Pacifica City Council
February 13, 2023

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck
Mayor pro Tem Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 February 13, 2023
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
February 13, 2023 (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 “Public Comment on Item Not on Agenda” in the Subject Line
• 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 February 13, 2023
6:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. Conference with Real Property Negotiations (Government Code § 54956.8).

Property: 1220 Linda Mar Boulevard, Pacifica California. Agency Negotiation: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager and Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney. Negotiating Parties: North Coast County Water District. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment for Right of Entry Agreement.
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer
Closed Session Report

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame Week / 2023 Inductees

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 12/01/22 through 12/31/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 1/01/23 through 1/31/23.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special and City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 13, 2023
Regular Meeting held on January 23, 2023.

3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency related to December 2022/January 2023 Winter Storm Events
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist related to the December 2022 / January 2023 Winter Storm Events.

4. 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.

5. 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.

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

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

7. 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.

8. 2022 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report PROPOSED ACTION: Receive 2022 mandated fire and life safety inspections compliance report and move to adoptresolution acknowledging receipt of the North County Fire Authority’s mandated fire and life safety inspections performed within the City of Pacifica pursuant to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the Health and Safety Code.

9. Vegetation Management and Wildfire Preparedness Grant Funding Opportunities Through CalFire
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the Resolution to submit for state sponsored grant funding for community vegetation fuel reduction and community education within the City of Pacifica.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
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 City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 13, 2023
recognized by the Mayor during this time, provided, however, that 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 Public Comments on Items Not on the Posted Agenda. A maximum time of three minutes will be allowed for any speaker. Persons addressing the City Council shall adhere to time limits and not disrupt the conduct of the meeting, and not make threats against any person or the public order. The Mayor, or their designee, may remove or cause the removal of an individual for disrupting the meeting, after providing the necessary warning pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.95 with confirmation from the City Attorney that removal is appropriate.

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

10. Introduction of an Ordinance to amend Article 49, “Short-Term Rentals” of the City of Pacifica Zoning Regulations (Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code [“PMC”]) to establish a cap of 150 short-term rental permits issued citywide and various other conforming amendments (File No. 2022-036 – Text Amendment TA-123-22).

Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)).

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to waive the first reading and introduce by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Article 49 (Short Term Rentals) of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (Text Amendment TA123-22) and Finding adoption of the text amendment exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”

CONSIDERATION

11. Anza Pump Station Repair Project–Additional Budget Authorization for Construction and Construction Services Management
PROPOSED ACTION:

A. Adopt a Resolution Increasing the Anza Station Project Project’s construction contingency budget by $232,600 (10%) to the total contingency of $697,800 (30%), bringing the total construction authority to $3,023,800; and authorizing the City Manager to extend the term of the contract with DW Nicholson Corporation, and execute any additional construction change orders within the amended construction budget.

B. Adopt a Resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute a Task Order No. 2 (Attachment “B”) to the Consultant Master Services Agreement with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. for Professional Engineering Services in an amount not to exceed $88,435 which includes a contingency of fifteen percent (15%); and add this amount to the overall Project budget.

City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 13, 2023

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 online at the City’s website (www.cityofpacifica.org/municode);

HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:

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

View on the Internet:

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

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

Agendas are available at the City Council meeting

HOW TO REACH YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
• Governor Gavin Newsom, State Capitol Building, Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 445-2841 • State Senator Josh Becker, 1528 So. El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 212-3313 • Assembly Member Marc Berman, 721 Colorado Ave, Suite 101, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 324-0224 • Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, 698 Emerson Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 323-2984 • 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 Tygarjas Bigstyck, tbigstyck@ pacifica.gov
• Mayor pro Tem Sue Vaterlaus, [email protected]
• Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer, [email protected]
• Councilmember Mary Bier, [email protected]
• Councilmember Christine Boles, [email protected]

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/13/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for Dated 12/01/22 through 12/31/22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 1/01/23 through 1/31/23.

STAFF CONTACT:

Lucy Xie, Deputy Finance Director
(650) 738-7395
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Staff has submitted the following disbursements for Council approval:
• Disbursements dated 1/01/23 through 1/31/23 are in the amount of $1,698,600.15 (Attachment 1).

FISCAL IMPACT:

These disbursements are within budgeted appropriations.

ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Disbursements -FY 22-23 - 1-1 to 1-31-23 (PDF)
1 Packet Pg. 6
Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY FEB0623 16:32 Page: 1

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 01/01/23 - 01/31/23 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 63353 541.54 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00094 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 1 63354 4108.19 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00045 ALBERTSONS / SAFEWAY 1 63355 29.50 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00136 ALHAMBRA 1 63356 385.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05556 AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVICE INC. 1 63357 237.15 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03895 AMERICAN FIDELITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE 1 63358 131.21 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01890 ARROWHEAD SCIENTIFIC, INC. 1 63359 4778.74 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00217 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 1 63360 200.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04561 AVINA, ANGEL 1 63361 380.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05303 BAY CITIES LOCK & SAFE, INC. 1 63362 200.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02118 BOOTZIN/ALEX 1 63363 17207.23 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 1 63364 253.25 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 63365 1551.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05082 COLUMN, PBC 1 63366 1186.02 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 63367 259.88 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00628 D C LOCK & SECURITY SERVICE 1 63368 200.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05754 DAVID CRIMMEN 1 63369 33715.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00672 DIAL GLASS AND WINDOW CO 1 63370 251.36 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00002 DIETERLE, DANA (PETTY CASH) 1 63371 100.30 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05440 DONNA NEWLAND 1 63372 1044.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04274 EMCOR SERVICES 1 63373 26744.50 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04376 FREEWAY TOYOTA OF HANFORD 1 63374 328.13 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02213 GARRATT CALLAHAN 1 63375 50.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03823 GIBSON JR, EUGENE 1 63376 183.75 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 GLENN STEVENS 1 63377 1368.61 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04012 GOLDEN STATE LUMBER 1 63378 8670.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03947 GRANICUS, INC.

Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY FEB0623 16:32 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 01/01/23 - 01/31/23 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 63379 29788.72 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03616 GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH PLANNING I 1 63380 2103.37 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04131 HDL SOFTWARE, LLC 1 63381 4974.19 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00919 HERC RENTALS INC. 1 63382 342.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00926 HILTON IRENE 1 63383 73.12 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05532 JOAN ARTHUR 1 63384 62.40 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04781 KING, KATHLEEN 1 63385 100.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 LANGI, LOUIS 1 63386 49.94 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03529 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 1 63387 5912.50 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05582 LUHDORFF AND SCALMANINI CONSULTING ENGIN 1 63388 50.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05758 MARIELENA Y. GONZALEZ 1 63389 4353.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03790 MAZE & ASSOCIATES 1 63390 6278.15 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05533 MCMILLAN ELECTRIC 1 63391 85.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01165 MILLER & O'BRIEN

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 2/6/2023

1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 22-23 - 1-1 to 1-31-23 (5248 : Disbursements - Dated 1/01/23 through 1/31/23) 1 63392 163.74 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01183 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC. 1 63393 19.76 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05437 PACIFIC PUBLISHERS, LLC 1 63394 2200.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01300 PEPPER BROS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1 63395 273.38 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04139 PET FOOD EXPRESS 1 63396 230.87 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01317 PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC. 1 63397 157.65 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 63398 4440.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03306 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES 1 63399 1813.95 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03620 SAN MATEO COUNTY REGISTRATION AND ELECTI 1 63400 250.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05759 SEAN O'LOUGHLIN 1 63401 78.78 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02182 SERVICE PRESS, INC. 1 63402 1104.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03064 SESAC 1 63403 4302.76 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05465 SIGILLO SUPPLY, INC. 1 63404 615.09 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01505 SNELL & CO J Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY FEB0623 16:32 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 01/01/23 - 01/31/23 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 63405 174555.25 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00049 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF 1 63406 281.95 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04418 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. 1 63407 2020.14 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03835 US FOODS, INC 1 63408 2889.03 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01684 VERIZON WIRELESS 1 63409 1557.77 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01701 WECO INDUSTRIES 1 63410 1465.20 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01725 WINTZELL YLVA 1 63411 384.85 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05469 BCC BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION 1 63412 15612.03 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05469 BCC BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION 1 63413 9523.18 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03741 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION 1 63414 29.50 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01757 CALIFORNIA ASSN OF PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGH 1 63415 242.76 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 1 63416 192.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 1 63417 729.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01757 CLEA
1 63418 50.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 63419 350.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 63420 562.66 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 63421 100.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 63422 110.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 63423 778.37 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION 1 63424 760.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01759 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 1 63425 190.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01760 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS 1 63426 420.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01769 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION 1 63427 1464.87 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 1 63428 92.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 SMC FIREFIGHTERS PAC 1 63429 1008.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01768 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #350 1 63430 2619.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01764 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY FEB0623 16:32 Page: 4

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 01/01/23 - 01/31/23 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 2/6/2023

1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 22-23 - 1-1 to 1-31-23 (5248 : Disbursements - Dated 1/01/23 through 1/31/23) 1 63431 60738.00 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01771 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856 1 63432 3548.22 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01766 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA 1 63433 17.32 01/06/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01766 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA 1 63434 422.95 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05763 4IMPRINT, INC. 1 63435 1038.88 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00138 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. 1 63436 372.60 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05760 AMANDA M ROBERTI 1 63437 169.05 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 63438 655.45 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01890 ARROWHEAD SCIENTIFIC, INC. 1 63439 53.82 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 BRAUN, LUCIE 1 63440 3780.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05463 BRETT STOLLENWERK 1 63441 2509.80 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 1 63442 4950.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05483 CALIFORNIA CONSULTING, INC. 1 63443 289.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01690 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB 1 63444 2441.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03814 CAPPSTONE, INC. 1 63445 989.69 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 63446 324.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05296 CLAIRE BREES 1 63447 186.50 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01092 COASTSIDE FIRE PROTECTION 1 63448 1000.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00019 COLMA POLICE DEPARTMENT 1 63449 725.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00595 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 63450 7897.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05341 CREATIVE DIGITAL AGENCY INC. 1 63451 237.69 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00632 DALTON TRACIE 1 63452 2614.04 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00014 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 1 63453 173.70 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 DONGUINES, RAYMUND 1 63454 442.50 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00724 EL DORADO FORKLIFT COMPANY 1 63455 3566.50 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 1 63456 68.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03804 GODSOE, LIZ Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY FEB0623 16:32 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 01/01/23 - 01/31/23 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 63457 162.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04494 ISIDRO, ALLEN 1 63458 81.05 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01812 KBA DOCUSYS 1 63459 2614.69 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03137 KOFFLER ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL 1 63460 169.75 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00002 MANGIBIN, VIMA (PETTY CASH) 1 63461 500.58 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01142 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 1 63462 968.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 MURDOCK, CHRISTIAN 1 63463 390.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03801 NAPIER, NORA 1 63464 10305.84 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01206 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. 1 63465 349.08 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01217 OFFICE DEPOT 1 63466 417.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00519 OMMM PACIFICA 1 63467 72.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03803 ORTEGA, SHIRLEY 1 63468 353.22 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01243 PACIFIC MANOR HARDWARE, INC. 1 63469 126.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03802 PATINO, JOE 1 63470 72.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02539 PITTSINGER, R JANE 1 63471 1102.87 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 63472 245.24 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05041 ROSA MACK 1 63473 30.42 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01795 ROSS, LAURIE

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 2/6/2023

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 22-23 - 1-1 to 1-31-23 (5248 : Disbursements - Dated 1/01/23 through 1/31/23) 1 63474 551.57 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01385 ROZZI REPRODUCTION & SUPPLY INC.. 1 63475 1866.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00055 SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC LAB 1 63476 2433.60 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04860 SERRA YELLOW CAB 1 63477 359.63 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05762 SHARRON WALKER 1 63478 100.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05761 STEPHEN W. HANSON 1 63479 72.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05524 STEVEN MICHAEL EVANS JR 1 63480 3453.00 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00044 SWRCB 1 63481 1597.20 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01592 TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER 1 63482 504.20 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04418 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC.

Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY FEB0623 16:32 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 01/01/23 - 01/31/23 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 63483 29.83 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02663 UNDERWOOD, EILEEN 1 63484 195.76 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03835 US FOODS, INC 1 63485 1686.63 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01684 VERIZON WIRELESS 1 63486 139.78 01/13/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01673 VWR INTERNATIONAL 1 63487 4861.06 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T
1 63488 3575.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05766 A3 PIPELINE 1 63489 614.47 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00094 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 1 63490 14469.12 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00138 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. 1 63491 120.19 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 63492 184.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05556 AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVICE INC. 1 63493 600.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03188 ATLAS PLUMBING & ROOTER INC 1 63494 743.05 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00293 BEARING AGENCIES INC 1 63495 43650.18 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 1 63496 2400.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05443 CALIFORNIA SEWER ENGINEERING, INC 1 63497 160.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00014 CALIFORNIA STATE OF 1 63498 3060.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00507 CHILDCARE CAREERS 1 63499 250.10 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 63500 1165.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05058 CLIENTFIRST CONSULTING GROUP, LLC 1 63501 3357.63 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00595 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 63502 243068.65 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03121 D.W. NICHOLSON CORPORTATION 1 63503 14761.74 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00025 DALY CITY/CITY OF 1 63504 234.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05767 DANIEL ELIMELECH 1 63505 30.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 DECANO, ABEGAIL 1 63506 10800.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02201 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. 1 63507 1400.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04274 EMCOR SERVICES 1 63508 109.95 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00489 ENTERSECT Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY FEB0623 16:32 Page: 7

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 01/01/23 - 01/31/23 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 63509 6103.56 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03458 EOA INC 1 63510 15229.45 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03006 FEHR PEERS 1 63511 11698.42 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 2/6/2023

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 22-23 - 1-1 to 1-31-23 (5248 : Disbursements - Dated 1/01/23 through 1/31/23) 1 63512 100.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05394 GAIL EDWARDS 1 63513 10120.14 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00870 GOVCONNECTION, INC. 1 63514 175.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05492 GREASE TRAP CLEANERS, LLC 1 63515 1708.75 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03616 GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH PLANNING I 1 63516 474.10 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00028 HARRIS FORMS 1 63517 1182.60 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04859 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1 63518 637.82 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04999 IMAGE SOURCE 1 63519 190.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00979 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF P 1 63520 65.63 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01014 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 1 63521 561.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01046 KIDWELL JO ANN 1 63522 582.92 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01055 KONE INC 1 63523 25.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 LIN, JAMES 1 63524 944.82 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01095 LINDA MAR HARDWARE 1 63525 1650.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05731 MAY KIYOTANI 1 63526 613.09 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01154 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 1 63527 5226.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04077 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP 1 63528 3900.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01163 MIKE LEWIS CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC. 1 63529 11422.26 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03955 MOFFATT & NICHOL 1 63530 479.28 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05575 NATIONAL TELEPHONE MESSAGE COPR 1 63531 460.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02283 NORCAL SOUND CO INC 1 63532 200.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03391 NORTH STATE ENVIRONMENTAL 1 63533 1344.81 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02486 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 1 63534 308.96 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01217 OFFICE DEPOT Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY FEB0623 16:32 Page: 8

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 01/01/23 - 01/31/23 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 63535 96.31 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01239 PACIFIC FIRE SAFE 1 63536 173804.11 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01240 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 1 63537 2439.03 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01243 PACIFIC MANOR HARDWARE, INC. 1 63538 0.00 01/20/23 UNISSUED 01/20/23 01243 PACIFIC MANOR HARDWARE, INC. 1 63539 7.38 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04418 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION 1 63540 237232.54 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01295 PETERSON 1 63541 307.28 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 63542 329.10 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05769 RANDEN IRESON 1 63543 11840.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03306 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES 1 63544 291.56 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 SALACUP, MACAELA 1 63545 1155.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00022 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 1 63546 3315.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05764 SAVANT SOLUTIONS, INC 1 63547 256.36 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05465 SIGILLO SUPPLY, INC. 1 63548 1200.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01501 SMELLY MEL'S PLUMBING 1 63549 562.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05576 STEVE KWON 1 63550 537.99 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02642 T-MOBILE CORPORATION 1 63551 3238.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02527 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 1 63552 402.63 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01812 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 1 63553 4642.05 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03835 US FOODS, INC 1 63554 1753.85 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01684 VERIZON WIRELESS

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 2/6/2023

1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 22-23 - 1-1 to 1-31-23 (5248 : Disbursements - Dated 1/01/23 through 1/31/23) 1 63555 37.50 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 WACHTELBORN, DUANE 1 63556 242.76 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 1 63557 192.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 1 63558 50.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 63559 350.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 63560 562.66 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY FEB0623 16:32 Page: 9

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 01/01/23 - 01/31/23 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 63561 100.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 63562 110.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 63563 246.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01767 NPFBA
1 63564 870.37 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION 1 63565 439.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS-LTD 1 63566 760.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01759 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 1 63567 190.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01760 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS 1 63568 420.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01769 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION 1 63569 1464.87 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 1 63570 2619.00 01/20/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01764 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 1 63571 1321.21 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T
1 63572 2875.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05771 ACADEMI TRAINING CENTER, LLC 1 63573 1412.49 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00094 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 1 63574 250.75 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04066 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC 1 63575 3221.81 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04365 ALTEC INC. 1 63576 1032.23 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 63577 237.15 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03895 AMERICAN FIDELITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE 1 63578 545.85 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T
1 63579 45.67 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T LONG DISTANCE 1 63580 814.84 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00293 BEARING AGENCIES INC 1 63581 179.58 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 BIANCULLI, RYAN 1 63582 506.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05127 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. 1 63583 1285.70 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00335 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY 1 63584 5283.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05658 BSK ASSOCIATES 1 63585 95.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00011 C.W.E.A. 1 63586 1101.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01690 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY FEB0623 16:32 Page: 10

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 01/01/23 - 01/31/23 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 63587 107.46 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02273 CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT 1 63588 4620.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03814 CAPPSTONE, INC. 1 63589 55533.25 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02655 CAROLLO 1 63590 3366.65 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00507 CHILDCARE CAREERS 1 63591 1027.86 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS 1 63592 2087.07 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 63593 51.30 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03246 COAST COUNTIES PETERBILT & COAST COUNTIE

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 2/6/2023

1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 22-23 - 1-1 to 1-31-23 (5248 : Disbursements - Dated 1/01/23 through 1/31/23) 1 63594 429.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05082 COLUMN, PBC 1 63595 169.02 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 63596 88.60 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00586 COOKE COMPANY, J.P. 1 63597 4866.50 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00611 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 63598 3789.57 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03445 D&L SUPPLY COMPANY INC 1 63599 600.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02201 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. 1 63600 50.93 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02614 DISH
1 63601 106.25 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05440 DONNA NEWLAND 1 63602 1289.64 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05683 ECE STEP 1 63603 651.88 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00745 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS, INC. 1 63604 179.58 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 EVANS, DAVID 1 63605 35.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT 1 63606 10937.08 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 1 63607 49.62 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00861 GOLDEN GATE TRUCK CENTER 1 63608 179.58 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 GOMEZ, JOE 1 63609 12000.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05399 GOVINVEST INC. 1 63610 298.61 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00892 HACH COMPANY 1 63611 101.18 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 HIGGINS, JEFF 1 63612 6375.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00927 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY FEB0623 16:32 Page: 11

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 01/01/23 - 01/31/23 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 63613 700.96 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02511 IDEXX LABORATORIES 1 63614 5886.89 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01014 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 1 63615 1640.63 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05735 JOSEPH VARGAS 1 63616 95.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05333 KASEYA US LLC 1 63617 492.08 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03700 KIMBALL MIDWEST 1 63618 4733.75 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05535 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 63619 288.83 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01067 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS 1 63620 110.50 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05770 LINDA HUGHES 1 63621 30.13 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 MANGIBIN, VIMA 1 63622 2000.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05775 MARY MCLENS 1 63623 6243.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03790 MAZE & ASSOCIATES 1 63624 171.55 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01142 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 1 63625 1293.37 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01183 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC. 1 63626 277.13 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04549 NAF SERVICES, INC. 1 63627 2171.60 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04207 NATIONWIDE 1 63628 4111.80 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01206 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. 1 63629 59.60 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01217 OFFICE DEPOT 1 63630 1289.65 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01297 PARS
1 63631 500.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03370 PEERY & ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 1 63632 2200.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01300 PEPPER BROS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1 63633 17.22 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01295 PETERSON 1 63634 1650.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 PHIPPS, ELIZABETH 1 63635 26414.06 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01309 POLYDYNE INC. 1 63636 177.87 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01317 PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC.

