Agenda packet — Pacifica City Council, November 28, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 November 28, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
November 28, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Off-street parking is allowed by permit for attendance at official public meetings.

Vehicles parked without permits are subject to citation. You should obtain a permit from the rack in the lobby and place it on the dashboard of your vehicle in such a manner as is visible to law enforcement personnel.

PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES DURING MEETING
Alternative Ways to Observe and Participate in the Meeting:

The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is in-person at the meeting location published in the meeting agenda. However, there are alternative ways to observe and participate in the meeting:
• Watch on TV on Comcast channel 26
• Watch a Live Stream of the meeting by following https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream or www.pacificcoast.tv • Call-In Public Comments (offered on a pilot basis):
• When the Mayor announces the Agenda Item on which you would like to comment, dial-in to the number and enter the Conference ID listed below. You will be placed on hold in a call-queue. Please mute any background sound and listen through your phone to be called upon by the last 4-digits of your phone number. State your full name at the start of your public comment. • Dial-in: 1-650-898-6965 | Conference ID: 383 609 442 # o Press * 5 to raise your hand in the call queue.
o Press * 6 to unmute when called upon to speak by the last 4-digits of your phone #.

Please note that Alternative platforms for participation are subject to underlying technology functionality and may be modified or interrupted at any time without notice.
• Written Public Comments:

BEFORE THE MEETING: Written public comments may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date by email to: [email protected]. Written public 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 and posted to the City’s website prior to the meeting but will not be read verbally at the meeting.

AT THE MEETING: Materials in writing provided at the meeting should provide seven (7) copies to provide for each Councilmember, City Clerk and City staff.

City Council Regular Meeting 2 November 28, 2022
6:30 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Bier

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley

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. Those wishing to address the Council on any item listed on the agenda should submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.

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 10/01/22 through 10/15/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 10/01/22 through 10/15/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on November 14, 2022, Special Meeting held on November 17, 2022, Special Meeting held on November 19, 2022 and Special Meeting held on November 22, 2022.

3. Cancellation of December 27, 2022 City Council Meeting PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve cancellation of the December 27, 2022 regular City Council meeting.

City Council Regular Meeting 3 November 28, 2022

4. Resolution for Coastal Conservancy Funding for Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Projects
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt Resolution approving the application of specified State of California grant funds in the amount of $440,000 for the Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Projects.

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

5. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of an Ordinance to Adopt the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code and Fire Code with Local Amendments, including amendments to require building electrification (Reach Codes), underground utility installation, and expanded geotechnical hazard evaluation.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and replacing Chapters 1 (Building Code), 2 (Mechanical Code), 3 (Plumbing Code), 4 (Electrical Code), 5 (International Property Maintenance Code), 6 (Energy Code), 7 (Green Building Code), 7.5 (Residential Code), 8 (Historical Buildings Code, 8.5 (Existing Buildings Code), and 9 (Reference Standards Code) of Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Parts 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12) and the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code and making certain amendments thereto; Repealing and replacing Article 1 (Fire Code) of Chapter 3 (Fire Protection) of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to adopt the 2022 California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9) and making certain amendments thereto; and Finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”
City Council Regular Meeting 4 November 28, 2022

CONSIDERATION

6. Update on Highway1/Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Update Report on Highway 1/Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project

7. Approval of Amendment to Agreement with GHD, Inc for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Third Amendment to Task Order 1 (Attachment 1) between the City of Pacifica and GHD, Inc. for planning, engineering, and environmental services for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project in the amount of $856,448.34; and authorize the City Manager to execute said amendment.

8. Purchase of City Vehicles from Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 PROPOSED ACTION:

Approve the Following Actions Related to City Vehicle Purchases:
1) Approve Purchase of City Vehicles from Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 for $1,922,000, including a 3% cost escalation factor for a total of $1,979,660. 2) Adopt the Resolution to Approve FY 22-23 budget amendment to:
• Appropriate $1,979,660 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 for purchase of City vehicles.
• Transfer $500,000 from Wastewater Fund 18 to the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 for purchases related to Wastewater Operations.

9. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Approving First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse as City Manager.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt resolution approving the First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse.

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

The Pacifica Municipal Code is available on line at the City’s website (www.cityofpacifica.org/municode); City Council Regular Meeting 5 November 28, 2022

HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:

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

View on the Internet:

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

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

Agendas are available at the City Council meeting

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

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

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for Dated 10/01/22 through 10/15/22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 10/01/22 through 10/15/22.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Staff has submitted the following disbursements for Council approval:
• Disbursements dated 10/01/22 through 10/15/22 in the amount of $1,363,013.70 as written on regular checks numbered 62028-62127, 62189-62280 & 62351-62370 (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 62028-62127, 62189-62280 & 62351-62370 - 10-1 to 10-15-22 (PDF)
1 Packet Pg. 6
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: WEDNESDAY OCT2622 16:25 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: WEDNESDAY OCT2622 16:25 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 62028 - 62127
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 62028 $4679.50 10/07/22 03874 0 4LEAF INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62029 $795.00 10/07/22 03817 0 AAA RESTAURANT FIRE CONTROL, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62030 $1662.96 10/07/22 00092 0 AD BRAKES S OUTSTANDING 1 62031 $17.60 10/07/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 62032 $1178.75 10/07/22 00118 1 AIR EXCHANGE INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62033 $132.75 10/07/22 04066 0 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62034 $1261.04 10/07/22 00153 0 ALPINE AWARDS, INCORPORATED S OUTSTANDING 1 62035 $1658.99 10/07/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62036 $237.15 10/07/22 03895 0 AMERICAN FIDELITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62037 $4410.00 10/07/22 00217 3 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS S OUTSTANDING 1 62038 $137.92 10/07/22 00009 0 AT&T S OUTSTANDING
1 62039 $290.11 10/07/22 00009 2 AT&T MOBILITY S OUTSTANDING 1 62040 $200.00 10/07/22 04561 0 AVINA, ANGEL S OUTSTANDING 1 62041 $66.50 10/07/22 04464 1 BADGE FRAME, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62042 $2836.70 10/07/22 00293 0 BEARING AGENCIES INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62043 $575.00 10/07/22 00297 0 BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS TRAINING INSTITUTE S OUTSTANDING 1 62044 $425.00 10/07/22 00001 343 BLACKBURN, CODY S OUTSTANDING 1 62045 $3834.12 10/07/22 00335 0 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 62046 $23533.64 10/07/22 02502 0 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP S OUTSTANDING 1 62047 $45213.73 10/07/22 00014 6 CAL TRANS S OUTSTANDING 1 62048 $250.00 10/07/22 04623 0 CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFFICIALS S OUTSTANDING 1 62049 $57.00 10/07/22 00014 5 CALIFORNIA STATE OF S OUTSTANDING 1 62050 $182.00 10/07/22 01690 0 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 62051 $7901.00 10/07/22 03814 1 CAPPSTONE, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62052 $19934.50 10/07/22 02655 0 CAROLLO S OUTSTANDING 1 62053 $3825.00 10/07/22 00488 0 CENTRISYS S OUTSTANDING 1 62054 $9509.59 10/07/22 00507 0 CHILDCARE CAREERS S OUTSTANDING 1 62055 $10.00 10/07/22 05702 0 CHU FRANCISCA PERALTA S OUTSTANDING 1 62056 $1168.46 10/07/22 00510 1 CINTAS S OUTSTANDING
1 62057 $1914.04 10/07/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 62058 $434.31 10/07/22 02822 0 CITY AUTO SUPPLY S OUTSTANDING 1 62059 $260.00 10/07/22 00813 1 CITY OF FOSTER CITY S OUTSTANDING 1 62060 $50.00 10/07/22 00429 1 CLEARS S VOIDED
1 62061 $6988.14 10/07/22 03246 0 COAST COUNTIES PETERBILT & COAST COUNTIES PAC S OUTSTANDING 1 62062 $643.50 10/07/22 05082 1 COLUMN, PBC S OUTSTANDING 1 62063 $799.50 10/07/22 02168 1 COMCAST S OUTSTANDING
1 62064 $4225.25 10/07/22 00595 0 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62065 $11570.00 10/07/22 05341 0 CREATIVE DIGITAL AGENCY INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62066 $30486.20 10/07/22 00611 2 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62067 $2112.11 10/07/22 00622 0 CURTIS & SONS, L.N. S OUTSTANDING 1 62068 $24.17 10/07/22 00628 1 D C LOCK & SECURITY SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 62069 $4225.16 10/07/22 00629 0 DAHL-BECK ELECTRIC CO., INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62070 $6826.38 10/07/22 00025 0 DALY CITY/CITY OF S OUTSTANDING 1 62071 $4913.21 10/07/22 00653 0 DELL MARKETING L.P. S OUTSTANDING 1 62072 $200.00 10/07/22 02201 0 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62073 $45.91 10/07/22 02614 0 DISH S OUTSTANDING
1 62074 $158.95 10/07/22 05440 0 DONNA NEWLAND S OUTSTANDING 1 62075 $471883.70 10/07/22 02130 1 DRYCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62076 $2493.00 10/07/22 00710 0 EAST BAY MUNI UTILITY DISTRICT S OUTSTANDING 1 62077 $738.96 10/07/22 02793 0 EAST PENN MANUFACTURING CO., INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62078 $381.44 10/07/22 05683 1 ECE STEP S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: WEDNESDAY OCT2622 16:25 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA

Page 1 of 5 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsE... 10/26/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 62028-62127, 62189-62280 & 62351-62370 - 10-1 to 10-15-22 (5169 : Disbursements - Dated 10/01/22 1 62084 $16862.86 10/07/22 05220 0 GHIRARDELLI ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62085 $5129.95 10/07/22 00856 0 GLOBALSTAR USA S OUTSTANDING 1 62086 $315.71 10/07/22 00871 0 GRAFIX SHOPPE S OUTSTANDING 1 62087 $529.26 10/07/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 62088 $750.00 10/07/22 03947 1 GRANICUS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62089 $175.00 10/07/22 05492 1 GREASE TRAP CLEANERS, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62090 $29805.24 10/07/22 03616 0 GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH PLANNING INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62091 $695.00 10/07/22 00927 2 HDL COREN & CONE S OUTSTANDING 1 62092 $118.29 10/07/22 04842 0 HEMRAJ SINGH S OUTSTANDING 1 62093 $5040.00 10/07/22 00925 0 HF&H CONSULTANTS LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62094 $196.80 10/07/22 00926 0 HILTON IRENE S OUTSTANDING 1 62095 $71.63 10/07/22 04850 1 HOME DEPOT USA, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62096 $1819.13 10/07/22 00990 0 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS S OUTSTANDING 1 62097 $7157.80 10/07/22 05688 0 JK SOUND, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62098 $80.14 10/07/22 05532 0 JOAN ARTHUR S OUTSTANDING 1 62099 $1200.00 10/07/22 05090 0 JOE LAWRENCE S OUTSTANDING 1 62100 $188.21 10/07/22 01014 0 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62101 $197.75 10/07/22 01027 0 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA S OUTSTANDING 1 62102 $170.53 10/07/22 01812 4 KBA DOCUSYS S OUTSTANDING 1 62103 $123.06 10/07/22 01041 0 KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO.,INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62104 $230.40 10/07/22 01046 0 KIDWELL JO ANN S OUTSTANDING 1 62105 $62.40 10/07/22 04781 0 KING, KATHLEEN S OUTSTANDING 1 62106 $15071.90 10/07/22 05535 0 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62107 $16738.84 10/07/22 05569 0 KRUEGER INTERNATIONAL, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62108 $725.00 10/07/22 05685 0 JOSE LUIS MONTES S OUTSTANDING 1 62109 $4601.25 10/07/22 04088 0 LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 62110 $262.50 10/07/22 01070 0 LAURETTA PRINTING COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 62111 $620.26 10/07/22 01078 1 LEHR AUTO ELECTRIC, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62112 $678.47 10/07/22 01090 0 LIFELOC TECHNOLGIES S OUTSTANDING 1 62113 $180.33 10/07/22 00002 57 MANGIBIN, VIMA (PETTY CASH) S OUTSTANDING 1 62114 $234.62 10/07/22 01124 0 MARATHON DISTRIBUTORS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62115 $4208.00 10/07/22 03790 0 MAZE & ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 62116 $1500.00 10/07/22 02474 0 MC ADAMS DREW S OUTSTANDING 1 62117 $413.32 10/07/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 62118 $236.47 10/07/22 05704 0 MELINDA MOSES S OUTSTANDING 1 62119 $200.00 10/07/22 05701 0 MICHAEL SIMCOE S OUTSTANDING 1 62120 $5081.88 10/07/22 03955 0 MOFFATT & NICHOL S OUTSTANDING 1 62121 $346.23 10/07/22 01183 0 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62122 $1958.37 10/07/22 04549 0 NAF SERVICES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62123 $178.20 10/07/22 01194 0 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62124 $1085.80 10/07/22 04207 0 NATIONWIDE S OUTSTANDING 1 62125 $3750.00 10/07/22 04632 0 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD S OUTSTANDING 1 62126 $3509.60 10/07/22 01206 0 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. S OUTSTANDING 1 62127 $887.22 10/07/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 100 TOTAL AMOUNT: 828,723.83
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: WEDNESDAY OCT2622 16:25 Page: 4

CITY OF PACIFICA

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 152,878.16 50.00
007 S.L.E.S. FUND 2,474.75 0.00
009 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND 469,889.32 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 6,995.13 0.00
014 MANOR DRIVE IMPROVEMENT FUND 32,288.73 0.00
016 NPDES STORMWATER FUND 1,367.75 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 29,883.49 0.00
019 PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE FUND 19,934.50 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 81,608.88 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 4,601.25 0.00
038 DISASTER ACCOUNTING FUND 9,485.33 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 17,266.54 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 828,673.83 50.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: WEDNESDAY OCT2622 16:25 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 62189 - 62280
CHECK

Page 2 of 5 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsE... 10/26/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 62028-62127, 62189-62280 & 62351-62370 - 10-1 to 10-15-22 (5169 : Disbursements - Dated 10/01/22 BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 62189 $2525.46 10/10/22 04576 1 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62190 $915.79 10/14/22 00094 0 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE S OUTSTANDING 1 62191 $426.06 10/14/22 00122 0 AIRGAS USA, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62192 $119.27 10/14/22 00136 0 ALHAMBRA S OUTSTANDING 1 62193 $1901.48 10/14/22 00138 0 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62194 $106.00 10/14/22 04980 1 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62195 $995.00 10/14/22 01806 0 AP TECHNOLOGY LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62196 $45.03 10/14/22 00009 1 AT&T LONG DISTANCE S OUTSTANDING 1 62197 $41.44 10/14/22 00009 2 AT&T MOBILITY S OUTSTANDING 1 62198 $7344.46 10/14/22 05484 1 BAY VIEW FUNDING S OUTSTANDING 1 62199 $1206.80 10/14/22 00293 0 BEARING AGENCIES INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62200 $95.00 10/14/22 05127 0 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62201 $217.00 10/14/22 03713 0 BRADY AIR CONDITIONING S OUTSTANDING 1 62202 $4320.00 10/14/22 05463 0 BRETT STOLLENWERK S OUTSTANDING 1 62203 $6341.50 10/14/22 05658 0 BSK ASSOCIATES S OUTSTANDING 1 62204 $239.72 10/14/22 03402 1 BSN SPORTS, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62205 $44385.53 10/14/22 02502 0 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP S OUTSTANDING 1 62206 $9900.00 10/14/22 05483 0 CALIFORNIA CONSULTING, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62207 $843.84 10/14/22 00452 0 CALPICO INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62208 $777.00 10/14/22 01690 0 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 62209 $406.43 10/14/22 00483 0 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62210 $3225.75 10/14/22 00507 0 CHILDCARE CAREERS S OUTSTANDING 1 62211 $2945.06 10/14/22 00510 0 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 S OUTSTANDING 1 62212 $1400.00 10/14/22 05705 0 CRYSTAL CLEAR CLEANING CO. S OUTSTANDING 1 62213 $1263.97 10/14/22 00771 0 DAVID L. SKROMME S OUTSTANDING 1 62214 $511.74 10/14/22 00002 51 DIETERLE, DANA (PETTY CASH) S OUTSTANDING 1 62215 $11860.95 10/14/22 05706 0 DYKMAN ELECTRICAL, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62216 $47.64 10/14/22 00714 1 EBI AGGREGATES-BRISBANE S OUTSTANDING 1 62217 $4445.76 10/14/22 05683 1 ECE STEP S OUTSTANDING 1 62218 $67.84 10/14/22 00001 376 ELIZARES, JENNIFER S OUTSTANDING 1 62219 $4799.28 10/14/22 03458 0 EOA INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62220 $29.00 10/14/22 02767 0 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62221 $2992.79 10/14/22 01221 0 FRANK A. OLSEN COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 62222 $349.02 10/14/22 00818 0 FREUTEL ROOFING S OUTSTANDING 1 62223 $500.00 10/14/22 05540 0 GERMAN GODINEZ S OUTSTANDING 1 62224 $6251.12 10/14/22 00872 0 GRAINGER S OUTSTANDING 1 62225 $425.44 10/14/22 00875 0 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26577 S OUTSTANDING 1 62226 $330.16 10/14/22 00892 0 HACH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 62227 $312.22 10/14/22 00906 1 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS S OUTSTANDING 1 62228 $2455.38 10/14/22 04131 0 HDL SOFTWARE, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62229 $2000.00 10/14/22 05708 0 HELEN SCHEMBRI S OUTSTANDING 1 62230 $4974.19 10/14/22 00919 1 HERC RENTALS INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62231 $4155.00 10/14/22 00925 0 HF&H CONSULTANTS LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62232 $110.00 10/14/22 00924 0 HILL SCOTT S OUTSTANDING 1 62233 $5465.79 10/14/22 02511 0 IDEXX LABORATORIES S OUTSTANDING 1 62234 $1548.80 10/14/22 04086 1 JACK DOHENY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 62235 $6714.40 10/14/22 05688 0 JK SOUND, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62236 $527.09 10/14/22 01812 4 KBA DOCUSYS S OUTSTANDING 1 62237 $2624.69 10/14/22 03700 0 KIMBALL MIDWEST S OUTSTANDING 1 62238 $563.48 10/14/22 01055 2 KONE INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62239 $1119.30 10/14/22 01120 0 MALLORY COMPANY/THE S OUTSTANDING Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: WEDNESDAY OCT2622 16:25 Page: 7

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 62189 - 62280
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 62240 $103.85 10/14/22 01007 0 MATCO TOOLS S OUTSTANDING 1 62241 $43.96 10/14/22 01142 0 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 62242 $739.01 10/14/22 04549 0 NAF SERVICES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62243 $423.28 10/14/22 03981 0 NORTHERN SAFETY CO. INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62244 $623.47 10/14/22 01217 0 OFFICE DEPOT S OUTSTANDING 1 62245 $13104.00 10/14/22 01261 0 PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT S OUTSTANDING 1 62246 $188639.72 10/14/22 05698 0 PARKSON CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 62247 $1286.88 10/14/22 01297 0 PARS S OUTSTANDING
1 62248 $26414.06 10/14/22 01309 0 POLYDYNE INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62249 $3000.00 10/14/22 03782 0 PRIORITY 1 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT S OUTSTANDING 1 62250 $1987.47 10/14/22 05188 0 PUBLIC RISK, INNOVATION, SOLUTIONS & MGMT S OUTSTANDING 1 62251 $20351.00 10/14/22 05046 0 QSCEND TECHNOLOGIES, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62252 $1382.86 10/14/22 01336 0 QUILL CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 62253 $315.21 10/14/22 01337 0 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62254 $12471.70 10/14/22 03281 0 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 62255 $3260.00 10/14/22 03306 1 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES S OUTSTANDING 1 62256 $33.93 10/14/22 01795 0 ROSS, LAURIE S OUTSTANDING 1 62257 $423.21 10/14/22 01402 1 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. S OUTSTANDING 1 62258 $22535.09 10/14/22 00055 0 SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC LAB S OUTSTANDING 1 62259 $2034.25 10/14/22 00022 47 SAN MATEO COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS S OUTSTANDING 1 62260 $5000.00 10/14/22 04211 0 SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DIST. S OUTSTANDING 1 62261 $2004.74 10/14/22 04860 0 SERRA YELLOW CAB S OUTSTANDING 1 62262 $78.78 10/14/22 02182 0 SERVICE PRESS, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62263 $284.22 10/14/22 02017 0 STATE LANDS COMMISSION S OUTSTANDING 1 62264 $19340.05 10/14/22 01570 0 SYNAGRO WEST, LLC S OUTSTANDING 1 62265 $28.81 10/14/22 02642 2 T-MOBILE CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 62266 $340.40 10/14/22 01599 0 THOMAS FISH COMPANY S OUTSTANDING 1 62267 $4466.76 10/14/22 01615 0 TOM'S AUTO BODY & PAINT S OUTSTANDING 1 62268 $2650.00 10/14/22 04359 0 TORRES CLEANING SERVICES, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62269 $3300.00 10/14/22 03457 0 U.S. BANK S OUTSTANDING 1 62270 $858.03 10/14/22 04418 1 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. S OUTSTANDING

Page 3 of 5 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsE... 10/26/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 62028-62127, 62189-62280 & 62351-62370 - 10-1 to 10-15-22 (5169 : Disbursements - Dated 10/01/22 1 62271 $188.50 10/14/22 01647 0 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS S OUTSTANDING 1 62272 $3238.00 10/14/22 02527 0 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 62273 $2502.49 10/14/22 03835 0 US FOODS, INC S OUTSTANDING 1 62274 $4234.52 10/14/22 01667 0 USA BLUE BOOK S OUTSTANDING 1 62275 $1827.61 10/14/22 01684 0 VERIZON WIRELESS S OUTSTANDING 1 62276 $1320.26 10/14/22 01673 0 VWR INTERNATIONAL S OUTSTANDING 1 62277 $286.32 10/14/22 01707 0 WEST COAST CONTRACTORS SERVICES S OUTSTANDING 1 62278 $85.50 10/14/22 05163 1 WEX HEALTH, INC. S OUTSTANDING 1 62279 $2577.14 10/14/22 01747 0 ZEP SALES & SERVICE S OUTSTANDING 1 62280 $1155.71 10/14/22 01751 0 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES, INC. S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 92 TOTAL AMOUNT: 512,109.46
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: WEDNESDAY OCT2622 16:25 Page: 8

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 173,924.54 0.00
010 GAS TAX MAINTENANCE FUND 5,739.80 0.00
016 NPDES STORMWATER FUND 4,799.28 0.00
018 SEWER CHARGE FUND 101,730.95 0.00
022 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 17,375.90 0.00
028 PB&R SPECIAL REVENUE 2,004.74 0.00
034 SEWER FACILITY CONSTRUCT. FUND 195,613.91 0.00
035 BEACH PARKING FUND 60.08 0.00
071 MOTOR POOL OPERATIONS FUND 10,860.26 0.00
================ ================
TOTAL - 512,109.46 0.00
Report: CHECKREG Generated: 18DEC20 13:17 Run: WEDNESDAY OCT2622 16:25 Page: 9

CITY OF PACIFICA

CHECK REGISTER
CHECK RANGE: 62351 - 62370
CHECK
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMT CHECK DATE VENDOR # ADDRS # VENDOR NAME TYPE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 62351 $9116.06 10/14/22 03741 0 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION S OUTSTANDING 1 62352 $29.50 10/14/22 01757 1 CALIFORNIA ASSN OF PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS S OUTSTANDING 1 62353 $242.76 10/14/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 62354 $192.00 10/14/22 00814 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT S OUTSTANDING 1 62355 $756.00 10/14/22 01757 0 CLEA S OUTSTANDING
1 62356 $50.00 10/14/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 62357 $350.00 10/14/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 62358 $562.66 10/14/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 62359 $100.00 10/14/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 62360 $110.00 10/14/22 00814 0 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD S OUTSTANDING 1 62361 $838.60 10/14/22 01758 1 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION S OUTSTANDING 1 62362 $800.00 10/14/22 01759 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 62363 $200.00 10/14/22 01760 0 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS S OUTSTANDING 1 62364 $420.00 10/14/22 01769 0 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION S OUTSTANDING 1 62365 $1401.16 10/14/22 01758 5 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 S OUTSTANDING 1 62366 $92.00 10/14/22 01758 4 SMC FIREFIGHTERS PAC S OUTSTANDING 1 62367 $945.00 10/14/22 01768 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #350 S OUTSTANDING 1 62368 $2623.00 10/14/22 01764 0 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 S OUTSTANDING 1 62369 $17.32 10/14/22 01766 0 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA S OUTSTANDING 1 62370 $3334.35 10/14/22 01766 0 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA S OUTSTANDING TOTAL # OF ISSUED CHECKS: 20 TOTAL AMOUNT: 22,180.41
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: WEDNESDAY OCT2622 16:25 Page: 10

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

FUND FUND NAME ISSUED TOTAL VOIDED/REISSUED TOTAL
------ ------------------------------ --------------- ---------------------- 001 GENERAL FUND 22,163.09 0.00
065 SELF-FUNDED DENTAL PLAN FUND 17.32 0.00

Page 4 of 5 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsE... 10/26/2022

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 62028-62127, 62189-62280 & 62351-62370 - 10-1 to 10-15-22 (5169 : Disbursements - Dated 10/01/22 ================ ================
TOTAL - 22,180.41 0.00

Page 5 of 5 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsE... 10/26/2022 NO FY 2022-2023 CHECKS ISSUED ON 10/1-10/6/22.

TOTAL = $828,723.83 + $512,109.46 + $22,180.41= $1,363,013.70

1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 Disbursements 62028-62127, 62189-62280 & 62351-62370 - 10-1 to 10-15-22 (5169 : Disbursements - Dated 10/01/22

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on November 14, 2022, Special Meeting held on November 17, 2022, Special Meeting held on November 19, 2022 and Special Meeting held on November 22, 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 November 14, 2022 (Attachment A), Special Meeting held on November 17, 2022 (Attachment B), Special Meeting held on November 19, 2022 (Attachment C) and Special Meeting held on November 22, 2022 (Attachment D).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (PDF) Attachment B: Minutes of 11-17-2022 Special Meeting (PDF) Attachment C: Minutes of 11-19-2022 Special Meeting (PDF) Attachment D: Minutes of 11-22-2022 Special Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 12

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 November 14, 2022
November 14, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on November 14, 2022 at 7:00 PM 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

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.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Kirk Stratton, Interim Police Chief; Bill Glasgo, Police Captain; Ryan Adams, Safety Inspector; Greg McFann, Contract Building Official; Bonny O’Connor, Sr.

Planner; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgement.

Salute to the Flag led by Local Veterans from American Legion Post 238 / Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
Mayor Bier stated they had a special presentation to honor Veteran’s Day and introduced Alan Hale along with local veterans from American Legion Post 238 / Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), who then led them in the Pledge of Allegiance.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. San Mateo County Libraries Annual Report (Stephanie Saba)

2.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 November 14, 2022
Mayor Bier introduced Library Manager Stephanie Saba who was presenting the San Mateo County Libraries Annual Report.

Ms. Saba gave her presentation of the annual report, giving some details on their goals and accomplishments throughout the County with input by citizens in a video. She thanked everyone in Pacifica for their support.

Mayor Bier asked Councilmembers for comments.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she can’t wait until they have a new library in Pacifica.

Mayor Bier asked about the empowered card. Ms. Saba stated that it was a card available to all students in the county that gives them greater access to resources.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked Ms. Saba for being here, and he thanked the system which affords him the opportunity to meditate on the journey that library had taken, and stated it wasn’t just access to books but other benefits, mentioning some of them, such as parking passes, and he thought it was amazing as they level the playing field and allow access to everyone.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was happy to be on the library JPA board for ten years, and today they had a meeting for elections, etc., as they are losing seven board members. He stated that, when they were at a Council of Cities dinner in Burlingame’s Recreation Center, they are putting a maker space there instead of the library as they run their own library system and he stated that it showed how popular the maker spaces are in the Peninsula and how they are used. He stated that it was exciting to see what a library is now as it is much more.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked Ms. Saba for the library making her job easier as the Cabrillo Library avails themselves of those resources every day, mentioning some specific details of how they have expanded the walls of school libraries and they bring staff from the library to the schools.

Councilmember O’Neill emphasized that, beyond CDs, people can check out laptops, etc., and during the summer they have food for the children on the lunch program and online services for applying for jobs.

Mayor Bier thanked her and her staff for participating in the Pacifica Collaborative which makes it a rich experience to have them there and their support as we move forward in our community response to hatred.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked to pull Item #7.

Mayor Bier then opened public comment for any items on the consent calendar except for Item #7 and, seeing no one, closed public comment.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve the consent calendar excluding Item #7, seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

2.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 November 14, 2022
CONSENT CALENDAR EXCL. ITEM #7
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 9/16/22 through 9/30/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 9/16/22 through 9/30/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on October 24, 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.

AGENDA ITEM #7
RESULT: ADOPTED
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus
NOES: Beckmeyer

7. Side letter agreement between the City of Pacifica and the Pacifica Police Officer's Association (PPOA) regarding compensation adjustment for Police Officer Trainee classification.

2.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 November 14, 2022
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a side letter agreement between the City of Pacifica and PPOA to amend the salary structure for the Police Officer Trainee classification to bring compensation for this position closer to market and make it more attractive for future recruitments.

City Manager Woodhouse presented a brief staff report.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Linda Jonas, Pacifica, stated she is a volunteer records clerk at the Pacifica Police Department, and was in favor of anything they can do to enhance the police department and support them in every possible way.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she pulled the item because she has a couple of concerns about the timing and she didn’t think she had enough information to give an affirmative vote. She understood they were speaking to increase the base pay of the police trainee position as the City Manager stated and asked him if it would give them $40,000 per year of additional cost (less this year because of the timing and they were part way through the year).

City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively, adding that Chief Stratton and Capt. Glasgo can fill in on the details of timing and the typical duration of a trainee might be before becoming an officer at that pay level. He stated that, if they have it at their fingertips, they could point out how low the training position is compared to other agencies.

Mayor Bier thought any information they can provide would help them.

Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that, while he didn’t have the numbers, recruitment and retention is very difficult. Some agencies are giving them $30,000 bonuses such as San Mateo County and it is hard to compete. He stated that they were at approximately $5,000 for a trainee salary while others were about $7,200. He stated that, by bringing that average up, we hope to attract trainees which means a trainee is getting paid while going through the academy.

He stated that the benefits of that is that they can observe the trainee all the way through and not hiring someone who has put themselves through the academy but monitoring them and it is beneficial for the city and they want to get that salary increase up to compete with all the agencies in San Mateo County.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if the trainees go through post police academy, and Interim Police Chief Stratton confirmed they do.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it was at the city’s cost in addition to paying the trainee.

Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that, to attend the academy, it is roughly $5,000 to $7,000 in tuition.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if we elect not to hire that person, they are released as they are under probation. Interim Police Chief Stratton responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked what happens if they elect not to apply for our job after post academy. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that they would already be hired, as they have to

2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 November 14, 2022
go through a background check (medical and psychological) and they would be hired while attending the police academy as a probationary trainee.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if there were alternatives to this action that they have heard of in any other department such as is there a bonus if they complete the training, as opposed to coming in the door with the higher salary, giving them a reason to stay. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated he wasn’t aware of that, but upon completing the training and being hired, they will get an increase in salary to step 1 of a police officer.

Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that would be where they would pick up that additional 5%. Interim Police Chief Stratton responded affirmatively.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked how long is someone designated as a trainee. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that it was six months.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated, if that is an extra $40,000 a year for any person, that sounds like an extra $20,000. Interim Police Chief Stratton thought the estimate was $40,000 for two positions.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if that was the most they would have to fill. Interim Police Chief Stratton agreed with two vacancies.

Mayor Bier asked if he could talk about how recruitments are going now and what is needed in the police department. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated staffing is needed.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked how many people are we short. Interim Police Chief Stratton thought it was three full-time police officers.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if that includes our records clerks. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that it did not.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked how many records clerks they are down. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that one full-time and one part-time. He stated that one is a two-year ARPA funded position.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she didn’t understand the timing of this request in terms of when the academy begins.

Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that there are academies in various locations. He stated that the one they would like to recruit from and send our officers to is the College of San Mateo, the local police academy, for staffing. If any personnel from Pacifica’s police department wants to check up, it is a short distance away. He asked if she was asking about the timing of the academy.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if the urgency around why this item is on our consent agenda because the academy’s about to begin and they want to increase the rate of pay so they can conceivably get one or two trainees into that academy.

Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that the current academy class graduates in about a week and the next academy class is in January. Even with passing this, it was a luxury of putting someone into the next class at the CSM academy site. He stated that there are other academy

2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 November 14, 2022
classes and they are staggered but the one at CSM would begin on January 8. That is the reason for the timing as they were hoping to get this in place and get someone hired as a police officer trainee and send them to the CSM academy.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if he thought the timing wouldn’t allow them to get anyone into the January. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that it was a possibility but it would be tight.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it was a semester program. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated it was every six months.

Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that the next opportunity would be June. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated June or July as there is usually a couple of week breaks in between.

Mayor Bier stated that, for her, when they talk about our public safety, there are questions about equity between our police officers and our fire department and she thought there should be a lot of discussions about that moving forward and that was one thing that made her hesitate when she looked at it, as she didn’t understand what we are doing for fire.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck kind of agrees with the spirit of where she is coming from and for him it wasn’t just a matter of fire but we are about to enter into negotiations. Given how far behind our department is, he thought that was overriding it. He wants our community to be safe. He stated that was his greater consideration within the context of about to enter into a big long negotiation cycle with everyone in town, and he feels that every city employees’ eyes are on us and it was very uncomfortable for him to do a special thing for one designation when he is about to enter into that very long, possibly painful process with everyone on our payroll. He stated that the only reason he is going to vote with this is because he is hearing an urgency of need and part of that has to do with the timing of the training. He thought it sounds like, if they don’t do it now, they have the potential to miss two cycles of onboarding trainees, not just one. He thought it would be painful to miss out on one opportunity and really painful to do that to us twice. He stated that is the wrestling he has gone through over the past week, i.e., weighing what ultimately is a legitimate question of public safety against trying to duly respect all of our employees.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if Interim Police Chief Stratton just said that the disposition was

7.5% below the market on average in pay. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that the staff report has a number in there.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the current classification is $5,799 per month and the average in the county for trainees is $7,200 per month. Councilmember O’Neill concluded we are roughly 30% cheaper or pay 30% less. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated Captain Glasgo advised him that, for a trainee, it is approximately 15% below.

Councilmember O’Neill thought, if Council recalls, when they started negotiations, they had a number that he won’t state as it may have been in closed session, where they wanted to bring all positions to within a certain amount and this is well under that amount. He felt, if they want to be fair to this position, they have to bring it up to what our goal was in negotiations.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that this is information she doesn’t have which is why she feels she doesn’t have enough information to make a decision, such as where all the other positions are in all the other departments and how difficult those recruitments are. She doesn’t

2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 November 14, 2022
want to hobble the police department, but she is looking at the issue of equity. She can’t say, without more information, such as where is their DPW relative to other departments, what other failed recruitments they are having, and are they sure it is the salary or are there other factors.

That is why she feels she doesn’t have enough information.

Councilmember O’Neill stated, looking at it in the obverse of the mirror, he said that this position is 7.5% below a comparable position in the market. He stated that they have strived to have all other positions to be within the 5% so is it equitable for this position not to be at the same parity as the other positions.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they have been striving to do that, but she doesn’t know if they met it.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they did a couple of salary adjustments in closed session negotiations where they made special arrangements for positions that were very underfunded, and if they want to maintain equity, parity and recruitment possibilities, we have to try to be fair to everybody to be within that certain percentage. He asked the City Attorney if he can state the number or was it in closed session.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they should not be discussing anything that was discussed within closed session. If there was a specific number discussed in closed session, she recommended he not say it.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she gets that it is very low but when she calculated the difference in the rate that is presently the rate and what it was proposed to be and that brings it within 5% below the beginning salary set of the police officer classification that they are training for, it also represents a 23% increase in that one job class.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, in closed session negotiations, they have given a couple of other positions something similar.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thought it was a big issue that they can’t recruit because we aren’t paying enough and they are going to go somewhere else. If we can pay them and hire them ahead before they go to the academy, they are hired and are going to be more loyal and, if they get the better salary, they will stay here instead of leaving and she sees the benefits of this.

She felt it was really important for public safety that we have enough officers we need.

Mayor Bier agreed, adding she thinks we need to be prepared as people are paying attention and negotiations are coming up.

City Manager Woodhouse didn’t want there to be a misunderstanding about the intent. He stated that, whenever we conduct recruitments and they fail, and in recent years there have been numerous of those, it is a matter of best practice to assess why that happened and, regardless of MOU labor negotiation timelines, if necessary to bring back adjustments to the classification, whether taking a position that was formerly a combined deputy city clerk and executive assistant and splitting it into two full-time positions or raising the salary range to be more attractive like it was done for the deputy finance director as tools to be able to recruit quality employees to serve the community. He stated that is what is happening here, adding that it is not ideal that it is not within the context of actual labor negotiations of all the groups, but on balance they are faced with not being able to fill three vacant positions in the police department and the overtime cost that those vacancies bring to the department and the service

2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 November 14, 2022
level of not filling those and they look at it from many different angles. He stated that often new police officers are not brand new trainees that have to go to the academy but lateral hirings from departments if they are lucky to have that. He stated that, in this case, isolating this one piece which they would do for all groups in all positions as they look at compensation, internal alignment and success. He wanted to make sure it was clear that there is a best practice and a reason why this is happening now and, as Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck said, if we don’t do this and we wait for labor negotiations as they won’t end until the end of June, then we wouldn’t even make the June academy and would still have this impact.

Mayor Bier appreciated the additional information.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve Item #7, seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

8. Authorization to extend contract with HdL to provide cannabis inspections/audit services.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign a contract extension with Hinderliter, de Llamas and Associates (HdL), and additional (2) years to provide cannabis inspection compliance and financial audit services.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, appreciated the upgrades to the Council Chambers.

She then shared the fact that, on October 28, PRC was the victim of a hate crime when someone threw a rock through their window and thanked the police for responding quickly and PW for helping them cover the hole in the window so their office was secured. She shared the thought that anyone having issues or disagreements with PRC can talk to her as their ultimate goal is to support the community. She mentioned their open hours, current scheduled and ongoing programs and events, as well as how they are currently enrolling families for Thanksgiving and support during the holidays.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, referred to the growing homeless problem and mentioned a lady reaching out on NextDoor because she had no food and PRC was closed and shared her story.

She also shared the concerns everyone has about the trash problem, and her suggestion for a simple solution. She also referred to housing for homeless and hoped they could partner with San Mateo County to end homelessness in Pacifica.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, (by phone) stated he was disappointed that Measure Q did not pass and he suggested that police and fire departments work with the community to do fireworks safely in the beaches for July 4 and New Year’s so everyone can enjoy it at a safe distance. He also referred to the bluff top issue and the concrete pieces still falling where apartments were, and he recommended that the city close that section of the beach.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Vaterlaus attended the city’s meeting on housing and it was interesting to all the comments from the public. She attended a meeting, Smart Coast California, where they discussed everyone’s local coastal program updates, and she thought it was interesting to hear other city program updates. She attended the County’s Working to End Homelessness update.

She stated many of them attended the Council of Cities in Burlingame and they saw their new

2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 November 14, 2022
community center and had a great dinner. She went to the community center to see the electric vehicle exhibit which was interesting to learn about different vehicles and their different aspects.

She attended Pacificans Care’s 40th anniversary. She went to Sustainable San Mateo County and they sent out a new booklet on electrification. She attended the regular CCAG meeting and they discussed managed lanes which are currently in testing on 101 and, if you have 3 people in your vehicle and you have the tag, you can go in the managed lanes now and they are not charging. On Arbor Day, her group planted two trees, one giant 15-foot tall tree.

Councilmember O’Neill attended the Pacificans Care event and Council of Cities. He also attended congestion management meeting and the library JPA meeting early this morning, and a couple of meetings on closed session items.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she attended a number of the same meetings Councilmember Vaterlaus mentioned. The housing element was a great turnout at Cabrillo School and she was pleased, during the table top discussion, they were interacting and sharing information. She attended a fundraiser at Pedro Point Community Center for the Rockaway Ricky Fund, part of the PRC, for people who need assistance in meeting needs for their pets, including veterinary visits. At the Council of Cities in Burlingame, it was a beautiful community facility. They had an updated presentation from One Shoreline. At the EV Fair, she appreciated the efforts of Pacifica’s environmental family in pulling that together and the local citizens who brought their vehicles out. She attended another such event but it was dealers selling EVs and it was nice to have an opportunity to chat with people about their experience, etc. She participated in a candidate forum and was inspired. It was put together by Oceana high school students most of whom are probably not of voting age yet and they wanted to hear from the candidates and had very thoughtful questions. She stated the Beautification Advisory Committee happened and they heard updates on the various projects they are working on, such as the bump outs, planted areas on Palmetto and there was an activity last Saturday after Arbor Day where they spruced up some of the corners. She attended a community meeting at Pedro Point Fire House sponsored by those who have concerns about building in the south end of town. She was there to hear their concerns. The Economic Development Committee meeting happened last week, and they got to hear the after event report about Blues and Brews, a great initiative and hearing the excitement and exuberance of the members and welcoming new members to the group.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was sitting with Ms. Rees at the seminar about homelessness when he got the news from her that a rock had been thrown through the window at PRC. He feels that he has to say something as discussion of approach is a matter of discussion among the community but the idea of torturing people seeking help or torturing those trying to help others speaks volumes about perpetrators of such crimes. He is reminded that violence is always an act of fear and perceiving such violent acts invokes his compassion that he would alleviate the pain of those so obviously afraid if he had the means at his disposal. He was at the working to end homeless event and one quote that stuck out to him was the iteration that the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for their most helpless members. He stated that Jackie Speier spoke and it was good to hear the good works that the county is engaged in around matters of homelessness. He attended the Peninsula Clean Energy meeting: They procured more power and adopted their diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion policy and the action plan to implement that will follow soon. He stated there was also a meeting between him, the mayor and PCE and city staff which was wonderful. He was at the housing element meeting at Sunset Ridge and, as he was listening to the various conversations, it seemed like the conversations tended to go in a similar direction. He attended former Dep. Fire Chief Chuck Pomicpic’s retirement. He attended the Ohlone Portola Heritage Day celebration information

2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 November 14, 2022
session at the Community Center followed by the walk up to the Colonial discovery site. He attended the Pacificans Care 40th anniversary and a Boys and Girls Club budget meeting. He mentioned that he normally begins his report by talking Ukraine and how they are in his heart, following them on a daily basis. He stated that, on election night, he paid his respects to Diane Papan, Ray Mueller and Kevin Mullin at their various events. He highlighted that, one reason he brings up Ukraine every time, even though it doesn’t directly affect Pacifica, is because of nights like election night where our democracy is there and we can celebrate together. He attended the PRC Board meeting and they had a strategic planning update and he was reminded that their holiday joy and Thanksgiving programs are coming up and he suggested that the public sign up for the programs, and if they want to volunteer to help communities that can use the help. He enjoyed the Arbor Day celebration, planting a tree at Oceana, and attended today the San Mateo County Library JPA meeting at which Councilmember O’Neill was honored for his ten years of being on that board.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she attended Ernie Delasarte’s memorial and it was a true celebration of life at the Moose Lodge and it was great to be part of acknowledging how much he gave to this community as an employer for 20+ years. To see the camaraderie among his former coworkers who are retired and those who are still on staff and see the connections among their families. She felt it was inspiring and she felt it was important for her to be there and pay her respects to him.

