Agenda — Pacifica City Council, October 23, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

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 October 23, 2023
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
October 23, 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:
• Join Zoom Webinar: https://pacifica-gov.zoom.us/j/81156158241 • 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
• Live Remote Public Comments (offered on a pilot basis):
• Join Zoom Webinar: https://pacifica-gov.zoom.us/j/81156158241 • OR Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | Webinar ID: 811 5615 8241 o Press * 9 to raise your hand to request to speak.
o Press * 6 to unmute when called upon to speak by the last 4-digits of your phone #. • When the Mayor announces the Agenda Item on which you would like to comment, raise your hand in Zoom. You will be called upon my screenname or last 4-digits of phone number if dialing in. Please mute any background sound and state your full name at the start of your comment.

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 October 23, 2023
5:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code section 54957. Title: City Manager.
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 Bier
Closed Session Report

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Arbor Day
B. City of Pacifica Youth Advisory Board (YAB) Presentation

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.

Public meetings are a limited public forum, meaning that there are rules for commenting at these meetings. Comments on consent agenda items must relate to that specific item.

If comments do not relate to a specific agenda item, then City will provide you with an initial warning to stay on topic. If the warning is not followed, the Mayor will direct the City Clerk to cut off the microphone.

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.

City Council Regular Meeting 3 October 23, 2023

1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the following: (1) September 25, 2023 for the Special and Regular Meeting of the City Council and (2) September 25, 2023 for the Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning Commission.

2. Approve an additional Recreation Coordinator Position in Aquatics Program and amend the FY 2023-24 Budget and Position Control to include this change PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution to approve the addition of a Recreation Coordinator Position in Aquatics Program and make necessary amendments to the FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget and Position Control to include this position.

3. Resolution Approving a Consultant Services Agreement with Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong, LLP., for Comprehensive Classification Study
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a consultant services agreement between the City of Pacifica and Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong, LLP in the amount of $92,000.00 and all necessary documents related to this project.

4. Resolution Approving Additional Budget Authority of up to $20,000 to Continue Grant Writing Services on a Month-to-Month Basis with California Consulting, Inc.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to continue grant writing services with California Consulting, Inc. on a month-to-month basis for an additional purchasing authority of up to $20,000 to for completion of the RFP process for these services.

5. Amended Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Vac-Con, Inc. increasing the contract amount by $42,538.48 for the Purchase of a Vac-Con G2 VT310LHAE/1300 truck for the Wastewater Division
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution for the following:
• Approving the Amended Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and VacCon, Inc. increasing the contract amount by $42,538.48 for the Purchase of a VacCon G2 VT310LHAE/1300 Truck for the Wastewater Division. • Transfer $42,538.48 from Wastewater Fund 18 to the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72. • Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the purchase.

6. On-Call Certified Arborist Services - Amendment 1 to Task Order 2 between City of Pacifica and NCE
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution approving Amendment 1 to Task Order 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services in the amount of $50,000 bringing the total Task Order to $95,000; and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the On-Call Certified Arborist Services.

7. A Resolution Supporting the Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project and Authorizing Submittal of an Application for State Transportation Improvement Program Funding
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution Authorizing the filing of an application for funding assigned to MTC and committing any necessary matching funds and stating City Council Regular Meeting 4 October 23, 2023
assurance to complete the project, and authorize the City Manager to execute any document/s required for the grant application.

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 recognized by the Mayor during this time, provided, however, that only items not on the Agenda for that meeting may be addressed. Comments on non-agendized items must address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. If comments do not address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City, the City will provide you with an initial warning to stay within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. If the warning is not followed, the Mayor will direct the City Clerk to cut off the microphone.

A maximum of three minutes will be allowed for any speaker.

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

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.

CONSIDERATION

8. Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Section 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii) (Windows and window coverings) of Chapter 16 of Title 4 (Cannabis Public Safety Licenses) of the Pacifica Municipal Code relating to storefront window size requirements for cannabis operations.

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

PROPOSED ACTION: Introduce by title only and waive further reading of an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Section 4-

16.03(c)(1)(ii) (Windows and window coverings) of Chapter 16 of Title 4 (Cannabis Public Safety Licenses) of the Pacifica Municipal Code and Finding Adoption of the Ordinance Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”

9. Appointments to the Library Advisory Committee; Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission; Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee; and Economic Development Committee
PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Move to appoint two (2) applicants to at-large positions on the Library Advisory Committee, specifying the terms for each; and
2) Move to appoint applicants to the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission for two (2) full four-year terms to expire October 2027; and 3) Move to appoint an applicant to the Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee for one (1) partial term to expire May 2027; and
City Council Regular Meeting 5 October 23, 2023
4) Move to appoint applicants to the Economic Development Committee for two (2) full four-year terms to expire October 2027 and one (1) partial term to expire October 2024.

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 Laphonza Butler, SD-G10 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3841 • 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
10/23/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes for the following: (1) September 25, 2023 for the Special and Regular Meeting of the City Council and (2) September 25, 2023 for the Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning Commission.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Move to approve the minutes of the meeting held on (1) September 25, 2023 for the Special and Regular Meeting of the City Council (Attachment A) and (2) September 25, 2023 for the Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning Commission (Attachment B).

FISCAL IMPACT:

Within budgeted operational expenses.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Special and Regular Council Meeting (PDF) Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (PDF)
1 Packet Pg. 6

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 Special Meeting 1 September 25, 2023

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
September 25, 2023 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck called the meeting to order on September 25, 2023 at 6:10 PM 6:00 PM - OPEN SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Bigstyck called the meeting to order at 6:10 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; Karen Murphy, Asst. City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Bob Palacio, PB&R Director; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief; Craig Wittner, Fire Battalion Chief; Stefanie Cervantes, Sr.

Planner; Brianne Harkousha, Sr. Planner; 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 Councilmember Boles

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Gretchen "Greta" Hayes

1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Special and Regular Council Meeting (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 2 September 25, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck read a proclamation honoring Gretchen “Greta” Hayes following her retirement.

Ms. Hayes stated that it has been a pleasure working for the children and their families and that is what she will miss most.

PB&R Director Palacio stated that the impact Ms. Hayes has had on so many lives cannot be overstated and she will be missed. He thanked her for all she did.

Councilmember Bier thanked Ms. Hayes for everything she did for all families, including her own.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus thanked Ms. Hayes for everything she has done.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had the opportunity to work with Ms. Hayes and she feels that she is part of her life. She thanked her for everything she did.

Councilmember Boles stated she was sure those Ms. Hayes taught have come back and she has seen their progress. She acknowledged the difference Ms. Hayes made to help our next group of citizens growing up.

Mayor Bigstyck stated Ms. Hayes has had an incredibly positive affect on generations of Pacificans. He thanked her for her service to our community. He then opened public comment.

Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated that she served on Council for 16 years and stated a child care profession is not an easy job, but a great and fun job, and Ms. Hayes makes working parents feel comfortable. Child care is an asset and she appreciated her service.

B. Proclamation - Fire Prevention Week
Mayor Bigstyck read a proclamation acknowledging Fire Prevention Week.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh thanked the city for this proclamation and shared that education and information are available.

Councilmember Bier thanked the fire department for their service and keeping us all safe.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus shared that Fire Service Day is on October 14.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated Fire Station 72 in Pacifica will be open for Fire Service Day and mentioned all the demonstrations and fire prevention materials that will be available.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus thanked him, as fire workers are important to everyone.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that a few of them were at the CalCities Conference and she attended a session on emergency preparedness and the aftermath such as working with FEMA, etc., and it brought to her mind what they do for our community and that they are always available no matter the problem.

Councilmember Boles stated she was grateful for our JPA and mutual aid across the county.

She appreciated how quickly they are on top of something happening to prevent it from spreading.

1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Special and Regular Council Meeting (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 3 September 25, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck thanked them for reminding us of fire prevention and their daily service. He reminded everyone of the Zonehaven program and SMC Alert.

Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh explained Zonehaven, which helps with notifications of evacuation orders, places to go to, etc.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bigstyck asked if any Councilmember wanted to pull an item, and seeing no one, opened public comments.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, reminded the city that many neighbors in Manor district are concerned about unintended consequences on the northbound Highway 1 entrance at Milagra, mentioning their specific concerns.

Matthew Dougherty, Pacifica, stated he was speaking on behalf of the Economic Development Committee and as a local business owner in Manor area. He referred to the overpass and Manor crossing, and shared the business owners’ concerns regarding parking.

Sue Digre, Pacifica, referred to Item 6 Manor overcrossing being a crisis if not dealt with soon, and she shared concerns she heard from business owners, such as the parking, economic issues as well as construction vehicles or equipment, etc.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, referred to Item 12, stating it was an important letter to issue to the FAA, and he shared his concerns on this issue. He then referred to Item 6, and emphasized adding the on-ramp, and shared his thoughts on this issue.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, referred to Item 6, and expressed his full support for matching city funds for the grant application, and shared his thoughts on this issue. He also supported the northbound on-ramp at Milagra and shared his thoughts on that issue.

Anonymous (via Zoom), There was one anonymous commenter that expressed racist and antisemitic views and profanity (hate speech).

Erin Macias, Pacifica, (via Zoom) asked that the hate comment be stricken from the record as it isn’t representative of Pacifica.

Mayor Bigstyck closed public comments.

Councilmember Boles stated the Manor Overcrossing item was about a grant but not the project itself and they hope the project proceeds soon. She referred to a lot of comments on parking at the previous public hearing and the on-ramp. She was sure the consultant is considering them, and there will be other public meetings when they are ready to review the project with the revision. Regarding the FAA letter, she stated it was something she worked hard on the last few months and she wanted to give a shout out to Remi Tan and Sue Digre who helped her with that including past history with FAA in 2016 that impacted the whole city. She stated they got a lot of technical help from the SFO Airport Community Roundtable and thanked several individuals who helped her compile all the information. She wanted to make it clear that it was Pacifica sending the letter regarding what they think the FAA can do differently to address airplane noise. She encouraged everyone to describe their personal experience, as well as

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Special and Regular Council Meeting (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 4 September 25, 2023
stating they support Pacifica’s letter.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked Councilmember Boles for her incredible hours she has put in working on that.

Mayor Bigstyck echoed regarding the amount of work she has been putting into that letter which he thought was an impressive letter.

City Manager Woodhouse asked that they take a brief recess before public communications.

Mayor Bigstyck agreed and called a recess before reconvening the meeting.

CONSENT CALENDAR (ITEMS #1 – 12)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles

1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the meeting held on August 28, 2023 for the Joint Study Session of the City Council and Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee and Regular Meeting of the City Council and the meeting held on September 11, 2023 for the Regular Meeting of the City Council.

2. Update Job Classification for the Deputy Director of Public Works – Wastewater Position PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution approving revisions to the job classification for the Deputy Director of Public Works - Wastewater.

3. Approve the agreement with the County of San Mateo, Behavioral Health and Recovery Services (BHRS) to expand the Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team (CWCRT) pilot program in the City of Pacifica and to share the costs of one full-time mental health clinician in Pacifica as part of the CWCRT pilot program.

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution approving a three-year agreement between the County of San Mateo and the City of Pacifica to share the costs of one fulltime mental health clinician in Pacifica as part of the Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team (CWCRT) pilot program for an estimated annual cost of $88,369, which shall be prorated based on the clinician’s start date; and authorizing the City Manager to sign the Agreement.

4. Notice of Completion for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Photovoltaic System Improvement Project – Phase 1
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Photovoltaic System Improvement Project - Phase 1.

5. Notice of Completion for the FY 2023-24 Concrete Improvement Project PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the FY 2023-24 Concrete Improvement Project; and Authorize the City

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Special and Regular Council Meeting (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 5 September 25, 2023
Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

6. A Resolution Supporting the Manor Drive Overcrossing Project and Authorizing Submittal of an Application for Measure A and W Highway Program Funding PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Supporting the Highway 1 / Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project and Authorizing Submittal of an Application for Measure A and Measure W Highway Program Funding" that authorizes staff to submit the grant application for the Measure A and W Highway Program Funding of $3,600,000, authorizes the City Manager to execute any document/s required for the grant application, and commits the required $400,000 in matching funds for the project if the grant is approved.

7. Resolution to Approve Consultant Service Agreement with Telstar Instruments for CCWRP SCADA and PLC Upgrade Project.

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing an Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Telstar Instruments for CCWRP SCADA and PLC Upgrade Project to approve the following actions:

A. Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Consultant Services Agreement with Telstar Instruments in an amount of $1,040,731.00; and B. Approve a total project budget of $1,150,000.00 which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed $109,269.00 or ten and one-half percent (10.5%) of the Consultant Contract amount; and
C. Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the listed contingency amounts.

8. Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services related to the FY 2024-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project.

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services in the amount of $157,000.00 in connection to the FY 2024-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project; approve budget authority in the amount of $172,700.00 which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed 10% from the Street Construction Fund (Fund 9); and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related with the project.”

9. Resolution to Approve Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and PanPacific Supply to rebuild the P20 Prime Pump and Epoxy coat Hydraflo Pump for the Linda Mar Stormwater Pump Station Rehabilitation Project and rebuild the Fairbanks Morse pump and GE Vertical motor for the Linda Mar Pump Station Rehabilitation and Replacement Project.

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Approving the Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Pan-Pacific Supply, via urgent purchase, in the amount of $93,987.40 to rebuild the P20 Prime Pump and Epoxy coat Hydraflo Pump for the Linda

1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Special and Regular Council Meeting (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 6 September 25, 2023
Mar Stormwater Pump Station Rehabilitation Project and rebuild the Fairbanks Morse pump and GE Vertical motor for the Linda Mar Pump Station Rehabilitation and Replacement Project and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the purchase.

10. Acceptance of County of San Mateo Measure K Grant for $20,000 for support for the Coastside News Group, Inc.

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution “Accepting a Measure K Grant in the amount of $20,000 from the County of San Mateo and approving the Measure K Grant Agreement to provide support for the Coastside News Group, Inc., through a one-time grant.”

11. City of Pacifica response to the Grand Jury Report: "Bike Safety in San Mateo County:

Making Bicycling Safer in the County"
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report titled "Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County"

12. Comment Letter on Federal Aviation Administration Civil Aviation Noise Policy PROPOSED ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to submit the comment letter provided in Attachment B to the Federal Aviation Administration regarding Civil Aviation Noise Policy.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus suggested to limit public comment to one minute due to the extensive meeting they are having after this, and Mayor Bigstyck agreed, as they were supposed to begin the joint study session earlier and they still have some communications to get through.

Ted Bisson, Pacifica, stated he wanted to discuss the conflict of interest that took place recently of a removal of a protected tree near his home, and shared his concerns.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated she supported housing stability and a pathway for homelessness, and shared her experiences and thoughts on support of PRC and condemning harassment, etc. regarding safe parking.

Gloria Stofan, Pacifica, stated not just Pacifica, but the county’s goal is net zero homelessness, and she shared her thoughts on many cities aiming for a pathway to end homelessness and shared her concerns on delayed education on this issue.

Sue Digre, Pacifica, referred to the impact of misinformation and fear mongering, etc., regardless homelessness and shared her concerns on this issue and asked for support of PRC on this issue.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, referred to a fire behind his house, and shared his concerns on the issue of the danger of fires.

Anonymous (via Zoom): There were nine anonymous commenters that expressed racist, antisemitic views and/or profanity (hate speech).

1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Special and Regular Council Meeting (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 7 September 25, 2023
City Clerk Coffey stated that they have four more hands raised on Zoom, and she suggested that they end at that time as they are beyond the study session start time.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, as the mayor mentioned, the first amendment allows speakers to express hateful speech on certain issues unless the speech disrupts the meeting and, at this point they have had multiple speakers speak on topics that are disruptive hate speech and impedes the city’s ability to proceed with city business, given that it may deter members of the public and staff from participating in meetings, and the hate speech is threatening to individual councilmembers, staff and members of the public as documented in recent attacks relating to anti-semitic behavior, shootings, etc. She stated Council has given an opportunity to various public speakers to present their public comments but it is becoming disruptive, and they can terminate the public comment period.

Mayor Bigstyck agreed.

Samuel Casillas, Pacifica, (via Zoom) referred to the current Housing Element, and shared his thoughts on the subject.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that his comment may be better served during the Housing Element portion of the meeting. He stated that they are running a little late and they look forward to hearing from him in a few minutes.

Anonymous (via Zoom): There were three anonymous commenters that expressed racist, antisemitic views and/or profanity (hate speech).

Samantha Hauser, Pacifica, stated she was speaking as an individual, and referred to Suzanne Moore’s and Sue Digre’s comments on everyone deserving to feel safe, and she commended Council and staff for providing a positive environment.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bier reminded everyone that the Pacifica Collaborative is working on a campaign for kindness, and they are looking forward to all the sectors of our community coming together to support kindness in all the different ways. She stated that they have a plan set forth and if anyone is interested in participating in the campaign, she asked that they let her know.

She stated that the schools, libraries, law enforcement, Pacific Beach Coalition, etc. in the Pacifica Collaborative will be out there talking about kindness, bringing people together with love.

Councilmember Beckmeyer will defer her comments to a future meeting.

Councilmember Boles will also defer her comments to later. She did meet with Anita Rees and PRC and Unhoused on the Coast group, and they have seven people on the waitlist for the oversized vehicle spaces. She would love to hear from staff as they are making progress with the Coastal Commission on moving those four along.

Mayor Bigstyck visited the PRC Board of Directors and let them know of the episode of the Mayor’s Office he shot with Anita Rees. He stated that representative from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s office has been waiting online and he will give him the opportunity to speak at this point.

1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Special and Regular Council Meeting (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 8 September 25, 2023
Nicholas Hargis, field representative of Congresswoman Eshoo, is honored to be present and present a Certificate of Congressional Recognition to the Pacifica Public Works Department for the work they did during the winter storm as they were on the front line and kept the city running. They made sandbags available to protect private residences and businesses and also maintained the city streets and sewer system and all vital services that help respond and keep the community resilient in the wake of what were some massive storms and prepared the city for future events. They look forward to continuing their partnership moving forward.

Mayor Bigstyck thanked their Public Works team and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and everyone who worked tirelessly. He then stated that he went to Santa Cruz to meet the new Coastal Commissioner Justin Cummings. While he was there, he listened to a Council on Foreign Relations seminar about Latin America and the complexities between our relationships here and abroad. He attended a fundraiser for Lisa Gauthier who is running for County Supervisor in District 4. He attended Coastal Clean-Up Day, the Rancho Day Fiesta, and the Fog Cutters Ball. He attended a dinner for National Day of the People’s Republic of China and engaged with the Dep. Counsel General of China. He attended a San Mateo County Library Joint Powers Authority meeting and they had a conversation around adult literacy, making sure they empower the tools of those who wish to hone their language skills. They approved the final adopted budget, and the next JPA meeting will be on November 13. He attended the Pacificans Care meeting where our former PB&R director, Mike Perez, was honored, along with past Councilmember Nihart, and Jane Northrop was posthumously honored. He attended the LAFCO meeting and highlighted a keynote speech by Brandon Fleming at the CalCities Conference who pointed out that when people are given the opportunity to rise to their best selves, it is amazing when properly watered with love what an individual can survive to become.

He went to Menlo Park where State Senator Josh Becker had his grand opening for his office, and then led to Fog Fest where he paraded with all his fellow councilmembers and County Supervisor Ray Mueller, Assemblymember Marc Berman, State Senator Josh Becker, and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo. He noted how quickly fellow Councilmembers immediately expressed love to one another to remind each other of what our community stands for and how much stronger we become when we are challenged accordingly.

Councilmember Boles announced that they had the first Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency project meeting in person on September 13, and there is an opportunity for the same presentation on Zoom on September 27.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated he had one main communication announcement. The sign-up for the Beach Blvd. Infrastructure Resiliency Project meeting can be found on the PW page of the city’s webpage, and the information is also in the Connect with Pacifica communications.

He also referred to the question asked about the status of the Temporary Safe Parking Permit program appeals, stating they are in the process of bringing together data to respond to questions from the Coastal Commission for the city’s LCP amendment related to the Oversized Vehicle ordinance which is a necessary step before they can get to their resolution of the appeals. He wanted to say that the International City Managers Association, the international national professional organization, brings international managers to wherever the ICMA conference is occurring, and our city is honored to be hosting a manager for this week, Libby O’Brien from the Taupo District in New Zealand. He stated that her role is general manager for people and customers and she is very focused on civic engagement in that district in New Zealand and he told her that was a very strong theme in Pacifica so there is a lot they can

1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Special and Regular Council Meeting (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 9 September 25, 2023
share.

Libby O’Brien, General Manager, stated it was wonderful to be here and thanked them for hosting her and their warm welcome. She thought it was interesting that they mention that their partnership was an important thing, and she stated that they changed their job titles, and hers is now People and Community Partnerships, and it is fantastic and resonates with what they are talking about. She looks at the community facing parts of council communications, customer service, their local tribes and local people from New Zealand and community engagement and community development, economic development, civil defense emergency management, etc.

She stated it was wonderful to be here in Pacifica. She attended the Fog Fest and referred to the pride of the people, and stated that everyone she met was helpful and the pride was infectious and how much fun everyone was having . She has only been here for two days but Ms. Carter and Mr. Woodhouse have been so welcoming as well as everyone, and she thanked them for the opportunity. She thanked them for hosting her and it was wonderful to be here.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.

CONSIDERATION - NONE.

ADJOURN
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the special and regular meeting at 7:45 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Special and Regular Council Meeting (5493 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

JOINT STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2023 (MONDAY) – 7:00 PM
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck called the meeting to order on September 25, 2023 at 7:55 PM 7:00PM - OPEN JOINT STUDY SESSION OF CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING

COMMISSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bigstyck called the study session to order at 7:55 p.m.

Planning Commissioners Present: Chair Samantha Hauser; Commissioners Greg Wright, James Godwin, Alex Ferguson, Daniella Devine.

Planning Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair David Leal and Commissioner Lauren Berman.

Staff Present:Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Karen Murphy, Asst. City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Bob Palacio, PB&R Director; Brianne Harkousha, Sr. Planner; Stefanie Cervantes, Sr. Planner; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment

1.b
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 2 September 25, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Boles

CONSIDERATION

1. Joint study session of City Council and Planning Commission to consider and provide direction on the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element of the General Plan.

PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation and provide direction regarding the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element of the General Plan.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he is joined by Sr. Planner Harkousha and Asst. City Attorney Murphy, as well as consultants Nicholas Hamilton and Carol Johnson of Good City Company to provide answers to any questions and then presented the staff report. He stopped for questions and then they could proceed according to the mayor’s direction.

Councilmember Boles stated it might be helpful to ask general questions first and then go over them one at a time. She was concerned about HCD’s letter, as they say they don’t have all the information they need about the adequacy of sites, and whether HCD might come back after they address these questions with other questions.

Planning Director Murdock agreed it was a concern and a possible outcome of the city’s next submission of a Housing Element to HCD for review. They can only do their best to understand HCD’s comments and give them the information they think will address those comments. He stated that they are fortunate to have consultants working on a number of different Housing Elements in the region and benefitting from their experience from some communities further ahead than Pacifica in terms of the number of reviews they have gone through and part of our approach is not one of needing Council or Commission policy input. Part of the technical response to the sites list is going through in detail particularly the non-vacant sites with existing development and are subject to greater scrutiny in the HCD review process and giving additional factual information about the sites that they believe bolsters their argument that they are appropriate and likely to redevelop, such as age, condition, floor area ratio, lot coverage, etc. That approach has been successful for some other jurisdictions and they are following in that path. They are confident that they will be able to demonstrate sufficient capacity in that site.

Councilmember Boles stated that she read that HCD is not allowed to bring up new issues.

Planning Director Murdock agreed that the consultant or attorney might want to offer thoughts.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy added that the HCD does sometimes bring up new issues and other jurisdictions have received new comments from HCD as HCD goes through the review process.

She stated that the last letter they received had comments that other jurisdictions have received so because of the stage Pacifica is at in the process the hope is that they won’t be receiving new comments.

Consultant Nicholas Hamilton stated that one piece they know now but not before was the level of specificity with which the State seems to be satisfied with respect to the adequacy of the sites in explicit granular terms. That has been evolving over the course of the cycle to be more specific and more granular. He stated one reason the site list is largely consistent is because

1.b
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 3 September 25, 2023
the team did this type of analysis but presented it and ranked the sites in a more holistic way that reflected that analysis. He stated that they are in the process of making it more explicit.

Councilmember Boles thought HCD was expecting a buffer and that may eliminate the need for an EIR, and she asked what a realistic buffer was that they will be looking for, and should it be more for the lower income affordable sites, and would they need such a big buffer for the above moderate sites.

Planning Director Murdock stated the HCD guidebook for Housing Element updates suggests somewhere between a 15-30% buffer, and having had conversations about the buffer with the HCD reviewer team, they seem less concerned about a particular number and much more focused on the core RHNA and a rigorous analysis and establishment of the viability of the sites. He thought it was to the city’s benefit to have an ample buffer as they don’t want to be in a position where they are doing forced rezoning unexpectedly upon approving some other project as it has the potential to derail a lot of the other critical work Council has set forth in the Strategic Plan, etc., and having to do a multi-hundred units rezoning unexpectedly in mid-year.

He stated that, as a policy standpoint, it is his recommendation that they put a particular focus on the lower income buffer as those units don’t always tend to develop in the proportion or numbers they would like or identified in the Housing Element and it would be good to recognize that and head off those forced rezoning to support and implement no net loss.

Councilmember Boles asked if by identifying a site in the Housing Element as a core or buffer site they’re making it easier and decreasing their discretion in reviewing projects further on.

Planning Director Murdock generally agreed. By having a site in the Housing Element, it’s an endorsement under the law that it is appropriate for housing and hard for the city to go back on it. For some of the sites, when they get to more detailed rezoning activities in following the program, they will include a number of sites and units permitted by rights and subject to far less discretion than in times past. All of that is coalescing through state law and through the Housing Element and subsequent implementation programs to reduce local discretion, increase certainties for applicants, and decrease project processing types.