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 2/6/2023

1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 22-23 - 1-1 to 1-31-23 (5248 : Disbursements - Dated 1/01/23 through 1/31/23) 1 63637 687.17 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 63638 336.30 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00042 R & S ERECTION NORTH PENINSULA INC.

Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY FEB0623 16:32 Page: 12

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 01/01/23 - 01/31/23 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 63639 836.50 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03990 RICE LAKE WEIGHING SYSTEMS INC. 1 63640 472.34 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 RILEY, TOMAS 1 63641 250.36 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01372 RITE-WAY ELECTRIC 1 63642 179.58 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 ROMERO, VICENTE 1 63643 2183.80 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01382 ROSEMOUNT INC. 1 63644 75.60 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01402 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. 1 63645 918.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00022 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 1 63646 164.51 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00022 SAN MATEO COUNTY INFORMATION SERVICES 1 63647 7600.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02615 SEAN'S QUALITY FLOORS 1 63648 310.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02471 SIGNAWEST SYSTEMS, INC. 1 63649 2691.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01531 ST. FRANCIS ELECTRIC, INC. 1 63650 1570.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01570 SYNAGRO WEST, LLC 1 63651 1477.64 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01587 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE 1 63652 7445.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03785 THATCHER COMPANY INC 1 63653 3231.07 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04299 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 1 63654 225.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01029 THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP INC. 1 63655 1800.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05075 TRAFFIC LOGIX CORPORATION 1 63656 500.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01657 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 1 63657 9153.47 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04670 U.S. TELEPACIFIC CORP. 1 63658 2392.30 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01647 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS 1 63659 14.76 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01652 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 1 63660 1531.25 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01653 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) 1 63661 50.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01661 UPS STORE #1906 1 63662 262.18 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01812 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 1 63663 2833.11 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03835 US FOODS, INC 1 63664 1169.75 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01673 VWR INTERNATIONAL Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY FEB0623 16:32 Page: 13

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 01/01/23 - 01/31/23 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 63665 1220.26 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01717 WHITE CAP CONST. SUPPLY 1 63666 1227.57 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04999 XEROX FINANCIAL SERVICES 1 63667 54590.00 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04882 YODA PAINTING INC. 1 63668 292.06 01/30/23 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02495 YSI INCORPORATED BANK: 1 TOTAL # OF CHECKS: 316 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF: $1698600.15 TOTAL # OF REISSUED CHECKS: 0 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF:

TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF:

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=&FileName=D:\GemsEnv... 2/6/2023

1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 22-23 - 1-1 to 1-31-23 (5248 : Disbursements - Dated 1/01/23 through 1/31/23)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/13/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on January 23, 2023.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on January 23, 2023 (Attachment A).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 15

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck
Mayor pro Tem Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 January 23, 2023
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING

JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 23, 2023 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck called the meeting to order on January 23, 2023 at 4:30 PM 4:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bigstyck called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present, and announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session.

There were no public comments.
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS - Government Code section 54957.6 - Agency designated representatives: Timothy Davis, Mark Wilson, Rachel Balchum of Burke, Williams, and Sorenson; Employee organizations: Fire Battalion Chiefs, IAFF Local 2400; Fire Fighters, IAFF Local 240; Management Unit, Teamsters Local 350 ; Miscellaneous Employee, Teamster Local 856; Pacifica Police Officers Association; Police Mgmnt (PPMA) & Police Supervisors (PPSA); Wastewater Treatment Plant Teamsters Local 856
5:30 PM - OPEN JOINT STUDY SESSION OF CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor Bigstyck opened study session at 5:34 p.m.

City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call of Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners for the joint study session and stated that Planning Commissioners Ferguson and Leal were absent.

Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session to hear a presentation and discuss the Pacifica Economic Opportunities Study report.

PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and discuss the Economic Opportunities Study report prepared by Kosmont Companies and provide direction on next steps for integrating and prioritizing the report’s findings and recommendations into the Pacifica Economic Development program.

City Manager Woodhouse introduced the presentation and then turned it over to Consultant Ken Hira of Kosmont.

2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 January 23, 2023
Consultant Hira made the presentation.

City Manager Woodhouse added further to his comments regarding the specific financial goal of this item and then turned it over to Consultant Brian Moura of RGS to present further slides.

Consultant Moura completed the presentation.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if the council and/or commission had any questions for staff.

Commissioner Godwin referred to the increased number of short-term rentals in homes in the city and stated that he thought it decreased the viability of hotels. He would like future discussion on short-term rental approaches to preserve the viability of hotels while following the guidelines of the Coastal Commission. He also referred to the development of the General Plan where some of the sites they identified in this discussion were also identified as being considered for providing some of the housing units they would have to build; he thought they would have to clearly decide which sites are better for housing units or for economic development. He stated that it would be helpful if they could summarize that in some document.

Vice Chair Hauser referred to attachment 3 relating to the Beach Blvd. site, which is listed as a medium-term opportunity that has to go through SLA, and she wanted to know if that mediumterm opportunity still made sense with SLA.

Consultant Hira stated, without SLA, it is really a short-term opportunity as it is a site that could be viable now. However, with the SLA, they look at it as a six-month process, which means they can say it is a short- to medium-term opportunity.

Vice Chair Hauser referred to the 50-unit multi-home project as an $85,000 per year tax generator, and wondered if it was an annual recurring generation or if it included development impact fees amortized over time.

Consultant Hira stated that it is an annual static tax revenue generation and that didn’t take into consideration that it could grow, as property taxes will grow at 2% and sales tax could grow and TOT could grow at another rate, thus, a future growth to those numbers. They were trying to identify a relative scale of tax generation which is annual.

Vice Chair Hauser thought they have 1.25% tax rate and 6% gets passed back to the city from the County.

Consultant Hira stated that there was the addition of the VLF (vehicle license fee) which adds to that as well as other fees generated such as franchise fees, business license fees, and potentially sales and TOT fees.

Councilmember Boles referred to the Beach Blvd. site and the surplus land act question, and wanted to ask about the timing and make sure they are aware that there is a lot going on in that area; this includes the Sharp Park Specific Plan which still has to go through the Coastal Commission and will take place probably a few years down the line. She mentioned that, since 1999, they have been trying to get a hotel developer to come to that area, with a lot of things involved, and it leads her to the sites they are looking at as long-term projects which will take a long time to permit and build and bring income; but she thought there was a lot they could do with the sites now with temporary use of the space as they look at long-term goals which can help them meet some of the financial obligations. She says what is missing is a discussion of

2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 January 23, 2023
work force or affordable housing which affects our businesses to fully operate so she wondered what we can do to pursue low-income housing developers which takes time.

Consultant Hira thought they were good questions. He stated that they have Coastal Commission jurisdiction matters for some sites, they have to contend with those elongating the schedule. Regarding the timing, he thought they would want to start that process to see if they can get interest as early as possible. He understood there was an RFP that was put on hold in 2019 for the hotel opportunity site and he questioned if, during COVID-19, that is the right time to find a hotel developer. He stated that he is in the process of working on two other hotel sites and opportunities, and there is an interest in coastal regions. He thought the timing to start the process makes sense, knowing they may get delayed as a result of bigger hurdles, such as the Coastal Commission. Regarding the housing question and surplus land act, that is what it is designed for, as that site will need to be offered to an affordable housing developer. He stated that the city has to negotiate in good faith but is not obligated to sell the property or lease it for below market value. He stated that the good faith negotiation period is 90 days which is a process that may have an end result that could have affordable housing related to the site or during the negotiations for affordable housing there is no meeting of the minds. He pointed out that land on the coast has a lot of value for hospitality use and that the environmental issues, such as sea level rise, etc., are real issues to contend with which is why they believe they have to go through environmental studies to make sure they end up in a site that has the proper resiliency. He concluded that there is a lot of work to do and their work is just the tip of the iceberg before the next steps to be taken.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that Kosmont put on a workshop he attended at CalCities Conference in Long Beach regarding the surplus land act and he feels it is ingrained in his brain. He asked Councilmember Boles if she thought it would be helpful if the consultant expounded on the surplus land act.

Councilmember Boles understood that, while she understands the process, it may be good for the public.

Mayor Bigstyck then asked the consultant if he would go into the surplus land act with a brief history of what the process looks like for all city land of what they have to go through to develop it.

Consultant Hira stated that the original surplus land act has been around for years and required cities to offer property they wanted to sell or dispose of to school districts, parks, and other public entities. There was the ability, based on an economic development finding for any public entities, that they were subject to the law; in 2019, AB1486 was passed which amended the surplus land use act and said that all those public entities have to offer property whether lease or sale to a list created by HCD and locally of affordable housing developers so that the opportunity was presented to them first. That NOA (notice of availability) gets issued to hundreds of facilities in the state and a 60-day period begins. Within that 60-day period, if an affordable housing developer does not show interest, the city has the ability to sell or lease the property at its leisure. If the goal is for private investment, they can move forward. If during that 60-day period, there is interest expressed, and more than one entity interested, the city would have to negotiate in good faith after the 60-day period for a 90-day period, where they are studying all the factors of the site, and during the process there is a declaration of surplus which Council does, as well as an appraisal so public agencies know the worth of the property. They are not obligated to sell below market value. He stated that affordable housing developers generally need subsidies to build affordable housing. He stated that there is a strategy to try to

2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 January 23, 2023
get affordable housing into communities because it is needed, part of RHNA, and it makes sense whether work force level or low or very low-income level. He stated that, if the city goes through the 60 or 90-day period and there is no deal struck, there is a 25% obligation to build affordable housing on that site so there is affordable housing requirement of 10 or more units are built. He stated that if it is a hotel or other visitor serving uses or retail, there is a covenant but no obligation to build affordable housing, but if they build ten units, there is that affordable housing restriction below market rent.

Councilmember Boles asked, if they don’t get an affordable housing developer or a hotel interested, if they have to start the process over years later.

Consultant Hira stated that the process is done insomuch as, at the end of the 90 days, the entity is required to settle up with HCD. The communication during the process is important and they are talking through the gray areas, such as splitting the site for hospitality use and residential use. He mentioned various factors involved, such as a penalty if the city didn’t comply with the surplus land act.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that the city could designate land as surplus as part of the process and could also designate it as exempt surplus land. She stated that there are exemptions under the surplus land act, and it is a complex area of the law and it is evolving and may not be the same two years from now.

Chair Berman thanked Consultant Hira for the analysis. She wondered if he could go into what analysis they completed on existing hotel utilization and the conclusion that she thought implied additional hotels would be just as, if not more, utilized.

Consultant Hira referred to an analysis they would have used through resources called Smith Travel Research (STR), a significant data source for hotel occupancies. He stated that the metrics they study are occupancy and ADR (average daily rate). As a result, there is revenue that gets generated at a 12% TOT rate and that is how they would calculate that this was a potential revenue source. He stated, when baseline occupancy levels are 75% or greater than 75% and based on number of hotel rooms, they have a strong hotel market. They can look at the history of occupancy trending, as they sometimes do see occupancy declining over years or increasing for whatever reasons. As it increases, it tells them it is better market demand. They look at the ADR increase - when the rate is going up, it can create an opportunity for the city. In doing all that, they look at it and say there is a greater demand than there is supply and the type of hotel in places like Pacifica on the coastline are a high value hotel proposition that has an opportunity to be here. He mentioned the different scale of hotels and believed there is an upscale opportunity in Pacifica.

Chair Berman asked if any of their indicators they use indicate seasonality.

Consultant Hira responded affirmatively, stating that they look at STR to help them regarding which days of the week have what levels of occupancy, i.e. weekends and weekdays, businessoriented markets, business travel following COVID-19, summer and non-summer months, etc.

He concluded that the data is available and powerful.

Councilmember Bier thanked him for the detailed report. She referred to the data collected from the community, stating that it is never a large sample. She was at some in-person meetings and saw that reflected in his report and wondered if they could see the data specifically from those in-person meetings.

2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 January 23, 2023
Consultant Hira agreed, stating the points made were important and very well made and they are happy to share that data with them.

Councilmember Bier appreciated that. She asked if they looked at landscape beautification, such as do trees add any value.

Consultant Hira stated that they didn’t look at it specifically.

Councilmember Bier stated that they talked about signs.

Consultant Hira agreed that signage was important, but it isn’t about signage per se. It comes with a landscape and facade treatment with an opportunity for improvement, mentioning that he sees both soft scape and hard scape, and facade treatments and landscaping can make a difference.

Mayor Bigstyck fielded additional questions.

Councilmember Boles stated she had another question about slide 8 where he refers to generation based on type of building such as restaurants and residential, and referred to the residential numbers; knowing RHNA is requiring a variety of housing for low income to moderate market rates, she asked what is used in their calculations, such as market rate at the $85,000.

Consultant Hira stated that it is considered market rate in terms of the construction costs, which is expensive per unit
Councilmember Boles understood, and asked if some are deed restricted, whether the property tax revenue might be lower and affect the bottom line.

Consultant Hira agreed, stating that the property tax revenue in these examples is assumed to be at market rate.

Councilmember Boles thought residential costs more in city services than parks, child care, etc., and she asked if that was factored in at all.

Consultant Hira stated it was not as this was a gross projection, and he stated that there was no doubt the net fiscal impact needs to be looked at closely as you don’t want to promote a project that has a net negative fiscal impact. He added that is where community benefits come in and there are a host of things that can be done in collaboration with the private sector.

Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments.

Pete Shoemaker, Pacifica, thanked the consultant for the report. He then gave some of his concerns and shared his thoughts on how the community can help the city on the various items discussed and improve the efficiency of the processes.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, appreciated the ongoing focus, and shared her thoughts for more data in appreciating neighborhood strategies, such as signage and working with CalTrans, etc.

Sue Digre, Pacifica, agreed with the previous speakers, and appreciated both Council and Commission on their questions and comments; she shared her thoughts and suggestions on

2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 January 23, 2023
various issues, such as revenue, and addressed all assets we have that bring in money and could bring in more with collaboration strategies.

City Manager Woodhouse referred to Ms. Abbott’s point on CalTrans signage, stating that staff has been working with CalTrans on that in recent years which is an ongoing process. He does agree with the recommendation that it can be short-term and mediu- term and is a complicated process. He mentioned some signage that was added but felt there could be more.

Mayor Bigstyck closed public comments.

Mayor Bigstyck thought all the commenters made great points and he thought it would be helpful if they are considered in the mix.

Councilmember Bier referred to the CalTrans comment. They met with them after OSPAC came out with the desire about Fairway Park and signage is part of their 5-year plan.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed with that, stating that the last coordination meeting was in the October or November 2021 time frame.

Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to questions on the cost basis, acknowledging that this was an overview report; she wanted to dig more deeply into some of the issues, such as average revenue that might be generated from these properties. She wanted to understand infrastructure costs that might come up as a result of increasing the densities and amount of building in these areas. She understands that a lot of it is tied to the developer, but she wanted to understand if there was a multiplier or factor they’re putting into this, as where we are now with what we have is a lot infrastructure costs and many projects we can’t fund. She wanted to better understand how that relationship works with any proposed idea. She referred to comments about inventory and seasonality, etc., and asked if that was data they are going to be receiving from STR was part of this next step analysis or not. She had a question about a statement in the executive summary: “over the past decade, Pacifica has seen sales tax growth of 7.2% despite a drop of 13% during the first year of the pandemic.” She realized it was a dip situation but further down it said “actual onsite sales in Pacifica business has seen little or no growth since 2012.” Her conclusion from that is that sales tax revenue coming to them from sales outside of Pacifica, such as online sales, but would like a deeper understanding of that on the next phase of the report.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus wondered why they didn’t include the Pedro Point Calson property in any analysis as there is little to no area to increase in Pedro Point. She referred to the 50 houses, and she thought that was a very small amount to be generated in property tax from 50 houses. She thought the most inexpensive thing in Pacifica is $750 and they came up with $85,000, so she said that was a really small amount in the report compared to the actual.

Vice Chair Hauser appreciated the addition of information about housing and the revenue it generates as it was important to think about it. She thought understanding the net revenue was important, and she wasn’t suggesting where residential could go made sense, but in putting a unit count to these sites, she wasn’t sure there was enough land use study to go hand in hand with that. She thought it may cause confusion as they go through some of the other housing element processes, and she thought it may not quite fit into the report.

Councilmember Bier thought that might be the opinion of some of the public as well.

2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 January 23, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck asked staff, if there is no more feedback, whether they had what they need to move forward.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if there were additional comments or questions on the short-, medium- and long-term actions they will look to build into the long-term economic development strategy. He stated that they have already heard a couple of comments on some of these strategies, but if there weren’t any additional comments from Council and Commission on these items, they will move forward with the recommendations for the next iteration of the study.

Chair Berman stated, as a reminder, that Vice Chair Hauser mentioned some more complicated analysis on the Beach Blvd. site and any public site regarding SLA, and she didn’t know if that could be added into the record and considered if any changes are needed or another column needs to be added. She also stated that Councilmember Boles brought up a good point in that some of the properties, especially the vacant ones, may have temporary opportunities which could bring some revenue, especially sites with long-term timing currently, and she thought it might be beneficial to look at temporary activations on some of the vacant parcels. She stated that ideas were included in the staff report in the executive summary on container shops or RV air stream popups, food trucks, etc., and she liked the idea that Councilmember Boles brought up using temporary timing for short term.

Councilmember Boles referred to Cindy Abbott’s comment regarding looking at neighborhoods.

She and Vice Chair Hauser, who both live in the Manor district, see that as an opportunity for the site as it isn’t just the shopping center for the community but a visual for people coming into Pacifica, and not just signage but trees, etc., that is more attractive visually that sets the stage for Pacifica. She stated that shopping center was left out on the square footage and she would like that to be fleshed out. She did think it was growing more quickly than some of the others, maybe because it is close to San Francisco and the parking lot is full at night because of restaurants, etc. She thought it was a place where there could be more long-term growth and redevelopment, and tying it into the Manor overcrossing project. She saw it as an opportunity for the city. She referred to commercial space, stating that they showed them that it didn’t pay as much, and she asked if there has been any survey on the businesses there that want to grow and what space needs they may have. She knows Rosalind Bakery in the Manor Shopping Center is looking at having a commercial bakery which would be a larger space and she thought it would be great to encourage our businesses that are performing well to grow and develop.