Mayor Bier referred to the rock at PRC. She stated that there have been various acts of hatred in our community for a while, two incidents at Sunset Ridge, flag stolen from Oceana High School and the rock through the window, and people who are harassing our permit parking program holders. She stated that we can’t stand for this anymore. She stated that they have to stand up for PRC as they are doing all the work they can possibly do to make our community healthy and safe and we need to stand up for them. She appreciated all the members of the Pacifica Collaborative as at last Thursday’s meeting they spoke about an extended community response. She will be meeting with a subgroup of the collaborative and creating a work plan and will be working at every meeting on their collective response to the hatred in our community and will not stop. She stated that, when you are out there, tell people to be kind. She was sick for a week and missed so many things, one being the working to end homelessness event where she was going to be one of the MCs for the event and she was upset at not being able to attend but she thanked everyone who did attend. She also missed the regional Bike and Pedestrian Commission meeting but she was still appointed to be on the subcommittee to give some responses and comments for the OBAG for funding which is one Bay Area grant funding and it will be good for Pacifica to have a seat at the table to talk about that funding cycle and what it will entail. She also missed the Pacifica Environmental Family’s EV event and she thanked that family for putting that on. She attended the housing element meeting at Sunset Ridge, the youth civic engagement panel for the candidates, the Save San Pedro Mountain meeting, the Covid recovery meeting, Pacificans Care 40th Anniversary, Economic Development Committee, tree planting on Arbor Day, the Cal Cities peninsula division executive committee meeting today, and the cancer drive on Saturday morning hosted by Pacifica Hotrods who raised $4,000 for a family with a sick teenager.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated, because it was mentioned by a caller during oral communications, he had an update about the concrete along 300 Esplanade. He stated that the Public Works engineering staff has been assessing the situation, talking with adjacent property owner and is pursuing a potential solution to that. As most things on bluffs on the coast, it is

2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 November 14, 2022
much more complicated than what meets the eye. An emergency coastal development permit would be required and PW engineering staff is on it and trying to come up with a solution. He announced two important meetings that will be happening. November 15 is the economic opportunities study second community workshop which is part of the Vision 2025 and beyond financial sustainability study they are conducting. The economic opportunities workshop is open to the public and will be at the Community Center with dinner provided beginning at 5:30. The presentation and tabletop discussions begin at 6:00. He stated that this study is critically important to look at the different business districts in the city and what services they should be providing. It is interesting in parallel with the housing element conversations because they are looking at opportunity sites around the city for both enhancing the business services and enhancing our housing capacity. They have to work together. He stated that it should be a very robust discussion. The consultant, Kosmont Companies, will be presenting the results of their initial analysis and getting public input and the report will be presented early next year to the Planning Commission and City Council. On Saturday, November 19, at a special City Council meeting at 11:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, the Council will be honoring Congresswoman Speier. It will be open to the public and they will have refreshments to honor her and her long tenure.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, and Recommendation for City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21, filed by Brendan and Eamon Murphy, for construction of a three-building mixed-use project with 3,165-square feet (sf) of commercial floor area and 19 residential units, and associated condominium subdivision, at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420). The proposed General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment would have city-wide applicability and allow residential uses to be established either in the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor or in residential-only buildings on a site that also contains a commercial use (horizontal mixed-use) with approval of a use permit.

Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: Provide direction to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (File No. 2016-004).

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached Resolution to refer the subject project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration following the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) as provided in PMC section 9-4.3208(b)(2).

Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing starting with the appellant.

City Clerk Coffey asked her if she would like to reserve up to three minutes for a rebuttal period.

Margaret Goodale, appellant, stated that she is going to speak for three minutes.

City Clerk Coffey stated that her testimony can be up to ten minutes, and she can reserve up to three of those minutes for rebuttal.

2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 November 14, 2022
Ms. Goodale stated that it is fine as she is only going to speak for three minutes. She stated that her primary concern about this project has always been the protection of historic remnant of Lake Matilda. She stated that wetlands are more significant than just vacant undeveloped land from water storage ponds. She supports staff’s recommendation to prepare an environmental impact report. She thanks staff and Council for understanding that an EIR is necessary. She also supports a reasonable project for the Crespi site but an EIR creates the possibility to align the project with Pacifica’s excellent strategic plan goal No. 1, i.e., “enhance Pacifica’s natural resources and open space to ensure an ecologically vibrant community”. She stated that finding Matilda wetlands is serious consideration and they can do it by paying attention to the California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife comment for the FEIR in March regarding the wetlands which she read. She then mentioned a document published by the National Environmental Law Institute entitled Planner’s Guide to Wetland Buffers for Local Governments, and she read some of the specifics in the document. She asked that Council honor their plan goal No. 1 and vote for staff recommendation of an EIR.

Mayor Bier asked the applicant if he wanted to share anything, and seeing that he did not, she asked if Council had any questions before she opened it for public comment. She opened public comments.

Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated he was in support of the appeal mentioning his thoughts and concerns regarding the issue, and was pleased to know that the applicants and staff have proposed an EIR and sending it back to the Planning Commission and hoped Council approves that.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated that he was in full support of this project, giving his thoughts on this issue and believes ecology and the project can coexist.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thanked the appellant for the expertise, composure, and courage to raise this issue. She looked forward to a robust review focusing on the historic wetlands and eco-system and a project that addresses all the specific concerns.

Frank Vella, Pacifica, stated he is a director of the San Mateo County Associate of Realtors but is speaking for himself. He supports this project and expressed his thoughts and concerns on the issue.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, (by phone) expressed his thoughts and concerns on this issue and encouraged the city to expedite this EIR.

Jodi, Pacifica, stated she was in full support of this project and supported expediting this to move forward as fast as possible.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she attended the Planning Commission meeting with this on the agenda and expressed her thoughts, concerns, and suggestions on this issue and supports the EIR.

Linda Jonas, Pacifica, (by phone) expressed her support of this project and expressed her total approval that the applicants will do the best they can on this project.

Mario, Pacifica, (by phone) stated he was in full support of the project, and he expressed his thoughts on this issue and encouraged that Council push through on it.

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 November 14, 2022
Olga, San Mateo County, (by phone) was in full support of the project, and she expressed her thoughts on this issue and encouraged that Council expedite this project.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing. She asked if there were any ex parte conversations before they start deliberations.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he spoke with the applicant and appellant prior to meeting, but before the continuation.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he spoke with both applicant and appellant but not within the last month.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she spoke with both the applicant and appellant and met with the appellant in a little while and did speak with the applicant more recently.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she met with both of them but it has been quite some time; she spoke briefly at the housing meeting with Mr. Murphy.

Mayor Bier stated that she has met with both but it has been some time.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that this project has been in the making for so long and she agrees that it was blighted and is so much better. She walked through the site and she didn’t see wetlands when she was there and there was absolutely no water. She preferred to send this through, but she understands that, with the changes, there needs to be an EIR done and she will go along with the staff’s recommendation.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that appeals are always a painful process and, in this instance, it is personally relieving that things aren’t more contentious than the comments they already heard and they don’t have the elaborate deliberation that would normally follow. He commended the Murphy’s for taking this extra step of more added pain into their project that has been going on for almost a decade to make sure that the next time Planning Commission has this conversation they get to have every bit of information at their disposal and it can go away from a place where it gets contentious and painful. He hoped we are stepping away from something far worse and he thanked them for choosing the route of an EIR.

Councilmember Beckmeyer echoed his comments and she looked forward to hearing the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to adopt the attached Resolution to refer the subject project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration following the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) as provided in PMC section 9-4.3208(b)(2), seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Mayor Bier called a five-minute break and then resumed the meeting.

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 November 14, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

10. Council call-up and consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 which authorizes the operation of a cannabis retail operation known as Seaweed Holistics, LLC at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (APN 022-021- 640), for the sale of medicinal and adult use cannabis.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached Resolution to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the Planning Commission’s revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 (File Nos. 2018-029 and 2020-020), which authorizes operation of a cannabis retail operation known as Seaweed Holistics at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (APN 022-021-640), and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A.

Sr. Planner O’Connor presented the staff report.

Mayor Bier asked if anyone had ex parte conversations with the appellant.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she did.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck responded that he did.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he had conversations with the owner.

Mayor Bier asked if they had any questions.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked what the exact difference is in the window from what is required and what is there.

Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that, based on staff’s calculations, the store front area needs an additional 15.4 square feet of window to meet the 45% glazing requirement. In addition, the store front needs an additional 2'3" of horizontal window glazing to meet the 60% horizontal glazing requirements.

Mayor Bier asked, because this is a call up, whether there has to be an appeal and did they have to pay for the appeal even though it was a call up.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they informed the owners that the item had been called up and the way it played out is that they came in and paid for appeal but did not file the paperwork after paying. Councilmember O’Neill called it up, and they informed them that it has been called up so they don’t need to appeal unless they want to have the appellant designated time for the hearing and, if they decided to not appeal it, they would refund the money. At that time, they decided to go ahead and appeal.

Mayor Bier invited the appellant to speak for ten minutes with the option to reserve up to three minutes for rebuttal.

Patrick Goggin stated he is representing Seaweed Holistics and they will reserve up to three minutes time in case they need it. He stated that they did submit an appellant brief last week,

2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 November 14, 2022
and he hoped they had an opportunity to review it. He stated that, on deck with them, Mr. Ron Grindrod who will assist in the presentation to speak to the windows issue. He stated that Anna and Tony Williams have poured their savings, etc., into Seaweed Holistics. During this time, it has integrated into Pacifica and the neighborhood as a stalwart in the community and the only dispensary in town primarily serving individuals over 50. It provides seven living wage jobs and plays an important symbiotic role with its neighboring businesses, sharing customers and referring customers to each other. Possibly most significant, Seaweed is a substantial revenue generator for Pacifica, paying over $100,000 in fees and taxes since the inception. One might think they are on the agenda for accommodation but nothing is further from that. They are fighting for its survival, and he questioned why. He asked if there have been issues with security, theft, or irresponsibility. He stated that during their five years in operation, they have served as a model cannabis dispensary contributing significantly to Pacifica and its neighborhood, but Planning has voted to revoke Seaweed’s cannabis activity permit and license over an alleged minor and inconsequential technical violation of the cannabis ordinance’s facade window rule. He stated that, in considering all the facts, there is no violation of this rule.

If they could conclude there is a technical violation, revocation of a land use entitlement for this reason, for which half a million dollars has been invested, is unjustifiable and tantamount to a taking. He thought it was shocking that Planning would move to revoke Seaweed’s license on this basis rather than taking alternative, less draconian actions available to it. He stated that they were present imploring that Council take a step back, view the issues holistically, and appropriately reverse Planning’s revocation vote and find that the spirit, if not the black letter reading of the window rule, has been met requiring no further action. In relation to the facade issue and the exorbitant cost for coming into strict compliance with the rule, he referred to Mr.

Ron Grindrod, Seaweed’s landlord, developer of its business, former San Mateo building development department inspector and general building expert.

Ron Grindrod stated that he has been asked by Seaweed’s owners to work out some type of solution for the window issue. He stated that some were shocked when they heard there was 15 square feet short and two square feet in length short. He stated that, with the extra two feet, it gets most of the 15 square feet. He stated that they need a bigger window, and that was his focus at meetings with Planning staff and one with the Planning Commission. He stated that, if you make the window wider, you cut down the length of the shared wall which will be building up. Earthquake codes have gotten more restrictive since that building was built and they end up having to come up with a different structural plan which would be steel frames, steel columns, steel beams, and a greatly beefed up concrete foundation. He thinks he quoted two years ago $75,000 to $100,000 and probably significantly more now for a very small benefit. He argued this point every time he came before Planning. He stated that after they were shut down in August, he thought about it for a few days and he thought there is a solution in front of their faces and no one has thought about it, i.e., if they contrast the exterior store front with the interior sales front, you have about 20 feet interior and stairway is not part of the business operations and very easily they made an area in all respects that is not available to customers.

If they take that area and distort that, and the interior store front, they basically comply as it comes very close. He thought that was an elegant and reasonable solution as they can’t afford the additional money it will take to comply with the strict requirements of the ordinance and why staff can’t look at the interior sales area frontage, 20 feet, compared to the exterior front of 24 feet. He thought it is the area where they are doing business and under that stairway is a storage closet and that is not part of the sales area. His understanding is that the police department wants to see what is going on in the sales area as that would greatly simplify things.

The well-meaning ordinance was conjured up but every bad effect that could occur to people wasn’t considered, and this was an existing building.

2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 November 14, 2022
City Clerk Coffey stated that was the end of the initial seven minutes.

Mr. Goggin wanted to use one more minute and reserve two.

Mayor Bier thanked Mr. Grindrod.

Mr. Goggin noted that Mr. Grindrod and the appellants did meet with Planning Department several different times in advance of this issue being forwarded and it is not true that they didn’t meet and discuss this. He stated that they heard that there is actually no violation of the facade window rule, and even if there is, remedying it is cost-prohibitive and a waste of resources relative to any additional security achieved. He stated that Planning is actually implementing a strict liability standard. Under the law, this onerous standard is reserved for those who house wild animals or conduct hazardous activities, and obviously none of those are present here. He referred to the $26,000 that Seaweed allegedly owes the city, which ballooned from over $4,000 to the current amount principally because of the window issue. Seaweed proposes to pay the $4,000 as a reasonable compromise.

Mayor Bier asked if he wanted to extend his time.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano wanted to be clear on how much time will be reserved for rebuttal.

She asked the City Clerk how much time is left for rebuttal.

City Clerk Coffey stated that at this point there are two minutes for rebuttal and it will come down from there and she will stop the timer when he completes his comment and let him know how much time he has left for rebuttal.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano clarified that he won’t have rebuttal if he runs out of time.

Mr. Goggin understood. He then stated that Seaweed proposes to pay the $4,000 as a reasonable compromise of the outstanding fees issue. Should Council not choose to reverse Planning’s vote to revoke, it would devastate the Williams’ financially and possibly leave them and their daughter homeless as well as seven individuals unemployed and shutter a significant resource to Pacifica’s seniors and interdependent neighboring businesses as well as lead to litigation where there is nobody winning but lawyers. He has faith that Council will do the just equitable and proper and humane thing, i.e., reverse the revocation vote and get the city back to the middle path with an accommodation of the window issue if necessary, reinstate Seaweed’s good name and stop the bleeding.

City Clerk Coffey stated that he has one minute left for rebuttal.

Mayor Bier asked if Council had questions and, seeing none, opened the public hearing.

Pamela Wiston, Pacifica, stated, after listening to all the problems, she questioned why the window is such a big deal and shared her positive thoughts on this business with suggested positive options.

Molly Muller, Pacifica, is a customer and she felt the window issue is bizarre and shared her positive thoughts and requested Council approve of them staying in business to help everyone.

Lori Muller, Pacifica, stated that she is in support of Seaweed and shared her positive thoughts on their business and supported not shutting them down over a silly window

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 November 14, 2022
requirement.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, expressed her thoughts and concerns on what went wrong with the condition of approval. She asked several questions of concern and felt Council had the power to grant a variance.

Ella Woods, Pacifica, stated she owned Acupuncture Works near Seaweeds and expressed her positive thoughts on this business and hope for its continued operation.

Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated that there was plenty of glass, and referred to the concerns about security, robbery, etc. and stated that made no sense by comparing the visibility of another cannabis business to Seaweeds and expressed his thoughts on ruling on a case-by-case basis.

City Clerk Coffey stated Mr. Williams needs to identify if he is speaking as the appellant or as a member of the public.

Tony Williams, Pacifica, stated he is speaking as an individual. He explained why they created Seaweed Holistics and how positive their business is with all issues.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, (by phone) thought this seemed to be a very frustrating situation, and he shared his concerns on the problem and positive thoughts for solving the problem by granting an automatic variance.

Tony White, Pacifica, (by phone) stated is an employee of a local dispensary, and he shared his thoughts and concerns on the issue and thought they had enough businesses in the area.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano reminded the mayor that the appellant had one minute for rebuttal.

Mr. Goggin stated that there wasn’t much to rebut as the last comment in opposition was a selfinterested statement looking for more gainful employment at another dispensary. He asked to see the hands of all the supporters of the appeal in the audience. He also asked if he saw any opposition to overturn the appeal.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it was inappropriate as comments need to be addressed to Council.

Mr. Goggin stated that he did that to show people were here to show support and not all testifying to save time. He stated that a variance can be granted that was brought up in the appeal and the ATM extends beyond the stairway and can be moved and is a good solution.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, with significant comment about the window requirement in the ordinance approved by Council seemed silly or arbitrary, Interim Police Chief Stratton and Capt. Glasgo are present and can speak to the public safety aspects of the window requirement now or during discussion.

Planning Director Murdock would like to provide responses to the points raised by the appellant.

He stated that the appellant representative described the window issue as a minor technical violation. In actuality, it is a Pacifica Municipal Code requirement for operation of a cannabis retail operation and imposed by a condition of approval and agreed to by the appellant. He

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 November 14, 2022
stated that it was also claimed that the city was pursuing a policy of strict compliance and he stated that they are not talking about a matter of a couple of inches but a 21.7% deficiency in terms of the window area and 18.8% deficiency in the window width. Staff thought they are sizeable differences beyond a claim of strict compliance. He also referred to a statement that the city should have considered less draconian methods, short of a revocation, and he would claim that the city has been extremely patient and provided a number of opportunities for the appellant to come into compliance, including a deferral of conditions of approval that were supposed to be completed prior to operation and all other operating cannabis operators completed prior to operation. The City has given an extensive period of time to this particular operator to come into compliance, which they have not, and other options that are less than draconian have also included entering into a deferral agreement that provided them with significant additional time to come into compliance, including payment of fees, which are also outstanding in addition to the window. He stated that there is a claim that the window modifications are cost-prohibitive; they have received a single estimate from the property owner as to the estimated cost which he will not dispute but he stated that all other four operating cannabis retail operations have either selected sites that could comply in their existing form or undertaken costly renovation to bring them into compliance with the requirement, including the Bloom Room on Palmetto with an estimated building permit evaluation of $200,000; Coastside Cannabis on Old County Road at $ 60,000; and Greenhaven on Dondee with a cost of $100,000. These are evidence that these types of businesses as a class do have the financial means to undertake these costly improvements and there is not a cost-prohibitive factor to this requirement. He stated that the regulations were adopted in advance of any applications being received and they were known in advance to this applicant and all others as an applicable requirement for a cannabis retail operation. The applicant submitted the application, processed the application, accepted the conditions of approval, did not appeal the conditions of approval and, on more than one occasion, requested the city to amend its application and enter into deferral agreement. He stated that there is ample evidence that these application requirements and standards were known by the applicant. He stated that it was mentioned that a variance should be considered. It was staff’s opinion that a variance is not a remedy that is available as this is not a zoning standard but a cannabis public safety license standard outside of the city zoning regulations. Staff does not believe that is a form of relief that Council could consider in this instance.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that one of the commenters made a statement allowing the business owner to move in when the permit was applied for, and he asked if they were already residing in that space.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it was his recollection was that a non-cannabis business was operated in that location, selling vintage clothing (non-cannabis retail).

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if it was the same business owner.

Planning Director Murdock thought at least one of the operators of that business was also the appellant in this instance.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to a question about why this is considered to be a nuisance, and he took the questioner to be implying that the generally understood meaning of nuisance.

This does not seem to be such a case in this instance; in this instance they are talking a specific legal definition of nuisance. He asked for the legal definition so they all understand the same legal definition.

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 November 14, 2022
Planning Director Murdock stated that they are familiar with various forms of nuisances such as piles of garbage, etc., and in this case, in enacting the cannabis regulations for Pacifica, Council determined a number of different operating criteria required for cannabis operations, including the store front window requirements. In considering those regulations in totality said, if any cannabis operation fails to comply with these minimum operating requirements of the municipal code or fails to comply with condition of approval imposed in approved application, failure to meet those requirements itself constitutes a public nuisance. He thought this makes sense when Council considers that these requirements were put in place to protect the public health safety and welfare and is the purpose the entire regulatory plan. He stated that Council determined that the failure to comply with one or multiple requirements was appropriate to constitute a public nuisance.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that there is a specific cite that identifies what Planning Director Murdock just said about a violation constituting a public nuisance and among other areas within the municipal code.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck understood, and then asked why is the window such a big deal.

Planning Director Murdock stated that Capt. Bill Glasgo will come up to answer that question.

Capt. Glasgo stated that, more than 5 years ago, Chief Steidle embarked on a journey of creating a cannabis program to Pacifica. He provided Council and staff with recommendations and part of the window discussion today came up and they developed a size for public safety.

Due to a great deal of money being exchanged and product on hand, the potential for various acts to be committed in these establishments, he presented those requirements to Council.

These requirements aren’t just for the business owners; it’s for patrons who come into the business and officers being able to respond to incidents to prevent circumstances where they can’t look into, see, plan, or tactfully and safely respond to any incidents taking place. He stated that, what is difficult about this location, as he responded in two prior Planning Commission meetings previously, is it is very unique with an elevated platform and brings an additional challenge to law enforcement if responding to an incident, unlike other businesses where there is not an elevation or potentially other distractions that they may encounter when responding to an emergency. Those are the things which Chief Steidle recommended. The police stands by their comments made in support of the current requirements of those window sizes as it is a matter of public safety. He then referred to the difference between this one and another establishment across the parking lot. He agreed it is unique and a business where they cannot readily see while an officer is on routine patrol, but that window is still in compliance with the requirements as set forth in the code and that business is unique as well because of an alleyway and a street alleyway. That business has two distinct avenues of police response in two separate locations in which that window is large enough to see should something be going down and plan a safe response to an incident in that business.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, what he heard him say regarding that other business, alleyway notwithstanding, that window from a public safety perspective does what it is supposed to be doing and makes the police’s job more likely to succeed.

Capt. Glasgo agreed, along with all the other cannabis retail businesses in Pacifica.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if, in his opinion, would his job be made more likely if Seaweed’s window was in compliance.

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 November 14, 2022
Capt. Glasgo stated that it needs to be in compliance for safe response as outlined.

Mayor pro Tem Glasgo asked if he believed it would make it safer.

Capt. Glasgo responded affirmatively.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he asked to have this called up for a couple of the reasons mentioned. He stated that he has been on Council for ten years and has utmost respect for our staff, planning, police, fire, etc. He has a difference of opinion in that driving past all the other cannabis businesses, they can see in the window and they can see in the window here and he disagrees on the one in the alley. He stated, for the police officer to look inside at night for a potential burglar, they would have to get out of the car, walk directly in front of the window to look in; here, you can drive by and see the inside of it. He feels that this business is being treated differently than another business and he is looking at what the intent of our ordinance and law, which is for police to see into the business. He feels, with the one in the alleyway, that intent is not met even though they have a big window. He stated that the house would be full of glass and you could see into it, but he doesn’t feel that. He then referred to why there wasn’t a variance approached with the Planning Commission, and staff said it was because it was in the municipal code and not a planning code.

Planning Director Murdock confirmed, adding that both the zoning provisions and the cannabis public safety license provisions are in the municipal code. The issue is that a variance is a mechanism for relief of zoning standards, and this particular set of regulations in the cannabis public safety license portion of the municipal code does not have such a mechanism for deviations from the required standards.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he trusts Planning Director Murdock, and he then asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano if, when they have a municipal code, they cannot have a variance from the municipal code.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Planning Director Murdock was correct, clarifying that the variance is a process by which you can seek relief from a zoning standard and this is not a zoning standard.

Councilmember O’Neill thought this was the first time they have ever had a municipal code get in the way of a variance. He brought it up as he thought this business was being held to a higher standard in terms of the intent of the law.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if the business had 24-hour cameras available so the police department can see what is going on inside this business for 24 hours.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he would look for a confirmation from Capt. Glasgo but it was his understanding that it does and it is an alternative accommodation that the city agreed to in lieu of the window modification on a temporary basis to provide some offsetting visual access into the space; that arrangement was not intended to be a permanent accommodation, and that is not a direct replacement for instantaneous direct line of sight into the space for the purposes Capt. Glasgo described for an immediate public health and safety response.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if all of the other businesses have that 24-hour camera access.

Planning Director Murdock thought most, if not all, have surveillance cameras but he is not

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 November 14, 2022
aware that the city has access to those cameras. He stated that, on an instantaneous basis, 24/7 live, the city does have the opportunity to request footage as part of the investigation as required by the code.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if the city had access for instantaneous monitoring. Capt. Glasgo stated that they do. Councilmember O’Neill concluded not with any of the others. Capt. Glasgo confirmed that not with any of the others.

Mayor Bier asked what temporary basis means.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it was intended as an accommodation when this operator identified they needed additional time to complete the storefront modifications. At that time, in consultation with the Police Chief, he assisted with creating that alternative 24/7 camera access to provide some alternative police visual access in lieu of the complete compliant storefront.

Mayor Bier asked if there was a date where this ended.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it was supposed to end some time ago; however, the operator has not complied with the conditions of approval and the deferral agreement to complete the storefront modifications. He thought it was a year to a year and a half, if not longer, when it should have been completed and the access no longer required by the city.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had no ex parte communication with the applicant.

She has been reading all the documents and looking at the situation from different perspectives.

One of the lenses through which she looks at this is the Economic Development lens. She asks what the purpose is of having cannabis businesses in Pacifica and why did Pacifica decide to put this forward and asked our citizens if we were interested in having adult use cannabis retail operations in town. The answer was yes, and it was a very lengthy and arduous process for staff, as mentioned by Capt. Glasgo and the Police Chief, to create this. They went through years of development of the standards as a leader. She believed they are experiencing part of the growing pains of implementing and living with what we created. She added that there are people of good will on all sides of this issue. She feels that some of the comments she heard at this meeting and others from the public through email on this matter have been very oppositional. She acknowledged and respected staff as they do what they ask them to do and don’t make stuff up; they do what we ask and they put it in front of the decision-making body.

When they have a challenge in what they are facing at this time, they have to do hard work to figure out how they handle this. She thought staff’s report delineates two issues, one is the window issue and the other is the money issue. She would like to propose to Council to come up with a way to work on one of those issues specifically; she thought the big one is the window.

She feels like the money can be figured out. She stated that she was looking for is some guidance from the Asst. City Attorney and City Manager around what remedies are available, as well as Planning staff, to shed some light for Council on what their options are.

Mayor Bier thought it goes back to having this ordinance in place for so long, and there comes a point in time when they have to review it and see how things are going and if it is matching up to what needs to happen for everything to work well. She wondered if that could be an option for some time in the future to revisit the ordinance.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that in Sacramento, they call it a cleanup bill. He felt our Airbnb and this one are both right for cleanup.

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 November 14, 2022
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they have not agendized an item at this meeting to amend the municipal code and is not before Council. Council could give direction to bring back an item in the future addressing potential revisions to the code which is dependent on staff timing and other priorities and issues in terms of when it comes back to Council. For this meeting’s purpose, Council is looking at the code in place now, and based on that code requirement, whether Council would like to consider the options they had on an appeal whether to accept the Planning Commission determination, modify it or deny it.

Mayor Bier stated that she saw the City Manager’s wheels turning, and stated, if they are going to take something on, they would have to discuss that at goal setting.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, as any ordinance revision, separated from the decision about this case, but what is before them is a decision about this case. A revision to the ordinance at a future time doesn’t help them now.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it is just either denying or approving the decision of the Planning Commission now and could convey the intent of the Council whether or not it is a nuisance.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, as indicated in the staff report, Council can approve, deny, or modify the Planning Commission decision based on the code. The Commission identified two primary conditions of approval that were not in compliance. As indicated in staff’s presentation, there are some other specific conditions of approval that fall behind conditions 9 and 18; because they are not in compliance with those, they are also in violation of conditions 1, 5 and 6. She reiterated that, while they have a typical idea of what a nuisance is, Council has decided that any violations of conditions of approval or the code are a public nuisance. It is not there is blight on the property or things are falling apart, but that there is something the applicant is not complying with that causes it to be a public nuisance.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed with Councilmember Beckmeyer that they are looking at two specific issues. He thought they can separate them from each other and tackle them individually. He referred to the window discussion, and two things that occurred to him was the option of reinterpreting how they are looking at whether they are in compliance with the window compared to how they have been interpreting it with other businesses or they could be giving direction to staff to come back to have a discussion on how they want to amend that ordinance because they have discovered that it needs to be tweaked. He looks to staff to tell them how they can send this back to have that discussion about the ordinance and it doesn’t immediately effect this business which is suffering the consequences of a part of the ordinance that they are thinking they may want to reconfigure. Then they can talk about money.

Mayor Bier thanked him for that, as that is what she meant.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thought there were solutions: If you move the ATM machine, you are counting a different frontage of the building than they were or if you could mandate that the 24- hour cameras be continued in perpetuity so there is always access to the property. Whether you can see in from the street or not is another issue. She didn’t know if you can see in from the street on a regular basis and didn’t know if that is a possibility even if it were larger windows, as with the way that the buildings are situated you cannot see in the windows most of the time.

Therefore, the camera would probably be the most ideal situation because you can see all the time.

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 November 14, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to comment before Council discusses reinterpretation of the ordinance. He stated that staff’s opinion was that the ordinance was very clear about what a facade is and what the window area of what that facade needs to be. He stated that there have been creative ideas thrown out but implementing those ideas would require staff revising the ordinance to allow that flexibility.

Planning Director Murdock agreed with the City Manager and stated that discussing the interior misses the plain language of the requirement as written now and an amendment to that would be the more appropriate approach. He stated he needed to clarify one portion of his prior statement with respect to the 24/7 camera access. He stated that stating that it is not a direct substitute for the window modification remains correct, but that requirement was imposed for reasons not directly related to the storefront window and it was not directly intended to be a substitute but intended to address other concerns related to the application at that time. It was intended to be a temporary measure, not a permanent measure.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was hearing that it might be more advantageous to send this off to be reconsidered in terms of the ordinance itself. He stated that, if they were to reinterpret, he would want to hear from public safety. Je was completely okay moving the ATM, but from an officer’s perspective, he wasn’t sure what it means that the stairwell can’t necessarily be seen.

He would want public safety input before signing off on a reinterpretation at this time but would be comfortable figuring out the proper way to tweak the ordinance if they are in consensus that there is a better way the ordinance can be written. They can then do things in such a fashion so that part of the issue doesn’t immediately and directly affect this business.

Mayor Bier stated that he mentioned that the big thing was the window and the money could be resolved, and she was thinking of it as the other way around and they might want to address the money and that they could look at the window later. She asked if they agreed to talk about the window first.

Councilmember O’Neill thought they needed to talk about the window first because that is what is declared a nuisance and, if they want the business to stay open, that needs to be dealt with.

He stated he will make a motion.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to adopt the attached Resolution to UPHOLD appeal and DENY the Planning Commission’s revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 (File Nos. 2018- 029 and 2020-020), which authorizes operation of a cannabis retail operation known as Seaweed Holistics at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (APN 022-021-6400), and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that he wasn’t including the resolution.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he changed the word in the recommended action and changed the word deny to uphold the appeal and uphold to deny the revocation.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano understood that he wants to uphold the appeal and deny the Planning Commission’s revocation. She stated that the resolution included in the package is supporting staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal. She stated that there is no resolution in the package at this meeting that does what his motion seeks to do.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they would need to develop sufficient evidence to support

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 November 14, 2022
such a resolution and, at this time, he didn’t know if they have that evidence related to the facts of the storefront relative to the municipal code requirement. He stated that there may be other alternatives that they can discuss that achieve a purpose to not immediately result in a revocation but to give one last chance with respect to paying the outstanding fees and potentially having Council have an opportunity to amend the ordinance before finality of the revocation.

City Manager Woodhouse added to Planning Director Murdock’s comment that one of the options for Council to consider would be to deny the appeal and uphold the revocation and add conditions that need to be met within a certain time period and if they were not met then the revocation goes into play. He suggested that one condition could be that the fees due to the city are paid within 30 days and, if that is not met, then it is revoked. Another option would be that, as mentioned, in order to adjust or reinterpret the window size requirement in code would require an ordinance revisio; another condition could be that the city pursue an ordinance revision to allow that and, if that passes through Planning Commission and Council, with a time period of maybe 120 days (as they need to talk about the priority ordinances that staff has to work on), but if that condition were met, they are revising the ordinance to allow this window to exist the way it is despite all the other cannabis businesses already having made those revisions to meet the requirements of the ordinance. He stated that would allow the permit to not be revoked.

Councilmember O’Neill wondered if they want to do a straw vote to see what the intent of the majority of Council is and they don’t spend 20 minutes on a motion that might fail.

Mayor Bier stated that he has to rescind his motion.

Councilmember O’Neill rescinded it. He urged them to do a straw vote to see what is the intent of Council before they spend a lot of time doing what is suggested.

Mayor Bier thought there needs to be something in place to pay the fees so they can show good faith and pay back some of the fees. She can’t morally revoke a license for this reason and she is having a hard time with the word revocation. She feels that Council needs to do everything they can so the owners have one last chance to make some payments and give Council an opportunity to review the ordinance in the future, as it won’t happen right away.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he is very supportive of keeping the business open and, regarding the fees, he is willing to listen to his fellow Councilmembers. He would also say that, if they leave the business open and they figure out a payment schedule, that there is a provision of if they do not pay, no more extensions - they pay or the business license is revoked, as this has been going on for years.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that City Manager Woodhouse’s recommendation would meet that. What he is recommending is that Council proceed with the revocation but condition it to be a date in the future, say 120 days, unless the appellant/applicant meets the following conditions: 1) payment of fees within 30 days or within 60 days or what Council feels is appropriate, keeping in mind that these fees were supposed to be paid back in February 2021.

She stated that the conditions of approval would need to be amended, the ordinance would need to be amended, and the conditions of approval would need to be amended consistent with the revisions to the ordinance. Additionally, the applicant/appellant would need to amend the deferral agreement because that would be inconsistent. The Council could revoke the permit with a specified period of time and subject to specific conditions.

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 November 14, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they can pass a resolution of revoking the revocation and direct staff to come back with the correct motion for payment resolutions, as they are doing things at 11:00 at night.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, regarding the revisions City Manager Woodhouse is talking about to the resolution, they can make that resolution at this meeting, as they have the resolution for revocation, but it would be a matter adding language specifying the effective date of the revocation depending on the appellant/applicant’s compliance.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated, if they are revoking the revocation, why are they saying that they are going to continue with the revocation. She thinks they should do away with that, continue the business, let them continue, not automatically revoke and set up the payment schedule with an automatic revocation but not revoke the business now.

City Manager Woodhouse clarified that they are not revoking the business permit now but setting it at a certain date in the future when that revocation would happen if certain conditions Council established weren’t met.

Planning Director Murdock stated, if Council were to undertake what City Manager Woodhouse has outlined, tomorrow and the next day, the business would remain open; there would be no immediate sanction except that, at whatever stated date in the future, this revocation will take effect unless the specified conditions have been achieved.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he is okay with that. He asked if he can make a motion to extend the meeting.

Councilmember O’Neill extended the meeting to 12:00 midnight, seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

Councilmember Beckmeyer explained that, under Council rules, they need to make a motion if they are going to extend their meeting and they need to do that by 11:00 p.m.

Mayor Bier stated that they are extending the meeting.

EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Mayor Bier asked how they set up a payment schedule, what they are paying back, and if that all has to be decided now.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked for clarification on the fees, i.e., there was a lot of public comment and letters to Council about it, and from the appellant and applicant’s attorney claiming that the fees exist only because of the length of time that this window business has been going on - in other words, it is like a fee machine that this window is an ongoing issue and causing more fees. She wants to be sure she understands that is not the case. As she read the staff report, there was a deferral agreement and the CAP was what generated the fees, not

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 November 14, 2022
the window issue. She asked, if she is correct, if someone can clarify that for her. She needs to understand that and the public needs to understand that better also.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, of that $26,000, around $4,000 are fees related to the processing of the initial cannabis activity permit that the applicant has not paid for a couple of years at this point. They have made multiple requests, and those fees have not been paid. In addition, beyond those fees, there were other requirements, including the storefront modification that needed to be completed prior to commencement of operation of this business, which was a standard condition applied to all the other cannabis retail operations. However, this unique circumstance was such that the operator claimed that they could not comply with those without generating revenue from operating the business. Thus, the city took the extraordinary step to enter into a deferral agreement to authorize them to begin operating and defer certain other aspects of their requirements until they were operating and to allow time for the Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the approved permit to align with that deferral agreement, again an extraordinary circumstance. The processing of that amendment and the deferral agreement accumulated roughly another $22,000 worth of city processing cost as a result of the applicant’s failure to comply in the first instance with the requirements imposed on its application and those of other cannabis operations. He stated that those fees have not been accumulating, and there are no fee machine, no periodic increase or interest penalty, but the fees related to the processing cost for those various components.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano was involved in assisting staff in discussing when that applicant or appellant came to city staff about what options were available to them. Their office was consulted and they also reviewed/prepared the deferral agreement and processed that deferral agreement through the Planning Commission meetings. There are a lot of staff time involved in just preparing a deferral agreement and then putting the amended conditions of approval. She stated that all of that was set forth in the deferral agreement that would be the responsibility of the appellant/applicant and it clearly states the obligations of Seaweed reimbursing the city because the city wanted to be made whole and they should not have to pay the costs associated with the request that is made by a permittee at that point and that is a cost that is typically passed on to an applicant.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to get that into the record because she understood that it would be like, when someone wants to have a business and there are certain costs associated with getting that business started off the ground, the cost of planning time, all of city staff costs associated with that business, are to be borne by the business seeking a permit to have a business in town. If that businessperson doesn’t pay those costs, the citizens of Pacifica pay those costs. She didn’t think the citizens of Pacifica want to do that, but want potholes filled and basic city services done. That is why all of the costs associated with starting businesses are borne by the business owners. She acknowledged that it is a lot of money and it is shocking to people when they find out how expensive it is, but it is because staff gets paid a decent wage for the work they provide and costed out on an hourly basis. That is the gist of what she perceived to be that some citizens were seeking, and as someone responsible for city finances, she cannot do that. She stated when she says they can work out the money, she is not talking about erasing it, but finding a way to allow the business owner to pay the debt to get it erased and settled in a comfortable way. She agrees with the mayor that 30 days isn’t reasonable.

Councilmember O’Neill thinks 30 days for the $4,300 mentioned to open up the business, that is paid within 30 days or the license is revoked. He stated that was supposed to be paid four years ago in order to open their business.

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 November 14, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed with that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer added there should be some kind of payment plan for the rest of it.

Mayor Bier stated that they know how much the cannabis business costs, and all of the merchants had to pay a lot of money to start their business, run their business, etc., and she agrees with the $4,000 original fee.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to be sure they have the majority of Council in agreement about the approach being contemplated now, i.e., setting a future revocation date of the permit if certain conditions aren’t met, and now going down the list establishing what those conditions are.

Mayor Bier stated being fully clear that the business can continue running until that time.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if the payments are not paid, the license is revoked.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the first condition on the floor is the payment of the $4,000.

Planning Director Murdock confirmed $4,080.56.

City Manager Woodhouse stated the $4,080.56 payment within 30 days is the first condition.

The balance of funds owed minus that amount.

Councilmember Vaterlaus, Councilmember O’Neill, and Mayor Bier discussed equal monthly dollar amounts to be paid in a timely manner when due.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if, after the initial 30 days to pay the $4,000, they have another 12 months.

Councilmember O’Neill stated the 30 days to pay the $4,000 and then the clock starts ticking for the one year.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they are saying, should they miss any one of those 12 payments, there goes the business.

Councilmember O’Neill responded affirmatively, adding the fees are to be paid in a timely manner.

City Manager Woodhouse stated another cost component is, from this point forward until issues are resolved, there are the ongoing staff costs that need to be paid. This is an unknown cost and is a continuing process due to reimbursement; so, at some point in the future, there is that additional amount of money.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if he was speaking about collecting payment.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are asking staff to come back with conditions and the language to make this permanent so that could be ten hours and will involve city attorney time

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 November 14, 2022
and staff time to do that.

Planning Director Murdock stated, as a frame of reference, the initial application ended up costing around $14,000, all inclusive of staff and attorney time. He would imagine this is likely to be much less expensive than that, but they are talking about at least several thousands of dollars of processing costs.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they put the appellant will pay staff costs and they set a ceiling on it.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked how they know what it is going to be, so they can’t set a ceiling.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that they can set a ceiling and, if staff goes over, they can eat it, if they get it done quicker then he pays what is due, not their ceiling.

Mayor Bier stated that there needs to be language that there will be additional payments. She asked how they put that into language.

Councilmember O’Neill didn’t think it was fair to ask him to sign a blank piece of paper saying he agree to pay the fees. He thinks they need to put some sort of limit to a maximum of $5,000 or $7,500 as it is not fair to ask him to sign a blank sheet of paper.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it would be not to exceed a certain amount.

Councilmember O’Neill agreed.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that a more typical alternative is that the Planning Department takes in a deposit and charges against that deposit for the work that needs to be done to process this. They could set an amount and, if the processing costs exceed that deposit, then they wouldn’t be charged more, as that would be the ceiling. He asked if that was more consistent.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it would be, as the applicant shall furnish a $5,000 deposit for estimated processing costs and any unused portions shall be refunded but no additional fees required.

Councilmember O’Neill thought that was fine as that is the standard practice and they have the system set up to do that.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, where that deviates from the standard practices in instances where the deposit is exhausted and they request a supplemental deposit, as was the case with this initial application processing where the initial $10,000 deposit was exhausted and a supplemental deposit was never provided.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that is where the $4,000 or came from. Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

City Manager Woodhouse suggested one timing way to handle that would be that, within the first 30 days, the $4,000 is paid plus the $5,000 deposit or whatever amount Council sets, and subsequently the monthly charges. He stated that, if Council is directing as a condition that they

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 November 14, 2022
are going to go back and do substantial work on revising the ordinance in order to allow Seaweed’s existing window to comply with the program, that is a significant amount of work.

Councilmember Beckmeyer believes that revising the ordinance is going to benefit all future business people, not just one individual.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked the public to be patient with the process. She stated that this is government and they are here for it. Mayor Bier stated that they are doing their very best they can. City Manager Woodhouse agreed. Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it was to find a solution.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the ordinance revision would apply to all future businesses, but currently, in our cannabis program, all of the slots are filled. Therefore, they have the existing businesses that this doesn’t benefit at all, but if they turned over or closed, a new one opening in that zone, they would be complying with new ordinance requirements.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, following her initial comments, was that they needed to look back at our ordinance. This is the growing pain and what happens after you’re the first and now they are looking back at it.

Mayor Bier stated that she finds that to be separate.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.

Councilmember O’Neill agreed that it was separate. The cost for his specific business is what they pay.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, regarding his statement that it was separate, they are talking about a condition of staff having to go and revise the ordinance and process the requirements that essentially change the window requirements that allows the current window to comply and applies to future businesses - that is a significant undertaking to review the ordinance and process that through the Planning Commission.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had in mind on that point is that not so much focusing on the window as the issue of safety. She referred to Councilmember Vaterlaus alluding to the 24-hour surveillance process and the cameras and Mayor Bier’s comments. That is just one possibility. She thought that was the creative solution the Planning Director came up with around how to get from here to there inasmuch as the window wasn’t compliant. She was suggesting that or other possible things they haven’t thought of which is the work in updating the ordinance, and they are directing the issue to safety and that is what they heard from Capt.

Glasgo and from the Chief in the form of Capt. Glasgo referring to what Chief Steidle had done in coming up with those recommendations. She was interested in what is safe for all concerned. She stated that this building has very unique characteristics as they heard from Capt. Glasgo, such as a second story component. She doesn’t know what all the elements are, but she knows that there are lots of buildings in Pacifica that have unique characteristics and we may need to be a little flexible around how we address safety and not requiring a building owner to rebuild their building to accomplish that.

Councilmember O’Neill asked, as they couldn’t give a variance because it is a municipal ordinance, if they could switch those rules to business licenses and grant variances in business licenses.

