal action on the part of the North Coast County Water District. They needed to do what they needed to do for themselves and that is what it is going to come to in the end. She didn’t know how else to approach the situation as we are literally between a rock and a hard place. The question is can they come together as people of good will and move forward together. Or are they going to splinter into looking into our own interest in what we perceive the threat to be to our own business activity or our own location. She feels like the program, overall, is working and she thinks we are seeing a reduced amount of impact and the fear of what the impact of this program is going to be was greater than what the facts are bearing out. She stated that the reality of this matter is that we had a lawsuit, we have a settlement and we have to follow through with that. She stated that jeopardizing that action is a bigger threat than she is willing to take on and, if the most straightforward course of action to alleviate that larger threat is to deny the appeal, then that is the direction is where she is afraid that she needs to go.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it was very well stated. He has a slight glimmer of hope beyond it that, despite those actions taken by NCCWD, he still has ever desire to work with them as much as possible. He is keeping his decision at this time to the merits of this specific appeal case. He appreciated that apparently they felt like they are defending their interests and appreciating that, he wished to do everything he can to work with them which is why they set up an ad hoc to reach out to them, why he had every intention of following through with that and seeing what happens. He wanted to say that, while he thought that was a thorough and adept analysis, he sees a glimmer of hope that hopefully can pull them past those realities.

Councilmember Vaterlaus added that this did go through the Planning Commission and they deliberated and came to this decision. She always like to hear from the commissions and committees as they do a lot of the prework before it comes to Council and she appreciates them and she hopes they can work together with the water district in the future.

Mayor Bier stated that this whole thing has been frustrating from start to finish, just coming up with the program and now trying to keep our program participants safe on the streets here we put them and there has been so many different thing that they have had to deal with over the past few years around this and it has always been her intent to collaborate with everyone, especially with the water district because she didn’t think they did a good job of that in the beginning. She appreciated that they continued the item already and it is a hard one. She is bound and determined to work alongside the water district. She was hoping the ad hoc committee was going to do some work before this meeting but they weren’t able to do that.

She wanted to get to work on that as that is probably the most important thing right now to her is that cooperation between our ad hoc committee and theirs as we should not be adversaries and it doesn’t make any sense to her why they are and that is frustrating to her. She knows the full water district board and all of the admins care about our community as much as we do, and it has been really hard. She hears her council members and hearing them loud and clear as they know where she stands already and she wants to give them as much time as they possibly could to work alongside the water district and that is still how she feels at this time and that is where she is.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they want to call the question.

Mayor Bier stated that they have a motion and a second.

2.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 September 26, 2022
Planning Director Murdock asked if they can have the maker of the motion make the entire recommended action that is on the agenda packet on page 320.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the 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; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 4 - 1 (No: Mayor Bier)
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
NAYS: Bier

11. Introduction of an Ordinance to enact a new Article 52 “Outdoor Commercial Permits” and to amend Section 9-4.2308 “Commercial and Industrial Uses Outside Structures” of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to conduct commercial activity outside of an enclosed structure (Text Amendment TA-122-22, File No. 2022-017) and finding the Text Amendment Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Text Amendment by a Vote of 6-0 (with one absence) on September 6, 2022.

PROPOSED ACTION:
• Move to waive the first reading and introduce by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to Enact a New Article 52 ‘Outdoor Commercial Permits’ and to Amend Section 9-4.2308 ‘Commercial and Industrial Uses Outside Structures’ of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Create a Process for Commercial Businesses to Conduct Commercial Activity Outside of an Enclosed Structure and Finding the Text Amendment Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Text Amendment TA-122-22, File No. 2022-017),” including the modification to insert “bars” as an eligible commercial use as listed in sec. 9-4.5204(b) and refer the modified ordinance to Planning Commission for report and recommendation in accordance with Section 9-4.3507.
• Provide feedback to staff on the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines as recommended by the Planning Commission.
• Provide feedback to staff on the proposal to establish a deposit cap for processing an Outdoor Commercial Permit.

Sr. Planner O’Connor presented the staff report.

Planning Director Murdock wanted to clarify one point Sr. Planner O’Connor made in her presentation. He stated that the slide and staff report reflects that the Planning Commission’s recommendation was to allow amplified and un-amplified sound on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday and federal holidays, not simply Friday and Saturday as he thought that was misstated in the presentation.