Councilmember Boles asked, if there are specific sites they are looking for, if it might be in the city’s benefit to not have them included in the Housing Element.

Planning Director Murdock thought that was correct and it wouldn’t necessarily stop other mechanisms of state law from kicking in and advantaging a particular application, depending on the circumstances, but this is one less tool in the toolbox for a developer to say the city must approve a housing project. If in the Housing Element, they should presume very little that the city can do to stop the housing project under the right circumstances. If out of it, they have the best chance to say that some non-housing project is most appropriate at that particular site.

Chair Hauser stated, for several new sites were added to the core RHNA, in 1C, it has a lot of sites listed as core and as buffer sites. She thought it would be helpful to get clarity on what the chart is.

Planning Director Murdock would need more time to tease out what may have happened there.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if anyone had any general questions.

Councilmember Boles thought the math is right and the spreadsheet is not, as they don’t match.

1.b
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 4 September 25, 2023
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she had a question for consultants and city attorney, i.e., she is concerned about the increasing desire for granularity and specificity. She understood that a Housing Element is by design general. A number of questions from Council and the public regarding specific sites, and if an owner doesn’t have any interest in developing, is it appropriate to have it in the Housing Element. She then referred to Council having updated a 40-year old General Plan and she thought people sitting at a table 40 years ago may have had a hard time seeing forward what would be going on decades later. She has always felt the Housing Element generality, as she understood it, is to make it flexible as a current owner may not be the current owner in 8 years and she is struggling with how tightly buttoned down they can make something when they are talking about property they don’t own. She is asking for guidance .

Consultant Hamilton stated that is a question that comes up all over, and there is a governance part of that question that is not solvable at a local level and is solvable at the state level. He stated that it is frustrating for policy makers and the public and is an unfortunate part of the process. He stated that there are parts they can control and he would recommend they focus on that side today. He stated that the Housing Element is many things, i.e. values, policies that change the way the city procedures are, land use regulation, and an exercise that demonstrates the overall capacity for units to match that RHNA. He stated that there will be sites not on the list that will become housing sites and sites on the list that will never become a housing site. He stated that they can’t control that; it is a natural function of the market to be expected. He stated with respect to the increasing piece of granularity, they want for every site the specific redevelopment factors that would play into it such as a non-vacant commercial site. They want to see if they are real sites and they want the city to give significant analysis to all of those so the total model is valid.

Commissioner Wright stated he would like to hear from Planning Director Murdock how he evaluated our traffic and potential safety considerations as he sees a lot of the sites are located in a place that would be severely impacted by our traffic issues, and asked how that factors into the selection of the sites.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they are trying to work through a particular sites list and once they have a high degree of confidence that they have a final sites list, additional analysis can continue on, including the California Environmental Quality Act process which includes an evaluation of transportation and safety related issues from a policy document. They have not advanced to do level of service congestion analysis, which is the traditional method of evaluating congestion; that is no longer an environmental criteria, but it is relevant for other parts of the General Plan and an overall understanding of what the project entails. He stated that information will come later but they have a lot of constraints conspiring against them to find sites in the first instance that are suitable for housing and will make it through the HCD review process. He didn’t know if they have the luxury to pick sites that are located outside of areas currently experiencing traffic congestion.

Commissioner Wright commended him on the General Plan, Sharp Park Specific Plan, and the Housing Element. He asked if he has enough staff, consultants, and resources.

Planning Director Murdock thanked him for the consideration and stated they have an incredible staff that they have hired within the last year and are continuing to learn about our community and become more and more functional and able to contribute to our work, including Sr. Planner Brianne Harkousha who is taking on more and more in the Housing Element update process, an incredible consultant team from Good City Company who has ongoing work and experience on

1.b
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 5 September 25, 2023
Housing Element updates elsewhere, and the city attorney’s office team.

Commissioner Wright asked if assisted care facilities count as units for individual occupants.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there are instances where they can count but, anticipating some community questions or input in the future, we can’t meet 100% of our RHNA with those kinds of units. They can be a part of an overall strategy and, if there are sites that might be better situated, they would value that feedback so they can take a more careful look.

Councilmember Boles thanked the Planning Commissioners for taking on all the work. She stated that the staff report doesn’t include all the work they did establishing those standards, setbacks, etc., that she thinks would be important to the discussion as they talk about the sites in more detail. She asks if they are prepared to talk about the sites at this time and if these capacity numbers reflect the input the Planning Commission has given or where there are some areas where they had to adjust them.

Planning Director Murdock started by commending the Planning Commission on their incredible work on this and other ventures. He stated that this sites work and discussion needs to happen in a somewhat more general level to figure out relative densities and locations and overall suitability for housing, and the much more granular detail for site level zoning will come as part of the Phase 1 rezoning program.

Councilmember Boles asked if that implied that the feedback they have given which might reduce the number of units isn’t necessarily here and they might be submitting something to HCD that doesn’t necessarily reflect that direction.

Planning Director Murdock didn’t know that he would characterize it that way, as the Planning Commission was charged with working on six objective development standards and not weighing in on the density and numbers of units; that is a much more complicated analysis and a major balancing act. They noted some qualitative and quantitative feedback on a number of sites about overall appropriateness for development or not for housing. They tried to prepare options for Council and Commission at this time about that binary question, yes or no for a particular site, but he doesn’t think they have had an opportunity to give the Planning Commission a chance to weigh in on sliding scale density for individual sites.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if they should address specific items.

Planning Director Murdock agreed and proposed that they go through the menu of programrelated items to see which of those Council and Commission may feel are necessary to weigh in on and, in the interest of time, they hope that those that are of most importance could get the first pass and, if there is time later, they can circle back. He stated, after the programs discussion, they can shift to what might be a more robust discussion on sites. Planning Director Murdock explained that there are a few guiding questions, in addition to other programs, comments, sites comments, and topics that require discussion.

Mayor Bigstyck preferred going one by one, so he asked if they go down the line.

Chair Hauser stated that she would prefer to go row by row on the items that staff requested and come back to those overarching items at the end.

Planning Director Murdock stated it was most essential for them to get through the program1.b Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 6 September 25, 2023
related feedback this evening, as they do need all the program feedback tonight or the Housing Element timeline might be adversely impacted.

Mayor Bigstyck asked Chair Hauser if she minded starting with the programs components.

Chair Hauser stated that was fine and asked if there were any questions on farmworker housing coordination.

Commissioner Wright asked if proximity to shopping and healthcare was considered in locating the farmworker housing who will likely be transportation challenged.

Planning Director Murdock stated not specifically, but the leading principle was the agricultural zoning of the sites which staff’s opinion lent them to farmworker housing. If there is a preference to look at different criteria and identify other sites for farmworker housing, they can perform that analysis.

Commissioner Wright would appreciate understanding that better.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that he was thinking in terms of transportation. If you look at the St.

Peter’s site, there were SamTrans bus routes that go by and a shopping center right outside.

He stated that the Art Center is further away from a direct shopping center but there is a bus stop outside that will take them to Linda Mar. He stated that the Adobe shopping center isn’t that far off. Those were two advantages that occurred to him for those two sites.

Councilmember Boles recalled when they did the General Plan update, she thought Site F was zoned agriculture and she asked if that was still zoned agriculture.

Planning Director stated it had an agricultural General Plan land use designation which was subsequently amended with the General Plan update but it was not zoned agriculture.

Councilmember Boles asked if they have received feedback from St. Peter’s.

Planning Director Murdock stated he has spoken with one member of the parish who is engaged on housing issues, and his impression was that she was supportive of the Housing Element update process. He didn’t know if she is able to speak authoritatively for the church, but they tried to make engagement with someone associated with the church leadership.

Councilmember Boles concluded that they haven’t gotten anything from them saying they don’t want their site considered.

Planning Director Murdock stated not to his knowledge.

Councilmember Boles asked if we have spoken to our farms and ranches, i.e. Shamrock and Millwood, to understand what the need is in Pacifica.

Planning Director Murdock stated the simple answer is they have not engaged with them particularly but there are a variety of housing types on some of these properties and some of them have significant infrastructure challenges that would likely be major constraints for analysis of the sites. He thought they identified two sites that are quite appropriate and have the fewest types of constraints that they might encounter with providing water and sewer service to these low-lying agricultural sites. He stated agriculture-related employment in Pacifica is relatively low

1.b
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 7 September 25, 2023
but regionally it is much more significant in particular pockets of our area in our county. Part of our approach is trying to engage with those service providers on the coastside so they can get a better understanding of what those needs are, i.e., unique transportation needs and type of housing units.

Consultant Hamilton added the County level has much needs assessment and the state level has much analysis to indicate regional trends and coastside trends. He stated one factor that is important to consider that these reports highlight is that farmworker housing need is an urban, not just a rural, issue. The transportation and many other services, such as stores, schools, etc., are mostly concentrated in more urbanized areas.

Councilmember Boles asked if they have to specify certain sites and asked if Sanchez is zoned agriculture.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the Sanchez Art Center is.

Commissioner Godwin stated that, in his experience, there was a huge need for labor in the spring and fall and almost none in the summer and winter. He asked if they are anticipating this farmworker demand to be a 12-month use, i.e., what is their seasonal component.

Consultant Hamilton stated that it was his understanding that there has been a significant shift in California away from seasonal to a much higher share, but in any community, there is both and the need is so much bigger that would ever be able to be supplied in any reasonable amount of time.

Commissioner Godwin agreed and asked if he had a rough percentage breakdown by season.

This could be significant on whether they are providing housing for a couple of months or not.

He stated that saying they are going to do farmworker housing seems inadequate to him.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he thought he touched on a number of key points that are part of our research through the engagement with those resource providers on the coastside related to support of farmworker services. He stated that we don’t know enough about the need but we know that we need to identify sites where it can be constructed and do whatever we can to remove barriers to the types of housing that would need to be constructed to accommodate those farmworkers.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that some sites are really great for farmworker housing and other sites aren’t so great, but it is possible to mitigate issues. She knows they can’t put a lot of conditions on things, but she wants to throw it in for awareness.

Mayor Bigstyck added to her question as he thought PRC might be good to partner with and figure out some of the solutions. He would put in something in about partnering with PRC to find some of the quality-of-life solutions should they have the housing site be appropriate here.

Planning Director Murdock asked if he could clarify how that relates to the program here or is it a general statement about working with PRC.

Mayor Bigstyck stated we should make sure we are also reaching out to our partners and connecting farmworker housing with those programs.

Planning Director Murdock thought there was every reason to engage with any partner that has

1.b
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 8 September 25, 2023
relevant information and support they can provide us in this undertaking.

Mayor Bigstyck thought that was his question, i.e., will HCD look at this and make sure to reach out to people who help them when these developments happen.

Planning Director Murdock thought more specificity is better. By the time they draft the program, if they know the particular organizations we will be engaging with, or governmental entities, putting that in helps us and gives HCD the confidence that we know what we’re talking about and know who they are going to engage with and they can make their best effort at that.

Commissioner Godwin stated that farm crews frequently bring their own housing, own heavy capital equipment and own worker transportation with them organically with the crew so they really need to drill into this and understand what kind of farmworkers they have. It isn’t just a housing problem but they may be storing expensive capital equipment and may be storing infrastructure type transport for these people to stores to work.

Chair Hauser asked, in addition to the conversations about mobility, if it would be wise to coordinate with our county supervisor’s office who is coordinating with all the farmworkers already, at least in unincorporated San Mateo.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he is aware of those expanding efforts by the county and are planning to plug into it. He stated that is part of the program and there is a program in support of component and site and housing construction component and they need to have both as part of this program they have proposed.

Chair Hauser appreciated that staff designated these as in the lower income designation which she thought lends itself more to rentals being created, which may or may not connect them to what Commissioner Godwin was saying about seasonality. She stated that she heard a couple of years ago that the bus to this area was not a regular route and she asked if that was something staff or a representative can work out.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they can take note of that. As it relates to B.2, it is some particular focus areas that their analysis has identified that relate to the commitment to greater advocacy until the net program. He stated that there was a broader community desire at all levels to have more transit access everywhere and we are committing to specific actions for specific reasons in the Housing Element. He stated, if there is a tie into other housing programs or sites needs, they would need to hear that to help guide the program directly.

Chair Hauser stated her last question on farmworker housing is, since they are going to go through the bigger rezoning process for these sites that are designated agriculture, would it be contemplated that they will have a Housing Element overlay and remain agriculture or is that something staff will think about as they go through the process.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they have analyzed this farmworker housing opportunity within the confines of the existing A zoning. Our municipal code requires a public vote to remove or change the agricultural zoning classification and that is not contemplated in any of these programs.

Chair Hauser asked if there were any more questions on farmworker housing before they move on to some of the mobility, i.e., any questions on B.2 AFFH Mobility Support and Transit Advocacy.

1.b
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 9 September 25, 2023
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that it says that the person who represents CCAG needs to actively advocate for transportation every single time.

Mayor Bigstyck wondered if it was enough of a concern that we might need to have a dedicated staff member to begin to address where opportunities are.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus added for the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee as well.

City Manager Woodhouse referred to transportation staffing, and he and Planning Director Murdock did talk about this, and he agreed that it would be great if they had the resources, whether Planning or Public Works, with more proactive transportation planning expert staff. He thought the question is that the Council doesn’t want to or can’t commit to that priority in the Housing Element. While they could, there are a lot of staffing priorities the city has. He thought trying to communicate in this program that Council representatives and staff representatives will do their best to advocate in their reach of transit agencies for improvement.

Councilmember Boles stated that they went through this with SamTrans last year.

Councilmember Bier stated it is all about ridership when it comes to SamTrans.

Planning Director Murdock stated the particular twist on this is distinguishing it from general transit and transportation advocacy but really relaying the specific needs of our community as related to persons with disabilities and other mobility challenges is part and parcel to this issue.

He stated it is a subset of the broader general transit advocacy that is likely ongoing.

Mayor Bigstyck recalled that, when they were having that conversation with SamTrans, he was able to advocate for someone he personally knew but he feels it is different if we have a policy in place that we can draw their attention to.

Chair Hauser agreed with having a specific policy or policies that we could point to. She also wondered if they could create additional policies that would encourage developers to create a Transit Demand Management (TDM) program or require a TDM program that puts together a list of the different strategies that the particular developer will take to lower their traffic contribution and, in doing so, we could do what a lot of cities encourage, which is encourage that developer to purchase transit passes for their occupants or residents. She stated that there are ways to do this and it should at least be suggested.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that it is required by law for many types of developments that are likely to come as a consequence of the Housing Element and the followon rezoning. The challenge is this program and comment relates to existing residents in existing housing and those TDM enhancements won’t benefit them. They need to identify other measures the city can take to try to enhance the mobility and access the services for those who are already here and will not be able to avail themselves of those TDM program amenities.

Councilmember Boles stated, in terms of disabled communities, the staff report talks about the north part of town, and she asked if that is where they should focusing this discussion now in terms of improvements there and are there specific areas that they suggest we consider.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there are maps in the draft Housing Element that identify those particular clusters that seem to be in existence in Pacifica and it is certainly in the West

1.b
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 10 September 25, 2023
Fairmont and Fairmont areas. We intend to point to some of the investments the city has already recently made to enhance sidewalks and other transportation access and planned improvements in the vicinity. They are trying to leverage existing resources and investments, as well as ongoing advocacy to try to secure additional resources with this program.

Councilmember Boles knows there are paratransit organizations that were in the county and she doesn’t know how expensive they are or are they available in Pacifica or things we can do to promote that information.

Planning Director Murdock stated potentially yes, and what they intend to do as part of this strategy is to further clarify for HCD those resources that already exist that maybe they aren’t aware of in our community where disabled persons can dial and arrange a particular ride for their needs but we don’t know now whether those are meeting the needs of all who need them.

That is part of some additional research they need to perform.

Councilmember Boles stated that was one question she had earlier, i.e., whether some of our senior transportation programs could perhaps be expanded to our disabled community. She knows we have a grant for some of that, and maybe it is specific to seniors, but she asked if that was something they could seek grant funding to expand.

Planning Director Murdock didn’t know the answer to that. He thought that is one item that they need to research further to get the answer; he doesn’t know what strings are attached to the funding we have as something, as simple as increasing service as an exponential maintenance cost and vehicle wear and tear. There are all kinds of complexity to try to increase that service.

Commissioner Wright stated he had a question for clarification: Are they looking in this for a policy commitment or a funding program commitment?
Consultant Hamilton thought what they are looking for is a bonafide step in that direction and he thought it could reasonably take different forms.

Councilmember Beckmeyer read that staff would welcome additional ideas on how to address the needs of the disabled population in Pacifica, particularly northern Pacifica. She would suggest comparing housing-related opportunities to employment opportunities or the potential for developing employment. She thinks, in the northern part of the city, they do have a partner in our community college and in our Jefferson Union High School District. She stated that the community college is in Pacifica’s sphere of influence but the adult school being developed at the Westmoor School site in Daly City is still part of our district that our citizens are part of and she is confident that, with that new building going in, there is room for some sort of employment training and for these opportunities.

Chair Hauser stated, while she knows the Housing Elements don’t create an extremely low housing RHNA category, that category which she believes falls into very low does require services. She asked, outside of the RHNA chart, if there is a way to create a policy that encourages extremely low housing on some of these sites; then some of those services might come for new residents and be able to serve existing residents.

Councilmember Bier stated that they aren’t talking about only physical disability, but also development disabilities.

Councilmember Boles added some commenters were saying that even very low income units

1.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 11 September 25, 2023
are too expensive for these people with these disabilities and we have to be more proactive, more than just transportation and how they get these units built and where they are. In terms of specific sites, she was going to suggest a Public Works site because that is city property and it was close to retail services. She doesn’t know about the bus lines, but site 20 for new housing might be good for this particular population.

Chair Hauser asked if that was something staff could comment on as how we can encourage extremely low on some of these sites.

Planning Director Murdock stated it was a monumental challenge and he doesn’t know if anyone has a formula or recipe for it, as it is a combination of a number of factors, including setting up the right densities and land use regulations in proximity to services. He stated it is a huge challenge and he doesn’t have the answer to how they make that work here in Pacifica other than try to remove the barriers that they have identified through revising our policy.

Councilmember Boles stated there are specific suggestions, like increasing the density bonus for this type of housing and reducing city fees for permitting these types of projects. She mentioned incentives for homeowners who built them and rent for extremely low-income people.

She asked if they should try to identify specific sites.

Planning Director Murdock thought the general guidance was sufficient for now. He didn’t know that staff can support a productive conversation about specific sites for this type of housing now other than generally thinking about how our sites relate to the northern part of town where that need has been identified.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated her direction and suggestion is that staff work with the Golden Gate Regional Center specifically with the housing choices program and some reference be made to that in that section of the Housing Element submission.

Chair Hauser asked if they can go to the site consolidation section.

Commissioner Wright asked if there was a reason that staff was recommending a $10,000 city grant versus a percentage of permitting fees, and what would it do to their staffing and budget.

Planning Director Murdock stated HCD’s comment said we need to include measures to incentivize the lot mergers and reduce the barriers to achieving them, and it seems like the only thing we could come up with that might take that head on and the likelihood of it being utilized is low, but it is there as a mechanism if someone is concerned about their ability to merge the lots from one of these sites in the Housing Element site inventory. They have the benefit of the housing action fund to support these kinds of innovative approaches.

Councilmember Bier asked about the newly created housing action fund.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there was a proposal in the draft Housing Element to create such a plan that would be local funds subject to local control and the City Manager and Asst. City Manager found money in this budget of FY 2023-24 to fund that. It is the first of its kind in Pacifica to his knowledge that is locally controlled money to do pro-housing type activity.

Councilmember Bier stated, in her mind, there is a difference between the housing fund and the housing action fund, which expands what they can do with that money.

1.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 12 September 25, 2023
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that she may be alluding to what we have come to know as the housing in lieu fund which collects in lieu payments from development project applicant with much narrower range of permissible uses, primarily related to construction of affordable housing only in Pacifica. They have much broader opportunities to use the housing action fund, including supporting of direct construction of housing.

Chair Hauser agreed with Planning Director Murdock that a lot merger is not going to scare anyone as it is a routine for developers. She took it to be more of an assemblage comment as, at the Brentwood Shopping Center where several parcels are owned by different property owners, it may be more difficult to assemble them. She stated she would ask for clarification that the $10,000 would not be for just merging lots but for performing a true assemblage of different property owners within a Housing Element site.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed with that.

Commissioner Wright asked about the shopping center at the top of Fairmont, as that has some different lots that they were trying to fit into one lot consideration in their last meeting.

Chair Hauser asked if this is the Fairmont Shopping Center.

Commissioner Wright confirmed.

Chair Hauser stated that lot line adjustment and subdivision and subdivisions that merge lots are very routine. She stated that there is a bigger entitlement developers would be getting and that would typically be a part of it or, if it is someone doing rental housing and it is affordable housing and these are the people who really understand how to finance affordable projects, they aren’t going to be scared away by moving a lot line or merging lots. She stated that the Manor Shopping Center is more difficult as everyone owns their own space but it’s all one mall.

She is using Brentwood as an example as she thinks it is four different property owners but all one Housing Element site. She is saying that $10,000 could go to a site like that where they are willing to go through, as it is hard for a developer to get a purchase and sale agreement or a purchase agreement with four different developers who say similar things.

Councilmember Boles agreed with that.

Commissioner Godwin asked if there is a target site size that the state thinks is much more desirable than smaller ones.

Planning Director Murdock stated that at least a half-acre, particularly for sites intended for lower income housing.

Councilmember Boles stated she would like to have a better list of the sites that includes these sites with multiple owners so they understand the impact and numbers.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus and Councilmember Beckmeyer mentioned from the shopping center’s perspective Manor Shopping Center, Pedro Point, and Crespi.

Councilmember Boles mentioned that they have site 20 listed as Public Works and she assumed they were under city ownership which is different.

Planning Director Murdock stated that was correct, as there are potentially 2-3 parcels there.

1.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 13 September 25, 2023
He is trying to understand the feedback as staff attempts to directly address HCD’s comments and he thinks there is a broader interest in a different program to try to facilitate site assemblage and consolidation of ownership which is a much more complicated task. They try to avoid including sites with multiple different property owners for that very reason, but there are a number of sites that have multiple parcels owned by the same owner that may be less than a half-acre. He thinks the Brentwood Shopping Center as an example wasn’t included because the parcels aren’t less than a half-acre, even though they are multiple parcels. They try to be selective in the examples that are cited here.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that they have the merging of single-family lots, which is the opposite case; they were all merged in 1985, even if they only joined by a hair.

Chair Hauser was looking at the BEU3.3, the site size category, which was the source of this.

She is saying that she is reading the last sentence a bit differently. She stated staff had the benefit of talking to HCD staff and maybe she is misreading it.

Planning Director Murdock thought there were a number of ways they could read it, a narrower way which is what staff put forth to try to solve this with a limited amount of effort, and a more expensive way that was a much more complicated program to try to put together a site consolidation program. He didn’t know if that was necessary to achieve and clear this comment from HCD for purposes of getting our Housing Element adopted. He stated that there is a response to the letter and are they doing a policy intervention that Council or Commission thinks is needed. They are trying to shape the most economical response to HCD letter to get our Housing Element adopted.

Councilmember Boles stated she read it the same way Chair Hauser did and multiple owners makes development much more difficult than just merging lots. She asked if there was a way to confirm that with HCD to make sure they are responding to their concerns.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they can take this up with them again and they have tried to avoid sites with multiple owners for that reason. He agreed that it’s a problem, but he didn’t know if it was a Housing Element problem. He asked if Council and Commission want them to put more effort into a program that may not be necessary to clear the comment or try to respond to HCD in a way that will clear the comment and move on to other comments.

Chair Hauser thought, if it is just a clarifying question that saves us $10,000, maybe they ask it.

Planning Director Murdock stated, if there is something to further clarify, he potentially heard a timing concern so they could tether this to an actual development project application and say that for $10,000 of those costs that might be related to the lot merger, the city will provide a grant for that, but someone coming in and doing a stand-alone lot merger may or may not lead to a housing project and may be perceived as a waste of $10,000. He thinks there is a way to narrow this program.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated asked if there was a way to create a program that leaves open the possibility of a preference for parcels with multiple owners with appropriate language.

Councilmember Boles stated that her main concern was timeline and suggested they get clarification from HCD.

Consultant Hamilton stated that his advice would be not to pursue that angle because of the

1.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 14 September 25, 2023
risk. He thought there are strong advantages to getting to a substantially complaint Housing Element and they can get stuck in a loop. They can have more discretion on this topic by affirmatively taking a position and saying that is the city’s position. He stated that it is a superior tactic to get to substantial compliance and that is his advice to city staff to do.

Commissioner Wright concluded that their consultant was in support of staff’s recommendation.

Consultant Hamilton responded affirmatively.

Commissioner Wright stated they have his support as well.

Chair Hauser asked staff what was next.

Planning Director Murdock replied Surplus Lands Act and city school district compliance and Caltrans decertification. He stated that the city can commit and undertake actions related to its property and the other two rely on other government agencies to fulfill their obligations. What the city would need to commit to, if it’s going to include these sites, is a contingency or Plan B, at the end of year three in the Housing Element if these processes are not completed or imminently going to be completed that they are having another conversation in 2027 about where the units go now. He thought that was a preferable conversation to have than sitting here in 2023 and finding where hundreds more units go. He stated that some of these activities may well be completed by that time and they wouldn’t need to find alternative locations for the units.

He stated that it was with that thinking that they tried to propose this program.

Mayor Bigstyck thought it made sense to him in terms of the Caltrans-owned sites. The dynamic with the Jefferson Union High School District might be a little bit more fluid and that three years out might actually not be enough time to gauge their proper level of interest in completing an SLA process. He thought three years sounded reasonable for Caltrans and he is wondering if they might be able to allow themselves more latitude when it comes to JUHSD.

Councilmember Bier agreed.