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 November 14, 2022
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that a business license is not a regulatory license but a revenue generating license and they would not be able to impose public safety license conditions on a business license. She stated that the public safety license requirements are that the window coverings be a certain percentage and she thought what City Manager Woodhouse was contemplating when he suggested these conditions was making specific amendments that are required to allow this business to comply or comport with the requirements, not doing an overhaul but making the amendments specific for this business and that is why it is appropriate to take staff time necessary for those amendments and tie it to the applicant/appellant the way they did the condition of approval. If they are talking about a complete overhaul of the public safety license requirements, she thinks what she is hearing from Council is that might be a separate cost that is not assessed to the applicant, but for their purposes at this meeting, the suggestion was to submit a change to address exactly what is necessary to allow this business to operate in compliance with the code regulations and that is what they are saying is appropriate for reimbursement.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if there would be a difference if they made it specifically to the Rockaway Beach area and not the entire city.

Planning Director Murdock thought the Council has broad discretion in considering the amendments; any variation from a simple modification to the storefront dimensions adds additional complexity to the amendment, thus additional time and additional cost. There is the simple version of make the standard be what Seaweed has so it can operate and be in compliance all the way up to more boutique approaches to tailor them by zoning district or by block. The Council has ultimate discretion to do that. He stated another factor to consider is, if changes to the zoning regulations are entertained, those also require a local coastal program amendment by the Coastal Commission, so containing any revisions to the public safety provisions is the most cost-effective and time-efficient manner in which Council can address this particular issue, even though it has broader applicability but for the direct benefit of this single business owner.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was thinking that, if there is another cannabis business that wants to open in Rockaway, as there are several stores there, and they have three in each unit, it would make it more efficient if they did it just to the Rockaway Beach area.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck doesn’t like the idea of making an adjustment specifically for the one business but he does like the idea of making the adjustment. He appreciates that they are trying to find a simple solution which rarely exists in government, and given what they have to work with, he would rather have them do the work and come up with a solution that is going to work for all businesses here and thereafter. He thinks that is what he is hearing from his fellow Councilmembers.

Councilmember Vaterlaus was looking for the simplest solution possible.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he wasn’t convinced that it is making the adjustment in this way for that business to the exclusion of all other businesses that complied but maybe a condition they are learning should not have been there to begin with. If that is the case, the simplest thing, even though the work would suggest otherwise, is to make sure that they permanently fix it so that not just this business benefits from it, but any other business that would come after.

Mayor Bier thinks that all of them came up with a pretty decent suggestion about the payment

2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 November 14, 2022
plan. She thinks it is generous and she feels good about that. As long as this business can keep running and make the payments, they can have time to do the rest.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if, looking at the time and two other agenda items, they can put a fork in this.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that one thing that needs to be discussed is what is the deadline date for the revocation if the conditions are not met. He thought maybe staff can summarize how they are looking at the conditions in terms of the ordinance revision. He suggested for that type of work, given everything on their plate, that maybe a 120 day timeline would apply for coming up with processing.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the discussion he heard took a different path where the outer bound is the 12-month payment plan plus two months at the front end for payment of $4,000 and a $5,000 deposit. He thought, potentially revocation is set at 14 months from today subject to payment of the $4,000 within 30 days, payment of the $5,000 deposit within another 30 days. Beyond that, he wasn’t sure if they needed to time limit the city’s action to consider the ordinance amendment as he thought there were ample performance standards in terms of the payment that provides a pace for coming into compliance on the payment while giving the city time to prioritize this ordinance amendment in the way that the City Manager thinks is most appropriate in light of all the other workload considerations.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano heard from Councilmember O’Neill that he wanted revocation to take place immediately if they do not comply with some of the initial requirements, i.e. to pay within 30 days $4,080.56. She asked if they want to make revocation immediately upon failure to comply with any conditions set forth or all of them or some combination.

Councilmember O’Neill asks if by immediate she means that, if they don’t get the check on Friday, on Monday they close it.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano heard that the original application fee needed to be paid within a very short time frame.

Councilmember O’Neill confirmed 30 days.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if Council was inclined to proceed with the revocation if that is not paid within 30 days.

Councilmember O’Neill stated he would give them a two-week demand letter and then if that doesn’t get the money, they would follow procedure.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the benefit to doing it this way is that they don‘t have to do another procedural step. She would propose that, if Council is inclined to set that as the first step, the revocation be effective immediately upon failure to make that payment within 30 days.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if she is talking about that initial payment or every other payment thereafter.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she was focusing on the first threshold payment, $4,080.56, but she did hear from someone else that, if one of the installment payments was not made, it would be revoked. She didn’t know if Council was inclined to proceed with that, as that

2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 November 14, 2022
might be a more appropriate area to allow some flexibility in terms of being late and are given a notice. She stated that, if they are going to have a revocation effective immediately, it should be that first threshold payment.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that is part of the money from the original payment.

Planning Director Murdock stated, with respect to payments and additional flexibility, that he would reiterate the fact that this particular operator has had since March 2021 to make any payments for these unpaid amounts. Providing additional leniency or second chance clauses is an additional burden that clouds the picture as to whether they are finally coming into compliance with what has been a very permissive process and complicates staff’s administration of this revocation. He stated that payment deadline month by month is a very easy clear standard for staff as well as for this particular operator.

Mayor Bier realizes how much work has gone into this and how many years they have been working on this and she can feel his frustration and she appreciates all the work they do. She appreciated the conversation they have had at this time, and they have done everything they possibly can to help Seaweed stay open and show good faith and make payments and they will take it from there. She thinks there should be some flexibility.

Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to acknowledge a chart that had all the conditions and whether the applicant/appellant was in compliance or not, where the vast majority of them were yes. She feels that they have to zero in on these are where they are not, but she doesn’t want color opinions or make some implications about this particular business owner. She stated that there is one outstanding item that she wanted to follow up on, i.e., conditions of approval No. 20 in regard to quarterly compliance reporting to Chief of Police. She wanted to know if that is an ongoing requirement or short term as it seemed that it happened for a time and then it stopped happening. She wanted to know if they are done with that, need to renew that, etc.

Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that she can answer that question. She stated that, similar to the 24-hour surveillance monitoring requirement in the initial approval of this cannabis activity permit, another measure added to this operator was the requirement to provide quarterly reports. She stated that, at the first annual report of this operation, it was found that they were out of compliance with submitting those quarterly reports. The police staff has worked with the applicant and brought them into compliance so that condition of approval is no longer found to be out of compliance. This standard is one that is required through their second annual report:

Their first one occurred in August and their next one will occur in August 2023.

Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that her understanding is that they have one more year of quarterly reports. Sr. Planner O’Connor responded affirmatively.

City Manager Woodhouse clarified that they spoke earlier about the planning processing fees deposit of $5,000 and he asked if that was part of the initial 30-day deadline.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was the second 30-days for that: the initial $4,000, then another 30 days, where Planning Director Murdock stated they would pay the $5,000 in the second month, and then start the monthly payments on the $22,000.

Planning Director Murdock referred to the Council’s desire to provide some payment flexibility, and he asked that it not shift a burden to city staff but perhaps set the payment due date reflecting Council’s adoption on the 14th of this month, beginning the requirements on the 15th

2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 November 14, 2022
and applying them each month thereafter. He stated that essentially, the monthly payments will be due on the 15th of each month and, if not paid by the end of that month, that constitutes a late payment and breach of this requirement. He asked if that is acceptable and not requiring a notice to be triggered and generated by the city.

Councilmembers all agreed.

Appellant wanted to ask a question regarding the $5,000 deposit.

Mayor Bier stated that he needed to wait and can ask them after the meeting.

Planning Director Murdock stated he would read the key points, and then with Council’s consensus, he will read the technical language they need which will take a few minutes. He stated that Council will consider revoking the cannabis activity permit effective 14 months after November 15, 2022. The permit will not be revoked if the following conditions are satisfied before that date 14 months from tomorrow: Applicant will pay $4,080,56 by December 15, 30 days from tomorrow. The applicant shall pay $5,000 deposit for amendment fees by January 15, 60 days from Council’s action; any unused portion will be refunded, and any additional costs will be borne by the city. The applicant shall pay the remaining $21,872.33 for all the other prior processing and amendments in 12 equal monthly payments of $1,822.69 by the end of the business day on the 15th day of each month beginning in February 2023. In the event there is a failure to make the payment by the due date, failure to pay by the last day of the month in which the payment is due shall constitute a breach of that requirement.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that it shall warrant immediate revocation.

Planning Director Murdock reiterated that it shall warrant immediate revocation.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if he could specify what the amendments mean.

Planning Director Murdock stated, with respect to the $5,000, the amendments include the ordinance amendment, the cannabis activity permit amendment by the Planning Commission, and the deferral agreement amendment by the City Attorney’s office and the City Manager. He stated that there is no time limit, but within the 14 months, City Council will need to amend the ordinance related to the window configuration so that the current configuration of this operation will be allowed to remain and be compliant with the ordinance and confirming the amendments approved by the Commission and the deferral agreement is amended. They will go on to say that once revoked, the permit shall be deemed expired and no longer entitled to permit the operation which is recognized. He stated that, if those points seem agreeable by Council, he can begin the process of reading the actual modifications to the draft resolution.

Mayor Bier confirmed that.

Planning Director Murdock stated, with respect to the resolution included as Attachment A, there is a paragraph that Council will delete, “be it further resolved that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby revoke cannabis activity permit CAP-8-18 and cannabis is henceforth deemed to be expired and show no longer entitled the permittee to any uses authorized by the cannabis activity permit. The permittee shall immediately cease operating, engaging in conducting or carrying out any cannabis operation at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2, including dispensing, selling and/or delivering cannabis and/or cannabis products”. They also deleted the recital reading, “be it further resolved that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby

2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 November 14, 2022
direct staff to refund in full the permittee’s payment of the 2022 yearly cannabis public safety license renewal fee of $23,577.” New resolved clauses are added to read as follows, “be it further resolved that the City Council of the City of Pacific does hereby revoke cannabis activity permit CAP-8-18 which shall take effect 14 months after November 15, 2022 ‘revocation date’ unless all the following conditions ‘revocation conditions’ are satisfied before the revocation date. Beginning the list, No. 1, applicant shall pay $4,080.56 for all outstanding and applicable fees and costs associated with the processing of the application for approval of CAP-8-18 by end of business day, December 15, 2022. No. 2, applicant shall pay $5,000 deposit for estimated fees and costs associated with the processing of amendments to CAP-8-18 to incorporate any revisions to the Pacific Municipal Code adopted by the City Council by end of business day on January 15, 2023. Any unused portion of the deposit shall be refunded and any additional costs beyond the deposit shall be paid by the City of Pacifica, adding processing of amendments themselves. No. 3, applicant shall pay $21,872.33 for all outstanding and applicable fees and costs associated with processing the amendment to CAP-8-18 and all outstanding and applicable fees and costs associated with the preparation and execution of the deferral agreement in 12 equal monthly payments of $1,822.69 by the end of the business day on the 15th day of each month, beginning February 15, 2023, or on the next business day when the 15th day of the month is not a business day. Failure to make any required monthly payment by the last day of the subject month in which the payment is due shall warrant immediate revocation. No. 4, PMC Section 4-16.03C1 II relating to window coverings is amended in a manner which allows applicant to retain its current window configuration. No. 5, Conditions of approval Nos. 9 and 18 are modified by the Planning Commission to conform to any revisions made to PMC Section 4-16.03C1 II and reflects satisfaction of outstanding fees as described in paragraph 1. No. 6, City and applicant execute an amendment to the deferral agreement to conform to revisions to PMC Section 4-16.03C1 II and reflects satisfaction of outstanding fees and provides reimbursement to the City for all costs including, but not limited to, staff time, administrative cost, legal fees and other costs incurred by the city in processing amendments to conditions of approval Nos. 9 and 18 and amendment to deferral agreement subject to the $5,000 limit above.” Then there is a new resolve clause, “Be it further resolved that, if the foregoing revocation conditions are not completely satisfied by the revocation date of...” Asst. City Attorney Bazzano made suggestions regarding the language on the revocation date, certain conditions, and immediate revocation. Planning Director Murdock agreed.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the last resolve clause would say, “Be it further resolved that, if the foregoing revocation conditions are not completely satisfied by the revocation date, CAP-8-18 shall be deemed to be expired and shall no longer entitle the permittee to any uses authorized by the cannabis activity permit and the permittee shall immediately cease operating, engaging in, conducting or carrying out any cannabis operation at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2, including dispensing, selling and/or delivering cannabis and/or cannabis products.” Asst. City Attorney Bazzano offered to read the motion, and the maker can consider adopting as her own: “To adopt the attached Resolution as has been modified by Planning Director Murdock to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the Planning Commission’s revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 (File Nos. 2018-029 and 2020-020), which authorizes operation of a cannabis retail operation known as Seaweed Holistics at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (APN 022-021-640), and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A as amended by Director Murdock from the hearing.”
Councilmember Vaterlaus clarified that they are still calling it a revocation subject to the

2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 35 November 14, 2022
following items that the resolution changed.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it was a revocation. It does not prevent them from operating tomorrow or the next day unless any of those required conditions fail to be met. Day 31 from tomorrow and they have not paid the $4,080, the revocation takes effect.

Councilmember Vaterlaus clarified that they have to state it that way.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, as discussed earlier, the resolution that is in the package at this meeting was a recommendation from staff to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission. Based on what they heard from Council, they talked about making changes to that resolution to condition the revocation to take place at a future date if they don’t comply with the conditions.

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

Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked everyone involved, especially staff, as she knows they did something different than what was expected or brought forward from staff and she appreciated all staff.

AGENDA ITEM #10
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

CONSIDERATION

11. Introduction of an Ordinance to Adopt the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code and Fire Code with Local Amendments, including amendments to require building electrification (Reach Codes), underground utility installation, and expanded geotechnical hazard evaluation.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to take the following actions:
1) Introduce by title only and waive the first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica:
a. Repealing and replacing Chapters 1 (Building Code), 2 (Mechanical Code), 3 (Plumbing Code), 4 (Electrical Code), 5 (International Property Maintenance Code), 6 (Energy Code), 7 (Green Building Code), 7.5 (Residential Code), 8 (Historical Buildings Code,

8.5 (Existing Buildings Code), 9 (Reference Standards Code) of Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards (California Code of Regulation, Title 24, Parts 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12) and the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code and making certain amendments thereto;
b. Repealing and replacing Article 1 (Fire Code) of Chapter 3 (Fire Protection) of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to adopt the 2022 California Fire Code and making certain amendments thereto; and

2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 36 November 14, 2022
c. Finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act 2) Set a public hearing to consider adoption of the Ordinance on November 28, 2022.

Planning Director Murdock stated he was joined by Fire Inspector Ryan Adams from the North County Fire Authority and Contract Building Official Greg McFann, and presented the brief staff report.

Mayor Bier opened public comments.

Margo Meiman, Pacifica, stated she attended two climate related events which illustrated the importance of the updated Reach codes that she hoped Council approves, and shared her thoughts on the details of this issue.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, supported Council on this issue, mentioning her thoughts on the issue and sharing some questions she has.

Juliana Woehl and Arwun Clancy Parast, Pacifica, stated they are Oceana High School students and members of the Ocean Conservation Club. They stated that they were passionate students in protecting our environment and expressed their thoughts in support of the passing of the updated Reach codes for new building construction.

Mayor Bier stated, before they go to call-in speakers, they should vote to extend the meeting time.

Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the meeting to 12:15 a.m., seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

EXTEND MEETING TO 12:15 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Mayor Bier stated that they will now go to call-in speakers.

Dashiell Leeds, Pacifica, (by phone) stated he is the conservation organizer for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, and hoped they adopt the Reach codes at this meeting. He shared his thoughts on this issue and clarification suggestions on the item’s text.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, (by phone) applauded Council and staff on moving forward with Reach codes and shared his thoughts on this issue.

Mayor Bier closed public comments. She thought they should talk about the changes suggested.

Planning Director Murdock referred to the desire to make the all-electric building conversion requirements consistent between residential and non-residential, and stated that it made sense

2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 37 November 14, 2022
as it was a drafting oversight on staff’s part, and the intent will be to add “or any other purpose” to section 5.106.13 to match the similar language in 4.106.5. He stated they can make that change if Council desires. He stated that the other item to be considered is deleting residential from section 112.4.2(b)(II), the utility undergrounding as that was an old text leftover when the ordinance was initially drafted to apply to residential only and they broadened that but missed that reference to residential and deleting that would align with their recommendation.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to packet page 291, stating that the issue of green building standards code No. 3 about the specification of for-profit restaurants, and she asked if there was a reason to keep the word, for-profit, in there.

Planning Director Murdock thought maybe so or not, and he explained the reason for that is that they carried forward the exception that was in the 2019 Reach code to align that as closely as possible and they didn’t receive direction from Council to explore alternatives to that. He thought the real reason that exception exists is that certain types of food preparation can be very costly when using all electric heating appliances which was the thought, and Peninsula Clean Energy staff previously has relayed that to him. He stated that it is unusual but there are certain types of food preparation that are not cost-effective using all electric cooking and he understood that was the rationale of that initial exception.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought keeping the word, for-profit, gives more flexibility.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it would narrow the exception, but he didn’t know of any non-profit restaurants in Pacifica, but they may exist and he isn’t aware of them, or maybe the thought is related to more institutional or religious organizations in their cooking facilities and perhaps replacing restaurant with cooking facility but that is an undefined term that is perhaps not commonly understood. He thought the potential misapplication of this was limited, and perhaps Council could make that adjustment if some unforeseen issue were to arise, which he thought was unlikely to occur.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, on packet page 301, there is a reference to the appeal process that an appeal should be heard before the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission, and she was looking to paragraph 3 where it says notwithstanding any other provision of the Pacifica Municipal Code, the determination of the Commission shall be final and binding. She asked if that means it isn’t appealable to Council.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively. He thought part of the rationale is that the code looks to have the appeal body have some subject matter expertise in the technical codes and part of the composition of the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission makes them such that they are determined to be qualified to hear those types of appeals and he thought the idea was not to put it into a political realm but a technical realm for purposes of the appeals. He stated that, when you look at the nature of the appeals and how they are limited, they are to a technical misapplication of the code and having the decision-making body be competent in those issues is the real intent that is at issue here.

Councilmember Beckmeyer then referred to packet page 317, stating that they have talked before about examples include barbecue themes, restaurants and pizza ovens, and the thought was whether they need to have those examples in there and can it just say usually cook with a flame that cannot be reasonably achieved with an electric fuel source.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there was no binding language with respect to those

2.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 38 November 14, 2022
examples, but intended to provide some helpful context but there is no need to have that if Council desires to delete it.

Mayor Bier asked, if there were no further comments, was there a motion.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it looked like Christine Boles left otherwise he was going to follow up on her comment on Nos. 5 and 6 on pages 291 and 292.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it was about the EV charging stations.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated one was about the affordability which he thought they need to incentivize affordable housing and he didn’t quite understand her question that had something to do with cost, on No. 5 on page 291.

Planning Director Murdock thought he could shed some light on both of those questions. He referred to the question about the affordable housing exemption, they discussed at the last Council meeting on that topic, it was an option for the affordable housing developer, but not a mandate or automatic exclusion. If there are some cost basis that affects the ability to construct the affordable unit, he thought Council was striking the balance on better to have the unit without EV parking than to have some requirement that sounds great but results in not having housing constructed. He stated that Mr. Reyes from PCE also mentioned that, in some cases for 100% affordable projects, there is also funding available from PCE so there is also potentially that funding source. He referred to the cost question regarding the geotechnical hazard requirement and stated that there was a potentially very high cost associated with some of these risk minimization measures if they require large debris, deflection walls or other site drainage that could be very costly relative to the project. The commenter was recognizing that it may be a very important risk reduction component to the project that is disproportionate because it costs “X” dollars but there is only a very small primary project being proposed and that could present risk to the community. He stated that may be the case and in consulting with Mr. McFann, they think there are very few circumstances where such a small project is likely to generate such a high risk. The potential exists and they can’t discount it entirely, but he thought it was better to have that safeguard in terms of cost proportionality than to eliminate it and have the city subject to some other infeasibility claim.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, if they identify such a genuine threat in the review process, whether they have a mechanism by which they can necessitate that a costly measure is put in.

Planning Director Murdock understood the concern and his lead is to reflect on the language to see. Planning Director Murdock stated, if that is the only outstanding issue, he will find that requirement.

Mayor Bier stated that there were a few changes and they need to make sure they include those in the motion.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to take the following actions: 1) introduce by title only and waive the first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, a) repealing and replacing Chapters 1 (Building Code), 2 (Mechanical Code), 3 (Plumbing Code, 4 (electrical Code), 5 (International Property Maintenance Code), 6 (Energy Code), 7 (Green Building Code),

7.5 (Residential Code), 8 (Historical Buildings Code, 8.5 (Existing Buildings Code), 9 (reference Standards Code) of Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards (California Code of Regulation, Title 24, Parts 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6,

2.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 39 November 14, 2022
8, 10, 11 and 12) and the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code and making certain amendments thereto; b) Repealing and replacing Article 1 (Fire Code) of Chapter 3 (Fire Protection) of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to adopt the 2022 California Fire Code and making certain amendments thereto; and c) Finding adoption of the ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act including the items that have been adjusted; 2) set a public hearing to consider adoption of the Ordinance on November 28, 2022.

Planning Director Murdock stated that those amendments were, in brief, to add or any other purpose to the non-residential all electric building conversion prohibition, deleting the word residential from 112.4.2 (b)(II) and deleting the sentence in the non-residential for-profit restaurant exemption with sentence beginning with examples included in the motion.

Councilmember Vaterlaus accepts that, seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.

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

12. Update on Highway1/Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Update Report on Highway 1/Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project
Mayor Bier suggested that they move item #12, the update on the Manor drive overcrossing, to a future meeting.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed, and asked if they needed to do the Reach item at this meeting.

Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Bier hoped there is flexibility on that last item.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, before they vote, they must take public comment on the motion to continue.

Mayor Bier opened public comment on the motion to continue.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that he wasn’t sure if there are any deadlines, as he referred to $2.7 million of grant funding they were applying for and he was concerned as this item was to cut the consultants loose and wondered if, by deferring, they were jeopardizing the funding.

City Manager Woodhouse stated the item was an information update with no action necessary so he will defer to Director Petersen if she wants to say differently but he didn’t think there as any deadline related to that.

Mayor Bier closed public comment.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated there was a motion on the floor.

2.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 40 November 14, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill moved to defer the item on Manor Drive overcrossing to another meeting in the future to be determined, seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 11/28/2022 6:30 PM
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 12:08 a.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-14-2022 Regular Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

SPECIAL MEETING
November 17, 2022 (THURSDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on November 17, 2022 at 5:15 PM 5:15 PM - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
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
Public Comment on Closed Session Agenda Items
Mayor Bier announced the business to be discussed in Closed Session and invited Public Comments.

There were no public comments.

I. CLOSED SESSION
A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code section 54957.

Title: City Manager.

B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code section 54957.

Title: City Attorney.

II. RESUME OPEN SESSION
Closed Session Report - No reportable action.

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting.

2.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-17-2022 Special Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting
2 November 17, 2022
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor

2.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-17-2022 Special Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

SPECIAL MEETING
November 19, 2022 (SATURDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on November 19, 2022 at 11:43 AM

OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
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
Mayor Bier called the special meeting to order at 11:43 am.

Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment.

Mayor Bier led the Salute to the Flag.

SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. Special Presentation - Honoring Congresswoman Jackie Speier Mayor Bier read a letter honoring Congresswoman Jackie Speier on her nearly four decades of public service and highlighting Congresswoman Speier's work and support that has impacted the City of Pacifica. Mayor Bier presented the letter and photo gift to Congresswoman Speier.

Mayor Bier expressed her sincere appreciation to Congresswoman Speier.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck spoke of Congresswoman Speier's impact and expressed his thanks.

Councilmember Beckmeyer expressed her gratitude to Congresswoman Speier.

2.c
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 11-19-2022 Special Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 2 November 19, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked Congresswoman Speier for her service and contributions to Pacifica.

Councilmember O'Neill expressed his sincere thanks to Congresswoman Speier.

Mayor Bier opened Public Comments.

The following spoke sharing their thoughts and appreciation to Congresswoman Speier:

1. Christine Boles

2. Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager

3. Sue Digre

4. Margo Meiman

5. David Whitney

6. Remi Tan

7. Steve Johnson

8. Unidentified member of the audience
Mayor Bier closed Public Comments.

Congresswoman Speier addressed the Council and audience thanking them for their words of appreciation and expressing her admiration of Pacifica. She acknowledged her staff members Brian Perkins and Katrina Rill and thanked them for their support over the years.

Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting and invited the audience to enjoy refreshments.

ADJOURN
ADJOURN at 12:45 pm.

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

2.c
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 11-19-2022 Special Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88994863539
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 889 9486 3539
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Special Meeting 1 November 22, 2022

SPECIAL MEETING
November 22, 2022 (TUESDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on November 22, 2022 at 2:05 PM 2:00 PM - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
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
Staff Present: Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney.

Public Comment on Closed Session Agenda Item
Mayor Bier announced the business to be discussed and opened Public Comment.

There were no public comments.

Mayor Bier recessed the meeting to Closed Session.

I. CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS. Government Code section 54957.6. Agency designated representatives: Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; and Unrepresented employee:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager.

II. RESUME OPEN SESSION
Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting to resume Open Session at 2:30 PM.

2.d
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment D: Minutes of 11-22-2022 Special Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 2 November 22, 2022
Closed Session Report
Mayor Bier stated that there was no reportable action.

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 2:31 PM.

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

2.d
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment D: Minutes of 11-22-2022 Special Meeting (5195 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Cancellation of December 27, 2022 City Council Meeting
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve cancellation of the December 27, 2022 regular City Council meeting.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

The City Council traditionally cancels the second council meeting in December to allow for a vacation period during the holiday season. Should the Council wish to cancel the regular City Council meeting scheduled to be held on Tuesday, December 27, 2022 (due to Monday, December 26, 2022 falling on an observed City holiday), the next regularly scheduled council meeting will be Monday, January 9, 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:
3 Packet Pg. 59

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution for Coastal Conservancy Funding for Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Projects RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt Resolution approving the application of specified State of California grant funds in the amount of $440,000 for the Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Projects.

STAFF CONTACT:

Ryan Marquez, P.E., Project Manager
(650) 738-3769
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Coastal storms and bluff erosion threaten public infrastructure located in and around sections of Esplanade Avenue. Subsequently, the City has initiated two infrastructure preservation projects along the 300 and 400 block of Esplanade. In search for funding these two projects, the City obtained a specified budget grant from the State of California that will be managed by the California Coastal Conservancy for $7.75 million dollars. The City is eligible to receive $440k in design, environmental, and permitting funding now with subsequent funding after successful completion of design, environmental, and permitting.

In order to be eligible for this first tranche of funding, the City must pass the attached resolution approving the application for funding, stating that the City has sufficient funds to complete and maintain the project, and authorize the City Manager to act on behalf of the City to negotiate and execute all agreements to comply with the grant. The City Manager recommends adopting the resolution to initiate the process to receive the $440,000 for the Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Projects.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the construction contract is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
· Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise.

FISCAL IMPACT:
4 Packet Pg. 60
Pacifica City Council 2
November 28, 2022
This action will allow $440,000 of funding from the City’s $7.75M budget grant from the State of California to be eligible for design, environmental work and permitting.

ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:
4 Packet Pg. 61
Pacifica City Council 3
November 28, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIED GRANT FUNDS

FOR THE PACIFICA BLUFF PROTECTION PROJECTS
_____________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has established the State Coastal Conservancy (“Conservancy”) under Division 21 of the California Public Resources Code, and has authorized the Conservancy to award grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations to implement the provisions of Division 21; and
WHEREAS, the Conservancy awards grants for projects that it determines are consistent with Division 21 of the Public Resources Code and with the Conservancy’s Strategic Plan and that best achieve the Conservancy’s statutory objectives, in light of limited funding.

WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica (“applicant”) has applied for or intends to apply for Conservancy grant funding for Pacifica Pier Repairs (“the project”).

WHEREAS, the Conservancy encourages applicants for grant funding to certify through a resolution the applicant’s approval of the application and of certain listed assurances at the time of submission of an application to the Conservancy for an award of grant funds.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant hereby:

1. Approves the filing of an application for funding by the Conservancy.

2. Has or will have sufficient funds to complete and, following completion, to operate and maintain any property acquired under the project or to operate and maintain any facilities funded as part of the project for a reasonable period, not less than the useful life of the facilities.

3. Agrees to provide any funds beyond the Conservancy grant funds necessary to complete the project.

4. Authorizes the following named officer or employee of the applicant to act as a representative of the applicant and to negotiate and execute on behalf of the grantee all agreements and instruments necessary to comply with the Conservancy's grant requirements, including, without limitation, the grant agreement: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 28th day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
4 Packet Pg. 62
Pacifica City Council 4
November 28, 2022
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 4 Packet Pg. 63

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of an Ordinance to Adopt the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code and Fire Code with Local Amendments, including amendments to require building electrification (Reach Codes), underground utility installation, and expanded geotechnical hazard evaluation.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and replacing Chapters 1 (Building Code), 2 (Mechanical Code), 3 (Plumbing Code), 4 (Electrical Code), 5 (International Property Maintenance Code), 6 (Energy Code), 7 (Green Building Code), 7.5 (Residential Code), 8 (Historical Buildings Code, 8.5 (Existing Buildings Code), and 9 (Reference Standards Code) of Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Parts 1, 2,

2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12) and the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code and making certain amendments thereto; Repealing and replacing Article 1 (Fire Code) of Chapter 3 (Fire Protection) of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to adopt the 2022 California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9) and making certain amendments thereto; and Finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”
STAFF CONTACT:

Christian Murdock, AICP, Planning Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
Craig Wittner, Assistant Fire Marshal
(650) 991-5532
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

This ordinance was introduced, as amended by the City Council, at the regular meeting of the City Council on November 14, 2022, and is now in order for adoption following a public hearing.

Every three years, the California Building Standards Commission adopts new versions of the California Building Standards Code, pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 24.

Every city and county is required to adopt ordinances or regulations imposing the same requirements as those contained in the most recently adopted version of the California Building Standards Code. If no such ordinance is adopted, the standards set forth in Title 24 are still imposed on the city or county by default. Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5 of the Health & Safety Code provide that a city or county may make amendments to the California Building Standards that are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.
5 Packet Pg. 64
Pacifica City Council 2
November 28, 2022
California Government Code sections 50022.2 and 50022.3 require that for certain codes that are adopted by reference, the City must conduct the first reading and introduction of the ordinance and then schedule a public hearing for the second reading prior to adoption of the ordinance. The City Council completed those requirements on November 14, 2022, at which time the City Council introduced the ordinance and directed that the public hearing be conducted on November 28, 2022. The City Clerk published a summary of the proposed ordinance prior to the public hearing as required by law.

The proposed ordinance, included as Attachment 1, will repeal and re-enact portions of Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Title 8 (Building Regulations) and Title 4, Chapter 3, Article 1 (Fire Code), with local amendments. The Building/Fire local amendments are reasonably necessary due to the local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions of the City, as detailed in the required findings and exhibit of the ordinance.

With limited exceptions further detailed, below, the City of Pacifica has consistently over several code cycles adopted the local amendments contained in the proposed ordinance. Such local amendments are typical of the triennial update and are not changing from the existing Code and include but are not limited to amendments to the Building Code, Residential Code, Fire Code, Plumbing Code, and Electrical Code.

New or revised local amendments included by the City Council in the ordinance that was introduced are summarized as follows:

Underground Utilities Installation
This local amendment would modify the California Building Code (CBC) and California Residential Code (CRC) to require installation of underground utilities in all new buildings and when an existing utility line is upgraded. Exceptions to the underground utility installation requirement would include the following:
1) It would require the trenching and repaving of any public right-of-way that has been paved within one year from the date the building permit is issued. 2) It would require more than 500 feet of trenching to reach a point of connection to existing utility lines having the capacity to serve the residential structure. In such cases, the nearest 500 feet of utility lines to the structure shall be installed underground. 3) The servicing utility carrier has issued written notice indicating that undergrounding is either impractical or impossible given the location of the structure, and that the carrier has refused to provide utilities through undergrounded utility lines.

Geotechnical Hazard Assessments
This local amendment would modify the CBC and CRC to require an expanded geotechnical hazard assessment for any site that is located within a geologic or seismic hazard zone mapped by the California Geologic Survey or adopted in the General Plan of the City of Pacifica. The expanded geotechnical hazard assessment would be subject to the following requirements, in addition to any other geotechnical investigation or geohazard investigation required by the CBC or CRC or any other provision of law:
1) A registered design professional shall evaluate potential off-site geotechnical hazards, including but not limited to those upslope and/or downslope of the project site, that may have the potential to cause direct injury to persons or damage to property as a result of development of the project.
2) When any such hazard(s) is/are identified, the registered design professional shall 5 Packet Pg. 65
Pacifica City Council 3
November 28, 2022
identify appropriate design features to be incorporated into the project design to minimize the hazard(s) to the maximum extent practicable. 3) The building official shall not issue a building permit until any project design feature(s) identified by the evaluation has/have been incorporated into the project plans. 4) The evaluation shall be limited to consideration of readily available data obtained from aerial photos, maps, previously prepared geotechnical reports, and observations able to be made from the project site and other publicly-accessible areas in the vicinity of the project site, including but not limited to public rights-of-way and public open spaces. The local amendment shall not require or authorize entry onto neighboring properties for any purpose, including but not limited to obtaining soil borings. 5) The registered design professional may seek a waiver from the requirement to construct project design features to minimize potential off-site geotechnical hazards when the construction of such features would be disproportionate to the cost of the overall project.

The building official shall consider waiver requests and grant approval if the registered design professional has demonstrated with sufficient written evidence that the cost of design features to minimize potential off-site geotechnical hazards would exceed 20 percent of the overall project cost, such features would not otherwise be required by any other provision of the code, and no other less-costly feature can be incorporated into the project design to reduce the identified hazard(s).

Green Building Standards Code
The City Council first adopted local amendments during the 2019 code adoption process to require all-electric appliances in new buildings with four exceptions. At a study session on September 27, 2022, and during a consideration item on October 24, 2022, the City Council directed staff to prepare revisions to the existing building electrification standards as part of the 2022 code adoption process as well as inclusion of revised electric vehicle (EV) parking standards. This local amendment would incorporate the City Council’s direction and would:
1) Eliminate the exception from all-electric building construction for:
a. Cooking appliances and fire places in residential buildings. b. Public agency owned and operated emergency centers.
c. Accessory dwelling units
2) Prohibit the installation or use of natural gas for any purpose in an all-electric building constructed after January 1, 2023, excepted as provided in #3, below. 3) Continue an exception for for-profit restaurants to install gas cooking appliances subject to certain criteria, including new restaurants in the commercial area of a new mixed-use building constructed after adoption of the 2022 code update. 4) Define that a “new construction building” for purposes of electrification requirements would be one constructed pursuant to a building permit issued on or after January 1, 2023.
5) Establish EV parking standards for single-family and two-family dwellings that require:
a. One Level 2 EV Ready circuit 1
b. One Level 1 EV Ready circuit
1 Level 2 charging refers to a 240-volt circuit and results in faster charging as compared to Level 1 charging which uses a 120-volt circuit.
5 Packet Pg. 66
Pacifica City Council 4
November 28, 2022
6) Establish EV parking standards for multi-family dwellings that require:
a. Level 2 EV charging station (EVCS): 15% of dwelling units with parking spaces b. Level 2 EV Ready (low-power2): 85% of dwelling units with parking spaces The standards also provide a developer option to exempt dwelling units from the EV parking requirements if they are restricted to affordability by lower income households, as defined, pursuant to a legal agreement approved as to form by the City Attorney. 7) Establish EV parking standards for non-residential uses that require:
a. Offices
- Level 2 EVCS: 20% of off-street parking spaces
- Level 2 EV Ready: 30% of off-street parking spaces
b. Public Parking Lots (Staff Recommendation)
- Level 2 EVCS: 15% of off-street parking spaces
- Level 2 EV Ready: 20% of off-street parking spaces
c. Overnight Accommodations (Staff Recommendation)
- Level 2 EVCS: 30% of off-street parking spaces
- Level 2 EV Ready: 20% of off-street parking spaces
d. All Other
- Level 2 EVCS: 10% of off-street parking spaces
- Level 2 EV Ready: 10% of off-street parking spaces
Staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance as drafted so that it will be effective on January 1, 2023, which is the first day the 2022 CBC will take effect.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

Adoption of the proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that the adoption of State codes and the local amendments therein described do not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations). The adoption of the proposed ordinance is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines as an action by a regulatory agency to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may decline to adopt local amendments or request modifications, including to the proposed Reach Codes. If the City Council desires to make further substantive amendments beyond those identified in the proposed ordinance, it is unlikely that the proposed ordinance would be implemented by January 1, 2023. While local amendments, including Reach Codes, may be adopted at any time, adoption before the beginning of the triennial code cycle provides the greatest clarity to potential applicants and simplifies staff administration of applicable regulations following the code update.
2 A “low-power” Level 2 EV Ready setup includes a minimum 4.1 kVA (240 volt, 20-ampere) circuit, as compared to a standard Level 2 EV Ready setup that includes a minimum 8.3 kVa (240 volt, 40-ampere) circuit.
5 Packet Pg. 67
Pacifica City Council 5
November 28, 2022
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Adoption of the 2022 CBC and local amendments is not related to a City Council priority work plan item. However, adoption of certain local amendments, including Reach Codes, would support the following Council-adopted goals:

Goals
● “Stewardship of City Infrastructure” includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities, improving streets, stormwater and wastewater infrastructure and responding to impacts of sea level rise and other effects of climate change.
● “Environmental Sustainability” includes stewardship of parks, urban forests and open space, preserving hillsides and beaches, and adaptation to climate change.

In addition, the City of Pacifica’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) Goal 4.1.1 states that the City should “Require Green Building Practices in Both the New Construction and Remodel Market.” FISCAL IMPACT:

The Fiscal Year 2022-2023 adopted budget included $25,000 for costs associated with the 2022 California Building Code update. Staff estimates the budgeted amount should be sufficient for analysis and adoption of the state-mandated code and all local amendments identified in this staff report. Council direction to analyze other local amendments has the potential to incur additional costs that were not anticipated in the adopted budget.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (DOCX)
5 Packet Pg. 68
1 ORDINANCE NO. _______________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTERS 1 (BUILDING CODE), 2 (MECHANICAL CODE), 3 (PLUMBING CODE), 4 (ELECTRICAL CODE), 5 (INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE), 6 (ENERGY CODE), 7 (GREEN BUILDING CODE), 7.5 (RESIDENTIAL CODE), 8 (HISTORICAL BUILDINGS CODE), 8.5 (EXISTING BUILDINGS CODE), AND 9 (REFERENCE STANDARDS CODE) OF TITLE 8 OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PARTS 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 AND 12) AND THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE AND MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO; REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLE 1 (FIRE CODE) OF CHAPTER 3 (FIRE PROTECTION) OF TITLE 4 OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PART 9) AND MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO; AND FINDING ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).

WHEREAS, the Building Standards Commission has adopted and published the 2022 California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24); and WHEREAS, the 2022 California Building Standards Code contains, amongst other parts, the California Administrative Code (Title 24, Part 1), California Building Code (Title 24, Part 2), California Residential Code (Title 24, Part 2.5), California Electrical Code (Title 24, Part 3), California Mechanical Code (Title 24, Part 4), California Plumbing Code (Title 24, Part 5), California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6), California Historical Building Code (Title 24, Part 8), California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9), California Existing Building Code (Title 24, Part 10), the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11), and the California Referenced Standards Code (Title 24 Part 12); and
WHEREAS, the Building Standards Commission readopts new editions of the California Building Standards Code as set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations every three years, which goes into effect statewide 180 days after adoption by the Building Standards Commission; and
WHEREAS, Sections 17922, 17958, and 18941.5 of the California Health & Safety Code provide that the governing body of every city or county shall adopt ordinances or regulations imposing the same requirements as those contained in the most recently adopted version of the California Building Standards Code; and
WHEREAS, Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5 of the California Health & Safety Code provide that a city or county may make amendments to the California Building Standards to make changes or modifications that are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, at a public meeting on September 27, 2022, the City Council received a presentation on reach codes and the City Council provided direction to the City Manager to prepare Reach Codes for Council’s future consideration, which provide building electrification standards that are more stringent than statewide standards; and

5.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
2 WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica is comprised of a number of cul-de-sacs off of Highway 1, which divides the City into distinct districts. Each of these districts is isolated from each other by the topography of the City. The City is bordered to the west by the Pacific Ocean and to the east by hills that separate the City from other communities; and WHEREAS, a series of overpasses span Highway 1. The collapse of one or more of these overpasses would greatly restrict access to the majority of the City. Highway 1 narrows at two points in the City. A major accident at these choke points also restricts the ability to provide emergency services throughout the City. Several of the districts within the City, such as Vallemar, Rockaway, and Pedro Point have narrow roads in which parking is either not permitted or is limited to one side of the street only. The roads are steep, between 10 to 19 percent in grade, and wind along the contours of the hillsides. These conditions add to the response times of emergency vehicles and also limit the number of emergency vehicles that can be sent to any particular address in these areas; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica is subject to ground tremors from large seismic events along the San Andreas, Loma Prieta, and Seal Cove faults. A part of the City is within the Alquist/Priolo special studies zone, as shown in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act of 1972. Seismological evidence indicates there is a probability of an earthquake in the region ranging from 5 to 7 on the Richter Scale. This potential for earthquakes influences fire protection planning. A major seismic event would create a Citywide demand on fire protection service, which would be beyond the response capacity of the fire department. Structural damage to the overpasses on Highway 1 would seriously delay emergency vehicle access to major parts of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica is unique in its climatic conditions. According to records found at the National Weather Service, the average yearly rainfall for the City is approximately 25” to 30”, with a high of 65” in 1995. This rainfall normally occurs from November to April. During the summer months, there is generally no measurable precipitation. Temperatures for this dry period can range into the 80’s to 90’s Fahrenheit and are frequently accompanied by light to gusty winds. With the extensive Urban-Wild land interface that surrounds the City, the potential for a major fire is high; and
WHEREAS, overhead utility lines are a leading cause of major fires, as evidenced by the 2021 Dixie Fire, which burned close to 1 million acres and destroyed over 1,000 structures, and was caused by a tree contacting electrical distribution lines. Other major fires caused by overhead utilities included the 2015 Butte Fire and the 2018 Paradise fire, which resulted in the deaths of 85 people and the destruction of the entire town of Paradise, California; and WHEREAS, in addition to posing significant health and safety risks due to fire danger, overhead utility lines have a negative impact on scenic resources throughout the City, including scenic vistas and viewsheds;
WHEREAS, in light of the above, the City desires to modify the California Building Standards Code to require that all utilities for new buildings be installed underground as described herein; and
WHEREAS, Pacifica is located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and significant areas of the City are subject to extreme wave heights, severe bluff erosion and flooding which cause damage to public facilities and private property, especially during heavy rainfall and El Nino winters.