2.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 September 26, 2022
Mayor Bier thanked them and asked if Council had any questions before opening for public comments.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she thought she read earlier that they need to get something to the effect of a structural engineer to come out and verify that the parklet was viable and she asked if that was part of the ordinance.

Sr. Planner O’Connor believes she is referring to the outdoor commercial permit guidelines.

She stated that there are standards that parklets have a design to withstand a force of 500 pounds and, for the parklet design, it will need to be engineered to withstand potential sizeable impacts for safety reasons, and that is applicable to parklets within the public right-of-way or parklets within private property that are created.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if, in existing parklets, they would need to go out and get the engineer to make sure that it is proper even though they have already had them there for some time.

Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that the two current parklets that exist now are one at Breakers and one at Grape in the Fog. She stated that Grape in the Fog currently uses a metal fence that is very movable and probably not going to meet the standard. The one in front of Breakers has a larger barricade that will need to be reviewed to see if they meet those standards.

Councilmember Beckmeyer didn’t know if this is where Councilmember Vaterlaus with her questions, but she is concerned about fees and asked Sr. Planner O’Connor if she could go over the either or scenario in the presentation on the city fees that would be charged to applicants. She was thinking about the city’s fees, the structural engineer fee, architect fee, basically how much will it cost a business to have a parklet.

Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that they haven’t calculated the cost of what it may cost to create a parklet that meets fee standards, but what she presented was just the processing fee and the idea of collecting a deposit of a maximum amount, using our current fee schedules. She stated that they recognize that parklets within the public right-of-way will require a little bit more review and more staff time to make sure it is safely located and appropriately constructed. She stated that this is all outside of potential encroachment fees which they estimate to be about $500, and the construction fees and fees for CDPs if in the coastal zone. If in the coastal zone, they are suggesting they come back at a later date and create an umbrella CDP to save those costs from the individual applicants in an effort to capture as many applicants within the coastal zone as they can to relieve them of that cost.

Mayor Bier thanked Councilmember Beckmeyer for the question. She thought it would be good to be able to see all the numbers and get a good idea of what the costs are.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the bars, and he asked if they include bars as part of the list of eligible commercial uses before they adopt this as an ordinance, will they need to send it back to the Planning Commission to weigh in on that.

Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that is close, as their plan is, if you choose to incorporate bars at this meeting as part of their introduction, staff will be able to present this modification to the Planning Commission at their next meeting on October 3 to get their recommendation of this modification in time for Council to look at the adoption of the ordinance on the same path which would be on the second Monday of October.

2.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 September 26, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they are approving the ordinance at this time but would be modifying it on October 10.

Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that they would be introducing the ordinance at this meeting and they will be getting Planning Commission’s recommendation for the modification on October 3 and they would hope that Council will adopt the ordinance at the next City Council meeting.

City Attorney Kenyon stated, for clarification, she is correct but Council would be modifying the ordinance at this meeting to include bars into the ordinance that they are introducing. They are allowed to do, as the Planning Commission does have to consider it before they adopt it, so they are not adopting it at this meeting, but just introducing it. If Council agrees with that amendment, between now and the next meeting, staff would be sending it to the Planning Commission to get their consideration of this amendment so they will have their determination of this amendment for their consideration prior to the Council’s first meeting in October.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked her if this would be on consent for the next meeting after they introduce it at this meeting.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed that is the case as it is generally their practice. She stated that they don’t have to do it that way if Council would like to bring it back as a consideration item.

The normal practice would be that they introduce at this meeting with this change, staff would send it to the Planning Commission. They don’t have to approve it, but they would need to consider it. Once they consider it and give their thoughts on it, then Council can move forward and, if they want to keep that amendment as introduced, they would adopt it or if they want to take it out, they can reintroduce it and have an extra two weeks before they could adopt it.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, if the Planning Commission were to give it their blessing, it would wind up on consent on October 10.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, unlike the normal consent calendar report on ordinance adoption, they would just have some additional information on their and staff will input what the Planning Commission’s recommendation and analysis of that particular topic and they will have it to consider before they make their vote on whether to adopt or amend the ordinance as introduced.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked him for that clarification. He then had another point of clarification from Sr. Planner O’Connor. He stated that, if he read it correctly, the ten businesses that are still working off of the old permissions to be outdoor, they will have six months to apply for this after Council adopts it and they get first right of refusal.

Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that the only permit scenarios that are kind of in competition would be the ones that are within the parking lane scenarios of the public right-of-way and those applicants would be considered in the first come first serve scenario. All other applications are not in a competitive kind of situation where they can come at their leisure.