Councilmember Bier referred to Vallemar where there is a small shopping center and she didn’t know if there was any further opportunity there, but she wanted to add it into the record and she thought an additional survey of our businesses could be done.

Councilmember Beckmeyer added that there is also private property adjacent to those businesses there.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if staff had all they needed. Once he received confirmation, he thanked the Planning Commission for their participation, as well as the consultants, Mr. Hira and Moura.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

ADJOURN JOINT STUDY SESSION
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the study session and called for a 5-minute break.

2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 January 23, 2023
7:00 PM - OPEN SESSION - REGULAR MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL Call to Order
Mayor Bigstyck called the regular meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Present
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor pro Tem Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Chris Clements, Acting Police Chief; Lucy Xie, Dep. Finance Director; Bob Palacio, PB&R Director; Kenneth Fong, IT Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bigstyck read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus
Closed Session Report
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that there was no reportable action.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - HumanTrafficking Prevention Month
Mayor Bigstyck introduced Acting Police Chief Chris Clements to accept the proclamation in honor of Human Trafficking Prevention Month.

Acting Police Chief Clements expressed appreciation for this proclamation and was privileged to accept it on behalf of Pamela Estes. He gave some details of their program which was created in 2016 and was a collaboration between the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office and San Mateo County Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Association. He reported that too many citizens believe it only occurs in other countries, but that is not true, and we have it occurring in San Mateo County. He stated that the data collected stated that up to 300 victims who have a nexus to San Mateo County, mentioning details of types of victims. Their program works to enhance response to human trafficking countywide in several different ways and encourages collaborative partnerships, enhances helping victims, trains law enforcement, and raises community awareness of this through various events throughout the year. They host a monthly meeting called Human Trafficking Initiative which is open to governmental members, non2.a Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 January 23, 2023
governmental, faith and community-based organizations and members of the public with a role or interest in the response to human trafficking in San Mateo County; they focus on response to human trafficking in the county and delivering relative information on all aspects of human trafficking. They ask the community to learn how to detect these crimes, and if they see something to report it, either by dialing 911 or contacting the national hotline or child protection services, etc.

Mayor Bigstyck then read the proclamation. He asked City Clerk Coffey to give the information of the website to find the proclamation and the link to report human trafficking.

City Clerk Coffey reported the information.

Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments and, seeing no one, closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated she was surprised to hear that there were 300 reported cases in the county, and she would never have thought it was that large, adding that you also have to consider the ones that aren’t reported.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that, as he was reading the proclamation and recalling some of the films he saw, he was struck by the notion that there are people who are being trafficked without realizing it. When he went to the inauguration of Sheriff Corpus, one of the women who spoke at the inauguration was someone whom had been trafficked. He stated that it is happening in our county but we don’t know what we don’t know and importantly, if something seems amiss, follow up on it because they may not know.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bigstyck asked if any councilmembers wished to pull an item from the consent calendar.

Seeing no one, he opened up public comments. Seeing no one, he closed public comments.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles

1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 11/16/22 through 12/31/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 11/16/22 through 12/31/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on January 9, 2023.

3. Merge three (3) current separate PB&R Supervisor job specifications documents (Childcare, Food/Senior Services, and Recreation/Aquatics) into one (1) comprehensive Recreation Supervisor job specification document
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution to merge and update the job specifications for Parks, Beaches & Recreation Childcare Supervisor, Food/Senior Services Supervisor, and Recreation/Aquatics Supervisor, into one (1) job specification title document, Recreation Supervisor.

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 January 23, 2023

4. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the resolution to update and replace authorized signers on the City of Pacifica's Local Agency Investment Fund through the State of California Treasury Department.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ken Miles, Pacifica, stated he had a handout for Council regarding an issue on monuments planted on the streets. The handout detailed the concerns he was sharing regarding mistakes on property boundaries, and he gave several examples where it was a problem.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus attended the City & County Assn. Of Governments (CCAG) Legislative meeting, where the most important topic discussed was reform to the Brown Act.

They are working to make it so any commissions that vote on items would meet in person, but the accessory committees that report would still be allowed to meet in Zoom meetings, which is important going forward. She clarified that the Council meeting would need to be in person but the Open Space Committee could meet on Zoom as they don’t vote. She added that Planning is a Commission and they would meet in person. CCAG had a Congestion Management meeting. She attended the Fairmont Homeowners Board for the first time; they talked about concerns of the SI, former Fairmont School, laying of new fields and the traffic caused by that.

They talked about the turn on Skyline from Hickey which is a CalTrans issue. She attended two electrification meetings, trying to learn about the process of electrification and insert her comments. She learned about parliamentary procedure. The Open Space Committee has a work plan on the trails, sorting conflicts between hikers, walkers, and bike riders; different types of trails; and water issues and signage. Lastly, she remarked she went to the Democrat’s meeting, where Mike O’Neill was the speaker.

Councilmember Bier attended the special city selection where she applied for the HEART (Housing Endowment and Regional Trust) Board of San Mateo County and was selected; she will be serving and was excited to get Pacifica a seat at the table. She attended the Economic Development Committee meeting where Asst. City Manager Carter gave a beautiful presentation of the city’s finances. She attended the Pacifica Resource Center meeting and the Mayor’s Mental Health Initiative meeting where they were talking about rebranding and meeting with the county to continue the work they started. She observed the Oceana High School safety plan with Acting Police Chief Clements. She participated and watched closely the Code Red for Humanity and Pathways to Healthy Electric Cities. She stated that there was so much information; she learned a lot and she feels she needs to see it again. She stated that they had the Pacifica Pride meeting and they were moving along and the festival will be at IBL. They are doing some fundraising as it will cost money for the permitting and overtime for police officers.

She missed her first NCCWD meeting because they were at the CalCities Mayors and Councilmembers Academy. She went with the mayor and Councilmember Boles. She stated that they saw information about social media, Brown Act, and governor’s budget. She was on the peninsula division executive committee for CalCities and has been placed on the environmental quality policy committee and they talked and will hopefully recruit some new people to join in on the policy committees moving forward. She also attended the Pacifica Democrat’s meeting.

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 January 23, 2023
Councilmember Boles attended Code Red for Humanity, something that Palo Alto and San Mateo cities are working on. They have identified water heaters as one of the biggest emission issues in homes and are working to switch them to electric heat pumps and providing outreach with a lot of grants from Peninsula Clean Energy, and these are things they can bring back in talking about climate goals and action plan. She attended the Pacific Beach Coalition meeting:

They stopped some of the beach cleanups because of safety issues with some of the sewage and safety concerns at the bluffs, but they have started up again. They have a fundraiser on February 10 at the Mildred Owen Concert Hall which is a surf movie on surfing in Ireland. She missed the Emergency Preparedness meeting because she was in Sacramento with councilmembers. She didn’t know what the League of Cities was before she went and it is an organization that advocates at the state level for cities to maintain local control and keep the state from taking our funding; all but four cities in the state participate in this. They also give a lot of training to new and existing councilmembers on all kinds of issues, like CEQA, Brown Act, land use, etc. She stated that it is good networking with people in other cities as they can share ideas and bring them to Pacifica. She stated that the state is facing a deficit and Governor Newsom is proposing cuts for climate change, climate resiliency, and adaptation, and those may have impacts in Pacifica. She stated that it is a proposed budget and we need to advocate to the state and elected leaders. She stated that they heard they might be cutting the Coastal Commission funding by 50%, which is already understaffed and overworked. She stated that the new fire maps are out for state responsibility areas and are being reviewed by various departments and the local maps should be out soon. She asked City Manager Woodhouse if he could update them on the housing element, as well as the public.

Councilmember Beckmeyer she had three meetings back-to-back and tried to cover them all.

She described some confusion that occurred when she joined the NCCWD meeting, following her JPA advanced life support meeting. Afterwards, she referred to the Advanced Life Support meeting which was a very productive meeting. She stated that it was the joint powers agreement between the cities in San Mateo County and has everything to do with our ambulance service and our pre-hospital life support services. She stated that there are complicated financial arrangements and service levels. They need to respond within a certain amount of minutes, and if our paramedics respond before the ambulance gets there, there is a payback that goes to the city to cover those costs. She stated that Rico Medina was named chair of that group and she was looking forward to having more detailed conversations in the future. She attended a sea level rise local government workshop meeting on the 17th in preparation for a meeting happening on this coming Friday in Santa Barbara. She had a great opportunity to virtually meet the new executive director of the Coastal Commission, Kate Hucklebridge. She stated that the meeting on Friday is going to include a range of stakeholders, and what the meeting is designed to do is take to the next level the work that the local governments have been doing with Coastal Commissioners of their subcommittee and Coastal Commission staff. She stated it is a nice representation of people, and there is a framework for working together and a number of documents that the Coastal Commission had approved around how we move forward; the next step is to bring stakeholders they have been hearing from to a meeting to have frank discussions about how we handle sea level rise, what is covered in the coastal act, what isn’t, how we address when there is a neighborhood section where some properties have armory and some don’t, and how they handle those (as now it is handled parcel by parcel, each individual separately). She stated that we know that our neighborhoods suffer or benefit from the same circumstances and to flush out what is a neighborhood scale look like; it is something that was brought forward by the former executive director of the Coastal Commission, Jack Ainsworth, into this group for discussion. She stated that it has been discussed a lot among the elected officials and some staff members, but it is now time to bring in other groups who have been very interested in these issues and have been

2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 January 23, 2023
letting them know of their interest. She knows she will have a lot to report back after the 27th.

She stated that the Pride meeting was wonderful and she was working on the parade. The resource management and climate protection meeting she attended on the 18th had a great presentation from the California work force development board. She appreciated that this group was working on developing work force people ready for green jobs. They keep hearing that the green jobs will be great for the economy, but they are talking about what the skills are needed and working with labor groups and identifying opportunities and industries so that there is a pathway for people into the jobs. Going back to the electrification issues, she noted that a lot of times when she is in the meetings and resource management climate protection comes up about changing equipment, appliances and systems, and how many providers of these services at this time aren’t well versed in this and what are the professional development training opportunities that need to be made available for people already working in the industry but also for educating people coming up into the industry so that electric water heaters aren’t an anomaly or something they have to call three different plumbers to find someone who can take care of that for you. She stated that BAWSCA (Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency) presents at this meeting every month and she was excited to hear their presentation.

They get this report every month, and it is always dire and reinforcing the message we still need to conserve because, while we had a tremendous amount of rain and our reservoirs are doing well relative to how they were doing two months ago, we have had a drought for several years and we need to continue to see consistent rainfall to be able to see the reservoirs really regain what they lost.

Mayor Bigstyck wished everyone a happy Lunar New Year. He attended the city selection committee meeting that Councilmember Bier alluded to earlier where all the mayors get together and vote on which Councilmembers are appointed to certain regional boards. He congratulated Councilmember Bier for being appointed to HEART. He was appointed to LAFCO and subsequently had the first meeting the previous Wednesday. They had a study session about a special police protection district in Broadmoor and it was interesting serving on a board with our newly elected supervisor, Ray Mueller, along with Supervisor Slocum and other councilmembers from the area. He attended Chris Hunter’s retirement party, who was chief of staff for former supervisor Don Horsley, and he was struck by how much love he has cultivated in not just our community but the region given those who attended his soiree. He attended the code red with fellow councilmembers by Zoom. He walked away from it with an understanding that they will likely be discussing codes around existing buildings at goal setting and reaffirmed him keeping an eye on the way the city of San Mateo has been handling it they may have come up with a good working model that might translate well in Pacifica. He had the opportunity to attend Mike Perez’ retirement party, former PB&R director. He stated that it was amazing to see how many lives he touched in our community. He watched Planning Commission meeting the previous Monday. He participated in the CalCities new mayors and councilmembers orientation with Councilmembers Boles and Bier and City Manager Woodhouse. He stated that Councilmember Boles talked quite comprehensively about everything they experienced. He stated that one thing that struck him was that the state is thinking about a 50% cut to the Coastal Commission budget which will not make our lives any easier. He had the opportunity in Sacramento to network with fellow councilmembers and got to see State Senator Becker in his new natural habitat in Sacramento. He was introduced to other lawmakers and that was a wonderful networking opportunity to build their relationships and bring them closer to fruition in their respective communities. They spent time talking to Eddie Flores from South City. He hoped City Manager Woodhouse would acquiesce to Councilmember Boles’ request in giving them a brief update on where we are with the housing element. He then described the recent state of affairs with the Monterey Park mass shooting in relation to Lunar New Year and then hours prior to the Council meeting the Half Moon Bay mass shooting. He expressed that this

2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 January 23, 2023
moment in time is when it is important to remember that community is not merely Pacifica.

When a sister city is suffering in this fashion, Pacifica’s heart is with them.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated he had several brief communications. He had good news in that they received a recent letter from Congresswoman Eshoo that our request for federal repaving dollars has been approved by both the House and Senate and is on its way for a signature from the President which is approximately an $800,000 federal funding for the Sharp Park priority development area, i.e., Francisco leading into Sharp Park. He stated that the city is working on a storm response summary that they will publish tomorrow on the website. Due to the significance of the storms that hit us over the holidays and the weeks thereafter and have now subsided, they have brought together a comprehensive summary to note the extent of the work required, impacts received, trees down, and the amount of staff time involved in responding to storms. He referred to the request for updated information on the housing element he can provide: the work for this significant undertaking continues and staff and consultants have been working diligently to finalize the public review draft following the public meetings that were held. A rough draft is undergoing internal review in planning as well as with consultants. As that review has proceeded, gaps have been identified that require further work to address those gaps. At this point in time, the estimated release date for as comprehensive a draft as possible is early February. Finally, he enjoyed being in Sacramento at the new mayors and councilmembers orientation of League of Cities conference with the mayor and Councilmembers Boles and Bier, and it was great to catch up statewide with other city managers and meet other elected officials across the state and realize how much all of our cities have in common.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that at the end of the meeting he would adjourn the meeting in honor of those who have lost their lives in Half Moon Bay this afternoon. He called a 15-minute recess and then reconvened the meeting.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.

CONSIDERATION

5. Accept the City of Pacifica's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and related financial reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022 PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the City of Pacifica's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), and other related financial reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022.

Asst. City Manager Carter introduced the staff report.

Dep. Finance Director Xie presented the staff report.

Mayor Bigstyck thanked them for the report detailing a very complex issue.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked for an explanation of direct and overlapping government activities debt and how it interrelates with the City of Pacifica.

Dep. Finance Director Xie stated that it is in the statistic section and normally they get the information from the county tax assessor’s or auditor’s office; this is for the credited agency to

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 January 23, 2023
take a look and see what our debt ratio is like.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought it has something to do with what percent of the debt of these other entities when they have parcel taxes and bonds and COPs and all the debt instruments they take out. She is looking at the Pacifica Elementary School District Laguna Salada and the estimated percentage applicable is 99.877% and that is probably because so many of the payors of that debt reside in Pacifica, whereas the community college district is a big thing in San Mateo County, not just Pacifica.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it is a statistical faction of the report, which was prepared by an outside consultant, not the audit firm. It is usually a requirement of the ACFR.

Councilmember Boles referred to the $84.4 million mentioned as assets exceed liabilities and wanted to understand those numbers as she didn’t know if they included the long-term debt.

Dep. Finance Director Xie stated it did, as it was a full basis of accounting and captures all the fixed assets and the liabilities.

Councilmember Boles asked if it included our pension debt.

Dep. Finance Director Xie responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles asked for an explanation of debt we are currently carrying, i.e., $25.5 million in government activities that mentions the 2016 COP (certificate of participation) and $38 million in business type which she thought were the sewer bonds. She referred to the new Civic Center lease was the new $4 million that was added this year, but she was trying to understand what the older numbers are for.

Dep. Finance Director Xie stated the notes have all the details in the breakdown and for the governmental activity debt they have a 2016 COP and the 2019 pension bond. She explained the breakdown between the pension fund and the sewer later fund.

Asst. City Manager Carter further explained the explanations of each line item in the audit report, including issued services, governmental activities, and details from prior years.

City Manager Woodhouse added that the 2016 COPs are a refunding of the borrowing for the police station construction.

Councilmember Boles confirmed that was her question. She concluded they were still paying some of that off. She wanted to point out the wastewater bond and looking at possibly issuing other bonds for the five-year CIP, as it struck her that the principal they are borrowing was $22 million and the interest they are paying over the terms of the loan is $13 million which she thought was quite a lot. She referred to projections such as a 2% cost of living for salaries and she thought that might go up with inflation issues. She referred to CalCities and looking at financing, stating they recommended the best practice for audit firms, to work with them for a term of 3-5 years and have some change for a new perspective and new eyes.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that was an important point: the best practices applied unless they have new staff and new team on the auditor’s side so there is no conflict of interest. This was the case for their audit team and city team, as all staff were completely new, and that makes them compliant with best practice to continue.

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 January 23, 2023
Dep. Finance Director Xie stated that the audit team firms generally have several engagement partners; one partner can work on this engagement for 3-4 years and they can turn it over to another engagement partner.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, eventually, they will go out for an RFP and solicit proposals. She wanted to highlight that it is difficult with staff to change the auditors because the first time of the new engagement is typically a more intense process.

Dep. Finance Director Xie stated that, with most other cities, most of the time they keep the same auditing firm for a long time because the engagement partners are different.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if they could take a moment and go over the certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reports is the highest forms of recognition by national centers. In response to Mayor Bigstyck asking if they will be applying again, Asst. City Manager Carter responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bigstyck congratulated our city and congratulations to the staff for putting together a report of this caliber. He opened public comments and, seeing no one, closed public comments. He asked, if there was no deliberation, if they can have a motion.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved to accept the City of Pacifica’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), and other related financial reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles

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

After confirming the order and format of the review of the items on the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics, City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report. The Council also confirmed they would provide initial thoughts as they occurred and following public comment would hold deliberation for refinements.

Councilmember Boles, Mayor Bigstyck, and City Manager Woodhouse reviewed the time limit for public comments and confirmed adding language to indicate it specifically in the document and avoid confusion.

Once they had gone through the material that had been previously edited, Mayor Bigstyck suggested they save the wordsmithing for deliberation, but if they have questions for anything specific the City Manager is going over, ask the specific questions.

City Manager Woodhouse then transitioned into the section on not requiring a reason for

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 January 23, 2023
abstention from vote, requesting clarification from the Asst. City Attorney.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano clarified non-legal abstentions. Per the Conflict of Interest Code under the Political Reform Act, there is a process for stating the reasons for recusal, and they would need to follow that for legal and non-legal abstentions. Personal reasons to recuse themselves from an item would not need to be stated in the record.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if the process to leave the dais would be followed for both legal and nonlegal abstentions. Asst. City Attorney Bazzano confirmed a Councilmember could abstain from a vote; if it is a non-legal but a personal reason for recusing themselves, it is up to the Councilmember if they want to step off the dais. She stated that would eliminate any confusion as to whether they are participating in the item when you leave the dais, and she thought it was a best practice for leaving the dais for non-legal abstentions as well. Regarding the possibility of a Councilmember going through the deliberative process and abstain from voting at the last minute, Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they typically decide to disqualify themselves at the beginning of the item.

