Pacifica City Council
April 8, 2024

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 April 08, 2024
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
April 08, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
One Councilmember will participate in this meeting at the teleconference site listed below. The teleconference location is accessible to the public. The public teleconference site for this meeting is as follows:

Holiday Inn Club Vacations Tahoe Ridge Resort
400 Ridge Club Drive, Stateline, NV 89449
Clubhouse Conference Room - Clubhouse Bldg, 2nd Floor
(Sue Beckmeyer)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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:

City Council Regular Meeting 2 April 08, 2024
• 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. 6:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION. Pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Buendia v. City of Pacifica, San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 22-CIV-03097.
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Vaterlaus
Closed Session Report

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Special Presentation by Peninsula Clean Energy

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.

City Council Regular Meeting 3 April 08, 2024
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.

1. Approval of Disbursements for 03/01/24 through 03/31/24.

PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of March 2024.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the March 2, 2024 City Council Special Meeting; March 9, 2024 City Council Special Meeting; and March 28, 2024 City Council Special Meeting.

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

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

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

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

5. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency related to December 28, 2023, High Tide/Large Wave Events
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist related to the December 2023 High Tide/Large Wave Events

6. Resolution Opposing The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, Initiative No. 21-0042A1
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.

7. Resolution Designating the City Manager and the Director of Public Works, by title, as Applicant's Agent for Non-State Agencies for the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) Public Assistance Programs
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Designating the City Manager and the Director of Public Works as Applicant's Agent for Non-State Agencies for the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES).

City Council Regular Meeting 4 April 08, 2024

8. Sixth Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for On-Call Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Good City Company PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve the Sixth Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Good City Company, by increasing the contract amount by $30,000 with a total not to exceed amount of $640,000 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.

9. Resolution to Approve a Sole Source Purchase Agreement for the Civic Center Campus with CORT for office furniture
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Sole Source Purchase Agreement with CORT for purchase of Civic Center Campus office furniture, in the amount of $115,185.57 with a $4,500 (~4%) contingency for a Total Budget Authority of $119,685.57.

10. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Armour Fence for the Fairway Park Backstops Replacement Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution approving Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Armour Fence to increase the Fairway Park Backstops Replacement Project by $168,669.62, and amend the FY 2023-24 budget to appropriate this same amount from the Roy Davies Fund 27, subject to a required approval by a 4/5 vote of the City Council.

11. FY 2024-25 Sidewalk, Curbs, and ADA Ramps Improvement Project PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Construction Contract between the City of Pacifica and RK Engineering Inc. for the FY 2024-25 Sidewalk, Curbs, and ADA Ramps Improvement Project in an amount not to exceed $157,939.00; Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $205,320.70, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed thirty percent (30%) of the Construction Contract amounts; Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders and Task Orders not to exceed the contingency amount; and Authorize the City Manager to sign Contract Documents related to the Project.”

12. 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 Construction Contract between the City of Pacifica and VSS International, Inc. for the FY 2024-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project in an amount not to exceed $2,444,325.00; Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $2,688,757.50 which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the Construction Contract amounts; Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders and Task Orders not to exceed the contingency amount; and Authorize the City Manager to Sign Contract Documents to the Project.”

13. Mid-Block Crosswalk Safety Improvement Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Construction Contract with Zara Construction in an amount not to exceed $307,013.00; Authorize a budget authority in the amount of City Council Regular Meeting 5 April 08, 2024
$337,714.00, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the Construction Contract amounts; Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders and Task Orders not to exceed the contingency amount; and Authorize the City Manager to sign Contract Documents related and authorize a budget adjustment in the amount of $77,714 into the project from Measure A Fund for the Mid-Block Crosswalk Safety Improvement.”

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.

Councilmembers shall not enter into debate with speakers under Public Comments on Items Not on the Posted Agenda. 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

14. Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Planning Process, Timeline and Preliminary Budget Strategies
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the report and provide additional policy direction for the preparation of the FY2024-25 Budget.

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 City Council Regular Meeting 6 April 08, 2024
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 Sue Vaterlaus, [email protected]
• Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer, [email protected]
• Councilmember Mary Bier, [email protected]
• Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck, tbigstyck@ pacifica.gov • Councilmember Christine Boles, [email protected]

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/8/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for 03/01/24 through 03/31/24.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of March 2024.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Staff has submitted the following Monthly Check Register Report per California Government Code, Title 4, Division 3, Part 3, Chapter 3, Section 41004:
• Disbursements dated 3/1/24 through 3/31/24 are in the amount of $2,464,446.61. (Attachment 1).

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with acceptance of the Monthly Check Register Report.

ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 03-01 to 03-31-24 (PDF)
1 Packet Pg. 7
Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 1

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68430 1334.65 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T
1 68431 387.75 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05867 ACTION ROAD SOLUTIONS LLC 1 68432 2176.65 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00092 AD BRAKES 1 68433 242.04 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00094 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 1 68434 95703.53 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04584 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC 1 68435 41.97 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00136 ALHAMBRA 1 68436 1022.31 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 68437 457.61 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04459 ARROWHEAD FORENSICS 1 68438 5645.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00258 BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES 1 68439 2600.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05414 BEECHER ENGINEERING, INC. 1 68440 1132.11 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02085 BIOMAAS LLC 1 68441 2376.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05127 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. 1 68442 200.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02118 BOOTZIN/ALEX 1 68443 811.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01690 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB 1 68444 3323.88 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 68445 1062.81 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03246 COAST COUNTIES PETERBILT & COAST COUNTIE 1 68446 3000.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00550 COLMA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1 68447 6637.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00567 COMMUNITY OVERCOMING RELATIONSHIP ABUSE 1 68448 100.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00022 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ANIMAL LICENSING 1 68449 3100.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05341 CREATIVE DIGITAL AGENCY INC. 1 68450 970.48 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00025 DALY CITY/CITY OF 1 68451 77.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00758 EXPERIAN 1 68452 35.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK INVOICE PROCESSING DEPT 1 68453 34.50 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT 1 68454 3103.57 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 1 68455 329.63 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02213 GARRATT CALLAHAN Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68456 281.56 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00861 GOLDEN GATE TRUCK CENTER 1 68457 442.23 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00872 GRAINGER 1 68458 780.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03947 GRANICUS, INC. 1 68459 2208.38 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00919 HERC RENTALS INC. 1 68460 2487.34 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04859 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1 68461 403.90 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02511 IDEXX LABORATORIES 1 68462 214.25 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01014 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 1 68463 139.67 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01812 KBA DOCUSYS 1 68464 686.25 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04088 LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES 1 68465 46.67 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 LECHLEITNER, RICHARD 1 68466 922.50 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01120 MALLORY COMPANY/THE 1 68467 5735.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03790 MAZE & ASSOCIATES 1 68468 1190.53 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04549 NAF SERVICES, INC.

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 03-01 to 03-31-24 (5620 : Disbursements - Dated 3/1/24 through 3/31/24) 1 68469 50530.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04632 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD 1 68470 2500.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05958 ONE WATER LLC 1 68471 1087.50 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION 1 68472 1400.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 PANOFSKY, PETER 1 68473 309.96 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00054 PAPE MACHINERY 1 68474 2801.64 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01289 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT, INC 1 68475 819.63 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05319 PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGE COMPANY 1 68476 1760.32 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 68477 780.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 RAMIRO HERNANDEZ 1 68478 13721.47 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03306 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES 1 68479 155.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02471 SIGNAWEST SYSTEMS, INC. 1 68480 2334.12 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01362 SLOAN SAKAI YEUNG & WONG LLP 1 68481 500.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06031 SMCCMA Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68482 15422.06 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05846 SOUTHWEST VALVE & EQUIPMENT, LLC 1 68483 3864.58 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01531 ST. FRANCIS ELECTRIC, INC. 1 68484 1950.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00044 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 1 68485 184.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05542 STIRLING GOULET 1 68486 1770.50 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01587 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE 1 68487 6500.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05487 THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP 1 68488 253.10 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01077 TREE MANAGEMENT EXPERTS 1 68489 3482.24 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01647 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS 1 68490 1225.62 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01812 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 1 68491 2136.26 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01684 VERIZON WIRELESS 1 68492 14937.50 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01729 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 1 68494 2572.28 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T
1 68495 153.64 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04066 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC 1 68496 1189.89 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 68497 783.50 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05556 AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVICE INC. 1 68498 3503.31 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04579 APPLIED LANDSCAPE MATERIALS INC 1 68499 7818.98 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00217 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 1 68500 358.11 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00223 AT WORK UNIFORMS 1 68501 37.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05862 BADGE FRAME, INC. 1 68502 1320.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05414 BEECHER ENGINEERING, INC. 1 68503 472.62 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 BIANCULLI, RYAN 1 68504 1488.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04880 BLADES GROUP, LLC 1 68505 1290.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05127 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. 1 68506 149.08 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 BRAUN, LUCIE 1 68507 239.46 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00002 BRAUN, LUCIE (PETTY CASH) 1 68508 10462.50 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05463 BRETT STOLLENWERK Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 4

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

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

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 03-01 to 03-31-24 (5620 : Disbursements - Dated 3/1/24 through 3/31/24) 1 68509 5995.60 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 1 68510 4420.49 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00381 C.H. BULL COMPANY 1 68511 221.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00011 C.W.E.A. 1 68512 21313.64 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00421 CALIFORNIA DIESEL & POWER 1 68513 1427.31 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00507 CHILDCARE CAREERS 1 68514 3096.71 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 68515 858.45 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00511 CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY 1 68516 9850.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05875 CLASSIC AMUSEMENT LLC 1 68517 14118.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05803 CONCERN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1 68518 101.76 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01374 CORE & MAIN 1 68519 450.49 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00622 CURTIS & SONS, L.N. 1 68520 5575.33 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00025 DALY CITY/CITY OF 1 68521 8950.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00645 DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY 1 68522 363.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00014 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 1 68523 8800.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02201 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. 1 68524 12.02 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02614 DISH
1 68525 1400.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04321 DUBOCE JANITORIAL SERVICES 1 68526 1500.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04277 EASTMAN INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES 1 68527 7.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK INVOICE PROCESSING DEPT 1 68528 31.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT 1 68529 27.67 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00773 FEDEX
1 68530 6371.64 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01221 FRANK A. OLSEN COMPANY 1 68531 5657.65 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02208 FREMONT AUTOMOTIVE 1 68532 394.03 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00872 GRAINGER 1 68533 780.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03947 GRANICUS, INC. 1 68534 1275.78 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02415 GYM DOCTORS Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68535 18883.19 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05103 HADRONEX INC. 1 68536 10000.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00927 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC 1 68537 1798.87 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02511 IDEXX LABORATORIES 1 68538 3048.39 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04086 JACK DOHENY COMPANY 1 68539 2000.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06034 JEAN TURK 1 68540 582.78 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01014 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 1 68541 1007.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01029 KAISER PERMANENTE--OHSS 1 68542 147.38 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 KELLY, MATT 1 68543 77.33 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 KENWAY, JENNIE 1 68544 3078.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05582 LUHDORFF AND SCALMANINI CONSULTING ENGIN 1 68545 144.65 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 LUJAN, MATTHEW 1 68546 1750.10 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01142 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 1 68547 2000.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06035 MICHELLE ANDRAYCHACK 1 68548 6271.52 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05450 MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS, INC. 1 68549 6138.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06032 NOR-CAL PIPELINE SERVICES 1 68550 38470.08 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01206 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. 1 68551 43.50 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01217 OFFICE DEPOT