Councilmember O’Neill referred to Planning Director Murdock mentioning the music for Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and he asked what the hours that music is permitted.

2.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 September 26, 2022
Planning Director Murdock stated that the hours differ depending on the day. He stated that the allowance for amplified sound for Friday, Saturday, Sunday and federal holidays was 12 pm to 8 pm, and it is limited on Thursdays from 4 pm to 8 pm.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, if they do the bar thing, will they be able to serve outdoors until 2 am.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they could not, as there are two factors that would limit the hours of operation for a bar or any outdoor commercial permitted activity. The first would be the customary hours of operation for the permitted businesses and if they extend beyond the general hours of operation, there are overall beginning and ending maximum hours of operation for these types of facilities.

Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that those are 7 am to 10 pm.

Planning Director Murdock stated, before moving on, he understands that Council is looking for a combined picture of costs, and it will take them some time to pull that together, but with respect to building permit fees, he looked at what he thinks is the most comfortable type of permit they have issued for patio cover and it would be a small light frame type of construction and the permit fees for those appear to range from $500 to $1,000 for the building permit plan review and permit fees, and they will have that amount plus the encroachment permit amount, and he thought Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that was approximately $500 plus the fee, if any, imposed by City Council for the processing of the outdoor commercial permit. He stated staff didn’t have any insight into the expense it would cost for the contractor or the architect or engineer to prepare the plans for the construction to occur for those types of improvements.

City Manager Woodhouse added that, as part of their ARPA funding related to economic development efforts, he thought they discussed the idea of borrowing or generating boiler plate plans for parklets as a way to safe costs for businesses should they choose to use those. The model is similar efforts have been done for ADUs in the region. He stated that Sr. Planner O’Connor could remind them of how and when that process would play out.

Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that it was previously discussed and there was money in the department’s budget set aside for that particular use in addition to the creation of this ordinance.

While they used a portion of that funding to create this ordinance, they have some remaining that they can push forward to getting those specs. She thought their desire was to get an idea from Council of what the general provisions that Council would be interested in supporting and seeking out a design within those.

Councilmember O’Neill stated, when they do the boiler plate plans, he would like to see the ability of the business owner to customize as he stated that he was in San Francisco and there was a fish restaurant and their outdoor think looked like a boat. He thought it would be nice if they allowed customizing for the type of business it might be.

Planning Director Murdock thought that was something they can keep in mind, adding that there is a fine line between following a standard plan that doesn’t require any further review and having to pay that architect or engineer to confirm that the modification to the plan is acceptable.

He stated that there are limitations in state law about deviating from plans that are approved by licensed design professionals and they will have to weigh the pros and cons and advise applicants on what their options are to individually engage the engineer or architect to make those customizations.

2.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 September 26, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill thought it would be nice if they had that option.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.

Planning Director Murdock wanted to emphasize that Sr. Planner O’Connor, prior to the Planning Commission hearing as well as prior to this meeting, did email the contact list of businesses that were engaged previously with respect to the temporary activity permit programs so they could keep those business owners engaged and informed on this activity.

There were no public comments.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was happy with the way they proactively engaged the Coastal Commission. He thought it was nice to see them making the effort to be more collaborative and more proactive.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had a question along the lines of what Councilmember O’Neill was saying, and she didn’t want to get into too much deliberation, but she thought it was a design versus structural question. She has seen a lot of parklets that had fairly generic walls and floors but they did a lot of interesting lighting inside the parklet area, and she asked if that was what they are envisioning what is possible in Pacifica as she didn’t know how to compare what she sees in other communities and what might fall within the scope of what we are planning on doing in Pacifica. She thought it was more of a design thing, but she knows that electrical is a permitting thing and she asked if that was possible to include.

Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that it is possible, adding that it is beyond the level of detail they got into their design guidelines as they just identified that lighting shall be provided to ensure they are safe during evening hours but it will be up to the parklet developer as to how they might want to make that come alive.

Planning Director Murdock added that those details are in packet page 413 under guideline No.

C11 and he thought ensuring safety while ensuring that it doesn’t cause glare up for surrounding businesses or residents. He added that there are some technical limitations on the source of power as combustion engine generators are not allowed but other types of battery sources would be allowed.

Mayor Bier was glad this is coming to fruition.

Mayor pro Gem Bigstyck asked if Planning Commissioner Wright had anything to add to the conversation.