Councilmember Bier asked what a non-legal abstention would include and how it would proceed. Asst. City Attorney Bazzano confirmed the provision is about abstention from the vote for non-legal reasons; it provides a way for the Councilmember’s decision, such as a friendship or appearance of impropriety. If there is a friendship that isn’t a conflict under the Political Reform Act and you feel you could handle the matter in an unbiased manner, but you think in an abundance of caution because of the friendship, it would be a personal reason to abstain from the vote, it would be a good idea to handle it in the same way you would handle other conflicts where you just say that you will abstain from the item. You do not have to identify the actual conflict and you may either leave or remain on the dais.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus, Mayor Bigstyck, and Councilmember Boles discussed the choice of the Councilmember to recuse oneself and its effect on what people bring forward to Council.

City Manager Woodhouse confirmed that abstention from voting applies in various scenarios.

He added that a lot of times the question about recusal or abstention from vote is a very issue specific discussion and hence why the City Attorney exists to advise Councilmembers about what they should do.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought they have to be careful about not getting into the specifics as City Manager mentioned, but it is a very personal decision. If it is a non-legal abstention that you are not required by law, you need to consider why you would or would not participate, and for every Councilmember that is a process that they are willing and able to help with.

City Manager Woodhouse continued the staff report.

Councilmember Bier asked about the language surrounding tie votes. Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, regarding tie votes, “generally” means that no action has been taken on a matter. She thought there could be instances where a tie vote means something different than no action, and this speaks specifically to appeals or land use decisions. There could be instances where a tie vote means more than just that the underlying action stands. She stated that is why “generally” was often used as a caveat meaning that we can’t speak to every instance and there may be certain exceptions that are not being contemplated now.

Councilmember Boles asked for an explanation of the Rule of Necessity. Asst. City Attorney

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 January 23, 2023
Bazzano stated that the Rule of Necessity is a rule under the Political Reform Act that allows a Councilmember to participate even though they do have a disqualifying conflict of interest. If there are three Councilmembers with a conflict of interest but they need at least three Councilmembers to take the action, such as an ordinance, the Rule of Necessity would apply and the three Councilmembers who have conflicts of interest would draw lots to determine which one is brought back in to participate in the item.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus confirmed an example would include three members who work for the school district. Mayor Bigstyck asked when the last time was that they had to draw lots in order to determine something legal in Pacifica. Asst. City Attorney Bazzano didn’t know about Pacifica but confirmed it does happen.

Councilmembers Bier and Boles requested a footnote to the legal definition, and Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they can add that footnote with the regulation number.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed and continued the staff report.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked a question on reconsideration and if it would be possible to make a motion to reconsider something that happened years ago. Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, in that instance, she would propose a new agenda item to discuss that topic again.

She stated that it wouldn’t be a motion to reconsider because they don’t have an item before them to reconsider after all that time has passed. After Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus added a note about resolutions, Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that you would propose a new agenda item to reconsider either repealing or rescinding certain resolutions.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked for clarification on a sentence that defined when you could do a motion to reconsider. Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought one suggestion would be to reinsert that sentence so that the motion to reconsider can only be taken at the meeting at which the action was taken. She stated that you could add some other language down further in the paragraph that indicates that nothing in that section would preclude a Councilmember from bringing an item back to consider a prior action of the Council at a future agenda through the agendizing process set forth in the rules.

Mayor Bigstyck reiterated the confirmed changes to content and format, which Asst. City Attorney Bazzano verified. Asst. City Attorney Bazzano confirmed there is nothing that would prevent a Councilmember from bringing that issue up at a future Council meeting as a new agenda item. She stated that the motion to reconsider would be moot because the item had already passed and action had already taken place. She stated that is consistent with Roberts Rules which provides that the motion to reconsider needs to be made at that meeting.

City Manager Woodhouse continued the staff report.

Councilmember Bier raised a question about clarity of language, and City Manager Woodhouse confirmed that the tracked change clarified the language further than the previous language. He then continued the staff report.

Councilmember Boles asked about the definition of personal privilege and the motion to raise a question of personal privilege. Councilmember Boles asked if City Manager Woodhouse can explain how that would be used, i.e. if a Councilmember would interrupt another Councilmember but somehow get the mayor’s recognition.

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 January 23, 2023
City Manager Woodhouse asked Asst. City Attorney if she had any insight on that personal privilege provision.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she has seen it done during deliberations and after public comments: the maker of the motion may interrupt another speaker if the mayor recognizes the privilege, and the motion does not require a second motion. She stated that the right of a Councilmember to address Council on a question of personal privilege is usually related to someone having said something that is negative about their character, motives, or integrity, and the Councilmember wants to address it immediately. That is when she has seen that motion made, but it doesn’t come up very frequently.

City Manager Woodhouse continued with the staff report.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano noted the motion to take from the table wasn’t necessary because there is a way for Councilmembers to agendize items.

City Manager Woodhouse continued with the staff report and reached the item on administrative matters regarding agendizing items. Due to the amount of public interest in this item, Mayor Bigstyck reminded Council that deliberation will come after public comment in order for them to have a more robust conversation.

City Manager Woodhouse described the recommendations to the process of agendizing items (which do not change the ability of a Councilmember to place an item on the agenda), including extending the 7-day timeline to a 10-day timeline and assessing items that take more than 1 hour of staff time to analyze and create a staff report.

Mayor Bigstyck referred to the possible change as written that an item may require more than one hour of staff time and asked if their deliberation tonight may include changing one hour to five hour or what they think is an acceptable workload for an agendized item brought forth by a Councilmember. He stated that the reason he is bringing up that question is because the original text did say requiring a detailed staff report which he thought was an ambiguous term. If the idea is to hone in on what is a reasonable amount of staff time to bring forth for Council discussion, then an interpretation could be that before you could call for more than an hour of work from staff unilaterally and now it whittles down to what may be an important issue going forward that maybe more TLC is needed to enable that Council person to discuss it with fellow Councilmembers. He thought a part of their discussion could be honing in on what a reasonable amount of time is, i.e. one hour or five hours.

City Manager Woodhouse thought Council could discuss that parameter and he would be happy to offer his input about staff workload in the context of that discussion.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that they get to work with staff on a constant basis, and with a recommendation like this, his initial response is that it makes sense, as they work with them, know how they operate, and want to keep the machine functioning and running smoothly. He also appreciates that the original nomenclature is a detailed staff report. He stated that soon they will be going into public comment and with some of the phrases used questioning the democracy of the change, what might be helpful to him are suggestions from the public as to what a reasonable workload would be when a single Councilmember requests to have an item agendized.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they keep in mind during that discussion that there are

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 January 23, 2023
five Councilmembers. He then continued the staff report.

Councilmember Boles asked about a portion that stated Councilmembers shall notify the mayor of planned attendance at meetings wherever possible. She wanted to clarify the intent and how much Mayor Bigstyck wanted them to tell him, such as meeting with a neighbor about potholes, which is a meeting about city business. She asked if the intention was to make sure they are not violating the Brown Act by going to a meeting at the same time.

Mayor Bigstyck asked to be corrected if he is wrong, but he thought this refers specifically to city-led meetings.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus referred to it as a wider scope, i.e. an organization at which she would speak.

Councilmember Beckmeyer added that she would inform him that she would be attending.

Councilmember Boles thought it was okay if more than two Councilmembers go as long as they aren’t speaking and talking to each other.

Mayor Bigstyck asked, when it comes up that they will be giving the state of the city speech at the City Democrats, about the proper Brown Act compliant procedures they need to follow, such as other councilmembers being there.

City Manager Woodhouse thought this section was more to how a Councilmember is representing city issues at a meeting and making sure, if you are going to appear in a personal capacity and express personal opinions, you clarify that those statements don’t represent the position of the Council but, if the city does have a position on that issue, you state that you are representing that position as you are a representative of the city.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano expressed her understanding that the concern was regarding the language about notifying the mayor applies to meetings where Councilmembers may attend before another governmental agency or organization or if it applies to even private meetings, such as one-on-one meetings with constituents. She thinks the answer is no as it doesn’t extend that far as the intent was that it addresses when a Councilmember goes to the County Board of Supervisors meetings or local Chamber of Commerce meetings, rather than private one-on-one meetings with constituents.

Councilmember Boles agreed, adding not just constituents but also meetings with public officials like Josh Becker, and do they need to tell them about all of those things if they are meeting one on one with someone when there is not a possibility of another Councilmember being there.

She understood that they need to convey the city’s position, but she wished to clarify how much they need to notify each other and the mayor.

Councilmember Bier asked whether they notify the mayor or the city manager, as she noted that, if she was going to a meeting with Josh Becker, she would tell the city manager.

City Manager Woodhouse thought that was a good point and agreed that that section should be revised to denote notifying the city manager. His thought was that this notification was not going to specifically define every agency or organization, but it was not meant to be one-on-one meetings; the intent of this section is more toward, when you are going to a larger group meeting.

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 January 23, 2023
Councilmember Bier and City Manager Woodhouse further clarified that, when a vote is taken, a Councilmember represents that vote, whether or not they agreed with it. Then, if a Councilmember wanted to clarify that speaking personally on an issue regarding what their position was in the meeting, they could do that but they would have to be very specific about clarifying that it was a personal opinion and not the position of the Council.

City Manager Woodhouse completed the staff report.

After asking Councilmembers if they had any further questions, Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments.

Dinah Verby, Pacifica, informed Council of technological difficulties with the live stream. She then thought they had time to read her written comments and she wanted to briefly convey hers and others’ opposition to the changes in Section 11.3, and gave an example.

Jan Hansen, Pacifica, referred to technical issues with the financial report. Mayor Bigstyck advised her to send her comments on the financial report to Council. Ms. Hansen then referred to Section 11, Subsection 3, regarding things being kicked down the road, and she shared her thoughts on the wordage proposed regarding a timeframe.

Mark Hubble, Pacifica, voiced his concerns about the issue of getting items on the agenda, as he thought a lot of people have dropped off the meeting and would have taken part in the conversation.

Sue Digre, Pacifica, appreciated the comments by the public, adding that she felt it was alarming and understood they may not have meant it to be alarming, and shared her thoughts on the issue.

Kimberly Williams, Pacifica, stated this was the first time she has been aware of this issue, and shared her concerns and thoughts about how to address the process issue for full public participation.

Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated that he supports Dinah Verby’s comments and shared his thoughts on the issue regarding minority positions on controversial issues.

Mayor Bigstyck closed public comments.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to clarify that, no matter whether the issue is controversial or mundane, there is not a majority of Council required to put an item on the agenda - a single Councilmember can place an item on the agenda. The difference is the amount of staff and city resources spent in preparing the item, i.e., if a Councilmember wants to raise rent control, what is placed on the agenda is whether Council wants to prioritize staff time to work on the issue, and as in every other Council decision, it is a majority vote, democracy; the majority vote is what directs the city’s resources and staff time. He stated that for clarification any item can get on the agenda, but it is how Council prioritizes where staff resources are spent and an alternative is that Council can say it is a big issue and maybe should be taken up during goal setting.

Mayor Bigstyck thanked him and thought it would be prudent to begin the deliberative process with 11.3. Because the word “controversial” was brought up a number of times, he asked if Council was okay with getting rid of the word, “controversial”. Seeing no disagreement, Mayor

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 January 23, 2023
Bigstyck stated to the public that they had not intended to create controversy with that language.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that, if the item is going to be complex, they might want to hone in how much staff time is going to be devoted to it. He alluded to the notion that what the original wording said is “all agenda items require a detailed staff report.” He was in the audience when John Keener was trying to get that item agendized in 2015. His recollection is that Mr. Keener brought it up on the dais and the discussion among Council in that moment was to take a vote on whether to bring it up at a future meeting and it was killed in that vote. He stated that it is well-taken that the community is giving them an example of when an item might be important to everyone, they don’t want it to be summarily killed because of nomenclature and an ethics code that people aren’t necessarily reading. He referred to Ms. Williams asking about best practices in other Councils and asked City Manager Woodhouse if he could speak on that.

City Manager Woodhouse highlights two points: 1) Each city is different and it is up to Councils to decide their rules and they can do whatever this 5-member Council decides they want to do. 2) In his experience, this is a best practice and he had polled all the city managers in San Mateo County and the ones who had responded all had a version of the one-hour rule. He stated that they haven’t done an extensive survey, but tools to manage getting staff focus from nondiscretionary city items they need to focus on and Council priorities are a common best practice so just one voice isn’t going to send staff resources down a rabbit hole when it is not known whether the majority of Council supports that use of resources. That is the premise of council manager form of government, and his responsibility is to manage what they are trying to produce and bring forth to Council good analysis of items on the agenda.

Mayor Bigstyck thanked him for that and remembered that City Manager Woodhouse had provided him with the names of the cities. He emphasized that it was helpful to know that we aren’t going to be the outlier of the region to create draconian anti-free speech, anti-democracy measures by adopting what seems to be a similar practice to what other municipalities do. He was not discussing this for the purpose of opposing to free speech in considering these changes. He stated that there were two other interesting points brought up that he thought needed discussion: 1) The point was well-taken by him because they aren’t used to being districts and they don’t know what it looks like to have district-specific needs that suddenly arise.

If there are one or two unique issues faced by his district and one was escalated to a point where he felt some sense of urgency, it might be that he wanted it brought as a more thoroughly analyzed item than one hour, as he needs to let his fellow Councilmembers know it is happening and he might need background analyzed. 2) The point transitioned into whether it had to be one hour or if it could be five hours. He stated that, in many cities, the best practice is two hours. He thought Councilmembers could hone in on what a proper workload looks like, and they can get to something closer to a detailed staff report as it originally says but without going overboard to the detriment of a work plan they are trying to enact. He then felt it is back to process as, for any given item, about how they devote staff time. Generally speaking, they have goal setting in March when they say what items they would like to work on for the year, and things come up between this work plan and the next work plan. He thought something important to say to the public is that they are not trying to give their power to the City Manager; the City Manager knows what staff time is needed to accomplish issues at any given moment and they need to work closely with him to ensure that their work plan is enacted and, if not, and they are taking resources away from that, they want to make sure that, as a majority, they are directing staff time to work on something new, likely to the detriment of something they had agreed upon prior.

Councilmember Bier stated that she wanted to apologize to the community for the delay in the

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 January 23, 2023
live stream. She feels like the whole idea around this section is so that items, moving forward, have the proper amount of staff time to work on them; she feels that the language they used to change was very confusing for the community. She stated that, from her personal experience on Council, they haven’t had any problems with this. She stated that, if she has something she wants to put onto the agenda, she would talk to the City Manager; it would come on the agenda as a consideration item, where we would discuss it, and based on that discussion, it would move forward to whatever happens next. She stated that usually, what happens next is what takes the larger amount of staff time. She feels that it works for them, and she wasn’t sure if changing the words in that section is going to change that process. She wanted to be sure the community isn’t feeling that they are chopping them off. She stated the idea of the districts made her eyes open up, as her district does have things that aren’t like another district. She likes the idea of changing the timeline to ten days which she feels is a must. She stated that things have been going fine for them with the current process.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that he feels sometimes things come up that are of a more urgent nature, such as the eviction moratorium that came up in 2015, a very time-sensitive thing that would be agendized more robustly than one hour’s worth and would need to be agendized swiftly.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus remarked that, even if they were elected in districts, they still represent the entire city and care about what happens in the entire city. She understood they may have an item that applies more to their district than another one, but she thinks they are all reasonable and do represent the entire city.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that this item has generated a lot of conversation in the community and that tells her that the community is paying attention to what they do, and she appreciates that. She referred to public comments they received in email, and she is trying to figure out all the statements made about restricting the democratic process. She stated that it seemed that having the majority of Council agree to put something on the Council agenda was, in some way, limiting the democratic process, but she didn’t know if she agrees with that. She was worried that what was being called for was a specific rule here that is different from the way Council operates as a whole. She stated that everything they do is by majority, and while not written down, they strive for is consensus. She made suggestions on simplifying and streamlining the language, namely that “the City Manager shall consult with the Mayor about when a proposed item should be agendized for Council consideration”. She stated, to Councilmember Bier’s point, that is what they do now. She gets all the stuff about urgency, state deadlines, etc., but she also thinks that is exactly what is factored into that conversation between the City Manager and Mayor when agendizing items.

Councilmember Boles referred to Councilmember Bier’s remarks and asked if this is problem or are they trying to fix something that isn’t broken and upsetting everyone in the process. She asked if it has been an issue and has a Councilmember gone rogue and made a lot of work for staff that no one else agreed to. She thought they all respect the staff and try to be mindful of their work and understand that there are time constraints, etc. She asked if they need to change it at all. She liked what Ms. Williams said, to not codify staff needs over public process.

She stated that they are elected to represent the people and bring their issues to debate and decide what the best policies are going forward. She thought, if it becomes an issue and takes away from the process that has been working well before, they can revisit it.

Mayor Bigstyck stated, before further deliberation, the time is 10:44 p.m. and he asked if someone would like to make a motion.

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 January 23, 2023
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

Vote: 5-0
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he personally favors leaving in the ten days. He felt the part they need to hammer out is the question between what “detailed” means in the first version versus what might be an appropriate constraint on staff time for agendizing an item if they choose to.

He stated that, if they are going with the new language, he favors keeping the language of “depending on urgency etc.” in, and that is because he thinks this tells people what they can expect, Councilmembers what they can expect. He felt the real question is the original language requiring a detailed staff report versus the new language of what that really means if one Councilmember agendizes something.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked him if he can give her an example of why they need to have the language that she proposed striking out to stay in. She can’t imagine any scenario of why that is urgent.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that he would rework it a little bit, but depending on the urgency of the proposed item that the City Manager shall consult with the Mayor, he thought it was important to say that even though common practice would be a minimum of ten days or seven days, but if there is something that becomes more urgent, there is instruction that it isn’t prohibitive to bring it forward even though they passed whatever time frame they have. He liked the idea of “after City Manager shall consult with the Mayor about proposed agenda item, such as can occur for action deadlines that apply to proposed state legislation” and he would go a step beyond and say “or other urgent matters”. He stated that it is demonstrating an example to someone who might be new and doesn’t know what these things can look like. He stated those are the reasons for his suggestion to reword the phrasing.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thinks she hears that he is saying that, depending on the urgency of the proposed item is what allows the Councilmember to actually put something on the agenda with less than ten days’ notice.

Mayor Bigstyck agreed that it is depending on the urgency.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that is what she was saying, that she didn’t understand it that way at all until he clarified that. She asked if that made sense to Councilmember Bier.