5.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
3 Pacifica is one of a minority of California local jurisdictions that is located within the Coastal Zone, where the intensity of the aforementioned coastal waves and flooding are projected to increase as a result of sea level rise and climate change. A primary cause of climate change is earth’s increasing temperature that is the result of greenhouse gases released from the burning of fossil fuels, including natural gas used for heating and cooking within new and existing buildings; and WHEREAS, due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean, Pacifica is at risk from a potential tsunami hazard if a major earthquake occurs in the Pacific Ocean resulting in a wave run-up. The approximate wave run-up height of 20 feet presents a risk to structures and individuals in the area, as there are approximately 900 existing dwelling units within Pacifica’s tsunami run-up area, as well as important community services and facilities; and WHEREAS, Pacifica is framed by ridges of the Coast Range on the east and is home to 37 mountain summits and peaks. Hillside stability is a critical hazard. Slope failures and surficial landslides are a significant hazard, and runoff from heavy rain or ground-shaking are most likely to activate landslides in the hilly terrain; and
WHEREAS, Pacifica is exposed to more extreme weather than elsewhere in the Bay Area, including strong winds, almost constant exposure to salt air and frequent heavy rains during the winter months. The off-shore high pressure system and upwelling of deeper, cold water just off the coast result in frequent summer fog; and
WHEREAS, adoption of this ordinance will update the City of Pacifica’s building standards for all types of buildings to reflect the most recent improvements in design and construction techniques, and will provide a level of safety to building occupants intended by the State in its code adoption process; and
WHEREAS, the California Building Standards Code has not fully addressed the climatic, geological, or topographical conditions in the City of Pacifica and as such, amendments are necessary to address the climatic, geological and topographical considerations identified herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Pacifica is not required to make an express finding for amendments necessary to carry out the application of the California Building Standards Code that do not otherwise modify a Building Standard; and
WHEREAS, certain amendments to the California Building Standards Code have been recommended by the Pacifica Fire Marshal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council held on September 27, 2022, October 24, 2022, November 14, 2022, and November 28, including any supporting reports by City staff, and any information provided during public hearings and the City has given proper notice of the adoption of the various building codes and standards by reference pursuant to California Government Code sections 50022.2 and 50022.3.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this ordinance.

5.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
4 Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), in that the adoption of State codes and the local amendments herein described do not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations). The adoption of this ordinance is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines as an action by a regulatory agency to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment.

Section 3. Local Amendments. The City Council of the City of Pacifica expressly finds and declares in accordance with Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5 of the California Health & Safety Code that the amendments, additions, and deletions to the California Building Standards Code set forth below are reasonably necessary because of the local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions described above and more specifically identified in the findings described above and further set forth in Exhibit A.

Section 4. Repeal of Chapter 1 of Title 8. Chapter 1 (“Building Code”) of Title 8 (“Building Regulations”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety; however, such repeal shall not affect or excuse any violation of said chapter that occurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall such repeal impede, impact, or negate any administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement of said chapter that that commenced prior to the enforcement date of this ordinance.

Section 5. Adoption of Chapter 1 of Title 8. Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 1 to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 1 BUILDING CODE
Section 8-1.01 – Adoption of the California Building Code.

For the purpose of regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of all buildings and structures and grading in the City of Pacifica, Chapters 1 through 35, including Chapter 1 Division II Scope and Administration, Appendix C (“Group U – Agricultural Buildings”), Appendix G (“Flood-Resistant Construction”), Appendix I (Patio Covers) and Appendix J (“Grading”), of that certain Code designated as the California Building Code, 2022 Edition [Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 2], which incorporates and amends the 2021 Edition of the International Building Code published by the International Code Council and as may be amended by the Building Standards Commission, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk for public record and inspection, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter as though set forth in this chapter in full, subject, however, to the amendments, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter, and said Code shall be known as the Building Code for the City. “Sec. 8-1.02. Amendments: Section 1.11.2.1 ("Enforcement").

Section 1.11.2.1.1 of Chapter 1, Division I of the California Building Code shall be amended to read as follows:

The City of Pacifica specifically delegates the enforcement of building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal, and published in the Building Standards Code relating to fire and panic safety and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal, as they relate to

5.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
5 Group R-3 Occupancies (one and two family dwellings) to the Building Official of the City of Pacifica.

Sec. 8-1.03. Amendments: Section 105.3 ("Application for a permit").

Section 105.3.3 shall be added to the California Building Code to read as follows:

Section 105.3.3 Improvements Required Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits and Exceptions.

The City Engineer shall require, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any structure or improvement upon unimproved property within the City where such permit is required and where public improvements, including street paving, sidewalk, gutter and/or curb and miscellaneous facilities do not exist, the construction of such public improvements along such property, constructed in accordance with the City of Pacifica's Engineering Standards, as part of the construction of such structure or improvements.

Exceptions:
(1) When it is not practical to establish grades prior to the completion of construction of the structure, the City Engineer may require an executed agreement by the property owner stating he/she will construct public improvements, including street paving, sidewalks, gutter and/or curb and miscellaneous facilities at such time as the City may deem it feasible.
(2) Sidewalks shall not be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any structure or improvements upon unimproved property in areas where the Council has, by resolution, deemed that sidewalks are not required. The City Engineer may require an executed agreement by the property owner stating he/she will construct the improvements at such time the City may again require them.

Sec. 8-1.04. Amendments: Section 105.6 ("Suspension or revocation").

Section 105.6 of the California Building Code shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:
105.6 Suspension or Revocation of Permit. The Building Official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this Code, or other relevant laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations, whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect, inaccurate, or incomplete information, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation of any of the provisions of this Code.

The Building Official may also, in writing, withhold inspections or approvals, or suspend or revoke a permit, where work is being performed in violation of approved plans, conditions of the permit, or applicable laws, and/or where work is being concealed without approval from the Building Official, and/or where work is not in accordance with the direction of the Building Official.

Sec. 8-1.05. Amendments: Section 105.8 ("Hours of construction").

Section 105.8 shall be added to the California Building Code read as follows:

Section 105.8 Hours of Construction: The hours of construction for any project for which a building permit is required within the City of Pacifica shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. The hours of construction shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.

5.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
6 Sec. 8-1.06. Amendments: Section 109.4 ("Work commencing before permit issuance").

Section 109.4 of the California Building Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
109.4 Work Commencing Before Permit Issuance. Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this Code has been commenced without first obtaining such permit, an investigation and processing fee equal to the amount of the required permit fee or as otherwise established by the most current fee schedule adopted in the City of Pacifica Administrative Policy No. 2 shall be collected at the time of application for the required permit and prior to the issuance of the required permit, irrespective of whether a permit is subsequently issued. Such fees shall not limit the imposition and collection of any other applicable fees that may be required by the Building Official, including fees for inspections and testing necessitated by illegal construction.

Sec. 8-1.07. Amendments: Section 111.2.1 ("Certificate issued").

Section 111.2.1 shall be added to the California Building Code read as follows:
111.2.1 Improvements Prior to Occupancy of Structures and Utility Service Exceptions.
(a) No new structure for which a building permit is required shall be occupied or otherwise used, nor shall utility services be supplied thereto, until such public improvements, including street paving, sidewalk, gutter and/or curb and miscellaneous facilities required by Section 105.3.3 have been installed and approved by the City Engineer and until such time as the Planning Director has been satisfied that all Planning Department requirements for the project have been met, including but not limited to any applicable conditions of approval imposed on the project by approval of a discretionary permit.
(b) When it is, in the opinion of the City Engineer and/or the Planning Director, not practicable to complete public improvements including street paving, sidewalk, gutter and/or curb, miscellaneous facilities or Planning Department conditions prior to completion of construction of the structure, a completion bond in an amount determined by the City Engineer and/or Planning Director to be adequate to insure completion shall be posted for the completion of the required improvements.

Exception: The Building Official may authorize the installation of gas and/or electric utilities in buildings for the purpose of testing equipment prior to completion of construction when the Building Official has determined that such utilities are necessary for the testing of required equipment prior to the final inspection of the building.

Sec. 8-1.08 – Amendments: Section 112.4 (“Service Utilities: Underground Utilities”) Section 112.4 is hereby added to the California Building Code to read as follows:

Section 112.4 – Underground Utilities.
112.4.1 – Authority and Purpose. This Section is enacted pursuant to the general police powers of the City as well as the City’s authority to modify its local building standards, and is for the purpose of ensuring that all new construction adheres to utility undergrounding measures designed to reduce the risk of fire and to preserve scenic resources.

5.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
7 112.4.2 – Undergrounding Requirements.
(a) Persons constructing any structure subject to this Code shall underground all utility lines as follows:
(i) All on-site utility lines must be placed underground; (ii) All utility lines between (i.e., connected to and serving) the structure and the point of connection to existing utility lines having the capacity to serve the structure must be placed underground; and
(iii) If any utility lines are being upgraded, the upgraded portions as well as the pre-existing lines shall be placed underground.
(b) Exceptions. Undergrounding of utilities as described in this Subsection shall not be required when any of the following three conditions apply:
(i) The undergrounding of utility lines would require the trenching and repaving of any public right-of-way that has been paved within one year from the date the building permit is issued;
(ii) The undergrounding of utility lines would require more than 500 feet of trenching to reach a point of connection to existing utility lines having the capacity to serve the structure. In such case, the nearest 500 feet of utility lines to the structure shall be installed underground; or
(iii) The servicing utility carrier has issued written notice indicating that undergrounding is either impractical or impossible given the location of the structure, and that the carrier has refused to provide utilities through undergrounded utility lines. 112.4.3 – Undergrounding Standards.
(a) All placement of utilities underground shall adhere to the standards and specifications of the California Building Standards Code, including applicable titles, as applied and codified in this Title. Any placement of utilities underground shall be subject to inspection by the Building Official to ensure that these standards are met. (b) In the event that the placement of utilities underground requires digging, trenching, or otherwise impacting existing public right-of-way, the property owner shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary licenses, permits, and rights of entry from the City, county, and/or state, as appropriate. The property owner shall also be required to restore or cause to be restored all public right-of-way that is impacted by the placement of utilities, which restoration will include replacement of pavement overlay.” Sec. 8-1.09. Amendments: Section 113 ("Means of Appeals").

Section 113.1 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
113.1 General
Any person who is aggrieved by an order, decision or determination of the Building Official or the Building Official’s determination of this code may appeal said order, decision or determination. Such appeal shall be in writing and must be filed with the City Clerk within

5.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
8 ten (10) business days from the date of service of the order, decision or determination being appealed. The appeal must specify the basis for the appeal in detail, provide a mailing address and telephone number for the appellant, and include the applicable appeal fee. If a timely appeal is not received by the City Clerk, the right to appeal is waived and the order, decision or determination of the Building Official is deemed final and binding.

Appeals shall be heard as follows:
(1) Appeals shall be heard before the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission ("Commission"). As soon as practicable after receiving the request, the City Clerk shall set a date for the Commission to hear the appeal, which date shall be not less than ten (10) calendar days nor more than forty-five (45) calendar days from the date the appeal was received. The City Clerk shall give each party written notice of the time and place of the hearing at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the date of the hearing, either by causing a copy of the notice to be delivered to the party personally, or by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, addressed to each appealing party at the address(es) shown on the request. Continuances of the appeal hearing may be granted by the Commission on request of the appealing person for good cause shown, provided such request is made no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled hearing, or upon request of the Building Official or his or her designee for good cause shown, or on the Commission's own motion.
(2) At the time and place set forth in the notice of hearing, the Commission shall hear the testimony of the appealing person(s), the Building Official, and/or their witnesses, as well as any documentary evidence presented by these persons concerning the order, decision or determination being appealed. Only those matters or issues specifically raised in the written appeal shall be considered in the hearing. Appeal hearings are informal, and formal rules of evidence and discovery do not apply. (3) Upon the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the Commission shall, on the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, determine whether the order, decision or determination should be affirmed, modified, or rescinded. A copy of the Commission's written decision shall be served upon the appealing person by first class mail or by personal service. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Pacifica Municipal Code, the determination of the Commission shall be final and binding. (4) If the appellant fails to appear, the Commission shall cancel the hearing and send a notice thereof to the appellant by first class mail. A cancellation of a hearing due to non-appearance of the appellant shall constitute the appellant's waiver of the right to appeal. In such instances, the order, decision or determination of the Building Official shall be final and binding.

Sec. 8-1.10. Amendments: Section 114.4 ("Violation penalties").

Section 114.4 of the California Building Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
114.4 Violation Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation who violates any provision of the Technical Codes, or fails to comply with any of the requirements thereof, or who erects, constructs, alters, repairs or maintains a building, structure, installation or equipment, or excavates, cuts, fills, grades, compacts or maintains land in violation of approved construction documents or directive of the Building Official, or of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of the Technical Codes, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to the punishments set forth in Chapter 2 of Title 1 of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

5.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
9 Each and every day, or portion thereof, during which any violation of the Technical Codes occurs or continues constitutes a separate and distinct offense.

Sec. 8-1.11. Amendments: Section 117 ("Procedures for Legalizing Unpermitted Structures or Grading").

Section 117 shall be added to the California Building Code to read as follows:
117. Procedure for Legalizing Unpermitted Structures or Grading. 117.1 Permits. Any person who wishes to legalize an "unpermitted structure" or "unpermitted grading" shall obtain all applicable permits. Unpermitted structures and grading shall comply with all current Technical Code requirements and other required approvals pursuant to the Pacifica Municipal Code in order to be legalized. 117.2 Plans.
117.2.1 Structures. Prior to the issuance or granting of any permit to legalize an unpermitted structure, plans showing the plot plan, exterior elevations, existing structures proposed structures, and proposed finish materials shall be submitted to the Building Official and Planning Director for review and approval. 117.2.2 Grading. Prior to the issuance or granting of any permit to legalize unpermitted grading, a grading and drainage plan showing the original grade and existing unpermitted grade on the premises and the existing grade on adjoining properties, and a soils report shall be submitted to the Building Official and Planning Director for review and approval.
117.3 Inspections. Unpermitted structures or unpermitted grading for which a permit has subsequently been obtained shall be subject to inspection by the Building Official in accordance with, and in the manner prescribed in, the Technical Codes. The Building Official may require the removal of finish materials in order to expose framing elements, electrical components, plumbing fixtures, or mechanical systems, or may require the removal of fill, to verify that installation, construction, or grading was performed in conformance with the Technical Codes.
117.4 Investigation Fees.
117.4.1 Investigation. Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this Code has commenced on land or in connection with any type of structure without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for such work. For purposes of this section, "special investigation" shall include, but is not limited to, inspecting premises and structures, reviewing permit, license and other records of the City or other agencies, reviewing plans, taking photographs, engaging in conferences and communications with other officials of the City or other agencies, and engaging in conferences and communications with owners or other responsible persons concerning the unpermitted structure or grading.
117.4.2 Fee. A special investigation fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of a permit for an unpermitted structure or unpermitted grading. The fee shall be assessed as provided in Section 109.4 of this Code.

The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provision of this Code nor from any penalty prescribed by law.

5.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
10 117.5 Unpermitted Structures or Grading Which Cannot be Legalized. If the Planning Director determines that the City's zoning regulations prohibit legalization of any unpermitted structure, the structure shall be demolished or, if previously permitted, restored to its original approved condition, with all requisite permits, inspections and approvals.

If the Building Official determines that an unpermitted structure cannot be made to conform with current applicable Technical Code requirements, the structure shall be demolished or, if previously permitted, restored to its original approved condition, with all requisite permits, inspections and approvals.

If the Building Official determines that unpermitted grading and/or lot drainage cannot be made to conform with current applicable Technical Code requirements, the land shall be fully restored to the condition that preceded the unpermitted grading, with all requisite permits, inspections and approvals.

Sec. 8-1.12. Amendments: Section 202 ("Definitions").

Section 202 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to add the following definitions:

BOARD OF APPEALS. The Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission of the City of Pacifica.

TECHNICAL CODES. The California Building Standards Code, Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Parts 1- 12, and the International Property Maintenance Code, as adopted by the City of Pacifica, and as further amended by the City of Pacifica in Title 8 of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code.

Sec. 8-1.13. Amendments: Section 903.2 ("Where Required").

Section 903.2 of the California Building Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
903.2 Where Required.

A. Newly Constructed Buildings and Structures. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all new occupancies and locations.

Exception. Detached U occupancies not exceeding 1,000 square feet in size, when accessory to an R-3 dwelling.

B. Existing Buildings and Structures. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all buildings when an addition is added to the building.

Exceptions:

1. When an addition to an R-3 occupancy is less than 1,000 square feet in size and when an addition to all other occupancies is less than 500 square feet in size, no sprinklers are required in either the addition or the existing building.

2. When specifically exempted by the Fire Code Official.

3. The construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in an existing dwelling.

C. Car Stackers. Parking garage areas containing car stackers shall be protected by an automatic wet-pipe sprinkler system designed to the current edition of NFPA 13. In addition, non-extended coverage standard sidewall sprinklers listed for Ordinary Hazard

5.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
11 shall be provided under each parking level, including the bottom level if the stacker is provided with a pit. Each sidewall sprinkler shall cover an area of 80 sq. ft. or less.

The area of application may be reduced from the required 2,500 sq. ft. to as low as 1,500 sq. ft. if:

1. 1-hour fire rated walls are provided to separate the car stacker areas from the standard parking stalls;

2. The car stacker areas are divided up into 1,500 sq. ft. areas via 1-hour fire rated walls; and

3. One-hour fire rated walls are provided to separate the car stacker areas from any other areas in the garage.

One-hour fired rated walls are not required in the driveway areas. For the hydraulic calculation, flow from all sprinklers, upright or pendent sprinklers at ceiling and all sidewall sprinklers at all levels, located in the area of application shall be included in the calculation.

Sec. 8-1.14. Amendments: Section 1507.8 ("Wood shingles").

Section 1507.8 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
1507.8 Wood shingles. The use of wood shingles for roofs on new construction is prohibited. Existing wood shingle roofs may be recovered or repaired by using fire retardant treated shingles. Additions or alterations to existing structures may have wood shingles roofs of fire retardant treated shingles if the existing roof covering is of wood shingle construction.

Sec. 8-1.15. Amendments: Section 1507.9 ("Wood Shakes").

Section 1507.9 is hereby added to the California Building Code to read as follows:
1507.9 Wood Shakes. The use of wood shakes for roofs on new construction is prohibited. Existing wood shake roofs may be recovered or repaired by using fire retardant treated shakes. Additions or alterations to existing structures may have wood shake roofs of fire retardant treated shakes if the existing roof covering is of wood shake construction.

Section 8-1.16 – Amendments: Section 1803 (“Geotechnical Investigations”) Section 1803.5.13 is hereby added to the California Building Code to read as follows:
1803.13 Investigation of Off-site Conditions.

The following requirements shall apply to any site located within a geologic or seismic hazard zone mapped by the California Geologic Survey or adopted in the General Plan of the City of Pacifica:

1. A registered design professional shall evaluate potential off-site geotechnical hazards, including but not limited to those upslope and/or downslope of the project site, that may have the potential to cause direct injury to persons or damage to property as a result of development of the project.

2. When any such hazard(s) is/are identified, the registered design professional shall identify appropriate design features to be incorporated into the project design to minimize the hazard(s) to the maximum extent practicable.

5.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
12 3. The building official shall not issue a building permit until any project design feature(s) identified by the evaluation required in this subsection has or have been incorporated into the project plans.

4. The evaluation required in this subsection shall be limited to consideration of readily available data obtained from aerial photos, maps, previously prepared geotechnical reports, and observations able to be made from the project site and other publiclyaccessible areas in the vicinity of the project site, including but not limited to public rights-of-way and public open spaces. This subsection shall not require or authorize entry onto neighboring properties for any purpose, including but not limited to obtaining soil borings.

5. The registered design professional may seek a waiver from the requirements of this subsection to construct project design features to minimize potential off-site geotechnical hazards when the construction of such features would be disproportionate to the cost of the overall project. The building official shall consider waiver requests and grant approval if the registered design professional has demonstrated with sufficient written evidence that the cost of design features to minimize potential off-site geotechnical hazards would exceed 20 percent of the overall project cost, such features would not otherwise be required by any other provision of this Code, and no other less-costly feature can be incorporated into the project design to reduce the identified hazard(s).

Sec. 8-1.17. Amendments: Appendix J, Section J103.1 ("Permits Required").

Section J103.1 of Appendix J of the California Building Code shall be amended to read as follows:

J103.1 Permits Required.
(a) Except as exempted in Section J103.2, no grading shall be performed without first having obtained a permit therefore from the building official. A grading permit does not include the construction of retaining walls or other structures. (b) No grading, excavating or filling shall be conducted between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any day, or on Saturday or Sunday at any time, without the prior approval of the Building Official. The Building Official shall notify the Department of Police whenever such approval has been granted.
(c) The period between October 1 and April 30, inclusive, is hereby determined to be the period in which heavy rainfall normally occurs in the City of Pacifica. No grading, excavating or filling requiring a grading permit pursuant to Appendix J of the California Building Code as herein amended shall be authorized by the Building Official during that period unless he or she determines in writing that such work will not endanger the public health or safety and that appropriate erosion control devices or methods will be provided.

5.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
13 (d) Any grading, excavating or filling which requires a grading permit and, having been granted said permit, either begins during or extends into the period between October 1 and April 30, inclusive, shall be protected by temporary devices to prevent erosion.

Proposed erosion control devices or methods shall be submitted with the grading plans to the Building Official and approval of both the grading plan and the erosion control devices and methods must be obtained not later than September 30. All such approved erosion control devices or methods shall be installed not later than October 1 for previously approved ongoing earthwork operations. For earthwork operations approved by the Building Official to start between October 1 and April 30, inclusive, all approved erosion control devices must be in place before earthwork activities may commence.
(e) When determined by the Building Official that a bond is required in order to insure that the work will be completed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and conditions of approval, due to the nature, location, time of year or amount of work to be done, such bond shall be in conformance with City of Pacifica Administrative Policy No. 48. Surety bonds, cash bonds, instruments of credit or other forms of security shall comply with the provisions of City of Pacifica Administrative Policy No. 48." Section 6. Repeal of Chapter 2 of Title 8. Chapter 2 (“Mechanical Code”) of Title 8 (“Building Regulations”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety; however, such repeal shall not affect or excuse any violation of said chapter that occurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall such repeal impeded, impact, or negate any administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement of said chapter that that commenced prior to the enforcement date of this ordinance.

Section 7. Adoption of Chapter 2 of Title 8. Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 2 to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 2

MECHANICAL CODE
Section 8-2.01 – Adoption of the California Mechanical Code.

For the purpose of regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of all buildings and structures and grading in the City of Pacifica, Chapters 1 through 17, including Appendix G (“Sizing of Venting Systems and Outdoor Combustion and Ventilation Opening Design”) of that certain Code designated as the California Mechanical Code, 2022 Edition [Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 4], which incorporates and amends the 2021 Edition of the Uniform Mechanical Code published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, and as may be amended by the Building Standards Commission, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk for public record and inspection, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter as though set forth in this chapter in full, subject, however, to the amendments, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter, and said Code shall be known as the Mechanical Code for the City.”
Section 8. Repeal of Chapter 3 of Title 8. Chapter 3 (“Plumbing Code”) of Title 8 (“Building Regulations”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety; however, such repeal shall not affect or excuse any violation of said chapter that occurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall such repeal impeded, impact, or negate any administrative, civil,

5.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
14 or criminal enforcement of said chapter that that commenced prior to the enforcement date of this ordinance.

Section 9. Adoption of Chapter 3 of Title 8. Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 3 to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 3

PLUMBING CODE
Section 8-3.01 – Adoption of the California Plumbing Code.

For the purpose of regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of all buildings and structures and grading in the City of Pacifica, Chapters 1 through 17 including Appendix A ("Recommended Rules for Sizing the Water Supply System), Appendix B ("Explanatory Notes on Combination Waste and Vent Systems"), Appendix C ("Alternate Plumbing Systems"), Appendix D ("Sizing Storm Water Drainage Systems"), Appendix E ("Manufactured/Mobile Home Parks and Recreational Vehicle Parks"), Appendix G ("Sizing of Venting Systems"), Appendix I ("Installation Standards "), Appendix J ("Combination of Indoor and Outdoor Combustion and Ventilation Opening Design"), Appendix K ("Potable Rainwater Catchment Systems") of that certain code designated as the California Plumbing Code, 2022 Edition [Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 5], which incorporates and amends the 2021 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials and as may be amended by the Building Standards Commission, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk for public record and inspection, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter as though set forth in this chapter in full, subject, however, to the amendments, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter, and said code shall be known as the Plumbing Code for the City.

Section 8-3.02 – Amendments: Section 719.0 (“Cleanouts”) Section 719.7 is hereby added to the California Plumbing Code to read as follows:
719.7 Cleanouts. When a main sewer is located in the street, alley, or easement, there shall be provided a cleanout within the City right-of-way at the property line. The riser shall be of cast iron, the same size as the drain served, brought up to grade level by a wye and branch fitting, and the top of same shall be provided with a regulation cleanout of four inch (4”) minimum size within a sidewalk box, with removable cover.

Section 10. Repeal of Chapter 4 of Title 8. Chapter 4 (“Electrical Code”) of Title 8 (“Building Regulations”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety; however, such repeal shall not affect or excuse any violation of said chapter that occurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall such repeal impeded, impact, or negate any administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement of said chapter that that commenced prior to the enforcement date of this ordinance.

Section 11. Adoption of Chapter 4 of Title 8. Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 4 to read as follows:

5.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
15 “CHAPTER 4

ELECTRICAL CODE
Section 8-4.01 – Adoption of the California Electrical Code.

Sec. 8-4.02. Amendments: Section 89.108.4 ("Permits, Fees, Applications and Inspections").

Section 89.108.4.1 of the California Electrical Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

89.108.4.1 Permits.
(a) Except as exempted in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a written construction permit shall be obtained from the enforcing agency prior to the erection, construction, reconstruction, installation, movement, or alteration of any electrical system. (b) Consistent with the requirements of Section 17960 of the Health and Safety Code, the local enforcing agency shall enforce the requirements of this Code, but shall exempt the following activities from a permit or inspection.
(1) Listed cord and plug connected temporary decorative lighting. (2) Reinstallation of attachment plug receptacles, but not the outlets therefore. (3) Repair or replacement of branch circuit overcurrent devices of the required capacity in the same location.
(4) Installation or maintenance of communication wiring, devices, appliances, apparatus or equipment.
(5) The ordinary care and maintenance of an established installation of electrical equipment by the owner, operator, or user thereof shall not require an electrical permit, except that ordinary care and maintenance shall not be construed as including additions to such installations or other work, such as the repair or replacement of any electrical wiring, appliance, or apparatus which is a fixed part of such installation. The replacement of lamps and fuses and plug-in apparatus and the repair of plug-in apparatus and similar work shall be construed as ordinary care and maintenance
Exemptions from permit and inspection requirements shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of any other provision of law or this Code.

5.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
16 Sec. 8-4.03. Amendments: Section 300.9 ("Raceways in Wet Locations Above Grade").

Section 300.9 of the California Electrical Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
300.9 Raceways in Wet Locations Abovegrade. Where raceways are installed in wet locations above grade, the interior of these raceways shall be considered to be a wet location. Insulated conductors and cables installed in raceways in wet locations abovegrade shall comply with 310.10(C). Raceways exposed to the elements shall be of rigid galvanized, aluminum or rigid nonmetallic conduit.

Sec. 8-4.04. Streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems. (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to adopt an expedited, streamlined permitting process that complies with the 1978 California Solar Rights Act and AB 2188 (Chapter 521, Statutes of 2014) to achieve timely and cost-effective installations of small residential rooftop solar energy systems. This section encourages the use of solar energy systems by removing unreasonable barriers, minimizing costs to property owners and the City, and expanding the ability of property owners to install solar energy systems. This section allows the City to achieve these goals while protecting the public health and safety. (b) Definitions.
(1) A feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact includes, but is not limited to, any cost-effective method, condition, or mitigation imposed by the City on another similarly situated application in a prior successful application for a permit. The City shall use its best efforts to ensure that the selected method, condition, or mitigation meets the conditions of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 714 of the Civil Code. (2) Association means a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association created for the purpose of managing a common interest development, or as otherwise defined in Section 4080 of the Civil Code.
(3) City means the City of Pacifica.
(4) Common interest development means any of the following:
(i) A community apartment project; or
(ii) A condominium project; or
(iii) A planned development; or
(iv) A stock cooperative.
(5) Electronic submittal means the utilization of one or more of the following:
(i) Email; or
(ii) The Internet.
(6) Reasonable restrictions on a solar energy system means those restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and energy conservation benefits.

5.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
17 (7) Small residential rooftop solar energy system means all of the following:
(i) A solar energy system that is no larger than ten (10) kilowatts alternating current nameplate rating or thirty (30) kilowatts thermal.
(ii) A solar energy system that conforms to all applicable state fire, structural, electrical, and other building codes as adopted or amended by the City, and all state and City health and safety standards including paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 714 of the Civil Code.
(iii) A solar energy system that is installed on a single-family or duplex-family dwelling.
(iv) A solar panel or module array that does not exceed the maximum legal building height as defined by the City.
(8) Solar energy system means either of the following, as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 801.5 of the Civil Code:
(i) Any solar collector or other solar energy device whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for space heating, space cooling, electric generation, or water heating. (ii) Any structural design feature of a building, whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for electricity generation, space heating or cooling, or for water heating. (9) Specific, adverse impact means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(c) Applicability. This section applies to the permitting of all small residential rooftop solar energy systems in the City of Pacifica. Small residential rooftop solar energy systems legally established or permitted prior to the effective date of this section are not subject to the requirements of this section unless physical modifications or alterations are undertaken that materially change the size, type, or components of a small rooftop solar energy system in such a way as to require a new permit. Routine operation and maintenance shall not require a permit.
(d) Solar energy system requirements. All solar energy systems shall meet applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by the state, the City, and the North County Fire Authority.
(1) Solar energy systems for heating water in single-family residences and solar collectors used for heating water in commercial or swimming pool applications shall be certified by an accredited listing agency as defined in the California Plumbing Code and California Mechanical Code.
(2) Solar energy systems for producing electricity shall meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the California Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability.
(e) Submittal requirements. All documents required for the submission of an expedited solar energy system application shall be made available on the City website and elsewhere as deemed appropriate by the Building Official.

5.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
18 (1) An applicant may submit a permit application and associated documents for a small residential rooftop solar energy system by electronic submittal. As an alternative, an applicant may submit a permit application and associated documents at the Building Division counter during regular business hours.
(2) An applicant's electronic signature will be accepted on all forms, applications, and other documents in lieu of a wet signature.
(3) The City shall adopt a checklist of all requirements with which small residential rooftop solar energy systems must comply to be eligible for expedited review. (4) The small residential rooftop solar energy system permit process, standard plans, and the checklist shall substantially conform to recommendations for expedited permitting, including the checklist and standard plans, contained in the most current version of the California Solar Permitting Guidebook adopted by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research.
(5) An application to install a solar energy system shall include a reference to the requirement to notify the appropriate regional notification center of an excavator’s intent to excavate, pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 4216) of Chapter

3.1 of Division 5 of Title 1 of the California Government Code, before conducting an excavation, including, but not limited to, installing a grounding rod. (b) Plan review, permit, and inspection requirements. The Building Division shall provide a ministerial, nondiscretionary plan check review process to expedite approval of small residential rooftop solar energy systems within thirty (30) days of the enactment of this section.
(1) The Building Division shall process, review, and approve an application for the installation or use of a small residential rooftop solar energy system in the same manner as an application for review of an architectural modification to the property, and approval shall not be willfully avoided or delayed. (2) The Building Official's review of an application subject to this section shall be limited to whether it meets all health and safety requirements of local, state, and federal law.

The requirements of local law shall be limited to those standards and regulations necessary to ensure that the solar energy system will not have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. However, if the Building Official, in consultation with the Planning Director, makes a finding, based on substantial evidence, that the solar energy system could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, the City may require the applicant to apply for a use permit pursuant to the provisions of Article 33 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code.
(i) The decision to require a use permit may be appealed to the Planning Commission.
(ii) The Planning Commission may not deny an application for a use permit to install a solar energy system unless it makes written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. The findings shall include the bases for the rejection of potential feasible alternatives of preventing the adverse impact.

5.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
19 (iii) Any conditions imposed on an approval of a use permit to install a solar energy system shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety at the lowest cost possible.
(3) An application for a small residential rooftop solar energy system that satisfies the information requirements in the checklist described in Section 8-4.04(e)(3), as determined by the City, shall be deemed complete.
(4) Upon confirmation by the City that an application is complete, the City shall, consistent with this section and subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 65850.5, approve the application and issue all required permits or authorizations. (5) The City shall not condition approval of an application for a small residential rooftop solar energy system on the approval of an association.
(6) If the City deems an application incomplete, the City shall issue to the applicant a written correction notice detailing all deficiencies in the application and any additional information or documentation required to be eligible for expedited permit issuance. (7) If an application for the installation of a small residential rooftop solar energy system is not denied in writing within forty-five (45) days from the date of receipt of the application, the application shall be deemed approved, unless the delay is the result of a reasonable request for additional information.
(8) Only one inspection shall be required and performed by the Building Division for small residential rooftop solar energy systems eligible for expedited review, which inspection shall be done in a timely manner. If a small residential rooftop solar energy system fails inspection, a subsequent inspection is authorized, and the subsequent inspection need not conform to the requirements of this section.
(9) A separate fire inspection may be performed by the North County Fire Authority, if required, in the event the City does not have an agreement with the Fire Authority to conduct fire safety inspections on its behalf.”
Section 12. Repeal of Chapter 5 of Title 8. Chapter 5 (“2018 International Property Maintenance Code”) of Title 8 (“Building Regulations”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety; however, such repeal shall not affect or excuse any violation of said chapter that occurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall such repeal impeded, impact, or negate any administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement of said chapter that that commenced prior to the enforcement date of this ordinance.

Section 13. Adoption of Chapter 5 of Title 8. Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 5 to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 5
2021 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE
Sec. 8-5.01 – Adoption of the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code.

For the purpose to ensure public health, safety and welfare insofar as they are affected by the continued occupancy and maintenance of structures and premises, existing structures and premises that do not comply with these provisions shall be altered or repaired to provide a minimum level of health and safety as required herein, Chapters 1 through 8, including Appendix A (“Boarding Standard”) of that certain code designated as the International Property Maintenance Code, 2021 Edition published by the International Code Council, which is on file in

5.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
20 the office of the City Clerk for public record and inspection, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter as though set forth in this chapter in full, subject, however, to the amendments, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter, and said Code shall be known as the Property Maintenance Code for the City.”
Section 8-5.02 – Amendments: Section 101.1 (“Title”)
Section 101.1 of the International Property Maintenance Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
101.1 Title.
(a) These regulations shall be known as the International Property Maintenance Code of the City of Pacifica, hereinafter referred to as “this code.” Section 14. Repeal of Chapter 6 of Title 8. Chapter 6 (“Energy Code”) of Title 8 (“Building Regulations”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety; however, such repeal shall not affect or excuse any violation of said chapter that occurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall such repeal impeded, impact, or negate any administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement of said chapter that that commenced prior to the enforcement date of this ordinance.

Section 15. Adoption of Chapter 6 of Title 8. Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 6 to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 6

ENERGY CODE
Sec. 8-6.01 – Adoption of the California Energy Code.

Section 16. Repeal of Chapter 7 of Title 8. Chapter 7 (“Green Building Code”) of Title 8 (“Building Regulations”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety; however, such repeal shall not affect or excuse any violation of said chapter that occurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall such repeal impeded, impact, or negate any administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement of said chapter that that commenced prior to the enforcement date of this ordinance.

5.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
21 Section 17. Adoption of Chapter 7 of Title 8. Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 7 to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 7

GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
Sec. 8-7.01 – Adoption of the California Green Building Standards Code For the purpose of regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, conservation of building materials, waste management and sustainability for all buildings and structures in the City of Pacifica, Chapters 1 through 8 of that certain code designated as the California Green Building Standards Code, 2022 Edition [Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11], as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk for public record and inspection, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter as though set forth in this chapter in full, subject, however, to the amendments, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter, and said code shall be known as the Green Building Standards Code for the City.

Sec. 8-7.02 - Amendments: Section 202 (“Definitions”)
Section 202 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby amended to add the following definitions:

AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. A dwelling unit that is offered for rent or purchase at or below a rent or sales price that is affordable to a household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for "lower income households" in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Any such dwelling unit shall remain affordable for lower income households for at least 45 years from the date of initial occupancy pursuant to a legal agreement approved as to form by the City Attorney which shall be in the form of affordable housing covenants, deed restrictions, covenants and/or resale restriction and refinance limitation agreements.

ALL ELECTRIC BUILDING. A building that has no natural gas or propane plumbing installed within the building, and that uses electricity as the source of energy for all purposes, including but not limited to space conditioning (including heating), water heating, pool and spa systems, and appliances (including cooking appliances and clothes drying appliances). An All Electric Building may include solar thermal pool heating.

LEVEL 1 ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) READY. A parking space that is served by a complete electric circuit with the following requirements:
a. A minimum of 2.2 kVa (110/120 volt, 20-ampere) capacity wiring; b. A receptacle labeled “Electric Vehicle Outlet” or electric vehicle supply equipment located within three (3) feet of the parking space. If EVSE is provided the minimum capacity of the EVSE shall be 16-ampere; and
c. Conduit oversized to accommodate future Level 2 EV Ready (208/240 volt, 40- ampere) at each parking space.

5.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
22 LEVEL 2 ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING STATION (EVCS). A parking space that meets all requirements of a Level 2 EV Ready parking space and also includes the installation of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment.

LEVEL 2 ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) READY. A parking space that is served by a complete electric circuit with the following requirements:
a. A minimum of 8.3 kVa (208/240 volt, 40-ampere) capacity wiring; and b. A receptacle labeled “Electric Vehicle Outlet” or electric vehicle supply equipment located within three (3) feet of the parking space. If EVSE is provided the minimum capacity of the EVSE shall be 30-ampere.

LOW POWER LEVEL 2 ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) READY. A parking space that is served by a complete electric circuit with the following requirements:
a. A minimum of 4.1 kVA (208/240 Volt, 20-ampere) capacity wiring; b. A receptacle labeled “Electric Vehicle Outlet” or electric vehicle supply equipment located within three (3) feet of the parking space. If EVSE is provided the minimum capacity of the EVSE shall be 16-ampere; and
c. Conduit oversized to accommodate future Level 2 EV Ready (208/240 volt, 40- ampere) at each parking space.

NEW CONSTRUCTION BUILDING. A building constructed pursuant to a building permit issued on or after January 1, 2023.

Sec. 8-7.03 - Amendments: Section 4.106 (“Site Development”) Section 4.106.4.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

Section 4.106.4.1 New one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached private garages. For each dwelling unit, install one Level 2 EV Ready circuit and one Level 1 EV Ready circuit. The receptacle associated with each space shall be located on the exterior of the private garage and within five feet of the garage door or other opening used to access the private garage.

Exception: A raceway is not required if a minimum 40-ampere 208/240-volt dedicated EV branch circuit is installed in close proximity to the proposed location of an EV charger at the time of original construction in accordance with the California Electrical Code.

Section 4.106.4.2 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

Section 4.106.4.2 New multifamily dwellings. When parking is provided, parking spaces for new multifamily dwellings shall include a quantity of Level 2 EVCS equal to or greater than 15 percent of dwelling units with parking spaces and Low Power Level 2 EV Charging Receptacles equal to or greater than 85 percent of dwelling units with parking spaces.

5.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
23 Exception. Any dwelling unit meeting the definition of an Affordable Housing Unit may, at the applicant’s sole discretion, be excluded from the calculation of dwelling units that are subject to the EV parking requirements in this section.

Section 4.106.4.2.1 Electric Vehicle Ready Space Signage. Electric vehicle ready spaces shall be identified by signage or pavement markings, in compliance with Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-01 (Zero Emission Vehicle Signs and Pavement Markings) or its successor(s).

Sec. 8-7.04 - Amendments: Section 4.106 (“Site Development”) Section 4.106 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby amended to add the following sections:

Section 4.106.5 All Electric Buildings. All New Construction Buildings shall meet the definition of All Electric Building as defined in Section 202. Any building required pursuant to this Code to be an All Electric Building shall not be permitted at any time to convert or construct improvements to use other fuel sources, other than electricity, for purposes of cooking, space conditioning, water heating, lighting, pool and spa systems, and appliances, or any other purpose, unless authorized by the Building Official pursuant to Section 5.106.13.

Sec. 8-7.05 - Amendments: Section 4.304.1 (“Outdoor potable water use in landscape areas”) Section 4.304.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

4.304.1 Outdoor potable water use in landscape areas.

Residential developments using outdoor potable water in landscape areas shall comply with one of the following options:

1. The current California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO); or

2. Projects with aggregate landscape areas less than 2,500 square feet may comply with the MWELO’s Appendix D Prescriptive Compliance Option.

Sec. 8-7.06 - Amendments: Section 5.106 (“Site Development”) Section 5.106.5.3 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

Section 5.106.5.3.1 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging for New Construction. When parking is provided, parking spaces for nonresidential uses shall be provided in accordance with Sections

5.106.5.3.1.1 through 5.106.5.3.1.4.

Section 5.106.5.3.1.1 Offices. Level 2 EVCS: 20 percent of off-street parking spaces, and Level 2 EV Ready: 30 percent of off-street parking spaces.

Section 5.106.5.3.1.2 Public Parking Lots. Level 2 EVCS: 15 percent of off-street parking spaces, and Level 2 EV Ready: 20 percent of off-street parking spaces.

5.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
24 Section 5.106.5.3.1.3 Overnight Accommodations. Level 2 EVCS: 30 percent of off-street parking spaces, and Level 2 EV Ready: 20 percent of off-street parking spaces.

Section 5.106.5.3.1.4 All Other. Level 2 EVCS: 10 percent of off-street parking spaces, and Level 2 EV Ready: 10 percent of off-street parking spaces.

Section 5.106.5.3.2. Use of automatic load management systems (ALMS). ALMS shall be permitted for EVCS. When ALMS is installed, the required electrical load capacity specified in Section 5.106.5.3.1 for each EVCS may be reduced when serviced by an EVSE controlled by an ALMS. Each EVSE controlled by an ALMS shall deliver a minimum 30 amperes to an EV when charging one vehicle and shall deliver a minimum 3.3 kW while simultaneously charging multiple EVs.

Section 5.106.5.3.3 Accessible EVCS. When EVSE is installed, accessible EVCS shall be provided in accordance with the California Building Code, Chapter 11 B, Section 11B-228.3.

Note: For EVCS signs, refer to Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-01 (Zero Emission Vehicle Signs and Pavement Markings) or its successor(s).

Section 5.106.5.4 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby deleted.

Section 5.106 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby amended to add the following section:

Section 5.106.13 All Electric Buildings. All New Construction Buildings shall meet the definition of All Electric Building as defined in Section 202. Any building required pursuant to this Code to be an All Electric Building shall not be permitted at any time to convert or construct improvements to use other fuel sources, other than electricity, for purposes of space conditioning, water heating, lighting, pool and spa systems, and appliances, or any other purpose, unless authorized by the Building Official pursuant to this Section.

Exception. New Construction Buildings containing a for-profit restaurant open to the public may be approved for an exception to install gas-fueled cooking appliances, as determined appropriate in the discretion of the Building Official. This request must be based on a business-related reason to cook with a flame that cannot be reasonably achieved with an electric fuel source. The Building Official's decision shall be final unless the applicant files a timely appeal.

The Building Official shall grant this exception only if all of the following findings can be made based on substantial evidence:

1.There is a business-related reason to cook with a flame;

2.This need cannot be reasonably achieved with an electric fuel source;

3.The applicant has employed reasonable methods to mitigate the greenhouse gas impacts of the gas-fueled appliance;

4.The applicant shall comply with the pre-wiring provision of Note 1 below.

5.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
25 Note 1: If natural gas appliances are used, natural gas appliance locations must also be electrically pre-wired for future electric appliance installation. They shall include the following:

1. A dedicated circuit, phased appropriately, for each appliance, with a minimum amperage requirement for a comparable electric appliance (see manufacturer's recommendations) with an electrical receptacle or junction box that is connected to the electric panel with conductors of adequate capacity, extending to within 3 feet of the appliance and accessible with no obstructions. Appropriately sized conduit may be installed in lieu of conductors;

2. Both ends of the unused conductor or conduit shall be labeled with the words "For Future Electric Appliance" and be electrically isolated;

3. A reserved circuit breaker space shall be installed in the electrical panel adjacent to the circuit breaker for the branch circuit and labeled for each circuit, an example is as follows (i.e. "For Future Electric Range;") and

4. All electrical components, including conductors, receptacles, junction boxes, or blank covers, related to this section shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code.