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 03-01 to 03-31-24 (5620 : Disbursements - Dated 3/1/24 through 3/31/24) 1 68552 2500.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05958 ONE WATER LLC 1 68553 4576.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06037 OTHRAM, INC 1 68554 468.40 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01244 PACIFIC NURSERIES 1 68555 381.96 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04139 PET FOOD EXPRESS 1 68556 285.60 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01317 PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC. 1 68557 1600.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03160 PUBLIC PARKING ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 68558 246.65 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 68559 780.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05914 RCM FIRE PROTECTION INC 1 68560 2000.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06036 ROBERT BENNETT Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68561 425.15 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01402 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. 1 68562 42.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04785 SAN MATEO COUNTY ASSESSOR/COUNTY CLERK/R 1 68563 1152.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03720 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 1 68564 400.58 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01534 STANDARD PLUMBING SUPPLY CO. 1 68565 90.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05576 STEVE KWON 1 68566 200.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01569 SYMBOLARTS, LLC 1 68567 12250.79 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01570 SYNAGRO WEST, LLC 1 68568 1044.92 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02642 T-MOBILE CORPORATION 1 68569 2142.12 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05665 TELSTAR INSTRUMENTS 1 68570 6690.28 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03785 THATCHER COMPANY INC 1 68571 17844.83 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01635 TROJAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 1 68572 9523.22 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04670 U.S. TELEPACIFIC CORP. 1 68573 884.08 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01647 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS 1 68574 3263.29 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04576 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC 1 68575 99.41 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01812 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 1 68576 4827.57 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03835 US FOODS, INC 1 68577 4751.46 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01684 VERIZON WIRELESS 1 68578 1239.56 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01673 VWR INTERNATIONAL 1 68579 2000.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 WACHTELBORN, DUANE 1 68580 1105.80 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01717 WHITE CAP CONST. SUPPLY 1 68581 1288.00 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01729 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 1 68582 558.24 03/07/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01747 ZEP SALES & SERVICE 1 68584 1256.94 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T
1 68585 426.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05740 ABBY M. MARGOLIS 1 68586 955.46 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00094 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 1 68587 643.69 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00122 AIRGAS USA, LLC Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 7

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68588 147.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04066 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC 1 68589 193.21 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00138 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. 1 68590 110.58 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC.

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 03-01 to 03-31-24 (5620 : Disbursements - Dated 3/1/24 through 3/31/24) 1 68591 1406.20 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00174 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION 1 68592 93.46 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T LONG DISTANCE 1 68593 129.69 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T MOBILITY 1 68594 500.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04561 AVINA, ANGEL 1 68595 10134.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00258 BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES 1 68596 3768.07 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00293 BEARING AGENCIES INC 1 68597 3103.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05127 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. 1 68598 10473.47 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 1 68599 2191.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00011 C.W.E.A. 1 68600 23361.64 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00421 CALIFORNIA DIESEL & POWER 1 68601 1800.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05443 CALIFORNIA SEWER ENGINEERING, INC 1 68602 256.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00014 CALIFORNIA STATE OF 1 68603 1424.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01690 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB 1 68604 1004.24 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 CAMARGO, SUZANNE 1 68605 8739.06 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05519 CARDIO PARTNERS 1 68606 30847.99 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02655 CAROLLO 1 68607 1516.13 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 68608 483.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05296 CLAIRE BREES 1 68609 1079.50 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00611 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 68610 18163.86 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00025 DALY CITY/CITY OF 1 68611 225.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03283 DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 1 68612 80.91 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 DONG, ALAN 1 68613 1151.19 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00743 ENTENMANN-ROVIN COMPANY Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 8

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68614 3376.22 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03458 EOA INC 1 68615 7.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK INVOICE PROCESSING DEPT 1 68616 400.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05734 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 1 68617 1100.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03930 FREYER & LAURETA, INC. 1 68618 84.86 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 FRY, HAYDEN 1 68619 329.63 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02213 GARRATT CALLAHAN 1 68620 54472.25 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04369 GHD INC. 1 68621 62.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03804 GODSOE, LIZ 1 68622 1016.01 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00871 GRAFIX SHOPPE 1 68623 2567.89 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00872 GRAINGER 1 68624 361.57 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00892 HACH COMPANY 1 68625 481.12 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00906 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 1 68626 644.66 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00929 HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE INC. 1 68627 306.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04494 ISIDRO, ALLEN 1 68628 550.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03143 JAMES CACCIA PLUMBING INC 1 68629 198.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05892 JANE PITTSINGER 1 68630 100.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 JARQUIN, MARTIN 1 68631 900.98 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01014 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 1 68632 178.84 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01027 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA 1 68633 95.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05333 KASEYA US LLC

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 03-01 to 03-31-24 (5620 : Disbursements - Dated 3/1/24 through 3/31/24) 1 68634 229.78 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01812 KBA DOCUSYS 1 68635 470.16 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03929 KENT CLEANERS 1 68636 3306.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05582 LUHDORFF AND SCALMANINI CONSULTING ENGIN 1 68637 413.04 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01120 MALLORY COMPANY/THE 1 68638 82.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 MANSKER, STEVEN 1 68639 1716.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06039 MARLENE AND CLINTON ZURAEK Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 9

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68640 1084.33 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01142 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 1 68641 11332.16 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04944 MERCOZA 1 68642 103577.09 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05450 MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS, INC. 1 68643 2891.88 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03955 MOFFATT & NICHOL 1 68644 806.14 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01172 MOORE INDUSTRIES-INTERNATIONAL 1 68645 668.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03801 NAPIER, NORA 1 68646 260.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05823 NATASIA SCHIBINGER 1 68647 457.41 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04346 NEW A AND A TOP AND TRIM 1 68648 139880.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04632 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD 1 68649 3965.50 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06032 NOR-CAL PIPELINE SERVICES 1 68650 900.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05958 ONE WATER LLC 1 68651 90.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03803 ORTEGA, SHIRLEY 1 68652 600.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01240 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 1 68653 22104.60 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05916 PACIFIC POLYMERS, INC 1 68654 122.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03802 PATINO, JOE 1 68655 930.73 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01281 PENINSULA BATTERY, INC. 1 68656 26534.81 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01309 POLYDYNE INC. 1 68657 1020.61 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 68658 157.71 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 ROMERO, BRYAN 1 68659 2995.65 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00055 SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC LAB 1 68660 6749.08 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04211 SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION D 1 68661 2740.93 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05124 SCAPES, INC. 1 68662 95611.50 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04646 SCHAAF & WHEELER 1 68663 606.21 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01450 SEAVIEW TIRE & BRAKE CENTER 1 68664 216.62 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02182 SERVICE PRESS, INC. 1 68665 193.22 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01505 SNELL & CO J Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 10

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68666 90.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05524 STEVEN MICHAEL EVANS JR 1 68667 59.44 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02642 T-MOBILE CORPORATION 1 68668 416.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01602 THOMSON WEST 1 68669 364.50 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05692 TJC AND ASSOCIATES INC. 1 68670 744.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01077 TREE MANAGEMENT EXPERTS 1 68671 506.55 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04418 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. 1 68672 141.52 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01647 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 03-01 to 03-31-24 (5620 : Disbursements - Dated 3/1/24 through 3/31/24) 1 68673 149.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01661 UPS STORE #1906 1 68674 2949.68 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01684 VERIZON WIRELESS 1 68675 1518.56 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01673 VWR INTERNATIONAL 1 68676 6000.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05885 WARWICK GROUP CONSULTANTS, LLC 1 68677 2792.76 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01717 WHITE CAP CONST. SUPPLY 1 68678 192.00 03/14/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 WILFREDO COQUIOCO 1 68679 29531.30 03/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04608 TRI COUNTIES BANK 1 68710 393.25 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05469 BCC BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION 1 68711 20974.34 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05469 BCC BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION 1 68712 9504.54 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03741 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION 1 68713 59.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01757 CALIFORNIA ASSN OF PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGH 1 68714 242.76 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 1 68715 928.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01757 CLEA
1 68716 100.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 68717 200.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 68718 100.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 68719 707.53 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION 1 68720 840.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01759 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 1 68721 210.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01760 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 11

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68722 420.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01769 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION 1 68723 84.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF L2400-PAC 1 68724 1337.49 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 1 68725 1024.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01768 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #350 1 68726 2815.00 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01764 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 1 68727 25.11 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01766 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA 1 68728 3772.43 03/01/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01766 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA 1 68729 242.76 03/15/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 1 68730 100.00 03/15/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 68731 200.00 03/15/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 68732 100.00 03/15/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 68733 396.00 03/15/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01767 NPFBA
1 68734 707.53 03/15/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION 1 68735 458.50 03/15/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS-LTD 1 68736 880.00 03/15/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01759 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 1 68737 220.00 03/15/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01760 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS 1 68738 420.00 03/15/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01769 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION 1 68739 84.00 03/15/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF L2400-PAC 1 68740 1337.49 03/15/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 1 68741 2720.00 03/15/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01764 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 1 68742 2718.20 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T
1 68743 242.04 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00094 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 1 68744 339.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06043 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE - FIREAR 1 68745 557.37 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC.

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 03-01 to 03-31-24 (5620 : Disbursements - Dated 3/1/24 through 3/31/24) 1 68746 200.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05968 ANTOINETTE M KAUFFMAN 1 68747 1155.73 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T
Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 12

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68748 376.05 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T MOBILITY 1 68749 600.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03188 ATLAS PLUMBING & ROOTER INC 1 68750 1650.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03634 BAY POWER LLC GENERATOR SYSTEM DESIGN AN 1 68751 6975.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04564 BERGDAVIS 1 68752 2010.92 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00335 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY 1 68753 9990.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05463 BRETT STOLLENWERK 1 68754 2995.20 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 1 68755 1075.24 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00421 CALIFORNIA DIESEL & POWER 1 68756 10300.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00398 CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION 1 68757 288.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00014 CALIFORNIA STATE OF 1 68758 247.74 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 CAMPANA, NICHOLAS 1 68759 32234.75 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02655 CAROLLO 1 68760 254.58 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 CASTRO, ANGEL 1 68761 22.50 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05969 CHAD LAWIE 1 68762 250.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05935 CHARLES F CELANO JR 1 68763 2113.48 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00507 CHILDCARE CAREERS 1 68764 1257.78 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 68765 610.25 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02822 CITY AUTO SUPPLY 1 68766 64.18 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 68767 189.35 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 68768 529.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY S.O. TRAINING CENTER 1 68769 846.83 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04677 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC 1 68770 2843.75 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05255 CORT BUSINESS SERVICES CORPORATION 1 68771 65.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03632 COUNCIL OF CITIES DINNER COUNTY OF SAN M 1 68772 77381.75 03/22/24 VOIDED SYSTEM 03/22/24 00611 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 68773 16354.76 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00611 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC.

Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 13

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68774 12.50 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 CUNANAN, SUZANNE 1 68775 11875.38 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03121 D.W. NICHOLSON CORPORTATION 1 68776 195.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00025 DALY CITY/CITY OF 1 68777 200.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06048 DANE POTTER 1 68778 600.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02201 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. 1 68779 4021.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03331 EWERS ENGINEERING 1 68780 24.87 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00773 FEDEX
1 68781 1055.46 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 1 68782 207.82 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06049 FUSE SERVICE 1 68783 100.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03823 GIBSON JR, EUGENE

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 03-01 to 03-31-24 (5620 : Disbursements - Dated 3/1/24 through 3/31/24) 1 68784 29.61 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00872 GRAINGER 1 68785 6608.95 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04131 HDL SOFTWARE, LLC 1 68786 6336.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06042 IAG-EMF CONSULTING INC 1 68787 177.19 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00990 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS 1 68788 2322.48 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04085 JAMES FORD, INC. 1 68789 427.34 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01014 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 1 68790 4460.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01903 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 1 68791 65.60 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 KENWAY, JENNIE 1 68792 100.03 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 KEVIN WOODHOUSE 1 68793 460.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 LECHLEITNER, KYLE 1 68794 43.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06045 LESLIE DAVIDSON 1 68795 37.50 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 MEEHLEIB, AUDIE 1 68796 78.93 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 MENDEZ, REY 1 68797 555.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04077 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP 1 68798 312.68 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01378 MUSCIO SECURITY 1 68799 2952.37 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04549 NAF SERVICES, INC.

Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 14

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68800 8480.31 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01206 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. 1 68801 78.27 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01217 OFFICE DEPOT 1 68802 263.61 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01240 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 1 68803 1013.10 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04418 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION 1 68804 205.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01249 PACIFICA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1 68805 5460.33 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00320 PLAN JPA 1 68806 250.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 POWERS, MATTHEW 1 68807 193.28 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01317 PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC. 1 68808 1637.50 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04026 RANEY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, INC 1 68809 5646.25 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05774 RINCON CONSULTANTS INC 1 68810 47.70 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 ROMERO, VICENTE 1 68811 83.99 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 SALACUP, MACAELA 1 68812 864.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03720 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 1 68813 613.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06046 SAVAGE TRAINING GROUP 1 68814 748.82 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05124 SCAPES, INC. 1 68815 4284.26 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01450 SEAVIEW TIRE & BRAKE CENTER 1 68816 103.39 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02182 SERVICE PRESS, INC. 1 68817 3323.82 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01362 SLOAN SAKAI YEUNG & WONG LLP 1 68818 12.50 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 SMITH, BRANDON 1 68819 150.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00044 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 1 68820 170.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00044 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 1 68821 45.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05576 STEVE KWON 1 68822 70.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 SUN, LOUIS 1 68823 238.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04988 TESLA ENERGY 1 68824 234.35 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06050 THE ENERGUY 1 68825 2776.45 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01615 TOM'S AUTO BODY & PAINT Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 15

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 03-01 to 03-31-24 (5620 : Disbursements - Dated 3/1/24 through 3/31/24)

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68826 17538.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05946 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES 1 68827 1650.83 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04418 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. 1 68828 320.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00050 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 1 68829 41195.09 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02527 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 1 68830 4361.73 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03835 US FOODS, INC 1 68831 636.29 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03980 VERITIV OPERATING COMPANY 1 68832 100.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 WACHTELBORN, DUANE 1 68833 100.00 03/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06027 WILL SMITH 1 68834 428943.83 03/26/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05495 W.E. LYONS CONSTRUCTION CO. 1 68835 1184.81 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T
1 68836 3080.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04479 55 BACKFLOW TESTING AND SERVICE 1 68837 431.65 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00094 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 1 68838 46.99 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00045 ALBERTSONS / SAFEWAY 1 68839 1731.02 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 68840 979.38 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05556 AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVICE INC. 1 68841 136.55 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00225 ATCO INTERNATIONAL 1 68842 7831.12 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04496 AUTO SOUND PERFORMANCE 1 68843 37.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05862 BADGE FRAME, INC. 1 68844 134.38 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00293 BEARING AGENCIES INC 1 68845 660.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05414 BEECHER ENGINEERING, INC. 1 68846 1488.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04880 BLADES GROUP, LLC 1 68847 1086.86 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00343 BOLANDER & SONS, L. PH. 1 68848 4756.71 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04524 BRUECK, CYNTHIA 1 68849 25591.50 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05658 BSK ASSOCIATES 1 68850 98.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00011 C.W.E.A. 1 68851 10656.82 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00421 CALIFORNIA DIESEL & POWER Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 16

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68852 150.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06052 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL REVENUE & TAX ASSOC 1 68853 666.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01690 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB 1 68854 6499.75 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02655 CAROLLO 1 68855 34940.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03745 CASEY CONSTRUCTION, INC 1 68856 1873.71 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00507 CHILDCARE CAREERS 1 68857 2441.67 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 68858 3014.51 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03246 COAST COUNTIES PETERBILT & COAST COUNTIE 1 68859 1776.15 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 68860 100.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03295 COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING 1 68861 32.42 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01374 CORE & MAIN 1 68862 115.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00022 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 1 68863 13240.62 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01204 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 1 68864 96909.25 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00611 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 68865 26.48 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00628 D C LOCK & SECURITY SERVICE

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 03-01 to 03-31-24 (5620 : Disbursements - Dated 3/1/24 through 3/31/24) 1 68866 5960.39 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00025 DALY CITY/CITY OF 1 68867 1400.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04321 DUBOCE JANITORIAL SERVICES 1 68868 77.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00758 EXPERIAN 1 68869 199.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK INVOICE PROCESSING DEPT 1 68870 116.50 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT 1 68871 1050.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06051 FIRST RESPONSE SUPPORT NETWORK 1 68872 5507.92 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 1 68873 680.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03930 FREYER & LAURETA, INC. 1 68874 5530.20 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04369 GHD INC. 1 68875 1216.81 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00872 GRAINGER 1 68876 3104.10 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00875 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26577 1 68877 900.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05987 JEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 17

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68878 1829.49 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05998 JK COMMERCE INC 1 68879 2000.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05986 KENNETH CORMICAN 1 68880 2000.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02927 KEPIC, FLORAN 1 68881 262.94 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03700 KIMBALL MIDWEST 1 68882 635.38 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01055 KONE INC 1 68883 7364.50 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05533 MCMILLAN ELECTRIC 1 68884 71.42 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01154 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 1 68885 85618.91 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03890 MICHAEL ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION, INC 1 68886 1978.05 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01183 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC. 1 68887 799.01 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04549 NAF SERVICES, INC. 1 68888 3040.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03656 NORTH AMERICAN FENCE & RAILING 1 68889 1815.16 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02486 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 1 68890 224.97 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01243 PACIFIC MANOR HARDWARE, INC. 1 68891 1222.92 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01244 PACIFIC NURSERIES 1 68892 1231.45 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01616 PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTORS SUPPLIES 1 68893 1144.43 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 68894 654.34 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01337 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, INC. 1 68895 3306.98 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03306 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES 1 68896 493.53 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00022 SAN MATEO COUNTY INFORMATION SERVICES 1 68897 78.08 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05197 SAN MATEO COUNTY MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTR 1 68898 1152.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03720 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 1 68899 3327.43 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04860 SERRA YELLOW CAB 1 68900 173.67 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01498 SMART & FINAL 1 68901 1770.50 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01587 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE 1 68902 1402.50 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05665 TELSTAR INSTRUMENTS 1 68903 327.38 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00029 THE HOME DEPOT PRO INSTITUTIONAL Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY APR0124 16:51 Page: 18

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 03/01/24 - 03/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

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

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 03-01 to 03-31-24 (5620 : Disbursements - Dated 3/1/24 through 3/31/24) 1 68904 1286.50 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04576 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC 1 68905 1671.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02527 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 1 68906 1854.35 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01812 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 1 68907 2470.90 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03835 US FOODS, INC 1 68908 3566.43 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01684 VERIZON WIRELESS 1 68909 8365.88 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01673 VWR INTERNATIONAL 1 68910 1039.47 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01717 WHITE CAP CONST. SUPPLY 1 68911 1374.00 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01729 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 1 68912 122.48 03/27/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 WOODHOUSE, KEVIN BANK: 1 TOTAL # OF CHECKS: 451 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF: $2464446.61 TOTAL # OF REISSUED CHECKS: 0 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF:

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

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 4/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 03-01 to 03-31-24 (5620 : Disbursements - Dated 3/1/24 through 3/31/24)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/8/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes for the March 2, 2024 City Council Special Meeting; March 9, 2024 City Council Special Meeting; and March 28, 2024 City Council Special Meeting.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Move to approve the minutes for the March 2, 2024 City Council Special Meeting (Attachment A); March 9, 2024 City Council Special Meeting (Attachment B); and March 28, 2024 City Council Special Meeting (Attachment C).

The March 25, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting minutes are still under staff review and will be brought to Council for approval at the next regular meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Within budgeted operational expenses.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (PDF) Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (PDF) Attachment C: Minutes of 03-28-2024 City Council Special Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 20

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Terra Nova High School - Theater
1450 Terra Nova Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Study Session 1 March 02, 2024

SPECIAL MEETING
March 02, 2024 (SATURDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on March 2, 2024 at 9:30 AM 9:30 AM - OPEN SESSION
1A. CALL TO ORDER
City Clerk Coffey called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.

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

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Deepa Sharma, Asst. City Attorney; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Elizabeth Brooks, Management Analyst; Stefanie Cervantes, Senior Planner; Brianne Harkousha, Senior Planner; James Lin, Associate Planner; Katelyn Snodgrass, Assistant Planner; Jennifer Kent, Permit Technician; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk. 1B. READING OF LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.

2.INTRODUCTIONS AND MEETING OVERVIEW
City Clerk Coffey explained the process and location for all facilities. She then turned it over to the mayor.

Mayor Vaterlaus explained the meeting format and public comment guidelines.

2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 2 March 02, 2024
Each Councilmember shared introductory remarks regarding the topic of this study session.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked that everyone be kind and respectful as they know they all have different opinions and are entitled to them. She thanked the Jefferson Union High School District for them being able to hold this meeting at this location. She thanked staff for their work in this process and all the community members present and on Zoom. She mentioned that this started in 2008 and is a long process.