Planning Commissioner Wright stated he would be happy to give them a summary of what they deliberated about at their Commission meeting. He stated that they had a number of concerns staff has incorporated into their suggestions. One of their concerns was allowing only one per block and they were negating the possibility of people doing it on the other side of the street.

The also wanted to ensure equal access to all businesses and open communication between them so everyone on the block would know what is going on. Other issues of concern that they addressed were the limits on the hours, ADA concerns, safety, maintaining the four-foot clearance on the sidewalk, not obstructing emergency vehicle access lanes, securing and

2.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 September 26, 2022
storing in off hours, not creating tripping hazards, the hours of operation, proper illuminations.

Once they considered and addressed those issues, they moved ahead with their approval. He stated he would be interested to reconsider a recommended change by Council for bars as that oversight could be welcomed.

Councilmember Vaterlaus referred to the bars and asked if they can add that now or does it automatically have to go back.

Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that they can add it now, which is what they are recommending that Council do, but it will still have to go back to Planning Commission. She stated that while that used to be included in the eligible list, it wasn’t and it wasn’t clear in the records that it was a fair consideration and they wanted to make sure it is addressed for the record and they believe they can do that without affecting the overall plan line.

Mayor Bier stated that they will need a motion.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, while Council is considering making a motion, he wanted to note that the recommended action in staff report has a typo and it may be easier to read the first bullet at the top of the agenda on packet pages 5 and 6. He stated that there is a redundant part of a sentence that might be confusing if read in the body of the report.

Councilmember Vaterlaus began to make the resolution and then stated she had a problem with her pages so she asked Councilmember O’Neill to go ahead.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that for some reason he is having a hard time finding it.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that the motion would be introduction of an ordinance as amended to include bars to enact a new Article 52, outdoor commercial permits, and the rest as stated in the staff report.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated so moved; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0
Planning Director Murdock stated that there are three components to the proposed action on this item. The Council has addressed the first bullet and he wasn’t sure if he heard consensus on the second or third bullets with respect to the guidelines themselves. He thought there may not be further discussion on that point but it did seem that there were some questions about the deposit cap and if Council needs to discuss that further or if the consensus is that they are set with the recommendation moving forward and they can move on.

Mayor Bier thanked him and then asked Council if they need further discussion on either of those items.

Councilmember Vaterlaus wouldn’t mind having the cap on as it seemed that they will be spending quite a bit of money and she would like to make the cap the smaller.

Planning Director Murdock stated that would be setting the fee for all types of outdoor commercial permits at six hours of staff time, based on the annual adopted fee schedule for

2.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 35 September 26, 2022
planning and engineering staff time.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if the other option was ten hours of staff time and they would give it back money if it didn’t hit the mark.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, in all instances, they would provide a refund of any unused deposit. Staff’s recommendation was to reflect a higher number of hours, ten hours, for those types of outdoor commercial permits in the parking lane of the public right-of-way and those are more complicated in staff’s assessment which require interdepartmental coordination with Public Works as well as confirming the outreach that was conducted with the multiple businesses on the block and, correspondingly, they identified additional hours of processing time, but that is at Council’s discretion. He stated that they set this up with the aim of capturing all the anticipated staff time which is consistent with Council’s direction for full cost recovery for processing of all types of permits processed by the Planning Department.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he personally would rather err on the side of caution to make sure they recoup all fees, knowing that they are going to be refunding whatever is not needed. He stated that the staff report seems to indicate that it is going to be a major pain if they need to amend this later. He thought he could be wrong, but $2,400 doesn’t seem like a huge stretch if it’s going to pay for actual costs and the difference will be refunded.

Planning Director Murdock asked Sr Planner O’Connor if she can share her thoughts on the cost considerations for the periodic renewals of the permits, such as, as long as nothing is changing, they would essentially reuse all the prior information and it would be a very minimal cost. He asked her to elaborate on that.

Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that, as a new process, it is hard to say. She would envision, as previous Planning Director Wehrmeister expressed before, they have these types of permits that they process administratively that become easier to process every year, such as the example of the pumpkin patch permit. She stated that they anticipate that, in the future, as they are renewed, they will become a very low level of effort and maybe they can recommend a lower deposit in the future for renewal, and they are hoping to have the experience to recommend that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if Councilmember Vaterlaus could live with the six-hour for the one type and ten-hour for the other type. She forgot about the difference between the rightof-way and the need to coordinate with engineering, PW and she asked what she thinks.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it seems like consensus is going in that direction. She thought $1,000 for one owner, $500 for another and $2,400 for another, and they are trying to have positive economic development which these parklets provide, but if they are going to refund the difference, she will go ahead with that.