Note 2: If an exception is granted, the Building Official shall approve alternative materials, design and methods of construction or equipment per Building Code Section 104.

Sec. 8-7.07. Section 8-7.07 (“Streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging systems”) is hereby added to read as follows:
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to adopt an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations that complies with Assembly Bill 1236 (Chapter 598, Statutes 2015, Cal. Gov't Code § 65850.7) and Assembly Bill 970 (Chapter 710, Statutes 2021, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65850.7 & 65851.71) to achieve timely and costly-effective installations of electric vehicle charging stations. The ordinance encourages the use of electric vehicle charging stations by removing unreasonable barriers, minimizing costs to property owners and the City of Pacifica (“City”), and expanding the ability of property owners to install electric vehicle charging stations. The ordinance allows the City of Pacifica to achieve these goals while protecting the public health and safety. (b) Definitions.
(1) “A feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact” includes, but is not limited to, any cost-effective method, condition, or mitigation imposed by the City on another similarly situated application in a prior successful application for a permit.
(2) "Electric vehicle charging station" or "charging station" means any level of electric vehicle supply equipment station that is designed and built in compliance with Article 625 of the California Electrical Code, as it reads on

5.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
26 the effective date of this section, and delivers electricity from a source outside an electric vehicle into a plug-in electric vehicle. (3) "Electronic submittal" means the utilization of the City's online building permit web portal.
(4) "Specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(c) City building permit required.
(1) A City building permit is required to install an electric vehicle charging station.
(2) An application for a City building permit to install an electric vehicle charging station shall be processed in accordance with Government Code Sections 65850.7 and 65850.71.
(d) Review of applications. The following expedited, permitting process applies to applications for a building permit to install an electric vehicle charging station:
(1) Application. The City will make the following available on the City's website:
the City's standard building permit application form; and the City's standard electric vehicle charging station plan form and checklist. The checklist will include all requirements that an electric vehicle charging station must meet to be eligible for review and approval under this section. An application to install an electric vehicle charging station may be submitted electronically.

A building permit application will be deemed complete if the Building Official determines that the application includes all of the information and documents required by the standard application form, the standard plan form, and the standard checklist, and is consistent with all applicable laws and health and safety standards. If an application is deemed incomplete, the Building Official will notify the applicant in writing of the additional information needed to complete the application. After an application is deemed complete, the Building Official will perform an expedited review of the application and all submittals.
(2) Application review.
(A) The City shall administratively review and approve an application to install an electric vehicle charging station through the issuance of a building permit. Review of an application to install an electric vehicle charging station shall be limited to the Building Official’s review of whether it meets all health and safety requirements of local, state, and federal law. The requirements of local law shall be limited to those standards and regulations necessary to ensure that the electric vehicle charging station will not have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.

5.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
27 (B) If the Building Official makes a finding, based on substantial evidence, that the electric vehicle charging station could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, the Building Official may require the applicant to apply for a use permit as provided in Article 33 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code. The decision of the Building Official to require approval of a use permit prior to issuance of a building permit may be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions in Section 9-4.3804 of the Pacifica Municipal Code. (C) The City may not deny an application for a use permit to install an electric vehicle charging station unless it makes written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. The findings shall include the basis for the rejection of potential feasible alternatives of preventing the adverse impact. Any conditions imposed on an application to install an electric vehicle charging station shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety at the lowest cost possible.
(D) The City shall not condition approval for any electric vehicle charging station permit on the approval of an electric vehicle charging station by an association, as that term is defined in Section 4080 of the Civil Code. (E) An application to install an electric vehicle charging station submitted to the Building Official shall be deemed complete if, after the applicable time period described in subsection (iii) has elapsed, both of the following are true:
(i) The Building Official has not deemed the application complete, consistent with the checklist created by the City, pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 65850.7 of the Government Code.
(ii) The Building Official has not issued a written correction notice detailing all deficiencies in the application and identifying any additional information explicitly necessary for the Building Official to complete a review limited to whether the electric vehicle charging station meets all health and safety requirements of local, state, and federal law, consistent with subdivisions (b) and (g) of Section 65850.7 of the Government Code. (iii) For purposes of subsection (E), “applicable time period means” either of the following:
(1) Five business days after submission of the application to the City, if the application is for at least 1, but not more than 25 electric vehicle charging stations at a single site. (2) Ten business days after submission of the application to the City, if the application is for more than 25 electric vehicle charging stations at a single site.

5.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
28 (3) Permit issuance. A building permit will be issued following the Building Official's approval of an application for an electric vehicle charging station and after all required fees have been paid.
(A) An application to install an electric vehicle charging station shall be deemed approved if the applicable time period described in paragraph (2) has elapsed and all of the following are true:
(i) The Building Official has not administratively approved the application pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65850.7 of the Government Code.
(ii) The Building Official has not made a finding, based on substantial evidence, that the electric vehicle charging station could have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety or required the applicant to apply for a use permit pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65850.7 of the Government Code.
(iii) The Building Official has not denied the permit pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65850.7 of the Government Code. (iv) An appeal has not been made to the Planning Commission, pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65850.7 of the Government Code. (4) Inspection and authorization to operate. As soon as practicable after the applicant notifies the Building Official that an electric vehicle charging station has been installed, the Building Official will inspect the system to verify compliance with the building permit. If the Building Official determines that a system was not installed in compliance with a building permit, the Building Official will notify the permittee of the actions needed to comply with the building permit and will conduct additional inspections as necessary. No electric vehicle charging station may be operated unless the Building Official verifies in writing that it complies with the building permit. (e) Electric vehicle charging station installation requirements. (1) Electric vehicle charging station equipment shall meet the requirements of the California Electrical Code, the Society of Automotive Engineers, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories, and rules of the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability.
(2) Installation of electric vehicle charging stations and associated wiring, bonding, disconnecting means and overcurrent protective devices shall meet the requirements of Article 625 and all applicable provisions of the California Electrical Code.
(3) Installation of electric vehicle charging stations shall be incorporated into the load calculations of all new or existing electrical services and shall meet the requirements of the California Electrical Code. Electric vehicle charging equipment shall be considered a continuous load.

5.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
29 (4) Anchorage of either floor-mounted or wall-mounted electric vehicle charging stations shall meet the requirements of the California Building or Residential Code as applicable per occupancy, and the provisions of the manufacturer's installation instructions. Mounting of charging stations shall not adversely affect building elements.
(5) If an electric vehicle charging station and any associated equipment interfere with, reduce, eliminate, or in any way impact the required parking spaces for existing uses, the City shall reduce the number of required parking spaces for the existing uses by the amount necessary to accommodate the electric vehicle charging station and any associated equipment.
(f) Requirements cumulative. The requirements of this chapter are in addition to any other applicable requirements of this Code, and any requirements of a utility provider, that must be satisfied before an electric vehicle charging station may be installed or operated.”
Section 18. Repeal of Chapter 7.5 of Title 8. Chapter 7.5 (“Residential Code”) of Title 8 (“Building Regulations”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety; however, such repeal shall not affect or excuse any violation of said chapter that occurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall such repeal impeded, impact, or negate any administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement of said chapter that that commenced prior to the enforcement date of this ordinance.

Section 19. Adoption of Chapter 7.5 of Title 8. Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 7.5 to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 7.5

RESIDENTIAL CODE
Sec. 8-7.5.01 – Adoption of the California Residential Code.

For the purpose of regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of all buildings and structures and grading in the City of Pacifica, Chapters 1 through 10, including, Appendix AH ("Patio Covers"), Appendix AJ ("Existing Buildings and Structures"), Appendix AK (“Sound Transmission”), Appendix AQ (“Tiny Homes”), Appendix AX (“Swimming Pool Safety Act”), and Appendix AZ (“Emergency Housing”) of that certain code designated as the California Residential Code, 2022 Edition [Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 2.5], which incorporates and amends the 2021 Edition of International Residential Code as published by the International Code Council and as may be amended by the Building Standards Commission, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk for public record and inspection, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter as though set forth in this chapter in full, subject, however, to the amendments, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter, and said code shall be known as the Residential Code for the City.

Sec. 8-7.5.02. Amendments: Section R101.1 ("Title").

Section R101.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

5.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
30 R101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Residential Code of the City of Pacifica, hereafter referred to as "this Code."
Sec. 8-7.5.03. Amendments: Section R105.3 ("Application for permit).

Section R105.3.3 of the California Residential Code is hereby added to read as follows:

R105.3.3 Improvements required prior to the issuance of building permits and exceptions.

Sec. 8-7.5.04. Amendments: Section R105.6 ("Suspension or revocation").

Section R105.6 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended in its entirety and shall read as follows:

R105.6 - Suspension or Revocation of Permit. The Building Official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this Code, or other relevant laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations, whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect, inaccurate, or incomplete information, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation of any of the provisions of this Code.

Sec. 8-7.5.05. Amendments: Section R105.10 ("Permits: Hours of Construction").

Section R105.10 of the California Residential Code is hereby added to read as follows:

R105.10 Hours of Construction. The hours of construction for any project for which a building permit is required within the City of Pacifica shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. The hours of construction shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.

5.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
31 Sec. 8-7.5.06. Amendments: Section R108.2 ("Fees: Schedule of Permit Fees").

Section R108.2 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

R108.2 Schedule of permit fees. On buildings, structures, electrical, gas, mechanical, and plumbing systems or alterations requiring a permit, fees and charges for each permit shall be assessed and paid as required, in accordance with the most current fee schedule adopted in the City of Pacifica Administrative Policy No. 2.

Sec. 8-7.5.07. Amendments: Section R108.6 ("Work commencing before permit issuance").

Section R108.6 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

R108.6 Work commencing before permit issuance. Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this Code has been commenced without first obtaining such permit, an investigation and processing fee equal to the amount of the required permit fee or as otherwise established by the most current fee schedule adopted in the City of Pacifica Administrative Policy No. 2 shall be collected at the time of application for the required permit and prior to the issuance of the required permit, irrespective of whether a permit is subsequently issued.

Sec. 8-7.5.08. Amendments: Section R110.3.1 ("Certificate of occupancy: certificate issued:
improvements prior to occupancy of structures and utility service exceptions").

Section R110.3.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby added to read as follows:

R110.3.1 Improvements prior to occupancy of structures and utility service exceptions. (a) No new structure for which a building permit is required shall be occupied or otherwise used, nor shall utility services be supplied thereto, until such public improvements, including street paving, sidewalk, gutter and/or curb and miscellaneous facilities required by Section R105.3.3 have been installed and approved by the City Engineer and until such time as the Planning Director has been satisfied that all Planning Department requirements for the project have been met, including but not limited to any applicable conditions of approval imposed on the project by approval of a discretionary permit.
(b) When it is, in the opinion of the City Engineer and/or the Planning Director, not practicable to complete public improvements including street paving, sidewalk, gutter and/or curb, miscellaneous facilities or Planning Department conditions prior to completion of construction of the structure, a completion bond in an amount determined by the City Engineer and/or Planning Director to be adequate to insure completion shall be posted for the completion of the required improvements.

5.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
32 Sec. 8-7.5.09. – Amendments: Section R111.4 (“Service Utilities: Underground Utilities”) Section R111.4 is hereby added to the California Residential Code to read as follows:

Section R111.4 – Underground Utilities.

R111.4.1 – Authority and Purpose. This Section is enacted pursuant to the general police powers of the City as well as the City’s authority to modify its local building standards, and is for the purpose of ensuring that all new construction adheres to utility undergrounding measures designed to reduce the risk of fire and to preserve scenic resources.

R111.4.2 – Undergrounding Requirements.
(a) Persons constructing any structure subject to this Code shall underground all utility lines as follows:
(i) All on-site utility lines must be placed underground; (ii) All utility lines between (i.e., connected to and serving) the structure and the point of connection to existing utility lines having the capacity to serve the structure must be placed underground; and
(iii) If any utility lines are being upgraded, the upgraded portions as well as the pre-existing lines shall be placed underground.
(b) Exceptions. Undergrounding of utilities as described in this Subsection shall not be required when any of the following three conditions apply:
(i) The undergrounding of utility lines would require the trenching and repaving of any public right-of-way that has been paved within one year from the date the building permit is issued;
(ii) The undergrounding of utility lines would require more than 500 feet of trenching to reach a point of connection to existing utility lines having the capacity to serve the residential structure. In such case, the nearest 500 feet of utility lines to the structure shall be installed underground; or
(iii) The servicing utility carrier has issued written notice indicating that undergrounding is either impractical or impossible given the location of the structure, and that the carrier has refused to provide utilities through undergrounded utility lines.

R111.4.3 – Undergrounding Standards.
(a) All placement of utilities underground shall adhere to the standards and specifications of the California Building Standards Code, including applicable titles, as applied and codified in this Title. Any placement of utilities underground shall be subject to inspection by the Building Official to ensure that these standards are met. (b) In the event that the placement of utilities underground requires digging, trenching, or otherwise impacting existing public right-of-way, the property owner shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary licenses, permits, and rights of entry from the City,

5.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
33 county, and/or state, as appropriate. The property owner shall also be required to restore or cause to be restored all public right-of-way that is impacted by the placement of utilities, which restoration will include replacement of pavement overlay.

Sec. 8-7.5.10. Amendments: Section R112 ("Board of Appeals").

Section R112.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

R112.1 Appeal Procedure. Any person who is aggrieved by an order, decision or determination of the Building Official as provided in Section R112.1 may appeal said order, decision or determination. Such appeal shall be in writing and must be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) business days from the date of service of the order, decision or determination being appealed. The appeal must specify the basis for the appeal in detail, provide a mailing address and telephone number for the appellant, and include the applicable appeal fee. If a timely appeal is not received by the City Clerk, the right to appeal is waived and the order, decision or determination of the Building Official is deemed final and binding. Appeals shall be heard as follows:
(a) Appeals shall be heard before the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission ("Commission"). As soon as practicable after receiving the request, the City Clerk shall set a date for the Commission to hear the appeal, which date shall be not less than ten (10) calendar days nor more than forty-five (45) calendar days from the date the appeal was received. The City Clerk shall give each party written notice of the time and place of the hearing at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the date of the hearing, either by causing a copy of the notice to be delivered to the party personally, or by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, addressed to each appealing party at the address(es) shown on the request. Continuances of the appeal hearing may be granted by the Commission on request of the appealing person for good cause shown, provided such request is made no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled hearing, or upon request of the Building Official or his or her designee for good cause shown, or on the Commission's own motion.
(b) At the time and place set forth in the notice of hearing, the Commission shall hear the testimony of the appealing person(s), the Building Official, and/or their witnesses, as well as any documentary evidence presented by these persons concerning the order, decision or determination being appealed. Only those matters or issues specifically raised in the written appeal shall be considered in the hearing. Appeal hearings are informal, and formal rules of evidence and discovery do not apply. (c) Upon the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the Commission shall, on the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, determine whether the order, decision or determination should be affirmed, modified, or rescinded. A copy of the Commission's written decision shall be served upon the appealing person by first class mail or by personal service. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Pacifica Municipal Code, the determination of the Commission shall be final and binding. (d) If the appellant fails to appear, the Commission shall cancel the hearing and send a notice thereof to the appellant by first class mail. A cancellation of a hearing due to non-appearance of the appellant shall constitute the appellant's waiver of the right to appeal. In such instances, the order, decision or determination of the Building Official shall be final and binding.

5.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
34 Sec. 8-7.5.11. Amendments: Section R113.1 ("Violations").

Section R113.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

R113.1 Unlawful acts. Irrespective of whether a notice of violation has been issued pursuant to Section R113.2 of this Code, it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair, move, remove, demolish, occupy or maintain any building, structure, equipment, installation or land regulated by the Technical Codes, or cause or permit the same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of the Technical Codes.

R113.1.1 Unpermitted Structures. No person shall own, use, occupy, or maintain an unpermitted structure. For purposes of this section, "unpermitted structure" shall be defined as any building or structure, or portion thereof, that was erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, connected, converted, demolished, or equipped, at any point in time by any person, without the required permit(s) having first been obtained from the Building Official or with a valid permit as issued by the Building Official which subsequently expired and became null and void.

Sec. 8-7.5.12. Amendments: Section R113.4 ("Violations penalties").

Section R113.4 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

R113.4 Violation penalties. Any person, firm or corporation who violates any provision of the Technical Codes, or fails to comply with any of the requirements thereof, or who erects, constructs, alters, repairs or maintains a building, structure, installation or equipment, or excavates, cuts, fills, grades, compacts or maintains land in violation of approved construction documents or directive of the Building Official, or of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of the Technical Codes, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to the punishments set forth in Chapter 2 of Title 1 of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

Each and every day, or portion thereof, during which any violation of the Technical Codes occurs or continues constitutes a separate and distinct offense.

Sec. 8-7.5.13. Amendments: Section R115 ("Procedure for Legalizing Unpermitted Structures").

Section R115 of the California Residential Code is added to read as follows:

R115 Procedure for Legalizing Unpermitted Structures.

R115.1 Permits. Any person who wishes to legalize an "unpermitted structure" (as this term is defined in Sections R113.1.1 of this Code), shall obtain all applicable permits.

Unpermitted structures shall comply with all current Technical Code requirements and other required approvals pursuant to the Pacifica Municipal Code in order to be legalized.

R115.2 Plans.

R115.2.1 Structures. Prior to the issuance or granting of any permit to legalize an unpermitted structure, plans showing the plot plan, exterior elevations, existing structures, proposed structures, and proposed finish materials shall be submitted to the Building Official and Planning Director for review and approval.

5.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
35 R115.2.2 Grading. Prior to the issuance or granting of any permit to legalize unpermitted grading, a grading and drainage plan showing the original grade and existing unpermitted grade on the premises and the existing grade on adjoining properties, and a soils report shall be submitted to the Building Official and Planning Director for review and approval.

R115.3 Inspections.

R115.3 Inspections. Unpermitted structures or unpermitted grading for which a permit has subsequently been obtained shall be subject to inspection by the Building Official in accordance with, and in the manner prescribed in, the Technical Codes. The Building Official may require the removal of finish materials in order to expose framing elements, electrical components, plumbing fixtures, or mechanical systems, or may require the removal of fill, to verify that installation, construction, or grading was performed in conformance with the Technical Codes.

R115.4 Investigation Fees.

R115.4.1 Investigation. Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this Code has commenced on land or in connection with any type of structure without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for such work. For purposes of this section, "special investigation" shall include, but is not limited to, inspecting premises and structures, reviewing permit, license and other records of the City or other agencies, reviewing plans, taking photographs, engaging in conferences and communications with other officials of the City or other agencies, and engaging in conferences and communications with owners or other responsible persons concerning the unpermitted structure or grading.

R115.4.2 Fee. A special investigation fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of a permit for an unpermitted structure or unpermitted grading. The fee shall be assessed as provided in Section R108.4.2 of this chapter.

The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provision of this Code nor from any penalty prescribed by law.

R115.5 Unpermitted Structures Which Cannot be Legalized.

If the Planning Director determines that the City's zoning regulations prohibit legalization of any unpermitted structure, the structure shall be demolished or, if previously permitted, restored to its original approved condition, with all requisite permits, inspections and approvals.

Sec. 8-7.5.14. Amendments: Section R313.1. ("Townhouse automatic fire sprinkler systems") Section R313.1 of the California Residential Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

R313.1 Townhouse automatic fire sprinkler systems.

1. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in Townhouses.

2. Existing Buildings and Structures. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all buildings when an addition is added to the building.

5.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
36 Exception.

1. When an addition to an R-3 occupancy is less than 1,000 square feet in size no sprinklers are required in either the addition or the existing building.

Section R313.1.1 Design and installation.

Automatic fire sprinkler systems for townhouses shall be designed and installed in accordance with Section R313 or NFPA 13D.

Sec. 8-7.5.15. Amendments: Section 313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire sprinkler systems.

Section R313.2 of the California Residential Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

R313.2 One- and two-family dwelling automatic sprinkler systems.

1. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in all new one-and two-family dwellings.

2. Existing one- and two-family dwellings. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed when an addition is added to the building.

Exception 1: When an addition to an R-3 occupancy is less than 1,000 square feet in size no sprinklers are required in either the addition or the existing building.

Exception 2: The construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in an existing dwelling, including any addition solely for purposes of accessory dwelling unit construction.

Section 8-7.5.16 – Amendments: Section R401.4 (“Soil Tests”) Section R401.4.3 is hereby added to the California Residential Code to read as follows:

R401.4.3 Investigation of Off-site Conditions.

The following requirements shall apply to any site located within a geologic or seismic hazard zone mapped by the California Geologic Survey or adopted in the General Plan of the City of Pacifica:

3. The building official shall not issue a building permit until any project design feature(s) identified by the evaluation required in this subsection has or have been incorporated into the project plans.

4. The evaluation required in this subsection shall be limited to consideration of readily available data obtained from aerial photos, maps, previously prepared geotechnical

5.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
37 reports, and observations able to be made from the project site and other publiclyaccessible areas in the vicinity of the project site, including but not limited to public rights-of-way and public open spaces. This subsection shall not require or authorize entry onto neighboring properties for any purpose, including but not limited to obtaining soil borings.

5. The registered design professional may seek a waiver from the requirement of this subsection to construct project design features to minimize potential off-site geotechnical hazards when the construction of such features would be disproportionate to the cost of the overall project. The building official shall consider waiver requests and grant approval if the registered design professional has demonstrated with sufficient written evidence that the cost of design features to minimize potential off-site geotechnical hazards would exceed 20 percent of the overall project cost, such features would not otherwise be required by any other provision of this Code, and no other less-costly feature can be incorporated into the project design to reduce the identified hazard(s).

The requirements of this subsection shall be supplementary to and shall not replace or substitute for any other geotechnical investigation or geohazard investigation required by this Code or any other provision of law. Except, however, when another provision of this Code may provide for waiver or exemption from geotechnical investigation, the provisions of this subsection shall still apply.”
Section 20. Repeal of Chapter 8 of Title 8. Chapter 8 (“Historical Buildings Code”) of Title 8 (“Building Regulations”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety; however, such repeal shall not affect or excuse any violation of said chapter that occurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall such repeal impeded, impact, or negate any administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement of said chapter that that commenced prior to the enforcement date of this ordinance.

Section 21. Adoption of Chapter 8 of Title 8. Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 8 to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 8

HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE
Sec. 8-8.01 – Adoption of the California Historical Building Code For the purpose of regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of all historical buildings and structures in the City of Pacifica, adopts that certain Code designated as the California Historical Building Code, 2022 Edition [Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 8].”
Section 22. Repeal of Chapter 8.5 of Title 8. Chapter 8 (“Existing Buildings Code”) of Title 8 (“Building Regulations”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety; however, such repeal shall not affect or excuse any violation of said chapter that occurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall such repeal impeded, impact, or negate any administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement of said chapter that that commenced prior to the enforcement date of this ordinance.

5.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
38 Section 23. Adoption of Chapter 8.5 of Title 8. Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 8.5 to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 8.5

EXISTING BUILDING CODE
Sec. 8-8.5.01 – Adoption of the California Existing Building Code For the purpose of regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of all existing buildings and structures in the City of Pacifica, adopts that certain Code designated as the California Existing Building Code, 2022 Edition [Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 10].”
Section 24. Repeal of Chapter 9 of Title 8. Chapter 9 (“Reference Standards”) of Title 8 (“Building Regulations”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety; however, such repeal shall not affect or excuse any violation of said chapter that occurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall such repeal impeded, impact, or negate any administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement of said chapter that that commenced prior to the enforcement date of this ordinance.

Section 25. Adoption of Chapter 9 of Title 8. Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 9 to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 9

REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE
Sec 8-9.01 – Adoption of the California Referenced Standards Code For the purpose of regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of all buildings and structures in the City of Pacifica, adopts that certain Code designated as the California Reference Standards Code 2022 Edition [CCR Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 12].”
Section 26. Repeal of Article 1 of Chapter 3 of Title 4. Article 1 (“Fire Code”) of Chapter 3 (“Fire Protection”) of Title 4 (“Public Safety”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety; however, such repeal shall not affect or excuse any violation of said chapter that occurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall such repeal impeded, impact, or negate any administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement of said chapter that that commenced prior to the enforcement date of this ordinance.

Section 27. Adoption of Article 1 of Chapter 3 of Title 4. Chapter 3 of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Article 1 as follows:

5.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
39 “ARTICLE 1

FIRE CODE
Sec. 4-3.101 – Adoption of the California Fire Code
For the purpose of regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of all buildings and structures and grading in the City of Pacifica, the California Fire Code, 2022 Edition [Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9], published by the International Code Council, including Appendix B ("Fire-Flow Requirements for Buildings"), Appendix C ("Fire Hydrant Locations and Distribution"), Appendix D ("Fire Apparatus Access Roads"), Appendix F ("Hazard Ranking"), and Appendix L ("Requirements for Fire Fighter Air Replenishment Systems") and as adopted and as may be amended by the Building Standards Commission, which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk for public record and inspection, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter as though set forth in this chapter in full, subject, however, to the amendments, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter, and said code shall be known as Fire Code for the City of Pacifica.

Sec. 4-3.102. Establishment and duties of the Fire Prevention Services Division.

The California Fire Code shall be enforced by the Fire Prevention Services Division in the Fire Department of the City, which Division is hereby established and which shall be operated under the supervision of the Fire Chief.

The Fire Marshal in charge of the Fire Prevention Services Division shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of Chapter 5 of Title 2 of this Code and Council Resolution No. 82-69.

The Fire Chief may detail such members of the Fire Department as shall from time to time be necessary.

Sec. 4-3.103. Amendments: Section 105.1.1 ("Permits required").

Section 105.1.1 of the California Fire Code is amended by adding the following paragraph at the end of the section:

The City Council of the City of Pacifica may establish by resolution permit fees in connection with any permit required or authorized to be issued by the Fire Chief or any other authorized representative of the Fire Department.

Sec. 4-3.104. Amendments: Section 105.5 ("Required operational permits").

Section 105.5 of the California Fire Code is amended by adding the following two sections at the end of the section to read as follows:
105.5.55 Institutions and day care. An operational permit is required to operate any and all occupancies that are set forth under Group I Occupancies, and Group E Occupancy of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, each accommodating more than six people.
105.5.56 Residential care facility. An operational permit is required to operate a residential care/assisted living facility as set forth under Group R, Division 4 Occupancies.

Sec. 4-3.105. Amendments: Section 202 ("General Definitions").

Section 202 is amended to amend the following definitions that read as follows:

5.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
40 202 General Definitions.

FIRE CODE OFFICIAL. The Fire Marshal of the City of Pacifica.

JURISDICTION. The City of Pacifica.

Sec. 4-3.106. Amendments: Section 505.1 (“Address identification”).

Section 505.1 of the California Fire Code is amended by adding the following at the end of the section:

Said numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated in all new construction, or when alterations or repairs of existing construction occur.

The size and location of address numbers for multi-family dwellings and all other occupancies shall be as designated by the Fire Marshal.

Sec. 4-3.107. Amendments: Section 507 (“Fire Protection Water Supplies”).

Section 507.5.7 is added to the California Fire Code read as follows:
507.5.7 Hydrants. All new fire hydrants shall be UL listed, or equivalent, wet barrel type having a minimum of two 2 ½" and one 4 ½" outlets, all equipped with national standard threads (Clow 860, or approved equivalent). The minimum fire service main size permitted is six inch (6").

Sec. 4-3.108. Amendments: Section 509 ("Fire Protection and Utility Equipment Identification and Access").

Section 509.1.2 is added to the California Fire Code read as follows:
509.1.2 Utility Identification in Multi-Family Tenant Buildings. Utility markings of all gas and electric utility services in multi-family tenant buildings shall be visibly and legibly marked with the unit identification.

Sec. 4-3.109. Amendments: Section 903.2 ("Where required").

Section 903.2 of the California Fire Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
903.2 Required Installations.

A. Newly Constructed Buildings and Structures. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all new occupancies and locations.

Exception. Detached U occupancies not exceeding 1,000 square feet in size, when accessory to an R-3 dwelling.

B. Existing Buildings and Structures. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all buildings when an addition is added to the building.

Exceptions:

2. The construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in an existing dwelling, including any addition solely for purposes of accessory dwelling unit construction.

3. When specifically exempted by the Fire Code Official.

5.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
41 C. Car Stackers. Parking garage areas containing car stackers shall be protected by an automatic wet-pipe sprinkler system designed to the current edition of NFPA 13. In addition, non-extended coverage standard sidewall sprinklers listed for Ordinary Hazard shall be provided under each parking level, including the bottom level if the stacker is provided with a pit. Each sidewall sprinkler shall cover an area of 80 sq. ft. or less.

The area of application may be reduced from the required 2,500 sq. ft. to as low as 1,500 sq. ft. if:

1. 1-hour fire rated walls are provided to separate the car stacker areas from the standard parking stalls;

2. The car stacker areas are divided up into 1,500 sq. ft. areas via 1-hour fire rated walls; and

3. One-hour fire rated walls are provided to separate the car stacker areas from any other areas in the garage.

Sec. 4-3.110. Amendments: Section 903.4.2 ("Alarms").

Section 903.4.2 of the California Fire Code is amended by added the following to the end of the paragraph:

In addition to the audible device(s) required by this section, an approved strobe light shall be located on the exterior of the building in an approved location.

Sec. 4-3.111. Amendments: Section 904.2.2 ("Commercial hood and duct systems").

Section 904.2.2 of the California Fire Code is amended by added the following to the end of the paragraph:

The location(s) of all cooking appliances that are protected by an approved automatic fire extinguishing system shall be permanently identified either by a wall mounted approved appliance floor plan or marked on the floor in a manner approved by the Fire Marshal.

Sec. 4-3.112. Amendments: Section 907.7.3 ("Instructions").

Section 907.7.3 of the California Fire Code is amended by adding the following paragraph at the end:

Each fire alarm system shall have posted at the main control panel instructions for silencing and resetting the system, the day and night phone numbers of the person responsible for the property, and the company or individual providing maintenance services for the alarm system.

Sec. 4-3.113. Amendments: Section 907.8.1 ("Maintenance required").

Section 907.8.1 of the California Fire Code is amended by adding the following paragraph at the end:

Owners and operators of group R-1 occupancies shall provide documentation to the Fire Department, such as annual inspection forms, which confirm that all smoke detection devices and equipment within apartment units are installed and are in good operating condition.

5.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
42 Sec. 4-3.114. Amendments: Section 914.3 ("High-rise buildings").

Section 914.3.9 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows:

Section 914.3.9 Firefighter Breathing Air Replenishment. All Group B and Group R occupancies, each having floors used for human occupancy located more than seventyfive feet (75') above the lowest level of Fire Department vehicular access, shall be equipped with an approved Firefighter Breathing Air Replenishment System as outlined in Appendix L. Such a system shall provide an adequate pressurized fresh air supply through a permanent piping system for the replenishment of portable life sustaining air equipment carried by Fire Department, rescue, and other personnel in the performance of their duties.

Location and specifications of access stations to, and the installation of, such air replenishment systems shall be made in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Chief.

Sec. 4-3.115. Amendments: Section 5608 ("Fireworks display").

Section 5608.1 of the California Fire Code is amended by adding the following paragraph at the end:

The sale and discharge of safe and sane fireworks is permitted only as provided in the Pacifica Municipal Code.

Section 5608.1.2 is hereby added to the California Fire Code to read as follows:
5608.1.2 Dangerous Fireworks Prohibited. Except as hereinafter provided, it shall be unlawful for any person to possess, store, offer for sale, expose for sale, sell at retail, or use or explode any fireworks, except those designated as "safe and sane" and approved by the State Fire Marshal. No person under the age of eighteen (18) shall be permitted to purchase or sell "safe and sane" fireworks. The Fire Chief shall have the power to adopt reasonable rules and regulations for the granting of permits for supervised public displays of fireworks by a jurisdiction, fair association, amusement park, or other organization or for the use of fireworks by artisans in the pursuit of their trade. Every such use or display shall be handled by a competent operator approved by the Fire Chief and shall be of such character and so located, discharged, or fired so as, in the opinion of the Fire Chief after proper investigation, not to be hazardous to property or endanger any person, and shall be in accordance with Chapter 33 of said California Fire Code.

Sec. 4-3.116. Amendments: Section 5706.2.4.4 ("Locations where above-ground tanks are prohibited").

Section 5706.2.4.4 of the California Fire Code is amended by adding the following paragraph at the end of the section:

The storage of flammable or combustible liquids in above-ground outside storage tanks is prohibited in all areas of the City except for those areas with the zoning designation of Public Facilities District. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Fire Chief may grant a permit for such storage in other areas of the City if the Chief determines, in each case, that the storage is required for the conduct of a lawful use upon the property, will not constitute a safety hazard, and will otherwise comply with all applicable provisions of this Code and all other ordinances, rules and regulations of the City. The Chief may impose such conditions and requirements upon the issuance of the permit, as the Chief deems necessary or appropriate.

5.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
43 Sec. 4-3.117. Amendments: Section 6104.2 ("Maximum capacity within established limits").

Section 6104.2 of the California Fire Code is amended by adding the following paragraph at the end of the first paragraph:

The aggregate storage of liquefied petroleum gas at any one installation in excess of two thousand (2,000) gallons (7,570 L) is prohibited in all areas of the City except for those areas with the zoning designation of Public Facilities District. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Fire Chief may grant a permit for such storage in other areas of the City if the Chief determines, in each case, that the storage is required for the conduct of a lawful use upon the property, will not constitute a safety hazard, and will otherwise comply with all applicable provisions of this Code and all other ordinances, rules and regulations of the City. The Chief may impose such conditions and requirements upon the issuance of the permit, as the Chief deems necessary or appropriate.

Sec. 4-3.118. Amendment Appendix D, Section D101 ("General").

Section D101.2 is added to Appendix D of the California Fire Code to read as follows:

D101.2 - Definition. Fire Apparatus Access Road. A road that provides fire apparatus access from a fire station to a facility, building or portion thereof. This is a general term inclusive of all other terms such as but not limited to fire lane, public street, private street, parking lot lane, access roadway and driveway.

Sec. 4-3.119. Amendments: Appendix D, Section D102 ("Required access").

1. Section D102.2 is added to Appendix D of the California Fire Code to read as follows:

Section D102.2. Fire apparatus access roads shall extend to within 50 feet (15 m) of at least one exterior door that can be opened from the outside and that provides access to the interior of the building.

Exception: One- or two-family dwellings or townhouses protected with 13D or 13R may be permitted to be increased to 150 ft. (46 m).

2. Section D102.3 is added to Appendix D of the California Fire Code to read as follows:

Large Buildings. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided such that any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located not more than 150 ft. (46 m) from fire apparatus access roads as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.

3. Section D102.4 is added to Appendix D of the California Fire Code to read as follows:

Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 ft. 6 in. (4.1 m).

4. Section D102.5 is added to Appendix D of the California Fire Code to read as follows:

Exception: When fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed due to location on the property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades, or other similar conditions the Fire Marshal shall be authorized to require fire protection features in addition to those already required.

Sec. 4-3.120. Appendix D, Section D103 ("Minimum specifications").

Section D103.7 is added to Appendix D of the California Fire Code to read:

5.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
44 D103.7 – Markings. Where fire lanes on private property have been designated by the Fire Marshal, curbs shall be painted red on the side or sides of the street or access route where parking is prohibited and no parking signs or other appropriate notice prohibiting obstructions, as approved by the Fire Marshal, shall be provided and maintained by the owner.

Section 28. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that every section, paragraph, sentence, clause, and phrase of this ordinance is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases.

Section 29. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days following adoption or on January 1, 2023, whichever is later. However, where applications and plans for buildings have been filed and are pending for building permits prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, such permits may be issued, and the applicant may proceed with construction in strict compliance with the California Building Standards Codes, 2019 Editions, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, as previously adopted and amended by any ordinances of the City of Pacifica, but only to the extent that the issuance of such permit is required by Health and Safety Code section 18938.5 and any other applicable law.

Section 30. Publication, Filing. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation as required pursuant to state law and shall cause this ordinance to be entered into the Pacifica Municipal Code. The City Clerk shall file this ordinance with the California Building Standards Commission in the manner as may be required by law. * * * * *

5.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :
45 The foregoing ordinance was introduced on November 14, 2022, and passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica held on November 28, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

5.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :

EXHIBIT A

5.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :

A-2

FINDINGS SUPPORTING LOCAL AMENDMENTS
Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions in the uniform codes that are published in the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5 of the California Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions in the uniform codes and published in the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation, including amendments made only for administrative consistency, do not require findings.

Section Of Ordinance Title Justification
(See Below For
Key)
Section 5. Replacement:

Adoption Of Chapter 1 Of Title 8
(All Amendments Identified in
Section 5, Including Appendix J)
Chapter 1 - Building Code A, B, C
Section 9. Replacement:

Adoption Of Chapter 3 Of Title 8
(All Amendments Identified in
Section 9)
Chapter 3 - Plumbing Code A, B, C
Section 11. Replacement:

Adoption Of Chapter 4 Of Title 8
(All Amendments Identified in
Section 11)
Chapter 4 - Electrical Code A, B, C
Section 13. Replacement:

Adoption of Chapter 5 of Title 8.
(All amendments Identified in
Section 13)
Chapter 5 – International Property
Maintenance Code
No justification
required –
administrative
amendment only
Section 17. Replacement:

Adoption Of Chapter 7 Of Title 8
(All Amendments Identified in
Section 17)
Chapter 7 - Green Buildings Standards
Code

A, B, C
Section 19. Replacement:

Adoption Of Chapter 7.5 Of Title
8 (All Amendments Identified in
Section 19)
Chapter 7.5 - Residential Code A, B, C
Section 27. Replacement:

Adoption Of Article 1 Of Chapter
3 Of Title 4
(All Amendments Identified in
Section 27, including
amendments to Appendix D)
Article 1 - Fire Code A, B, C

5.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :

A-3
Key to Justification Supporting Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations A. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS
I. The City of Pacifica is unique in its climatic conditions. According to records found at the National Weather Service, the average yearly rainfall for the City is approximately 25” to 30”, with a high of 65” in 1995. This rainfall normally occurs from November to April. During the summer months, there is generally no measurable precipitation. Temperatures for this dry period can range into the 80’s to 90’s Fahrenheit and are frequently accompanied by light to gusty winds. With the extensive Urban-Wild land interface that surrounds the City, the potential for a major fire is high.

II. Pacifica is exposed to more extreme weather than elsewhere in the Bay Area, including strong winds, almost constant exposure to salt air and frequent heavy rains during the winter months. The off-shore high pressure system and upwelling of deeper, cold water just off the coast result in frequent summer fog.

III. Pacifica’s periodic extreme seasonal dryness and high temperatures, combined with an extensive network of overhead utility lines, increases the risk of fire danger in Pacifica.

Overhead utility lines are a leading cause of major fires, as evidenced by the 2021 Dixie Fire, which burned close to 1 million acres and destroyed over 1,000 structures, and was caused by a tree contacting electrical distribution lines. Other major fires caused by overhead utilities included the 2015 Butte Fire and the 2018 Paradise fire, which resulted in the deaths of 85 people and the destruction of the entire town of Paradise, California B. GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
I. Pacifica is located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and significant areas of the City are subject to extreme wave heights, severe bluff erosion and flooding which cause damage to public facilities and private property, especially during heavy rainfall and El Nino winters.

II. Due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean, Pacifica is at risk from a potential tsunami hazard if a major earthquake occurs in the Pacific Ocean resulting in a wave run-up. The approximate wave run-up height of 20 feet presents a risk to structures and individuals in the area, as there are approximately 900 existing dwelling units within Pacifica’s tsunami run-up area, as well as important community services and facilities.

III. Pacifica is framed by ridges of the Coast Range on the east and is home to 37 mountain summits and peaks. Hillside stability is a critical hazard. Slope failures and superficial landslides are a significant hazard, and runoff from heavy rain or ground-shaking are most likely to activate landslides in the hilly terrain.

IV. Pacifica is one of a minority of California local jurisdictions that is located within the Coastal Zone, where the intensity of coastal waves and flooding are projected to increase as a result of sea level rise and climate change. A primary cause of climate change is earth’s increasing temperature that is the result of greenhouse gases released from the burning of fossil fuels, including natural gas used for heating and cooking within new and existing buildings.

C. TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS
I. The City of Pacifica is comprised of a number of cul-de-sacs off of Highway 1, which divides the City into distinct districts. Each of these districts is isolated from each other by the

5.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :

A-4
topography of the City. The City is bordered to the west by the Pacific Ocean and to the east by hills that separate the City from the other communities.

II. A series of overpasses span Highway 1. The collapse of one or more of these overpasses would greatly restrict access to the majority of the City. Highway 1 narrows at two points in the City. A major accident at these choke points also restricts the ability to provide emergency services throughout the City. Several of the districts within the City, such as Vallemar, Rockaway, and Pedro Point have narrow roads in which parking is either not permitted or is limited to one side of the street only. The roads are steep, between 10 to 19 percent in grade, and wind along the contours of the hillsides. These conditions add to the response times of emergency vehicles and also limit the number of emergency vehicles that can be sent to any particular address in these areas.

III. The City of Pacifica is subject to ground tremors from large seismic events along the San Andreas, Loma Prieta, and Seal Cove faults. A part of the City is within the Alquist/Priolo special studies zone, as shown in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act of 1972.

Seismological evidence indicates there is a probability of an earthquake in the region ranging from 5 to 7 on the Richter Scale. This potential for earthquakes influences fire protection planning. A major seismic event would create a Citywide demand on fire protection service, which would be beyond the response capacity of the fire department.

Structural damage to the overpasses on Highway 1 would seriously delay emergency vehicle access to major parts of the City.

5.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Ordinance to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments (5194 :

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Update on Highway1/Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Accept Update Report on Highway 1/Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project STAFF CONTACT:

Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
SUMMARY:

AECOM was awarded the first phase of the Highway1/Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project in August of 2018 to review traffic congestion at the Manor Overcrossing. The first phase looked conceptually at the project and provided some preliminary assessments of the project feasibility. This initial phase also included various design options, including not building the project and impacts related to this action, as well as building a project with the greatest relief to congestion that included widening the overcrossing at Highway 1/Manor Drive and building an on-ramp at Milagra Drive. This project also included two community meetings. At the May 2019 meeting 75% of the attendees favored dropping the on-ramp at Milagra.

The second phase of the Highway 1/Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project was also awarded to AECOM in April of 2022. In order to thoroughly vet possible congestion solutions, this phase will look at two projects: widening the overcrossing at Manor without the Milaga onramp and widening the overcrossing at Manor with the Milgra on ramp. This phase will look at the traffic impacts related to building these two options versus not building the project and the project environmental impacts. This report provides an update of the project and details regarding the background and the next phase of work.

BACKGROUND:

On August 12, 2018, the City Council approved a Consultant Services Agreement with AECOM engineering consulting group to complete a Preliminary Planning Study (PPS) related to the congestion the City was experiencing at the Manor Drive Highway 1 overcrossing. The PPS was completed in June 2019 and included the review of existing technical reports and studies, new topographic mapping, project alternative development, preliminary traffic assessment, right of way and utility impacts, assessment of needed bridge work and a preliminary environmental review and cost estimate.

The PPS considered a no-build alternative and a build alternative with a total of four design options. The build alternative consisted of widening or replacing the Manor Drive overcrossing and replacing the four-way stop signs at the intersections of Manor Drive with Palmetto Avenue and Oceana Boulevard with traffic signals. Two design options were considered for bikeway travel on the overcrossing. In addition, the PPS also evaluated two separate design options for converting a former bus pullout/bus stop located immediately north of the northbound off-ramp 6 Packet Pg. 118
Pacifica City Council 2
November 28, 2022
to Manor Drive and Monterey Road to a northbound Highway 1 on-ramp at Milagra Drive as a potential separate project.