Councilmember Boles stated that they have letters in the records that the high school district is not interested in developing these sites within this period and she didn’t think HCD is going to look too favorably on these high numbers that they are counting. She asked if the high school district would have to go through the SLA process or could they choose to develop housing themselves.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they demonstrated a propensity for that. If they look at what JUHSD is doing, they are very creative and forward thinking about it. Enrollments are declining at the two schools in Pacifica. She respects their colleagues very much on the Board of Trustees and she is looking at the track record of what they are doing. She has to say there is a possibility that this could go forward at some point, maybe not three years, but the response she has gotten is that they cannot do one more thing now.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if they can tier it so Caltrans in three years will recalibrate up if they need to and JUHSD is five years if they need to.

Consultant Hamilton would leave it at three years. He thinks, when they are talking about back up measures and what happens, HCD understands that there are a lot of unknowns. He thinks they will be looking for meaningful progress and good faith efforts: If it takes five years but

1.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 15 September 25, 2023
you’re in negotiations by year 3, they will be wherever they are going to be in year 3 and it’s a different public process. He thinks they aren’t painting themselves into too tight of a corner because HCD understands that there are variables completely outside of the city’s control.

Mayor Bigstyck stated, considering the workload, if it should happen that, in three years they begin with Caltrans, they aren’t going to come down on us.

Consultant Hamilton stated that they could, and this is a calculated risk.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the challenge, from staff’s perspective, is Jefferson Union High School District is one of the major landowners in Pacifica, and they aren’t fully utilizing all of their land to what he considers the highest and best use from a land use planning perspective, and they have a total of over 300 units they have identified on property they own that would be suitable for housing development. In light of this enormous task, they have to plan for our RHNA and some buffer; there is not a ready alternative location for 300+ units on other sites in town without having to potentially compromise a number of other community values as well. He stated that it is absolutely a calculated risk to include these sites and the alternative doesn’t seem much better to him. If they have to make tough choices as a community and Council, it seemed better to do it when you know it’s certain rather than speculating on whether other elected representatives will undertake those projects in the future.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy added that HCD has indicated that, during their annual review process, they will be looking at the other status of the city’s program but they will also be looking toward reasonable progress and are they starting to work towards their program. She stated one thing they could do is expand the program so it’s not just completing the SLA process but working with the school district if they want to develop their own housing so it is a broader program just to coordinate with them on the development of housing on their site. She understands that staff did meet with HCD and showed them this site and they understood some of the constraints regarding the fact that Jefferson Union High School District had noted that they weren’t interested in developing three years but did see the desirability of including the site in there.

Councilmember Bier asked for clarification about the desirability.

Planning Director Murdock stated, not desirable to develop from JUHSD’s perspective, but looking at the site with our HCD reviewer, noting in the context of all Pacifica and the challenges we have to find sites for this number of units. Looking shoulder to shoulder with our review at the Oceana High School site, the suitability of the site for development in the Housing Element context and the walkability of the neighborhood, relative transit access, services available, and proximity adjacent to a prior redevelopment area in the Sharp Park Specific Plan, he thought all the objective measures were indicative and convincing to the reviewer that a point in time concern about development from the school district wasn’t the definitive criteria for HCD’s consideration of the site.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that it occurred to him that it was very easy to notice the position they are in relation to the state, the school district and community. It seems like what they are engaging in is a process of trying to find best bets within best bets. He appreciates that robust efforts are made to have robust best guesses to work upon.

Commissioner Wright stated that, if they declare it surplus land and a developer comes in and develops the site, they then pay property tax. If the school district develops the land and rents it

1.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 16 September 25, 2023
out as rental housing, will they then have to pay property tax.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that was something they can look into.

Commissioner Ferguson stated, if they can’t get a commitment from Jefferson Union High School District to start the decertification within the next three years, it sounds like it’s probably not going to happen, especially not before our next submittal to HCD, and he asked where that leaves staff in terms of this response.

Consultant Hamilton thought, when they look across different jurisdictions and their relationship to cities and school districts, there is a statewide trend of declining enrollment and they don’t see much evidence but that is going to be a trend that shifts. Looking out over long range, he would expect that the unfortunate reality is there is going to be more school closures across all the districts in San Mateo County and that will continue to be a process for the foreseeable future. That is the best information they have. Some jurisdictions have found themselves reacting to having not planned and not had a direction for the school sites, anticipating that they would be schools forever and not putting the framework around to guide or create the land use direction where you put a different parcel to provide some direction for that. He applauded and recommended that there is some shape, some direction and intentionality around the future of the school sites, to be prepared in a scenario where the schools will very likely continue to feel tremendous pressure to consolidate into fewer campuses.

Commissioner Ferguson thought, anecdotally speaking, the Planning Commission has ten kids under the age of 5 and if you look at the enrollment for kindergarten, first grade, TK in Pacifica, it is not down but up. They are talking about adding 2,000 units and schools going down and convincing them to take away any chance they have of creating future developments for the schools. If Jefferson Union High School District’s answer is no, his question is what is the fallback response to HCD.

Councilmember Bier stated that was her concern also, as she doesn’t see how we can benefit.

Commissioner Ferguson asked, if they don’t provide any kind of commitment, which in the past has been negative, where does that leave this response to HCD and what is the alternative.

Planning Director Murdock thought there were two directions: They try this program or they go back and identify a site or sites where housing would be proposed where it has not been or significantly greater density is identified on sites already in the Housing Element. It’s not a good consequence to have to find other locations for 300 units in our community at this point in time.

If he could find them in an unobjectionable way, and without controversy with Jefferson Union High School District, he would have.

Commissioner Ferguson understood that for three years they would try and make it work with JUHSD and, at that time, if they can’t then, they identify other sites.

Planning Director Murdock agreed and added there may be new legislative approaches.

Chair Hauser thought adding a Housing Element overlay on sites in general creates an additional value for those sites and creating an additional value for Jefferson Union High School District can never be seen as a negative and she thinks there are a lot of school districts throughout the Bay Area that are leveraging that value in ways that they didn’t expect to have to. She personally thought this was a thoughtful way of handling these two sites.

1.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 17 September 25, 2023
Councilmember Bier stated that JUHSD has a really thoughtful board that is doing really great work but they were not happy about this. She was sure they already have that idea about what their property is worth and what would bring up the worth of the property. She was hesitant about this because they weren’t happy about it.

Mayor Bigstyck felt like they talked it through with them to the point that they were willing to tolerate them on this point. There are various mechanical realities behind what they already have in the pipeline versus what they may or may not want to do with this in the future. They may come to the conclusion in three years when they ask them again that, no, they’re still not interested. He stated that it might be that the work they are doing now is coming to a place that they might have alternative thoughts. He doesn’t know if summarily dismissing this is the most helpful action for us in this moment and later it might lead to a better conversation.

Chair Hauser stated that, on the Oddstad project, they heard so many commenters talking about how there weren’t enough housing for teachers. She hears what he is saying.

City Manager Woodhouse explained this program is not obligating the high school district to do anything or build housing, but years from this moment when priorities and policies change and they eventually make that decision, this program will make that process much easier for them to achieve their goals in the future if they were to change that way.

Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano reminded the public that they are only taking public comment on the joint study session topic of the Housing Element. She asked if it is 3 minutes or 1 minute.

Mayor Bigstyck stated three minutes for public comments.

Sue Digre, Pacifica, referred to people with developmental disabilities, and shared her thoughts regarding brainstorming session types which should be done with a state regional center, i.e., Golden Gate Regional Center and the Department of Developmental Disabilities.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, referred to mobility issues, and shared his thoughts on transportation, housing needs and building on hillsides.

Michael Vernazza, Pacifica, hoped they could pose his questions on his behalf, and then shared his thoughts and questions on this issue.

Irene Lee, Pacifica, had questions regarding Housing Elements connected to ADUs, such as parking, multiple family housing, height limitations, and zoning.

Samuel Casillas, Pacifica, stated that the current Housing Element is not acceptable and shared his concerns on specific factors on the issue.

Gloria Stofan, Pacifica, stated she is a member of Pacifica Housing for All, and shared her thoughts and concerns on the need of housing for the most vulnerable.

Eileen Barsi, Pacifica, stated she was representing St. Peter’s Pastoral Council and the pastor and responded to the inclusion of St. Peter’s Church in the Housing Element and shared her information on the issue.

1.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 18 September 25, 2023
Jen Hansen, Pacifica, stated she was a teacher and referred to their discussion on disabilities and transportation and shared her thoughts on this issue.

Erin Macias, Pacifica, stated she had a few comments on the elements included in the plan such as farmworker housing, parking, ADUs, and other issues.

David Beaumont, Pacifica, applauded the mayor on dealing with adherence to the first amendment, etc., and shared his thoughts and concerns on the Housing Element regarding some sites mentioned.

Mayor Bigstyck closed public comments. He referred to a comment made on the breakdown of age groups of disabled population.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there is some information in the draft Housing Element.

He stated it provides different types of disabilities experienced by Pacificans, and it breaks down the age range for those under 18 and over 18. They have some information and can give more thought related to sites or strategies pertaining to the special needs population.

Councilmember Bier and Mayor Bigstyck discussed a comment about state control. Mayor Bigstyck also welcomed a motion to extend to midnight.

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

Planning Director Murdock took a vote by verbal roll call.

CITY COUNCIL
MOVE TO EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Commissioner Wright moved to extend the meeting to midnight; seconded by Chair Hauser.

Planning Director Murdock took a vote by verbal roll call.

PLANNING COMMISSION
MOVE TO EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [5-0]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Commissioner
SECONDER: Samantha Hauser, Chair
AYES: Hauser, Devine, Ferguson, Godwin, Wright
ABSENT: Berman, Leal
Councilmember Boles referred to the last comment about the sites in Sharp Park. She stated that they had certain limits to the size they were considering for the Housing Element.

1.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 19 September 25, 2023
Planning Director Murdock was aware of the sites referred to by the commenter, and he thought there were a number of reasons why staff didn’t place particular focus on including them, including small size and yield. In addition, Council, in considering a project on similar type sites a few years ago, had some concerns with the type of development on the site.

Chair Hauser stated, regarding B.3.2.C, 100% Non-residential Sites, in the Planning Commission’s conversation, they spent a lot of time talking about sites where there is commercial currently and they care about commercial in the future, but they had a polyline that specifically excluded the area that would remain commercial and it would be 100% residential on the remainder. She asked if those sites are the subject of this comment.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively. He stated that those sites are subject to it, but they are articulating one of the strategies to try to preserve some amount of commercial in the mixed use configuration, likely a horizontal mixed use, and recognizing that, on that site, there may be a diagram subset where they have to allow a 100% residential project on an otherwise mixed use site.

Chair Hauser stated one minor specific comment is on the designations. She was under the impression that the appendix in the submitted Housing Element further restricted these particular polygons to the sites where housing was intended. She asked if that is still the case.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, if he is understanding the concern, this is a citywide overview map; some of the sites in their entirety are intended to be Housing Element sites, and there are some sites that have been diagrammed, including those referenced in the figures that are more particularly described as to where the Housing Element site is considered to be.

Chair Hauser reiterated they are not recommending changing the polygon in the appendix.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Chair Hauser stated that it ties to the commercial question. She noted that the polygon changed across diagrams for the Fairmont Shopping Center.

Planning Director Murdock stated they were trying to limit it to the actual parcels in question, as there are multiple parcels inside the middle of that shopping center, but the parcel discussed and contemplated by the Planning Commission is still included in that site.

Chair Hauser thought they had delimited for Fairmont Shopping Center the key corner as the only part of the shopping center that was proposed for development. She asked if they were coming back and saying that the area along Gateway is now also being proposed.

Planning Director Murdock stated they had that feedback from the Planning Commission that focused on that southwest corner. They have not yet prepared a site specific diagram for that site; that could be part of the upcoming phase 1 rezoning.

Chair Hauser asked if the decision-making bodies here now will be alerted to changes and the polygons or site areas that were subject to be Housing Element sites before it’s done.

Planning Director Murdock anticipated that changes to the polygons that have been drafted would be put forth to decisionmakers, but where there is no polygon currently, he didn’t have a

1.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 20 September 25, 2023
polygon to present for revision.

Chair Hauser is still confused about the Fairmont Center. What is hard for her to understand is the area where they said housing would go in the Manor Shopping Center is now removed.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they are trying to do their best to clean up the APNs that are in play for some of these sites and this is an iteration of the first draft of the map. He wasn’t aware of the revision running afoul of the Planning Commission’s prior discussion but he will make a note and look specifically at the Pacific Manor Shopping Center site.

Chair Hauser asked if it would be appropriate to ask staff generally that, if they are going to change the polygons for these complicated sites, that they do come back to a study session.

Planning Director Murdock asked if the concern is, as they incorporate revisions and draft and need to make further changes, are they committing to coming back before Planning Commission or Council. He stated there will be another opportunity to look at them.

Chair Hauser stated, if staff is recommending changes to the polygons, she asked if they can clarify what those are now.

Planning Director Murdock wasn’t sure he understands what she means by the polygons.

Chair Hauser stated she is saying the figure in the Housing Element that was sent to HCD was deliberated on at length and that polygon is now different.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that they never committed to diagramming the blue polygon they are showing on the overall city scale map. He wasn’t understanding the concern.

Consultant Hamilton stated that the parcels are indicated on the overall map and the polygon is not indicated here. On the site-specific map, the polygon is drawn.

Chair Hauser concluded that the polygon was not being proposed to change, but is just staff’s exercise in accurately highlighting the APN.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles asked when they get to see the polygons and comment on them.

Planning Director Murdock stated in a repackaged Housing Element draft for those sites that have had Planning Commission direction for the polygons and potentially for others as part of a follow-on rezoning program after Housing Element adoption.

Councilmember Boles clarified that they aren’t going to have another study session or ability to provide input until they have put those polygons on a final document for their review.

Planning Director Murdock thought that was correct and they were trying to strike a balance of time versus in-depth review. They could set forth a process that brings all of this information and detailed polygons back to the Planning Commission or Council or both; the consequence of that is more time prior to having a Housing Element that is prepared for adoption. That is the direction they need if there is a desire by the majority of Council to take that time while recognizing the consequences that further delay Housing Element adoptions.

1.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 21 September 25, 2023
Councilmember Boles asked if they can put together a document they can share with all of them plus the public who will have all of these in one place. She thought, outside of a meeting, they could submit comments.

Planning Director Murdock stated he can think about ways they might be able to consolidate that information, but he needs to go back to something that was said earlier, i.e., there are bits and pieces of information that are parts of different processes. It is hard to fuse all of them together because the work the Planning Commission has been doing is related to the Phase 1 rezoning program that will come through the decision-making process for adoption next year. It is separate from the Housing Element document adoption except for the sites that have already been diagrammed. They can take the time but there will be significant delay and potential consequences to doing that work now as opposed to follow-on Phase 1 work.

Councilmember Boles was asking for the consolidation of the ones they have already done, such as on the Oceana High School site where the Planning Commission was very thoughtful about reducing the polygon and increasing setbacks to allow public open space.

Councilmember Bier asked if they can just share that information with the community.

Commissioner Devine asked if they are specifically referring to design elements the Commission discussed for specific sites.

Councilmember Boles agreed, adding that they are all related to the maps and the densities and numbers of units are related to the input that they gave.

Commissioner Devine confirmed her understanding.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they can certainly consolidate those polygons that are in existence currently and post them on the Plan Pacifica website. He stated that there are already polygons in the draft Housing Element’s appendix for sites where they had the foresight in the initial drafting to diagram the sites, and there will potentially be more as a consequence of the Planning Commission’s objective development standards discussion. Some of them haven’t yet been prepared and he doesn’t have them to share with anybody at this point.

Mayor Bigstyck thought it sounds like they are talking about two different documents and that the detailed polygons that may come as a result of the extensive Planning Commission work that already happened will not necessarily be pertinent to this document that they are transmitting to HCD.

Planning Director Murdock stated that work leading into more site-specific diagramming beyond what is already in the appendix was intended to be part of the Phase 1 rezoning program, which is separate from the Housing Element adoption process that they are undertaking currently.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that it might be helpful for clarity’s sake for the public on the Plan Pacifica website to give two different sections for each process so all the data is there in one place but clearly delineated that one’s details are different than what they are currently discussing.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated, if the map and the polygons match, that would make it easier.

Chair Hauser doesn’t understand why the shapes in the map changed.

1.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 22 September 25, 2023
Planning Director Murdock understood and stated there was no intention to change the sites that are subject to the site list or to modify the subsets of those sites that are already diagrammed in the draft Housing Element. He stated that, what they did is to try to make it better and, where there are redundancies or unclear information, improve on that. He stated that there were instances where some sites may have had multiple parcels that weren’t intended as part of the Housing Element sites so they tried to pare those down so the bare minimum parcels that they have mapped through the assessor’s parcel information and that resulted in the donut for the Fairmont Shopping Center site. He stated that there were extraneous parcels that weren’t intended to be the Housing Element sites and don’t include the diagrammed polygons. It was extraneous in their judgment and they took it out for greater clarity and precision in the parcels that are in question.

Chair Hauser recapped that they have taken out extraneous parcels where the polygons wouldn’t have overlapped at all and the polygons still exist.

Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that, where there may be a fine line, like the Pacifica Manor Shopping Center, they will go back and double check. The intention was not to change the sites or polygon, but to clean up and be more precise in the mapped parcels for the sites.

Chair Hauser appreciated that clarification. She stated that HCD commented that some sites would allow 100% non-residential use and she agrees that it is untenable. They are requiring a minimum density on those sites and it should be taken at minimum density. She then referred to the bullet point where it says staff recommends a program to clarify that 100% residential project would be permitted; she says that means that Linda Mar Shopping Center could be 100% residential or all the places where they identified that was really important to have mixed use but still hits that residential density goes away. She recognizes the state density bonus program, and HCD in their letters has already said getting rid of commercial space is a concession or in some cases a waiver. She doesn’t agree with the solution they are proposing to address it, as we need to have mixed use sites or at least encourage them.

Planning Director Murdock understood, and he attempted to draft this policy summary with those points in mind. They have to make clear by Council and Planning Commission throughout the Housing Element process, the earlier General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan processes. He stated that this is the second iteration of that slide and they are trying to recognize that there are potentially other instruments to be used to achieve that outcome, like more site-specific diagrams or allowance for horizontal mixed use so that, if there is 100% residential project that doesn’t take up the whole site, there is an opportunity for a commercial project in the future. They do need to recognize that HCD might view a required commercial component as a constraint. Unless they went so far as to find entirely non-commercial sites, which would be inconsistent with a lot of community feedback through this process, he doesn’t know a better way to strike the right balance with this particular problem.

Chair Hauser stated that mixed use is a proven and wonderful thing. She stated a new policy to address HCD’s comment which is inconsistent with the other state laws they have already put into place was to the detriment of Pacifica. She thinks they need to find a way to address their comments as well as hold our ground and say we want to have commercial and housing and, in a lot of cases, have it at 60 dwelling units per acre because those two things work well together.

Commissioner Wright stated that they spent a lot of time saying they wanted ground floor

1.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 23 September 25, 2023
commercial here and they do want to maintain the tax base and the revenue generation and the jobs and the housing. If they can’t, then they need to maintain the same amount of retail space on the lot by not doing it up and just divide it in half the other way and do all residential in one place and all commercial in another place. He stated that they need both and they should come forth with something that works for both.

Chair Hauser thinks they are nuanced in each different site: When they discussed Linda Mar Shopping Center, the polygon was 100% residential, but along Oceana, they thought it deserves to have ground floor commercial to complete the commercial shopping district. She thought they were thoughtful and nuanced and precise, and they only had six different things they worked on and this is one of the six. She thinks it is important.

Commissioner Devine understands the constraints they are dealing with concerning HCD, but she thought it was bordering unreasonable. She wonders how they reach a medium or a diplomatic approach to saying no. She understands where they are coming from as they have more depth and experience than other communities dealing with the same issue, but she felt this contradiction between existing state policies and what we’re facing now. She wonders if they had experience with other communities where they have taken certain stances within reason and otherwise.

Consultant Hamilton stated that what they see in general is the HCD reviewers take a hard line.

They see a requirement to have ground floor residential to be a constraint and they don’t see ways to effectively mitigate. At the prior study session, they mentioned that some places are experimenting, and they are talking about how they will study things related to additional density bonus on top of what they are already entitled to. The way the state density bonus law works now, that’s not that valuable. They are taking a hard line on it. He stated that they should be cognizant of the risks associated with that, and they are putting forward many sites; the intention is to clear the way so those can reasonably be developed, but the reality of how many sites actually will get redeveloped is worth weighing because it is not going to be every single site two years out from now. You may lose a mixed use site and need to consider the tradeoffs.

Commissioner Wright would be in favor of counting on our surplus to cover us in leaving it the way we’ve outlined it or eliminating it from the sites and finding other sites.

Councilmember Boles read aloud HCD’s comment on sites that allow 100% non-residential uses. She understood that whatever residential units we call out are actually getting called out as residential and not that they have to make them 100% residential sites.

Chair Hauser concurs with that read and adds that, when they do the rezoning, by creating a minimum density, they have rezoned it to have to have residential for any sort of changes.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that they are excellent comments, and she thought similarly when she read it. Her understanding when talking with their consultant team is that when talking about going more granular or coming in with more comments, based on experience in other jurisdictions in response to this comment, HCD is pushing for that type of program proposed which would allow 100% residential projects because they feel like the commercial component of it is a constraint.

Consultant Hamilton agreed that is how the comment is written and that is the logical read of that comment but they also need to look at how it’s laid out in other jurisdictions. He stated that an interesting fact in Pacifica is that they don’t have the same market pressures as other

1.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 24 September 25, 2023
jurisdictions have, so that comment is a little less relevant to the reality on the ground.

Councilmember Boles stated that we don’t have the vacancy in commercial spaces like a lot of cities have and our environment here is very different if you’re looking at other cities. She feels very strongly on this and she would not want it as a blanket statement either. She is willing to look at our sites list and if there are specific sites that we want to consider that are all residential, we can go to that level of detail.

Commissioner Ferguson thought they already did that at length. They are looking for commitment not to have 100% commercial; maybe the commercial is a restraint on residential, but he doesn’t know how they can read that comment and not say that they require residential development as a condition of development as a perfectly good response to that comment.

Consultant Hamilton stated that is what they have seen and that is what he can report.

Commissioner Ferguson stated it would have been easy for them to say that they need you to go 100% residential on these sites.

Chair Hauser added comparisons to different cities should be logical, thoughtful, and nuanced.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, in other efforts in the Housing Element update, they have taken the concerns and effectuated them through site-specific diagrams. He stated that all this policy is suggesting that we will continue to do but recognize that we need to be explicit that, in those diagrammed areas, we may get 100% residential projects. He is struggling to reconcile the resistance he is hearing with the approach that is advocated here and the approach that they put a lot of time and effort into. He asked if there is something more or different.

Chair Hauser stated they talked about 30 sites and we were very clear that these are the sites where no commercial is required but commercial is allowed. There was always a sentiment that this was what we were going to prescribe and if somebody wants to do 100% residential, they would have to provide enough affordable units to justify that.

Commissioner Wright added that, with the bowling alley, they did the same thing. They put in big incentives for them to keep a bowling alley there.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that a nuance that he isn’t sure if he missing or not is whether or not what this program says is that entire site is 100% residential period or merely that polygon is 100% residential and what falls outside that polygon which might be commercial that currently exists is not a part of this program.

Planning Director Murdock thinks the policy is proposing is that, within those diagrammed polygons, the subsets of the overall sites, a 100% residential project would be permitted. He thought that’s staff and consultants’ interpretation of what HCD is seeking and would satisfy the comment. He is hearing that there was a different impression and understanding working through some of the associated standards that would go with the polygons that those themselves may not be 100% residential. This differs from his understanding of the process they were undertaking and that may help to understand why there is perhaps some resistance to this program as structured.

Mayor Bigstyck stated it would be helpful for him to see one of the maps in front of him so they can dissect it in such a way that he fully understands if everything is actually on par with all the

1.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 25 September 25, 2023
discussions that happened to begin with or if there is a large discrepancy that they would like to find some way to reconcile their way.

Chair Hauser asked to pull up some figures.

Planning Director Murdock stated he was unable to quickly pull them up on the screen.

Commissioner Godwin asked if there is a percentage of residential that would satisfy the state if they guarantee them that.

Consultant Hamilton reiterated the state’s comment that requiring commercial on the ground floor is a constraint to a viable product that would pencil out for a developer. That is the challenge they are trying to solve.

Commissioner Godwin concluded there is no ratio or anything they could give them that would make them happy with commercial versus residential.

Consultant Hamilton stated that there are multiple issues at play. He stated that piece is part of it, but the piece regarding requiring there to be commercial is a constraint.

Commissioner Godwin asked what if they can structure something that says 100% residential is allowable but no more than 30% commercial.

Consultant Hamilton stated that solves the first problem but not the second problem. He stated that they could think of caps among all these sites in the event that 30% of them get developed as 100% residential, but if it’s 5%, it isn’t going to work.

Commissioner Godwin thought there might be a number where they say they have this program of mixed use sites but no more than one-third of the total mixed use sites we approve is commercial.

Consultant Hamilton stated, to be clear, if there is a requirement to build commercial on the ground floor, that might make it more difficult to build that site. It might not pencil out if that is the concern they’re trying to address.

Commissioner Wright asked if they can add incentives that you can get twice as much housing if you go vertical and have that solve our problem.

Consultant Hamilton stated that, in the last Housing Element, yes, but not this one.

Commissioner Wright asked if we don’t get credit for the half that is 100% housing.

Consultant Hamilton stated the incentive is not as strong as it used to be.

Commissioner Ferguson stated that, in his opinion, as much as the whole purpose of this thing is just to avoid the builder’s remedy and being allowed to do whatever they want, he stated that this is one thing that matters as far as steering the development and is at the top of the list.

Councilmember Bier thought what was so frustrating about this whole thing is that HCD doesn’t care about our specific needs or the work that has already been done but we do, so how can we move forward that way.

1.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 26 September 25, 2023
Commissioner Ferguson stated, if they’re going to cave here, he doesn’t have any desire to do any more input.