3. STAFF PRESENTATION ON LCLUP UPDATE PROCESS

1. Study session to respond to community and City Council questions regarding the California Coastal Commission staff’s March 2023 suggested modifications to the City of Pacifica’s Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and the City’s potential alternative modifications, including the Special Resiliency Area policies.

Consider and provide direction on the potential alternative modifications.

PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation from staff, hold a question and answer session for staff to respond to community questions, and provide direction on potential alternative modifications to the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

City Manager Woodhouse welcomed everyone and thanked them all for taking the time to attend this important meeting. He stated that the LCLUP is a complex and challenging topic.

As a result of the December meeting, Council approved expanding the public engagement process to include this extra meeting, and with the numbers present and work done, he was hopeful that at the end of this meeting, the community has a clear understanding of the topic and know their input has been heard and Council is ready to move closer to submitting comments to the Coastal Commission to achieve a certified LCLUP in the best interest of the city while meeting the Coastal Commission’s requirement. Agreement by both agencies is the only path to the certified LCLUP which will require compromise with a certified LCLUP replacing the 1980 LCLUP and is critical to fulfilling Council’s vision for Pacifica’s future in the best interest of the entire Pacifica community. He thanked the community’s presence, all staff hard work on this, and Council’s energy and focus and resilience on this process, as well as the moderator Ryder Smith from Tripepi Smith.

Consultant Ryder Smith introduced himself and shared his Pacifica experience as well as their process. He then turned it over to Planning Director Murdock to begin the extensive presentation.

Planning Director Murdock introduced himself and his role in this process since he came to work in Pacifica in 2014, adding that he will be assisted by Sr. Planner Cervantes in the presentation and mentioned the process for the day’s agenda and background on the process up to the present agenda. He then presented the staff report.

4. CASE STUDIES

5. FAQ RESPONSES

6. LIVE Q&A FOR PUBLIC
Consultant Smith suggested that they address live questions, and if they run out of live questions, they will address frequently asked questions and set up the process to answer

2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 3 March 02, 2024
questions for staff only as public comments will be in the afternoon.

Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, stated he asked a specific question about the authority of the Coastal Commission and his answer he received.

Consultant Smith stated they would get back to his question after.

Marie Swan, Pacifica, asked how this relates to the sea wall at Sharp Park Beach in regard to existing buildings.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the LCLUP is a policy document and can support or not support shoreline protection across the community. The plan they are talking about provides the fullest support that can be provided in the local plan for shoreline protection where the development is proposing the shoreline protection is eligible under the Coastal Act, i.e., current definition and law prior to 1977. This plan provides support, but specific sea walls are projectlevel decisions and not affected to approve or disapprove a sea wall. He stated that the Beach Blvd. Infrastructure Resiliency Project is not directly affected but supported by the LCLUP update policies.

Ms. Swan added that at the Beach Blvd. Resiliency meeting, there was a chart related to sea level rise and the engineer stated they lowered their projections for sea level rise, and she asked, if that is the case, why is this all about sea level rise.

Consultant Smith thought that question was regarding what projection are we using for sea level rise and what is the basis that they are trying to model around it which the Coastal Commission is also interested in using.

Planning Director Murdock responded that they are using the best available science to prepare these projections of sea level rise. The LCLUP is based off 2018 Ocean Protection Council sea level rise projections and they are updating those statewide. The projections applicable to the LCLUP may be lower than anticipated, but final adoption of that data has not yet occurred. He highlighted a key feature of the LCLUP is periodic updates and updating the hazard maps when new science projections are available.

Consultant Smith asked if the Coastal Commission was using the same 2018 data set for their analysis.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, as related to our LCLUP, that is the relevant controlling data now. They envision every five years, when new statewide data becomes available, amending this document to update the maps so they are making the best decisions on the best available information.

Mike Vernazza, Pacifica, thanked them for their work, and he asked if there was a scenario regarding the hazard zone area where they are not allowed to build, does it impact ability to collect property taxes, and if so, is there a scenario when Pacifica will be materially impacted by revenue by these properties.

Planning Director Murdock thought he touched on a complicated land use issue, i.e., question of takings. If any regulation says no development can occur on the property, a specific sequence of events by the City and City Attorney’s Office to figure out the true outcome. The questions arise of if they will insist on it and deal with the consequences of a taking or instead find some

2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 4 March 02, 2024
way to allow a minimum economic use of the property to avoid a taking. He thought most of the time some development is allowed. It may be a much smaller development pushed as far away from the hazard as possible, and they have to recognize that it may not be able to stay there indefinitely if the hazard advances over the life of that project. Obligations of deed restrictions, liability, etc., may require the owner to remove the development or further modify it as the hazard progresses; thus, most of the time, some development will be allowed and minimize the property tax impact to the city, but it is possible that ultimately people will choose not to develop.

He stated that they have not made that projection as it is a speculative long-term scenario.

Thus, there could be some impact, but probably minimal for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Vernazza asked if the city would end up being forced to buy the property.

Consultant Smith thought the response was that they would try to avoid that.

Planning Director Murdock agreed that agencies try to avoid takings by allowing whatever minimum development would avoid the takings legally.

Consultant Smith stated that he heard a different angle that there is also a bunch of infrastructure for the city now which could theoretically have to be picked up and moved. That has massive costs compared to in the protected areas where they could stay in place, adding capital improvement cost issues as well.

Planning Director Murdock agreed that, if the city had no ability to protect the infrastructure, a huge costly redesign and reconstruction of the city systems would need to occur. That is a long-term planning challenge requiring a lot of city focus and community involvement; that is not advocated for in the LCLUP. The LCLUP is trying to put in place policies that allow time for that type of planning to occur when it is determined that change to the city’s infrastructure is needed.

Bob Boles, Pacifica, stated he has a technical question about the definition of substantial structural modifications, i.e., regarding fire, if you have a small fire or bigger fire, some structure is going to have to be replaced even if you want to replace the building as it was before, and how does that fit in. Also, regarding termites and dry rot, you may not know if you have those problems until you start a project and pull off the siding, roofing, etc. and look at the structure underneath and could replace 50% of a building structure that you don’t know about when you start a project. He commented that the Building Code has some language about these issues and he hopes the Planning guidelines can conform with the Building Code so fewer discrepancies and uncertainties when you start projects.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they tried to note in the case study examples that there is currently an inconsistency in the policies between a full loss of destruction of a property that might result from fire or another disaster. The Coastal Act allows you to rebuild that, and they are pursuing adding that back into the SSM definition to be clear about that. He stated that what is not clear because the Coastal Act does not directly address it is what happens if part of your structure is damaged by a fire or some other type of disaster. Staff thought the normal development policies would apply and cover that. If it is less than 50% non-SSM restoration project or, if significant fire, dry rot or termite damage and 50% or more of the structural components of the property need to be removed or replaced, then it would trigger the SSM and associated new development-related policies that they discussed.

Sean Rhodes, Pacifica, asked why are the Coastal Commissioners never at these meetings to say where they are coming from so people can get an idea of what they are up to, as the

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 5 March 02, 2024
terminology changes in the paperwork. He thought they should stand here and be asked questions and answer as well.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they invited the Coastal Commission to participate in this as well as prior community engagement sessions. He stated that staff is trying to relay back as much as they can directly from our community’s voice about these policy issues. He stated that it has been helpful in some cases to get them to recognize how important some of these key changes will be for Pacifica and how they can be deal breakers in some instances for Council.

He stated that staff is trying to be their conduit when they are not here to hear the community directly.

City Manager Woodhouse added that, eventually, our LCLUP will go before the Coastal Commission and that is a public meeting where the public can show up and ask questions directly to Coastal staff and Coastal Commission.

Margo Solimon, Pacifica, asked why they have to work with the Coastal Commission who is not present and does not know them. She asked if we can choose not work with them and just do what is in our city’s best interest. She thought they were trying to impose all of these regulations on homeowners and she asked why they do not build the sea wall stronger and protect all of us without putting it on individual homeowners.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the Coastal Act was acted in 1976, creating the Coastal Commission. The state law empowers the Coastal Commission to regulate development, environmental protections, etc. in the coastal zone. They are operating from this high level, overarching state law that empowers the Coastal Commission to have authority in these areas.

The Coastal Act also provides requirements for incorporated jurisdictions like Pacifica and counties, local agencies, to have local coastal programs. They talked about what those mean, i.e., broad policy documents, zoning, etc. and empowers the Coastal Commission to determine if those local plans consistent with the Coastal Act and includes a requirement that the Coastal Commission certify those policies and plans before they can take effect. That is why they have to work in partnership with the Coastal Commission and not against it, and mutual agreement is needed between the agencies before any of these policies can take effect in our local plan. He stated that they cannot just build a sea wall they may want to protect our community because a) the Coastal Commission has a retained permit jurisdiction in areas below the mean high tide and in other areas where sea walls typically are constructed and they may need to get a direct permit from that agency and b) any other projects the city might approve would be appealable to the Coastal Commission in those locations. One way or the other, they are dealing with the Coastal Commission and they need to reach an agreement in relation to those kinds of policy documents or sea wall permitting decisions.

Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, stated that the people who empowered the Coastal Act are the voters and it was intended to protect the beaches and public land against development that would erode that. He stated that the construction of the special resiliency zone says that Pacifica will put certain areas of the coast in exclusion of the Coastal Act. He asked if they have determined how much legal liability that puts the city in with the Coastal Commission and for how long.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they have been working on these policies in very close coordination with Coastal Commission staff. These policies require a different approach to Coastal Act compliance, called the conflict resolution process, to harmonize different Coastal Act policies. They focus a lot today and other times on policies related to no shoreline protection for new development, existing development, etc. He stated that there are other

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 6 March 02, 2024
Coastal Act policies about infrastructure protection, protection of coastal access, and protection of visitor-serving uses in the coastal zone that can support shoreline protection. He stated that in Pacifica’s two neighborhoods, those are at conflict. These SRA policies are coming out of that conflict resolution process and that discussion is very close with the Coastal Commission so they can do this in a way that is compliant with the Coastal Act so there is not that liability or enforcement threat he alluded to if they were trying to unilaterally pursue such policies.

Cheryl Greene, Pacifica, asked when they expect these policies to go into force.

Planning Director Murdock thought the timeline is important to all of us. He stated that, ultimately, that will be a decision for Council to determine how to proceed following this meeting.

He stated that there is a scenario in which he can imagine these policies taking effect before the end of this calendar year if all goes as planned. He stated that there are other scenarios that could push this into later years before they have an LCLUP update which he hopes is not the outcome of this process, but potentially as soon as the end of this year if Council supports this approach and they find their way to the Coastal Commission before the end of the year.

Consultant Smith added that the potential variability in that timeline could be subject to Coastal Commission action or to potential lawsuits that may be raised by one party or another in the process.