Mayor Bier agreed with the train of thought. She didn’t want to put up all these blockades.

Planning Director Murdock stated, in the interest of full disclosure with respect to fees, in the event an appeal is filed, and it exceeds the amount, there potentially be additional funds required to process.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if the appellant have to pay the $600 or so to process this.

2.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 36 September 26, 2022
Planning Director Murdock is not aware of a current fee that Council has adopted to appeal an administrative decision of the Planning Director. He thought that, very likely, it would be a no fee appeal in the first instance, then an appeal of the Planning Commission’s determination would be subject to the ordinary appeal fee to City Council.

Councilmember O’Neill concluded that no fee of Planning but to Council there would be a $600 or sum fee.

Planning Director Murdock agreed it would be whatever is set by Council each year.

Mayor Bier concluded they will move forward as is.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they need a motion for the other two items.

Planning Director Murdock did not think they did, but City Attorney Kenyon can confirm that.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that no motion is needed as long as the City Manager and Planning Director feel that they have gotten enough direction.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they are good.

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

CONSIDERATION

12. Update on Returning to In-Person City Council and City Committee / Commission Meetings
PROPOSED ACTION: Hear an update about the status of the pandemic and confirm return to in-person City Council and Commission/Committee meetings beginning October 10, 2022.

City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report.

Councilmember O’Neill assumed the remodel will be finished by then.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, unless Director Petersen indicates differently, they expect that most of the components of the remodel will be done. He stated that the window replacements are delayed due to supply chain but painting, carpeting, furniture, electrical, will be completed before October 10. If Director Petersen doesn’t come online to state differently, then that is the case.

PW Director Petersen stated that is the goal. They send out and assigned the P.O. for the carpeting and, assuming everything comes in as they should, that is what they are still looking at, but she agrees that the windows are a couple of months out.

There were no public comments.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he is okay going back on October 10.

2.b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 37 September 26, 2022
Mayor Bier also was okay.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed.

Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed.

Mayor Bier stated that they need a motion.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved that they go back to in person meetings starting on October 10; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

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

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 10:18 p.m. in memory of Pius Garcia.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.b
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of September 26, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting (5143 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/10/2022
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:

Lisa Petersen, 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. 87
Pacifica City Council 2
October 10, 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 September 12, 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. 88
Pacifica City Council 3
October 10, 2022
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline From Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (PDF)
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment for Proclamation for Beach Boulevard Local Emergency (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 89
"ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment for Proclamation for Beach Boulevard Local Emergency (5148 : Proclamation of Local Emergency Pacifica Coastline) "ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment for Proclamation for Beach Boulevard Local Emergency (5148 : Proclamation of Local Emergency Pacifica Coastline)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/10/2022
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]
Nelson Schlater, P.E., Engineering Manager - Wastewater Public Works (650) 738-3767
[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. 92
Pacifica City Council 2
October 10, 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. 93
Pacifica City Council 3
October 10, 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 along with other 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 the first week in October. The Project continues to finalize electrical equipment submittals and continues coordination with the engine supplier. In addition, the project to construct a new 2-inch gas service line for the new gas engines was awarded to Casey Construction, the project low bidder. The pre-construction meeting for this project is scheduled for October 7, 2022.

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 September 12, 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:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:
4 Packet Pg. 94
Pacifica City Council 4
October 10, 2022
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (PDF)
4 Packet Pg. 95
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. 96
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5147 : 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. 97
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5147 : 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. 98
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5147 : Continuance

4.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5147 : Continuance

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/10/2022
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. 100
Pacifica City Council 2
October 10, 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. 101
Pacifica City Council 3
October 10, 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, 2022, 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:

The following updates have occurred since the September 12, 2022 regular City Council meeting. The state of emergency regarding COVID-19 issued by the Governor remains in place. As of September 20, 2022, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have shifted the guidance for use of face masks from a strong recommendation for the general population in all indoor settings at all times to the use of CDC Community Levels to help inform masking recommendations. At all COVID-19 Community Levels (low, medium, and high), CDC recommendations emphasize staying up to date with vaccination, improving ventilation, testing persons who are symptomatic and those who have been exposed, and isolating infected persons. Persons can use information about the current level of COVID-19 impact on their community to decide which prevention behaviors to use and when (at all times or at specific times), based on their own risk for severe illness and that of members of their household, their risk tolerance, and settingspecific factors. At the low CDC COVID-19 Community Level, the CDPH recommends that 5 Packet Pg. 102
Pacifica City Council 4
October 10, 2022
vulnerable people consider taking additional precautions, including wearing a mask in crowded indoor public places.