Chair Hauser stated she would do the work ten times over if it meant having a sanguine Pacifica that HCD could get behind. She pointed out the Safeway site in Manor along Bill Drake Way and where it could be residential, as well as the small key corner at the Fairmont Shopping Center. On the Linda Mar Shopping Center we had ground floor commercial. She stated that she could keep going and going, and she could show everyone these polygons. The thought that was put into it isn’t as important as the fact that it matters for Pacifica as we don’t have a lot of places to shop, to eat, buy groceries, etc.

Commissioner Wright thinks our direction should be to eliminate all commercial sites from the element.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that, when he was visiting the Association of Bay Area Governments annual assembly, one of the cities said they have the exact opposite problem of everyone else, as they are land rich to the point where it is absolutely no problem at all for them to put housing.

The problem is that, as they are developing all the housing, they aren’t giving any thought to their commercial development whatsoever and all the housing is a detriment economically being viable in the future. He asked is there any compromise in any direction, in any which way.

Consultant Hamilton stated, if there is a happy medium, it is that the sites inventory in RHNA is meaningful but we don’t have redevelopment. You’re creating capacity for development in the zoning. The Housing Element isn’t going to 100% shape the future development of the city.

There are practical limits on the impacts that the Housing Element will have. The market will have much greater impact on what gets built or doesn’t get built. This is over an eight-year period of time and there is a likelihood that you lose a ton of those sites. The state wants to see that you provided exactly your RHNA number plus your buffer. They want to see that it’s a bolster but that doesn’t mean that all of those houses get developed the way that the regulations around those sites shape. There will be an application for housing site next door that won’t be able to quickly abide with the same shape, and they will come before the City Council to negotiate. If there is a happy medium, it is recognizing the limit of policy. He stated that these things play out over a longer time. He isn’t saying that the concerns aren’t valid but there are limits to the efficacy of a plan.

Mayor Bigstyck felt it was deeply sobering that we maybe got to 75% of our last RHNA which was 413 and, if so, it was because the vast majority were ADUs.

Councilmember Beckmeyer didn’t think so, but she would defer to staff. She was concerned about giving away the farm. The state and developers in the free market don’t care. She is worried that, if we don’t have some little way of preserving, the city is destined to change in ways that will be shocking for people.

Councilmember Bier asked what that will mean if we hold the line.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that the market forces are bearing on what developers will do. What she is hearing that everything you put in your plan doesn’t happen anyway and developers just like places where it is easier.

Chair Hauser hears a lot of cities that she works with saying that they are over retailed. They

1.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 27 September 25, 2023
want more industrial space and more houses, but they don’t need more retail. We are the opposite. She feels like it would be compelling if we explained the differences between Pacifica and our neighbors in San Mateo County, then there could be a justification that HCD would understand better. They aren’t proposing a lot of new retail, as we are losing some retail, but we’re trying to maintain something so we can be a healthy city and continue to give housing because there are people who work here that process housing applications.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they hear them loud and clear on the concerns and they will put their thinking caps on for different approaches and work as hard as they can with HCD to find something they will accept other than what they have proposed here based on their experience and judgement. There are other program items that they would ask for feedback on tonight. He explained B.3.10.A, Emergency Shelter Zoning: HCD flagged that this is an area of non-compliance that they believe the city has not completed, even though it was required some years ago. He thought stated they would recommend working on this emergency shelter zoning ordinance. They started that work with the intent to take it to Planning Commission for a public hearing in November and City Council as soon as possible thereafter. This is involving identifying one or more zoning districts where housing is allowed to also allow emergency shelter as a permitted use subject to some minimal objective criteria, such as maximum numbers of occupants. This direction is just confirming that staff should work on that and do it as soon as possible, noting that it’s required before Housing Element certification can occur.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if he anticipates that it would need to be larger than what we have in our by-rights designation already.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it absolutely would, as they are talking about looking at allowing 20 occupants per shelter, more than likely. He stated that the overall capacity will be based on the last homeless census, ensuring that there is capacity for shelters of at least 20 for at least 161 people and some certain square footage requirements associated with that as well.

Councilmember Boles asked if he can explain the difference between shelters and transitional housing.

Planning Director Murdock explained it was immediate emergency kind of need versus longer term and more supportive services to transition them into permanent long term housing. They are all stages in the process sometimes called the continuum of care.

Councilmember Boles asked who would build it. She asked if HCD is asking us to change our zoning and not actually build.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating it is the same framework as with long term housing.

We need to make sure our land use regulations allow this and we remove obstacles and constraints to construction. We currently have significant obstacles in HCD’s opinion because we don’t allow shelters that are large enough and we haven’t demonstrated the areas where capacity allows them to be built in enough capacity in numbers to meet our local needs.

Councilmember Boles asked if they see identifying specific sites as part the ordinance.

Planning Director Murdock stated that is not the similar more general approach that he is guiding now, as they are still honing in on the appropriate zoning district. He stated that there are different tools and he is putting forth the one he thinks is the right fit for Pacifica and Planning Commission and Council will have the final say.

1.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 28 September 25, 2023
Commissioner Godwin asked if these emergency shelters have to be permanent or is it something that can be rolled in like FEMA does for trailers for a period of time.

Planning Director Murdock stated he doesn’t know the answer to that as he isn’t sure the emergency shelter ordinance that he is envisioning will necessarily discern between those two types and is more about the use and some of the other criteria associated with the use like parking and onsite management, etc.

Planning Director Murdock then continued with B.3.10.B. There are a handful of these types of comments where we have to do some zoning update program. State law has evolved significantly over time in relation to these and many other types of uses that cities are obligated to allow and typically impose no greater restrictions on other residential uses so transitional and supportive housing fits in there. He stated that the good news is we can have a program that allows us to undertake it later rather than having to do it immediately like the emergency shelter zoning ordinance.

Planning Director Murdock continued with B.3.10.C, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Zoning ordinance update. He thinks anyone who has been working on these knows that, once you finish yours, three new bills pass that require further amendments. HCD has flagged some of them, and they will talk to them to ensure that they’re fully understanding what is in our ordinance in our local context and then undertake the program to make those amendments.

Councilmember Boles stated that she agrees with the public comment about trying to keep the parking in the coastal zone if we can.

Planning Director Murdock agreed and referred to our last process for updating our Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance which included required parking and analysis of parking issues in coastal visitor parking zones. The Coastal Commission is looking out for visitor parking needs but also the consequence of that is our ADU occupants will have off-street parking in those locations in most instances. He expects a very similar approach coming through this time.

Mayor Bigstyck asked, once they pass the Housing Element, will they need to amend our LCP and get that amendment through the Coastal Commission.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, adding that there is likely to be a number of items, not least of which are the rezonings that are required. He stated some of those are along the way with our ongoing LCLUP update and some of them will be new, so there is followon work that has to be programed into the work plan to implement this.

Planning Director Murdock continued with B.3.10.D, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Zoning.

The recommended approach is to clarify the definition to allow SROs in the same location and subject to the same standards as boarding houses where those are located currently.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if board and care homes are part of this.

Planning Director Murdock stated no, as board and care homes is the type of congregate or community care facility. State law requires those to be treated as residential uses, typically up to six residents. Larger than that, cities may require a use permit. That would not be included in the boarding house definition.

1.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 29 September 25, 2023
Councilmember Boles assumed we didn’t need the lodging and meals for an SRO and some of them might have their own small kitchens.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they are trying to take a light touch approach and see if it will satisfy HCD’s requirement. They could take more time to study the different types of SROs that might be out there and most likely to be constructed or converted but they were simply trying to demonstrate where they can be operated.

Councilmember Boles concluded that doing the zoning doesn’t necessarily mean that they can have a kitchen or must have meals provided.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, adding that is not intending to imply that kitchen requirement or meal requirement to the SRO. They were just saying wherever a boarding house could go, an SRO could go; an SRO can be an SRO and doesn’t have to be something else.

Councilmember Boles read somewhere that they should be in more than just R3.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they have a fair amount of R3 zoned land area, very little undeveloped R3 zoned land area. HCD was not particularly specific in this comment and they are trying to directly address what they said which is demonstrate that SROs are allowed where boarding houses are allowed essentially; they will do that by adding it explicitly into the definition. They haven’t pointed them to anything that he can think of in the way of clear statutory requirements for SROs. He thinks it is qualitative and an important type of housing. It shows what you are doing to make sure it can be provided in Pacifica. Hopefully this will satisfy the comment.

Planning Director Murdock continued with B.4.1, Off-Street Minimum Parking Requirements.

Along the lines of HCD trying to identify perceived constraints to affordable housing development, they consider off-street parking requirements to be a potential constraint. In his planning judgment and experience, parking is expensive to provide and so to think about having to provide more than one space for a very small unit could cause a disproportionality in terms of the cost of parking relative to the housing unit itself. What HCD says is setting your required offstreet parking to one space per studio or one bedroom would satisfy this requirement and eliminate that constraint.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated he was suggesting changing from 1 1/2 to 1.

Planning Director Murdock stated she was correct, for the one bedroom.

Chair Hauser stated, for benefit of Council, this is something that they discussed extensively at Planning Commission. She clarified that they said one parking space for 0-1 bedroom with no guest parking and then there was a comment earlier about how everything else was for the Sharp Park Specific Plan but that was just for commercial. They kept the two parking spaces for 2 or more bedrooms and a 1:4 guest parking ratio. At the Planning Commission level, they were consistent with this.

Councilmember Beckmeyer appreciated that effort and thought it was a good compromise.

Planning Director Murdock continued with B.4.3.A, Permits and Findings for Housing Approvals.

He stated HCD looked at our regulations related to the permits associated with approving

1.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 30 September 25, 2023
housing projects and, in their assessment, specifically they identified the site development permit and use permit requirements that seemed duplicative and redundant for various types of housing projects as burdensome and a constraint, along with the finding that they lead to a lot of discretion and a lack of focus on objective standards as complicating the housing development process. To respond to that, staff proposed a program to try to streamline and minimize the number of permits required for types of development and get to the heart of the types of findings that are needed to evaluate projects for their impacts and for compliance, recognizing that, combined with the extensive objective development standards work that is going to come, as part of the Phase 2 rezoning. This simplified process with the objective standards should serve to address this comment from HCD.

Planning Director Murdock continued with B.4.3.B, similar comment but with slightly different flavor and implication. This had some interface with the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and potential cause for concern for some. To clarify, this program would not propose to modify the coverage formula or any of the standards of the HPD, but would seek to address issues related to the planned development (PD) zoning process and, more particularly, the findings associated with approving projects in the PD. He thought HCD correctly analyzes there is an extensive amount of discretion associated with that process currently, which they analyze as a barrier or burden to accomplish housing constraints to housing approvals. What HCD has suggested and what they are proposing is to try rezone properties that are not currently developed out of the PD so that it is not mandatory to go through a legislative process with the City Council for every project which is one of the constraints that they have identified. Similar to the other permits they talked about with the other comment, look at the criteria for approval, the findings in the PD, and determine if there is a way to make those more directly tailored to objective standards rather than highly discretionary activities. Thus, it is a similar approach but different aspects or components of our zoning code.

Councilmember Boles asked him to explain the original intent behind PD. She sees it as a way to get more flexible designs.

Planning Director Murdock stated she was correct, as there is currently a two-step process.

You need approval of a development plan, which is the site specific zoning instrument and a legislative action that needs Council approval, full discretion for Council to approve or not for many reasons, and not strictly zoning non-compliance. He stated that the second component is the specific plan approval, which is a permit; it measures the permit against the development plan and the intended uses and layout, etc. He stated those are the two parts of the PD, and the first part, the mandated discretionary legislative action, is what he thinks HCD is really taking exception with. He stated that an applicant could pursue this voluntarily to get, but mandating them to go through this process is the constraint that HCD has identified.

Commissioner Wright referred to a question he asked in the beginning and asked if they are able to keep up with their regular workload in servicing the public on top of all this.

Planning Director Murdock acknowledged that it was exceptionally challenging but these are legally mandated processes and there are serious consequences of not accomplishing these tasks.

Commissioner Wright stated it requires a time of outreach, feedback, and a ton of work.

Chair Hauser asked if it was staff’s intention to make these changes to Housing Element sites only or to any Hillside Preservation District sites.

1.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 31 September 25, 2023
Planning Director Murdock stated that HCD sees this as a broad constraint across all types of housing projects, and this will affect all of the PD zoned sites and would propose to have fewer sites zoned at PD by default and obligate those sites to go through the PD process.

Chair Hauser asked if we will still be able to preserve our hillside.

Planning Director Murdock explained that there are a few different issues at play, and nothing associated with this would change the coverage formula or other standards in the HPD overlay; but what the HPD overlay says is, unless you’re in the AG district, you need to rezone to PD as part of the project. While there is an objective formula that a developer can figure out for the HPD coverage and figure out how to comply with it, there is not a formula or objective standard to figure out how to navigate the right development plan for this site and protecting aesthetics and community character. Those are subjective or qualitative criteria that HCD is saying is a constraint. He stated that they can still impose the HPD coverage and consider exceptions where warranted, but the fundamental underlying process of the PD is really where the issue is.

They are different but happen to be related and grafted onto another.

Chair Hauser thought the PD process is extraneous and she agrees with HCD. Her question is, if someone is looking at 100% HPD zone and they also have a zoning of residential, whether there is a way for staff, within the ordinance or what remains of the ordinance, to come up with a thoughtful and nuanced way to preserve.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they will do their best. He thinks the Planning Commission will have its work cut out during the Phase 2 objective standards process in thinking about this as a hypothetical. He thinks there is a conception that the HPD is a development limiting tool but it isn’t really. He stated that, if they look at texts, it says high rise development is acceptable in the interest of preserving the natural slopes. He stated that they might be contemplating taller buildings than they have historically in Pacifica to accomplish the density we need but to also uphold the HPD coverage limitations. There will be more to follow as the projects begin to come through as there is nothing inherently inconsistent with very tall buildings in the HPD as written today.

Councilmember Boles asked regarding a possible the General Plan change that made anything over a certain percentage slope automatically added to HPD in the General Plan.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there are some recommendations in the General Plan for new areas to be added to the HPD that didn’t happen upon adoption of the General Plan and there is follow-on zoning work needed to implement that. They didn’t get to their traditional comprehensive zoning work that would follow a comprehensive General Plan update because of the Housing Element update but they will turn to that eventually and try to add those parcels.

Councilmember Boles stated there was also language about parcels with a certain slope also being considered and, knowing that we don’t have those identified now, that they will evaluate those when they get a site plan and they tell them what the average slope is.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he was familiar with some language that discourages development on sites over the prescribed grade, but if there is another policy he isn’t recalling off-hand, they tried their best to find sites that were not particularly steep. There are a few in there that have some important slope. He doesn’t know how to avoid them, but there are at the base of much larger topographical features and, on balance, it’s a compromised approach to

1.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 32 September 25, 2023
find the sites for our RHNA.

Councilmember Boles stated that she wanted to keep the HPD regulations but she doesn’t know if the PD related to the HPD is as important, but she thought that is part of the ordinance so taking PD out of the HPD would require a vote of the people.

Planning Director Murdock stated he hasn’t come across that in his research so far but he thought revising the PD standards would not require a public vote.

Councilmember Boles thought the HPD standards require a rezone to PD.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles stated that would be a change to the HPD ordinance which they can’t do without a vote of the people.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that they will look into this so when they prepare the program, it will address it in a manner that does not require a public vote.

Planning Director Murdock thought what they were trying to get at with those sites is that they may not be able to eliminate the rezoning requirements. But streamlining the findings and having more objective standards will significantly diminish the constraint as identified by HCD, although they don’t have a clear mechanism to completely eliminate the rezoning requirements.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she always thinks about hazards and conflate the two when she thinks about HPD.

Planning Director Murdock stated there are still a variety of tools that could come to bear if there is a truly hazardous site that may not be able to be safely developed. The option of last resort is in the building permit process and the requirement for the geotechnical engineer to design and ensure that it can be constructed in accordance with accepted engineering principles. He stated that, preceding that, it may be the case that where there are extreme hazards that cannot be mitigated, the city may be able to deny a project despite all of the pro-housing policies and state law; in some instances, CEQA might be required depending on the nature of the project and those hazards could be identified and hopefully mitigated; but, if not able to be mitigated, an EIR would be required and the Council would decide whether or not to override that factor.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus made a motion to extend the meeting to 1:00 a.m.; seconded by Mayor Bigstyck.

Planning Director Murdock took a vote by verbal roll call.

CITY COUNCIL
MOVE TO EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: tTygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Chair Hauser moved to extend the meeting to 1:00 a.m.; seconded by Commissioner Wright.

1.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 33 September 25, 2023
Planning Director Murdock took a vote by verbal roll call.

PLANNING COMMISSION
MOVE TO EXTEND MEETING TO 1:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [5-0]
MOVER: Samantha Hauser, Chair
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Commissioner
AYES: Hauser, Devine, Ferguson, Godwin, Wright
ABSENT: Berman, Leal
Councilmember Boles asked, to the point of hazards, with any SB 330 and builders remedy applications, if they have to do full geotechnical including borings where the buildings are going.

Planning Director Murdock stated not as a preliminary application requirement.

Chair Hauser stated that all projects need to do CEQA no matter what and SB 330 requires that public health and safety findings are a way to deny a project: if something is unsafe, they have to make findings and they can deny the project.

Councilmember Boles stated that they might not know that without a geotechnical report.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that, for SB 330 projects that have a preliminary application, they still need to go through the environmental review process. In doing the CEQA process, there is a section that analyzes hazards and geology, and through that process that typically does require some geotechnical work, thus CEQA requirements during the project review.

Planning Director Murdock clarified that her question was SB 330 preliminary application and that does not include that as part of the initial application package. As Asst. City Attorney Murphy outlined, once that evolves to a regular application, all the regular application processes apply, including CEQA and any other local requirements such as in the coastal zone needing further geotechnical hazard analysis, etc., but at the initial onset of the application, that detailed type of technical information is not required and the city cannot require it under SB 330.

Councilmember Boles stated, if that information is coming later, she doesn’t understand the process and how much discretion they have.

Chair Hauser stated that it is grounds to deny a project if the project is hazardous.

Councilmember Boles understands that but asked if it would be part of public meetings.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated it would be part of public meetings as it would be part of the CEQA document.

Councilmember Boles has been looking at their grading ordinance and wondered if work on that could help them provide more objective standards that help reinforce HPD.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that any additional objective standards that the city wants to adopt regarding work on hillsides, grading, etc., would provide clear standards for developers who want to come in as well as clear regulations for protections for the city.

1.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 34 September 25, 2023
Councilmember Boles thought that was something they might want to consider in the future.

Planning Director Murdock continued with 4.6.B, Group Homes for 7-plus Persons. It is in the category of zoning updates to comply with state law: eliminating the distance separation requirements and discretionary permit criteria for these types of facilities.

Planning Director Murdock continued with C.4, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. It relates to actions the city would require in the course of marketing an affordable housing unit that is available, ensuring specific intentional actions are taken to market these units, particularly to schools that will reach families located outside of the highest resourced areas in Pacifica to increase the opportunity for those families to find housing within the highest resourced area.

Commissioner Ferguson asked if he could identify one or more of these areas in Pacifica.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the entirety of Pacifica is considered a racially concentrated area of affluence but within the community there are some areas that are mapped in the draft Housing Element as having more racial segregation and having lower income, etc.

This program will be focused on trying to market those units in those parts of the community.

Commissioner Ferguson asked if it could apply to the whole town.

Planning Director Murdock agreed and noted the program could be to submit this information to every school.

Commissioner Ferguson stated he couldn’t tell if it was some concentrated areas in Pacifica or if it applied to the whole city, but that was clarified.

Planning Director Murdock continued with D.1, Housing Rehabilitation. This relates to developing a proactive program for the city, managed enforcement division, to identify properties in need of maintenance or where someone reaches out or complaints received engaging on a complaint basis and to connect those individual occupants of property owners with the appropriate resources to rehabilitate their property to keep them in a habitable condition. This is trying to change the existing process which is primarily complaint-driven and perceived as punitive to a more proactive results-driven resource connecting type of process to try and resolve those property maintenance issues outside of the enforcement scheme.

Councilmember Bier asked if it is to keep those properties affordable.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it wasn’t expressly intended for that and they could explore if there is a way to add that on as an additional program component.

Chair Hauser thought they want to consider some sort of fine for properties that don’t comply with recommendations.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there already is the basic code enforcement process. He stated that this is trying to identify a different process, a more cooperative program. As he mentioned in the staff presentation, many of the people are overwhelmed and don’t have the mental or physical capacity to undertake these improvements and may not have family nearby to help them. There are very complex cases, and once it gets to an enforcement stage, the city is in a different position than if it was proactively engaging in trying to head off an enforcement

1.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 35 September 25, 2023
process.

Chair Hauser stated that includes single family homes.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding any housing unit type. There would need some judgment in terms of prioritizing, given the limited resources.

Councilmember Boles asked if he can explain how the property identification program works.

Planning Director Murdock stated that is not contemplated in this program to expand the mandatory inspection process. As he is envisioning it, this would be primarily exterior maintenance related and there may be an opportunity to visit a property and learn more about the interior conditions. He stated that there are other existing programs requiring multi-family unit inspections from the county with varying degrees of success but primarily related to their resources. This is not meant to supplement or replace those inspection programs for interior health condition.

Councilmember Boles asked what we can do to make the process easier for tenants.

Planning Director Murdock stated that this isn’t going to provide legal advice to tenants about eviction or displacement but intended to address HCD’s comment about including programs related to property rehabilitation and maintain the habitability of properties. The vast majority of our housing stock is single family residences, and many of those are longtime residents, who drive a lot of complaints to code enforcement. This is a way of satisfying HCD while achieving a better, more efficient outcome than a complaint-driven process. They are trying to get ahead of that and make a better neighborhood environment and better living condition for these residents outside of a punitive enforcement process. He doesn’t imagine multi-family apartments likely being a priority of this program, at least for the foreseeable future, given the different resourcing and management structures and ownership structures of most of those buildings. He thinks the traditional code enforcement process likely would remain the preferred tool for a lot of those properties.

Commissioner Wright asked what they mean by resources and what resources will they be recommending. He asked for more information on this contemplated process of offering help and resources.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the program is not yet developed and they don’t have all the potential resources identified. From his prior work experience, there are various non-profits that can connect to social services as well as financial resources through grants and loans and other assets of funding support to help people accomplish the property renovations needed in addition to some government programs and communities. They have to be economical with our limited resourcing that they would have to commit to this and it may only be a handful of properties a year but that is improving the community and avoiding an evolving neighborhood issue that explodes into a feud at some point.

Planning Director Murdock stated that concludes the programs and his suggestion would be to not try to tackle sites this evening. He stated that it could be a point to have a clean break and think about it.

Chair Hauser reiterated, to be sure they all understand what decision is being made, a reorganization of housing site inventories, B.3.1; the AB 2011 sites, B.3.2.B; and the

1.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 36 September 25, 2023
infrastructure constraint with the Rockaway Beach pump station, B.3.9, that are left.

Planning Director Murdock stated she is correct.

Chair Hauser asked when staff is proposing that would come back to this group.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they would need to do it in the next 2-3 weeks.

Scheduling is challenging, but they are trying to make it a successful process to give them the time and space about sites.

Chair Hauser was interested in continuing.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that he was interested in trying to tackle the first one and seeing how they do as a group.

Councilmember Boles stated, before they do that, there were a couple of comments from HCD that are more policy related that she hoped they could get to: C.4 Priorities and Metric Milestones and D. Tenant Stability.

Planning Director Murdock explained that the comment was talking about meaningful actions to overcome identified patterns and trends; specific commitments, metrics, and milestones, all in the programs they identified; addressing housing mobility enhancement; new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas and issues related to the sites list; place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection; and the quantified metrics that target beneficial impacts for people, households and neighborhoods.

Consultant Hamilton added that, when they think about place-based strategies, they think about the housing basket and everything that comes along with housing. He stated transportation is part of this and one that speaks to this is code enforcement which as a program does double duty and also advances on part of the place-based process.

Chair Hauser suggested they launch into the last three, starting with B.3.9 as that seems to be the most material: Infrastructure Constraints, Rockaway Beach Pump Station.

Planning Director Murdock recapped the earlier mention of the current draft Housing Element that had over 600 sites identified in the Rockaway Beach sewer pump station catchment. They have honed that down to a little under 200 sites on the core RHNA sites list. This comment relates to the infrastructure capacity constraint of the Rockaway Beach sewer pump station that, during wet weather periods, does not have sufficient capacity for all of the storm water that infiltrates into the sewer system. They are trying to right size the number of new units relative to already planned infrastructure improvement to replace sewer mains in the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach neighborhoods that will reduce inflow and infiltration (I & I). While they were not confident that 600-700 units of new development could be accounted for with this I & I reductions, they were more confident in working to confirm that the sewer replacements that are already planned over the next several years will provide enough capacity offset to allow less than 200 new units in this area. That would mean we need to demonstrate the lack of constraints primarily for the core RHNA sites; then the surplus and buffer sites potentially could remain and potentially infrastructure constraints are identified in the review process. One other option is to reduce or eliminate the number of units or sites from the surplus buffer sites list. He stated we don’t have good options to relocate the core RHNA sites of approaching 200 units.

1.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 37 September 25, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they are keeping the 179 and the other 520 are relegated to surplus.

Planning Director Murdock stated that was the current structure. He added that there has been in-depth discussion by the Planning Commission on Site 26, Site 34, and Site 36.

Chair Hauser asked if they should take those three off.

Planning Director Murdock stated, if Council and the Commission is going to enter a detailed discussion of removing specific sites, they have Planning Commissioner Devine who has a potential conflict of interest related to sites in this vicinity. They would advise that she disclose that conflict and recuse herself through the course of that detailed site discussion.

Commissioner Devine stated that she owns real property in the Rockaway Beach neighborhood and must recuse herself from this item. Commissioner Devine left the room.