The PPS traffic analysis showed that the build alternative would improve the intersection level of service and queue lengths compared to the no-build alternative, both with and without the northbound Highway 1 on-ramp at Milagra Drive. The greatest congestion improvement was identified with the inclusion of the on-ramp at Milagra Drive; however, Caltrans would need to agree to any impacts this new on-ramp may create to Highway 1.

As part of the PPS process, the City held meetings with the local community, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the San Mateo Transit District (SamTrans). ● Two community information meetings were held for the project on November 27, 2018, and May 8, 2019. The purpose of these meetings was to share information about the proposed project and to solicit community input about their priorities and concerns.

Approximately 45 community members (primarily residents) attended each meeting. The majority of the concerns raised by the community were about traffic (congestion and speeding) and bicyclist and pedestrian safety, including for children accessing Ocean Shore School (K thru 8). To respond to these concerns and to evaluate the features supported by the community, the preliminary design was revised to add new crosswalks, lighting, and bridge width to accommodate sidewalks and bike lanes.

The next most prevalent topic raised during the community meetings was the concern about the proposed northbound on-ramp from Milagra Drive. At the May 2019 meeting, approximately 75 percent of meeting attendees favored dropping the on-ramp at Milagra Drive, and some suggested modifying the northbound on-ramp at Oceana Boulevard/Paloma Avenue to accommodate access from southbound Oceana Boulevard.

The project study area was expanded, and additional traffic counts were conducted to assess the need for signals at the intersections of Manor Drive with Oceana Boulevard and Palmetto Avenue, and to further analyze the Milagra Drive on-ramp. Roundabout options were considered to allow both southbound and northbound Oceana Boulevard to access northbound SR 1 at the existing ramp just north of Paloma Avenue. A roundabout and other potential intersection improvements in this area were not advanced for further consideration since the improvements at Paloma would not reduce the congestion at Manor Drive.
● The City met with Caltrans and San Mateo Transit District (SamTrans). In March 2019, Caltrans provided input on the widening of Manor Drive overcrossing versus a replacement of the bridge, parking, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facility configurations.

In February 2019, SamTrans confirmed their bus routes, the types, and sizes of buses that they plan to use within the project area, provided input on driver issues such as bus turning movements, and requested the relocation of some of the bus stops to the Manor Drive overcrossing. The recommendations provided by Caltrans and SamTrans have been incorporated into the project design.

Some of the conceptual design exhibits for the Manor Drive overcrossing included parking on the bridge itself. Parking was shown in some of the conceptual design exhibits as a way to use potential extra space on the overcrossing and replace existing on-street parking spaces that may need to be removed as part of the project. Attendees at the March 2019 Caltrans meeting and the May 2019 community meeting expressed concern about traffic conflicts with the proposed parking, and Caltrans noted that parking on the Manor Drive overcrossing may not be allowed.
6 Packet Pg. 119
Pacifica City Council 3
November 28, 2022
The City applied for and was awarded $2.7M of Measure W grant funding to complete the next phase of the Highway 1/Manor Drive Overcrossing project in December of 2021 by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA). The TA agreed, as part of the next phase, the City could study the widening of the Manor Drive overcrossing as a standalone project along with a project for the Manor Drive overcrossing widening with an on-ramp at Milagra. The next phases of work needed for the project development are called the Project Initiation Document (PID) and Project Approval and Environmental Documentation (PA&ED). These work phases were awarded to AECOM by the City Council on April 11, 2022. The award of the contract, including a 5% contingency, was $2,937,892.

DISCUSSION:

Project Initiation Phase (PID)
The project is currently in the Project Initiation Document (PID) phase. The PID phase is the first formal project phase in developing a solution for a specific transportation problem in the Caltrans project development process. For a State Highway System project, a PID is usually the minimum qualification required to compete for funding. The PID is a record of the purpose and need for the project and the approach that will be taken to meet or reduce structural or operational transportation deficiencies. The most important function of the PID is to establish a project as a viable candidate for Federal, State, regional and local funds. 6 Packet Pg. 120
Pacifica City Council 4
November 28, 2022
During the PID phase, a Project Study Report - Project Development Study (PSR-PDS) is developed to initiate the project. The PSR-PDS documents the project scope and purpose and need for the project; alternatives to address that purpose and need; traffic performance of the build alternatives compared with the No Build alternative; anticipated design exceptions, right of way needs, and utility relocations; structural issues and needs; environmental studies required for the environmental document type; permitting needs; risks and risk management; and estimated project costs. Required attachments of the PSR-PDS include the Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment (TEPA), Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR), Initial Site Assessment, and Storm Water Data Report. Caltrans’ approval of the PSR-PDS allows the project to move into the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase.

Additionally, the initial Preliminary Planning Study (PPS) alternative and options were further evaluated, and other feasible options, design variations, or alternatives were considered. The PSR-PDS considers two build alternatives: Build Alternative 1, Manor Drive Improvements without the Milagra Drive On-Ramp, and Build Alternative 2, Manor Drive Improvements with the Milagra Drive On-Ramp. Impacts and traffic performance are being addressed for both build alternatives and the No Build Alternative. Options or design variations for project elements such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities or intersection control types are being considered.

The conceptual design was presented to Caltrans on August 19, 2022. The project development team (PDT), that includes Caltrans staff, recommended considering the removal of the proposed parking and the bus stops from the overcrossing. The removal of the parking and the transit from the current design will reduce the proposed bridge width and will reduce the estimated project cost by approximately $2M. A meeting was held with SamTrans on October 21, 2022 and they agreed with the elimination of the proposed bus stop from the overcrossing.

The new conceptual plans for both alternatives and the project area map are included as Attachment 1.

During the current phase of the project, the City will be conducting up to two community update meetings, which may be part of City Council meetings. The meetings will be used to update the public on project status, provide a project overview, invite input on the project alternatives, project purpose and need, and share information about PID studies.

The current schedule and proposed meeting dates are as follows.

Task Name Date
First community meeting* Jan. 2023
Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
Approval by Caltrans
Late Jan, 2023
Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report
Approval by Caltrans
Late Feb 2023
Second community meeting* Feb 2023
PSR-PDS Approved Late Feb 2023/Early March
* Public meetings should ideally be on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or Thursdays, and dates can be selected to avoid conflict with other City events.

The PID phase of the project is anticipated to be completed in late February 2023 or Early March.

Project Approval and Environmental Document Phase
The PA&ED phase of the project is the next step in the Caltrans project development process.

During this phase, build alternatives will be refined, the purpose and need discussion will be 6 Packet Pg. 121
Pacifica City Council 5
November 28, 2022
refined and expanded, additional engineering design will be developed, and the environmental and engineering studies identified during the PID phase will be completed. These studies include a detailed analysis of traffic operations under existing, opening year, and design year conditions for the no-build and build alternatives. Other studies will be performed to address noise, air quality and greenhouse gases, visual and aesthetics, and cultural resources, to name a few.

Additional alternatives, options, or variations may be considered. Caltrans may reject an alternative or option that is not consistent with state or federal design standards. All alternatives must be documented, including eliminated alternatives.

The “project approval” part of PA&ED involves preparation of a Project Report in accordance with the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual. The Project Report will describe the project’s engineering features, utility involvement, structure work, construction and right-of-way cost estimates, and technical study findings. A Draft Project Report will be prepared to obtain approval to publicly circulate the project’s draft environmental document. The Final Project Report is used to recommend approval of a preferred alternative and that the project proceed to the final design phase. Caltrans must approve both the Draft and Final Project Reports.

For the environmental document part of the PA&ED phase of the project, a combined California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document will be prepared to inform the Project Development Team (PDT), the public, stakeholders, and agencies about the project’s impacts and mitigation. A combined CEQA Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) is currently proposed for this project. It is anticipated that Caltrans will be the CEQA and NEPA lead agency, as the project is on the State Highway System. Caltrans must approve both the Draft and Final Environmental Documents.

The key decision to be made during the PA&ED phase is which build alternative will be selected to advance into the detailed design phase (Plans, Specifications, and Estimates [PS&E]). That decision will be based on each alternative’s ability to satisfy the project’s purpose and need, in consideration of public comments on the Draft Environmental Document. If only one build alternative is identified in the Draft Project Report and Draft Environmental Document, the final versions of those documents must provide justification for advancing the build alternative rather than choosing the no-build alternative.

Community meetings will be held at two points during PA&ED phase:
● The first, during the 30-day CEQA public scoping period, will be an opportunity for the community to provide input on the scope of work and potential environmental effects to be addressed in the Draft Environmental Document.
● The second, during the 45-day public review period for the Draft Environmental Document, will be an opportunity for the community to provide input on the alternatives, impacts, and mitigation measures analyzed in the document.

In addition, during the PA&ED phase of the project, the City will be conducting up to five stakeholder meetings with local business and community groups and/or individuals.

The current schedule and proposed meeting dates are below.

Task Name Date
Public Scoping Meeting* April 2023
6 Packet Pg. 122
Pacifica City Council 6
November 28, 2022
First Administrative Draft Project Report and
Environmental Document
Nov 2023
Circulate Draft Environmental Document Mar 2024
Public Meeting for Draft Environmental Document* Apr 2024 Final Environmental Document Approval Jul 2024
Final Project Report Approval Aug 2024
* Public meetings should ideally be on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or Thursdays, and dates can be selected to avoid conflict with other City events.

The PA&ED phase is anticipated to be completed in August 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to this update. The previous award of this work to AECOM at the 4/11/22 Council meeting authorized a budget authority in the amount of $2,797,892, to be paid through grant funds.

Acronyms
PPS - Preliminary Planning Study (previous phase of work to study feasibility completed in June of 2019)
PID - Project Initiation Document (current phase of work required by Caltrans for project to move forward. Goal is to establish project as viable for funding) PSR-PDS- Project Study Report-Project Development Study (part of PID used to develop scope, purpose and need for the project)
TEPA - Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment (part of the PSR-PDS) PEAR - Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (part of the PSR-PDS) PA&ED - Project Approval and Environmental Document Phase (next phase of work that will refine build alternatives and environmental studies included in PID will be completed) ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - SR 1-Manor Dr - Project Build Alternatives_10-31-22 (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 123
ATTACHMENT 1

6.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment 1 - SR 1-Manor Dr - Project Build Alternatives_10-31-22 [Revision 1] (5175 : Update on Highway1/Manor Drive

6.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment 1 - SR 1-Manor Dr - Project Build Alternatives_10-31-22 [Revision 1] (5175 : Update on Highway1/Manor Drive

6.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment 1 - SR 1-Manor Dr - Project Build Alternatives_10-31-22 [Revision 1] (5175 :

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Amendment to Agreement with GHD, Inc for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Third Amendment to Task Order 1 (Attachment 1) between the City of Pacifica and GHD, Inc. for planning, engineering, and environmental services for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project in the amount of $856,448.34; and authorize the City Manager to execute said amendment.

STAFF CONTACT:

Ryan Marquez, P.E. - Project Manager
(650) 738-3769
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E. - Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:

In 2020, California State Assembly Bill 74 awarded the City of Pacifica $1.5M towards the study and design of the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project. Following this award and after a rigorous Request for Proposals process, the City Council (on May 26, 2020) approved a master agreement and task order 1 with GHD, Inc. to provide planning, engineering, and environmental services for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project. This work included both a feasibility study (phase 1) and an optional add to the contract for design, environmental documentation, and permitting (phase 2) for $1,497,809 from the state grant funding. The project was awarded in a manner that allowed GHD to complete the phase 1 work and then revisit scope and costs for the phase 2 work based on necessary finalized information provided from the phase 1 study. Ultimately, the costs to complete the phase 2 work were greater than the budget for the project and GHD and the City mutually agreed to defer the phase 2 work until additional funding was identified. The City Council approved the phase 1 feasibility study reports on June 9, 2021 and confirmed the preferred alternative of a hybrid seawall incorporating a rock scour apron and beach nourishment.

The project has been pending while staff continued to search for more grant funding. Over the past 1-1/2 years, staff has applied to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) & Building Resilient Infrastructure & Communities (BRIC) grant programs to provide funding for additional needed work on the BBIRP, but unfortunately these applications have not yet been successful. In June of 2022, the City Council approved a budget that included $1,000,000 in additional funding for this project from the Disaster Accounting Fund (Fund 38) allowing funding for phase 2 of the project to move forward. 7 Packet Pg. 127
Pacifica City Council 2
November 28, 2022
DISCUSSION:

The phase 2 work of the BBIRP will address the design, environmental documentation, and permitting of the project. The end product of all of these phase 2 elements will be a construction ready project. The phase 2 work has been separated into three distinct sub phases to help with appropriate scoping, and because the additional budget does not allow for all phase 2 work to be completed at this time. The phase 2 work is seperated as follows: phase 2a for preliminary design; phase 2b for environmental documentation; phase 3b for permitting and finalizing design. Staff is recommending moving forward with only the phase 2a work at this time, due to budget constraints.

Phase 2a consists of four major work tasks: management & coordination, preliminary design, environmental services, and community & stakeholder engagement. Management and coordination allow for the consultant to coordinate tasks internally as well as with the city, keep an updated schedule and provide project financial management. These are necessary tasks for all complex capital projects. Preliminary design is the largest of these work items and includes producing a preliminary basis of design report, analyzing seawall details, site specific hazard analysis, site specific wave and water level data collection, rock scour apron design, beach nourishment design, promenade design, producing preliminary plans and estimates, conducting a constructability review, assisting in an independent design review, and funding support as needed. The environmental services would begin the first steps of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for CEQA by producing a project description, issuing a Notice of Preparation (NOP), and conducting a public scoping meeting.

The community and stakeholder development will be refined as the project moves forward. The phase 2a scope has the first step being an engagement and communications plan that would be approved by City Council at a future Council meeting. The plan may recommend continuation of the Council ad hoc subcommittee, if needed. This plan will lay the groundwork of when, how, and what type of engagement occurs during this phase of work. With the project concept in place, most of the input expected in this phase will be focused on design aesthetics and recreational components. For scoping purposes, this phase of work includes:
• 2 virtual workshops
• 1 in person workshop
• 5 pop-up style workshops
• 2 online surveys
• 1 CEQA scoping meeting
• 3 smaller group meetings (City committees or other groups) • 5 ad-hoc committee meetings (if needed)
In addition to public engagement, there is also agency engagement planned with Coastal Commission, OneShoreline, and San Francisco Recreation and Parks to continue collaboration and early discussions with each agency.

Project Costs
$1,497,809 was previously encumbered for the phases 1 & 2 work at the May 26, 2020 Council meeting with $697,984.66 currently left on the GHD task order 1. Staff is requesting that the Council authorize an additional $856,448.34 towards the phase 2a work for completion of this work at an estimated total cost of $1,544,433 through amending task order 1. It is anticipated that once the City has identified future funding for the phase 2b and 2c work, the total cost of the 7 Packet Pg. 128
Pacifica City Council 3
November 28, 2022
phase 2 work will be in the range of $6M. Furthermore, staff anticipates advertising an RFP for independent design review services for the project. This will allow a third-party engineering consultant to review the plans to provide value engineering and other concerns to ensure design is moving forwarding appropriately. Once a consultant is selected, staff would return to council for approval of the agreement, should it exceed the City Manager’s budgetary authority.

It is therefore the City Manager’s recommendation to approve Amendment to Task Order 1 (Attachment 1) with GHD, inc. for planning, engineering, and environmental services for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project in the amount of $856,448.34.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Alternative action may include changing, adding, or removing scope items from the work, or outright rejection for an alternative path. This action could result in a delay or fiscal impact on the project.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the agreement is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• “Stewardship of City Infrastructure” includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise. Along with this project being a priority in the 2022-23 City Council Goals, this project aligns with the above overall goal, which will begin the design of adapting a highly vulnerable and important area of the City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No budget amendment is needed for this action. $697,984 is remaining in the GHD contract from the original approved contract budget of $1,497,809 that was approved by the Council and encumbered for this work in May of 2020. An additional authorization of $856,448 (Amendment to Task Order 1) is requested from the recent allocation of Disaster Accounting Fund 38 to the project for completion of phase 2a work. The total fiscal impact for completion of phase 2a is $1,554,633 ($697,984 remaining from 2020 approval & $856,448 from 22-23 budget process Fund 38). The associated Source and Use of Funds table is shown below:

Source of Funds Funding
California State Budget Grant $1,500,000
Disaster Accounting Fund (Fund 38) $1,000,000
Total $2,500,000
Use of Funds
Phase 1 Feasibility (completed) $ 804,455.17
Grant Services (completed) $ 36,260.00
Phase 2a - GHD, Inc.(remaining GHD
budget from 2020)
$ 697,984.66
Phase 2a - GHD, Inc. (new amendment
to task order 1)
$ 856,448.34
Future Independent Design Review (2a) $ 100,000
Total $2,495,348.17
Estimated Budget Remaining $ 4,651.83
7 Packet Pg. 129
Pacifica City Council 4
November 28, 2022
ORIGINATED BY:

Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 (PDF)
7 Packet Pg. 130
Pacifica City Council 5
November 28, 2022
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GHD, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Purchasing Policy (Administrative Policy No. 76), the City of Pacifica entered into an agreement with GHD, Inc. (“GHD”) for consulting services under the City Council’s purchasing authority in May 2020; and WHEREAS, the level of effort required to complete the design, environmental documentation, and permitting for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP) exceeded the estimates used to establish the original agreement amount for the design phase of work; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to approve a third amendment to the City’s agreement with GHD, Inc. for consulting services on November 28, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager to amend the agreement with GHD, Inc. for the purpose of increasing the cost ceiling to an amount not to exceed $1,539,722 for phase 2a per the agreement’s task order and extending the term of the contract through November 30, 2024. * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 28
th day of November 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. 131
Consultant Services Agreement
CSA
Amendment No.1 Page 1
OAK #4817-6120-9406 v3

CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT No. 3
This AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 is entered into as of the 28th day of November, 2022, by and between the CITY OF PACIFICA, herein called the “City,” and GHD, Inc., herein called the “Consultant.”

RECITALS
A. City desired to obtain PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND ENVIRONMENTAL services in connection with the Beach Boulevard Seawall Replacement Project (“Project”), and for that purpose entered into an agreement with Consultant dated May 26, 2020 (“Original Agreement”), by which City hired Consultant to perform all work on the project with the understanding the Project would proceed in stages, requiring periodic amendments.

B. On March 19, 2021, City entered into Amendment No. 2 for the project, to provide additional public engagement and changed benefit cost analysis scope and necessary for the project.

C. Consultant hereby warrants to the City that Consultant is skilled and able to provide such services described in this Amendment No.3.

D. City desires to authorize Consultant to modify the services described in this Amendment No. 3 for phase 2a of the subject project per the attached scope.

AGREEMENT
A. Amendment. The Parties agree that Task Order No. 1 shall be amended as set forth below.

1. Section 2 “Scope of Services”. The services to be provided are as outlined in the proposed scope entitled “BBIRP Phase 2” to City by Consultant, which includes the scope of work for phase 2a only which is the subject of this Amendment No. 3, dated November 17, 2022, and attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference (“Modified Work”).

2. Section 3 “Compensation and Method of Payment”.

A. Compensation. The compensation to be paid to Consultant, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall be at the rate and schedules set forth in this Amendment No.3. The total combined compensation for the Original Agreement and this Amendment No.3 shall be changed to two million three hundred fifty four thousand two hundred fifty dollars and thirty four cents ($2,354,257.34). Phase 2a of the project is to have a budget of one million five hundred fifty four thousand four hundred and thirty three dollars ($1,554,433) under Phase 2a

7.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) Consultant Services Agreement
CSA
Amendment No.1 Page 2
OAK #4817-6120-9406 v3
work. Payment by City under the Original Agreement, as amended, shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to City at the time of payment.

3. Section 4 “Time of Performance”.

A. Time of Performance. The time of performance is to be extended to November 2024.

3. Agreement in Effect. All other provisions of the Original Agreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Amendment No.3 as of the date first written above.

CITY OF PACIFICA CONSULTANT
GHD, Inc.

By: By:

Kevin Woodhouse Craig Lewis
City Manager Principal In Charge
ATTEST:

By: __________________
Sarah Coffey
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Michelle M. Kenyon
City Attorney

7.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) Consultant Services Agreement
CSA
Amendment No.1 Page 3
OAK #4817-6120-9406 v3

EXHIBIT A
SCOPE & COMPENSATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 3

7.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) BBIRP Phase 2
Scope for Design, Environmental Review
and Permitting
City of Pacifica
November 17, 2022
The Power of Commitment

7.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) The Power of Commitment
GHD 380
655 Montgomery Street, Suite 1010
San Francisco, California 94111, United States
T +1 415 283 4970 | F +1 415 283 4980 | E [email protected] | ghd.com Printed date 11/17/2022 3:45:00 PM
Last saved date November 17, 2022
File name https://projectsnorthamerica.ghd.com/sites/uswest3/copbeachblvdseawallr/ProposalDocs/PROP-BBIRP Phase 2/PROP-BBIRP_Phase 2_Scope_V8.docx
Author Paul Henderson
Project manager Ryan Marquez
Client name City of Pacifica
Project name Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP) Phase 2 Document title BBIRP Phase 2 | Scope for Design, Environmental Review and Permitting Revision version Rev D
Project number 11213162
Document Status
Revision Author Reviewer Approved for issue
Name Signature Name Signature Date
A Paul Henderson Craig Lewis
B Aaron Holloway Paul Henderson
C Aaron Holloway Paul Henderson
D Paul Henderson Craig Lewis
© GHD 2022
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose of assessing our offer of services and for inclusion in documentation for the engagement of GHD. Unauthorized use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

7.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) The Power of Commitment i
Contents
Background & Understanding 1

1. Phase 2a: Preliminary Design 2

1.1 Management & Coordination of Services 2

1.1.1 Project Coordination 2

1.1.2 Project Work Plan & Schedule 2

1.1.3 Meetings 2

1.1.4 Project Financial Management 3

1.2 Preliminary Design 3

1.2.1 Preliminary Basis of Design Report 3

1.2.2 Seawall 3

1.2.3 Coastal Hazard Analysis 4

1.2.4 Rock Scour Apron 4

1.2.5 Natural Shoreline Infrastructure 4

1.2.6 Urban Environment, Features & Amenities and Visual Simulations 5

1.2.7 35% Plans 5

1.2.8 Constructability Review and Cost Estimate 6

1.2.9 Wave and Water Level Data Collection 6

1.2.10 Independent Design Review Coordination 8

1.2.11 Funding Support 8

1.3 Environmental Services 8

1.3.1 CEQA Project Description 8

1.3.2 Notice of Preparation 9

1.4 Community & Stakeholder Engagement 9

1.4.1 Development of Engagement & Communications Plan 10

1.4.2 Implement Stakeholder Engagement Plan for Phase 2a 10

1.4.2.1 Core Items: 11

1.4.2.2 Optional Menu Items: 11

1.4.2.3 Development of Communications Materials 11

1.4.3 Agency Engagement 11

1.4.4 CEQA Scoping Meetings 12

1.4.5 Phase 2a Engagement Summary 12

2. Phase 2b: Environmental Document 13

2.1 Management & Coordination of Services 13

2.2 CEQA Document Preparation 13

2.2.1 Prepare EIR Outline 13

2.2.2 First Administrative Draft EIR 13

2.2.3 Second Administrative Draft EIR 18

2.2.4 Screencheck Draft EIR 18

2.2.5 Public Draft EIR 18

2.2.6 Final EIR 19

2.3 Community & Stakeholder Engagement 20

2.3.1 Update of Engagement & Communications Plan 20

2.3.2 Community Engagement 20

2.3.2.1 Core Items: 21

7.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) The Power of Commitment ii

2.3.2.2 Optional Menu Items: 21

2.3.3 Agency Engagement 21

2.3.4 CEQA Document (EIR) Meetings 21

2.3.5 Final EIR Presentation to Council 22

2.4 (Optional Task) NEPA Document Preparation 23

3. Phase 2c: Permitting and Final Design 23

3.1 Management & Coordination of Services 23

3.2 Permitting 23

3.2.1 Pre-application Agency Coordination 23

3.2.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit Application 24

3.2.3 Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Permit Application 24

3.2.4 National Marine Fisheries Section 7 Consultation 24

3.2.5 Coastal Development Permit 25

3.2.6 State Lands Commission Lease 26

3.2.7 Local Permits 27

3.3 Final Design 27

3.3.1 Design Quality Management Plan 27

3.3.2 Coastal Engineering Analysis and Design 28

3.3.3 Basis of Design Report 28

3.3.4 Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) 29

3.3.5 Independent Design Review Coordination 30

3.4 Community & Stakeholder Engagement 30

3.4.1 Development of Communications Materials 30

3.4.2 Community & Stakeholder Engagement Activities 31

3.4.3 Presentation to City Council 31

4. General Assumptions 32
Attachment 1 – Fee Estimate Summary
Attachment 2 – Summary of Community and Agency Outreach Activities

7.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 1
Background & Understanding
A significant portion of the City’s developed shoreline and downtown area is protected by the Beach Boulevard Seawall, a failing shoreline protection system due to both the design height and type. In response to the deficiencies of the structure and to plan for the potential for future increased water levels associated with sea level rise, the City is progressing the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP or Project). The Project is divided into the following four phases:
– Phase 1: Preliminary Planning & Feasibility (complete) – Phase 2: Project Design, Environmental Review & Permitting (this scope) – Phase 3: Construction (to be determined)
– Phase 4: Post-Construction Monitoring & Reporting (to be determined) In June 2020 the City contracted with the GHD Team, which consists of subconsultants (ESA, HKA and K&W), to complete Phases 1 & 2 of the Project. Phase 1 was competed in June 2021, which identified a preferred concept design alternative that was approved by Council to progress to Phase 2 for detailed design and permitting. The preferred concept is a hybrid shoreline protection system consisting of a seawall, rock scour apron and natural shoreline infrastructure. This proposal provides an update to the scope of work provided in response to the original RFP based on the outcome of Phase 1 and feedback from the community, City leadership and regulatory agencies.

This scope outlines the GHD Team’s approach to delivering Phase 2 of the BBIRP, the final deliverable of which includes construction-ready plans, specifications, & estimates (PS&E) and support for the City to attain required permits and secure grant funding.

GHD’s approach to the delivery of Phase 2 has been developed in 3 sub-phases, developed to align with significant milestones required in the permitting process for a Project of this nature:
– Phase 2a – Preliminary Design
– Phase 2b - Environmental Document (CEQA / EIR)
– Phase 2c - Final Permitting & Design
The intent of the sub-phase break down is for Phase 2a to develop a well-defined project and 35% PS&E sufficient for a robust CEQA Project Description to be developed. Phase 2b will involve the CEQA process and completion of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Once the requirements of CEQA are satisfied then Phase 2c will involve final PS&E and permitting such that the Project is ready to bid for construction. All the Phase 2 sub-phases include a comprehensive community and stakeholder engagement process, the value of which was identified in Phase 1 and was reenforced by Council at the time of approval for the preferred concept.

The Phase 2a scope represents the near-term effort, and the associated scope and fee are presented for contracting purposes. Because the work for Phase 2b and 2c is farther out in time and not yet funded, the scope and fee included here are based upon our current Project understanding and provide a general estimate of cost for informational and budgeting purposes. Community, stakeholder and agency input will influence the preferred Project as we progress, as such we are flexible with our approach scope and fee, by agreement with the City. We anticipate reviewing and refining the Phase 2b and 2c scope and fee with the City when the City is closer to contracting for those tasks.

Estimated Schedule
The estimated Schedule for Phase 2 of the BBIRP is provided in Attachment 1.

Estimated Fee
The estimated fee summary and breakdown are provided in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3, respectively.

7.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 2

1. Phase 2a: Preliminary Design
BBIRP Phase 2a will advance the shoreline protection concept, approved by City Council in Phase 1, through preliminary design development resulting in a well-defined Project supported with analyses, drawings and visualizations suitable for community outreach meetings to share information on the Project and solicit feedback on specific Project features. Phase 2a will be delivered generally under four primary subtasks: Management & Coordination of Services (Task 1.1), Preliminary Design (Task 1.2), Environmental Services (Task 1.3), and Community & Stakeholder Engagement (Task 1.4).

1.1 Management & Coordination of Services

1.1.1 Project Coordination
Paul Henderson served as the Project Manager (PM) through Phase 1 of the BBIRP and will continue to serve as our team’s PM. Paul will be supported by his team discipline leads for environmental planning, public outreach, permitting, engineering, drafting and other required services.

Paul will provide overall coordination and management, directing resources and keeping project participants informed of progress, technical issues, planned activities, and events. Our project management style is to coordinate and communicate early and often with the greater project team, and key stakeholders.

GHD will utilize a Microsoft OneDrive site as the joint project document repository, were GHD’s working review documents, final deliverables and City provided documentation will be stored and accessible to the City and the project team.

It is the Project Manager’s responsibility to coordinate all reviews and associated responses to comments. Documents will be stored in project OneDrive site, and reviewers will be alerted of required reviews. A database of review comments and responses will be maintained. The review comment and response database will be in the form of a spreadsheet table, or other agreed tabular format.

1.1.2 Project Work Plan & Schedule
At the commencement of Phase 2a the Work Plan will be developed to detail the approach, schedule, and effort for the delivery of Phase 2. Initially, the Work Plan will have a detailed focus on Phase 2a, with higher level detail on the delivery of tasks for Phases 2b and 2c.

The Work Plan will be utilized as a project management tool to empower the project team, and for the City to review and agree on the detailed approach to delivering Phase 2 of the BBIRP. The Work Plan will be considered a ‘live’ document and updated as the project progresses and evolves.

Following approval to commence Phase 2 the detailed project schedule will be developed for the purposes of project tracking, forecasting and organization of resources. The schedule will be developed in Microsoft Project in the form of a Gantt Chart, which will be updated throughout the performance of the project.

1.1.3 Meetings
We anticipate the following meetings, which we will coordinate and document:
– Kickoff meeting: Review Phase 1 outcomes and set Phase 2 goals. – Progress Meetings with City: occurring bi-weekly, primarily utilizing MS Teams, but may include and telephone and in-person meetings depending on the needs of the project. The average meeting length is anticipated to be 1 hour with longer meetings as needed to meet the needs of the project.

7.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 3

1.1.4 Project Financial Management
Financial management will include frequent internal project progress review, with monthly reporting to the City that includes an ‘s-curve’ chart showing our original budget forecast over time as compared to our actual effort and forecast effort remaining to complete the project. This will assist the City with budget planning and enable the Team and the City to discuss alternatives early, if needed. Our management style is to provide transparent budget management and dealing with potential changes early.

Invoices will be issue to the City monthly and will include a full breakdown of effort by task, including quantities of hours and detailed descriptions of completed work for the time billed.

1.2 Preliminary Design
Phase 2a will advance the project from the conceptual hybrid alternative approved by City Council through to a welldefined 35% design package accompanied by a CEQA Project Description. This phase will include preliminary design analyses, drawings and visualizations to facilitate community outreach and engagement activities, and coordination with regulatory agencies. The preliminary design tasks will advance the hybrid concept by applying a greater level of detail and variation along the Project reach to account for the opportunities and constraints along each segment of the Project. We have assumed the reach will be divided into four segments: North Wall, Pier Wall, South Wall and Clarendon Gap.

1.2.1 Preliminary Basis of Design Report
The preliminary basis of design (BOD) report will summarize results of tasks 1.2.2 through 1.2.6 to describe the fundamental engineering principles guiding the development of the preliminary design drawings (Task 1.1.1). The BOD will summarize the preliminary engineering analyses and design tasks to document the key findings and how they informed design of the seawall, rock scour apron and natural shoreline infrastructure. The BOD will also demonstrate conformance with the established design criteria and objectives for each element of the hybrid alternative along each segment of the Project reach.

Deliverables:
– Preliminary Basis of Design Report (Draft and revised draft)

1.2.2 Seawall
GHD will progress the engineering analysis and design of the seawall. The conceptual hybrid alternative considered a secant pile wall, fronted by a rock scour apron. Given the significant cost estimated for the secant pile wall, this task will first evaluate the feasibility of using a different type of wall to reduce estimated construction cost. General progression of the seawall design includes:
– Develop site-specific parameters for use in seawall design along each segment of the project reach including geotechnical conditions, earth pressure, seismic, hydrostatic, later surcharge pressure, scour and wave impact. – Conduct an internal “optioneering” & value engineering workshop to evaluate seawall type to be considered for each segment. Although CIDH/Secant Piles were determined to be a feasible option, there may be other more economical structural options along certain segments of the project reach (North wall, South wall, Clarendon Gap & Pier Abutment wall).
– Perform preliminary structural analysis and design of seawall along each segment of the project reach.

Preliminary design will consist of developing typical sections and structural details as needed to illustrate each seawall type.
– Identify the materials and approximate quantities required for each segment of seawall, along with a description of the probable construction methods and equipment that will be used for the seawall.

Deliverables:
– Seawall type selection memorandum

7.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 4
– Preliminary structural analysis and design calculations

1.2.3 Coastal Hazard Analysis
The coastal hazard analysis will focus on the hazards associated with an extreme wave event, and will include wave load impacts on the seawall, and wave runup and overtopping, which could result in flooding of the Promenade and Beach Blvd. Under this task, the team will complete the following:
– Refine beach profile based on prior work and identify storm exposure characteristics along each primary segment of the Project reach (North Wall, South Wall, Pier Wall and Clarendon Gap) to provide additional details – Refine prior wave runup and overtopping analysis, and apply to each segment of the project reach to consider detailed geometry, profile and storm exposure characteristics – Use a deterministic approach to evaluate combination of parameters for use in establishing design crest elevation (i.e. water level, sea level rise, scour depth, wave height & period) – Estimate of wave impact forces for use in structural design – Evaluation of seawall crest configurations to reduce frequency and magnitude of wave overtopping (i.e. recurved wall, or secondary floodwall)
– Analysis of surface drainage improvements along the Promenade and/or Beach Boulevard to reduce duration and extent of coastal flooding due to overtopping of the seawall Deliverables:
– Coastal hazard analysis memorandum (Draft and revised draft)

1.2.4 Rock Scour Apron
Preliminary design of the rock scour apron will be based on a deterministic analysis of potential water levels and wave heights breaking on or near the seawall, building on the hazards developed for each segment of the Project reach in Task 1.2.3. This task will develop the preliminary design cross-section of the rock scour apron including details showing the toe elevation, crest elevation, armor thickness, under-layer thicknesses and plan view width of this feature. We will evaluate the feasibility of using the existing rock based on calculations of the desired armor stone size, compared to the estimated volume and gradation of the existing armor stone.

Deliverables:
– Rock scour apron design calculations

1.2.5 Natural Shoreline Infrastructure
A preliminary feasibility study of a natural shoreline infrastructure concept will be conducted, and will consist of the following elements:

Shore change and sand transport parameters: Surf zone and shore, Mori Point to Mussel Rocks. – Sand grain sizes: characterize existing sand sizes and other characteristics. Assume collection of up to 6 grab samples of the beach sand to be sent to a laboratory for grain size analysis. – Shorelines: analyze the historical shoreline positions using available shoreline data to estimate erosion rates, including long-term, seasonal, and event fluctuations.
– Sand transport: compute wave-driven, along-shore sand transport rates using standard coastal engineering approaches (e.g., energy flux method, etc.).
– Sand Budget: conduct a rough estimate of the approximate sand budget at the project area. We will account for sand storage changes and apply computed sand transport rates to solve for likely range of sand supply/loss at Mori Point, Mussel Rocks and offshore boundaries of sand control volume.

7.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 5
– Shore Evolution Modeling: select and use shore evolution software (e.g., Unibest, GenCade, etc.) to model shore changes at the project site. We will first develop the model to represent the historical conditions and will establish a range of parameters to model shore responses to proposed sand placement.

Assess Likely Performance of Sand Placement Alternatives: Apply parameters and tools developed above to compute the persistence of sand placement at Beach Boulevard in terms of beach width over time. – Consider a range of sand placement volumes and compute persistence of minimum desired beach width in terms of years following sand placement
– Consider range of sand grain sizes to assess benefits of using coarser sands Review and summarize available information for sand sources (e.g., coordination with current ongoing efforts that are reviewing potential natural shoreline infrastructure sand sources offshore of Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties; review of USACE navigation dredging in San Francisco; local offshore sand deposits, etc.) and construction methods (e.g., sand dredging/excavation, transport and placement means and methods).

Provide preliminary assessment of natural shoreline infrastructure feasibility and range of parameters (e.g., sand size, placement volumes and dimensions, placement frequency, etc.) to advance into design, and describe expected construction techniques.

Deliverables:
– Natural Shoreline Infrastructure summary report (Draft and revised draft)

1.2.6 Urban Environment, Features & Amenities and Visual Simulations This task will focus on preliminary design of the public access features and amenities of the Project. Building on the concepts developed and community feedback received during Phase 1, GHD will perform the following tasks:
– Develop a preliminary design concept along each segment of the project reach to illustrate the features and amenities that can be integrated into the Promenade
– Develop visual simulations or renderings to illustrate the features and amenities – Develop up to 3 alternatives for the design of the Public Area between the protection structure and Beach Blvd. (does not include park space - designed by Gates Associates). – Alternatives will be used for soliciting feedback during public presentation and workshops. To prepare for these public meetings, GHD will develop presentation materials and exhibits that communicate the following:
• Alternatives showing the horizontal and vertical relationship between the protection structure, the public promenade, parking, road, and adjacent private residence. This relationship will be shown in plan view, sections, and 3d visualizations. The alternatives will reflect the proposed protection structure types provided by the civil team in order to show a more refined and realistic representation of the impact and change to the existing conditions versus what was previously presented in other workshops. • Alternatives for materials, styles, and general character of the elements will also be presented to allow for guidance on the desired aesthetic of the amenities.
• Prepare exhibits of the preferred (per direction from previous workshops) Public Area design.

Deliverables:
– Preliminary design sketches,
– Visualizations
– Renderings illustrating the public access features & amenities

1.2.7 35% Plans
The 35% plans will be used as the basis for the CEQA Project Description and environmental document to be prepared in Phase 2B. Drawing details will be sufficient to illustrate the location and dimensions of the major project features based on the preliminary engineering analysis and design. Plans will be prepared in AutoCAD Civil 3D and

7.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 6
will include plan view, cross-sections and elevations of the major project elements to depict how they will vary along each segment of the Project reach. The 35% design drawings will be used to estimate quantities and establish the basis for the development of visualizations and renderings (Task 1.2.6) and will consist of about 20-25 sheets including the following:
– Title Sheet
– General notes, datums, abbreviations & symbols
– Seawall plan & elevation
– Natural shoreline infrastructure plan & typical sections – Civil design - drainage improvements and other utility work – Promenade Features & Amenities
– Preliminary design details (4 sheets)
This task will also identify the specification format to be used on the project and develop an outline of technical specifications.

Deliverables:
– Preliminary design (35%) plans and specifications outline (Draft and revised draft)

1.2.8 Constructability Review and Cost Estimate
As the design progresses GHD, and the project team, will review the design with consideration to constructability and cost. Real value can be realized by identifying potential construction issues, and value engineering alternatives, early in the project design. GHD’s construction professionals will coordinate with construction industry partners to discus and workshop the design, considering alternative construction means and methods, access, available resources, and other pertinent aspects of the project construction. Constructability review and cost estimating outputs will include forecasts of labor, equipment, materials, and schedule that will be a deliverable provided to the environmental team to be utilized in the development of the EIR.
– Prepare constructability review of preliminary design plans – Evaluate the potential means and methods of construction for purposes of estimating construction costs – Estimate construction duration and types of equipment as needed to draft the CEQA Project Description – Prepare opinion of probably construction cost
• GHD will utilize in-house professional cost estimators and subcontracted specialist marine construction cost estimator, Bill Cooke.
• The 35% design cost estimate will be developed in a report format, and will form the basis for future cost estimates as the project design develops.

Deliverables:
– Preliminary design (35%) cost estimate (Draft and revised draft) – Preliminary design (35%) constructability review memorandum (Draft and revised draft)

1.2.9 Wave and Water Level Data Collection
We will provide hydrographic and hydrologic data collection pertinent to characterizing site conditions sufficiently for preliminary design and scoping of environmental review. The wave and water level data collected in this task will be used to inform the design of the seawall and the natural shoreline infrastructure components of the project, as well as inform the public landside improvements, such as the promenade. – Waves: We will install a directional wave measuring device (buoy Sofar Spotter) coupled with a wave pressure sensor (RBR Virtuoso) offshore of the study area. An initial deployment of 6 months (winter conditions, approximately October to April) is proposed, and the instruments will be deployed and serviced from an oceansafe vessel. Wave data will be made available on a website for BBIRP team (and public review if desired). We will

7.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 7
characterize data, compute wave transformations with Point Reyes NOAA buoy in terms of wave direction, frequency (period) and spectral density (wave height). Results will be compared with the CDIP-FEMA synthetic transformations (based on models only, no real data).
– Water Levels: We will install two nearshore water level measurement instruments (downward facing radar reflection) on the Pacifica Pier to measure water level fluctuations associated with incident waves and infragravity fluctuations (dynamic wave setup which varies with momentum transfer of incident wave groups often called wave sets) which are a critical component of wave loading and overtopping. The data will be analyzed in time series and frequency space, and correlated with available wave data. One instrument will be located at the end of the pier, one instrument will be located closer to the shoreline, and both instruments will push data to cloud-based data storage for real-time data viewing and to limit the potential for data loss. The instruments will be deployed on the same schedule as the wave instruments described above for “Waves.” The data will be compared to implicit components of wave runup and overtopping calculations.

Buoy deployment will require compliance with applicable state and federal permit requirements, including those of the California Coastal Act and Clean Water Act.

With respect to the Coastal Act, the buoys are expected to qualify for a coastal development permit (CDP) waiver, pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30624.7. A CDP waiver still requires submittal of a complete CDP application.

We will prepare a CDP application package for the buoys. The application package will generally include a completed application form, supplemental information to support the application form, stamped envelopes addressed to owners and occupants of properties adjacent to the Project site, and a draft notice of pending permit for public posting. The supplemental information will include a detailed description of the buoy, and its purpose, deployment and recovery.

We will address up to two rounds of City comment on the draft application package. Upon receipt of final comments, we will prepare a final application for submittal to CCC. The proposed task budget provides for up to eight hours of staff time to support the City in responding to CCC comments on the submitted CDP application package. This scope of work assumes further that environmental setting in which the buoy will be deployed is sufficiently documented in existing available reports to support the CCC’s review and that no additional site assessment is required.

CDP waivers typically do not require a hearing before the Coastal Commission. Accordingly, the budget for this task does not provide for staff’s attendance at a Coastal Commission meeting. The budget does, however, provide for a coastal planner’s participation in up to four teleconference/web meetings of one hour in duration, including one such meeting with CCC staff.

The buoys’ Clean Water Act Section 404 compliance is expected to be covered under the USACE’s Nationwide Permit (NWP) 5 (Scientific Measurement Devices). The NWP 5 has been pre-certified by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as being compliant with Clean Water Act Section 401, subject to selected notification conditions.1 We will prepare draft and final notices for City review, and submit the final notice to the Regional Water Quality Control Board).

Assumptions: GHD’s subconsultant, ESA notes there are risks associated with field data collection, especially in the marine environment. ESA maintains insurance for instruments, and therefore takes the risk of damage to the hardware or loss. ESA also applies quality control procedures to reduce the possibility of malfunction. ESA will endeavor to complete the scope of work within the estimated fee and schedule with the data collected. ESA's policy is to notify clients if a problem arises and results in the need for added effort or schedule revision, so that the appropriate remedy can be identified and implemented. ESA requests the right to not re-deploy instruments if the risk of damage or loss, especially due to theft or vandalism, appears high. If this risk management approach is not acceptable to the City we would be pleased to discuss alternatives. This scope of work assumes that the buoy would qualify for a CDP waiver, NWP 5 coverage, and no other agency permits or approvals would be required.