Councilmember Bier agreed that she didn’t understand that and she thinks there are too many words. She is trying to come up with the new language that she would prefer, adding that she feels like it is what they already do. She didn’t think they would move something forward if there isn’t a consensus to move it forward. She stated that, after it’s on the agenda, they talk about it, and ultimately they make the decision and direct staff to move forward or not; thus, she didn’t think that all of that part is necessary in the document.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that his experience so far is that, if he brings an item to the City Manager that he thinks they should agendize, there usually follows a conversation about what that will take, and then he is asked if he still wants to go forward or hold off. He stated that there is a respectful conversation going on backstage. He remembers Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus’ first election in which of the four people running for two spots, one may not have understood being as robustly considerate of time constraints; that might have been an example in which rules like

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 January 23, 2023
this might have come in handy. He cross-referenced that with the fact of being the other side of district elections where Councilmember Bier ran unopposed. He stated that, if the person who ran against her had run unopposed, it would have been intuitive to follow the decorum as the rules would suggest.

Councilmember Bier stated that they can’t put a policy here that is only addressing one type of person.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked if she was saying to leave it as it used to be, i.e., the entire struck out version, except changing 7 to 10.

Councilmember Bier stated that was what she was saying.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that part of bringing the revision forward is that the existing provision says that one Councilmember can request an item to be agendized seven days or now ten days in advance. The existing language says all agendized item requiring a detailed staff report may be placed on the agenda if the request is made seven days before the Council meeting. Therefore, a Councilmember can come to him and ask for consideration of an ordinance to do “X” on the agenda next week, and development of ordinances requires a bunch of city attorney time and money to pay the attorney’s office, planning staff, or whatever department the ordinance affects. He stated that is an example of how important it is, i.e., “it is important for the policy to be transparent about the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of the governing board and staff”. He stated that the existing provision is seeming to say that the scenario he just mentioned can happen, and at one Councilmember’s decision, they would have to spend $10,000 and endless hours of staff time to prepare that ordinance and get it on the agenda for the next Council meeting. He stated that part of the goal of clarifying this process in a best practice is to be transparent about how this governance should work.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that something a lot of commenters raised was the moment that happened in 2015. He stated the idea was along the lines of what happened regarding an eviction moratorium: Mr. Keener wanted to agendize that, and during that meeting it was shot down by the rest of Council on how it went, and that never came to fruition. He stated that, if it did happen, this is suggesting that, if it had been requested otherwise, what would have been successful was getting the eviction moratorium agendized, and if they can get it together quickly, putting the ordinance ready for a vote is what that translates into. He thought the difference is that it was known in advance that the ordinance was going to ultimately fail, but in the version that is being suggested, maybe it was going to fail, but there is value in agendizing it; therefore, there is a robust discussion about it and it may lead to a deeper process that is gained by having that robust discussion, even though it is a losing proposition. He thought something along those lines is what is being suggested by having that ability.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that an eviction moratorium decision is an immense amount of staff and city attorney time to prepare. If a Councilmember comes forward asking Council to consider whether to pursue or spend staff resources on preparing an eviction moratorium, that is the agendized item: Council discusses it, public gives input to the discussion, Council votes and, if a majority, then staff is directed to prepare the item. In the meantime, as part of the report, he would list a litany of other things they are working on that they will not be able to get done if this is happening but Council gets to decide. Then staff prepares it. But the initial item that is agendized didn’t require much time as they put together what is an eviction moratorium and the legal issues listed to be considered. He stated that is how it has always worked since he became City Manager on any item brought forth despite this rule. If it would require a lot of

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 January 23, 2023
staff time, the item he brings forth is a short decision. He mentioned Councilmember O’Neill’s request for the city to pursue public/private partnership with the school district which would cost $10,000 to do the feasibility study; we brought an item to Council and asked if a majority wants to pursue it, and Council agreed to pursue it and they pursued. He stated it wasn’t on the work plan but a new item to be added.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it is important to note that the City Attorney’s office takes the direction from the majority of Council and it is important for them to hear from a majority of Council that they want them to do work as significant as preparing an ordinance.

She also pointed out that, in all these scenarios, the public still has an opportunity to come and provide public comment and there is a democratic process, i.e., majority of Council decides, the public can comment on whether it is agendized by one or if it comes to Council for majority consideration for further direction and action.

Mayor Bigstyck asked, in the case of an eviction moratorium, if they would need full Council to weigh in on that before drafting the ordinance.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, in playing out that scenario, if the City Manager came to City Attorney and stated he had a Councilmember who wants to agendize the eviction moratorium ordinance, they would say it is a lot of work and they don’t feel comfortable preparing the item without getting direction from a majority of the Council; they would want to hear from a majority of Council before they undertake all the effort, time, and cost to the city.

Councilmember Boles stated that she was rereading Ms. Verby’s description of what happened about the eviction moratorium. She stated that there was a short agenda put forth and then there was discussion with a lot of public comment in support of it but it was voted down by the majority. She thought often Councils are split 3-2 and the question is whether they are totally eliminating the minority voice. She stated that two Councilmembers and a lot of the public may really want something but, for whatever reason, the other three don’t and she asked if there is a way that something that important to our community still gets reviewed and addressed. She referred to City Attorney Kenyon saying that there were two different ways that a lot of cities are organized for agendizing items, i.e., one is what they are discussing now and the other is where you have two Councilmembers to put something on the agenda, and you are not the one lone rogue Councilmember to do something and you have to at least convince another person, but it still gives the opportunity for the minority voice on Council to have a say on what gets discussed. She stated that she could read Half Moon Bay’s ordinance as that is the way theirs is written, i.e., “Councilmember may request an item to be considered on a future agenda and, if a second Councilmember agrees with the request, staff will prepare a staff report”. She thought that was another way to look at it if they are worried about a rogue Councilmember wanting to put a lot of work on staff that is not supported otherwise.

Councilmember Bier stated that, either way, they are still going to have the conversation about how they want it to move forward and there will be an opportunity for them to vote on whether they want it to move forward or not.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus suggested a change and further thoughts. She stated that, if only two people are requesting it and it’s going to fail, they spent a lot of time on something that isn’t going to pass, although they have given the public the right to speak and it could change the mind of someone who was against something, but she thought that happens in the very beginning when they bring it forward for discussion. The members of the public and Council get to speak and she admits she has changed her mind lots of times, based on rethinking what was

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 January 23, 2023
proposed, input from the community, and what other Councilmembers have said. She sees it coming to the entire Council.

Mayor Bigstyck favored keeping it at one Councilmember can agendize. He thought, even if they are the lone wolf, they might have a good sense of something that the community should have an opportunity to speak out on. How much staff time should go to a report that one Councilmember asks for is an interesting question, but even a one-hour staff report is not nothing and thought it could be thoroughly augmented by a Councilmember who feels passionately about an item coupled with whatever the turnout is from the public on that item.

He thought, even for items that aren’t strictly agendized, he has seen many times an outpouring of public during public communication in which the entire room was filled and person after person robustly gave feedback to the point that Council had enough to work with and could agendize later. He thought they were accustomed to giving robust opportunity for public feedback, and he didn’t know that anything they changed would change that. He thought the point is well-taken that there is a process to come to a conclusion of what Council as the majority of the body determines should take substantial staff time. He isn’t sure if one hour quite fits the bill for the analysis needed when one Councilmember does a request, but he is convinced it shouldn’t take up half of the work plan for the year. He stated that this time, he is erring on the side of what is brought before them, i.e. getting rid of “controversial items” and changing it to ten days and maybe adding whether it is one hour of staff time or five. He stated that, after all the discussion he has just heard, the language proposed makes sense to him.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus suggested two hours.

Councilmember Bier reread the language and thought there might be confusion where it stated if staff time should be spent preparing a report on the proposed item. She stated that there will have to be a small report if they are going to discuss it in the first place. What they would be discussing later is what direction they are going to give moving forward. She thought there was confusion there.

Mayor Bigstyck agreed it made sense. He asked if they should just strike “preparing a report on the proposed item” and reworking that to be something other than that. He thought they were getting to whether staff time should be spent on taking a deeper dive.

Councilmember Bier stated that her point is that would not be the only thing they would be talking about on the item. She didn’t think they would come and ask if they should spend time on this or not, but rather a small report and they would talk about the item, get public comment, deliberate, and give direction.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano was going to suggest that “may require more than one hour of staff time to completely analyze and prepare the agenda item” so that it encompasses the entire item rather than the staff report.

Mayor Bigstyck asked her to repeat it.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, instead of saying “to prepare a staff report for Council consideration”. If the items that may require more than one hour of staff time to completely analyze the agenda item.

Councilmember Boles asked if she was making a distinction between analyzing and the staff report itself.

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 January 23, 2023
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively, clarifying that it is not just the staff report, but the entire item, as the staff report could take an hour, but you still need the ordinance and the resolutions or whatever you need to completely analyze the item.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that was what they were talking about, analyzing the item to bring forward to determine whether more time should be spent doing the resolution in the future.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano understood but thought Councilmember Bier was saying that the threshold issues shouldn’t be one hour of staff time to prepare the staff report because the staff report has to be prepared either way; rather, it should be how long is it going to take to completely prepare the item, whether it be an ordinance, agreement, some other document, and that time limit applies to the entire item as there will be a staff report that has to be prepared for that item regardless.

Mayor Bigstyck suggested clarifying language: “if staff time should be spent on taking up an item” or “fully taking up the proposed item”.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they could say more than one hour to prepare.

City Manager Woodhouse stated preparing the staff report, in his mind, is researching the item, analyzing the item, evaluating alternatives, providing the analysis background discussion, etc.

They could simplify it and say the time limit related to preparing an item for Council consideration, and they don’t have to say staff report, just prepare an item which means a staff report, etc.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that is always going to take more than an hour.

City Manager Woodhouse gave an example, i.e., there was a piece of legislation related to net energy usage, a PCE item, and it was a quick conversation with PCE, a quick request of what Burlingame would do in their letter and was a fairly quick writing of the staff report, give or take one hour. He stated that he does a lot of these himself and he didn’t do a lot of analysis on it, just mentioned the analysis that Burlingame conducted and attached it, and it was agendized as a legislative support item. He stated that was basically an hour item. He stated that there are often a lot of issues to analyze on either side, and then it gets to where it will be complicated to analyze that and take several departments’ staff’s time, and each time it is a judgment call. He stated that there are one-hour items that can be easily agendized for Council decision on that agenda for a yes or no. He stated that there are others where there needs to be whether they want to spend all that money on developing that ordinance.

Mayor Bigstyck thought there must be a way they can agendize something quickly and enable Council to have a discussion as to whether they want to take a deeper dive on it and fully flesh it out and pursue it or is Council not willing to proceed. He stated that there are instances where they want to be empowered to have that conversation and have it publicly. He thought one Councilmember should be able to bring forth that conversation. That shouldn’t mean staff time is taken to fully assess all the ramifications, but they should put a staff report together to conclude whether they will have the conversation and they decide if they want staff to do everything needed if there is a majority of Council.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought something the City Manager just said made a distinction between an item such as writing the net zero energy letter. She stated that the difference in that

2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 January 23, 2023
case is that it would take an hour or so to prepare a brief description in the staff report with alternatives for Council to vote on it that night versus something that will take more than an hour to prepare, do research, look at, and eventually have Council vote on it, as it is probably going to be more detailed than that. She stated that those cases are the ones they want to agendize to decide if they’re going to do it or not. She stated that the description doesn’t talk about the first example, so it feels like they are going to have to agendize every decision they are going to make. But they are not, as a lot of times, they don’t have to agendize a discussion about voting on something brought forward by a Councilmember, and the City Attorney put it on the agenda and they vote on it, but the one that needs more study, before any staff spends hours to prepare the full item, they would direct that to be done. She asked if she is correct.

Councilmember Bier agreed, like they do now, and that is what they do now. She stated that Councilmember O’Neill brought up the subject of public/private partnerships and they discussed and are still discussing it, but they had to make the decision as to whether they are going to or not. She thought that was what they do already and all of this was confusing the community as well as her. She asked how they can simplify it so staff is given enough time to do what they need to do and they are allowed to talk about it and make that decision.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked if people object to the “detailed” staff report (which was in the old one) instead of specifically an hour. She suggested ton continue to say that they can “place it on the agenda with ten days… a Councilmember request to agendize an item for consideration shall require the majority approval of Council”.

Councilmember Bier stated that what Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus said is that they decide if one Councilmember can bring an item.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that in ten days one person can bring an item and if it is going to require a detailed staff report, they all make a decision of whether to continue on that item or not. She asked if that makes sense.

Councilmember Bier stated that is kind of how she feels about it.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he is trying to coalesce a few of the comments he just heard. He stated Councilmember Beckmeyer was talking about the converse, which is not explicitly mentioned. An item that requires less than one hour of staff time to prepare for Council consideration would be agendized for Council consideration and decision; an item requiring more than one hour of staff time to prepare for Council consideration would be prepared and agendized for Council to give direction on the next steps on the item, i.e., to spend more time and more analysis.

Mayor Bigstyck and Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus agreed on that language.

Councilmember Boles and Mayor Bigstyck discussed the adequate time frame for the staff report, i.e. one or two hours.

Councilmember Boles and Councilmember Bier discussed the issue of majority/minority, Council shifting back and forth, and the possibility of silencing the minority voice.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that they need to vote on whether to extend their meeting further.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 January 23, 2023
Councilmember Boles.

Vote: 5-0
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he is relatively adamant that they keep it to one member able to agendize on the one hand. On the other hand, they decide as a majority and having one Councilmember having the ability to agendize sometime to about two hours of staff time to prepare a report, brought to Council’s meeting, and they can discuss it, with public opportunity to comment on it - that is giving minority voice. If it should happen that the majority decides that they don’t want to continue the discussion and put more staff time, he thought that was as close to minority voice as they can get. He stated that it will always be a majority of Council that makes a decision.

Councilmember Boles stated that what she is hearing from the public is a little bit of distress.

She didn’t know if there was a lot of opinion in the other direction or not but where there are a lot of public voices for or against one item and Council votes otherwise, and whether the public feels listened to. She thinks that is the fear that she is hearing in a lot of the comments.

Mayor Bigstyck asked her to say it into the microphone as he thinks that was an important point she raised and he wanted to make sure everyone hears what she said.

Councilmember Boles reiterated that she was hearing from the public is the fear that when a good number of the public come to speak in favor or against a particular item, and then Council votes the other way, there is not a trust that they feel listened to, and she thinks that is where some of the fear is coming in the comments, as maybe there is only a minority in Council that strongly wants to support it, but there is a strong public will. She concluded that they can vote them out or recall as there is a recourse.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that there are 38,000 people in Pacifica and seven people came and talked, who have a very good distribution system between them and passed the items to their group. She asked how large is that actual group, a lot larger than 6 or 7, and that is such a small minority of our public. She stated that it doesn’t necessarily represent our whole public.

Councilmember Boles agreed that the whole public isn’t here, but the people who are engaged.

She stated she wasn’t talking about just this issue.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus agreed it is any issue.

Councilmember Boles stated she feels better about it by taking out “controversial” and having more staff time and having it come back to them.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if she feels good about Councilmember Beckmeyer’s idea of having the converse.

Councilmember Boles agreed.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if they have consensus.

Councilmember Bier verified what they were having consensus about.

2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 January 23, 2023
City Manager Woodhouse restated what he said and noted he was open to any revisions to the following: removing “potentially controversial items,” updating the timeline to ten days before the next Council meeting for a request to place an item on an agenda, adding staff reports of over and under an hour of staff time, and those requiring more than an hour of staff time to be agendized for Council direction on next steps.

Mayor Bigstyck, Councilmember Boles, Councilmember Bier, and City Manager Woodhouse confirmed that the amount of staff time spent on a staff report would be updated to two hours.

Councilmember Beckmeyer restated two hours, ten days distinction. There can be things agendized to discuss versus things that can be agendized, discussed and voted on.

City Manager Woodhouse asked City Clerk Coffey to read the edits back.

City Clerk Coffey stated, for Section 11-3, “an individual Councilmember may agendize an item for a City Council meeting by contacting the City Manager. Items that may require less than two hours of staff time to prepare for Council consideration can be agendized for Council consideration and decision. Items that may require more than two hours of staff time to prepare for Council consideration will first be agendized for Council consideration and direction on next steps. Requests from Councilmembers to place an item on the agenda shall be made to the City Manager a minimum of ten days before the next City Council meeting. Depending on the urgency of the proposed item such as can occur for action deadlines that apply to proposed state legislation, the City Manager shall consult with the Mayor about when a proposed item should be agendized for Council consideration.

The Council, City Manager, and Asst. City Attorney discussed edits to make the language clear and concise regarding the urgency of proposed items and the next step of Council consideration City Clerk Coffey stated that she switched the view to a clean version and read the edited version: “An individual Councilmember may agendize an item for Council meeting by contacting the City Manager. Items that may require less than two hours of staff time to prepare for Council consideration can be agendized for Council consideration and decision. Items that may require more than two hours of staff time to prepare for Council consideration will first be agendized for a future Council meeting for discussion and direction on next steps.” Councilmember Bier and Mayor Bigstyck discussed clarification on the “urgent” wording.

City Clerk Coffey read additional edits: “Except for items where the Mayor and City Manager have determined an urgency request from Councilmembers to place an item on the agenda shall be made to the City Manager a minimum of ten days before the next City Council meeting.

The City Manager shall consult with the Mayor about when the proposed item should be agendized for Council consideration.”
The Council, City Manager, and Asst. City Attorney discussed edits to make the language clear and concise regarding the timeline for urgent items to be agendized.

Mayor Bigstyck gauged Council’s agreement with the edits. He asked if there are any other parts of this section that they wanted to take up.

Councilmember Boles would like to consider adding something. She referred to the 3-minute comment section, and as she was reading Half Moon Bay’s ordinance, they had another

2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 January 23, 2023
sentence that discussed translation services for public speakers.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano pointed out that, under the Brown Act, public speakers whose comments are translated into a different language get double the time.

The Council, City Manager, and Asst. City Attorney discussed and agreed upon adding the doubling of the time for those who need translation services.

Councilmember Boles asked a clarifying question on the amount of time for appeals and rebuttals.

City Manager Woodhouse recalled Council discussing that you take up to ten minutes for the appeal and up to three minutes for rebuttal.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked, if they only use eight minutes, can they have five for their rebuttal.

City Manager Woodhouse said they cannot; the point is that you take as much as you want up to ten minutes and you get three minutes for rebuttal. If you take 5 or 8 minutes, you still get three minutes for rebuttal.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that specifically that idea is giving both parties have equal time to do what they are doing. He liked it because it is clear and gives both parties equal time to do what they need to do.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that two items that aren’t resolved are related to a standing special meeting date. He mentioned that whenever they have the need for special meetings, they poll Councilmembers and they figure out a time and that is their ad hoc approach.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the Council calendar would reflect a hold on the fifth Mondays as a special meeting date if needed. He stated that the other items was whether they want to revisit or ask staff to refine the motion to reconsider language as they discussed it earlier and felt the language was confusing and they needed to get back to it.

The Council came to a consensus on reverting to the original language.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano highlighted a sentence about reconsideration that could benefit from further conciseness. Councilmember Boles asked if it would be heard at the same meeting, and Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.

City Manager Woodhouse referred to the last sentence regarding a Councilmember having the ability to bring an item back to consider at a future Council meeting as a new agenda item and asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano if any Councilmember would be able to do so regardless of the outcome.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano answered affirmatively: A Councilmember could bring back an item at a future meeting, and there is nothing in future agenda item that would preclude.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus restated that you can bring anything back that happened in the past as a new agenda item.

Councilmember Boles asked if it needs to be part of reconsideration.