Commissioner Ferguson stated that, as he has built about a dozen stormwater and sewer pump stations in the last five years, he has a couple of questions on this analysis. He asked if anyone has done a peak flow dry season versus wet season as the capacity is peak flows in the morning and afternoon during a rain event. He also asked is there an analysis of infiltration project that they are doing to reduce storm water infill into the sanitary sewer and is there a timeline of when they predict those flows to go down. They typically see between 5 and 10 times as much flow on a rain event than they do in a dry season event and there will be some analysis done to try and take that 10x and bring it down to the 2.5x and, in that timeline, does that allow for these units to build in the timeframe they are talking about.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he didn’t have all the technical answers for him on a lot of the wastewater engineering considerations. He thought they don’t have a flow study and that is one of the options he discussed with his colleagues in the wastewater division. The challenge is the timing of the Housing Element process relative to the next rainy season and the opportunity to put a flow meter in.

Commissioner Ferguson thought that probably the 200 houses are marginal compared to a rain event in terms of increased capacity in this area. The buffer sites can be left off the RHNA, but it won’t stop someone from developing Sea Bowl or other sites that they don’t need them to rezone it and take advantage of the builder’s use. That still puts the strain on the infrastructure.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, but stated that in those instances, they are not having to analyze the constraints and demonstrate that they can be built. They can undergo the CEQA process and identify those as potential environmental impacts.

Commissioner Ferguson stated that they would require them to pay for the upgrades.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they require appropriate mitigation and proportionate contributions. He stated that they have to demonstrate that those types of burdens through the CEQA process won’t unexpectedly materialize for core RHNA sites in a way that would render projects unaffordable.

Commissioner Ferguson stated that they haven’t asked DPW to conduct any type of analysis on this Rockaway pump station of how many marginal units they think it can take and when.

Planning Director Murdock stated that is the analysis that is ongoing. They have had

1.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 38 September 25, 2023
conversations with their staff and they’re engaging their consultant that has the most familiarity of the modeling of this segment of the system. They are trying to structure this approach and validate it with the appropriate technical analysis.

Commissioner Ferguson was trying to figure out how they arrived at this 200 number. He thought 200 was good but not any more than that.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they have a RHNA they have to meet and a bunch of other sites and they start whittling away at them. This is the bare minimum number that they could make work across the rest of the Housing Element backdrop and feel that they have a reasonable chance of saying all these sewer mains in two neighborhoods versus the new flows from 200 units seemed like a workable proposition. He stated it can go up or down once the technical study is done, and they are trying to structure that as an approach now. They had a Housing Element backdrop and they probably couldn’t relocate another 200 units, but they are trying to make an educated guess of whether it is enough fewer units that they think a massive infrastructure upgrade might be enough to warrant doing the technical analysis. He didn’t know if he would feel comfortable analyzing it for 700 or 800 units, but cutting that back demonstrates to HCD significant quantitative reduction combined with a planned capital improvement.

Commissioner Ferguson asked if HCD identifies this constraint without prompting from the city.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they identified a pump station capacity constraint as a potential infrastructure constraint in the draft Housing Element, but they said the city’s analysis of the impact of that constraint was inadequate. Thus, they are trying to intensify the analysis.

Commissioner Ferguson feels comfortable with what they have there with the 200 units.

Chair Hauser stated, when they went through all of these sites as a Commission, there were two that they literally did not put development standards to: sites 12, on the west side of Highway 1 across from Vallemar, and 34, Vallemar Station. They couldn’t figure out how people would get onto Highway 1. She loves the idea of not just moving it to surplus, but also removing those two sites. Sea Bowl was an important part of the Kosmont study that the city commissioned for the commercial, and if they are hearing that commercial and residential are so difficult to achieve in the discussion, and maybe these three are projects that should be removed, understanding that there are builders’ remedies.

Commissioner Wright asked if she wants to take Sea Bowl off the list. He understood Vallemar Station and Caltrans. If they are trying to build stuff here, then taking Sea Bowl off will likely reduce trying to achieve their RHNA numbers, as that spot is very likely to be built.

Chair Hauser didn’t think 219 units are likely to be built and didn’t know if that was what was being proposed. If an affordable developer did come with a proposal, she would be happy to entertain that outside of the Housing Element process.

Commissioner Wright stated she is using that as a vehicle to build something more beneficial.

Chair Hauser agreed. She stated that they paid a lot of money for an economic study that said we need to capitalize on Sea Bowl the week that Sea Bowl sent the letter that they were closing.

She emphasized replacing it with something that is economically a boon to the city.

Consultant Hamilton stated that, on the Rockaway site, when they look at the breakdown, there

1.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 39 September 25, 2023
are 250 low-income buffer units between site 34 and 12, and that is a significant amount. As important is the location and spreading around the potential low-income sites around the city and particularly adjacent to more affluent areas and all of the housing basket things that go along with that. They want to try and preserve at least some of those sites in this area.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that they don’t have the studies now to have an accurate analysis of what the actual flow rates are but, as they go along, he asked if they will be updating their analysis to determine whether or not these sites can accommodate the flow.

Planning Director Murdock stated that was the goal. They hope to have their expert staff or consultant opinion to validate this assumption, but this reduction in I & I from the sewer main replacement that is already planned in the next 3-4 years would be equal to or greater than the new flow from 180 units.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that there are another 266 units they are talking about between sites 12 and 34. As they do the analysis, might it say that it could accommodate those 266 also or, if it doesn’t, could they adjust in terms of our CIP.

Planning Director Murdock didn’t think he can speak to the CIP component. He doesn’t know what other I & I related capital improvements could be made in that particular area. He stated that they can hopefully get a sense from that technical analysis if the numbers are more than 180 and figure out if there is a priority order to retain sites. If they can get more, they would prefer to keep the Rock, then the Sea Bowl, and our last choice is the Quarry, Caltrans, and Vallemar Station.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that the other question, regarding Sea Bowl, was why it has become above-moderate when before it was lower-income serving and whether that would get in the way of what Chair Hauser was referring to in terms of the economic development study.

Planning Director Murdock thought there are some unknowns, such as the resolution of that 100% on residential policy that came up earlier and how it relates to the site diagram in that context. He thought the cleanest thing is to not have the Sea Bowl as a Housing Element site if you’re concerned about other non-housing considerations because, to some extent, HCD is going to have its hands in the dough on that site and what the city might be obligated to approve ultimately. He stated that there are a lot of other laws that will complicate that process even without the site being in the Housing Element and, if the city has aspirations for a mixed-use project there, perhaps having it in the Housing Element is not the best way to further that objective.

Mayor Bigstyck suggested keeping sites 12 and 34 and removing 36.

Commissioner Ferguson stated site 36 seems to be one of their best housing sites in the city.

Mayor Bigstyck thought it will wind up housing either way and, in which case, it will apply toward the RHNA. He was enamored by the fact they were trying to retain economic use of that site in terms of bringing tax revenue, not the least of recreational opportunity for all parties involved.

Commissioner Wright asked if it would be helpful to staff and their consultants to prioritize them, and as they tried to meet the demands and announcements, they understand the pecking order and how we would like them to proceed.

1.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 40 September 25, 2023
Planning Director Murdock stated that type of feedback would be helpful to them. Assuming that this analysis checks out for some number of units, if there is an opportunity to include more units and the sites are deemed to be appropriate for the Housing Element, getting priority order policy direction would be helpful.

Chair Hauser asked if they are looking for 200 buffer units.

Planning Director Murdock stated he didn’t have a number of the buffer units. They have the core RHNA sites which are most important to staff and then any number of extra surplus buffer sites is good from their perspective, provided they can check that out from the technical standpoint with the sewer capacity issue.

Councilmember Bier liked the idea of prioritizing. She would rather remove site 34 and site 36.

Councilmember Boles wanted to ask questions about some of the other sites as well as a couple of questions about our sewers as well. She referred to site 12 and asked if that was part of the access to Pacifica Highlands.

Planning Director Murdock didn’t believe that parcel is utilized for that project access. The parcel in question is mixed use neighborhood and it was redesignated as such in the General Plan update process and was one of the late modifications they made during that process.

Councilmember Boles asked if their access would come across one of these sites.

Planning Director Murdock stated it is possible.

Councilmember Boles didn’t know if that is an issue and that is an application that they already have. Regarding site 35, at the Planning Commission meeting when that site was discussed, she was surprised to hear that it required a vote of the people to have housing on that site.

Planning Director Murdock stated that was not accurate. He stated the zoning applicable to that site requires a public vote to rezone, as the zoning is currently C1, which allows housing in a mixed-use configuration. The density assumptions here reflect that existing zoning limitation and would not be able to intensify beyond that without a public vote.

Councilmember Boles stated that the direction given was for a purely residential site.

Planning Director Murdock stated that would be irreconcilable under the current zoning and that would be an issue that will need to be analyzed when they put together more detailed information for the site, currently talking about allowable density. There is nothing inconsistent with the current zoning about the number of units that has been discussed.

Councilmember Boles noted that site now is zoned commercial recreation and therefore similar to the Sea Bowl in terms of the intent of a public.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was visitor serving commercial in the 2040 General Plan, which does not allow residential use.

Chair Hauser stated that there are different land uses and she agrees on the commercial.

Because of the vote of the people, they didn’t go into more detail on that and were comfortable with the zoning and gave a couple of additional criteria to make sure that it would set back far

1.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 41 September 25, 2023
enough from Highway 1.

Councilmember Boles stated that she thought site 35 would be a great place for a restaurant in terms of economic viability. She agrees that site 26 is problematic and some discussions brought up was that we may need some of this land as we are dealing with these intersections and trying to think about overcrossings. She would rather see that site discussed as part of the Quarry Specific Plan and looking broadly at the whole area instead of piecemeal. She then stated, besides the pump station, the sewage treatment plant had to release partially treated sewage in the creek this past winter. She wanted to be sure whatever analysis they are doing is not just looking at I & I for the pump station but also for the sewage treatment plant.

Chair Hauser asked if they want to remove some sites and leave other sites and get direction on that. Chair Hauser, Mayor Bigstyck, Councilmembers Bier and Boles, and Commissioner Ferguson discussed keeping or removing 26, 34 and 36.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated she sees Sea Bowl as one of the main places that is going to be built and, if they are taking it off this list, she thinks that is a problem.

Commissioner Wright stated that taking it off this particular list doesn’t stop it from being built or anyone applying to build something. He stated that somebody is going to build on that site with the bowling alley closed. Chair Hauser added that the goal is to leave them with a little bit of discretion and maybe there is none because of what is happening now. Commissioner Wright thought the goal was that they want to maintain some of the commercial aspect and they have more control over that if they leave it off of this list.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus understood.

Chair Hauser asked if the General Plan currently allows housing at Sea Bowl, and Planning Director Murdock stated that it is visitor serving commercial so no housing allowed.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he heard consensus to remove sites 26 and 36.

There was consensus on removing site 36. There was majority yes on removing site 26, with one no from Mayor Bigstyck.

Commissioner Devine returned to the meeting from recusal.

Mayor Bigstyck reopened public comments.

Pat Kremer, Pacifica, stated that what they just discussed may preclude what she is going to say. She expressed her concern about the general process of rezoning of properties included in the Housing Element and the pros and cons of preference for residential or commercial property.

Mayor Bigstyck closed public comments. He then asked direction from City Manager on a future study session.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they should continue this item to a special study session to a future date which sounds like it should be uncertain so staff can view the materials and prepare for the next session and poll Council and Planning Commission for availability.

1.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 42 September 25, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck asked if he needs a motion.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano suggested a motion from both.

City Manager Woodhouse anticipated that it will be very difficult to schedule a follow-up session in the 2-3 weeks and requested some flexibility about scheduling the session with those who are available as it has to be a quorum for each group.

Councilmember Bier moved to continue the study session to a date to be determined; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus.

Planning Director Murdock took a vote by verbal roll call.

CITY COUNCIL

CONTINUE STUDY SESSION TO DATE UNCERTAIN
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Commissioner Ferguson moved to continue the study session to a date to be determined; seconded by Commissioner Wright.

Planning Director Murdock took a vote by verbal roll call.

PLANNING COMMISSION

CONTINUE STUDY SESSION TO DATE UNCERTAIN
RESULT: ADOPTED [5-0]
MOVER: Alex Ferguson, Commissioner
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Commissioner
AYES: Hauser, Devine, Ferguson, Godwin, Wright
ABSENT: Berman, Leal

ADJOURN JOINT STUDY SESSION
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the meeting at 12:46 a.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk

1.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Joint Study Session 43 September 25, 2023
__________________________
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor

1.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 9-25-2023 Joint Study Session City Council and Planning Commission (5493 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/23/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Approve an additional Recreation Coordinator Position in Aquatics Program and amend the FY 2023-24 Budget and Position Control to include this change RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution to approve the addition of a Recreation Coordinator Position in Aquatics Program and make necessary amendments to the FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget and Position Control to include this position.

STAFF CONTACT:

Bob Palacio; Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation
650 738-7382
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City of Pacifica has an active joint use agreement with the Jefferson Union High School District which allows the City to provide community aquatics programs. The Jean E Brink Pool located on the Oceana High School campus is home to the City of Pacifica's 7 day per week robust aquatics program. Programming includes, but is not limited to, adult lap swim, recreational swim, water aerobics classes, swim lessons, water safety courses, swim team rentals, artistic swim organization rentals, swim camps, water polo, swim meets, and pool parties.

In early July 2022, as part of a Parks Beaches and Recreation department reorganization, the Recreation Coordinator position overseeing aquatics was eliminated. The funding for that position was used to fund a new Recreation Supervisor position that now oversees not only Aquatics, but also Recreation which includes contract instruction, beach and water safety initiatives, city-wide special events, summer camps, field users’ agreements, and teen and youth programs. This restructuring has left a gap at the Jean E Brink facility which has been run entirely with part-time staff. As the recreational activities have now exceeded the pre-Covid level, this is no longer a sustainable staffing level for the programs performed at this facility.

It is important to note, that the community aquatics program at the Brink Pool facility is a 12 month a year, 7 day a week program. The greater majority of staff, which entirely consists of lifeguards, are under the age of 18. Past practice allowed for these non-adult staff to be left in the facility to guard the water and monitor the facility. To ensure the safety of all program participants and staff and prudent risk management practices the City’s internal policy now requires a staff member, or contract instructor, to be at least 18 years old when in charge of the facility.

Addition of a new Recreation Coordinator in Aquatics would allow the department to regain prepandemic program and participation levels, and eventually grow and enhance programs. This new position will be able to develop, implement, and assess aquatic programs as this will be their main focus. They will also be the lead staff point of contact on aquatics staff recruitment, 2 Packet Pg. 59
Pacifica City Council 2
October 23, 2023
development, interviews and hiring. They will enhance the overall safety of the facility and its users. The additional duties for this job class will include:
• Program facilitation, including but not limited to swim meets, swim lessons, and pool parties • Initial inputting of staff hours into timesheet system • Payment reconciliation for cash and checks
• Schedule staff shifts for on-deck aquatics staff
• Share duties for existing lifeguard on-going trainings • Provide incoming lifeguards with required water safety/CPR/ AED certification training • Assess equipment and infrastructure for needed maintenance and upkeep • Assist in chemical testing as needed
• Check Brink Pool voicemail, answer phones, and respond to public as needed • Perform lifeguard duties as needed
• Other duties as required including light custodial
This new position will be fully funded with new program revenues and salary savings from eliminating the unutilized part-time staff position (see Attachment A for additional detail).

New program revenues and salary savings on a fiscal year basis will amount to approximately $115,800, which is sufficient to fund a full-time benefited Recreation Coordinator position on an ongoing basis. The Recreation Coordinator is an existing classification within the City’s classification plan, so no approval of this classification or meet and confer process with the labor representatives is required at this time. If approved, this additional position will be added to the Position Control and the FY 2023-24 Budget.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Deny the request for this position and give staff alternative direction on staffing the City’s aquatics program.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Enhance organizational and fiscal stability.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total salary and benefits package the Recreation Coordinator position is about $115,800 per year and will be fully funded by the new programmatic revenues on ongoing basis. The FY 2023-24 Budget impact will be prorated based on the timing and outcome of the recruitment and necessary budget adjustments to the personnel cost and program revenues will be incorporated at the mid-year budget review.

ORIGINATED BY:

Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
23-24 Aquatics Coordinator Funding Source(PDF)
2 Packet Pg. 60
Pacifica City Council 3
October 23, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. _________

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

ADDITIONAL RECREATION COORDINATOR POSITION IN AQUATICS PROGRAM AND MAKE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 2023-24 BUDGET AND POSITION

CONTROL
WHEREAS, the City provides community aquatics programs at the Jean E Brink Pool facility located on the Oceana Campus; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to improve the stability, quality, and efficiency of the community aquatics program by adding a full-time Recreation Coordinator position in Aquatics program; and
WHEREAS, the City has been able to increase revenues generated in the aquatics division to be able to fully fund this position.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES:

The City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby approves an addition of a new Recreation Coordinator position in the Aquatics Division of the Parks Beaches and Recreation Department, approving the corresponding amendments to the FY 2023-24 Budget and Position Control
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 23rd day of October, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

01.000000.46820.0000.000 OCEANA SWIM LESSONS $25,000 $25,000 $79,218 316.90% $25,500 $30,516 119.70% $75,000 $105,516 $80,016

01.000000.46821.0000.000 SWIM TEAM $45,000 $45,000 $53,624 119.20% $45,900 $1,471

3.20% $50,224 $51,695 $5,795

01.000000.46822.0000.000 OCEANA RECREATION SWIM $200,000 $200,000 $251,274 125.60% $225,000 $44,213

19.70% $177,758 $221,971 ($3,029)
Additional Revenue: $82,782
Reduction in Part-time Staffing: $26,389
Swim Lessons
Fall (+ summer after 7/1/23) $30,516 Total (2023/24): $109,171 Winter $25,000
Spring $25,000 Total for a Full Fiscal Year: $115,782
Summer (pre- 6/30/24) $25,000
Projected revenue above Budget: $105,516
Swim Team
Contracted amount $51,695
Currently paid $1,471
Expected remaining $$$ $50,224
Oceana Recreation Swim
Projected revenue $51,000
Funding for Aquatic Specialist:
$$$ per Hour $22
Total Budgeted hours: 1,500
2023/24 Budget for Position: $33,000
$$$ Spent So Far (2023/24): $6,611
2023/24 Savings: $26,389

2.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: 23-24 Aquatics Coordinator Funding Source [Revision 1] (5504 : Recreation Coordinator

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/23/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution Approving a Consultant Services Agreement with Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong, LLP., for Comprehensive Classification Study
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a consultant services agreement between the City of Pacifica and Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong, LLP in the amount of $92,000.00 and execute all necessary documents related to this project.

STAFF CONTACT:

Irene P. Camarena, Human Resources Manager
(650)738-7303
[email protected]
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 501-6004
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

In December 2022 the City of Pacifica issued an RFP to invite interested and qualified consulting firms to submit written proposals to conduct a citywide classification and compensation study to reflect the changes in City operations and staffing, which may have affected the type, scope, and level of work being performed.

The City received three proposals in response to this RFP, and Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong was selected to conduct the study based on their high qualifications to complete the project and the lowest bid.

Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong, LLP consultants have extensive experience in planning and conducting classification and compensation studies and understand the importance of compensation data in pay policy development and assessment and working closely with a broad range of public agencies on similar projects since their founding in the mid-2000s.

They recognize that salary and benefits data are integral to multiple human resource management processes. They have extensive experience, conducting both rank and file and agency wide studies as well as custom programs for executive level staff. Therefore, City Manager recommends approval of the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong, LLP., for the professional services of this project.

The first phase of this project, the Initial Compensation Survey using twelve comparable San Mateo County agencies, was completed in May 2023 under the City Manager’s authority. The results were used in the labor negotiations with all employee labor groups that were completed in June 2023.
3 Packet Pg. 63
Pacifica City Council 2
October 23, 2023
As communicated to all labor groups during the labor negotiations, the City is now moving forward with the full classification study. This scope of work will include the review and update of the City’s Classification plan for 77 Full-Time Equivalent positions and 20 Part-time classifications as further described in the scope of work of the attached contract.

Although conducting this classification study will be a major undertaking for the Administrative Services Department and is expected to be a very time-consuming development, it is also a crucial and timely project to make necessary changes to the job classifications and salary ranges to:
a. ensure all positions are classified appropriately, including those performing similar work with a similar level of complexity, responsibility, knowledge, skills, and abilities are classified and placed on the salary scale in proportion to assigned duties. b. offer justifiable pay differential between individual classes, c. resolve any compaction issues, and provide other recommendations to the classification plan.

Conducting this study meets the City’s objective to attract and retain talent and remain competitive compared to other regional government entities within the area.

Therefore, the City Manager recommends authorizing the award of contract to Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong, LLP.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose to not approve the consultant agreement; however, such action will result in increased risk of not being able to attract and retain qualified employees and may adversely affect the City’s relationship with the unions and the next labor negotiations.

RELATION TO CITY GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the professional consulting services agreement is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Enhance Organizational and Fiscal Stability: The project will improve staff retention, recruitment, mental health and wellness resources.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The not-to-exceed cost of the classification study is $92,000.00 and is already included in the FY 2023-24 budget. If any budget amendment is required, staff will bring that forward at the mid-year budget review, but no budget amendment is requested at this time.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (PDF)
3 Packet Pg. 64
Pacifica City Council 3
October 23, 2023
RESOLUTION NO._______

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

CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SLOAN SAKAI YEUNG & WONG, LLP FOR

COMPREHENSIVE CLASSIFICATION STUDY
WHEREAS, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 2-4.401 of the Pacifica Municipal Code establishes a civil service personnel system and procedures for the administration of personnel matters; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager, as Personnel Officer, prepare and recommend to the City Council a position classification plan, class specifications, and revisions thereto; and WHEREAS, a Comprehensive Classification Study is needed to ensure efficient and functional delivery of City services while allowing the City to stay competitive to address the recruitment and retention challenges and attract and retain talent.

WHEREAS, the City issued a request for proposals to conduct a comprehensive compensation and classification study and selected Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong, LLP as the most qualified consultant for the project.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, to authorize the City Manager to execute the professional services agreement with Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong, LLP, and to take necessary personnel actions that would align with the recommendations founded by the Comprehensive Classification Study. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 23rd day of October, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 10th day of October, 2023 by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and SLOAN SAKAI YEUNG & WONG LLP [a, limited liability partnership] (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY requires services in connection with a Comprehensive Classification Study
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified to perform such services; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has agreed to provide CITY with such services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, CONSULTANT and CITY agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.1. Scope of Work. CONSULTANT agrees to furnish the services set forth in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Services").

1.2. Compliance with Law. The Services shall be performed in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders.

1.3. Time is of the Essence. CONSULTANT agrees to diligently prosecute the Services. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence.

1.4. Professional Competence. CONSULTANT represents that it has the professional skills necessary to perform the Services and that it will perform the Services in a skillful and professional manner. CONSULTANT represents that it has all the necessary licenses to perform the Services and shall maintain them throughout the term of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees that the Services shall be performed in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which CONSULTANT is engaged, in the same or similar geographical area in which CONSULTANT practices its profession, and will prepare all work products required by this Agreement in accordance with such standards. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT is in responsible charge of the Services and CITY shall have no control over the method or means of performance of the Services. Acceptance by CITY of the Services does not operate as a release of CONSULTANT from professional responsibility for the Services performed.

1.5. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an employee of CITY. CONSULTANT expressly warrants that it will not represent that it is an employee of CITY. Persons employed or utilized by CONSULTANT in the

3.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 2 -
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
performance of the Services will not be employees or agents of CITY. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.

1.6. Confidentiality. CONSULTANT agrees to maintain in confidence and not disclose to any person, firm, governmental entity, or corporation, without CITY's prior written consent, any trade secret or confidential information, knowledge or data relating to the products, process, or operation of CITY. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain in confidence and not to disclose to any person, firm, governmental entity, or corporation any non-publicly available, data, information, technology, or material developed or obtained by CONSULTANT during the performance of the Services. The covenants contained in this Section 1.6 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause.

1.7. Ownership of Material. Any reports and other material prepared by or on behalf of CONSULTANT under this Agreement (collectively, the "Documents") shall be and remain the property of CITY. All Documents not already provided to CITY shall be delivered to CITY on the date of termination of this Agreement for any reason. The Documents may be used by CITY and its agents, employees, representatives, and assigns, in whole or in part, or in modified form, for all purposes CITY may deem appropriate without further employment of or payment of any compensation to CONSULTANT.

1.8. Documentation. CONSULTANT shall keep and maintain full and complete documentation and accounting records, employee time sheets, and correspondence pertaining to the performance of the Services, and CONSULTANT shall make such documents available for review and/or audit by CITY and CITY's representatives at all reasonable times for at least four years after the termination of this Agreement or completion of the Services.

1.9. Testimony. CONSULTANT agrees to testify at CITY's request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with the Services. Unless the action is brought by CONSULTANT or is based upon CONSULTANT's negligence, CITY will compensate CONSULTANT for the preparation and the testimony at CONSULTANT's standard hourly rates.

ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION

2.1. Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with Exhibit B, Compensation, attached hereto and incorporated herein. It is agreed that the compensation for the Services shall not exceed $92,000.00 ("Cost Ceiling").

2.2. Invoices. CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices in a form satisfactory to CITY on or before the tenth day of each month for Services provided during the preceding month. CONSULTANT shall submit time and cost records as necessary to substantiate performance of the Services. Within 35 days after receipt of each such invoice, CITY shall verify the accuracy of the invoice, correct the charges where appropriate and as discussed and mutually agreed with CONSULTANT, and make payment to CONSULTANT in an amount equal to the amount of such invoice, as verified or corrected by CITY. No payment hereunder shall be construed as evidence of acceptance

3.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 3 -
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
of any of CONSULTANT's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONSULTANT on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in CONSULTANT's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder. CONSULTANT shall not stop or delay performance of the Services under this Agreement on account of payment disputes with CITY.

2.3. Status Reports. Together with each monthly invoice, CONSULTANT shall submit a status report detailing the amount expended on the Services to that date and the remaining amount to be expended before the Cost Ceiling is reached. CONSULTANT shall notify CITY in writing when payments have reached 90 percent of the Cost Ceiling.