The number of reported cases and hospitalizations categorize San Mateo County in the CDC’s Low COVID-19 Community Level per the San Mateo County Health Officer’s update as of October 4, 2022. In San Mateo County the updated COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccines effective against the original strain of the virus and the Omicron variants are readily available at primary care practices and pharmacies across the county, and these updated boosters are recommended and currently available for those ages 12 and older.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None by this action; however, continuation of the local emergency will facilitate the ability for the City to request resources including financial support and reimbursement from the State Office of Emergency Services (OES) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for costs incurred in preparation and/or response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 103

5.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5144 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5144 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5144 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5144 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5144 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5144 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/10/2022
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. 110
Pacifica City Council 2
October 10, 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. 111
Pacifica City Council 3
October 10, 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:

The state of emergency regarding COVID-19 issued by the Governor remains in place. As of September 20, 2022, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have shifted the guidance for use of face masks from a strong recommendation for the general population in all indoor settings at all times to the use of CDC Community Levels to help inform masking recommendations. At all COVID-19 Community 6 Packet Pg. 112
Pacifica City Council 4
October 10, 2022
Levels (low, medium, and high), CDC recommendations emphasize staying up to date with vaccination, improving ventilation, testing persons who are symptomatic and those who have been exposed, and isolating infected persons. Persons can use information about the current level of COVID-19 impact on their community to decide which prevention behaviors to use and when (at all times or at specific times), based on their own risk for severe illness and that of members of their household, their risk tolerance, and setting-specific factors. At the low CDC COVID-19 Community Level, the CDPH recommends that vulnerable people consider taking additional precautions, including wearing a mask in crowded indoor public places. The number of reported cases and hospitalizations categorize San Mateo County in the CDC’s Low COVID19 Community Level per the San Mateo County Health Officer’s update as of October 4, 2022.

The enclosed Resolution continues to make the required findings under AB 361, and if adopted, it will allow the City the option 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. 113
Pacifica City Council 5
October 10, 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. 114
Pacifica City Council 6
October 10, 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. 115
Pacifica City Council 7
October 10, 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, August 8, 2022 and September 12, 2022, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution Nos. 23- 2022, 26-2022, 41-2022, 46-2022 and 56-2022, 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 6 Packet Pg. 116
Pacifica City Council 8
October 10, 2022
meet for the duration of meetings in order to safeguard the most vulnerable populations, and COVID-19 variants and transmission rates remain an imminent and serious risk to public health.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 6. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City 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. 117
Pacifica City Council 9
October 10, 2022
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 10th day of October, 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. 118
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. 119 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 120 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 121 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 122 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 123 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 124 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 125 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 126 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 127 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 128 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 129 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 130 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 131 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 132 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 133 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 134 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 135 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 136 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : 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. 137 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5151 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19)

6.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5151 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5151 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5151 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5151 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5151 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

6.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5151 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/10/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution approving the contract amendment with Regional Government Services for Financial consulting services
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to extend the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Regional Government Services for Financial Services at the estimated additional cost of up to $80,000 to cover services through the end of the current fiscal year.

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 501-6004
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

RGS serves exclusively public sector agencies with its team of public sector experts to provide a customized solution to a variety of unique organizational needs.

The City entered into an agreement with RGS for Economic Development Services under the City Manager's authority in January 2022 following the retirement of the City's tenured Finance Manager in December 2021. This vacancy created a significant gap in the City's already small Finance team, leaving holes in the Finance Department service level and institutional knowledge. In addition, due to the recruitment challenges, the City had to open this recruitment multiple times. The Council recently approved the reclassification of the Finance Manager to the Deputy Finance Director position to help attract qualified candidates to this opportunity.