2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 January 23, 2023
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that a motion to reconsider is a specific parliamentary procedure to have the body consider something they just took action on, such as they just learned X/Y/Z was important but they didn’t have that information at the time they made the motion and a member of the majority that was successful in the original motion can bring back the action for a motion to reconsider. It is a very specific parliamentary procedure and not meant to preclude that item from ever coming back to the body, just revisit the issue to decide whether there is a different decision or outcome the body wants to make.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if the Council can have it agendized for consideration after the meeting itself.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, stating that it would just be a new item.

City Manager Woodhouse wanted to clarify that, theoretically, a Councilmember on either side of a vote on an issue could at each agenda request that the item be agendized again, as infinitum, going through the same vote. He didn’t say that happens but it is possible.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus wanted to ask a question about ties. She stated that, in Robert’s rules, if there is tie and someone has recused themselves and they are in the back and it is 2-2 and it loses, but she didn’t think it says that.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that a tie vote generally means that no action has been taken on a matter.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that it doesn’t mean that. If there is a tie vote, it loses.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it loses in the sense that no action is taken, but it is not going to proceed forward. The reality is that no action was taken because there was not a majority.

Mayor Bigstyck concluded that it was an effective no, even though it was not a technical no.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively, as practically speaking it is a no, but technically speaking, no action was taken.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if there was a Council majority about the special Monday meeting days.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that the special Mondays don’t necessarily seem like enough to him. He asked if the idea is that there aren’t any other days on a regular basis where no one has anything. Mayor Bigstyck stated that, by consensus, he was fine including those two dates as standing dates and after that they can do the poll method as they usually do.

Council agreed but noted schedule conflicts with the fifth Mondays available.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in practice, if there is an issue they need to take up and there is a fifth Monday on the horizon, they will look at that day for polling to see if Council is available. He thought the difference is that Councilmembers block out days that are designated at the beginning of the year but they can still have that practice. He confirmed with Council that they were not going to generally leave that language in.

2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 January 23, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck asked if there was any direction or motion needed.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they do need a motion.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved to accept the recommendations on City Council Rules and Code of Ethics as amended; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles

ADJOURN
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the meeting at 11:53 p.m. with memory and thoughts of the seven members of Half Moon Bay community who are no longer with us as of that afternoon.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor

2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 1-23-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5272 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/13/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency related to December 2022/January 2023 Winter Storm Events
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist related to the December 2022 / January 2023 Winter Storm Events.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

On January 4, 2023, the City Manager, acting in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to PMC 4-2.05(a) and executed the "Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency" ("Proclamation"). The City Council first ratified this proclamation by adopting Resolution No. 01-2023 (Attachment A) at its regular meeting of January 9, 2023.

Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to ratify the declaration of a local emergency on January 9, 2023.

San Mateo County Board of Supervisors declared a state of emergency on Tuesday, January 3, and activated the County's Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to coordinate resources and communication with local, regional, and state agencies. San Mateo County Department of Emergency Management also coordinated a response to post the Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) to the State. Per the FEMA and CalOES rules, PDAs must be submitted to the State 72 hours after identifying an extraordinary emergency. The Public Works department submitted the PDA forms to the County that will be included in the countywide composite damage estimate to the State. The Public Works department also submitted the local State of Emergency Proclamation to the State.

The storm event that occurred on December 31, 2022, resulted in dangerous conditions and public safety concerns and caused damages all around the Bay Area. Like many other Bay Area Cities, Pacifica received 4.6" rain in 24 hours, which resulted in severe flooding, road closures, fallen trees, and sanitary sewer overflow events. A subsequent storm event occurred on January 4, 2022 brought significant rains with high wind, high tides and flood watch warnings. These severe storm events caused major damage throughout Pacifica, including extensive street flooding, flooding of creeks, downed electrical wires, downed trees, road closures, mud slides, bank erosion, City infrastructure and private residence damage, and created the largest flow in history to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. 3 Packet Pg. 49
Pacifica City Council 2
February 13, 2023
Public Works, Fire, Police Department, North County Fire Authority (NCFA) and other essential services staff worked diligently throughout these severe storm events and increased staffing to provide emergency protective measures such as providing traffic control for blocked roadways and other safety control, placing and maintaining barricades, providing sand bags (30,000 bags, 120 yds sand), placing and operating emergency pumps, and responding to the hundreds of emergency calls for service that were received during storms. NCFA received 107 calls for service, the Police Department received 195 calls for service, and Public Works logged 250 requests for service coming from various communications.

Public Works staff is continuing with storm cleanup from these severe storm events and anticipates the cleanup work to continue over the coming weeks. Damaged infrastructure is being assessed and repair options determined. Repairs may take 6 months or longer, depending on assessment of the damage.

The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica related to December 2022 / January 2023 Winter Storm Events.

FISCAL IMPACT:

To be determined. The Proclamation of Local Emergency is a prerequisite for requesting state or federal assistance. The City will seek to recover expenses related to preparation, repair, and recovery from this storm event.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

ATTACHMENT A: Resolution 01-2023 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency Related to DEC JAN Winter Storm Events (PDF)
3 Packet Pg. 50

3.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: ATTACHMENT A: Resolution 01-2023 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency Related to DEC JAN Winter Storm Events (5269 :

3.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: ATTACHMENT A: Resolution 01-2023 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency Related to DEC JAN Winter Storm Events (5269 :

3.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: ATTACHMENT A: Resolution 01-2023 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency Related to DEC JAN Winter Storm Events (5269 :

3.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: ATTACHMENT A: Resolution 01-2023 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency Related to DEC JAN Winter Storm Events (5269 :

3.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: ATTACHMENT A: Resolution 01-2023 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency Related to DEC JAN Winter Storm Events (5269 :

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/13/2023
1 SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

STAFF CONTACT:

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

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

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

The sidewalk and promenade restoration were completed on February 22, 2021. 4 Packet Pg. 56
Pacifica City Council 2
February 13, 2023
Monitoring of the repaired area is on-going.
• On December 29, 2020, another failure of the seawall occurred approximately 150-200 feet north of the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Santa Rosa Avenue. A void, approximately 10’ deep by 15’ long, was found behind the seawall and was repaired with geotextiles and concrete slurry on January 5, 2021. Full restoration of this section was complete in February 2021. Monitoring of the repaired area is on-going. • On January 14, 2021, a combination of high tides and large waves damaged a forty-foot section of the Pacifica Municipal Pier’s west facing deck and concrete railing. Following this event, the Pier was closed due to safety concerns. City staff requested a structural engineering assessment of the above deck pier elements and a proposed repair and associated cost from a local engineering consultant. This information was provided to the City by the end of March 2021. The pier was reopened on April 2, 2021, but the damaged portion was fenced off for safety reasons. The City is currently moving forward with a repair project and is designing the repair. Construction will be funded by grant money provided through a Senate Bill 129. The City Council approved a resolution on December 13, 2021, to approve the application of the state grant funds for the repair of the pier and the application has been sent to the State Department of Parks and Recreation for processing. On May 13, 2022, the City received a Coastal Development Permit waiver from the California Coastal Commission to perform this work. A bid opening for the repair was held on June 9, 2022, and the City received one bid, which was $2 million above the project budget. Council rejected the bid and authorized the project to be rebid.

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

Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on January 25, 2016, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency exists within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard every 30 days with January 9, 2023, being the most recent.

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

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

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:
4 Packet Pg. 57
Pacifica City Council 3
February 13, 2023
Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Proclamation for Beach Boulevard Local Emergency (PDF)
4 Packet Pg. 58
"ATTACHMENT 1"

4.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Proclamation for Beach Boulevard Local Emergency (5268 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica "ATTACHMENT 1"

4.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Proclamation for Beach Boulevard Local Emergency (5268 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/13/2023
1 SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

STAFF CONTACT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this case, the City Manager has determined that the damaged pump station threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure, which 5 Packet Pg. 61
Pacifica City Council 2
February 13, 2023
requires immediate attention and constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code Section 1102.

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

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

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

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

During a storm event on the morning of December 16, 2021, the City experienced some flooding in the lower Linda Mar area due to the temporary nonstandard pumping system that has been in use at Anza pump station due to the fire damaged pump station engines in March of 2020. This temporary system has been in place because the City has been working to reach agreement with the California Coastal Commission on the remaining permitting requirements for 5 Packet Pg. 62
Pacifica City Council 3
February 13, 2023
the permanent pumping system. The City faced several significant stormwater related events from October 2021 through December 2021 and will face more with the continuing storm season. Replacement of this temporary system is considered an emergency and staff is moving forward with construction of the permanent system. To further improve operations between now and when the Anza Pump Station Repair Project is completed, the City recently purchased a small diesel engine that will be used to drive one of the existing smaller stormwater pumps, thereby improving pump station resiliency in the interim. Staff issued a public request to prequalify bidders for the Anza Pump Station project in December 2021. Ultimately, two contractors were deemed qualified to bid on the project. Both contactors submitted bids for the project in February of 2022. The contractors specialize in pump stations.

As of May 1, 2022, the Anza Pump Station Repair Project’s General Contractor, DW Nicholson (DWN), has begun the work and is focusing on providing project equipment submittals and requests for information (RFIs). DWN is currently onsite and working. City consultant team members Schaaf and Wheeler (engineer of record providing construction support) and Ghirardelli and Associates (third-party construction manager) are working closely with City staff to process paperwork, respond to questions along with other issues as they arise, and manage the construction work. Active construction continues at the Anza Pump Station. Except for the roof hatches, the roof installation is complete. The Project continues to finalize electrical equipment submittals and continues coordination with the engine supplier. Two new gas engines were delivered to the site mid-December 2022 and are in the process of being installed.

The third new gas engine delivery is anticipated late February 2023. The most recent project schedule estimates that the Pump Station will be tested and ready for manual operation in June 2023. Supply chain issues with the electric controls and electric control panel will delay the Pump Station from being tested and ready for automatic operation until October 2023. In addition, the project to construct a new 2-inch gas service line for the new gas engines was awarded to Casey Construction. Installation of the new 2-inch gas service line in the parking lot east of the Anza Pump Station was completed in October 2022. Installation of the new 2-inch gas service line from the parking lot into the Caltrans Right of Way near the existing PG&E gas main was completed end of November 2022. PG&E requires additional utility location verification prior to moving forward with the new gas service line tie in to the existing gas main, and therefore it is anticipated that the tie in work will occur in late February 2023 or March 2023.

The last step in this process will consist of PG&E installing their gas meter and regulator at the Anza Pump Station in March 2023.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on April 13, 2020, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency at the Anza Pump Station every 30 days with January 9, 2023, being the most recent.

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

There is no fiscal impact to continue this local emergency. 5 Packet Pg. 63
Pacifica City Council 4
February 13, 2023
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (PDF)
5 Packet Pg. 64
RESOLUTION NO. 19-2020

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

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

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

5.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5258 : Continuance pursuant to Public Contract Code 22050; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2020, the City Manager, in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of local emergency in the City of Pacifica, after determining that the damaged condition of the Anza Pump Station is likely to create conditions of disaster or extreme peril which will be beyond the services, personnel and equipment and facilities of the City; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 4-2.05(a) the City Council must take action to confirm the proclamation within 7 and in accordance with Public Contract Code section 22050 which requires confirmation by 2/3 of Council within 14 days of the emergency action.

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

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

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

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

ABSENT, Councilmembers: None.

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers: None.

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

5.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5258 : Continuance

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

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

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

5.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5258 : Continuance

5.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5258 : Continuance

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/13/2023
1 SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

STAFF CONTACT:

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

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

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

BACKGROUND:

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

On March 3, 2020, both the Director of Emergency Services of the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Health Officer issued proclamations of local emergencies based on the imminent and proximate threat to public health from the introduction of COVID-19 in San Mateo County. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors ratified both proclamations on March 10, 2020.

On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional 6 Packet Pg. 69
Pacifica City Council 2
February 13, 2023
resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for broader spread of COVID-19.

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

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

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

The California State Public Health Officer issued an Order on June 11, 2021, effective on June 15, 2021, which superseded all prior State health orders. Restrictions that ended on June 15, 2021, included physical distancing, capacity limits on businesses and the County tier system.

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

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

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

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

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

In late November 2021, a new concerning COVID-19 variant was discovered and identified as the Omicron variant. The Omicron variant spread rapidly even amongst some vaccinated individuals.
6 Packet Pg. 70
Pacifica City Council 3
February 13, 2023
In December 2021, in response to the rapid spread of the Omicron variant, the California Department of Public Health issued guidance requiring masking indoors through January 15, 2022. This requirement was subsequently extended to February 15, 2022.

On January 8, 2022, the California Department of Public Health issued Updated Guidance for Local Health Jurisdictions on Isolation and Quarantine of the General Public. The guidance updated isolation and quarantine recommendations in alignment with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recommended additional mitigation measures to exit isolation and quarantine, and clarified that fully vaccinated persons who are booster-eligible, but have not yet received their booster dose were now recommended to quarantine per updated CDC recommendations.

With COVID-19 case rates subsiding in early February 2022, on February 9, 2022, the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that San Mateo County would align with the state in lifting its indoor mask mandate for vaccinated persons beginning February 16, 2022. Order No.

C19-12 issued on August 2, 2021, by the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, was also rescinded in full on February 16, 2022.

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

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

CURRENT ANALYSIS:

The following updates have occurred since the January 9, 2023 regular City Council meeting.

The state of emergency regarding COVID-19 issued by the Governor remains in place, as do the COVID-19 Community Levels (low, medium, and high) for masking recommendations. CDC recommendations continue to emphasize staying up to date with vaccination, improving ventilation, testing persons who are symptomatic and those who have been exposed, and isolating infected persons. Persons can use information about the current level of COVID-19 impact on their community to decide which prevention behaviors to use and when (at all times or at specific times), based on their own risk for severe illness and that of members of their household, their risk tolerance, and setting-specific factors. At the low CDC COVID-19 Community Level, the CDPH recommends that vulnerable people consider taking additional precautions, including wearing a mask in crowded indoor public places.

The number of reported cases and hospitalizations categorize San Mateo County in the CDC’s Low COVID-19 Community Level per the San Mateo County Health Officer’s update as of February 6, 2023. In San Mateo County the updated COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccines effective against the original strain of the virus and the Omicron variants are readily available at primary care practices and pharmacies across the county, and these updated boosters are recommended and currently available for those ages 5 and older (Pfizer Bivalent Booster) or ages 6 and older (Moderna Bivalent Booster).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None by this action; however, continuation of the local emergency will facilitate the ability for the City to request resources including financial support and reimbursement from the State Office of 6 Packet Pg. 71
Pacifica City Council 4
February 13, 2023
Emergency Services (OES) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for costs incurred in preparation and/or response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 72

6.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5262 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

6.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5262 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

6.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5262 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

6.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5262 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

6.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5262 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

6.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution No 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5262 : Continuation of Proclamation of Local

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/13/2023
1 SUBJECT:

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

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

STAFF CONTACT:

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

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

From the Special City Council Meeting held on March 18, 2020, for the purpose of adopting Resolution No. 18-2020 ratifying the City Manager’s Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus (“COVID-19”), through the Special City Council Meeting held on October 10, 2022, all City Council, Committee and Commission meetings were held via videoconference using a Zoom Meeting or Zoom Webinar platform with no physical meeting location open to the public. The Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20 suspended certain requirements of the Brown Act to allow for public meetings to be held via teleconferenced meetings, either via audio or video or both, for all members of the body to participate from remote locations with no physical meeting location open to the public.

The Governor’s Executive Order N-08-21 issued on June 11, 2021, provided local jurisdictions a basis upon which to continue conducting public meetings via videoconference without a physical 7 Packet Pg. 79
Pacifica City Council 2
February 13, 2023
location open to the public under the relaxed provisions of the Brown Act until September 30, 2021.

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

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

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

AB 361 will sunset on January 1, 2024.

DISCUSSION:

At the regular meeting of the City Council held on October 11, 2021, the City Council adopted 7 Packet Pg. 80
Pacifica City Council 3
February 13, 2023
Resolution No. 63-2021 making findings as required by AB 361 to permit the City Council and City Committees and Commissions to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to the health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19. The resolution also directed staff to agendize for Council consideration no less than every 30 days the need to continue to utilize teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361. The City Council subsequently adopted the following resolution numbers, re-affirming the findings required by AB 361 to continue to conduct teleconferenced public meetings due to COVID-19 risk:
• Resolution No. 63-2021 on October 11, 2021
• Resolution No. 69-2021 on November 8, 2021
• Resolution No. 80-2021 on December 13, 2021
• Resolution No. 01-2022 on January 10, 2022
• Resolution No. 07-2022 on February 14, 2022
With the COVID-19 update provided at the City Council meeting held on February 28, 2022, it was reported that although the Omicron variant spread rapidly during and after the December 2021 holiday season, with positive case rates spiking in mid-January 2022, there had been a dramatic decrease in positive cases in the third week of February, the health effects of the Omicron variant generally much less severe for vaccinated persons, and San Mateo County has a 93.9% vaccination rate for ages 5+. Effective February 16, 2022, the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that Health Officer Order No. C19-12 (For The Wearing of Face Coverings In Workplaces And Public Settings issued on August 2, 2021) was rescinded in full.

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

At the City Council meeting held on May 23, 2022, with the increase in COVID-19 incidence and transmission and the vulnerability of certain segments of the population, the City Council authorized public meetings of the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to return to teleconferenced meetings with no physical location open to the public due to the health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19. The City Council subsequently adopted the following resolution numbers, re-affirming the findings required by AB 361 to continue to conduct teleconferenced public meetings due to COVID-19 risk:
• Resolution No. 23-2022 on May 23, 2022
• Resolution No. 26-2022 on June 13, 2022
• Resolution No. 41-2022 on July 11, 2022
• Resolution No. 46-2022 on August 8, 2022
• Resolution No. 56-2022 on September 12, 2022
• Resolution No. 66-2022 on October 10, 2022
• Resolution No. 76-2022 on November 14, 2022
• Resolution No. 84-2022 on December 12, 2022
• Resolution No. 02-2023 on January 9, 2023
CURRENT ANALYSIS:

The following updates have occurred since the January 9, 2023 regular City Council meeting.

The state of emergency regarding COVID-19 issued by the Governor remains in place, as do the COVID-19 Community Levels (low, medium, and high) for masking recommendations. CDC recommendations continue to emphasize staying up to date with vaccination, improving 7 Packet Pg. 81
Pacifica City Council 4
February 13, 2023
ventilation, testing persons who are symptomatic and those who have been exposed, and isolating infected persons. Persons can use information about the current level of COVID-19 impact on their community to decide which prevention behaviors to use and when (at all times or at specific times), based on their own risk for severe illness and that of members of their household, their risk tolerance, and setting-specific factors. At the low CDC COVID-19 Community Level, the CDPH recommends that vulnerable people consider taking additional precautions, including wearing a mask in crowded indoor public places.

The number of reported cases and hospitalizations categorize San Mateo County in the CDC’s Low COVID-19 Community Level per the San Mateo County Health Officer’s update as of February 6, 2023. In San Mateo County the updated COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccines effective against the original strain of the virus and the Omicron variants are readily available at primary care practices and pharmacies across the county, and these updated boosters are recommended and currently available for those ages 5 and older (Pfizer Bivalent Booster) or ages 6 and older (Moderna Bivalent Booster).