2.4. Withholding. In lieu of holding retention, CITY shall withhold CONSULTANT's final payment until the Services are complete and CITY has received all Documents.

CONSULTANT shall diligently continue and complete performance of the Services if the Services are not complete at the time CONSULTANT has performed services up to the Cost Ceiling.

ARTICLE 3 - TIME OF PERFORMANCE

3.1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the second signature and shall remain in full force and effect until the Services are completed (the "Term"). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all services by _December 31, 2024.

3.2. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by CITY upon written notice to CONSULTANT.

3.3. Final Payment. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation for Services performed up to the time of such termination, it being understood that any payments are full compensation for the Services rendered under this Agreement.

3.4. Other Remedies. Nothing in this Article 3 shall be deemed to limit the respective rights of the parties to terminate this Agreement for cause or otherwise to exercise any rights or pursue any remedies which may accrue to them.

ARTICLE 4 - DESIGNATED CONTACTS

4.1. CITY Contact. CITY designates Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager, as its contact who shall be responsible for administering and interpreting the terms and conditions of this Agreement, for matters relating to CONSULTANT's performance under this Agreement, and for liaison and coordination between CITY and CONSULTANT. In the event CITY wishes to make a change in CITY's representative, CITY will notify CONSULTANT of the change in writing.

4.2. CONSULTANT Contact. CONSULTANT designates Geoffrey Rothman as its contact, who shall have immediate responsibility for the performance of the Services and for all matters relating to performance under this Agreement. Any change in CONSULTANT's designated contact shall be subject to written approval by CITY.

ARTICLE 5 - INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

3.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 4 -
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2

5.1. Indemnification. CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to claims, liability, loss, damage, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees, awards, fines, penalties, or judgments, arising out of or relating CONSULTANT’S negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct in the performance of Services (collectively "Claims"), defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its Officials, officers, employees and agents (the "CITY Parties"), except to the extent the Claims are attributable to CITY Parties' gross negligence or willful misconduct. CONSULTANT shall defend the CITY Parties as required by California Civil Code Section 2778, and with counsel reasonably acceptable to those parties.

CONSULTANT shall have no right to seek reimbursement from the CITY Parties for the costs of defense.

If CONSULTANT is a “design professional,” as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(c), CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Indemnitees harmless against Liability only to the extent such Liability arises out of, pertains to, or relates to CONSULTANT’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. In such an event, the cost to defend charged to CONSULTANT shall not exceed CONSULTANT’s proportionate percentage of fault.

The obligations contained in this Section 5.1 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause for the full period of time allowed by law and shall not in any way be limited by the insurance requirements of this Agreement.

5.2. Health and Safety. CONSULTANT may perform part of the Services at sites which contain unknown working conditions and contaminated materials. CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for the health and safety of CONSULTANT's employees during the performance of the Services.

5.3. Insurance. CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants and other agency shall procure, provide and maintain at all times during the performance of this Agreement, and for such additional periods as described herein, the insurance listed below with insurers licensed to do business in the State of California and with a Best's rating of no less than A:VII.

A. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance providing bodily injury liability and property damage, to protect against all liability arising out of the use of any owned, leased, passenger or commercial automobile at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit and $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall apply to hired and non-owned autos.

B. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial General Liability Insurance, with limits providing a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage for each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products/completed operations aggregate. The insurance shall cover all operations including but not limited to the following: (1) premises, operations and mobile equipment liability; (2) completed operations and products liability; (3) contractual liability insuring the obligations assumed by CONSULTANT in this Agreement; (4) broad form property damage liability; (5) personal injury

3.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 5 -
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
liability endorsement, including death; and (6) automobile bodily injury and property damage insurance, including all owned, hired and non-owned equipment.

C. Professional Liability Insurance. Professional Liability Insurance protecting against liabilities arising out of or in connection with negligent acts, errors, or omissions of CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants and other agency in connection with this Agreement, at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage and $1,000,000 aggregate, on a "claims made basis" with a continuation of coverage extension for liabilities for two years from the date the Services are substantially complete. Such professional liability policies shall include coverage for liability assumed by the CONSULTANT under this Agreement.

D. Workers Compensation Insurance. Workers Compensation insurance, occupational disease insurance and employer’s liability insurance shall be required with minimum limits as required by law, covering all workplaces involved in this Agreement.

E. Policy Terms. Concurrently with execution of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with Certificates of Insurance evidencing that CONSULTANT has obtained or maintains the insurance required by this Section

5.3. The Certificates shall be on forms acceptable to CITY. CONSULTANT shall also furnish CITY with original endorsements with the following documentation:
• Precluding cancellation or reduction in coverage before the expiration of thirty (30) days after CITY shall have received written notification thereof from CONSULTANT by United States mail;
• Providing that CONSULTANT's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, and include a “separation of insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability (crossliability endorsement); • Excepting CONSULTANT’S professional liability insurance, naming CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds (“Additional Insureds”); and • Providing that for any claims relating to CONSULTANT's services hereunder, CONSULTANT's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents, and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY for itself, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents shall be in excess of CONSULTANT's insurance and shall not be contributory with it.
• It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverages requirements and/or limits shall be available to the Additional Insured, including but not limited to any umbrella or excess insurance.

Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be the greater of:
(a) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (b) the

3.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 6 -
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured.

F. Material Breach. If CONSULTANT fails to maintain insurance coverage or provided insurance documentation which is required pursuant to this Agreement, it shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. CITY, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from CONSULTANT resulting from said breach. Alternatively, CITY may purchase the required insurance coverage, and without further notice to CONSULTANT, may deduct from sums due to CONSULTANT any premium costs advanced by CITY for such insurance. These remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies available to CITY.

ARTICLE 6 - NOTICES
All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered or sent by facsimile or reputable overnight courier and shall be deemed received upon the earlier of: (1) if personally delivered, the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice; (2) if delivered by Federal Express or other overnight courier for next business day delivery, the next business day; (3) if sent by facsimile, with the original sent on the same day by overnight courier, the date on which the facsimile is received, provided it is before 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time; or (4) if sent electronically, the date of delivery on the confirmed read receipt. Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner described in this Article 6. Rejection or other refusal to accept or the inability to deliver because of a change in address of which no notice was given shall be deemed to constitute receipt of the notice or communication sent. Unless changed in accordance herewith, the addresses for notices given pursuant to this Agreement shall be as follows:

If to CITY: City Manager
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 738-7409
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038
Email: [email protected]
If to CONSULTANT: Geoffrey Rothman
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 600
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (415) 516-8091
Facsimile: (415) 678-3838
Email: [email protected]
ARTICLE 7 - MISCELLANEOUS

7.1. Conflict of Interest Prohibition. CITY and CONSULTANT will comply with the requirements of the CITY’s Conflict of Interest Code adopted pursuant to California Government Code §87300 et seq., the Political Reform Act (California Government Code §81000 et seq.), the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission (Title 2, §18110 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations), California Government

3.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 7 -
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
Code §1090 et seq., and any other ethics laws applicable to the performance of the Services and/or this Agreement. CONSULTANT may be required to file with the CITY Clerk a completed Form 700 before commencing performance of the Services unless the CITY Clerk determines that completion of a Form 700 is not required, pursuant to CITY’s Conflict of Interest Code. Form 700 forms are available from the CITY Clerk.

CONSULTANT may not perform Services for any other person or entity that, pursuant to any applicable law or regulation, would result in a conflict of interest or would otherwise be prohibited with respect to CONSULTANT’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees to cooperate fully with CITY and to provide any necessary and appropriate information requested by CITY or any authorized representative concerning potential conflicts of interest or prohibitions concerning CONSULTANT’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement.

CONSULTANT may not employ any CITY official, officer or employee in the performance of the Services, nor may any official, officer or employee of CITY have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code §1090 et seq. CONSULTANT hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of CITY. If CONSULTANT was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of CITY in the previous twelve months, CONSULTANT warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. CONSULTANT understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et seq., the entire Agreement is void and CONSULTANT will not be entitled to any compensation for CONSULTANT’s performance of the Services, including reimbursement of expenses, and CONSULTANT will be required to reimburse CITY for any sums paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement. CONSULTANT understands that, in addition to the foregoing, penalties for violating Government Code §1090 may include criminal prosecution and disqualification from holding public office in the State of California.

Any violation by CONSULTANT of the requirements of this provision will constitute a material breach of this Agreement, and the CITY reserves all its rights and remedies at law and equity concerning any such violations.

7.2. Subcontracting. CONSULTANT may subcontract portions of the Services upon the prior written approval of CITY. CONSULTANT will be solely responsible for payment of such subcontract Services. No contractual relationship will exist between any such subcontractors of CONSULTANT and CITY. CONSULTANT’s subcontractors agree to be bound to CONSULTANT and CITY in the same manner and to the same extent as CONSULTANT is bound to CITY under the Agreement. CONSULTANT’s subcontractors further agree to include the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, with any subsubcontractor to the extent they apply to the scope of the sub-subcontractor’s work. A copy of the CITY indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to CONSULTANT’s subcontractors upon request.

7.3. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of CITY and CONSULTANT as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written

3.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 8 -
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. This Agreement may only be modified by an amendment in writing signed by each party.

7.4. No Assignment. The Services are deemed unique and neither party shall assign, transfer, subcontract or otherwise substitute its interest in this Agreement or any of its obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party. As limited by this Section

7.2, this Agreement is to be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.

7.5. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is determined to be unconstitutional, invalid or beyond the authority of either party, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement can be interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties.

7.6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and, when fully signed, such counterparts shall have the same effect as if signed in one document.

7.7. Choice of Law. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without reference to its choice of laws principles and venue shall be in the appropriate court in San Mateo County, California.

7.8. Waiver. No failure on the part of either Party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder. A waiver by either CITY or CONSULTANT of any breach of this Agreement shall not be binding upon the waiving party unless such waiver is in writing. In the event of a written waiver, such a waiver shall not affect the waiving party's rights with respect to any other further breach.

7.9. Mediation. In the event the parties are unable to resolve a dispute arising under this Agreement through good faith negotiations, the parties agree to submit the matter to mediation with a mutually agreeable mediator. Prior to the mediation, the parties shall exchange any documents reasonably necessary to resolve the matter to be mediated.

7.10. Attorney’s Fees. If any action at law or in equity, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, which may be set by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled.

7.11. Interpretation. In the event this Agreement is ever construed in any dispute between the parties, it and each of its provisions shall be construed without regard to the party or parties responsible for its preparation and shall be deemed to have been prepared jointly by the parties. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement.

7.12. Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of one of the parties represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver the Agreement on behalf of such party and that this Agreement is binding on such party in accordance with its terms.

3.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 9 -
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2

7.13. Third Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with, or cause of action in favor of, a third party against either the CITY or CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT’s Services hereunder are being performed solely for the benefit of CITY. CITY shall be an express third-party beneficiary of all contracts between CONSULTANT and any subcontractors or subconsultants in connection with any services performed in connection with, or in furtherance of, this Agreement. * * *
[Signatures on following page]

3.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
- 10 -
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager

CONSULTANT
By: Date:

By: Date:

Approved As To Form
By: Date:___________________
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

3.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK

PROJECT OVERVIEW & OBJECTIVES
Conduct a Citywide classification study. The work will include project preparation and start up meetings, review and update the city's classification plan, and deliver a Final Report to the City, and present to City Council.

SERVICES PROVIDED
I. Review and Update the Classification Study Plan

1. Update the classification plan for approximately 77 budgeted classifications listed in Appendix A. Please note that some classifications may be currently vacant.

2. Review the background materials, including the existing classifications and compensation plan, organizational charts, budgets, salary resolutions and schedules, personnel rules, applicable memoranda of understanding, and other related information. Develop an understanding of current challenges in recruiting and retaining employees.

3. Conduct orientation and briefing session(s) with employees and labor unions, department heads, managers, and supervisors to inform them of the scope of the study and methodology. Such methodology may include the following tasks:
a) Develop a comprehensive questionnaire to be completed by affected employees.
b) Meet and consult with appropriate labor unions to develop such a questionnaire.
c) Audit all positions by use of the comprehensive questionnaire.

4. Conduct interviews as appropriate with employees in single position classifications, and/or representative sample of employees in multiple position classifications, and proper management personnel to validate the information. Allocate all employees included within the scope of the study to an appropriate job title, job classification, and exempt and non-exempt designation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

5. Update Citywide Job Class Specifications. Provide recommendations for modifications and complete any new classification specification to reflect current duties and requirements, including physical requirements and essential job functions. The classification specification shall include the following:
a) A definition of the job classification.
b) A complete description of the essential job functions. c) Minimum Qualification Requirements of education, experience, knowledge, skills, and abilities.

3.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
d) Supervision exercised and received with a definition of lead or supervisory roles.
e) Working environment and/or conditions.
f) Licenses, certifications, driving requirements, and physical requirements in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and g) Appropriate exempt and non-exempt designation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Consultant will ensure a unified philosophy and standardization across all classifications.

6. Present the final classification plan and list with clear recommendations for each position.

In addition, the classification plan shall include an introductory section that describes class concepts and provides information about distinctions of various levels within a class series and other pertinent information.

7. Provide appropriate implementation and a straightforward and easily understood maintenance system that the Human Resources division will use to keep the classification system current and equitable.

8. Conduct a comprehensive training program for designated staff to ensure that staff can explain and administer the new system in the future. The training program should be clearly defined in the proposal.

9. Present a draft report to the City and conduct two meetings with City staff to discuss findings and recommendations and make requested adjustments.

10. Deliver a Final Report to the City and present it to City management and City Council.

II. Make Necessary Adjustments to the Final Compensation Study

1. Use the results of the Classification Study to update and revise the salary surveys conducted in May 2023.

2. Establish appropriate benchmarking standards, evaluate the current list of comparable agencies, provide recommendations for any changes (additions and deletions) and consult with appropriate labor groups to establish the acceptable list representing the labor market and classifications most closely matched to the City of Pacifica.

3. Recommends a consistent and competitive market position that the City can strive to maintain

4. Conduct a comprehensive total compensation survey using comparable survey agencies, using not only job titles but duties and responsibilities based on the results of the classification study.

5. Complete an internal salary relationship analysis, including developing appropriate internal relationship guidelines.

6. Identify potential pay compression and internal alignment issues and provide solutions.

7. Assign a salary range to each classification, which reflects the market survey results and the internal alignment analysis.

3.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2

8. Present draft survey results, including compensation data collection, internal relationship analysis, and internal alignment to management and bargaining groups in a group meeting and solicit feedback.

9. Assist with estimating the fiscal impact and developing an implementation strategy for the new compensation plan.

III Part-Time Classification and Compensation Review

1. Review 20 classifications for part-time employee job classes listed in Appendix B and recommend necessary revisions.

2. Conduct a salary survey for all part-time employee job classifications listed in Appendix B

EXHIBIT B
Compensation
CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for the Services on a cost reimbursement basis, up to the Cost Ceiling (as defined in Section 2.1 of the Agreement). CONSULTANT agrees to use appropriate methods to contain its fees and costs under this Agreement. Compensation shall include only the following costs, which shall all count toward the Cost Ceiling:

1. Direct Labor

3.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
Direct labor costs shall be the total number of hours worked on the job by each employee times the agreed hourly rate for such employee's labor as set forth on the attached Exhibit B-1. CITY will pay all personnel at their regular straight-time rate, including any work performed on overtime or on holidays or weekends.

2. Subconsultant Costs
Subconsultant services shall be billed at cost plus a 10 percent markup. CONSULTANT shall provide a copy of each subconsultant's invoice for which it seeks payment from CITY with any invoice in which such payment is requested.

3. Other Direct Costs
The following categories of costs are eligible for reimbursement, which shall be made at the actual cost to CONSULTANT without any additional mark-up:
a. Reasonable living and traveling expenses of employees when away from home office on business in its prosecution of the Services. CONSULTANT must have prior approval of CITY to be reimbursed for these expenses.
b. Automobile expenses for personal vehicle use, if necessary, at the IRS approved mileage rate.
c. Reproduction of drawings and specifications by CONSULTANT as required under this Agreement, at rates prevailing in this community for bulk reproduction or at other reasonable rates approved by CITY.
d. Special overnight delivery or messenger services.

Payments to CONSULTANT for reimbursable costs/expenses will be made only after the specific costs/expenses have been incurred and CONSULTANT has submitted substantiating documentation, such as copies of paid invoices or other documentation confirming that such costs/expenses have been incurred.

3.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study) OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
OAK #4823-2508-6159 v2
EXHIBIT B-1
Note: The specific allocation of services and costs within this budget is subject to change with City input and approval during the term of the contract, in response to evolving developments, needs, and conditions in within the city (including, for example, changes related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic), as well as any relevant new insights or information that informs more optimal allocation of the different services below.

NOT TO EXCEED TOTAL $92,000.00
This not-to-exceed fee includes all labor related to the scope of work described in Exhibit A, travel, lodging, materials, printing for report deliverables (not for marketing collateral), overhead and profit, and any other agreed upon expenses associated with this engagement. Additional services could be provided as requested by the City at the following hourly rates:

Project Staff Hourly Rates
Geoffrey Rothman $275.00/hour
Scott Schneider $220.00/hour
Charley Ayers $150.00/hour

3.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment 1 - CONTRACT (5505 : Resolution - Authorizing Agreement Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong for Classification Study)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/23/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution Approving Additional Budget Authority of up to $20,000 to Continue Grant Writing Services on a Month-to-Month Basis with California Consulting, Inc.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to continue grant writing services with California Consulting, Inc. on a month-to-month basis for an additional purchasing authority of up to $20,000 to for completion of the RFP process for these services.

STAFF CONTACT:

Tara Schiff, Economic Development Manager
(650)501-6007
[email protected]
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 501-6004
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The California Consulting, Inc. was retained to assist in providing grant funding services to obtain funding for the City's most critical infrastructure and other needs. The City Manager initially executed a six-month Agreement with California Consulting Inc. to provide full grant funding services which includes unlimited grant research and matching, submission, and management compliance services. This initial contract of $30,000 was well within the City Manager's purchasing authority.

Upon the expiration of the initial six-month engagement in September 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 62-2022 authorizing a 12-month extension of services with California Consulting, Inc. for an additional amount not to exceed amount of $60,000.

The extension provided staff with extra time to evaluate the overall success of the grant program.

After careful consideration of services and deliverables provided under this agreement, and considering that the agreement has expired in September 2023, the City has decided to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to assess and evaluate the market for grant writing services.

The City has informed California Consulting about this decision and extended an invitation to the firm to submit a response to the RFP. Additionally, an agreement has been reached to maintain month-to-month services during this interim period to ensure the continuity of services while the RFP process is underway and until a new contract is executed.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
4 Packet Pg. 81
Pacifica City Council 2
October 23, 2023
The Council may choose not to approve the additional purchasing authority requested, which would affect the City’s ability to use California Consulting services related to grants in progress, per enclosed attachment.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The requested additional purchasing authority for these services of $20,000 represents a fourmonth period that should be sufficient to complete the RFP process that is already in progress and execute a new agreement for the grant-writing services with the new or existing firm. With the approval of this item, the total purchasing authority for California Consulting Services, Inc will be not to exceed $110,000.

There are sufficient funds in the FY 2023-24 General Fund Budget to cover continuing cost, but staff may bring a budget amendment during the mid-year budget review if deemed necessary upon completion of the RFP process.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

CA Consulting GrantReport Pacifica Oct2023 (PDF)
4 Packet Pg. 82
Pacifica City Council 3
October 23, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING ADDITIONAL PURCHASING AUTHORITY OF UP TO $20,000 FOR CA CONSULTING

SERVICES, INC TO CONTINUE GRANT WRITING SERVICES ON A MONTH-TO-MONTH BASIS
WHEREAS, the City has identified various critical infrastructure needs that are not fully funded in the adopted Capital Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the CA Consulting, Inc was retained by the City in March 2022 to pursue grant opportunities to fund diverse City needs, and full-service grant writing management services; and
WHEREAS, this contract has expired on September 26, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City would like to continue the services on a month-to-month basis to ensure continuity of services for grants in progress while the RFP process is underway.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, to approve the City Manager’s additional purchasing authority of up to $20,000 for continuation of grant writing services on a month-to-month basis with CA Consulting Services, Inc. to the total purchasing authority of $110,000 under this contract. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 23rd day of October, 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 4 Packet Pg. 83
City of Pacifica
October Report 2023
A. Grants Pending [Tracy]
Funding Source Submitted Purpose Amount
CalTrans 9/11/2022 HSIP RRFB (declined) $200,000
CalOES 3/13/2023 HMGP NOI NOI (approved)
Storm Drain Improvements
$4,500,000
BAAQMD Charge
Grant 3/13/2023
3/3/23 Provide funding for 18 Level 2
EV Charging Stations $250,000
Dept. of Energy 4/25/2023 EECBG - Energy Conservation $76,200 Awarded [Tracy]:

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
One Bay Area Grant - OBAG 3
Submitted: 3/13/2023
Purpose: Provide funding for 18 Level 2 EV Charging Stations Amount: $900,000
Award Date: May 2023
Department of Energy
SolarApp+
Submitted: 4/28/2023
Purpose: Pre-application
Amount: $40,000
Awarded: May 2023
B. Submitted [Terez]
CA Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency
Encampment Resolution Funding
Submitted: 6/5/23
Amount: $1,890,650.00

4.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: CA Consulting GrantReport Pacifica Oct2023 (5492 : California Consulting, Inc. Resolution - 2nd Amendment to Agreement) Estimated Award Date: September/October
Summary: $350 million competitive grant program available to assist local jurisdictions in ensuring the wellness and safety of people experiencing homelessness in encampments by providing services and supports that address their immediate physical and mental wellness and result in meaningful paths to safe and stable housing. Eligible applicants include counties, Continuums of Care (CoCs), and cities of any size.

Specific Project: To assist with housing individuals residing in encampment sites in multiple locations in Pacifica.

California Department of Parks and Recreation: Recreational Trails Program Submitted: 6/15/23
Amount: $1,550,000.00
Match: 12%
Summary: The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds annually for recreational trails and trails-related projects. The RTP is administered at the federal level by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). RTP is administered at the state level by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR).

Specific Project: To gather funds to develop a bike park at Frontierland Park, 900 Yosemite Ave., Pacifica, CA 94044.

Status: Received a site visit and submitting first round of RFI on 10/10.

US Department of Transportation
Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
Submitted: July 9th, 2023
Amount: $2,000,000
Estimated Award Date: October
Summary: Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program provides financial support for planning, infrastructure, behavioral, and operational initiatives to prevent death and serious injury on roads and streets involving all roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users and operators, personal conveyance, micro mobility users, motorists, and commercial vehicle operators.

Specific Project: To implement structural changes to improve pedestrian and driver safety that would result in reducing injuries, collisions on Crespi Dr. and surrounding areas.

California Transportation Commission Local Transportation Climate Adaptation Program Submitted: 7/31/23
Amount: $3,750,000, 20% match at $750,000
Estimated Award Date: October/November
Summary: The primary objective of this program is to provide competitive grants to local agencies for the development and implementation of capital projects adapting local transportation infrastructure to climate changes.

4.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: CA Consulting GrantReport Pacifica Oct2023 (5492 : California Consulting, Inc. Resolution - 2nd Amendment to Agreement) Specific Project: To rebuild the seawall that was weakening in order to prevent the ground from eroding during storms and climate-related events.

FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Sub Application
Submitted: August 4, 2023
Amount: $4,500,000
Estimated Award Date: November/December
Summary: The HMGP funding opportunities provide support for communities to implement mitigation activities to reduce risk to life and property from natural hazards. In California, natural hazards include wildfire, earthquake, drought, extreme weather, flooding, and other natural hazards as defined in the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. HMGP funding can also support the development of Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMP), and project scoping activities referred to as Advanced Assistance. For eligible socially vulnerable and high hazard risk communities, the PrepareCA Initiative provides additional support for capacity building and to cover the local cost share for eligible mitigation activities.

Specific Project: To build two new pipelines that will improve the storm drainage system and reduce the risk of flooding in the Lower Linda Mar area that is particularly vulnerable to floods. - New NOI for a phased project: Submitted 8/29
C. Grants in Progress
California Coastal Conservancy: Proposition 68
Deadline: Ongoing
Amount: $200,000 to $5 million
The purposes of Prop 68 include creating parks, enhancing river parkways, and protecting coastal forests and wetlands. Prop 68 also provides funding for outdoor access, lower cost coastal accommodations and climate adaptation. For most Prop 68 grants, the Conservancy will use a pre-proposal process. Pre-proposals will be accepted on an ongoing basis. Eligible projects include, but aren’t limited to:
• Developing plans and permits for projects that meet Prop 68 funding priorities • Implement projects that meet Prop 68 funding priorities • Acquire property that furthers Prop 68 funding priorities Public Works/Lisa/Roland
Environmental Protection Agency: Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CPRG) Deadline: Optional Notice of Intent to Apply due to [email protected] by February 1, 2024, applications due April 1, 2024 at 11:59 p.m
Amount: Between $2 million and $500 million
Recognizing the urgency to address GHG pollution contributing to climate change, the BidenHarris Administration and Congress established the $5 billion CPRG program as part of the 2022 IRA. With the challenge of climate change comes the opportunity to invest in a cleaner economy that will spur innovation and economic growth while building more equitable, resilient communities.

Elizabeth and their team's Climate Fellow/Climate Action Task Force

4.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: CA Consulting GrantReport Pacifica Oct2023 (5492 : California Consulting, Inc. Resolution - 2nd Amendment to Agreement) CalTrans: Sustainable Transportation Grant
Deadline: To be released October 27th, 2023, Due January 2024 Amount: Sustainable Communities Grants ($29.5 million) to encourage local and regional planning that supports state goals, implements Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) (where applicable), and to ultimately achieve the State’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target of 40 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 2050, respectively. Climate Adaptation Planning Grants ($50 million) support local and regional identification of transportation-related climate vulnerabilities through the development of climate adaptation plans.