Planning Director Murdock stated, on the policy side, decisions could be made for more community engagement. There could be a decision to not pursue these policies and pursue something else, and that will take time to analyze and bring back to Council and the community.

What staff has been doing and the way they have been framing this process is to complete the 2008/2009 LCLUP update process to get the 2020 approval from Council certified by Coastal Commission to conclude the process. Anything else would be a new process and they would have to figure out the timeline for that.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if Planning Director Murdock could describe the basic procedural steps about when the document is finally adopted and is in effect.

Planning Director Murdock explained that, when the local process concludes, they will transmit a certain request in this process that they mapped out to the Coastal Commission. There will be a certification hearing or hearings and, if they make a decision to certify the LCLUP, he thought in every scenario they will have changes to what Council approved in 2020 and to bring it back to Council for final action to take effect in Pacifica.

Ms. Greene asked to include language in the official documents that any project permitted before it goes into effect that may be ongoing are under the old laws, as the community needs to know what the laws are to protect them moving forward.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was important to note that, if and when the policies take effect, there is not a trigger that something will happen to anybody; no one from the city or Coastal Commission will come to their property to say they are over the SSM 50% and require reconstruction. He stated that it becomes relevant if people decide a year up to ten years down the road to do a project, they will come to Planning Department and they will hear the facts and refer to a specific policy and view their options. They can then choose to pursue the project and make the necessary changes or choose to do a different project that will not trigger the threshold. Staff is there to give them their options.

2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 7 March 02, 2024
Tisa Yonts, Pacifica, thought that when they answer questions, it is a one-sided conversation.

She would like to know why, in the process, there is no planning for a community-driven study of the original Coastal Commission policy. Since the Coastal Commission was voted in, she did not think it was conforming to its original parameters it was voted to uphold. The state’s sea level guidance is supposedly the science behind the policy moves, but the document states scientists disagree on this matter after 30 years. She asked if there can be a written study from the community in the document to speak for themselves.

Planning Director Murdock thought he would need a better understanding of the type of study she is referring to, and he would encourage her to follow up after the meeting or write to them on [email protected]. They will look at the specifics if they have an idea or study that would help the process. He stated that the process has been a product of many studies so far, including technical hazard analysis, vulnerability assessments, etc., related to development in the coastal zone. He recommended if they have specific ideas that might help them get to a conclusion in the process that they submit them to staff.

Michael Bookman, Pacifica, stated that we are not the only coastal city in California and he asked how this is handled in other cities and are the resiliency zones in Pacifica special or something being done in other areas that we can replicate.

Planning Director Murdock stated that cities up and down the coast are trying to undertake this process and we are somewhere in the middle of the jurisdictions in the coastal zone trying to achieve success with a comprehensive LCLUP update. New laws take effect, money comes from the state to put policies in place; that happened shortly after the Coastal Act was enacted and that is why there are a lot of 1980s/1990s LCLUPs , including ours, and why a lot of cities are undertaking major updates now, as a big chunk of funding came from the state several years ago to update plans to reflect sea level rise and climate change. He stated that those ahead of us have not had great success with the Coastal Commission. To simplify it, Coastal Commission has insisted on a one size fits all approach and tried to ram the policies into effect with more restrictive type of policies; communities have reacted negatively to that because they are worried about the loss in their community and loss of development. Many of those communities have chosen to withdraw their applications, regroup, and come back later. Pacifica has had the benefit of learning from their experiences and the benefit of cities and other interested parties working together with the Coastal Commission to think of new ways forward.

Neighborhood level adaptation has been the leading effort in this, as well as elevating the conversations to higher levels in the Coastal Commission leadership. Pacifica is at the forefront, being among the first cities to potentially take these kinds of special resiliency areas or neighborhood carve-out policies to the Coastal Commission for action. He stated this is a potential way to move forward to tailor all these to parts of communities that need a different approach, such as West Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach.

Mr. Bookman asked, if we are the first to do this, would that put us in a legal liability that we would be bearing the cost and is there any benefit in continuing to see what other cities do.

Planning Director Murdock did not know where the legal liability is in this, as Pacifica is undertaking a plan update using the standard process and would be getting certification from the Coastal Commission as part of the required process. If Pacifica were to impose or implement policies that were not certified by the Coastal Commission, there can be liability and enforcement penalties from the Coastal Commission. We are playing by the rules and explore new creative approaches that could be consistent with the Coastal Act.

2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 8 March 02, 2024
Pete Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated that there was a very disturbing new policy from the state in response to housing crisis called builder’s remedy, which is threatening to ram through a lot of projects that may undermine our local control and threaten our hills and hillside preservation.

He asked if this has any effect in the coastal zone.

Planning Director Murdock did not identify a situation aligned with what he described. He stated that some people characterize the builder’s remedy as it relates to Housing Element compliance, not Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

Consultant Smith stated, to summarize the question, he thought the question is if someone was coming in with a builder’s remedy project, assuming someone could make that application, could someone try to put in an application for a builder’s remedy project inside the coastal zone that would bypass Coastal Commission approval for that particular coastal development.

Planning Director Murdock stated it is a very complex question and he thinks the simple answer is probably not. The projects still need to be consistent with the LCP and the Coastal Act. They also need to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, stated that every time they deal with the Coastal Commission, they come back with new increasing demands. If Pacifica were to approve this SRA idea, who is to say they will not come back with another set of new demands that have never been seen before.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was easy to generalize the Coastal Commission but it was important to recognize their Coastal Commission staff and Coastal Commissioners who form the Coastal Commission. They are often in alignment, and sometimes they reach different conclusions on a particular issue. Pacifica has been working in very close coordination with the Coastal Commission staff; they are using their best professional judgment and experience, as Pacifica staff are, to hammer out areas of compromise so both agencies can agree on an update set of policies that both agencies can adopt. He thinks they are setting up a process by working cooperatively and productively with the Coastal Commission staff to minimize the potential for that to occur.

Kimberly Williams, Pacifica, stated that she felt the facilitator seems to have a bias in his responses and she is looking for a neutral and transparent process. She stated that several biases have come from city staff as well, and she would like to hear these things put forward more neutrally to be inclusive.

City Clerk Coffey introduced the Zoom speakers.

Jaroslav Brych, Pacifica, would like to know how the sea wall fits into this plan. His understanding is that the science shows the wall has nothing to lessen the force of the wave, and it impacts more the beaches down the coast so they can save one place but negatively impact neighboring regions.

Planning Director Murdock stated they are here to recognize that shoreline protection structures like sea walls do have impacts on the coastline, and those impacts are required to be mitigated through the permitting, construction, and ongoing maintenance operation of the structures. The Coastal Commission has gotten better in incorporating required mitigations over the years, as they have learned more through the course of decades about permitting these and the subsequent effects. He thought what they were trying to reflect in today’s discussion is there are existing shoreline protection structures that are present in our community. To analyze

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 9 March 02, 2024
hazards and new development potential as though they are not there, even though they are very likely to remain for decades to come, given the core infrastructure and streets and developments they protect as it is, is a sort of unreality in the LCLUP process that they are trying to reconcile with the Coastal Commission in select portions of our town because the adverse impacts of moving or analyzing as though the walls are not there are significant. It is a policy question for Council, but in his professional judgment, those are adverse impacts on our community inland of the shoreline. He stated that it is ultimately a balancing act. If they were to armor the entirety of Pacifica, huge coastal resource impacts would occur. That is not what anyone is advocating for and not what the plan would say in any version contemplated.

Mike McCarthy, Pacifica, referred to the SRAs proposed and knows we are one of the early cities contemplating such a thing. He asked what projections staff has come up with regarding how the SRA will impact our property values and what the projections for people in the SRA zones are to be able to insure and finance their properties.

Planning Director Murdock replied that it is a citywide policy document and is not imposing policies directly related to insurability, property value, or the ability to lend or get a loan on a particular property. He stated this plan was trying to modernize, to recognize the science, to reflect where hazards are present already in the coastal zone based on publicly available information that is already out there about these hazards. That same information is available to insurers, lenders, and others to make their decisions. He thought we are newer to the game and reflecting and confronting the impact of coastal hazards in our community, but he thought it was helpful to think of this situation similarly to the evolving understanding of wildfire hazards across our state. He stated that few communities have correct or up-to-date fire hazard maps, but they know insurers and lenders are making informed decisions about wildfire risk, losses they experienced, etc., not directly related to any sort of local government policy document.

Private property owners offering to buy properties and lenders looking to loan on property or insurers looking to insure they are going to make their own decisions based on their business needs and the information they typically consider in making those kinds of decisions.

Naikaly, Pacifica, understood the Coastal Commission must uphold the Coastal Act which says they need to protect structures built before 1977. For the community, she thought one of the biggest concerns is preserving the pier and sewer line, which was built after the Commission going into place in 1977. She stated that the Coastal Act says sea walls shall be permitted to protect existing structures. Her question is about property rights, as potentially one of the provisions for SSM requirements would be to remove Section 30312, and she read the specific requirements. She asked about private homes that have been on the Palmetto area before the Coastal Commission pre-1977 and does it allow the city to push back some of the requests that the Commission is asking for.

Planning Director Murdock thought anybody could look at the Coastal Act and find a provision that supports their particular position. The art is balancing the various provisions in the Coastal Act that would result in different outcomes. His opinion is that the Coastal Commission, in recent history, has balanced it more on the coastal resource protection side, rather than the development protection and construction side. That was a policy call that the agency is entitled to make resulting from the appointments the Governor, Assembly, and Senate are making to the Coastal Commissioners. He stated that those interpretations in the policy balance changes over time but is currently balanced towards the environmental and coastal resources side.

Thus, he said the question of shoreline protection structures authorized to protect existing development is subject to much consternation. He stated that January 1, 1977, is an interpretation of the Coastal Act on what existing development means by the Coastal

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 10 March 02, 2024
Commission, and people have and are continuing to litigate that question; it is a question for the courts and legislature to sort out. He stated that the city is currently bound by this interpretation of January 1, 1977, and they are trying to operate in good faith based on that. Relating to property rights, he thinks Council previously indicated that property rights is a key theme in the LCLUP from their perspective, and figuring out ways to be most protective of property rights in our community was an important theme while balancing environmental and other resource protection considerations. He stated that they are exploring ways with Coastal Commission staff to potentially put special resiliency area policies in place that would allow the reflection that existing shoreline protection is having a protective impact on properties in the areas identified.

If that were to take effect, it would provide more development potential with fewer hoops to jump through for properties in those areas subject to those policies where the rest of the city would be subject to the baseline policy approach that the Coastal Commission has pushed for. He stated, if she thinks a different outcome needs to apply from the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Act, those are legislative questions, and she would need to talk to her elected Assemblymember, Senator, and Governor to change the Coastal Act or the appointments to the Coastal Commission to get a different outcome. He stated that staff is trying to operate within the conditions that they are today.