Deliverables:
– Wave and water level instrument launch
– Maintenance and recovery
1 State Water Resources Control Board, General Order for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Action Order No. WQ 2021- 0048-SWQ. October 12, 2021.

7.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 8
– Website for data access and viewing
– Draft and final CDP application package
– SWRCB Notice of Intent, Notice of Construction Commencement, and Notice of Project Complete.

1.2.10 Independent Design Review Coordination
The City will select and engage an independent Design Review group, who will review and make comments on the deliverables of Phase 2, including: civil engineering, coastal engineering, hydraulic engineering, geotechnical engineering, structural engineering, environmental impacts, constructability, and cost estimating. GHD will develop RFP scope for the City to use in procurement of independent design review consultants.

GHD will provide the City’s Design Review group with access to the pertinent project documentation, including deliverables and review documentation. GHD will coordinate a design review workshop to facilitate the review process. GHD will prepare responses to comments, ensuring review, comment and response timeframes are kept to the required durations. The Project Manager will ensure all comments are addressed, either by amending the design or by providing explanation of reasons why the design is not amended. In either case the Project Manager will work with the Team, the City and the Design Review Group to ensure all design concerns are addressed.

During Phase 2a, reviews will occur at the 35% Design milestone and include review of technical reports, calculations, plans, and cost estimates; We assume all review comments will be received at one time.

Deliverables:
– Request for Proposal (RFP) scope (provided in basic formatting, assume City will package into a City formatted procurement document)
– Review and address comments and develop response matrix – Design Review Workshop/Meeting notes

1.2.11 Funding Support
GHD has included budget to support the City on various activities related to finding and securing grant funds for the next phases of the Project. Our team tracks state and federal grant funding opportunities and have a significant amount of experience in securing these funds for clients. Activities to be carried out under this task may include researching specific grant opportunities, meeting with grant funding entities (e.g. project screening meetings), assisting the City in the preparation of grant applications (letters of intent or full applications); not to exceed the budgeted amount. Efforts under this task are as-needed and will be at the direction of the City.

1.3 Environmental Services
A clear and concise Project Description is critical to the associated environmental review. The Project Description will define the Project under review and consideration, and establish an understanding of the Project, its purpose, and need, and objectives. And because it provides the information to conduct the environmental review for the Project, it is the duty of the Project Description to present the facts of the proposed Project in a clear and useful fashion, prior to the initiation of CEQA and supporting technical studies.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) signals the start of the CEQA review process and formally invites the public, as well as Responsible and Trustee agencies to participate and engage in that process.

1.3.1 CEQA Project Description
We will review the May 2021 Feasibility Analysis of Project Alternatives Report, the Preliminary Basis of Design Report prepared by GHD, and other material being developed by GHD including site plans, preliminary designs, and technical studies prepared by the GHD team to prepare and provide an initial draft project description. This task includes one site visit for the project team. The project description will meet the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, including by identifying the characteristics of the project and construction details, and presenting the project

7.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 9
background, location, elements, and objectives, supplemented with graphics to illustrate the proposed improvements.

The GHD team will prepare an initial draft project description that clearly describes in text and figures the proposed project design, and construction details at a level sufficient for incorporation into the CEQA analysis. Following receipt of City comments on the initial draft project description, the GHD team will prepare and submit for City review a revised draft project description. City comments on the revised draft project description will be incorporated into ADEIR-1 (Phase 2b).

Deliverables:
– Information Request(s)
– Initial Draft CEQA Project Description
– Revised Draft CEQA Description

1.3.2 Notice of Preparation
This subtask provides for the first steps in support of CEQA outreach activities. We will develop the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Notice of Completion (NOC). The NOP will include a description of the project, the location of the project, and an identification of the probable environmental effects of the project. The NOC will comprise the standard CEQA Guidelines Appendix C form. We will work with the City to compile the mailing list for NOP distribution, including the standard distribution lists of the agencies. This scope of work assumes the City will provide the names and addresses of residents and businesses located within 1,000 feet of the project site. The NOP will include notification of a public scoping meeting to solicit public and agency input (see Task 1.4.4). We will distribute the NOP to the State Clearinghouse (along with the NOC), county clerk, agencies, the general public, and other stakeholders.

We will mail up to 1,500 notices assuming the City will provide mailing list contact information for local residents and businesses.

Deliverables:
– Administrative draft NOP and NOC for review and comment – Second administrative draft NOP and NOC
– Screencheck draft NOP and NOC
– Final NOP and NOC for printing and distribution

1.4 Community & Stakeholder Engagement
Building on best practices established in Phase 1, the GHD team will work in close coordination with the City in the design and implementation of community and stakeholder engagement activities for Phase 2a. Specifically, this will entail the continuation of the Ad-Hoc Committee, comprised of City Council members and select City staff, to solicit feedback on project developments and guide the community & stakeholder engagement activities. The Phase 2a engagement will include a combination of outreach methods to provide the City with 2-way communication that provides valuable input to the project, where input is needed.

The Ad-Hoc Committee will provide critical input at the inception of Phase 2a. The team has provided a scope below that will provide a robust outreach program with flexibility to adapt along the way based on the outcome of each engagement activity.

Formal coordination with stakeholder agencies will commence in Phase 2b, however agencies such as California Coastal Commission will be engaged during Phase 2a to solicit feedback on the project progress and key developments.

Attachment 4 contains a diagram showing the proposed Phase 2 Community & Stakeholder Engagement components.

7.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 10

1.4.1 Development of Engagement & Communications Plan
The Team will evaluate Community & Stakeholder Engagement Strategy Memo from Phase 1 to consider the relationships created, community objectives identified, and concerns raised during Phase 1. The Team will work with City of Pacifica (staff and Ad-Hoc Committee members) to develop a Phase 2 Community & Stakeholder Engagement Plan that:
– Identifies current key stakeholders
– Assesses potential issues/risks and proposed mitigation measure – Identifies engagement activities and sequencing to support project development – Provides an overview of the engagement approach
– Includes a timeline to align with the project schedule including design, CEQA process, and permitting requirements
– Outlines key communications approach and activities, such as identifying key messages, channels/media, and target audiences.

The development of the Engagement & Communications Plan takes place in Phase 2a, however it will be developed to cover the remainder of the project, with updates and additional detail being added and implemented if needed in future phases.

The Community & Stakeholder Engagement Plan will be developed in consultation with the City to identify a range of activities that can be undertaken throughout Phase 2a and how to appropriately sequence them.

The Team proposes core tasks and a menu list of optional items that the Ad Hoc Committee can choose from to deliver the best value in terms of 2-way communication with the community. Identifying a menu of engagement approaches will allow for flexibility to accommodate both current COVID-19 health and safety protocols and accommodate requests from the community for specific activities throughout the duration of Phase 2a.

The Team will create and manage a comprehensive stakeholder list and comment log to track and record comments received and corresponding responses. The log shall also include communications and meeting summaries with stakeholders and agencies. GHD will also create and maintain a project mailing list to be referenced for distributions of general updates and workshop invitations.

A key objective of the Community & Stakeholder Engagement Plan is to identify clearly which items the team requires feedback from the community, and which items do not. At this time, at a high level, the team anticipates feedback from the community on features behind the face of the wall, whereas engineering will determine the features of the ‘wall’ itself and in front of the wall, including the geometry, materials and other features of the walls, rock revetment and beach. Features behind the ‘wall’ will likely include landscaping, hardscaping, beach access and community amenities, which will be determined as the project progresses.

1.4.2 Implement Stakeholder Engagement Plan for Phase 2a Implementation of the Stakeholder Engagement Plan will commence following final approval of the plan by the Ad-Hoc Committee, or approval by the City Council, depending on the City’s preference.

Engagement activities are likely to involve residents and business owners adjacent to the project area, underrepresented populations, recreational groups, community organizations, and the public at large. Pandemicrelated guidance, state and local gathering restrictions, and community transmission rates will be considered in the design of community engagement events. If in-person gatherings become restricted, virtual delivery methods shall be selected to align with the engagement approach identified in the Engagement Plan, provide flexibility for stakeholders, and protect public health.

The Team will design process, prepare materials, attend, document results, and develop a summary for each engagement activity. Engagement activities for Phase 2a includes:

7.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 11

1.4.2.1 Core Items:
– Drop-in/Pop-up style workshops (5 workshops)
– Online surveys, non-map based (2 surveys)
– Public Workshops at key milestones during Phase 2a (3 workshops – 1 in-person and 2 virtual/hybrid), which will include:
a. Brief review of Phase 1, and future phases outline
b. Brief review of the reasons for, and objectives of, the project c. Present the preliminary design, explain where community feedback is required i. Key design features to be presented will be ‘wall’ alignments, wall height and wall guardrail aspects ii. Renderings and other visual aids will be utilized to convey the design intent d. Present and seek feedback on features and amenities
i. focus on addressing concerns and potential impacts identified in Phase 1 such as impacts to viewshed, business, future use, amenities, etc.
e. A summary of the workshop will be developed and published on the City’s project web page – Optional Ad-Hoc Committee meetings (5 meetings)
– Presentation of preliminary design to City Council (1 meeting) – Workshop invitations sent to all City residents by postal mail, rather than electronic means only – Summary memorandum / report for Phase 2a engagement

1.4.2.2 Optional Menu Items:
– Additional Ad-Hoc Committee Meetings
– Additional Online Surveys
– Design working group meetings
– Support for City staff to perform targeted engagement of local residents and businesses assumes support for 10- 20 one-on-one meetings/calls to be conducted at the onset of the project and periodically throughout the duration of Phase 2a on as needed basis
– Additional public workshop
– Presentations to smaller City committees (3 meetings) –

1.4.2.3 Development of Communications Materials
The Team will develop communications materials for the various engagement activities. Communications materials will convey messaging, provide information for events, invite event attendance etc. Communications materials include:
– Project timeline graphic to be updated if needed during the course of the project (1 graphic) – Progress update summary at preliminary design completion to include design related materials (1 project sheet). – Develop presentation materials (i.e. PowerPoint presentations, posters, etc.) – Develop outreach materials in digital format (i.e. announcements, updates, social media posts, e-mail invitations, postcard, flyer, etc). Assumes City will print, mail, e-mail, post or otherwise distribute materials. If preferred, GHD can provide scope and fee for these services.
– Workshop promotion/invitation designs in digital format (for 1 public workshop) – Project mailing list, updated as needed

1.4.3 Agency Engagement
Engagement with public agencies in Phase 2a will include the following:

7.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 12
– Meetings with California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff (4 meetings) – Meeting with One Shoreline (1 meetings)
– Meeting with San Francisco Recreation & Park Dept/Golf Course (1 meeting)

1.4.4 CEQA Scoping Meetings
GHD assumes virtual tools will be used for CEQA Scoping Meetings (2) to align delivery with the engagement approach identified in the Engagement Plan, provide flexibility for stakeholders, and protect public health.

The purpose of the scoping meetings will be to present the proposed project and environmental review process, and to solicit stakeholder input on environmental concerns and issues to be addressed in the environmental documents.

The GHD team will prepare materials, facilitate, and document results for one hybrid (in-person & virtual) Public Meeting and one virtual Agency Meeting to discuss scoping of the CEQA document.

Deliverables:
– Public Workshop Meeting facilitation (evening event)
– Agency Meeting facilitation (during business hours event) – Presentations
– Workshop/meeting summaries

1.4.5 Phase 2a Engagement Summary
The engagement summary report will be developed to capture the Community and Stakeholder Engagement activities and interactions during Phase 2a.

Phase 2a Community and Stakeholder Engagement Deliverables:
– Community & Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Draft and revised draft) – Public workshop facilitation
– Workshop presentations
– Online surveys
– Workshop/meeting summaries
– Communications materials
– Phase 2a engagement summary report (Draft and Final)

7.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 13

2. Phase 2b: Environmental Document
A project of this scale and importance to the community will require the preparation of an EIR. Our approach assumes the City will serve as the Lead Agency for CEQA compliance since project approval by the City is likely to be the first discretionary action (e.g., committing funds to advance the project through final design and permitting). Responsible agencies (e.g., California Coastal Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board) will also rely upon the CEQA document to support their permit application reviews, and each agency will require the CEQA document be certified prior to issuance of their project approvals.

2.1 Management & Coordination of Services
Project management and coordination for Phase 2b will follow the same approach as for Phase 2a, outlined in Section

1.1 of this scope document.

2.2 CEQA Document Preparation
GHD will manage and review the environmental document preparation for the BBIRP, document preparation will be completed primarily by ESA, with support from the greater project team. This task presents the proposed scope for completing an EIR for the BBIRP, and includes tasks known at this time to be necessary to complete the CEQA process for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). If it is later determined that other tasks are needed, or that a NEPA-compliant document is required, We will work with the City to determine an appropriate revised scope and fee, as provided for under Optional Task 2.4.

2.2.1 Prepare EIR Outline
Prepare and respond to one round of City review and comment on an annotated outline of the Draft EIR prior to initiating work on the full First Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR-1; Task 2.2.2).

Deliverables:
– Draft and Final Draft EIR Outline

2.2.2 First Administrative Draft EIR
The ADEIR-1 will include the Project Description prepared under Task 1.3.1 and will evaluate the direct and indirect physical environmental effects of the project, as described therein. The ADEIR-1 will address project-specific and cumulative construction and operational impacts associated with each topic listed in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

Where appropriate, the EIR will identify feasible mitigation to reduce or avoid significant impacts. A brief overview of the key ADEIR-1 sections, including a summary of EIR topics, is presented below.

Summary
The summary will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15123. It will include a brief discussion of the project, including characteristics, location, and setting. It will identify the date of issuance of the NOP and outline the terms used in the EIR to describe level of significance of impacts. In addition, the summary will include tables summarizing project impacts, mitigation measures, and conclusions regarding level of significance after mitigation. The section will describe project alternatives and present a matrix comparing the impacts of the project with those of the alternatives. Finally, the summary will identify areas of known controversy or issues to be resolved.

Introduction
The introduction will include descriptions of the purpose and function of the EIR, the CEQA environmental review process and level of environmental review, and a brief project summary. This section will also describe related projects and planning efforts, and summarize public comments received during the scoping period. Finally, the

7.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 14
introduction will identify where copies of the Draft EIR can be obtained and provide instructions on how to comment on the Draft EIR during public review.

Project Description
The ADEIR-1 project description will be as prepared under Task 1.3.1, and will address City comments thereon.

Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
We will prepare a description of the setting (including pertinent regulations), an evaluation of impacts, and develop appropriate mitigation as necessary, for each impact area identified in the CEQA Appendix G Environmental Checklist.

The environmental topics expected to be the focus of this section are summarized below. The other topics identified on the Appendix G checklist (e.g., Energy, Minerals, Population and Housing) will also be addressed, albeit at a lesser level of detail.

Aesthetics
The aesthetics section will rely and build upon the visual resources characterization prepared in Phase 1 (ESA 2020b) to identify scenic vistas and scenic resources in the project area, describe the project area’s scenic quality and identify and evaluate project effects upon potentially sensitive viewpoints. The description will rely on photo-documentation and visual simulations prepared by in earlier project tasks to support the section’s impact analysis. The analysis will assess the potential for the project changes to affect scenic vistas or scenic resources, or otherwise conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The section will also evaluate the potential for project construction or operation to result in substantial new sources of light and glare.

Air Quality
The air quality section will describe existing conditions in the project area (e.g., location of nearby sensitive receptors, ambient monitoring data, attainment designations, and emissions inventory) and natural factors (e.g., meteorology, climate, and topography) that affect the transport and dilution of pollutants. The section will present estimated project construction emissions of criteria air pollutants. Estimation of construction emissions will be based upon the construction equipment types and operating durations developed in Phase 2a, along with the worker vehicle and haultruck trip estimates included in the transportation analysis. Operational emissions will be based upon the estimated change in vehicle miles traveled due to new/modified trips (if any), as presented in the transportation section, as well as emissions related to long-term natural shoreline infrastructure. The impact discussion will assess the project’s potential to conflict or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan; its contribution to increases in criteria air pollutants for which the project region is in non-attainment with applicable federal, state, or local standards; potential for exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and the potential for other emissions (e.g., odors) which could adversely affect large numbers of people.

In accordance with guidance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and the California Air Resources Board (CARB), We will analyze construction-generated criteria air pollutant emissions, Diesel Particulate Matter from diesel equipment, and exhaust particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) from construction-related combustion sources. We will calculate construction emissions using the current version of the CalEEMod air quality model at the time of EIR preparation, and will separately calculate emissions from stationary sources such as diesel backup generators and other equipment if applicable.

Given the scale of construction activities and potential sensitive receptors, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) will be prepared to evaluate potential health impacts from project construction, largely from emissions from diesel-powered construction equipment. Other sources of potential health risk include routine testing of diesel-powered electrical generators and other on-site backup diesel equipment, diesel delivery trucks serving the project site, and projectrelated traffic.

We will evaluate maximum health risk impacts at nearby sensitive receptors from construction activities. The maximum impact for each phase of construction will consider localized construction emissions and distances to the closest receptors.

7.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 15
Biological Resources: Terrestrial, and Marine
These biological resources sections will draw upon the ecological characterizations prepared in Phase 1 (ESA 2020a, 2020c), and other recent studies of the project area. While the immediate project area’s terrestrial ecology has been substantially modified over the years, important habitat for biological resources remains at the adjacent Laguna Salada, and offshore. The marine waters immediately offshore are designated critical habitat for green sturgeon, leatherback sea turtle, and black abalone. Additionally, critical habitat for humpback whale and southern resident killer whale is proposed for designation along the Pacific coastline.

The EIR will characterize the existing biological resources within a study area, and analyze potential direct and indirect effects of project construction and operation on special-status plants and animals and their habitats; sensitive natural communities, including wetlands and other potential environmentally sensitive habitats; movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; and potential conflicts with relevant, applicable local policies and ordinances, regulations, or conservation plans.

Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources
To determine the cultural resources and tribal cultural resources sensitivity of the BBIRP Project area, we will prepare a Cultural Resources Survey Report (CRSR) that establishes a project-level study area, and includes background research at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and other archives and repositories as necessary, a surface survey, a reconnaissance-level architectural survey, and an evaluation of potentially impacted historic-age architectural resources. We will also review the potential for submerged cultural resources, including sunken vessels, using the California State Lands Commission shipwreck database and available multibeam bathymetric or other geophysical data. This scope assumes that there are no more than 35 historic-age architectural resource in the project area that that may be impacted by the project (e.g., the Municipal Pier and Promenade constructed in 1974, buildings and structures located within 150 feet of Beach Boulevard that were constructed prior to 1980). These properties will be documented on the appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 form(s) and will be evaluated for significance using the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources and Pacifica City Landmark (Municipal Code Section 9-7.201) criteria.

The CRSR will document the methods and findings of the CHRIS records search, other archival research, archaeological survey, Native American coordination, will include site records updates (California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Forms) for previously recorded cultural resources identified in the APE as well as documentation of newly identified historic-age cultural resources within the study area. The CRSR, will meet the requirements of CEQA, and support future Section 106 documentation if needed. Recommendations for additional work will be provided, and could include archaeological site evaluation, monitoring during project implementation, and/or actions to follow in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological materials or human remains.

The CRSR will provide the basis for the cultural resources and tribal cultural resources sections of the CEQA document. This includes an analysis to determine what impacts, if any, the project may cause on cultural resources.

Where required, mitigation measures will be developed to address potential impacts.

To the greatest extent possible, we will reference material and analysis from the Sharp Park Specific Plan and the Sharp Park Specific Plan EIR for those portions of the study area that overlap with those documents. In addition, we will contact the Native American Heritage Commission to request information on known sacred sites in the project vicinity. We will draft letters for the City to send to tribes who have requested consultation in compliance with Public Resources Code 21080.3.

Geology and Soils
The geology and soils section will draw upon the work performed during the Phase 1 Feasibility Study, and other publicly available materials. The impact discussion will address the potential effects of project construction and operation associated with seismic impacts related to fault rupture; seismically induced ground shaking, ground failure (e.g., liquefaction), and landslides; soil erosion and loss of topsoil; construction on unstable soil or geologic units; and potential to encounter unique paleontological resources. In addition, we will conduct an analysis of coastal processes to assess the effects and effectiveness of the project.

7.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 16
The stand-alone coastal process analysis will characterize beach performance for the proposed project and alternatives, utilizing and building upon the modeling performed during Phase 2a. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of the beach alternatives, the effectiveness of the beach alternatives, and to document the sediment sources, transport and likely placement approach. The impact discussion will consider potential effects of the project and alternatives under range of conditions (e.g., sea-level, wave events) and possible management activities (e.g., scheduled and delayed sand placement). The analysis may consider different combinations of beach width, beach materials (e.g., sand or gravel), sea-level rise amount, and single or repeated sand placement, as appropriate.

Greenhouse Gas Effect
The Greenhouse Gases (GHG) section will include a setting section, explaining the various types of GHGs potentially emitted, the regulatory context including applicable plans and policies for the reduction of GHG’s within California, and the significance thresholds applicable to the proposed project. Short-term impacts due to project construction, and longer term impacts due to natural shoreline infrastructure will be assessed. We will estimate GHG emissions associated with the Project construction and operational phase using CalEEMod and other tools and emission factors as appropriate. Because the BAAQMD does not specify GHG thresholds for construction, GHG emissions from Project construction shall be amortized over the life of the Project for comparison with the BAAQMD’s operational threshold. The project will also be assessed for consistency with state and local plans developed for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions including the state’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update for achieving the statewide GHG target mandated by SB 32 and Executive Order No. S 3-05 that established a goal of reducing the State’s GHG emissions to 80 percent below the 1990 level by the year 2050. Consistency with the City’s 2014 Climate Action Plan and latest GHG Reduction Strategy will also be assessed. Mitigation measures will be developed if impacts are identified to be potentially significant.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
We will describe the existing environmental conditions at the project site to determine whether the potential exists for site workers, the public, or the environment to be exposed to hazardous materials. This evaluation will rely upon available environmental, geological, and hydrological documents prepared in concert with and independent of the proposed Project. We will identify existing and potential hazardous materials sites on and near the project site from the California List of Hazardous Materials Release Sites (or Cortese List) and will present an overview of the federal, State, and local regulations that apply to the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials within and adjacent to the project sites.

Hydrology/Water Quality
The hydrology and water quality section will describe the existing hydrologic and water quality environment in the project area, including the drainage areas where project components would be located, existing sewer system infrastructure, groundwater levels, and coastal water quality. The impact discussion will assess the project’s potential to violate water quality standards or otherwise degrade water quality; substantially alter drainage patterns or surface runoff which could result in substantial erosion, flooding, or exceedance of stormwater drainage system capacity; and increase risk of pollution due to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche. In particular, the analysis will consider the water quality impacts of the initial sand placement and natural shoreline infrastructure program, including potential for leaks and spills associated with the dredger and/or onshore earthmoving equipment, as well as that associated with the handling and placement of sand.

Noise and Vibration
To evaluate impacts resulting from construction-generated noise and vibration, locations for the collection of long-term (48-hour) noise data at two (2) locations, and up to four additional short-term noise measurement locations will be determined in consultation with City staff. We will collect this data to establish a baseline for estimating the magnitude of construction- and operational-related impacts. Noise levels will be predicted using the Roadway Noise Construction Model of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The section will identify sensitive noise receptors located near the Project area (e.g., residences, schools) that could be affected by project construction and operations. The impact analysis will focus on the potential noise and vibration impacts generated by the project, including potential increases in temporary noise levels along local roadways due to hauling of excavated materials and deliveries.

7.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 17
Recreation
The recreation section will build upon the recreational resources characterization prepared in Phase 1 (ESA 2020b) and characterize existing recreational facilities in the project area, their conditions, and present available general user information obtained from existing, publicly available sources. The section will also identify and describe similar alternative recreational facilities in the region. The direct effects on existing recreational amenities (e.g., the Promenade, Municipal Pier, picnic tables, benches, and beach areas) and construction of new amenities will be the subject of the EIR overall, and the environmental impacts of those actions will be addressed under the topical sections corresponding to the resources affected. The recreation section’s impact discussion will address the project’s secondary construction and operational effects on recreational facility usage. For example, the analysis will consider whether project area closure during construction would result in increased use of other regional recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the “receiver” recreational facilities would result. Mitigation will be developed if necessary to reduce a potentially significant impact.

Transportation and Circulation
The transportation and circulation section will describe the existing setting and conditions for traffic, transit, pedestrians, bicycles, emergency vehicle access, loading and parking. The impact discussion will assess impacts of the project on transportation during construction (i.e., construction impacts) and after project completion (i.e., operational impacts). The impact discussion will evaluate whether the project would create potentially hazardous traffic conditions for homeowners, motorists, pedestrians, or cyclists; interfere with pedestrians or cyclist accessibility; delay public transit; impede emergency vehicle access; and cause substantial additional vehicle miles traveled or substantially induce automobile travel. To establish baseline conditions, we will collect 3-day traffic counts at up to six (6) locations in and around the Sharp Park neighborhood.

Utilities and Service Systems
Construction of the BBIRP could affect existing public utilities and we will provide an analysis of potential utilities impacts (including water, wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, telecommunications facilities, and solid waste) and identify mitigation measures, as applicable, for avoiding potential conflicts with utilities during project construction.

Other CEQA Issues
The EIR will include a section addressing other topics whose consideration is required under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15123(b)(2) and 15126(b) through (d), including growth-inducing impacts, significant unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible changes, and areas of known controversy and issues to be resolved. The subsection on growth inducement will discuss whether the project has the potential to foster economic or population growth that could impact environmental resources. The discussion of significant unavoidable impacts will identify significant impacts of the project that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation and will briefly summarize the associated impact discussions. The discussion of areas of known controversy and issues to be resolved will address controversies associated with the project’s environmental effects, mitigation, alternatives, and issues requiring resolution by the City Council.

Cumulative
We will initiate the cumulative impact discussion task by compiling a list of cumulative projects in the project vicinity.

The list will include capital improvement projects and other projects in the area that could contribute to cumulative environmental impacts. The cumulative impact analysis, as required by CEQA, will assess the residual (i.e., postmitigation) project impacts along with those of past, present, and foreseeable future projects. For each environmental topic area, the cumulative impact analysis will consider the relevant geographical area of impact, whether the combined effects of project and one or more cumulative projects would result in an impact that is cumulatively significant, and whether the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.

Alternatives
The Alternatives chapter will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.

We will review the alternatives examined in Phase 1 for their ability to present a “reasonable range” of alternatives as required under CEQA, and work with the City to develop feasible CEQA alternatives capable of avoiding or reducing

7.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 18
physical environmental impacts identified by the analyses for evaluation in the EIR. The analysis will examine these alternatives with respect to their ability to meet project objectives, assess the resulting environmental impacts of the selected alternatives, and qualitatively compare alternatives. This scope assumes review of four alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, and a discussion of alternatives considered but rejected.

Assumptions:
– Significant project changes after initiation of analysis (e.g., addition of project variants) or redirection may affect the project schedule and require additional analyses not included in this scope. – The EIR will include an evaluation of up to four alternatives, including the No Project Alternative. – For ADEIR-2 and Screencheck Draft EIR, comments from the City will be provided as a consolidated set with internal discrepancies resolved.

Deliverables:
– Administrative Draft EIR No. 1 (electronic and 5 hard copies)

2.2.3 Second Administrative Draft EIR
We will incorporate comments on ADEIR-1 and prepare ADEIR-2 for review.

We will also prepare and submit with ADEIR-2 a legal advertisement for newspaper publication, a Draft Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft EIR (announcing the public review of the DEIR) and a Draft Notice of Completion (NOC, for agency review of the DEIR).

Deliverables:
– Administrative Draft EIR No. 2 (electronic and 4 hard copies), Draft Legal Ad, NOA and NOC

2.2.4 Screencheck Draft EIR
Following review of the ADEIR-2, We will incorporate comments and prepare a Screencheck DEIR for review and comment. We will also prepare revised drafts of the legal ad, NOA, and NOC. This scope assumes that at this stage comments from the City will be minimal, limited to correction of typographic errors and minor changes in wording; additional, more extensive revision can be covered under an augmented budget.

Deliverables:
– Screencheck Draft EIR (electronic plus one hard copy) – Revised Draft Legal Ad, NOA, and NOC

2.2.5 Public Draft EIR
We will produce and distribute the Draft EIR (USB drives and hard copies) to the City, resource agencies and public libraries, and will distribute the NOA to other entities on the mailing list. We will prepare and post public notices in accordance with CEQA requirements and the City’s requirements. This scope assumes we will be responsible for postage, handling, and delivery costs and physical mailing of the notices, public postings, and Draft EIR. We will submit the Draft EIR, NOA, and NOC to the State Clearinghouse. The City will be responsible for newspaper publication of the legal advertisement. During the public review period, the project team will manage and facilitate stakeholder engagement meetings as described under Task 2.3, below.

Assumptions:
– The City will submit the legal advertisement to appropriate local newspapers and the County Clerk. – We will submit the Draft EIR, NOA, and NOC to the State Clearinghouse. – We will deliver hard copies to City, GHD and local public libraries. Resource agencies will be provided the Draft EIR on a USB drive (assumes tracked delivery of up to 30 USB drives).

7.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 19
– We will print up to 1,500 notices and distribute via regular U.S. mail. – Draft EIR hard copies are estimated at up to $200 each.

Deliverables:
– Public Draft EIR (10 hard copies with appendices on USB drives; 50 USB drives) and electronic version for website posting
– Final Legal Ad
– NOA, and NOC
– References cited in the EIR (on 2 USB Drives)

2.2.6 Final EIR
Following public review, we will prepare a Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). The Final EIR will include a response to comments document (RTC) that summarizes comments received, provides responses to public agency comments, and presents errata and other revisions to the Public Draft EIR, as warranted. The Draft EIR together with the RTC will comprise the Final EIR. At this time, the number, nature, and extent of comments on the Draft EIR cannot be predicted. We have assumed a budget sufficient to respond to a reasonable number of comments based upon similar projects and given the potentially controversial nature of this project. For the purposes of this scope of work, we assume that responses will not require major new analysis in any resource area, any substantive changes to the project description, or any new quantitative analysis of a substantive nature.

At the conclusion of the public review period for the Draft EIR, we will compile all comments received from the public, organizations, and agencies. The first task will be to bracket all comment letters. Each comment letter, organized by Agency (State and Local), Tribe, Organization, and Individual, will be assigned a unique identifier (e.g., the California Coastal Commission, a state agency, would be identified as “S-CCC”). All text within the letter will be broken down into separate and individual comments, and each comment will be assigned its own identifier (e.g., S-CCC-01). This will create multiple (tens, hundreds) of individual comments within each letter, depending on the length and content of each comment letter.

All comments received will be responded to in the Final EIR, either by a Master Response (general response covering recurring technical topic raised by multiple commenters) or an individualized response, or both. We will prepare and submit for City review a first Administrative Final EIR (AFEIR-1) containing proposed responses to comments on the Draft EIR. This submittal will not contain errata changes or a revised Draft EIR. We assume the City will provide one set of consolidated comments back (including staff, and legal review). After receipt of comments, we will prepare a second Administrative Final EIR (AFEIR-2). This version will contain revisions to the responses to comments per City comments, and an errata identifying all changes proposed to the Draft EIR sections resulting from response to comments. The AFEIR-2 containing proposed responses to comments on the Draft EIR will be submitted to the City for review.

We will address reviewer comments on the AFEIR-2 in a Screencheck Final EIR; we assume that comments on the Screencheck Final EIR will be minimal. One meeting will be held to conduct a page turn of the Screencheck Final EIR prior to printing and production.

After the City has reviewed the Screencheck Final EIR, we will incorporate the minor necessary revisions into the document and will mail a USB flash drive containing the document (not hard copy) to each public agency (and tribal entity) that commented on the Draft EIR, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b). We will prepare a notification of responses to comments available and of the certification hearing for posting on the City’s website and will mail the notice to all members of the public (Individuals) who commented on the Draft EIR; no flash drives will be mailed to these individual commenters, but flash drives will be made available to individuals upon request. No radius mailing will be conducted.

We will also prepare a draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Notice of Determination (NOD) for review by the City. The MMRP will describe the required mitigation necessary to avoid or reduce significant impacts, the responsible parties, tasks, and schedule necessary for monitoring mitigation compliance. The NOD will

7.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 20
comprise the standard CEQA Guidelines Appendix D form. We will incorporate one consolidated set of City comments and will prepare the final MMRP and NOD.

Assumptions:
– For AFEIR-2 and Screencheck Final EIR, comments from the City will be provided as a consolidated set with internal discrepancies resolved.
– The City will prepare Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (if necessary), and Resolutions for consideration by City Council.
– The City will submit the NOD to the State Clearinghouse and file with the County Clerk within 5 days of project approval, and will be responsible for payment of CEQA filing fees (i.e., County and Department of Fish and Wildlife).
– We will send the Responses to Comments document to agencies that commented on the Draft EIR.

Deliverables:
– First Administrative Final EIR, electronic versions in Word and PDF formats. – Second Administrative Final EIR, electronic versions in Word and PDF formats. – Screencheck Final EIR, electronic versions in Word and PDF formats. – Final EIR, electronic versions in Word and PDF formats. – Draft and Final MMRP and NOD, electronic versions in Word and PDF formats

2.3 Community & Stakeholder Engagement
Community and Stakeholder Engagement in Phase 2b will have 2 streams:

1. Community and agency outreach activities (similar to Phase 2a)

2. CEQA Document (Environmental Impact Report (EIR)) meetings GHD understands there may be a pause in the project following Phase 2a, dependent on available funding. The Community and Stakeholder Engagement scope outlined below provides a plan to move forward, however the Team appreciates that changes may be needed based on timing, funding and other influences. Our approach is flexible, and we will work with the City if amendments are needed.

Virtual tools will be used in Phase 2b to align delivery with the engagement approach identified in the Engagement Plan (developed in Phase 2a), provide flexibility for stakeholders, and protect public health. GHD team will attend coordination meetings with the City and Ad-Hoc Committee to plan, advise on and select virtual platform, obtain platform host license, organize and schedule practices and events, develop runsheet, and facilitate one Public and one Agency Draft EIR meeting.

2.3.1 Update of Engagement & Communications Plan
Upon commencement of Phase 2b the Team will review the Engagement & Communications Plan to confirm the previously planned strategy remains relevant, making amendments as needed and in conjunction with City staff and the Ad-Hoc Committee.

2.3.2 Community Engagement
Community engagement in Phase 2b will provide 2-way communication to provide detail of the project and seek feedback where input is required. Phase 2b is focused on the CEQA process and preparation of an EIR which includes several opportunities for public review and input.

Phase 2b community outreach will include:

7.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 21

2.3.2.1 Core Items:
– Ad-Hoc Committee meetings (3 meetings)
– Drop-in/Pop-up style workshop (4 workshops)
– Final EIR presentation to City Council
– Summary memorandum / report for Phase 2b community engagement

2.3.2.2 Optional Menu Items:
– Additional Ad-Hoc Committee Meetings
– Additional Online Surveys
– Workshop invitations sent by postal mail, rather than electronic means only – Design working group meetings
– Support for City staff to perform targeted engagement of local residents and businesses assumes support for 10- 20 one-on-one meetings/calls to be conducted at the onset of the project and periodically throughout the duration of Phase 2b on as needed basis
– Additional public workshop
– Project presentation to City Council
– Interactive workshops with GHD landscape architects and engineers

2.3.3 Agency Engagement
Engagement with public agencies in Phase 2b will include the following:
– Meetings with California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff (2 meetings)

2.3.4 CEQA Document (EIR) Meetings
GHD team will design process, prepare materials, attend, facilitate, document results, and develop a summary for one virtual Public Meeting and one virtual Agency Meeting to align the commencement of the public comment period associated with the release of the draft EIR, and satisfy CEQA requirements.

Assumes that City will establish a process for receiving comments, collect comments during the comment period, and provide comments to the GHD team. If preferred, the GHD team can provide scope and fee for establishing and monitoring a project specific e-mail address that may be used for collecting comments.

The Public Meeting shall be designed to align with engagement approach as identified in the Engagement Plan and adapted based on outcome of Phase 2a outreach and engagement activities.

If the draft EIR public meetings can be held in-person, the GHD team will attend the public meetings in-person and will be responsible for providing the following additional meeting materials: audio/visual equipment, comment cards, signs, speaker request cards, sign-in sheets, and refreshments. We assume the City will secure the meeting venue.

Deliverables:

Meeting #1: Draft EIR Public Meeting (assumes virtual, <100 attendees) – (2) Preparation Meetings/Rehearsals
– (1) Technical support
– (1) Meeting host/moderator
– (1) Meeting attendance summary
– (1) Meeting summary and (1) transcript of comments captured to support EIR finalization – (1) digital format file of Meeting recording
Meeting #2: Draft EIR Agency Meeting (assumes virtual, <100 attendees)

7.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 22
– (1) Preparation Meeting/Rehearsal
– (1) Technical support
– (1) Meeting host/moderator
– (1) Meeting attendance summary
– (1) Meeting summary and (1) transcript of comments captured to support EIR finalization – (1) digital format file of Meeting recording

2.3.5 Final EIR Presentation to Council
The GHD team will develop materials, prepare presentation, attend practice sessions, and present and help respond to technical questions during one City Council meeting on the Final EIR.

Deliverables:
– Develop presentation materials
– Attend preparation sessions and City Council meeting

7.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 23

2.4 (Optional Task) NEPA Document Preparation
As an optional service, the GHD team will prepare additional environmental compliance documentation necessary to satisfy the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for issuance of Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Grant funds for the project, if awarded.

We anticipate the type and scope of the NEPA document will be determined in coordination with FEMA. As a result, the effort required to prepare the document cannot be estimated with precision at this time. Regardless of document type, we expect the NEPA analysis will draw heavily upon the work completed for the CEQA document. Additional work in the areas of environmental justice and socioeconomic impacts, and to support federal agency consultations may be required. For budgeting purposes, we estimate that the NEPA compliance documentation effort would be approximately $150,000. If the project is selected for BRIC funding and NEPA is required, we anticipate revising the scope and fee in coordination with the City and FEMA.

3. Phase 2c: Permitting and Final Design
Permitting and final design of the Project will occur in parallel, with updates to the design package performed as needed to satisfy information required in the permit applications and in response to questions or comments received from agency staff during processing of the permits. An anticipated list of the permits required for the Project are provided in Section 3.2 and the tasks associated with final design of the Project are described in Section 3.3. The sequence and overlap of these tasks, will be developed in a Phase 2c work plan informed by agency feedback received during the pre-application meeting (Task 3.2.1).

3.1 Management & Coordination of Services
Project management and coordination for Phase 2c will follow the same approach as for Phase 2a, outlined in Section

1.1 of this scope document.

3.2 Permitting
The GHD team will assist the City in obtaining permits and authorizations from the state and federal resource agencies. The full extent of environmental regulatory permit application requirements cannot be determined until the final Project design is selected and the Project area is defined. Based upon existing Project concepts, we expect the Project will require permits or other approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), California Coastal Commission, and California State Lands Commission. Securing permits from these agencies will involve regular conference calls, meetings and written correspondence, which will be led by the GHD team with support from technical staff and City representatives as needed. Once the Project area is known, based on the outcome of Phase 2b, we will review potential regulatory agency jurisdictions to confirm these assumptions. If it is determined that one or more of these jurisdictions are not present within the Project area, some tasks listed below may not be required.

3.2.1 Pre-application Agency Coordination
Following publication of the EIR, the GHD team’s permitting specialists will schedule a pre-application meeting with the USACE and encourage attendance by the RWQCB, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Coastal Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NMFS, and State Lands Commission. This meeting will introduce the Project to the regulatory agency representatives and solicit their input on the Project design and permitting assumptions. This will provide immediate feedback from the agencies and streamline the permitting process. We will prepare an interagency meeting request letter that will include a summary of the Project description, description of the Project site, reason for the Project, and other pertinent information. We will prepare a brief PowerPoint presentation and meeting agenda in coordination with the City.

7.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 24
This task assumes two (2) one-hour conference calls- one to prepare for the meeting (before) and one to debrief from the meeting (after) along with the Interagency Meeting which by then will be conducted virtually or in person at the USACE office in San Francisco. This task assumes that 6 GHD team staff will attend the interagency meeting and the conference calls.

Deliverables:
– Draft and Final Interagency Meeting Request for City Review (electronic copy) – Draft and Final Interagency Meeting PowerPoint presentation (electronic copy)

3.2.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit Application We anticipate the Project may qualify for approval under the Corps Nationwide Permit (NWP) 13 for Bank Stabilization and will prepare the associated USACE Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit application and supporting documents. A Nationwide Permit Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form will be prepared for the Project, including a detailed Project description (with all pertinent maps and plans), along with a discussion of the Project’s impacts on jurisdictional wetlands and waters, proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, and supporting maps and/or graphics. The permitting project description will be based on the project description presented in the CEQA document prepared for the Project and will be refined with project updates and specific details required for permit applications. The Cultural Resources Report (developed in Task 2.2.2), and the NMFS Biological Assessment (Task

3.2.4) will be submitted with the permit application.

Our coastal engineers will determine the elevation and approximate location of the mean high tide line (MHTL) and the high tide line (HTL) for use in permitting with various agencies, including the USACE and others. The elevation of the MHTL will be identified by interpreting available published tidal datums from NOAA. The elevation of the HTL will be identified as the maximum predicted high tide for the Project site in the calendar year of when the work is anticipated to be constructed. The MHTL and HTL will be shown on the Project base map for use in permitting and design analyses.

Deliverables:
– Draft and Final USACE Section 404 Permit application for City Review (electronic copy for City; electronic and hard copy for submittal to USACE)

3.2.3 Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Permit Application In accordance with CWA Section 401, the RWQCB must take certification action for projects that propose impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands subject to a permit issued by the USACE, to ensure the activity complies with state water quality standards. The RWQCB typically also conducts a concurrent review of projects under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, which results in the issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements which are incorporated into the 401 Certification. To obtain certification for the proposed project, we will prepare the Section 401 Water Quality Certification / Waste Discharge Requirements Application Form and supporting documentation. The permit application will include a detailed permitting project description, a discussion of the project’s impacts on jurisdictional waters, proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, and supporting maps and/or graphics.

Deliverables:
– Draft and Final RWQCB Section 401 Permit application for City Review (electronic copy for City; electronic and hard copy for submittal to RWQCB)

3.2.4 National Marine Fisheries Section 7 Consultation
Our biologists will prepare a NMFS Biological Assessment (BA) to support USACE consultation with NMFS Section under 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act. One of our fisheries biologists will conduct a reconnaissance-level survey of the site and will include information from the habitat assessment in the BA. The BA will evaluate project impacts on federally listed species that have potential to occur in the project area, and to critical habitat which occurs within the project area and include conservation measures to reduce impacts to this species and its critical habitat. As part of the

7.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 25
BA, we will also do an assessment of potentially affected Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) regulated under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Deliverables:
– Draft and Final NMFS Biological Assessment for City Review (electronic copy)

3.2.5 Coastal Development Permit
The City has a Local Coastal Program (LCP) and maintains coastal development permitting (CDP) authority for onshore facilities. The project will also affect portions of the Coastal Commission’s retained jurisdiction and therefore will require a CDP from the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Act (Section 30601.3) provides for consolidated review of CDP applications for projects affecting both LCP and CCC retained jurisdictions where all parties agree to the consolidated review. Under the consolidated review approach, the Coastal Commission reviews the project pursuant to the Coastal Act and affected the LCP (as guidance) and issues a single CDP for the entire project. We recommend the consolidated approach because it streamlines the permitting process and potentially limits the number of permits and permit conditions that must be tracked. We will coordinate with the City and the Coastal Commission in attempt to secure agreement around the consolidate CDP approach. Assuming agreement will be reached, we will prepare an application for consolidated CDP for submittal to the Coastal Commission.