Elizabeth and their team's Climate Fellow/Climate Action Task Force CA Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Encampment Resolution Funding-Round 3
Deadline: NOFA will be released December 1. Deadline is TBD.

The ERF opportunity is a competitive grant program available to assist local jurisdictions in ensuring the wellness and safety of people experiencing homelessness in encampments by providing services and supports that address their immediate physical and mental wellness and result in meaningful paths to safe and stable housing. Eligible applicants include counties, Continuums of Care (CoCs), and cities of any size.

Elizabeth and Anita from Pacifica Resource Center.

D. Grants Under Consideration
U.S. Department of Justice: BJA FY23 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Deadline: December
Amount: Varies depending on allocation amount
Match: Not required
Eligibility: Counties, cities, special districts and tribal governments. Law enforcement agencies, correctional agencies performing law enforcement functions, prosecutors’ offices, state/regional consortia supporting agencies
Purpose: JAG is responsible for distributing the critical funding necessary to support a range of program areas including:
● Law enforcement; prosecution and court;
● Prevention and education;
● Corrections and community corrections;
● Drug treatment and enforcement;
● Planning, evaluation, and technology improvement; and ● Crime victim and witness initiatives.

It also provides funding support for mental health programs and related law enforcement and corrections programs such as behavioral programs and crisis intervention teams

4.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: CA Consulting GrantReport Pacifica Oct2023 (5492 : California Consulting, Inc. Resolution - 2nd Amendment to Agreement) CA Division of Boating & Waterways: Boating Infrastructure Grant Deadline: August 2024
Amount: Tier 1 up to $300k, Tier 2, up to $1.5 million
Purpose: Local public and private agencies may apply for grants to provide transient (guest) dockage for recreational vessels 26 feet or more in length.

CA Department of Housing and Community Development
Emergency Solutions Grant Program
Deadline: First come, first serve
Amount: $75,000-$200,000
Match: Yes
These ESG funds are used to:

1. Engage homeless individuals and families living on the street;

2. Rapidly re-house homeless individuals and families;

3. Help operate and provide essential services in emergency shelters for homeless individuals and families; and

4. Prevent individuals and families from becoming homeless.

4.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: CA Consulting GrantReport Pacifica Oct2023 (5492 : California Consulting, Inc. Resolution - 2nd Amendment to Agreement)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/23/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Amended Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Vac-Con, Inc. increasing the contract amount by $42,538.48 for the Purchase of a Vac-Con G2 VT310LHAE/1300 truck for the Wastewater Division
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the Resolution for the following:
• Approving the Amended Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and VacCon, Inc. increasing the contract amount by $42,538.48 for the Purchase of a Vac-Con G2 VT310LHAE/1300 Truck for the Wastewater Division.
• Transfer $42,538.48 from Wastewater Fund 18 to the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72. • Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the purchase.

STAFF CONTACT:

Eddie Pastrano, Collection Systems Manager
(650) 822-4547
[email protected]
Rey Mendez, Assistant Superintendent (Collections System) (650) 522-0346
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On November 22, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 82-2022 approving a budget of $1,979,660 for Vehicle Replacement Fund 72 FY 2022-23. Then on January 9, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 07-2023 approving Vehicle Replacement Phase I for Fiscal Year 2022-23 totaling $1,488,997.93 which included the purchase of the Vac-Con G2 VT310LHAE/1300 Truck (Vac-Con) in the amount of $618,859.61 for the Wastewater Division.

The Wastewater Division requires two Vac-Con vehicles for cleaning the city’s sewers and removing blockages. This is the primary way the city prevents sanitary sewer overflows. As noted in the previous Council reports, one of Wastewater’s Vac-Con trucks is an old unit that was experiencing maintenance problems and slated for replacement based on the city’s consultant developed vehicle replacement list.

Staff uses Sourcewell California State Contract as a procurement method for certain items, such as vehicles, which are negotiated down below regular retail prices. The purchase of the VacCon was through this process. The Sourcewell purchase price did not include other vehicle addons that are needed specifically for work in Pacifica. These included an extra-long hose reel, excavation system for utility location and upgraded vehicle traffic lights. Staff negotiated with 5 Packet Pg. 89
Pacifica City Council 2
October 23, 2023
Vac-Con, Inc. for these additional items for the vehicle that come to a total cost of $42,538.48.

Based on these additional items, the vehicle cost will increase from the original Council approved cost of $618,859.61 to $661,398.09 with the add-ons.

The City Manager recommends approval of the amended Purchase Agreement with Vac-Con, Inc. increasing the amount by $42,538.48 and transferring $42,538.48 from Wastewater Fund 18 to Vehicle Replacement Fund 72.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may choose not to approve the Amended Purchase Agreement with Vac-con, Inc. which would cause this critical vehicle to be unavailable for critical staff work duties. The City Manager does not recommend this alternate action.

RELATION TO CITY GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Amended Purchase Agreement is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets, and facilities: The Purchase of the Vac-Con truck will ensure safe working conditions for City employees while providing public safety and maintaining critical public infrastructure.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The estimated source and use of funds table is shown below:

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Previous Council Approval from Fund 72 - Motor Pool
Replacement Fund
$ 618,859.61
Account 18.940000.59972.0000.000 18 Fund Balance to
Fund 72 (Increase for add-ons)
$ 42,538.48
Total Source of Funds $ 661,398.09
Amended Purchase Agreement $ 661,398.09
Total Use of Funds $ 661,398.09
Estimated Project End Balance $ 0
5 Packet Pg. 90
Pacifica City Council 3
October 23, 2023
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Purchase Agreement 122094_Vac-ConRev10-23-23 (PDF)
5 Packet Pg. 91
Pacifica City Council 4
October 23, 2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

APPROVING THE AMENDED PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND VAC-CON, INC. INCREASING THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $42,538.48 FOR THE PURCHASE OF A VAC-CON G2 VT310LHAE/1300 TRUCK FOR THE

WASTEWATER DIVISION
WHEREAS, the City Council during their regular meeting on November 28, 2022, adopted Resolution No. 82-2022 which approved a budget of $1,979,660 and to purchase vehicles that are considered critical for replacement for Fiscal Year 2022-23; and WHEREAS, the City Council during their regular meeting on January 9, 2023, adopted Resolution No. 07-2023 approving Vehicle Replacement Phase I for Fiscal Year 2022-23 totaling $1,488,997.93 which included the purchase of the Vac-Con G2 VT310LHAE/1300 Truck (Vac-Con) in the amount of $618,859.61 for the Wastewater Division due to age and maintenance issues; and
WHEREAS, the City used the Sourcewell CA State Contract as the procurement method for the Vac-Con that allows for negotiated prices that are lower than retail prices; and WHEREAS, staff required vehicle add-ons for utility location, extra long hose reel and upgraded traffic lights that cost an additional $42,538.48 more than the original approved budget of $618,859.61 putting the total cost at $661398.09; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to:

Approve the Amended Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Vac-Con, Inc. increasing the contract amount by $42,538.48 for the purchase of one Vac-Con G2 VT310LHAE/1300 Truck for the Wastewater Division; transfer of $42,538.48 from Wastewater Fund 18 to the Vehicle Replacement Fund 72; and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the purchase.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 23rd day of October 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 5 Packet Pg. 92

Page 1 ends

PURCHASE AGREEMENT
CITY OF PACIFICA – WASTEWATER DIVISION
PURCHASE ORDER NO. 122094
Seller (Vendor): Buyer:

Name Vac-Con, Inc. Name: City of Pacifica
Address 969 Hall Park Drive Address: 540 Crespi Drive
City, State Zip: Green Cove Springs, FL 32043 City, State, ZIP: Pacifica, CA 94044 Attn: M.J. Dubois Attn: Maria Aguilar
Phone: (410) 924-1004 Fax: Phone: (650) 738-4660 Cell: (415) 336-4750 E-mail: [email protected] Fed. Tax I.D.: E-mail: [email protected] Project Information (If Applicable): Ship To:

Charge to Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant
Vehicle Replacement – Fund 72 700 Pacific Coast Highway Pacifica, CA 94044
Order Date Ship Via Payment Terms
January 2023 - Net 30 days of invoice Upon Receipt of
Equipment Delivery
Buyer and Seller agree as follows:

MATERIAL AND/OR EQUIPMENT TO BE PROVIDED: Vendor shall furnish the materials or equipment described below in strict compliance with the Quotation from Municipal Maintenance Equipment dated 03-22-2023 (Attachment 1) at the price or prices set forth opposite each item and within the times stated below in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Purchase Agreement, including the attached Terms and Conditions, which are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement:

Item
No.

Item Description Budget
Acct No.

Quantity Unit Price Extension Delivery
Date
1 Vac-Con G2 VT310LHAE/1300
with Titan Package mounted on a
new Freightliner 114SD 6x4
truck chassis.

Vehicle Replacement
Fund 72
1 $601,837.53 $601,837.53
2 Tire Fee Vehicle Replacement
Fund 72
10 $1.75 $17.50
TOTAL $ 601,955.03
Sales Tax (9.875%): $ 59,443.06
Shipping: $ Included
P.O. Total: $ 661,398.09

5.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Purchase Agreement 122094_Vac-ConRev10-23-23 (5500 : Resolution to Approve Amended Purchase Agreement between the City

PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: Vac-Con, Inc. – Purchase Order No. 122094

Page 2 ends

Special Terms and Conditions
Shipping: Show Purchase Order number on all packages and invoices.

All purchases are F.O.B Pacifica unless otherwise specified on Purchase Order.

Charges: All transportation charges must be prepaid and shown separately on all invoices.

City of Pacifica is exempt from Federal Excise Tax.
 Purchase up to $10,000 (must be approved
by Department Head or authorized signator)
Approved: _______________________
Name: LISA PETERSEN
Title: Director of Public Works
 Purchase between $10,000.01 and $25,000
(must be approved by the Assistant City Manager)
Approved: _______________________
Name: YULIA CARTER
Title: Assistant City Manager
 Purchase between $25,000.01 and $50,000
(must be approved by the City Manager)
Approved: _______________________
Name: KEVIN WOODHOUSE
City Manager
 Purchase above $50,000
(must be approved by the City Council)
Date City Council Approved: October 23, 2023
Buyer: CITY OF PACIFICA
Authorized Signature: _______________________
Name: KEVIN WOODHOUSE
Title: City Manager
If Seller is located in the City of Pacifica, does Seller have a current business license? Yes  No 

5.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Purchase Agreement 122094_Vac-ConRev10-23-23 (5500 : Resolution to Approve Amended Purchase Agreement between the City

PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: Vac-Con, Inc. – Purchase Order No. 122094

Page 3 ends

PURCHASE ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
DEFINITIONS: The term "Buyer" as used in this Purchase Order means the City of Pacifica, and the term "Seller" means the person, firm, or corporation from whom the material or equipment described in the purchase order is ordered.

ACCEPTANCE: The attached Acceptance Copy shall be signed and returned by the Seller within ten (10) calendar days after it is received by the Seller. The receipt by the Buyer of the signed Acceptance Copy or the initiation of performance under this Purchase Order by the Seller shall constitute acceptance of the Purchase Order by the Seller, including all of the terms and conditions herein. Acceptance is limited to the terms stated herein. Any additional or different terms and conditions proposed by the Seller are rejected unless expressly agreed to in writing by City Purchasing Agent or authorized agent.

COMPLETE AGREEMENT: This Purchase Order, including all applicable terms, conditions and specifications, shall constitute the sole and exclusive agreement between the parties. This Purchase Order supersedes all other writings and negotiations, written or oral. The City of Pacifica will not be responsible for goods delivered without a Purchase Order properly signed by the City Purchasing Agent or authorized agent. When this Purchase Order covers a purchase rendered over a stated period of time, Seller must obtain a new order upon expiration of the time period to authorize the purchase for an additional period of time.

DEFAULT: The Buyer may terminate the whole or any part of the purchase in any one of the following circumstances: (1) If the Seller fails to make delivery or fails to perform within the time specified herein or any extension thereof; or (2) If Seller delivers nonconforming goods; or (3) If Seller fails to perform in accordance with the material provisions of this agreement, or so fails to make progress as to endanger performance of this Purchase Order in accordance with its terms. In the event of any such failure Buyer will provide Seller with written notice of the default and Buyer's intention to terminate for default if Seller fails to cure the default to Buyer's satisfaction within seven (7) calendar days of Buyer' notice. If Seller fails to cure or correct the default within seven days, the Buyer may, without further notice to Seller, procure upon such terms and in such manner as the Buyer may deem appropriate, items similar to those terminated, and the Seller shall be liable to the Buyer for any excess costs of such similar items; however, the Seller shall continue the performance of this Purchase Order to the extent not terminated.

The rights and remedies of the Buyer provided in this clause shall not be exclusive, and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Purchase Order.

CHANGES: Buyer may direct in writing changes, including additions to or deletions from the quantities originally ordered, or in the specifications or drawings. If any such change causes a material increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for, performance hereunder, an equitable adjustment shall be made in the price or schedule. Any claims for adjustment which Seller believes result from any change directed by Buyer shall be asserted in writing by Seller no later than ten (10) days from the date of Seller's receipt of any such direction. Equitable adjustments for any claims or changes under this agreement, including claims arising from

5.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Purchase Agreement 122094_Vac-ConRev10-23-23 (5500 : Resolution to Approve Amended Purchase Agreement between the City

PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: Vac-Con, Inc. – Purchase Order No. 122094

Page 4 ends

terminations or suspensions directed under DEFAULT above, of this agreement, will be made by written Change Order. Nothing contained herein shall excuse Seller from proceeding with the change as directed prior to negotiation of any adjustment. Whether made pursuant to this clause or by mutual agreement, changes shall not be binding upon the Buyer, except when confirmed in writing by a member of the Buyer’s Purchasing Department.

INVOICES: Seller shall send Buyer a separate invoice for each shipment. Invoices shall not be issued prior to delivery of items. Payment shall not be made prior to receipt of items and an invoice. Credit and discount periods will be computed from the date of receipt of the invoice to the date the Buyer’s check is mailed. Unless freight and other charges are itemized, the discount will be taken on the full amount of the invoice. Payment will be made within thirty (30) days after approval of the invoice by the Buyer.

TITLE AND RISK OF LOSS: All prices shall be F.O.B. Factory. The Seller shall be responsible for safe and adequate packing of the items, which shall conform to the carriers’ requirements. The Seller shall separately number all cases and packages, showing the corresponding numbers on the invoices. An itemized packing slip bearing this Purchase Order number shall be placed in each container. No extra charge shall be made for packaging or packing materials unless authority therefor is set forth in this Purchase Order. Seller shall assume and pay for any and all loss or damage to the merchandise from any cause whatsoever until delivered to Buyer at the specified destination.

DELIVERY: Timely performance and deliveries are essential to this Purchase Order. The Buyer reserves the right to refuse deliveries made in advance of the delivery schedule.

Overshipment allowances, if authorized, will be applied to the entire order. If the Buyer agrees to accept deliveries after the date of delivery has passed, the Buyer shall have the right to direct the Seller to make shipment to the delivery point set forth in this Purchase Order by the most expeditious means, and the total cost of such expedited shipment and handling shall be borne by the Seller. Acceptance of late deliveries shall not be deemed a waiver of the Buyer’s right to hold the Seller liable for any loss or damage resulting therefrom, nor shall it act as a modification of the Seller’s obligation to make future deliveries in accordance with the delivery schedule.

DELAYS: Seller will not be liable for delays in performing its obligations to the extent the delay is caused by an unforeseeable condition which is beyond Seller’s reasonable control and without Seller's fault or negligence. Acts of God, such as storms or floods, as well as government priorities, acts of civil or military authorities, fires, strikes, epidemics, war or riot are examples of events which will be excusable for being beyond Seller's reasonable control, only upon fulfillment of the following conditions: (a) within seven (7) days of the commencement of any excusable delay, Seller shall provide Buyer with written notice of the cause and extent thereof as well as a request for a schedule extension for the estimated duration thereof, and (b) within seven (7) days of the cessation of the event causing delay Seller shall provide Buyer with written notice of the actual delay incurred, upon receipt of which, the date of promised delivery shall be extended for the time actually lost by reason of an excusable delay.

INSPECTION AND APPROVAL: All items are subject to final inspection and approval after delivery to Buyer. If any items are defective in material or workmanship or otherwise not in

5.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Purchase Agreement 122094_Vac-ConRev10-23-23 (5500 : Resolution to Approve Amended Purchase Agreement between the City

PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: Vac-Con, Inc. – Purchase Order No. 122094

Page 5 ends

conformity with the requirements of this Purchase Order, the Buyer shall have the right to require Seller to correct or replace them. Final acceptance or rejection shall be made by the Buyer as promptly as practicable after delivery. Final acceptance shall be conclusive except with respect to latent defects, fraud or such gross mistakes as amount to fraud, or with respect to the Buyer’s rights under the “Warranty” clause.

WARRANTIES-GUARANTEES: The Seller warrants that the items, at time of delivery, shall conform to the Buyer’s specifications, the requirements of this Purchase Order, approved sample or samples, if any, and are free from defects in design, material and workmanship. Warranty will be as described in the attached Vendor’s Quotation. At the Buyer’s option, the Seller shall promptly either repair or replace defective items after receipt of the Buyer’s written notice of a defect. Transportation charges for the return and redelivery of defective items shall be borne by the Seller. Seller also warrants that said merchandise is free and clear of all liens and encumbrances whatsoever and the Seller has good and marketable title to same, and Seller agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Pacifica, its officers, agents and employees free and harmless against any and all claimants to said merchandise.

SAFETY: All equipment and materials shall comply with all Federal, State and local safety rules and regulations including OSHA. Where applicable, materials must be labeled in accordance with Section 5194, Title 8, of the California Administrative Code. The Seller is required to include a Material Safety Data Sheet prepared in accordance with Section 5194(9) with each shipment of all such materials to the City.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER: It is the policy of the City of Pacifica that in connection with all materials furnished or work performed under this Purchase Order, there be no discrimination against employees because of race, religion, color, sex or national origin, and therefore the Seller agrees to comply with applicable Federal and California laws including, but not limited to, the California Fair Employment Practices Act.

TAXES: Unless prohibited by law, Seller shall pay and has included in the prices of this Purchase Order any federal, state or local tax, transportation tax, or other tax which is required to be imposed upon the items ordered hereunder, or by reason of their sale or delivery.

TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Purchase Order in whole or in part at any time, and from time to time, by written notice effective upon receipt by Seller of such notice, even though Seller is not in breach of any obligation hereunder.

Upon receipt of notice of termination, Seller shall immediately discontinue performance and shall comply with Buyer’s instructions concerning disposition of completed and partially completed items, work in progress and materials acquired pursuant to this Purchase Order. In the event of such termination, Seller shall be paid an amount in settlement to be mutually agreed upon by the parties which shall cover Seller’s reasonable costs of performance incurred prior to termination in connection with the items for which this Purchase Order is terminated plus a reasonable profit based upon such costs. However, said payment shall not exceed the price specified herein for such items. Seller shall advise the Buyer, in writing, of Seller’s claim, if any, for termination costs within ten (10) days after receipt of the notice of termination.

5.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Purchase Agreement 122094_Vac-ConRev10-23-23 (5500 : Resolution to Approve Amended Purchase Agreement between the City

PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: Vac-Con, Inc. – Purchase Order No. 122094

Page 6 ends

Termination in accordance with this article shall not affect Buyer’s obligation to pay for items accepted by Buyer prior to such termination.

GOVERNING LAW; VENUE; DEFINITIONS: The definition of terms used, interpretation of this Purchase Order and rights of all parties hereunder shall be construed under and governed by the laws of the State of California. Any litigation with respect to this Purchase Order shall be brought and conducted in San Mateo County, California.

5.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Purchase Agreement 122094_Vac-ConRev10-23-23 (5500 : Resolution to Approve Amended Purchase Agreement between the City ATTACHMENT 1

5.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Purchase Agreement 122094_Vac-ConRev10-23-23 (5500 : Resolution to Approve Amended Purchase Agreement between the City

5.a
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Purchase Agreement 122094_Vac-ConRev10-23-23 (5500 : Resolution to Approve Amended Purchase Agreement between the City

5.a
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Purchase Agreement 122094_Vac-ConRev10-23-23 (5500 : Resolution to Approve Amended Purchase Agreement between the City

5.a
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Purchase Agreement 122094_Vac-ConRev10-23-23 (5500 : Resolution to Approve Amended Purchase Agreement between the City

5.a
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Purchase Agreement 122094_Vac-ConRev10-23-23 (5500 : Resolution to Approve Amended Purchase Agreement between the City

5.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Purchase Agreement 122094_Vac-ConRev10-23-23 (5500 : Resolution to Approve Amended

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/23/2023
1 SUBJECT:

On-Call Certified Arborist Services - Amendment 1 to Task Order 2 between City of Pacifica and NCE
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution approving Amendment 1 to Task Order 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services in the amount of $50,000 bringing the total Task Order to $95,000; and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the OnCall Certified Arborist Services.

STAFF CONTACT:

Raymund Donguines, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3768
[email protected]
Roland Yip, P.E., DPW Deputy Director/City Engineer
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On August 22, 2022, City Council approved an ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 12 (Preservation of Heritage Trees) and Chapter 14 (Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees) within Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code. The new tree preservation ordinance included changes to meet both the Pacifica community’s needs, as well as Industry Best Management Practices for tree preservation. The new municipal code went into effect October 12, 2022.

In order to effectively administer the new tree preservation ordinance, the City required the services of an On-Call Certified Arborist. This was required on an interim basis until staff could issue a Request for Proposals for a long-term city arborist contract. The City required a professional with experience reviewing and interpreting arborist reports, construction processes adjacent to existing trees, familiarity with the interpretation and implementation of tree preservation ordinances and can provide professional opinions for the protection of trees.

Staff has been working with NCE under an on-call Arborist Master Service Agreement and Task Order No. 2 (Attachment 2). The total compensation of $45,000 under the Task Order No. 2 is about to be exceeded, and an additional $50,000 of fees is needed until a new arborist consultant contract is in place. Due to the cumulative agreement amount now exceeding the $50,000 limit in the current NCE Master Services Agreement with the City, Council approval of this amendment is required.
6 Packet Pg. 105
Pacifica City Council 2
October 23, 2023
NCE has over 30 years of experience working within the public realm, providing technical expertise, detailed design process, and multi-disciplinary approach and understands the City’s tree preservation municipal code. NCE understands that tree protection will be required for all private and public trees as defined by the municipal code. Typical project types include residential/commercial/public construction, utility undergrounding and tree pruning to maintain views and eliminate hazards.

Staff recently advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a long-term contract with an OnCall Certified Arborist Service on August 23rd, 2023. Three firms submitted proposals by the due date on September 28, 2023. Staff anticipates making a recommendation for a selection of the long-term city arborist consultant from one of these firms at the next City Council meeting on November 13, 2023.

The City Manager recommends adopting the resolution and approving Amendment 1 to Task Order 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE (Attachment "1"), for On-Call Certified Arborist Services.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Alternative Action would be to not adopt the resolution which would delay reviews of Tree, Building and Encroachment Permits. Staff does not support this alternative action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
• Pursue climate change adaptation and mitigation: Includes continuing the urban forestry plan, tree canopy goals, inventory, and projects. Adopting the resolution will protect trees throughout Pacifica.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Project Use of Funds
NCE On-Call Certified Arborist Services, TO #2 $45,000.00 NCE On-Call Certified Arborist Services, Amendment 1 $50,000.00 Total Project Use of Funds $95,000.00
Project Source of Funds
Public Works Tree Fund $45,000.00
Unallocated General Fund $50,000.00
Total Project Source of Funds $95,000.00
Tree services will be reimbursed by Tree Permit applicants.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
6 Packet Pg. 106
Pacifica City Council 3
October 23, 2023
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Amendment 1 to Task Order 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services (PDF)
Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services (PDF)
6 Packet Pg. 107
Pacifica City Council 4
October 23, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING AMENDMENT 1 TO TASK ORDER 2 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND NCE FOR ON-CALL CERTIFIED ARBORIST SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 BRINGING THE TOTAL TASK ORDER TO $95,000; AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE ON-CALL CERTIFIED ARBORIST SERVICES WHEREAS, the City adopted the updated Tree Ordinance on October 12, 2022; and WHEREAS, a Certified Arborist is required to assist in implementing the Tree Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, NCE is qualified and on the City’s On-Call List for the Landscaping and design services; and
WHEREAS, the City evaluated NCE’s proposal, and is satisfied they can successfully complete the work and has been satisfied with their services on past City projects.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to Approve Amendment 1 to Task Order 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE, in an amount not to exceed $50,000; and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the OnCall Certified Arborist Services. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 23rd day of October, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT No. 1
This AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 is entered into as of the 23rd day of October 2023, by and between the CITY OF PACIFICA, herein called the “City,” and NCE, herein called the “Consultant.”

RECITALS
A. City desired to obtain On-Call Certified Arborist Services to effectively administer the new tree preservation ordinance and for that purpose entered into an agreement with Consultant dated July 26th, 2023 (“Original Agreement”), by which City hired Consultant to perform tree review services.

B. Consultant hereby warrants to the City that Consultant is skilled and able to provide such services described in this Amendment No.1.

C. City desires to authorize Consultant to modify the services described in this Amendment No. 1 of the subject project per the attached scope.

AGREEMENT
A. Amendment. The Parties agree that Task Order No. 2 shall be amended as set forth below.

1. Section 2 “Scope of Services”. All scope of services remain unchanged with the addition of work in attached hereto as Exhibit A shall be incorporated by reference (“Modified Work”).

2. Section 3 “Compensation and Payment”.

A. Compensation. The compensation to be paid to Consultant, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall be at the rate and schedules set forth in this Amendment No.1. The total combined compensation for the Original Agreement and this Amendment No.1 shall be changed to Ninety-Five Thousand dollars ($95,000.000).

3. Agreement in Effect. All other provisions of the Original Agreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Amendment No.1 as of the date first written above.