In the meantime, staff engaged with RGS to bring professional consulting expertise to provide technical services related to routine Financial Services activities. These services are led by Matt Pressey, who has extensive knowledge and years of experience serving and advising several California agencies on financial matters. The services provided under this contract include the annual audit assistance, preparation of journal entries, general ledger reconciliations and complex adjusting entries, bank reconciliations, quarterly closures and reporting. Over the next few months, the Finance staff will finalize the audit field work and produce the complex Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) that requires specialized expertise and focus that RGS can provide to this project. Finance is currently recruiting for the Accounting Technician, Sr. Accountant, and Deputy Finance Director positions. This contract also helps comply with the internal control requirements given the finance department's nearly 50% current vacancy rate.

Although staff is planning to continue using the RGS knowledge and expertise in the remainder of the fiscal year, the scope of work is expected to be gradually reduced once the Deputy Finance Director is hired and trained and routine accounting procedures are established and documented, and Finance staff is up-to-speed on the internal financial procedures, required mandates and best practices.
7 Packet Pg. 144
Pacifica City Council 2
October 10, 2022
Once the vacancies are filled, the contract with RGS will be reduced to onboarding assistance to the new Deputy Finance Director and limited on-demand special projects, including the prior year's reconciliations, policy/procedure development, etc. In the meantime, RGS is temporarily backfilling some of the Deputy Finance Director duties as described above while the recruitment is underway and interviews are being scheduled.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may choose not to approve the contract amendment and/or provide staff with alternative directions. However, exercising this option will result in delays in ACFR production and an increased backlog in the City's financial operations.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The requested amendment is estimated at an additional $80,000 for the remainder of FY 2022-

23. This is a conservative estimate assuming that the Deputy Finance Director position will take a few more months to fill and on-board. The projected salary savings from the Deputy Finance Director position will fully offset this additional cost, so staff is not requesting a budget amendment at this time. However, staff will re-evaluate this at the mid-year budget review for any necessary adjustments to the FY 2022-23 budget.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
7 Packet Pg. 145
Pacifica City Council 3
October 10, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING

AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES (RGS) TO CONTINUE PROVIDING FINANCIAL

CONSULTING AND GENERAL ACCOUNTING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City's Finance Manager position became vacant in December 2021 and remains vacant despite the reclass to the Deputy Finance Director classification (recruitment is underway); and
WHEREAS, the City has entered, under the City Manager's purchasing authority, into an agreement with RGS to assist the City with bank reconciliations, quarterly and year-end closures, audit work, and preparation of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) in compliance with Government Accounting Standards; and
WHEREAS, the additional financial consulting services are needed to backfill some duties of the Deputy Finance Director, assist the City with the mandated financial reporting, prepare FY 2021-22 ACFR report, quarterly bank reconciliations and closures, and develop and implement financial best practices, policies, and accounting procedures; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, to authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary amendments to extend the existing contract with RGS for additional financial consulting and accounting services, not exceeding the budget authority of $80,000.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on held on the 10th day of October 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
____________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ __________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 7 Packet Pg. 146

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/10/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Approving Execution of Settlement Agreement among the City of Pacifica, Sierra Mountain Construction, Inc. (“SMCI”) Walter C. Smith Company, Inc. (“W.C. Smith”), Blocka Construction, Inc. (“Blocka”), Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”), Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”), and First Specialty Insurance Corporation (“First Specialty”) arising out of the Wet Weather Equalization Basin Project (“Project”), CIP # C030.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt the resolution approving execution of Settlement Agreement among the City, SMCI, W.C. Smith, Blocka, Travelers, Scottsdale, Hartford, and First Specialty arising out of the Project.

STAFF CONTACT:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
(510) 273-8780
[email protected]
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Project Disputes
The City undertook the construction of the Project beginning in 2017 for the purpose of complying with Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements to mitigate sanitary sewer overflow issues in the Linda Mar area. SMCI was the prime contractor for the Project. Over the course of the Project, disputes arose between the City and SMCI regarding the cost of construction, delays to Project completion, and claims for damages (collectively the “Disputes”).

The Project was completed on Dec. 6, 2019. The equalization basin and associated systems have successfully functioned as intended since that time.

The Project Disputes included claims from SMCI of design deficiencies, changed work, and differing soil conditions that SMCI alleges caused SMCI to incur many millions of dollars in extra work costs. The City’s claims against SMCI included claims for late performance, damages to public streets, and costs for corrective work.

SMCI’s contract for the work, including approved change orders, was for $19,010,571.80. The City has paid SMCI $16,157,802.71 to date on the contract. As part of the Disputes the City withheld $2,852,769.09 of the contract amounts from SMCI.