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

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

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

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (PDF)
Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (PDF) 7 Packet Pg. 82
Pacifica City Council 5
February 13, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. __-2023

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

COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNCIL TO CONDUCT

TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS DUE TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS RELATING TO COVID-19
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, as part of the State of California’s response to address the global COVID-19 outbreak, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for broader spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, at 12:11 p.m., the City Manager, in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of local emergency in the City of Pacifica, after determining that the rapidly widespread of COVID-19 is likely to create conditions of disaster or extreme peril which will be beyond the services, personnel and equipment and facilities of the City and executed the “Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”)” (“Proclamation”); and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. 18-2020 ratifying the “Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”)”, which continues to remain in place; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the Governor of California executed Executive Order N-29-20 which suspended and modified specified provisions in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section § 54950 et seq.) and authorized local legislative bodies to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and address the local legislative body; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, the Governor of California executed Executive Order N-08-21 which extended the provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 concerning teleconference accommodations for public meetings through September 30, 2021; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo issued Order No. C19-12 mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, with limited exceptions due to the COVID-19 Delta variant circulating in San Mateo County and evidence of the Delta variant being highly transmissible in indoor settings; and
7 Packet Pg. 83
Pacifica City Council 6
February 13, 2023
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the Governor of California signed into law Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361, Rivas) (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) amending Government Code § 54953 and providing alternative teleconferencing requirements to conduct public meetings during a proclaimed state of emergency; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica has conducted public meetings of City Council and City Committees and Commissions via teleconference from March 18, 2020, through October 10, 2022, under the modified provisions of the Brown Act as allowed for by Governor’s Orders N-29-20, N-08-21 and/or N-15-21 in effect at the time; and WHEREAS, AB 361 (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) imposes requirements to ensure members of the public are able to attend and participate in public meetings conducted via teleconference, including:
• Notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option;
• The legislative body shall take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored; • Prohibits the legislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and specifies that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body and offer comments in real time;
• Prohibits the legislative body from closing the public comment period until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed; and WHEREAS, the City has already implemented and is in full compliance with the requirements listed above when conducting public meetings via teleconference, which are now codified in Government Code § 54953(e)(2)(B-G); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code § 54953(e)(B), the legislative body shall hold a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees. The City Council must make these findings no later than 30 days after the first teleconferenced meeting is held pursuant to AB 361 (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) after September 30, 2021, and must also make these findings every 30 days thereafter, in order to continue to allow teleconference accessibility for conducing public meetings; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo 7 Packet Pg. 84
Pacifica City Council 7
February 13, 2023
issued Order No. C19-12 mandating the wearing of face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, with limited exceptions. This Order was issued due to evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant circulating in San Mateo County.

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

C19-12 was ordered effective at 12:01 am on August 3, 2021; and WHEREAS, in December 2021 and January 2022 the COVID-19 Omicron variant had been observed by scientists and medical professionals to spread rapidly amongst some vaccinated individuals and continues to present a health and safety risk to the public; and WHEREAS, effective February 16, 2022, the County of San Mateo Health Officer announced that Health Officer Order No. C19-12 (For The Wearing of Face Coverings In Workplaces And Public Settings issued on August 2, 2021) was rescinded in full; and WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo Health Officer strongly recommends getting vaccinated or boosters for COVID-19, improve ventilation throughout indoor spaces as much as possible, wear a well-fitting mask in crowded indoor public places, and continue to follow State isolation and quarantine guidance to prevent the spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, as of the week of February 6, 2023, the County of San Mateo Health Officer and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) continue to strongly recommend that all persons, regardless of vaccine status, continue to mask in indoor public settings; and WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has cautioned that some people and communities, such as our oldest citizens, people who are immunocompromised, and people with disabilities, are at higher risk for serious illness due to COVID-19 and should take additional precautions such as avoiding crowded indoor activities with poor ventilation; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2022; June 13, 2022; July 11, 2022; August 8, 2022; September 12, 2022; October 10, 2022; November 14, 2022; December 12, 2022; and January 9, 2023; the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution Nos. 23-2022, 26-2022, 41-2022, 46-2022, 56-2022, 66-2022, 76-2022, 84-2022, and 02-2023, respectively, making findings as required by AB 361 to permit the City Council and City Committees and Commissions to conduct teleconferenced meetings to due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the City cannot ensure that social distancing can be maintained by Councilmembers, Commissioners, Committee members and/or members of the public in Council Chambers or at other locations where City Committees and Commissions regularly meet for the duration of meetings in order to safeguard the most vulnerable populations, and COVID-19 variants when transmission rates pose an imminent and serious risk to public health.
7 Packet Pg. 85
Pacifica City Council 8
February 13, 2023
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 7. Effective Date: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of February, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:
7 Packet Pg. 86
Pacifica City Council 9
February 13, 2023
NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 7 Packet Pg. 87
Assembly Bill No. 361
CHAPTER 165
An act to add and repeal Section 89305.6 of the Education Code, and to amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of, and to add and repeal Section 11133 of, the Government Code, relating to open meetings, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
[Approved by Governor September 16, 2021. Filed with
Secretary of State September 16, 2021.]
legislative counsel
’
s digest
AB 361, Robert Rivas. Open meetings: state and local agencies:
teleconferences.
(1)  Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency, as those terms are defined, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate. The act contains specified provisions regarding the timelines for posting an agenda and providing for the ability of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public.

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

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

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

92 7.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, as specified.

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

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

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

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

7.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) This bill would exclude from that prohibition, a registration requirement imposed by a third-party internet website or other online platform not under the control of the legislative body.
(2)  Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend any meeting of a state body. The act requires at least one member of the state body to be physically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.

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

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

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

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

7.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) to make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the legislative body. With respect to a legislative body holding a public meeting pursuant to these provisions, the bill would suspend certain requirements of existing law, including the requirements that each teleconference location be accessible to the public and that members of the public be able to address the legislative body at each teleconference location.

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

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

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

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

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

7.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) and make public meetings accessible telephonically, or otherwise electronically, to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the legislative body.
(b)  (1)  For a legislative body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all requirements in this article requiring the physical presence of members, the clerk or other personnel of the legislative body, or the public, as a condition of participation in or quorum for a public meeting, are hereby suspended.
(2)  For a legislative body holding a public meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section, all of the following requirements in this article are suspended:
(A)  Each teleconference location from which a member will be participating in a public meeting or proceeding be identified in the notice and agenda of the public meeting or proceeding.
(B)  Each teleconference location be accessible to the public. (C)  Members of the public may address the legislative body at each teleconference conference location.
(D)  Post agendas at all teleconference locations.
(E)  At least one member of the legislative body be physically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.
(c)  A legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, consistent with the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), shall have satisfied any requirement that the legislative body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. A legislative body need not make available any physical location from which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment.
(d)  If a legislative body holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, the legislative body shall also do both of the following:
(1)  Implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable modification or accommodation from individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and resolving any doubt whatsoever in favor of accessibility.
(2)  Advertise that procedure each time notice is given of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e).
(e)  Except to the extent this section provides otherwise, each legislative body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section shall do both of the following:
(1)  Give advance notice of the time of, and post the agenda for, each public meeting according to the timeframes otherwise prescribed by this article, and using the means otherwise prescribed by this article, as applicable.
92 — 5 — Ch. 165

7.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (2)  In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, also give notice of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment. As to any instance in which there is a change in the means of public observation and comment, or any instance prior to the effective date of this section in which the time of the meeting has been noticed or the agenda for the meeting has been posted without also including notice of the means of public observation and comment, a legislative body may satisfy this requirement by advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time. Advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time shall include, but need not be limited to, posting such means on the legislative body’s internet website.
(f)  All legislative bodies utilizing the teleconferencing procedures in this section are urged to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the otherwise applicable provisions of this article, in order to maximize transparency and provide the public access to legislative body meetings.
(g)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 31, 2022, and as of that date is repealed.

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

7.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) or otherwise electronically, consistent with the notice and accessibility requirements in subdivisions (d) and (e), shall have satisfied any requirement that the state body allow members of the public to attend the meeting and offer public comment. A state body need not make available any physical location from which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment.
(d)  If a state body holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section and allows members of the public to observe and address the meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically, the state body shall also do both of the following:
(1)  Implement a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable modification or accommodation from individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and resolving any doubt whatsoever in favor of accessibility.
(2)  Advertise that procedure each time notice is given of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e).
(e)  Except to the extent this section provides otherwise, each state body that holds a meeting through teleconferencing pursuant to this section shall do both of the following:
(1)  Give advance notice of the time of, and post the agenda for, each public meeting according to the timeframes otherwise prescribed by this article, and using the means otherwise prescribed by this article, as applicable.
(2)  In each instance in which notice of the time of the meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, also give notice of the means by which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment. As to any instance in which there is a change in the means of public observation and comment, or any instance prior to the effective date of this section in which the time of the meeting has been noticed or the agenda for the meeting has been posted without also including notice of the means of public observation and comment, a state body may satisfy this requirement by advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time. Advertising the means of public observation and comment using the most rapid means of communication available at the time shall include, but need not be limited to, posting such means on the state body’s internet website.
(f)  All state bodies utilizing the teleconferencing procedures in this section are urged to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the otherwise applicable provisions of this article, in order to maximize transparency and provide the public access to state body meetings.
(g)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 31, 2022, and as of that date is repealed.

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

7.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) 54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislati
ve body of a local agency shall
be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4)  For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agency from providing the public with additional teleconference locations.
(c)  (1)  No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.
(2)  The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
(3)  Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation.
92 Ch. 165 — 8 —

7.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (d)  (1)  Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2)  Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3)  For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

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

7.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
(C)  The legislative body shall conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. (D)  In the event of a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the body shall take no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored. Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1.
(E)  The legislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time.

This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment. (F)  Notwithstanding Section 54953.3, an individual desiring to provide public comment through the use of an internet website, or other online platform, not under the control of the local legislative body, that requires registration to log in to a teleconference may be required to register as required by the third-party internet website or online platform to participate. (G)  (i)  A legislative body that provides a timed public comment period for each agenda item shall not close the public comment period for the agenda item, or the opportunity to register, pursuant to subparagraph (F), to provide public comment until that timed public comment period has elapsed.
(ii)  A legislative body that does not provide a timed public comment period, but takes public comment separately on each agenda item, shall allow a reasonable amount of time per agenda item to allow public members the opportunity to provide public comment, including time for members of the public to register pursuant to subparagraph (F), or otherwise be recognized for the purpose of providing public comment. (iii)  A legislative body that provides a timed general public comment period that does not correspond to a specific agenda item shall not close the public comment period or the opportunity to register, pursuant to subparagraph (F), until the timed general public comment period has elapsed. 92 Ch. 165 — 10 —

7.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (3)  If a state of emergency remains acti
ve, or state or local officials have
imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the legislative body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(A)  The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B)  Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i)  The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii)  State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
(4)  For the purposes of this subdivision, “state of emergency” means a state of emergency proclaimed pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act (Article 1 (commencing with Section 8550) of Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2).
(f)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.

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

7.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory o ver
which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4)  For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

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

7.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19)

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

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

7.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) the public to address the legislati
ve body and offer comment in real time.

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

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

7.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) of the legislati
ve body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding.
(2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
(3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4)  For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

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

7.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2)  Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3)  For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

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

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

7.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) legislati
ve body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(4)  For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agency from providing the public with additional teleconference locations.
(c)  (1)  No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.
(2)  The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
(3)  Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken. This paragraph shall not affect the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1) to inspect or copy records created or received in the process of developing the recommendation.
(d)  (1)  Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. (2)  Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other requirements of this section.
(3)  For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint 92 — 17 — Ch. 165

7.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19) (b)  The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds and repeals Section 89305.6 of the Education Code, Section 2 of this act, which adds and repeals Section 11133 of the Government Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of this act, which amend, repeal, and add Section 54953 of the Government Code, all increase and potentially limit the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
(1)  By removing the requirement that public meetings be conducted at a primary physical location with a quorum of members present, this act protects the health and safety of civil servants and the public and does not preference the experience of members of the public who might be able to attend a meeting in a physical location over members of the public who cannot travel or attend that meeting in a physical location. (2)  By removing the requirement for agendas to be placed at the location of each public official participating in a public meeting remotely, including from the member’s private home or hotel room, this act protects the personal, private information of public officials and their families while preserving the public’s right to access information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.

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

The facts constituting the necessity are:

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

O
92 — 19 — Ch. 165

7.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment A: Full text of AB 361 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced Meetings due to COVID-19)

7.b
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

7.b
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

7.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

7.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

7.b
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

7.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution No. 18-2020 - Ratifying Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 (5261 : Resolution - AB 361 to Permit Teleconferenced

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/13/2023
1 SUBJECT:
2022 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive 2022 mandated fire and life safety inspections compliance report and move to adopt resolution acknowledging receipt of the North County Fire Authority’s mandated fire and life safety inspections performed within the City of Pacifica pursuant to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the Health and Safety Code.

STAFF CONTACT:

Sean Kavanaugh, Deputy Fire Chief
(650) 991-8138
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.4 requires all fire departments, including the North County Fire Authority, that provide fire protection services report annually to its administering authority (the City of Pacifica) on its compliance with Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3.

The North County Fire Authority performs annual inspections in every building used as a public or private school, hotel, motel, lodging house, apartment house, and certain residential care facilities. Requesting the City Council of the City of Pacifica acknowledge fulfillment of the requirements of compliance with Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3.

North County Fire Authority reports the following relating to those inspections:

A. EDUCATIONAL GROUP E OCCUPANCIES: Total 32
Educational Group E occupancies are generally those public and private schools, used by more than six persons at any one time for educational purposes through the 12th grade. During calendar year 2022, the North County Fire Authority inspected all 32 Group E occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities. This is a compliance rate of 100% for this reporting period; and
B. RESIDENTIAL GROUP R OCCUPANCIES: Total 149
Residential Group R occupancies are generally those occupancies containing sleeping units, and include hotels, motels, apartments (three units or more), etc. as well as other residential occupancies, including those designated as residential care facilities. These residential care facilities have several different sub-classifications, and they may contain residents or clients that have a range of needs, including those related to custodial care, mobility impairments, cognitive disabilities, etc. The residents may also be non-ambulatory or bedridden. During calendar year 2022, the North County Fire Authority inspected all 149 Group R occupancies, buildings, 8 Packet Pg. 113
Pacifica City Council 2
February 13, 2023
structures and/or facilities. This is a compliance rate of 100% for this reporting period.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

None
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“Maintaining a Safe Community” includes supporting our first responders (police, fire, public works), responding to storm emergencies, protecting people, property, businesses, and our infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, storm and wastewater), and engaging in emergency preparedness activities.

To ensure the health and safety of the public through a mandated fire and life safety program isa top priority. By ensuring that these buildings meet the standards set forth by state law, we greatly reduce the risks for the loss of life and property.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None
ORIGINATED BY:

North County Fire Authority
ATTACHMENT LIST:
8 Packet Pg. 114
Pacifica City Council 3
February 13, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE NORTH COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY’S MANDATED

FIRE AND LIFE AND SAFETY INSPECTIONS PERFORMED WITHIN THE CITY OF PACIFICA PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 13146.2 AND 13146.3 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.

WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 requires all fire departments, including the North County Fire Authority, that provide fire protection services to perform annual inspections in every building used as a public or private school, hotel, motel, lodging house, apartment house, and certain residential care facilities for compliance with building standards, as provided; and WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.4 requires all fire departments, including the North County Fire Authority, that provide fire protection services to report annually to its administering authority on its compliance with Sections 13146.2 and13146.3; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica intends this Resolution to fulfill the requirements of the California Health & Safety Code regarding acknowledgment of the North County Fire Authority’s report prepared in compliance with California Health & Safety and Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica that said City Council expressly acknowledges receipt of the report from North County Fire Authority prepared in compliance with California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3as follows:

A. EDUCATIONAL GROUP E OCCUPANCIES: Total 32
Educational Group E occupancies are generally those public and private schools, used by more than six persons at any one time for educational purposes through the 12th grade. During calendar year 2022, the North County Fire Authority inspected of all 32 Group E occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities. This is a compliance rate of 100% for this reporting period.

B. RESIDENTIAL GROUP R OCCUPANCIES: Total 149
Residential Group R occupancies, for the purposes of this resolution, are generally those occupancies containing sleeping units, and include hotels, motels, apartments (three units or more), etc. as well as other residential occupancies (including several residential care facilities). These residential care facilities have several different sub- classifications, and they may contain residents or clients that have a range of needs, including those related to custodial care, mobility impairments, cognitive disabilities, etc. 8 Packet Pg. 115
Pacifica City Council 4
February 13, 2023
The residents may also be non-ambulatory or bedridden. During calendar year 2022, the North County Fire Authority inspected all 149 Group R occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities. This is a compliance rate of 100% for this reporting period.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of February 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 8 Packet Pg. 116

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/13/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Vegetation Management and Wildfire Preparedness Grant Funding Opportunities Through CalFire
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the Resolution to submit for state sponsored grant funding for community vegetation fuel reduction and community education within the City of Pacifica.

STAFF CONTACT:

Sean Kavanaugh, Deputy Fire Chief
650-991-8138
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Governor and Legislatures approved funds to be awarded through the California Climate Investments (CCI) Fire Prevention Grant Program and others. CAL FIRE provides funding for local projects and activities that address the risk of wildfire and reduce wildfire potential to forested and forest adjacent communities.

Grant funded activities include hazardous fuel reduction, fire prevention planning, and fire prevention education with an emphasis on improving public health and safety while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. North County Fire Authority (NCFA) intends to apply for 2 separate grants. One is for modifying roadway vegetation. One is for public education and community outreach.

For the first grant, NCFA is requesting the amount of $200, 000. If awarded, it will be used to modify vegetation adjacent to roadways to provide for safer ingress and egress of evacuating residents and responding emergency personnel.

For the next grant, NCFA is requesting $100,000. If awarded, it will fund community outreach and education, which is an important part being ready for wildfires.

It is anticipated that the state will make its decision on which grants will be funded in June 2023.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Working to maintain the health and safety of our residents and visitors along with our first responders.

FISCAL IMPACT:

If grants are awarded at the requested amounts, the City would receive $300,000 toward 9 Packet Pg. 117
Pacifica City Council 2
February 13, 2023
vegetation management and wildfire preparedness efforts.