6.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Amendment 1 to Task Order 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services (5497 : On-Call Certified Consultant Services Agreement
NCE
Amendment No.1 Page 2
OAK #4817-6120-9406 v3

CITY OF PACIFICA CONSULTANT
NCE
By: By:

Kevin Woodhouse J. Ryan Shafer
City Manager Principal
ATTEST:

By: __________________
Sarah Coffey
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Michelle M. Kenyon
City Attorney

6.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Amendment 1 to Task Order 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services (5497 : On-Call Certified Consultant Services Agreement
NCE
Amendment No.1 Page 3
OAK #4817-6120-9406 v3

EXHIBIT A
SCOPE & COMPENSATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1

6.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Amendment 1 to Task Order 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services (5497 : On-Call Certified Oakland, CA
5253 College Ave, Suite B
Oakland, CA 94618
(510) 250-9189
October 11, 2023
Raymund Donguines, Senior Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
City of Pacifica
151 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Proposal – Tree Preservation Ordinance Implementation Assistance Dear Mr. Donguines:

Thank you for the opportunity to continue providing the following Scope of Work to assist the City of Pacifica with the interpretation and enforcement of the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 12 of the Municipal Code that was adopted in October 2022.

Based on phone conversations with City staff and review of the Chapter 12, NCE understands that City staff is seeking a professional with experience reviewing and interpretating arborist reports, construction processes adjacent to existing trees, familiarity with the interpretation and implementation of tree preservation ordinances and is able to provide professional opinions for the protection of trees. NCE also understands that tree preservation applications will be done on-line, review will occur during the permitting process and the City has two weeks for the initial response and one week for any resubmittal response. Lastly NCE understands that tree protection will be required for all private and public trees 12” dbh or larger, typical project types include residential/commercial/public construction, utility undergrounding and tree pruning to maintain views and eliminate hazards.

Specific tasks that will be required include1) Review and interpretation of Chapter 12- Tree Preservation Ordinance 2) Site visits as necessary to review existing conditions at project sites 3) Preparation of written reports summarizing the findings of NCE’s review of the applications 4) Assistance with the determination of construction bonds and valuation of trees 5) Review of arborist reports, applications for tree removals, tree pruning/encroachment permits, tree protection and preservation plans
6) Assist with the creation of a standard checklist for applications NCE also understands that the City has allocated $95,000 The terms of this task order will be under NCE’s existing Master Agreement for Civil Engineering. As a principal with NCE, Matthew Gaber is authorized to sign contracts on behalf of NCE and will be the point of contact for this proposal. He can be reached via phone at (510) 250-9189 or via email at [email protected] or via mail at NCE 5253 College Avenue, Oakland CA 94618. This proposal is valid for 120 calendar days from the date of its submittal. NCE looks forward to your favorable review of our proposal and the opportunity to continue our work with the City.

Sincerely,
Matthew S. Gaber RLA

6.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Amendment 1 to Task Order 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services (5497 : On-Call Certified ATTACHMENT 2

6.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

6.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

6.b
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

6.b
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

6.b
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

6.b
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

6.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

6.b
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

6.b
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

6.b
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

6.b
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

6.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

6.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

6.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

6.b
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 2 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Certified Arborist Services

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/23/2023
1 SUBJECT:

A Resolution Supporting the Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project and Authorizing Submittal of an Application for State Transportation Improvement Program Funding RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a resolution Authorizing the filing of an application for funding assigned to MTC and committing any necessary matching funds and stating assurance to complete the project, and authorize the City Manager to execute any document/s required for the grant application.

STAFF CONTACT:

Roland Yip, Deputy Director of Public Works, City Engineer [email protected]
(650) 738-3771
Bryan Bautista, Assistant Civil Engineer
[email protected]
(650) 738-2769
Lisa Petersen, Director of Public Works
[email protected]
(650) 737-3767
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a 5-year capital improvement program of State Transportation Funds and programs certain portions of the gas tax for transportation projects. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in cooperation with County Transportation Agencies (CTA’s) and Caltrans, is preparing the 2024 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) to be submitted for the STIP.

On September 25, 2023, City Council approved a resolution and submittal for Measure A and Measure W Highway Program funds so the City could pursue grant funding for the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase of the Manor Overcrossing Improvement Project.

The City may find out if we are awarded the Measure A and Measure W Highway Program funds by the end of the year. In addition to the PS&E, the City also needs to secure grant funds for the construction work.

On July 20, 2023, the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) requested for projects in San Mateo County that were eligible for the STIP. The STIP is an opportunity that can provide construction funds for the project since this funding is to be programmed in FY 2027-28. In an effort to secure grant funds for the construction work, staff submitted the Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project for the construction phase in the amount of $5,000,000. The project became eligible for STIP funding after Caltrans approved the Project Study ReportProject Development Support (PSR-PDS) on July 25th, 2023. There is no local match required 7 Packet Pg. 128
Pacifica City Council 2
October 23, 2023
for the STIP funding, however there is a requirement for the construction phase to be fully funded. Staff will continue to pursue funding for the total construction phase cost estimated at approximately $20 million. The C/CAG requires a governing board resolution supporting the application to be provided.

The Highway 1 / Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project (“Project”) will alleviate peak hour traffic congestion and improve vehicular as well as bicycle and pedestrian safety at the Manor Overcrossing between Oceana Boulevard and Palmetto Avenue. The Project will widen the overcrossing structure, flare the curb returns and install traffic signals at the bordering intersections. The wider pavement will allow for increased lane widths to benefit larger vehicles, while the flared curb returns will ensure the safe right-turn movements of SamTrans buses and large trailer trucks, which currently end up encroaching onto the opposing lane. The installation of new traffic signals will replace the all-way stop control at the bordering intersections to better facilitate traffic flow. The new traffic signals will also compliment the other pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements like updated ADA ramps, bike lanes, and better-defined crosswalks. This project will also study a freeway on-ramp for northbound Highway 1 at Milagra Drive and Oceana Boulevard, utilizing an existing bus pull-out ramp that is no longer in use, to help reduce traffic volume at the overcrossing.

The Manor Drive Overcrossing and the study of an on-ramp for northbound Highway 1 at Milagra Drive affects Highway 1, a Caltrans facility, will be comprised of several phases, which are the Preliminary Planning Study (PPS), Project Initiation Document (PID), Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED) and Right-of-Way Acquisition (if needed) phase; PS&E phase, and Construction phase.

The PPS was the first phase in advancing this project and was completed in June 2019. The PID was the first formal phase in the project and was completed in July 2023. AECOM is currently working on the PA&ED phase that will build upon the PPS, analyze the project in depth, and prepare the environmental documents for the Project. The next phase for the Project would be the PS&E that will advance the Project into the detailed design, followed by the construction phase.

In Spring 2022, the City Council held another goal setting meeting to discuss its shared vision for the City and develop a set of goals, projects, and initiatives to be implemented in the following fiscal year. This is to better align the City’s financial resources, through the annual budget development process, with its plan of action for a particular period of time. On March 4, 2023 Council updated the adopted FY2023-24 City Council Priorities, which identified the Manor Overcrossing Improvement Project as a non-discretionary city priority that has been an ongoing/multi-year project that supports the City of Pacifica Strategic Plan 2023 to 2030 Goal 2 to improve and steward City infrastructure, streets and facilities.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to adopt the resolution. However, not doing so will make the City ineligible to receive State Transportation Improvement Program funds.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
• Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets and facilities: Adopting the resolution will make the funds available to progress the Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project.
7 Packet Pg. 129
Pacifica City Council 3
October 23, 2023
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact since no local match is required by the STIP funding.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:
7 Packet Pg. 130
Pacifica City Council 4
October 23, 2023
Resolution of Local Support
Resolution No. _____
Authorizing the filing of an application for funding assigned to MTC and committing any necessary matching funds and stating assurance to complete the project WHEREAS, The City of Pacifica (herein referred to as APPLICANT) is submitting an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for $5,000,000 in funding assigned to MTC for programming discretion, which includes federal funding administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and federal or state funding administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) such as Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) funding, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding, Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) funding, Transportation Alternatives (TA) set-aside/Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding, and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funding (herein collectively referred to as REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING) for the Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project (herein referred to as PROJECT) for the 2024 State Transportation Improvement Program. (herein referred to as PROGRAM); and WHEREAS, the United States Congress from time to time enacts and amends legislation to provide funding for various transportation needs and programs, (collectively, the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT) including, but not limited to the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) (23 U.S.C. § 133), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) (23 U.S.C. § 149), the Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) (23 U.S.C. § 175), and the Transportation Alternatives (TA) set-aside (23 U.S.C. § 133); and WHEREAS, state statutes, including California Streets and Highways Code §182.6, §182.7, and §2381(a)(1), and California Government Code §14527, provide various funding programs for the programming discretion of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, and any regulations promulgated thereunder, eligible project sponsors wishing to receive federal or state funds for a regionally-significant project shall submit an application first with the appropriate MPO, or RTPA, as applicable, for review and inclusion in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and
WHEREAS, MTC is the MPO and RTPA for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay region; and
WHEREAS, MTC has adopted a Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) that sets out procedures governing the application and use of REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and
WHEREAS, APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and
WHEREAS, as part of the application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING, MTC requires a resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following:
• the commitment of any required matching funds; and
• that the sponsor understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING is fixed at the programmed amount, and therefore any cost increase cannot be expected to 7 Packet Pg. 131
Pacifica City Council 5
October 23, 2023
be funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and • that the PROJECT will comply with the procedures, delivery milestones and funding deadlines specified in the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised); and
• the assurance of the sponsor to complete the PROJECT as described in the application, subject to environmental clearance, and if approved, as included in MTC's federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and • that the PROJECT will have adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the schedule submitted with the project application; and • that the PROJECT will comply with all project-specific requirements as set forth in the PROGRAM; and
• that APPLICANT has assigned, and will maintain a single point of contact for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation projects to coordinate within the agency and with the respective County Transportation Agency (CTA), MTC, Caltrans, FHWA, and CTC on all communications, inquires or issues that may arise during the federal programming and delivery process for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation and transit projects implemented by APPLICANT; and
• in the case of a transit project, the PROJECT will comply with MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised, which sets forth the requirements of MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan to more efficiently deliver transit projects in the region; and • in the case of a highway project, the PROJECT will comply with MTC Resolution No. 4104, which sets forth MTC’s Traffic Operations System (TOS) Policy to install and activate TOS elements on new major freeway projects; and • in the case of an RTIP project, state law requires PROJECT be included in a local congestion management plan, or be consistent with the capital improvement program adopted pursuant to MTC’s funding agreement with the County Transportation Agency (CTA); and
WHEREAS, that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and
WHEREAS, there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, or designee to execute and file an application with MTC for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, MTC requires that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the APPLICANT is authorized to execute and file an application for funding for the PROJECT for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING under the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT or continued funding; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT will provide any required matching funds; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the project is fixed at the MTC approved programmed amount, and that any cost increases must be funded by the APPLICANT from other funds, and that APPLICANT does not expect any 7 Packet Pg. 132
Pacifica City Council 6
October 23, 2023
cost increases to be funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and be it further
RESOLVED that APPLICANT understands the funding deadlines associated with these funds and will comply with the provisions and requirements of the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) and APPLICANT has, and will retain the expertise, knowledge and resources necessary to deliver federally-funded transportation and transit projects, and has assigned, and will maintain a single point of contact for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation projects to coordinate within the agency and with the respective County Transportation Agency (CTA), MTC, Caltrans, FHWA, and CTC on all communications, inquires or issues that may arise during the federal programming and delivery process for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation and transit projects implemented by APPLICANT; and be it further
RESOLVED that PROJECT will be implemented as described in the complete application and in this resolution, subject to environmental clearance, and, if approved, for the amount approved by MTC and programmed in the federal TIP; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT has reviewed the PROJECT and has adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the schedule submitted with the project application; and be it further
RESOLVED that PROJECT will comply with the requirements as set forth in MTC programming guidelines and project selection procedures for the PROGRAM; and be it further RESOLVED that, in the case of a transit project, APPLICANT agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised; and be it further
RESOLVED that, in the case of a highway project, APPLICANT agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC’s Traffic Operations System (TOS) Policy as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 4104; and be it further
RESOLVED that, in the case of an RTIP project, PROJECT is included in a local congestion management plan, or is consistent with the capital improvement program adopted pursuant to MTC’s funding agreement with the County Transportation Agency (CTA); and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor of REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING funded projects; and be it further
RESOLVED that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and be it further
RESOLVED that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and be it further
RESOLVED that APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, City Manager, or designee to execute and file an application with MTC for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and be it further RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application; and be it further
RESOLVED that the MTC is requested to support the application for the PROJECT described in the resolution, and if approved, to include the PROJECT in MTC's federal TIP upon 7 Packet Pg. 133
Pacifica City Council 7
October 23, 2023
submittal by the project sponsor for TIP programming.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 23rd day of October, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

CITY OF PACIFICA
_________________________________
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney Instructions for Using the Resolution of Local Support
• A project sponsor receiving Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), Carbon Reduction Program (CRP), Active Transportation Program (ATP), Regional Improvement Program (RIP), or other regional discretionary funds must adopt a resolution of local support prior to grant funds being added to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The template to be used is found on the MTC website (link here). • Sponsors should always use the template posted on the website to ensure they have the latest version.
• The sponsor may not make changes to the template with the exception of format changes or additional language to suit the jurisdiction’s resolution conventions. These changes may not modify or condition / limit the MTC resolution language. If your legal counsel feels strongly about making language changes given specific circumstances surrounding a project, he/she needs to discuss these with the MTC General Counsel. • The three bulleted statements on page 2 of the resolution that apply to transit, highway, and RTIP projects may be deleted, if they do not apply. • After a project sponsor has adopted a resolution of local support for a project, it does not need to go back to the board if the project subsequently receives additional grants from the above fund sources, unless the project scope has changed significantly. If there are scope changes the sponsor should consult with MTC programming staff.

The resolution of local support must be transmitted to MTC when a project / grant funds are added to the TIP. The sponsor will attach a PDF of the adopted resolution to the Fund Management System (FMS) application when the sponsor requests a TIP amendment. 7 Packet Pg. 134

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
10/23/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Section 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii) (Windows and window coverings) of Chapter 16 of Title 4 (Cannabis Public Safety Licenses) of the Pacifica Municipal Code relating to storefront window size requirements for cannabis operations. Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Introduce by title only and waive further reading of an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Section 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii) (Windows and window coverings) of Chapter 16 of Title 4 (Cannabis Public Safety Licenses) of the Pacifica Municipal Code and Finding Adoption of the Ordinance Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”
STAFF CONTACT:

Christian Murdock, AICP – Planning Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
Maria Sarasua – Chief of Police
650-738-7314
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City Council enacted Ordinance No. 818-C.S. (“Ordinance”) on November 17, 2017 to establish a marijuana public safety license, the procedures for issuance of said license, and certain standards intended to ensure public health and safety. Council then repealed and replaced the Ordinance by enacting Ordinance No. 843-C.S. on May 13, 2019, to replace the term “marijuana” with the term “cannabis” and to streamline processing of initial applications for a cannabis public safety license (CPSL). The City’s CPSL regulations in Chapter 16 of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) are supplemented by zoning regulations governing in Articles 17.5 and 48 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the (PMC). These zoning regulations, among other things, specify the permissible locations for and allowable numbers of certain cannabis operations. As the City has processed applications for the six cannabis retail operations that were part of the initial application phase, all operators have been required to comply with the standards set forth in CPSL and zoning regulations. Planning Department and Police Department staffs have coordinated their reviews to confirm compliance or else impose conditions of approval (COAs) that would ensure compliance as a required component of the cannabis activity permit (CAP).

Since enactment of the Ordinance, the CPSL standards have included the following storefront window requirement codified in PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii):
8 Packet Pg. 135
Pacifica City Council 2
October 23, 2023
Windows and window coverings. Storefronts (front facade of the cannabis operation) shall be primarily glass with glass occupying at least forty-five (45%) percent of the entire store front and sixty (60%) percent of the horizontal length of the store. Window and door areas shall not be covered, tinted, or made opaque in any way, or obscured in any way by landscaping, floor displays, equipment, or the like.

Of the six approved cannabis retail operations in Pacifica, five have either proposed their operations in buildings that comply with the storefront window requirements or else have planned or undertaken alterations required to bring their storefronts into compliance. One operator, Seaweed Holistics, has not planned or undertaken the required storefront window alterations as required by PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii). Performing the required alterations was a requirement of Condition of Approval No. 9 of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-031, approved by the Planning Commission on September 16, 2019. Initially required prior to commencement of operations, the Planning Commission subsequently took action on February 16, 2021, to temporarily defer compliance with COA No. 9 and another COA until after the commencement of operations (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-001).

On August 15, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted an annual review of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 in accordance with PMC section 9-4.4806(e) and COA No. 19 of Resolution No. 2019-031. The Commission determined the cannabis retail operation to be noncompliant with COA Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, and 18. On October 3, 2022, the Planning Commission approved the revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18. On October 10, 2022, Councilmember O’Neill called-up the Planning Commission’s revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 for City Council review pursuant to PMC section 2-1.105. On October 13, 2022, Ana Leaño-Williams of Seaweed Holistics also submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s revocation.

On November 14, 2022, the City Council moved to deny the appeal and revoke Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18, scheduled to take effect 14 months after November 15, 2022 (“Revocation Date”) unless the Revocation Conditions detailed in City Council Resolution No. 79-2022 (Attachment B) are satisfied prior to the Revocation Date. Revocation Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 3 required the Applicant to pay certain outstanding fees, as well as a deposit for the processing of ordinance amendments and amendments to Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 to incorporate any revisions to the PMC related to storefront window requirements, if adopted by City Council. Revocation Condition No. 4 conditions an amendment to PMC section 4-

16.03(c)(1)(ii) in a manner which allows the Applicant to retain the current window configuration.

Revocation Condition No. 5 conditions modifications of COAs No. 9 and 18 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-031 to conform to any revisions to PMC section 4-

16.03(c)(1)(ii). Revocation Condition No. 6 conditions the City and the Applicant to execute an amendment to the Deferral Agreement to conform to the revisions to PMC section 4-

16.03(c)(1)(ii) and reflect satisfaction of outstanding fees and reimbursements to the City for all costs. All actions specified by the City Council must occur no later than January 15, 2024, or else the revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 shall take effect.

Seaweed Holistics’ Storefront and the Original Ordinance The proposed ordinance included as Attachment A, and discussed further in a later section of the staff report, relate to Revocation Condition No. 4 of City Council Resolution No. 79-2022.

The Seaweed Holistics cannabis retail operation cannot continue to operate beyond January 15, 2024, without City Council approval of an amendment to PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii) to authorize Seaweed Holistics’ storefront window in its currently non-compliant configuration, and without a 8 Packet Pg. 136
Pacifica City Council 3
October 23, 2023
conforming amendment to Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 by the Planning Commission.

The Seaweed Holistics storefront in it is current configuration does not comply with the requirements of PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii). The first floor of the storefront is 24 feet wide and 8 feet high for a total of 192 square feet (sf). The first floor of the storefront currently has a 10-foot by 6-foot window and a door with a 2’-0” by 5’-6” glass panel for a total of 71 sf of glass area and 12 feet of horizontal length. This comprises only 37 percent of the entire storefront and 50 percent of the horizontal length of the store, less than the 45 percent overall storefront (which would be 86.4 sf minimum) and 60 percent of horizontal length of the storefront (which would be 14’-3” minimum length) required by the PMC.

The regulations for cannabis storefront windows in PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii) were crafted with public safety in mind. The Police Chief in particular sought to address concerns about increased potential for robberies and burglaries at cannabis retail operations due to the significant number of cash transactions and the high resale value of cannabis in the illicit market. The concerns have seemed well founded as the lawful cannabis market has expanded in California. In Pacifica between January 1, 2022 and present, Pacifica Police have responded to two attempted burglaries and one successful burglary of cannabis retail operations. A suspect in the successful burglary was later apprehended by Pacifica Police and linked to a professional ring of burglars who target cannabis businesses. Across the Bay Area, law enforcement agencies are seeing increases in organized groups committing burglaries of cannabis businesses. For example, in San Francisco, a professional ring of thieves using crowbars broke into a cannabis business armed with firearms in January 2023. A store manager was kidnapped during another incident in San Francisco in February 2023. Two burglaries of cannabis businesses occurred on the same weekend in Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa in March 2023 and July 2023, respectively. Multiple subjects armed with firearms overtook a security guard and forced entry into a cannabis business in Berkeley in May 2023, the second time in several weeks the business had been targeted by thieves. During one burglary in Livermore in June 2023, the burglars were armed with assault weapons. These examples are illustrative only to provide a sample of the types of serious incidents that have occurred in the Bay Area region and are not a comprehensive accounting of burglaries/robberies of cannabis businesses in the area.

Based on these anticipated and realized concerns in other jurisdictions in the area and within Pacifica, the Police Chief continues to believe all reasonable measures including maximum visibility into cannabis retail operation storefronts should be utilized to maximize public safety and aid police responses to any incidents that may occur. Furthermore, the Police Chief does not believe reliance on video surveillance technology is a sufficient substitute for line-of-sight visibility into a cannabis operation in the event of a police response to a robbery incident, in part because of potential delays with accessing cameras inside the operation and potential technical difficulties that could occur in the midst of a time-sensitive response.

Proposed Amendments
The proposed ordinance amendment would revise the storefront window provisions in section 4-

16.03(c)(1)(ii) of Chapter 16 “Cannabis Public Safety License” of Title 4 of the PMC. The following amendments are proposed to the existing provisions of section 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii) of Chapter 16 “Cannabis Public Safety License” of Title 4 of the PMC (new text in underline, deleted text in strikethrough):

Windows and window coverings. Storefronts (exterior front facade of the cannabis operation at the first-floor level) shall be primarily glass with glass occupying at least thirty-fiveforty-five (3545%) percent of the entire store front and fifty sixty (5060%) percent of the horizontal length of the storefront. No glass area used to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall have a 8 Packet Pg. 137
Pacifica City Council 4
October 23, 2023
vertical or horizontal dimension less than two (2’) feet. Window and door areas shall not be covered, tinted, or made opaque in any way, or obscured in any way by landscaping, floor displays, equipment, or the like.

In addition to amendments to address the window size requirement, the proposed amendments would also include a “clean-up” provision to clarify that the measurements are applicable only to the exterior front façade on the first-floor level, and impose a minimum vertical or horizontal dimension of not less than two feet for any window used to comply with the storefront requirements.

Staff is also recommending that because of the significant risks of criminal activity, the proposed ordinance amendments limit the applicability of the reduced storefront window requirements to the period of January 1 through June 30, 2024. This time limitation would ensure a period of applicability for Seaweed Holistics to pursue its amendment and for any other prospective or currently permitted cannabis operation to also utilize the reduced storefront window requirements.1
California Environmental Quality Act
Adoption of the proposed ordinance would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (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 proposed amendments would modify the storefront window requirements for cannabis operations. The modification to storefront window requirements would be limited to existing buildings or new buildings that have undergone their own environmental review prior to construction and would not have a significant effect on the environment.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may decline to introduce the proposed ordinance or direct modifications to the proposed revised storefront window standards prior to ordinance introduction. The Council could make modifications to the proposed ordinance to remove the language that would limit the applicability of the reduced storefront window requirements to the period of January 1 through June 30, 2024, prior to ordinance introduction. The removal of this recommended language would modify the storefront window requirements for all cannabis operations henceforth with a new generally applicable standard that reduces visibility into the storefronts. If the Council declines to introduce and ultimately adopt the proposed ordinance, the previously authorized revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 which authorizes operation of the Seaweed Holistics’ cannabis retail operation would take effect on January 15, 2024.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

This project is not directly associated with an item on the City Council’s 2023-2030 Strategic Plan.
1 The City has issued all six cannabis retail operation permits authorized by the PMC. There is no limit on the number of cannabis testing operation or cannabis manufacturing operation permits the City may issue, although there are no such permitted establishments at this time. 8 Packet Pg. 138
Pacifica City Council 5
October 23, 2023
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact to the City from the amendment of storefront window requirements for cannabis retail operations. Seaweed Holistics has provided a $5,000 deposit to cover processing costs associated with the amendment as required by City Council Resolution No. 79-2022.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Ordinance to amend PMC Section 4-16.03 (DOCX) Attachment B - City Council Resolution No. 79-2022 (PDF) 8 Packet Pg. 139
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AMENDING SECTION 4-16.03 (WINDOWS AND WINDOW COVERINGS) OF CHAPTER 16 OF TITLE 4 (CANNABIS PUBLIC SAFETY

LICENSES) OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE AND FINDING ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).

WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 64, known as the “Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act” (the “AUMA”), under which a variety of non-medical marijuana businesses can operate subject to local ordinances and individuals may grow, possess and use limited amounts non-medical marijuana; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 818-C.S. which established the City’s marijuana public safety licenses provisions in a new Chapter 16 of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”); and
WHEREAS, subsequent to introduction but prior to adoption of the City’s marijuana public safety licenses, on June 27, 2017, Senate Bill 94 (“SB 94”) was enacted that integrated MCRSA with AUMA to create the Medicinal and Adult‐Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (the “MAUCRSA”), under which, a single regulatory system governs the medicinal and adult-use cannabis industry in California; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019, the City Council directed staff to draft amendments which would incorporate recent State law updates as a result of SB 94, including exchanging the use of the term “marijuana” to “cannabis”; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 843-C.S. which repealed and replaced Chapter 16 of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) to incorporate the term “cannabis” and to make other procedural changes related to processing of cannabis public safety licenses; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica introduced Ordinance No. ______ on October 23, 2023, to amend provisions related to storefront windows of cannabis operations.

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. Amendments.

Section 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii), “Windows and window coverings” of Chapter 16 “Cannabis Public Safety Licenses” of Title 4 “Public Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code shall be amended as indicated in Exhibit A to this Ordinance, with added text in underline and deleted text in strikethrough. Exhibit A shall be incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

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), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the

8.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Ordinance to amend PMC Section 4-16.03 (5501 : Amendment to Cannabis Public Safety Standards

Page 2 ends

Pacifica City CouncilOctober 23, 2023

Pacifica City Council
October 23, 2023