Mediation of the Disputes
8 Packet Pg. 147
Pacifica City Council 2
October 10, 2022
The contract between the City and SMCI allows the parties to attempt to mediate any disputes and resolve issues prior to formal litigation. The City and SMCI began mediation in 2020, and eventually included certain subcontractors of SMCI, Walter C. Smith Company, Inc. (“W.C.

Smith”), Blocka Construction, Inc. (“Blocka”), and insurance carriers, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”), Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”), and First Specialty Insurance Corporation (“First Specialty”), collectively referred to as the Parties.

The Settlement
The Parties reached a mutual agreement for a settlement in principle on March 28, 2022. The City's obligation in the final agreed-upon settlement is less than the contract sums withheld by the City under its contract with SMCI and favorably concludes the ongoing risk to the City of future litigation that could be far more costly than the settlement amount. The Settlement Agreement reflecting the terms of the mediation settlement in principle (Agreement effective date of March 21, 2022) provides for the payment into a settlement fund by the City and the insurance carriers for SMCI, Blocka and W.C. Smith, as well as the disbursement of those settlement funds to SMCI, Blocka and W.C. Smith, respectively. The negotiated proposed Settlement Agreement provides, among other things, that the City will pay the sum of $2,000,000 into the settlement fund within 30 business days of the date the Settlement Agreement is fully executed by the City. The insurance carriers for SMCI, Blocka and W.C.

Smith will contribute an additional $1,850,000 into the settlement fund.

The Council is being asked to approve the terms of the proposed settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement included as Attachment A to the attached Resolution. The Settlement Agreement has been fully executed by all of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council could reject the Settlement Agreement which would result in SMCI filing suit for damages which could expose the City to incur significant attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and potentially an award of damages against the City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The monetary settlement amount to be paid by the City is $2,000,000. Therefore the City will retain $852,769.08 withheld from SMCI’s contract. Furthermore, remaining bond amounts earmarked for the Project in the amount of $352,495.00 will also be retained by the City leaving a total of $1,204,291.08 that will go back into the Wastewater Capital Improvement Fund and allowing the project to be completed within the project budget. If the settlement is not approved, the amount of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses to be expended and any damages awarded in litigation may significantly surpass the settlement amount.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Attorney's Office
City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Settlement Agreement (PDF)
8 Packet Pg. 148
Pacifica City Council 3
October 10, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING

EXECUTION OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND SIERRA MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION, INC., WALTER C. SMITH COMPANY, BLOCKA CONSTRUCTION, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY, SCOTTSDALE

INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND FIRST

SPECIALTY INSURANCE CORPORTATION
WHEREAS, the City undertook the construction of the Wet Weather Equalization Basin Project (“Project”), CIP # C030, beginning in 2017 with Sierra Mountain Construction, Inc., (“SMCI”) as the prime contractor. Over the course of the Project work, disputes arose between the City of Pacifica and SMCI regarding the cost of construction, delays to Project completion, and claims for damages (collectively “Disputes”); and
WHEREAS, The Project was completed on Dec. 6, 2019, and the City of Pacifica and SMCI agreed to mediate the Project Disputes prior to the filing of any formal court action regarding the Disputes; and
WHEREAS, the mediation between the City of Pacifica and SMCI also included certain subcontractors of SMCI, Walter C. Smith Company, Inc. (“W.C. Smith”), Blocka Construction, Inc. (“Blocka”), and insurance carriers, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”), Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”), and First Specialty Insurance Corporation (“First Specialty”), collectively referred to as the Parties; and
WHEREAS, the Parties mediated in good faith beginning in 2020 and over the course of multiple mediation session reached a mutual agreement for a settlement in principle on March 28, 2022. Thereafter, the Parties, through their counsel, negotiated a Settlement Agreement reflecting the terms of the mediation settlement; and
WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement (effective date of agreement March 21, 2022) provides for the payment into a settlement fund by the City of Pacifica, the insurance carriers for SMCI, Blocka and W.C. Smith and the disbursement of those settlement funds to SMCI, Blocka and W.C. Smith; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into the Settlement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A to completely and finally resolve the Disputes arising out of the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby approves the Settlement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A and authorizes the City Manager to execute the Settlement Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 11th day of October, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
8 Packet Pg. 149
Pacifica City Council 4
October 10, 2022
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 8 Packet Pg. 150

Page 1 of 12 ends

Pacifica City CouncilOctober 10, 2022

Pacifica City Council
October 10, 2022