Irene Lee, Pacifica, thanked them for the meeting and allowing her participation. She asked which agency is the final determinator for drawing the redline on the hazard zone and how often is it updated.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the redline she is referring to is one of the coastal vulnerability zones in the city’s maps projecting coastal erosion, using the best available science at the time, notably the Ocean Protection Council sea level rise projection. He stated that the redline was drawn as a product of a city-led process with the consultant hired by the city, highly qualified coastal and geotechnical engineers using their expertise to use the data available to project the hazard zone on a citywide basis. He stated that site specific analyses could result in different specific line drawing on a specific property, and the LCLUP contemplates that. He stated that the maps are intended to be a filter of where further site-specific analysis is needed and where it may be foregone to extreme line or make the development process quicker and less expensive. Staff is envisioning those maps being updated every 5-10 years to reflect the best available science. They talked briefly earlier about an update coming to the sea level rise projections in the near future to update the 2018 data. He stated that, as new science and new data that is accepted as the best available science becomes available, the city can make a decision to update those maps and see if the lines would result in different places, meaning different policy outcomes would result if the lines were changed. He stated that is one of the benefits of this document, i.e. be able to undertake periodic updates to reflect the changing dynamic nature of the Coastal Act.

Consultant Smith stated that they are now going to back to frequently asked questions.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they are trying to make this an accessible and informative process. He stated that they received numerous questions in advance of today’s meeting.

They are focusing on answering questions now that were submitted in advance after the agenda was published. He stated that they received more than 140 questions before the agenda packet was published and have answered those questions to the best of their ability in the staff report.

He is focusing now on those that were submitted after agenda publication.

Planning Director Murdock began with the first theme: Fiscal Impacts/Economic Vitality. The questions included:

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 11 March 02, 2024
• What will the City do to protect this revenue and challenge the CCC proposal or, alternately, if the coast is not maintained, how does Pacifica plan to fill that potentially enormous budgetary shortfall?
• How will the planned Special Resiliency Area (SRA) impact the economic vitality of our Sharp Park neighborhood?
• How will the SRA impact West Sharp Park home values?
• What are the projections for the SRA with regards to individuals being able to finance and insure their homes and properties?
He answered that the insurers, lenders, and purchasers are making their own decisions based on the information they have. He added that the information in this plan is distilled and analyzed from publicly available information. All the insurers, lenders and purchasers have access to that information. Staff thinks the special resiliency area policies will provide better development potential and maybe greater property values for those properties subject to the policies than those with more restrictive policies. Ultimately, property values vary for different reasons.

Planning Director Murdock continued with the second theme: Development/Open Space. The questions included:
• What is the intent for the City to develop more undeveloped land that is not being used now? How will this impact our City’s open space?
• What undeveloped land is going to be at risk now? How can we stop new development? He thought the updated LCLUP will have more policies to clearly protect environmental resources. The city cannot make all privately owned land open space and prohibit developments of any kind. It is a balance, and the city needs to allow economic use of individual private property owner’s property but can make development of those properties to reasonable regulations, such as avoiding adverse impact to environmental resources, many policies which would be implemented through the LCLUP update. He highlighted the quarry in the presentation, which was a subject of a lot of community interest, and there is a balance in that site where they see reddish pink areas indicated in the LCLUP for visitor-serving commercial development in the future and the green areas as conservation area to not be developed and protected into the future. He stated that up and down our coast in this plan is a balance of protection and reasonable development.

Planning Director Murdock continued with the third theme: Responding to CCC Suggested Modifications. The questions included:
• Has the City responded to these comments? How is the CCC direction being incorporated into the final LCLUP?
• What is the true reason for the CCC changing the LCP that the City of Pacifica so tirelessly worked on to present to them, and that the People of Pacifica agreed to? He thought the questions related to the March 2023 suggested modifications from the Coastal Commission. He also noted they had already touched on some of the reasons for Coastal Commission staff releasing those suggested modifications which include changes to the city’s February 2020 version which they think are needed to achieve Coastal Act compliance. He stated that we are having this process to specifically figure out how the city should respond to the March 2023 suggested modifications. In the staff report packet, staff, through its own work

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 12 March 02, 2024
and close coordination with Coastal Commission staff, has prepared a series of alternative modifications that they think Council should consider sending back to the Coastal Commission in response to their work. He stated that discussion is ongoing and Council will ultimately give us direction on how that should proceed. He referred to the second question and stated that the reason we are doing this work is that the Coastal Commission have said the plan that came out of the city’s process in February 2020 is not consistent with the Coastal Act. He stated that the question is to what degree does it need to change and are there other compromises other than what the Coastal Commission identified in March 2023 that it could change and still be found to be Coastal Act compliant. He stated that those are the key conversations and considerations that they are undertaking now.

Planning Director Murdock continued with the fourth theme: Deed Restrictions and SSMs. The questions included:
• To require a deed restriction and the signature of an assumption of risk waiver seems like the CCC is overreaching and expects Pacifica to enforce this overreach. Has the City Attorney reviewed this proposal and weighed in on the legality of it? What about my 5th Amendment rights as a property owner? Does Pacifica think it is immune to lawsuits in regards to this type of overreach?
• When does the ‘clock’ start for Substantial Structural Modification? Will it be applied retrospectively to nonconforming home improvements made prior to LCLUP approval? • What happens when an SSM is “triggered”? Will something right away? He referred to the first question on deed restrictions and substantial structural modifications or SSMs. He stated that the Coastal Commission is the state agency in power under the Coastal Act to enforce and administer and interpret the Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission has used a deed restriction tool for a while to implement one of the key provisions in the Coastal Act, i.e., that new development shall be designed not to need shoreline structures. Deed restrictions are used at various levels of government, including by the city in some cases when it acts on development to provide notice to current and future property owners of important limitations on the use of their property. The deed restriction is a reasonable mechanism used by various government agencies, including the Coastal Commission. Through the LCLUP, the city would make wider use of that to put on notice current and future property owners that they have waived their rights to future shoreline protection, which is a Coastal Act interpretation that is reasonable even though some people do not like the outcome of that, but is provided for in the Coastal Act in plain language. Relating to legal liability and lawsuits, the courts over time have consistently upheld reasonable government regulations of developments and mitigations and deed restrictions, etc., that are needed to manage and respond to the impacts of development to mitigate significant impacts identified and staff was not seeing any issue with this approach.

He addressed the next two questions. He stated that the starting date is available permit records from the city or Coastal Commission. Those permit records are inconsistent for some properties. They are left with the available records they have to try to make informed decisions and determinations. He stated that they will have to establish a baseline based on whatever permitting records or other reasonable information they have available and compare it to a proposed development based in the plan information submitted. They will have to work carefully on a site-by-site basis when a development is proposed to determine whether they think the SSM definition will be exceeded or not and to have that conversation with the property owner so they can make informed decisions about how to proceed. He stated that is in conjunction with wanting to undertake a new project for a property. He emphasized that there is no trigger when the LCLUP is certified. When that time occurs where the city will require changes to property because the plan has been adopted, they are not coming to say that

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 13 March 02, 2024
property owners committed an SSM violation and must change their property. He referred to possible limitations that will be in place on further modifications to property, which would come out of this modernized LCLUP. However, if you have a property that is legal in its current form because you obtained relevant permits, the city will not make you do anything different to your property through adoption of this plan.

Planning Director Murdock continued with the fifth theme: Special Resiliency Areas (SRAs) and Post-LCLUP Approval. The questions included:
• Why is the City selling out some neighborhoods to get the SRAs? • What happens after LCLUP adoption?
Planning Director Murdock clarified that he would not characterize this situation as selling out some neighborhoods to get the SRAs. He stated that, if they follow the sequence of events relative to the LCLUP update, the March 2023 modifications from the Coastal Commission were written in response to the city’s February 2020 City Council approval document. He stated that the city had a pro-development, pro-protection LCLUP, and the Coastal Commission has commented on that in some very important ways that will require a compromised approach. He stated that the Coastal Commission modifications would put it much more to a less protected policy posture and approach reflective of their interpretation and application of the Coastal Act.

Staff is exploring in response to that March 2023 set of comments new ways to provide greater protections and greater development potential for some of our neighborhoods, such as West Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach, through this SRA concept. He stated that nothing is being made more restrictive for any of our neighborhoods in order to get the SRA. The SRA will be a net benefit for those areas from the policies by being able to consider protection from existing shoreline protection structure when performing their hazard analyses. They would expect, in most cases, less hazard and more development potential on the property subject to the SRA policies. It is not coming at the expense of other neighborhoods, even though not all neighborhoods will get the benefit of SRA policies. He stated that, in his professional opinion, they will not get SRAs or something like it for the entirety of our city. He added that they need to figure out the next best compromising approach to get them to a certified LCLUP and be a document that Council and our community can support. He stated that they think the SRAs could be that approach and why they have put significant staff work in exploring that policy framework with the Coastal Commission. Regarding the question of what happens after LCLUP adoption, in the SRAs, that would mean coastal hazard analysis can reflect protection from existing shoreline protection structures in the SRA areas. More broadly after LCLUP adoption, if you have a property and are not looking to undertake development, nothing changes for you, but what changes is if you want to undertake a new project or improve your property, new requirements and potentially new restrictions will apply. That is the fact of a new LCLUP policy reflecting 40+ years of Coastal Commission interpretation, policy, and practice, and a heightened understanding of hazards in the world as it exists in this very dynamic and hazard prone coastal zone. He added that after LCLUP adoption the city has a lot of work to do to update zoning and other policy and programs and implement the LCLUP. They city also has an obligation, if the SRAs are enacted, to put together a shoreline management plan to do visitor amenity improvements, to identify areas where armoring over the long term could be removed or modified to reduce or minimize coastal resource impacts, and to periodically update the hazard maps based on new science, which is a lot of work to make this LCLUP a living document in a way that the 1980 LCLUP has not been. They want to do better with the new LCLUP, having a routine of periodic updates.

Planning Director Murdock continued with the sixth theme: Sharp Park Specific Plan,

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 14 March 02, 2024
Undeveloped San Pedro Avenue property, and Specific Project Questions. The questions included:
• How does the LCLUP square up with the Sharp Park Specific Plan? • Questions related to Pedro Point
o Calson Property
• Questions related to specific shoreline protection projects and impacts He stated that, broadly, we need the up-to-date LCLUP to reset the baseline on a citywide basis so the more specific policies in the Sharp Park Specific Plan, more detailed zoning, more detailed site design, architectural design, transportation and other policies can then be integrated into the LCLUP with a subsequent LCP amendment with the Coastal Commission.