ORIGINATED BY:

North County Fire Authority
ATTACHMENT LIST:
9 Packet Pg. 118
Pacifica City Council 3
February 13, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AUTHORIZING

APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROM THE FOREST HEALTH GRANT PROGRAM AS

PROVIDED THROUGH CALIFORNIA CLIMATE INVESTMENTS
WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of California in cooperation with the California State Legislature has enacted State of California Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funding, which provides funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for California Climate Investments, including forest health programs; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies, non-profit organizations, and others under the program; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application before submission of said application to the State; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California to carry out a forest health project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Pacifica:

1. Approved the filing of an application for “California Climate Investments” Forest Health grant program funds; and

2. Certifies that said applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project; and,

3. Certifies that funds under the jurisdiction of The City of Pacifica are available to begin the project.

4. Certifies that said applicant will expend grant funds prior to March 15, 2029

5. Appoints the Fire Chief, or a designee, as agent of the North County Fire Authority to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of February 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:
9 Packet Pg. 119
Pacifica City Council 4
February 13, 2023
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 9 Packet Pg. 120

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/13/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Introduction of an Ordinance to amend Article 49, “Short-Term Rentals” of the City of Pacifica Zoning Regulations (Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code [“PMC”]) to establish a cap of 150 short-term rental permits issued citywide and various other conforming amendments (File No. 2022-036 – Text Amendment TA-123-22). Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to waive the first reading and introduce by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Article 49 (Short Term Rentals) of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (Text Amendment TA-123-22) and Finding adoption of the text amendment exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).” STAFF CONTACT:

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

The term “short-term rental” (“STR”) refers to the use of all or a portion of a residential dwelling unit for a rental of less than 30 consecutive days. The popularity of STRs has increased steadily over the past decade due in part to the convenience of booking provided by companies such as Airbnb and VRBO and the increased availability of STRs as an alternative to a traditional hotel or motel. STRs can also provide a source of income for owners and occupants of the residential dwelling units offered for rent as STRs.

The increasing number of STRs in Pacifica led the City Council to adopt Ordinance No. 835- C.S. (“Ordinance”) in 20181. The Ordinance established a permit requirement for operation of an STR, certain operating requirements, and permit revocation and enforcement processes (“STR Program”). The Ordinance appoints the Assistant City Manager or designee as the responsible City official for administration of the STR permit process. The City engaged a consultant, HdL, in July 2021 to assist the Finance Division with reviewing the annual filings for the transient occupant tax (“TOT”) returns, including TOT compliance verifications for STRs.

On June 13, 2022, City staff provided a comprehensive update to the Council on implementation of the City’s STR Program2. At that meeting staff provided a detailed report on implementation of the STR Program, which included information regarding STR locations in Pacifica, the TOT collections from STRs, the impact STRs have on the City’s housing stock, unpermitted STRs and City enforcement activities. The City Manager’s recommendation, at that time, was to not undertake any modifications to the STR Program and to continue to gather data on the number and types of STRs, continue to work to identify unregistered STRs and assess and enforce as necessary any Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) being utilized as STRs. 1 City Council Ordinance No. 835-C.S.
2 City Council June 13, 2022 Agenda Report, Item No. 14. 10 Packet Pg. 121
Pacifica City Council 2
February 13, 2023
Ultimately, the City Council did not direct any changes to the STR Program but did direct that potential revisions to the STR Program be revisited during the Council goal setting in 2023 3 .

Following the June 13, 2022 City Council meeting, members of the public expressed their concerns relating to the sale of residential property in Pacifica for the singular purpose of using the property as an STR. These types of purchases can have a negative impact on the community as they remove an entire housing unit from the housing stock available for long-term residential use. As a result, at the October 10, 2022 City Council meeting, staff presented to Council information about residential property sales resulting in subsequent STR use and asked for direction on whether amendments to the STR Program regulations were warranted4. The public comments received during the meeting ranged from neighbors of STR properties expressing their complaints of STRs that are impacting their neighborhoods to a STR host detailing the affordability benefits their STR brings to their housing situation. As presented at the meeting, based on data from HdL, 101 STR permits were issued in Pacifica, 24 STRs were identified as unregistered, and 47 STRs were closed and ceased any rental activity as of September 2022. One method of ensuring that housing stock is available for long-term residential use and to maintain affordable housing in the City is to regulate the number of shortterm rentals through a maximum limit on the number of short-term rental permits issued by the City.

In response to concerns that increasing STRs would impact the City’s housing stock, a majority of the Council provided direction to amend the STR Program regulations to impose a cap on the total number of STR permits issued in Pacifica to 150 and that whether or not to undertake in the future further potential revisions to the STR Program be revisited during the Council goal setting in 20235.

Proposed Text Amendment
The proposed text amendment would revise various sections of Article 49 “Short-Term Rentals” of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the PMC. The text amendment is summarized below:

Definitions. A definition for “Permit,” “Permittee,” and “Short-term rental permit cap” would be added to provide clarity of the terms as used in Article 49.

Short-term Rental Permit Cap. A new section would be added to establish a cap of 150 STR permits. The section also would identify a waitlist that would be created for applications received after the issuance of 150 STR permits.

Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU). Language would be added to clarify that no STR shall operate within a JADU. This language is complementary to existing language in Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-4.454(a)(6).

Term and Renewal. The text amendment would change the stated expiration date of STR permits from December 31 to October 31, which mirrors the City’s expiration date for all business licenses. This will align currently inconsistent deadlines for permittees, which are required to get a business licenses renewed for a STR two months before they are required to get their STR permit renewed.

The proposed text amendment would not impact any of the existing STR permit application standards, STR operating requirements, or implementation of the STR permit revocation and 3 City Council Minutes June 13, 2022.
4 City Council October 10, 2022 Agenda Report, Item No. 10 5 City Council Minutes October 10, 2022
10 Packet Pg. 122
Pacifica City Council 3
February 13, 2023
enforcement provisions of the STR Program. Tracked changes of the proposed text amendment are shown in attached Planning Commission staff report packet (Attachment B of Attachment B).

Local Coastal Program
Ordinance amendments would not become effective in the Coastal Zone until the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) certifies an amendment to the City's local coastal program (LCP) pursuant to Section 30514 of the California Public Resources Code. The CCC has found that outright bans or undue restrictions on STRs are inconsistent with Coastal Act policies prioritizing public access and visitor-serving uses.

The proposed Ordinance is consistent with the California Coastal Act and the City’s certified Local Coastal Land Use Plan which includes policies addressing residential land use, short-term vacation rentals, affordable housing, coastal access and the need for lower cost visitor serving accommodations. Coastal Policy No. 5 specifically provides that “Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. […].” Removing housing units from the Coastal Zone, even temporarily, to allow STRs to operate at a greater pace than development of new long-term housing will conflict with this policy and will significantly impact the availability of housing.

The Planning Commission staff report (included as Attachment B) includes additional information about non-STR visitor-serving accommodations in the Coastal Zone.

Planning Commission Review
At the January 17, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the text amendment to the City Council by a vote of 5-0 (with two absences). The staff report, resolution adopted by the Planning Commission, and meeting minutes are included as Attachments B through D.

The Planning Commission included in Resolution No. 2023-001 several additional areas of STR regulation that it recommended for City Council consideration as part of a future ordinance update beyond the cap that was presented by staff. Additionally, several members of the public provided comments at the meeting and their statements are summarized in the meeting minutes.

California Environmental Quality Act
The Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The text amendment would be exempt from CEQA pursuant to the “General Rule” exemption in CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)). The General Rule exemption provides that “The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.”
The text amendment would make amendments to the existing STR Program to, among other things, establish a limit the number of STRs that would be permitted within the City. The limitation of STRs would not have a significant effect on the environment. 10 Packet Pg. 123
Pacifica City Council 4
February 13, 2023
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may decline to adopt the Ordinance or direct that a different cap on the number of permitted STRs be included in the Ordinance.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
• “Fiscal Sustainability” The City’s efforts to ensure registration of all STRs should increase tax revenues in a manner consistent with this City Council Goal. • “An Engaged Community” Consideration of the Ordinance in a public forum expands public participation in a manner consistent with this City Council Goal. • “A Healthy and Compassionate Community” Evaluating the relationship of STRs to the City’s housing stock and potential impacts of too many STRs is consistent with this City Council Goal.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget includes $2.1 million in TOT revenues. About half of TOT revenue will come from STRs. Staff projects to receive approximately $1.2 million in TOT revenue from STRs annually if all STRs identified as active on the current market are brought to compliance.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (DOCX)
Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (PDF) Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-001 (PDF) Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (PDF) 10 Packet Pg. 124
ORDINANCE NO. ___________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLE 49 “SHORT-TERM RENTALS“ OF CHAPTER 4 OF TITLE 9 OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A CAP OF 150

SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS ISSUED CITYWIDE AND VARIOUS OTHER

CONFORMING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE REGULATION AND

PERMITTING OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND FINDING THE ORDINANCE

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) WHEREAS, Chapter 7 of Title 3 the Pacifica Municipal Code imposes a transient occupancy tax on any persons occupying space, for thirty consecutive calendar days or less, in any structure or portion of any structure for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, based on a percentage of rent charged; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2018, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance 835-C.S. adding Article 49 “Short-Term Rentals” (“STRs”) to Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to establish regulations governing the short-term rental of residential property within the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2022, City staff provided a comprehensive update to the Council on implementation of the City’s STR Program, which included information regarding STR locations in Pacifica, the TOT collections from STRs, the impact STRs have on the City’s housing stock, unpermitted STRs and City enforcement activities; and WHEREAS, following the June 13, 2022 City Council meeting, members of the public expressed their concerns relating to the sale of residential property in Pacifica for the singular purpose of using the property as an STR as these types of purchases can have a negative impact on the community as they remove an entire housing unit from the housing stock available for long-term residential use; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2022, the City Council discussed public concerns relating to the sale of residential property in Pacifica for the singular purpose of using the property as an STR and directed staff to prepare a text amendment to cap the STR permits to 150 citywide; and
WHEREAS, there are areas within the City where there are concentrations of STRs, including West Sharp Park and Pedro Point and that there are a high number of STR permits located in the Coastal Zone of the City; and WHEREAS, the total percentage of housing units in the Coastal Zone being used as unpermitted and permitted STRs is approximately 3.2 percent as of December 2022; and
WHEREAS, STRs can be conducted so as to safeguard neighborhood integrity, promote coastal access, and protect coastal resources; and WHEREAS, one method of ensuring that housing stock is available for long-term residential use and to maintain affordable housing in the City is to regulate the number of short-term rentals through a maximum limit on the number of short-term rental permits issued by the City; and

10.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) A-2
WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance, which includes a cap on the number of STRs in the City, is consistent with the California Coastal Act and the City’s certified Local Coastal Land Use Plan which includes policies addressing residential land use, short-term vacation rentals, affordable housing, coastal access and the need for lower cost visitor serving accommodations; and
WHEREAS, Coastal Policy No. 5 specifically provides that “Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. […].” Removing housing units from the Coastal Zone, even temporarily, to allow STRs to operate at a greater pace than development of new long-term housing will conflict with this policy and will significantly impact the availability of housing; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance, is also consistent with the General Plan.

While the City’s General Plan does not directly address the balance of STRs and their relationship with housing availability. Guiding Policy CD-G-3 of the General Plan states “Neighborhood Conservation. Preserve the unique qualities of each of Pacifica’s residential neighborhoods.” Additionally, the goals, objectives, and programs contained in the City of Pacifica Housing Element “strive to encourage and incentivize the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing affordable to persons of all income levels and special needs categories.” The profusive use of the City’s existing housing stock for STRs would impact the City’s Housing Element goals of encouraging and incentivizing the preservation of housing. Furthermore, due to the attributes of STRs, the use of them can prompt consideration of their compatibility with the unique qualities of a residential neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments contained in Text Amendment TA-123-22 (File No. 2022-036) on January 17, 2023, and adopted Resolution No. 2023-001 by a vote of 5-0 initiating and recommending City Council approval of Text Amendment TA-123-22; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed ordinance on February 13, 2023, and considered all correspondence, staff reports and other materials presented.

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.

Section 2. Amendment. Article 49, “Short-Term Rentals” of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing and replacing, in its entirety, to read as follows:

10.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) A-3
“Article 49. Short-Term Rentals
Sec. 9-4.4900. Purpose and intent.

The purpose of this article is to establish regulations governing the short-term rental of residential property within the City of Pacifica in order to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Pacifica, and to allow for the short term rental of single-family and multi-family dwelling units for less than thirty (30) consecutive days, while still preserving the single-family character of neighborhoods, and preventing short-term rental activities from becoming a nuisance or a threat to public health, safety or welfare.

Sec. 9-4.4901. Definitions.

For the purposes of this article, unless otherwise apparent from the context, the following words and phrases are defined as set forth below:
(a) "Administrator" means the Assistant City Manager or designee. (b) "Advertising platform" means any online site that provides a means for the host to advertise or otherwise offer for rent a short-term rental. (c) "Operate" means the operation of a short-term rental, and includes the acts of establishing, offering, maintaining, or listing for rent a short-term rental with an advertising platform.
(d) “Permit” or “Short-term rental permit” means a permit issued by the City pursuant to this Article to allow the use of a dwelling unit property, or portion of it, as a short-term rental.
(e) “Permittee” means a property owner and/or authorized representative of the property owner, who has been issued a short-term rental permit by the City.
(d) "Rental" means the occupancy or use of a dwelling unit property, in exchange for any form of rent that may be valued in money, including cash, credit, goods, labor, or property, regardless of whether such rent is actually received.
(e) "Short-term rental" means the use of a dwelling unit, or portion of it, for a rental of less than thirty (30) consecutive days.
(f) “Short-term rental permit cap” means the maximum number of short-term rental permits that may be issued at any given time by the City.

Sec. 9-4.4902. Short-term rental permit cap.

The short-term rental permit cap shall be one hundred fifty (150) at any given time.

The Administrator shall not approve any applications for short-term rental permits once the Administrator has determined that the short-term rental permit cap has been reached. The Administrator may create a waiting list for those applications received after the issuance of 150 short-term rental permits.

Sec. 9-4.4903. Short-term rentals permitted.

Short-term rentals are permitted in all residential zones, subject to compliance with the following requirements:
(a) No person may operate a short-term rental without first obtaining a shortterm rental permit issued pursuant Section 9-4.4904. (b) In accordance with Section 9-4.453(a)(6) and 9-4.454(a)(6), no person may operate a short-term rental in any accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit.

10.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) A-4
(c) Each person operating a short-term rental shall comply with the transient occupancy tax requirements set forth in Chapter 7 of Title 3 of this Code, and shall obtain a Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate pursuant to the Section 3.7-06.
(d) Each person operating a short-term rental shall obtain a business license and pay the business license tax required pursuant to Chapter 1 of Title 3 of this Code.
(e) No person shall operate or allow short-term rental of property in any location not approved for use as a permanent dwelling unit including, but not limited to, any vehicle, trailer, tent, storage shed or garage.

Sec. 9-4.4904. Short-term rental permit required.

Subject to those requirements in Section 9-4.4903 and subject to the short-term rental permit cap specified in Section 9-4.4902, a short-term rental permit may be approved by the Administrator, provided that the Administrator determines the applicant has met the following requirements:
(a) Application. The applicant must complete an application on a form provided by the City, accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City Council.
(b) Property owner consent. If the applicant is a tenant, he or she must demonstrate written consent of the property owner to operate short-term rentals on the property.
(c) Contact information. The applicant must provide current contact information to the City, and information regarding the advertising platform(s) to be used.
(d) Guest safety. The short-term rental must have a smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher. The applicant must submit a signed safety declaration in a form prepared by the Administrator, to be kept in the property file at the City.

Approval of a short-term rental permit does not legalize any use or structure not permitted by law or contract, including, but not limited to, restrictions imposed by a homeowners association or in a lease agreement.

Sec. 9-4.4905. Permit term and renewal.
(a) Term. A short-term rental permit is valid for one year from the date of issuance until October 31st of each year, unless suspended or revoked by the Administrator prior to October 31st.
(b) Renewal. The permittee may renew the permit annually by submitting a renewal application and fee between October 1st and October 31st of each year, regardless of when the short-term rental permit was issued. If a renewal application and fee are not filed prior to the October 31st deadline, the short-term rental permit may be deemed revoked by the Administrator.

Sec. 9-4.4906. Operating requirements.

A short-term rental shall, at all times, be operated subject to the following standards:
(a) Permit required. The short-term rental must be operated under a valid short-term rental permit issued by the City in accordance with Section 9-

4.4904.
(b) Current information. The short-term rental permittee shall, during the term of the permit, promptly inform the Administrator regarding any changes regarding information provided in the application, including contact

10.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) A-5
information and information regarding advertising platforms used by the permittee to advertise the short-term rental.
(c) Guest safety. The short-term rental permittee must provide the following materials electronically to any guests before arrival and make available printed materials on-site for the guest with the following information:
(1) A diagram of exits, fire extinguisher locations, and fire and police contact numbers;
(2) The short-term rental permittee's contact information; and (3) The City's noise regulations (Chapter 10 of Title 5 of this Code); and (4) The City's Social Host Liability Ordinance (Chapter 28 of Title 5 of this Code).

Sec. 9-4.4907. Permit revocation and enforcement.
(a) Permit suspension or revocation. The Administrator may suspend or revoke a short-term rental permit after making a determination that the permittee has violated any of the provisions of this article or is operating the short-term rental in a manner that is detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety or constitutes a nuisance or has failed to renew their shortterm rental permit. The Administrator shall provide the permittee with written notice stating the supporting factual basis for the decision. The notice shall contain an advisement of the right to request an appeal before a hearing officer by filing a written appeal.
(b) Appeal to Hearing Officer. Suspension or revocation issued by the Administrator pursuant to paragraph (a) will be effective ten (10) days from the date appearing on the notice, unless a timely appeal is filed before such date along with the deposit of an appeal fee established by resolution of City Council. A hearing shall be scheduled before the hearing officer within thirty (30) days. The decision of the hearing officer shall be a final administrative order, with no further administrative right of appeal or reconsideration. The hearing officer may sustain a denial, suspension or revocation, overrule a denial, suspension or revocation, reduce a revocation to a suspension and/or reduce the length of a suspension. (c) Reapplication. No application for a short-term rental permit will be accepted within one year after a short-term rental permit is revoked. (d) Enforcement. The City may enforce this article by any means permitted by law, including, but not limited to, those penalty provisions set forth in Chapter 2 of Title 1 of this Code. The City Council may establish fines for violating this article by resolution.”
Section 3. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

10.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) A-6
Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law. For areas within the Coastal Zone, this Ordinance shall not become effective until the California Coastal Commission certifies an amendment to the City’s local coastal program pursuant to Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________________, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ ____________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

10.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates)

PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
DATE: January 17, 2023 FILE: TA-123-22
ITEM: 2
SUBJECT: File No. 2022-036 – Text Amendment TA-123-22, initiated by the City of Pacifica, to repeal and replace Article 49, “Short-Term Rentals” of the City of Pacifica Zoning Regulations (Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code [“PMC”]) to establish a cap of 150 short-term rental permits issued citywide and various other conforming amendments and finding the text amendment exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

PROJECT
LOCATION: Citywide
PUBLIC NOTICE: A one-eighth page Notice of Public Hearing was published in the San Mateo Daily Journal on January 6, 2023.

CEQA STATUS: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the “General Rule” exemption in CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).

REQUIRED
APPROVALS: Government Code Section 65853 et seq. requires the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and provide a written recommendation to the City Council on any new zoning ordinance, amendment to a zoning ordinance, or change in a property’s zoning designation. Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-4.3501 et seq. similarly requires the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and to provide a recommendation by resolution to the City Council on any zoning text amendment or change in a property’s zoning designation.

The City Council, as the legislative body of the City, must conduct a public hearing and enact by ordinance any zoning text amendment or change in a property’s zoning designation before it may take effect, with few 2 Packet Pg. 5

10.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 17, 2023