As part of the Coastal Development Permit application, we will prepare a sea-level rise and wave runup analysis of the Project that provides the following:
– Defines the range in sea-level rise that is expected over the life of the Project. We assume that others will provide the expected life of the Project.
– Provides an estimate of the 100-year total water level (TWL) or wave uprush elevation and landward extents for existing and future conditions with sea-level rise. This will largely rely on analyses completed in Phase 2a, but minor updates are expected, including the extreme value analysis and calculations for specific sea-level rise amount(s).
– Describes the capacity of the Project design to accommodate sea-level rise, and the likely timing and scale of future adaptation to higher amounts of sea-level rise. This capacity assessment will be used to identify likely sealevel rise adaptation triggers (e.g., amount of sea-level rise as an indicator for change, including response time). – Describes how the Project site may be constrained with future sea-level, and to what degree the Project would unavoidably affect coastal resources.

Pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30607.7, coastal development permits for projects involving sand replenishment require the project applicant to provide onsite monitoring and supervision during the implementation of the permit. We will prepare a monitoring plan to measure and document the Project’s performance after construction. The monitoring plan will describe how the physical and biological resources will be monitored after construction. Our focus will be on developing monitoring protocols, metrics, and triggers that can inform the physical and biological changes after construction. We will consult with the Coastal Commission staff and others to assist in identifying the goal and objectives of the monitoring plan, and to discuss the scope of biological information needs that the monitoring plan will address.

We assume that the monitoring plan would include the following topics:
– Description of the pre-project baseline conditions, including the physical conditions of the site, topography and bathymetry, waves and water levels, and recreational and biological use – Brief description of Project and its potential modes of change; define Project success criteria for physical and biological indicators; define triggers for subsequent interventions or decisions – Describe the need to document construction activities and how the post-construction baseline conditions will be developed
– Describe the frequency and scope of monitoring and reporting that will be needed for the Project, including physical and biological surveys, regional data collection (e.g., meteorological, oceanographic, etc.), input from promenade and beach users, including surfers, on the project

7.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 26
– Describe how the monitoring and data collection will be used to inform the evolution of the Project after construction; measure the successes of the Project relative to set criteria; identify the important lessons learned from implementing and monitoring of the Project, including the persistence of the sand placement, how and where the sand moves from the placement location, effectiveness of construction methods and proposed changes in design, implications of Project on beach users/recreation, biology, surfing We will prepare a draft monitoring plan that will be delivered to the City for review. We will revise the draft within three weeks of receipt of one set of consolidated, non-conflicting comments, and then will submit an administrative draft to the Coastal Commission (and others as needed) for review. The administrative draft will be considered the final deliverable of the monitoring plan scope. We assume that a final monitoring plan will be prepared and submitted during project bidding and prior to construction.

Deliverables:
– Draft and Final CDP application for City Review (electronic copy for City; electronic and hard copy for submittal to Coastal Commission)
– Draft and Revised Draft Monitoring Plan

3.2.6 State Lands Commission Lease
The California State Lands Commission (SLC) has jurisdiction and management control over those public lands of the state received by the State upon its admission to the United States in 1850 (“sovereign lands”), including all ungranted tidelands and submerged lands, among other areas. Due to its location along the Pacific Ocean coastline, the Project will require authorization from the SLC through issuance of a new lease. We will prepare a lease application with attachments for submittal to the SLC via the agency’s Online System for Customer Applications and Records (OSCAR). The application package will generally include a completed application form, supplemental information to support the application form, Project plans, existing available technical studies, and verification or status of other permits. The agency requires the submitted plans to display the SLC’s jurisdictional boundary (i.e., the mean high tide line) that has been field-verified by a licensed professional land surveyor within 6-months prior to submittal to the SLC.

This scope assumes the survey will be prepared by others. The supplemental information will also include a detailed permitting Project description, along with a summary of the EIR’s findings regarding environmental impacts, potential Project effects on those resources, and mitigation measures whose implementation would reduce or avoid impacts on those resources. The supplemental information will also summarize and append to the application package, as warranted and available, additional relevant plans and technical analysis developed after EIR publication (e.g., technical documents developed to support project design or project performance).

Deliverables:
– Draft and Final Lease application for City Review (electronic copy for City; electronic and hard copy for submittal to SLC)
Permitting Assumptions:
– If the USACE determines that the Project does not qualify for approval under a NWP, and an Individual Permit is required, we can prepare a separate scope and budget for this effort. – If an Incidental Take Permit under Section 2081 of CESA is required from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, we will prepare a separate scope and budget for this work upon request from the City. – This scope and budget do not include preparation of a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. We will prepare a separate scope and budget to prepare this plan once agency consultation clarifies potential permit conditions upon request from the City.
– GHD team staff have access to the entire project area including staging and access areas. – The City will be responsible for any fees associated with the regulatory permits. – If a traditional land survey, such as formal property boundaries and maps for general use are required we can provide a licensed, professional land surveyor to complete this work, and can provide additional scope and fee to complete this work.

7.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 27
– Based on our current knowledge of the Project area, consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
– The CRSR prepared under task 2.2.2 will be sufficient for use by the USACE in Section 106 their consultation with SHPO.
– It is assumed that there will only be one (1) review of the draft applications by City and the City will provide one (1) set of consolidated comments on draft applications.

3.2.7 Local Permits
We will coordinate with the City’s Department of Public Works to secure local permits or approvals required for project elements which involve modifications to existing utility infrastructure or new public amenities that will be maintained by the City. We assume that most of the project will involve improvements on City property and to City owned infrastructure. Any County permits would also be covered under this task. We have included an allowance in the budget for this task, although the specific permits/approvals are not well defined at this time. The need for City & County permits will be better understood at the conclusion of Phase 2a & 2b and may necessitate some adjustments to the estimated budget prior to authorization to proceed on this task.

3.3 Final Design
The final design effort will build upon the 35% plans to include design modifications identified during the CEQA process, feedback from agencies based on their review of the initial permit applications, and detailed engineering analysis and design tasks required for the development of a final design package. For the purposes of this proposal, GHD have assumed that the City will contract the Project as a single traditional Design-Bid-Build project. The final deliverable for this task will be a bid package consisting of final plans, specifications and the engineer’s estimate of probable cost. A key assumption in the development of this proposal is that the project scope and length will be similar to that depicted on the conceptual drawings prepared in Phase 1. Any significant modifications to the Project that occur through Phase 2a and 2b may warrant amendments or revisions to the scope of work and estimated budget for this task.

3.3.1 Design Quality Management Plan
GHD is an ISO 9001-certified professional services firm and operates with an integrated approach to project planning, setup, management and review via our project management database, which incorporates project management cycles, risk management, knowledge management, and is also used to address the requirements of our Quality Management System and Health Safety and Environment Management System at the project level. As part of our day-to-day business, we operate under stringent quality systems and processes. A Design Quality Management Plan will be developed for the Project and submitted to the City for review prior to commencing design work for the 65% Design Package. The Design Quality Management Plan will include quality control procedures for:
– Internal and inter-discipline design and drawing reviews – Independent Design Review group
– City’s reviews
– Management of subcontractors/sub consultants
– Organization chart showing: Project Manager, discipline leads, quality control review responsibilities, calculation check, constructability and operability review responsibilities, document use authorization – Design change process
– Quality control of design tools, forms and documentation Deliverable:
– Design Quality Management Plan

7.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 28

3.3.2 Coastal Engineering Analysis and Design
A thorough understanding of the environmental conditions and coastal processes within the Project area is critical to the design and implementation of a successful Project. The detailed design phase will include additional field data collection, numerical modeling and analysis of coastal hazards to finalize the design of the seawall, rock scour apron and natural shoreline infrastructure. Tasks associated with developing the final coastal design parameters include the following:

Surf Zone Bed Surface Characterization
We will survey two shore transects, oriented approximately perpendicular to shore. We anticipate one transect north of the pier and one south of the pier. Data collection will consist of the elevation of the bed from the shore to approximately 1,200 feet offshore up to a depth of 25 feet NAVD/MLLW, and surface sand grab samples. A data report will be provided with surveyed elevation profiles, including comparison with other available data and previously estimated profile (ESA 2021a), and grain size distributions at each location and composited for each profile. These data are not available but are typically required for natural shoreline infrastructure design and environmental review.

Data Collection Assumptions:
– Same data collection assumptions described in Task 1.2.9 also apply to this task.

Coastal Design Criteria
We will quantify coastal design criteria, consisting of incident wave height and period, coincident ocean water levels, wave runup elevation and overtopping volume. We will quantify these parameters for the recurrence intervals and structure geometry identified in the wall design. We will use XBeach and/or a boussinesq model to simulate the waves and water levels across the surf zone, as well as beach response, for up to four selected offshore conditions (i.e., extreme wave and water level conditions). For each condition, we will use the modeling to ascertain the wave height and water level at the structure toe and total water level for the preferred beach alternative. Scour depth at the structure toe will be used to determine effects on local water depth and wave height. These calculations will be conducted at up to four locations. Overtopping rates will be provided in terms of volume per foot of seawall as a function of negative freeboard for each reach. The wave and water level conditions incident to the structure will be used to conduct final structure loading calculations for input into the structural analysis of the seawall.

Deliverables:
– Coastal Engineering Design Memorandum (Draft and Final)

3.3.3 Basis of Design Report
The preliminary BOD prepared in Phase 2a will be revised to reflect the updated analysis and design work performed under each discipline of coastal (Task 3.3.2), structural, geotechnical, civil, and landscape architecture design.

The structural design will consider site–specific geotechnical conditions (including liquefiable materials), earth pressure, seismic, hydrostatic (ground water), lateral surcharge pressure, scour and wave impact forces. Our geotechnical engineers will provide a final design report summarizing the geotechnical parameters to be used in structural design calculations. The main objective of the evaluation is to estimate the required structural capacity of the seawall structures by conducting analyses using anticipated and code basis loads. Service life and maintenance requirements for the seawall structures will also be important considerations. The Basis of Design document to be prepared by the Team will include documentation of vertical (gravity) and lateral (wave, surcharge, and seismic) load resisting systems for the replacement seawall using design basis loading per ASCE 7, USACE Engineering Manual 1110-2-1614 and other applicable design standards.

Civil engineering design will consist of a variety of improvements required to the Promenade and Beach Boulevard to maintain access and provide functional and improved utility systems through the corridor. A key civil engineering task will be the sizing and design of a drainage system to reduce the frequency and magnitude of flooding from wave overtopping. Additional civil engineering design services will be performed for utility connections behind or through the proposed seawall structure, such as the multiple storm drain outfalls which penetrate the existing seawall.

7.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 29
Deliverables:
– Draft and Final Basis of Design Report

3.3.4 Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E)
The GHD Team will prepare 65%, 95%, 100% plans, specifications and estimates of probable construction costs (final design submittal milestones). Each design phase will incorporate and address the City’s comments from the previous submittal, agency comments and permit conditions, and outstanding design issues identified at the prior submittal phase. The 100% plan set will be signed and sealed for use by the City to acquire bids from qualified contractors.

All plan sheets will be plotted on 22” x 34” at an appropriate scale and be provided in PDF format. We anticipate the final design plans will consist of about 50-60 sheets, assuming the entire Project reach will be included in the drawing package. We anticipate the final design drawings will consist of the following sheets:
– Title sheet
– General Notes
– Site plan sheets
– Survey control sheets
– Demolition sheets
– Erosion control sheets
– Seawall plan and profile sheets
– Seawall typical sections
– Structural Detail Sheets
– Civil / Grading Plan sheets
– Civil / Grading cross sections
– Storm drain plan & profile sheets
– Civil & storm drain details
– Features and Amenities Plan Sheets
– Features & Amenities Cross-sections
– Features & Amenities Details
Specifications
The specifications will outline the material properties and required performance needed to complete the work, construction tolerances and other technical (and environmental protection) considerations. Issues associated with site access or conflict with existing infrastructure will also be detailed in the specifications. As the design develops the technical specifications will be drafted for the 65% submittal, with the completed specification set submitted at 95%.

Special provisions will be included for work items not contained in standard specifications. Measurement and Payment terms will be identified for each bid item within the specifications. GHD intends to use the CSI Specifications format, however this can be discussed with the City if a different format would be preferred i.e. Caltrans.

Constructability Review and Cost Estimate
As the design progresses, GHD and the project team, will review the design with consideration to constructability and cost. Real value can be realized by identifying potential construction issues, and value engineering alternatives at each phase of project design. GHD’s construction professionals will coordinate with construction industry partners to discuss and workshop the design, considering alternative construction means and methods, access, available resources, and other pertinent aspects of the Project construction. Constructability review and cost estimating outputs will include forecasts of labor, equipment, materials, and schedule that will accompany each PS&E submittal milestone (i.e. 65%, 95% and 100%). GHD will utilize in-house professional cost estimators, a subcontracted specialist marine construction cost estimator and input from specialist piling and marine construction general contractors with a focus on the following items:

7.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 30
– Prepare constructability review of design plans & specifications – Evaluate the potential means and methods of construction for purposes of estimating construction costs – Prepare opinion of probable construction cost
Deliverables:
– 65% submittal of plans, specifications & cost estimate (PDF and 3 full size hard copies for City review) – 95% submittal of plans, specifications & cost estimate (PDF and 3 full size hard copies for City review) – Bid Package - 100% submittal of plans, specifications & cost estimate (PDF and 3 full size hard copies)

3.3.5 Independent Design Review Coordination
The scope of this task will be similar to Task 1.2.10 in Phase 2a and involve coordination and responses to the independent design review efforts. We assume the same reviewer will be engaged by the City for the Phase 2c and that a separate RFP process will not be required. Reviews during Phase 2c are assumed to occur at three design milestones: 65% Design, 95% Design, 100% Design and include review of technical reports, calculations, plans, specifications, and cost estimates. We assume all review comments will be received at one time.

Deliverables:
– Review and address comments and develop response matrix for each design milestone – Three Design Review Workshops/Meeting notes

3.4 Community & Stakeholder Engagement
The GHD team will work in close coordination with the City in the design and implementation of community and stakeholder engagement activities for Phase 2c. Specifically, this will entail the continuation of the Ad-Hoc Committee, comprised of City Council members and other City staff, to vet content, messaging, and identify any opportunities for final consultation before bringing them to the public. We assume most agency meetings and coordination will occur at the staff level and be completed by Project team members during Phase 2c permitting and design activities described in Tasks 3.2 and 3.3. Kearns & West will be leading the public facing engagement activities during this phase in addition to facilitating a pre-application meeting with multiple agencies (3.2.1). Technical staff from the Project design team (GHD, ESA and HKA) will also be involved to develop and present content at these meetings.

3.4.1 Development of Communications Materials
Develop digital content (i.e.; copy, graphics, maps, etc) for project webpage. Assumes existing project webpage hosted and updated by City will be used.
– (1) update Project timeline details for Phase 2, and
– (3) progress update summary at 65%, 95%, and 100% Design to include design related materials.

Develop materials in digital format (i.e.; announcements, updates, social media posts, e-mail invitations, postcard, flyer, etc). Assumes City will print, mail, e-mail, post or otherwise distribute materials. If preferred, GHD can provide scope and fee for these services.
– (2) Workshop promotion/invitation designs in digital format – Update Project mailing list
Deliverables:
– Project webpage content, digital communications material

7.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 31

3.4.2 Community & Stakeholder Engagement Activities
GHD shall plan, prepare materials, attend, document results, and develop summaries for two (2) public workshops aligned with 65% and 95% design milestones to present the progress of the permit process and the design work.

Activities will be designed to allow an opportunity for the public to provide input and feedback on the process for arriving at the design requirements for the milestone and ask clarifying questions to the Project Team. Materials and visual aids will be prepared to present design features, landscaping/hardscaping, amenities, aesthetics, consideration of property requirements and easements, and utility relocations. GHD recommends an on-site drop-in session and online survey or accessible methods to engage diverse populations.

GHD recommends the following Community & Stakeholder Engagement activities for Phase 2c – (3) Ad Hoc Committee meetings
– Public Workshop/Meeting #1 – Report back on feedback received in Phase 2a/2b, present on progress of design and permit/approval processes
– Public Workshop/Meeting #2 – Present final design, updated timeline for construction, what to expect for construction
– (4) Drop-in/Pop-up style workshops
– (1) Online survey (sequenced with Workshop/Meeting #1, same topics) – Support for City staff to perform targeted engagement of local residents and businesses assumes support for 5- 10 one-on-one meetings/calls to be conducted periodically throughout the duration of Phase 2c on as needed basis
– Materials/graphics development
– Summary of Phase 2c outreach
Deliverables:
– Public workshop facilitation
– Presentations
– Online surveys
– Workshop/meeting summaries

3.4.3 Presentation to City Council
GHD will plan, prepare materials, attend, document results, and develop summaries for one presentation to Council workshops aligned with design milestones to present the progress of the permitting process and the progress of the design work.

Deliverables:
– Develop presentation materials
– Attend preparation sessions and City Council meeting

7.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 32

4. General Assumptions
The following general assumptions have been considered in the development of the scope and fee for BBIRP Phase 2, in addition to the specific assumption made in the scope descriptions above. If any of these assumptions should be corrected GHD can discuss with the City and amend scope and fee as needed, by agreement.

1. BBIRP Phase 2 work will be influenced by the input of government agencies and other stakeholders. GHD and our subconsultants have prepared this scope in good faith, based on our experience of similar projects. We anticipate the scope may change based on input from agencies and stakeholders and subsequent direction from the City. Changes to the scope and fee presented in this document will be by agreement between the City and GHD.

2. The City will engage outside consultants for the purpose of independent design review i.e. GHD has not included the cost of these consultants. If needed GHD can include this cost, however the preference would be for the City to assume this cost to avoid perception of conflict of interest.

3. Anticipated approximate schedule for Phase 2:
a. Phase 2a - Preliminary Design will have a duration of 12 months b. Phase 2b - Environmental Document will have a duration of 12-18 months c. Phase 2c - Final Permitting & Design will have a duration of 12-18 months

7.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 33
Attachments

7.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 34
Attachment 1
Fee Estimate – Summary

7.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) BBIRP Phase 2 Proposal
Budget Summary Table
11/16/2022
Phase 2a ‐ Preliminary Design GHD Labor Subs & Expenses Total Task 1.1 Management & Coordination of Services 116,104 $ $ 60,648 $ 176,752 Task 1.2 Preliminary Design $ 346,200 $ 394,394 $ 740,594 Task 1.3 Environmental Services $ 22,208 $ 102,964 $ 125,172 Task 1.4 Stakeholder Engagement $ 154,595 $ 357,320 $ 511,915 $ 639,107 $ 915,326 $ 1,554,433
Phase 2b ‐ Environmental Document GHD Labor Subs & Expenses Total Task 2.1 Management & Coordination of Services $ 118,703 $ 169,579 $ 288,282 Task 2.2 CEQA Document Preparation $ 254,113 $ 1,290,028 $ 1,544,141 Task 2.3 Stakeholder Engagement $ 87,095 $ 243,008 $ 330,103 Task 2.4 Optional Task (NEPA Document Preparation) $ 32,673 $ 177,892 $ 210,564 $ 492,584 $ 1,880,506 $ 2,373,091
Phase 2c ‐ Final Permitting & Design GHD Labor Subs & Expenses Total Task 3.1 Management & Coordination of Services $ 93,124 $ 71,666 $ 164,790 Task 3.2 Permitting Support $ 170,663 $ 374,914 $ 545,578 Task 3.3 Final Design $ 678,709 $ 382,403 $ 1,061,112
Task 3.4 Stakeholder Engagement $ 76,588 $ 195,241 $ 271,829 $ 1,019,084 $ 1,024,225 $ 2,043,309
Project Totals (Phase 2a ‐ 2c) GHD Labor Subs & Expenses Total Total $ 2,150,775 $ 3,820,057 $ 5,970,832
Notes:
1 Assumed Phase 2a ‐ Preliminary Design will have a duration of 12 months for the purpose of this fee estimate 2 Assumed Phase 2b ‐ Environmental Document will have a duration of 12 months for the purpose of this fee estimate 3 Assumed Phase 2c ‐ Final Permitting & Design will have a duration of 12 months for the purpose of this fee estimate 4GHD has allowed for annual rate escalation of 3.5% which is included in the amounts above. 5 6
7 At this time no further onsite geotechnical investigations are required. If this changes GHD will consult with the City i.e. if current wall type changes to another type
Direct cost expenses are estimated based on 3.5% of GHD's labor cost, includes travel and other expenses. This will be used to cover direct costs with backup provided.

Staff included in the City's On‐Call Agreements utilize the On‐Call rates, other staff utilize GHD standatd rates. https://projects‐northamerica.ghd.com/sites/uswest3/copbeachblvdseawallr/ProposalDocs/PROP‐BBIRP Phase 2/11213162‐PRP‐FEE‐BBIRP_Phase_2‐V7.xlsx11213162‐ PRP‐FEE‐BBIRP_Phase_2‐V7.xlsx ‐ Summary 11/16/2022 5:30 AM

7.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica | 11213162 | BBIRP Phase 2 35
Attachment 2
Summary of Community Engagement and
Agency Outreach Activities

7.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) BBIRP Phase 2 Outreach
Community Engagement1 Agency Engagement1
No. of events Activity Description Primary Firm No. of events Activity Description Primary Firm Phase 2a - Preliminary Design Lead Firm Phase 2a - Preliminary Design Lead Firm 1 Engagement Plan K&W 4 California Coastal Commission (CCC) Meeting GHD 2 Workshops - Virtual K&W 1 Oneshoreline GHD
1 Workshops - In-person K&W 1 Golf Course/SF Rec Park GHD 5 Pop-up style workshop K&W
2 Surveys - online K&W
1 CEQA scoping meeting - Public (in-person or hyb K&W
1 Summary of Phase 2a Outreach K&W 1 CEQA scoping meeting - Agency (virtual) K&W 1 Meeting with City Council to approve plan GHD
5 Ad-Hoc Committee meetings (Optional) K&W
1 Presentation of prelim design to Council K&W
3 Smaller Committee meetings K&W
Phase 2b - Environmental Document Phase 2b - Environmental Document 1 Engagement Plan - Update K&W
3 Ad-Hoc Committee meetings K&W
1 Draft EIR meeting - Public K&W 1 Draft EIR meeting - Agency (virtual) K&W 0 Workshops - Virtual K&W 2 California Coastal Commission (CCC) Meeting GHD 0 Workshops - In-person K&W
4 Pop-up style workshop K&W
1 Summary of Phase 2b Outreach K&W
1 Final EIR Presentation to City Council (virtual) K&W
Phase 2c - Permitting & Final Design Phase 2c - Permitting & Final Design 1 Engagement Plan - Update K&W 1 Pre-application Multi-Agency Meeting K&W 1 Workshops - Virtual K&W 6 CCC GHD/ESA
1 Workshops - In-person K&W 4 State Lands GHD/ESA
3 Ad-Hoc Committee meetings K&W 1 CDFW GHD/ESA
4 Pop-up style workshop K&W 2 NMFS GHD/ESA
1 Surveys - online K&W 3 USACE GHD/ESA
1 Summary of Phase 2c Outreach K&W 1 Oneshoreline GHD/ESA 1 Final Presentation to City Council K&W
3 RWQCB GHD/ESA
2 City Planning (CDP consolidation) GHD/ESA
Notes:

1. The quantity and type of outreach activities have been developed for budget estimating purposes based on input from the project team and City. These events are subject to change throughout the course of the project based on the effectiveness of each activity and direction from the Ad-hoc committee, City Council, City staff, community and regulatory agencies.

2. GHD is the lead for all activities in the BBIRP project, 'Primary Firm' indicates which firm in the GHD Team will primarily complete the work for the activity.

7.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award) GHD | City of Pacifica
| 11213162| BBIRP Phase 2 36
ghd.com The Power of Commitment

7.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Task Order 1 [Revision 1] (5178 : BBIRP Phase 2a Award)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Purchase of City Vehicles from Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

STAFF CONTACT:

Lisa Petersen, P.E.- Director of Public Works
(650) 730-4948
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Vehicle Replacement Fund is a fund the City has had in place for many years dedicated to replacement of old and/or high-mileage City vehicles. Due to the City of Pacifica’s longstanding operating budget challenges, vehicle replacements have been historically underfunded, resulting in a vehicle fleet that is significantly out of alignment with best practices for operational efficiency and safety. Instead of funding an appropriate level of annual vehicle replacement funds allocated from each department’s operating budget, the City has been forced to utilize one-time funding sources to augment a small amount of annual operating funding in order to replace the most urgently needed vehicles in recent years. For example, here’s a list of recent (since 2019) priority vehicle replacements with notes on why the original vehicle was replaced for fire, police (PD), engineering (ENG, and Field Services (FS) purchased through the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72:

Fire Pumper Truck $600k 2019 (age)
Fire Ford F 250 Crew Cab $50k 2019 (replaced Rescue Rig) Fire Tahoe SUV $50k 2020 (new vehicle)
5-PD Pursuit Ford Utility $250k 2020 (high milage/maintenance) PD Pursuit Tahoe $69k 2022 (high mileage/maintenance)
PD Motorcycle $38k 2021 (age/high mileage)
PD Ford Utility Vehicle 2022 (high mileage)
ENG Prius $34k 2022 (age/rusted)
2-FS Ford F350 $85k 2020 (age/rusted)
FS Asphalt Truck $200k 2020 (age/rusted)
8 Packet Pg. 177
Pacifica City Council 2
November 28, 2022
In addition to these vehicles, four other vehicles for Field Services/Engineering are on order but have not been received and include three trucks and one Prius. The vehicles being replaced average 17.5 years and are rusted and high maintenance. Wastewater purchased 6 trucks during this time period with funding from the Enterprise Fund.

Since the inception of the Vehicle Replacement Fund in FY 2007-08, the vehicle replacement program was funded by annual allocation-based contributions from the General Fund, Wastewater Operating and Streets Funds. Due to ongoing financial challenges, the General Fund contribution to the fund was based on an allocation between the Police, Fire, Public Works and PB&R departments and was also gradually reduced over the years from $238,743 in FY2007-08 to $165,162 in FY 2019-20, until it stopped for budgetary reasons in FY 2020-21.

With adoption of the FY 22-23 budget, an ongoing annual contribution of $100,000 to the Vehicle Replacement Fund (Fund 72) was resumed.

For the FY 21-22 Budget, Council approved a $982,800 expense from Fund 72, including depreciation expense and a transfer of $356k to the Motor Pool Operating Fund (Fund 71) to cover overages on vehicle repairs due to the aging fleet. The remaining funds went towards vehicle replacements. With the help of a consultant, staff has been developing a Comprehensive Fleet Replacement Assessment Schedule (Schedule) for determining purchases of needed 2023 City vehicles and delayed a recommendation during the FY 22-23 budget process for purchase of City vehicles until the Schedule was finalized. The current available fund balance in the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 is $2,203,400.

Comprehensive Fleet Replacement Assessment Schedule
Staff recently hired Management Partners (now Baker Tilly), a government consultant, to come up with a process to identify several needs related to vehicle replacements based on best practices including timing for City vehicle replacement purchases and yearly contributions needed to the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 to allow for vehicle purchases when needed.

Management Partners had previously worked on a 2019 study for Public Works that helped to identify needs in the City’s Motor Pool section.

Management Partners prepared a 15-year Comprehensive Fleet Replacement Schedule to assist the City with managing fleet purchases, costs, contributions, and cash flow needed for Fund 72 for eventual replacement of the City’s 117 vehicles. Of these vehicles, more than half (58%) have been in service for 10 or fewer years and more than a third (35%) are 16 years or older. (Attachment 1).

Management Partners developed the fleet replacement schedule using a point system that considers age, utilization, maintenance/repair costs, reliability, and downtime. When a vehicle reaches 28 points or more, it becomes a candidate for replacement. Based on the Schedule, 54 City vehicles are either overdue for replacement or need to be replaced in 2023. The total cost of these needed replacements is estimated at $4,451,640. Except for police patrol vehicles that are replaced at 3 years due to high mileage, use and maintenance needs, the majority of the City’s vehicles are shown in the Schedule to be replaced between 10 to12 years as a best practice. The Schedule developed by Management Partners also provides the yearly contributions needed for Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 to support necessary City vehicle purchases. Starting in year 2023, the contribution is $1,085,728 and the final contribution needed in year 2038 for the fifteen (15) year Schedule is $1,639,113. As noted above, there have been no or limited contributions to Fund 72 in recent years and the balance in Fund 72 is $2,203,400.

Recommended Vehicle Replacements for 2023
The City does not have the funding to complete all of the 54 vehicle purchases recommended 8 Packet Pg. 178
Pacifica City Council 3
November 28, 2022
by the Management Partners replacement Schedule. Therefore, staff is delaying purchase of a number of vehicles recommended for replacement and has added longer times for replacement of these vehicles in the Schedule. This will push out costs and require higher yearly contributions or one-time payments to Fund 72 to account for the delay of these purchases.

Staff has developed the below list of vehicles that are considered critical for replacement in 2023 as shown below with approximate costs and notes regarding the reason for replacement:

Public Works
Wastewater Vac Con to replace 10-year-old Vac Con-$625k (age/repair issues) Field Services 10-yard dump truck to replace 30-year-old dump truck-$226k (age/repair issues) Field Services JD Backhoe to replace 2012 model-$200k (age/used daily) Field Services Longhorn trailer to replace 20-year-old trailer-$35k (age/deterioration) Field Services mid-size trailer to replace 20-year-old trailer-$30k (age/deterioration) Field Services large area mower to replace 17-year-old mower-$80k (age/high hours) Field Services small mower to replace 17-year-old mower-$50k (age/high hours) Toolcat Skid Steer to replace 19-year-old Bobcat Skid Steer-$65k (age/high hours) Police Department
ATV to replace 17-year-old Yamaha Rhino -$32k (age/replacement parts not available) Durango to replace 10-year-old Ford Fusion-$56k (high mileage) Durango to replace 17-year-old Crown Victoria-$56k (age/high mileage) F150 Responder to replace 17-year-old F150-$86k (age/off road vehicle) 4-Police Utility Explorers to replace high mileage 2018 models-$295k (high mileage/maintenance issues/one totaled in accident)
Ford Escape/Explorer for new CSO position -$50k (new position) Upfit 2023 Tahoe - $30K (required additions)
Upfit 2023 Durango - $6K (required additions)
The age of the vehicles and/or high-mileage and usage necessitate replacement of these vehicles, and one of the PD Utility Explorers was totaled in an accident. The vehicles are needed for the Police and Public Works Departments to complete work tasks related to their duties. Without the necessary police pursuit vehicles, police may not be able to respond in a timely manner to emergency calls. These vehicles are driven on average 24/7 (used for different shifts) and are high mileage. It is anticipated that these vehicles will be over a year out to receive, which will put them over the 100k mileage range. Vehicles in this category break frequently (transmissions, water pumps and other repairs have already been made) and are not available for use when needed or can break down during critical officer pursuits. It is considered best practice to replace these vehicles prior to reaching this high mileage level or officers may not have vehicles they can use for urgent calls as they may be out for service. It is important to note that police vehicles idle frequently, and this idling also adds additional wear and tear on the vehicles beyond what the odometers display increasing reliability issues. Two 17-year-old and one 10-year-old police vehicle are also recommended for replacement due to the vehicle age and condition and parts for the 17-year-old police ATV that is used for beach incidents and rescue are no longer available for purchase. Additionally, the new Community Service Officer (CSO) position for management of the Oversized Vehicle (OSV) parking program requires a vehicle. Currently, the Police Department has two full-time CSO positions, one is working in records due to a staffing shortage there, but when both are back working in patrol one would not have a vehicle to use. There is also a part-time CSO position that would need to share these vehicles. The positions are necessary to enforcement of the OSV ordinance and other parking enforcement throughout the City.

Public works equipment is used to manage storm events and complete daily necessary maintenance and help prevent sanitary system overflows. For the Public Works Department to function effectively, the purchase of these vehicles is required. The Wastewater Vac Con is 8 Packet Pg. 179
Pacifica City Council 4
November 28, 2022
used for cleaning sewer lines that helps prevent Sanitary System Overflows (SSOs). Over the last year the Vac Con has broken down on many occasions causing critical maintenance work to be delayed that can cause SSOs. The remaining seven public works equipment purchases requested have an average age of 19 years. Equipment at this end-of-life age requires constant maintenance and is often out of service when needed. Additionally, overload on Motor Pool staff to repair equipment of this age that breaks down often slows other critical fleet repairs and can cause operation budget overruns due to needed repairs exceeding expectations for a typical repair year.

Staff locked in rates for the vehicle purchases for the police pursuit and utility vehicles and the Wastewater Vac Con. It is anticipated that if the vehicles are not purchased now, vehicle prices for these purchases could increase as much as 20% over the next year. Time frames for receiving the vehicles is approximately a year out due to supply chain issues at dealerships.

The total costs of these vehicles will be approximately $1,979,660 (including 3% cost escalation) and will come from the Fund 72 available fund balance and a one-time contribution from the Wastewater Enterprise Fund related to the anticipated staff salary savings and vehicle replacement funding accounted for by the new rate increase. It will be important for the City to identify in the future an on-going revenue stream to account for the necessary yearly contributions needed to the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 for General Fund supported vehicle replacements to allow for continued replacement of these City vehicles.

Electric Vehicles (EVs)
The City has hybrid vehicles in the fleet that can run on electric power for use in areas that are conducive for this type of vehicle. Availabilitly of electric cars have increased over the years with the technology beginning to be applied toward pickup trucks and SUVs. However, current demand for electric vehicles is keeping costs high and extending purchase lead times. Police vehicles must be certified for police use and pursuit rated by the manufacturer to protect the public and officers when driving at high speeds and staff is not aware of an electric vehicle that meets these requirements. Although some testing of EVs is starting for police use, data is still being collected and needs to be evaluated. Decisions on which vehicles to purchase for police use by the City’s Police Department are based on published annual testing/driving reports that are provided by the Michigan State Police and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and these reports currently have no EV’s listed. Staff will continue to monitor the testing of police vehicles as reports related to this are developed.

Public Works equipment, such as dump trucks and backhoes, has not expanded into the EV market at this time. Public Works does look to purchase smaller equipment (as available) that is battery powered such as blowers, however the equipment’s capability must meet with the department’s operation needs. The equipment recommended for purchase in this report has been evaluated and requires gas operation.

To implement an EV fleet, the City would need to install infrastructure to support the fleet at the City’s facilities. This would have to include the ability to charge vehicles during prolonged power outages, such as the three-day PSPS event in 2019 and other less lengthy outages during recent large storm events. The cost for this change would be significant and funding would need to be identified for the work.

Recommendation
The City Manager is recommending the Council approve the purchase of City vehicles for $1,979,600, including a 3% cost escalation, and amend the City’s FY 22-23 budget to appropriate this amount in the Vehicle Replacement Fund to show the entire purchase amount in Fund 72. In addition, it is recommended Council approve a budget transfer from Wastewater Fund 18 to the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 to cover the portion of the purchase related to necessary Wastewater equipment.
8 Packet Pg. 180
Pacifica City Council 5
November 28, 2022
GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
• “Stewardship of City Infrastructure” - Public Works is responsible for repairing and replacing City infrastructure. Replacement of past-useful-life equipment will allow staff to work continuously and efficiently to complete necessary infrastructure repairs. • “Maintaining a Safe Community” - The Police Department needs functioning vehicles to respond to emergencies and protect people and properties. Public Works needs working equipment to respond to emergency weather events and other emergency situations.

Alternative Action:

Council may choose to not move forward with the vehicle purchases or only purchase certain vehicles. This is not recommended as these vehicles are critical to providing police and public works maintenance services to the community. Staff may be unable to provide critical police response or public works maintenance and emergency sewer/storm response without the needed vehicles. Delaying vehicles will also increase costs and the time when staff receives the vehicles as vehicle costs are increasing rapidly and receipt of vehicles upon purchase is currently 12 months out or more.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The majority of funds for the vehicle purchases are coming from the City’s Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 available fund balance. Below is the Source and Use of Funds for the vehicle replacements. Included in the Source of Funds is a one-time transfer from the Wastewater Enterprise fund related to anticipated salary cost savings of $300,000 due to vacancies and already budgeted allocation of $200,000 that was included in the recent rate increase for needed vehicle replacements. A budget transfer from Wastewater Fund 18 to the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 of $500,000 is required for the purchase of the Wastewater Vac Con.

The PD Utility Explorer totaled in the accident is anticipated to be reimbursed by insurance and when this money is received Fund 72 will be reimbursed for this cost.

Total Source of Funds
Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 $ 2,203,400
One-time Transfer from the Wastewater
Fund 18
$ 500,000
Insurance Refund for PD Utility Explorer $ 75,000
Total Source of Funds $ 2,778,400
Total Vehicle Cost
Police Vehicles $ 611,000
Public Works Field Services Vehicles $ 686,000
Public Works Wastewater Vehicle $ 625,000
3% Cost Escalation $ 57,660
Total Use of Funds $1,979,660
Estimated End Balance - Fund 72 $ 798,740
ORIGINATED BY:
8 Packet Pg. 181
Pacifica City Council 6
November 28, 2022
Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1_Vehicle Report(PDF)
8 Packet Pg. 182
Pacifica City Council 7
November 28, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 ANNUAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET TO INCLUDE

THE PURCHASE OF CITY VEHICLES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica has held public hearings on June 27, 2022, and June 27, 2022, for consideration and adoption of the Recommended FY 2022-23 Operating and Capital Budget; and
WHEREAS, staff delayed requesting a budget expense from Fund 72 during the FY 22-23 budget process as a Comprehensive Fleet Replacement Schedule (Schedule) was being developed through a consultant; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Fleet Replacement Schedule is now complete and provides recommendations for fleet replacements; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to purchase vehicles from the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 for immediate urgent needs; and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 for this purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES:

The City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby approves the purchase of City Vehicles from the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 for a total of up to $1,979,660 including a 3% cost escalation factor, and amends FY 2022-23 budget to appropriate $1,979,660 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund available fund balance and transfer $500,000 from the Wastewater Fund 18 to the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 for vehicle equipment purchases related to wastewater operations.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 28th day of November 2022.

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 8 Packet Pg. 183
2022 Current FY
Year of Unit
From To Fleet Age Number of Units Percent
2018 2022 5 years or less 35 30%
2013 2017 6 to 10 years 27 23%
2008 2012 11 to 15 years 14 12%
2007 older 16 years+ 41 35%
Total 117 100%

Check -
Count by Year # of Units
2007 41 2007 and older
2008 1
2009 5
2010 2
2011 2
2012 4
2013 13
2014 1
2015 4
2016 2
2017 7
2018 17
2019 6
2020 11
2021 1
2022 0
2023 0
2024 0
2025 0
Total 117
ATTACHMENT 1

8.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment 1_Vehicle Report (5162 : Purchase of Vehicles from Vehicle Replacement Fund 72)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/28/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Approving First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse as City Manager.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt resolution approving the First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse.

STAFF CONTACT:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City and City Manager, Kevin Woodhouse, entered into an Employment Agreement in September 2017. The City and City Manager Woodhouse then entered into a Restated Employment Agreement on December 13, 2021 providing for the terms and conditions of employment of Kevin Woodhouse. A formal performance review of the City Manager was held and was facilitated by Dan Keen of BakerTilly. Following the completion of the performance review, the City Council gave direction to the City Attorney to prepare a First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement to reflect changes to the City Manager’s compensation and benefits. (“First Amendment”).

The First Amendment provides for an increase in salary and benefits as follows: The annual base salary for City Manager Woodhouse was increased by 5% to $267,490. These adjustments to the City Manager’s salary would result in the City Manager’s total compensation being 4.96% below median for comparable cities in the County. First Amendment also provides for a modification to Mr. Woodhouse’s employment health insurance benefits to reflect the same benefits provided to other Department Heads in the City. The adjustment is proposed to be effective retroactively to the start of the first pay period after October 9, 2022.

The Council is asked to approve the attached Resolution which approves the First Amendment to Restated Agreement and authorizes the Mayor to execute the First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“A Strong Workforce Infrastructure” includes strategies to address employee retention and attraction challenges, engaging staff in decision-making, and recognizing staff.

FISCAL IMPACT:
9 Packet Pg. 185
Pacifica City Council 2
November 28, 2022
Approval of this First Amendment to the Restated Employment Agreement will result in a total full fiscal year impact of $14,900, with approximately $11,500 of that total expended during FY2022-23. This amount can be covered by the current FY2022-23 City Manager’s Office budget.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement - Kevin Woodhouse City Manager(PDF) 9 Packet Pg. 186
Pacifica City Council 3
November 28, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ____

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

FIRST AMENDMENT TO RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF

PACIFICA AND KEVIN WOODHOUSE
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica (“City”) and Kevin Woodhouse have previously entered into an Employment Agreement to employ Kevin Woodhouse as City Manager; WHEREAS, the City and Kevin Woodhouse have previously entered into a Restated Employment Agreement effective December 13, 2021;
WHEREAS, the City and Kevin Woodhouse now desire to enter into a First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement to modify the terms and conditions of Manager’s employment as City Manager;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby approves the First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse in substantially the same form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and authorizes and directs the Mayor to execute same for and on behalf of the City of Pacifica.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on November 28, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 9 Packet Pg. 187
Pacifica City Council 4
November 28, 2022
EXHIBIT “A”
First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement
Between City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse
9 Packet Pg. 188
1 OAK #4863-7434-9373 v2

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
between

CITY OF PACIFICA AND KEVIN WOODHOUSE

1. PARTIES AND EFFECTIVE DATE
The parties to this First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement (“First Amendment”) are the City of Pacifica (“City”) and Kevin S. Woodhouse (“Manager”). The effective date of this First Amendment shall be November 28, 2022.

2. PURPOSE
The parties have previously entered into a Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse (“Employment Agreement”) effective as of December 13, 2021. The City and Manager hereby desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth below.

3. AMENDMENT
A. Section 6.a. is hereby modified to read in its entirety as follows:

6. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS.
a. Salary. Effective the first pay period following October 9, 2022, City Manager shall be entitled to a five percent (5%) increase in salary and City agrees to pay Manager for his services rendered pursuant hereto as City Manager the sum of $267,490.00 annually payable in installments at the same time as other employees of the City are paid.

B. Section 6.d.iii. is hereby amended to read to read in its entirety as follows:
d. Holidays and Other Employee Benefits. Manager shall
receive the following additional benefits:
iii. Health Insurance: City contracts with CalPERS for the provision of health care services which include both Preferred Provider Organization Plans and Health Maintenance
Organization Plans and Manager may choose from any

9.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement - Kevin Woodhouse City Manager (5196 : Resolution - First Amendment to 2 OAK #4863-7434-9373 v2
CalPERS provided plans for provision of health care services.

City’s contribution to Manager’s health insurance plan shall be as set forth in the rate schedule attached hereto and
hereinafter incorporated by reference as Exhibit “A.”

4. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT
Except as specifically modified herein, all remaining terms and obligations set forth in the Employment Agreement between the City and Manager shall remain in full force and effect.

CITY OF PACIFICA
By:

Mary Bier, Mayor
Dated:

MANAGER:

By:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Dated:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

9.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement - Kevin Woodhouse City Manager (5196 : Resolution - First Amendment to 3 OAK #4863-7434-9373 v2
EXHIBIT “A”
Health Insurance Plan Rate Schedule

9.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement - Kevin Woodhouse City Manager (5196 : Resolution - First Amendment to 2023 – Benefit Rates

Page 1 of 4 ends

Pacifica City CouncilNovember 28, 2022

Pacifica City Council
November 28, 2022