He stated that they need this first to enable the Sharp Park Specific Plan to then be worked on and certified with the Coastal Commission. He then referred to a second series of summarized questions related to Pedro Point and the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site, otherwise known as Calson Property. Several of the questions asked were why is the city allowing certain development potential there and why is the city not doing more to protect the known environmental resources and wetlands on the site. He responded to that by saying that the Council has considered this issue extensively leading up to the February 2020 approval and they ended up in a place through the policy that is in the LCLUP to allow reasonable development potential at that property, which the city needs to do, but at the very low end of the range of residential development in that land use which calls for mixed use, commercial and residential, and explicitly put into place policies ensuring the recognition of potential wetlands and other environmental resources and other coastal hazards present on the property. He stated, if and when development is proposed at a site level on that site, it would be allowable within the range of uses and densities but also would undergo very detailed environmental and hazard technical analyses to conclude exactly what areas of the site would be suitable for development. He stated that, with questions related to specific shoreline protection projects and impacts and city infrastructure, they received a variety of questions, i.e., what about a specific property, specific sea wall, etc. He added that those are very project- and site-specific and they do not have the ability to provide all those answers because they are project-level issues that need to be analyzed at the project level. He stated that at the policy level, which is where the LCLUP is, there is ongoing support for shoreline protection where properties would be eligible and where city infrastructure would be eligible, consistent with the Coastal Act. There are robust policies to protect environmental resources where possible, which is a balancing act and set of tradeoffs.

Planning Director Murdock concluded with the seventh theme: Case Study Questions. The questions included:
• Say a 1,000 square foot (sf) building was built in 1945. Then in 1975 the owner obtained a building permit and the building was legally enlarged to 1,800 sf, which is more than a 50% modification. Does this past action automatically trigger SSM now in 2024? • Say a 1,000-sf building was built in 1965. Then in 1985, the owner did not get a building permit, but enlarged the property to 1,750 sf. Does this illegal remodel if discovered now by the City automatically trigger SSM? Even if the current owner is not making any changes now?
• Say a 1,000-sf building was built in 1970. Then in 1985 the owner obtained a building permit and the building was legally enlarged to 1,200 sf. Now, the current owner proposes to enlarge it again, this time to 1,600 sf. Does this request trigger SSM?

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 15 March 02, 2024
He stated to take a careful look at case studies 2 and 3 in relation to non-SSM and SSM development, as they are looking at the available permit history to make those determinations on whether an SSM would apply; in some cases, development would be more or less restricted based on the outcome of that analysis, as well as the presence of coastal hazards. With any individual property owner with questions, staff would invite them to come to the Planning Department, and they will do their best to give them answers to those hypotheticals in relation to their specific property.

Planning Director Murdock stated, to wrap up this session of the meeting, he wanted to reinforce some key points in LCLUP update from the city staff’s perspective. Modernization of a 40+ year old LCLUP will bring with it new requirements, which includes Coastal Act interpretations from the Coastal Commission that have revolved over 40+ years. It is important to recognize our 1980 LCLUP was certified just a few years after the Coastal Act took effect, and they are getting an update on what the Coastal Commission has learned in 40+ years of administering the Coastal Act in the coastal zone. The reality is that they have to incorporate a lot of those lessons into our new plan, and it will also reflect updated science in coastal hazard understandings that were not available in 1980 and need to be incorporated into a new modernized LCLUP. He stressed that it is important to recognize a fundamental Coastal Act principle does not allow new development to rely on new or existing shoreline protection and we need to figure out how to recognize that and work with it. One way to work with it is to work with the Coastal Commission and their staff on compromise approaches, potentially including the special resiliency area and SRA policies, where we can use a different approach to Coastal Act compliance in a narrow subset of our community, in this case, West Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach. He stated that it is innovative and maybe we can be one of the first communities in California to get such policies and are exploring that as part of this LCLUP update process. He expressed the importance to note in responding to the FAQs is that deed restrictions waving rights to shoreline protection and assuming risk are the new normal to implement the Coastal Act. He stated that it is a reasonable mechanism, supported by the law, implementing the Coastal Act to put current and future owners on notice about limitations on shoreline protection relative to development. In the context of triggers if the plan is adopted, when you decide to undertake a project in the future that may be a component of any potential approval you, as a property owner, will need to make an informed decision whether to move forward with the project in this new policy framework and accept everything that comes along with it or to choose not to undertake the project. He stated that inconsistency with the 2040 General Plan adopted in 2022 will become increasingly challenging over time. Where there are conflicts between the 1980 LCLUP and the city’s 2040 General Plan, the 1980 LCLUP and the coastal zone will need to continue to take precedence. That limits the ability of the city to implement the variety of key changes that were the product of that extensive General Plan updated process, many of which are carried forward in the new LCLUP. New land use, environmental protections, mixed use, revitalization of our neighborhoods, provision of housing and affordable housing opportunities, strengthening the city’s tax base and economic development will all continue to be limited if we operate under a 1980 LCLUP as compared to updating it and aligning it with the 2040 General Plan. He added that an update to our LCLUP is coming regardless of what we do in this particular moment in time. State law enacted at the end of last year, Senate Bill 272, requires this type of LCLUP update by January 1, 2034. We have no indication that conditions for that update will be more favorable then than they are now. When every coastal zone community or many of them will be rushing by the deadline to update their LCLUPs to comply with state law, he thinks we are less likely to get the kind of individual attention from the Coastal Commission in the future as we have now and we should try to take advantage of that now. He was hopeful that they can find a way as a community with City Council support and working with the Coastal

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 16 March 02, 2024
Commission to find compromise and move this process forward.

7. LUNCH BREAK
Consultant Smith thanked everyone for the excellent questions asked and the thorough answers provided and they will break for lunch and return at approximately 1:00 p.m., moving from Q&A and public comment into providing effective feedback.

8. STAFF PRESENTATION ON PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE MODIFICATIONS Mayor Vaterlaus reconvened the meeting and mentioned the agenda going forward and asked Councilmembers if they had any changes.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked that they have another live Q&A for public before going to staff presentation.

City Manager Woodhouse asked clarification that she was asking for a third item on the agenda and then continue with the original agenda which will also include a public comment Q&A and it will compress the Council deliberation and direction at the end of the meeting.

Councilmember Boles thought this was good to give the public the opportunity to comment and maybe reduce the public comments and questions later.

Mayor Vaterlaus proposed two minutes for each commenter/questioner.

City Manager stated that they are adding a new agenda item and they would need a vote to add it to the agenda.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer moved to add another agenda item 7A with a 2-minute public comment and Q&A period; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

MOVE TO ADD AGENDA ITEM 7A (WITH 2-MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT AND Q&A

PERIOD)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Mayor Vaterlaus then mentioned the revised agenda.

Planning Director Murdock stated what they were imagining for the public comment/Q&A was they will note questions during the course of the comment period, not provide answers immediately for each commenter.

Mayor Vaterlaus clarified that their questions will not be answered immediately but the staff responses to questions raised in public comments will take place after. They will finish with Council deliberation at 4:00 p.m.

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 17 March 02, 2024

PUBLIC COMMENT AND Q&A FOR PUBLIC
Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated that he was pleased that the city has articulated alternatives to the Coastal Commission staff suggested modifications. He thought everyone is concerned that this process is taking a long time and struggling with the dilemma that the LCLUP is essential for the city to move ahead but complying with state law and regulatory guidance may compromise some plans. He see two paths: continued protractive debate on specifics, most stalled for years, and on this path they would have no LCLUP for the foreseeable future; and the other path promises a certified LCLUP right away where Coastal Commission staff recommended that their modified version be approved by the Commission and we are close, as most of the suggested modifications are already deemed acceptable by the city and only 30 remain. He stated that our LCLUP will not be static and as said by staff; amendments are common. The SRAs fit into this plan and the Coastal Commission staff encouraged that we consider that we can make future modifications after the LCP is certified.

Sam Casillas, Pacifica, stated that the city keeps misrepresenting a taking. He shared his thoughts regarding changing the land use designation for places like the Pedro Point field to residential and felt that upfront hazard and environmental analysis cannot be deferred when changing the land use designation.

Allison West, Pacifica, stated that the Coastal Act mandates the California Coastal Commission protect, conserve, restore, and enhance the state’s coastal resources, and they are an agency. She stated it was misleading to say they invited them because their job is not to show up here as the courts are not coming here when it is a judicial issue. She stated that over the past ten years in Pedro Point, they have provided expert reports on biology, CEQA from experts, and legal opinions about the undeveloped property on San Pedro Avenue, and feels that the city ignores the reports and is not paying attention to a tsunami evacuation area, flood zone and habitats, and CEQA.

Joanne Gold, Pacifica, stated her comment is similar to what the previous commenters pointed out, i.e., on the undeveloped property on San Pedro Avenue. She submitted a question asking why they would change to the land use designation to coastal residential mixed use from its current land use. She stated that it is a hazard zone, a tsunami evacuation area, and a flood area. The answer she heard was that the number of residences that will be built will be reduced, but she asked why is there any number of residences, people, and property that they would put in harm’s way.

Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, stated that vilifying the Coastal Commission is not going to get them to a solution. The spirit of the Coastal Act is to preserve our public lands against private interests who would destroy them. He agreed that people have a right to protect their property, but when they talk about allowing revetments, protections, and arming against the beach, they know the science shows they will erode the beach and asked who that would benefit. He stated that 53% of the homes on Beach Blvd. are unhosted STRs and he has severe misgivings about underwriting our community and underwriting corporate STRs on Beach Blvd. He stated that, when the plan is emphasizing development, he asked for whom that development benefit and at what cost.

Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, pointed out that the coastal vulnerability maps that staff repeatedly refers to are not supposed to be used for planning and procedures and are invalid. He stated that ESA was hired to produce these maps in 2018 and the original maps had a disclaimer at the top

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 18 March 02, 2024
saying that the erosion scenario does not account for shoreline protections but shoreline protections do exist and he thought the red line on the maps predicting where shoreline erosion would reach in 2100 are wrong. He added that the CVZ maps are not using the best available science that the LCLUP claims to use. He stated that ESA used Ocean Protection Council’s State of California sea level rise guidance 2018 update and asked how OPC’s new State of California sea level rise guidance 2024 affects this plan.

Richard Harris, San Francisco, with the SF Public Golf Alliance, stated he has emailed and mailed a letter on the special resiliency areas, saying that the southern part of Sharp Park, mostly the golf course, and the West Fairway Park subdivision meet all the criteria that the draft LCP sets for the coastal resiliency areas. This is low income and low cost public recreation protected under the Coastal Act and Coastal Commission’s environmental justice policy and Pacifica City Council’s policies for the drafting of the resiliency. He added that the city’s critical infrastructure runs through that policy and is documented in his letters.

Jennifer Smith, Pacifica, asked three questions: 1) How were the SRAs determined (such as only neighborhoods with public use areas)? 2) Can you provide a real world example of the risk of not having the Coastal Commission certify this updated plan (such as risking state and federal funding)? and 3) Why did it take so long to get from a 2009 start to this point of approval for an updated plan today?
Cherie Chan, Pacifica, referred to Figure 4.3, ESHAs (environmental sensitive habitat and restoration) and references inside the document. She filed comments in 2020 saying the document was not updated and ESHAs that have been identified by the Coastal Commission are included in the updates. She shares the desire of Council that they move forward with an LCLUP that is as solid as possible and not challenged in court and asked that they update the language to reflect that the Pedro Point field is a known ESHA.

Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comment.

Planning Director Murdock stated he would try to provide answers to some questions he noted mixed in with the comments.
• Does the public get compensation for the lands lost in sea walls and other shoreline protection devices?
He stated yes, in a sense. During the Coastal Commission permitting process, one component is a calculation of sand mitigation fees and they use a process to calculate how much sand will be lost as a result of a shoreline protection device being constructed. It requires payment of a fee by the applicant for that to offset impacts. He does not have full information on how those fees are used, but they may help provide grants to construct other types of coastal access points in the vicinity. It is a question for Coastal Commission for a full answer. He stated that there is a legal process to some extent but not providing access to those lands immediately fronting the shoreline protection devices that over the long term no longer create accessibility to the public.
• Regarding disclaimers on the coastal vulnerability zone maps, why is staff talking about them having value or effect in the process?
He read a portion of the disclaimer: “the CVZ maps are not detailed to the parcel scale and shouldn’t be used for real estate, finance or insurance transactions, or navigation, permitting or

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 19 March 02, 2024
regulatory uses.” He also read another portion: “to confirm vulnerability potential, further studies should be performed for the CVZs. CVZ projections were sourced from publicly available data and existing models not created by Pacifica.” He stated that they were using these and other maps in the LCLUP as a screening tool to determine where further analysis is required. They are not using them to make permitting decisions or proposing to use them to make permitting decisions that would run afoul of the disclaimer. They are using it as a tool to determine where further site-specific analysis as described.
• Do the coastal vulnerability maps use the best available science? He stated, in the time period they were prepared, they used the 2018 Ocean Protection Council’s (OPC) sea level rise data. There is a process to update those to the 2024 OPC data.

When the projections are finalized, that would trigger a process for Pacifica if the LCLUP were in place to update the maps and ensure they reflect the best available science as in effect at that time. As the new projections are not in effect, it would be premature to base maps off those.
• Why could the text not be updated to reflect environmentally sensitive habitat areas beyond developed San Pedro Avenue site?
He stated they could consider that, but they have not done the significant undertaking to identify all the sites where site-specific analyses have been done and where Coastal Commission staff has analyzed where site-specific investigations have identified ESHA. He stated that was not the purpose of the maps for the LCLUP as a tool. The map uses generally available resource agency maps of known or suspected potential ESHA. The maps as they exist, are combined with a policy in the LCLUP regarding areas within 300 feet of those need to have site-specific investigation and the property in question is also within 300 feet. He added that whether through site-specific evaluation through the generic policy of 300 feet or the site-specific policy Council has already thoroughly deliberated on, all roads lead to site-specific evaluation being done when a development is proposed in the future. Impacts do not exist in the abstract but in relation to a proposal and there is no need to do further study at this point unless a development proposal is submitted to the city.
• Who identified the special resiliency area neighborhoods and how? Is it only neighborhoods that include public use?
First, the identification of the SRAs emerged through careful staff-to-staff communications between Pacifica and Coastal Commission. They considered a variety of criteria that might support identification of an SRA. Pacifica was trying to build a concept based on existing public infrastructure, an existing shoreline protection structure, publicly owned and providing broader protection than a single property or small number of properties, broad coastal access like trails and roadways, protected by those protection structures, and other Coastal Act uses, such as hotel accommodations as priority land uses in the Coastal Act. Coastal Commission would prefer an approach that focuses on existing shoreline protection structures as described but related to public infrastructures and roadways, not as much about the land uses as much about infrastructure and access. That is the current model on which the SRAs are being considered.

It is in part only neighborhoods that include public use but primarily public infrastructure running through the area and protected by the shoreline protection structures there presently. • What is the danger of having a plan that the Coastal Commission does not certify? Will

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 20 March 02, 2024
we risk missing out on state or federal funding? Please provide real examples.

He stated that they talked about the benefits of having an updated LCLUP, such as land use designations supporting the vision of the community’s future, the type of community they want, infill development, mixed use, housing and affordable housing, vibrant commercial and economic development opportunities, strengthening the city’s tax base to provide public services, and protecting the environment. Those are all advanced through an updated LCLUP.

The 1980 LCLUP, mentioned in numerous case studies, has few if any policy on point to address these public desires and demands, many of which surface through the General Plan update, Sharp Park Specific Plan, or this process, or the Housing Element process, and an updated LCLUP would help tie those together. He stated that one risk of the 1980 LCLUP for those areas in the Coastal Commission appeal jurisdiction is when actions are taken in those areas or appealed, the Coastal Commission is imposing policies that deviate from the 1980 LCLUP, many of which they expressed an interest to implement through their suggested modifications. He stated that the risk is that the policies they are discussing will take effect anyway and they will have little to no control over the manner in which they are applied. He stated the risk is the loss of local control by failure to update the LCLUP for those areas. • Why did it take so long since 2009 to get to this level of review for the LCLUP update? He stated that there are various reasons. He referred to 2014 when he started to work for Pacifica. What was related to him from staff at that time was that the process started with the best intentions, but the great financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 had significant negative impacts period of time had on local government finances and the need to prioritize resources for core city service functions. Spending a lot of money on a long-term plan update was not prioritized.

He is only relaying the best information he got regarding the cause of pausing the process during the 2009-2012 time frame. Then the work resumed and culminated with a 2014 draft release of the LCLUP. In the 2014-2015 time frame attempts were made to take it back to the Council and Planning Commission process, which included study session between the two of them. There were other emerging policy issues at the time that he thought took the priority away, such as Highway 1 widening, and other emerging priorities such as cannabis permitting, rent stabilization and rent control, which consumed staff time and financial resources over the LCLUP update. He stated it was not until 2019 that they were able to re-engage in long-term planning actions as the Plan Pacifica effort. They completed the LCLUP update phase for the city in 2020 and moved it onto the Coastal Commission phase, and completed the General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan updates in 2022. They are circling back now that they are in a critical juncture in the Coastal Commission certification phase subsequent to the February 2020 approval, June 2020 transmittal, and global COVID-19 pandemic affecting the city’s ability to undertake major planning activities. He stated that today they are trying to figure out the way to move forward in this process.

STAFF PRESENTATION ON PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE MODIFICATIONS Mayor Vaterlaus asked if he wanted to talk about alternative modifications also.

Planning Director Murdock agreed and presented the alternative modifications.

9. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND Q&A TO STAFF
Councilmember Boles asked to see the maps of the Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park SRAs. Regarding the Rockaway Beach SRA map, she confirmed the boundaries at the ocean

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 21 March 02, 2024
line and at the freeway which is not in the coastal zone. She asked if this map changed.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the policies they are talking about affect the coastal zone and the boundaries are roughly the eastern extent of the Highway 1 right-of-way with some exceptions. The LCLUP policies will only apply in the coastal zone. The key change she noticed is the result of further discussion with Coastal Commission staff, who indicated a preference to focus on the area of the shoreline and protection devices.

Councilmember Boles wanted to know the northern boundaries and how the pump station and quarry relate to the SRA.

Planning Director Murdock stated it is hard to describe but they can see the termination flanking to the left at the end where the public parking lot is.

Councilmember Boles stated there is a lot of overlap with the quarry and asked if a portion of the quarry is in the SRA.

Planning Director Murdock agreed. An individual or property would not be in or out of an SRA in the current conception; you would be able to use the shoreline protection from that device that is mapped, regardless of where the property is located.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if the blue lines are water lines.

Planning Director Murdock stated that for illustrative purposes they are using Google Maps, which is not meant to be technical resource maps. He stated that Calera Creek is shown at the top, and there is a blue line that is drainage feature, not the creek.

Councilmember Boles referred to the West Sharp Park map, stating the previous map included the Shoreview neighborhood was included with its armoring and it was not now and asked if that was also the Coastal Commission suggestion.

Planning Director Murdock stated that was a revision that came back after the Coastal Commission review process. He understood that the intervening private development there was problematic in the framework on shoreline protection. The intervening private property between the shoreline protection and roadway where public infrastructure is was a disqualifying factor in that review process.

Councilmember Boles referred to the golf course, stating it is San Francisco property and there is not hard armoring there, which may have been staff’s answer on why we are not expanding that further.

Planning Director Murdock stated in relation to the berm, it was San Francisco property. They do their own land use planning under typical zoning and general planning. Under the Coastal Act, they are in our local coastal program, and some jurisdiction needs to have the LCP and we have it. Our policies can guide what will occur there, but ultimately it is agency to agency between San Francisco and Coastal Commission as well as agency to agency of Pacifica and Coastal Commission. He thought it was complex but he was not aware of public infrastructure running parallel and protected by that berm. That would be threshold question #1 for SRA purposes under the current discussion of what might qualify in SRA.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked to go over the criteria defining the true SRA location.

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 22 March 02, 2024
Planning Director Murdock stated, in its current form, the key components as follows: 1) existing publicly owned shoreline protection structure, 2) protecting public infrastructure that would be in jeopardy without the shoreline protection, and 3) public access or public streets that would be compromised for public access parking lot, such as in the northern end of Rockaway Beach or parts of Beach Blvd. Those public infrastructure and public rights of way access are the leading qualifying factors under the current discussion with Coastal Commission staff.

Councilmember Boles wanted to understand the armoring in the SRAs and how a property evaluates the existing armory in terms of how it provides protection. She asked how the project evaluates the infrastructure and asked how does the revetment help and work over the required life of the structure.

Planning Director Murdock stated that coastal hazard analysis needs to consider anticipated life of development, 75-100 years, and the shoreline protection structures have varying lives. If you think about the justification for the SRAs, these are shoreline protection structures protecting critical public infrastructure as needed to serve the community on a long-term basis; those types of infrastructure or public access almost have an indefinite life and are needed as long as there is a community until the infrastructure is relocated. He stated that there is no timeline of anticipated life for those, and the associated shoreline protection structures may need to be replaced periodically to continue protecting those infrastructures. He stated that, even with the SRA, if you were to undertake a private project, you are still recording a deed restriction waiving your rights to future shoreline protection. If the city chooses not to rebuild the shoreline protection, and chooses to relocate the infrastructure and remove the shoreline protection, that is a choice to develop that the property owner made in full disclosure and acknowledgement to undertake the development; they would not be entitled to shoreline protection for their project in the event the city went away from its practice of renewing, building, or replacing shoreline protection structures. They have to reconcile and accept that the infrastructure and shoreline protection will be there and know, in the event it is not, the development has an obligation to remove the development or modify if the shoreline protection is removed.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought there were provisions in the Coastal Act regarding the ability to have those protection structures that relate to when the Coastal Act was passed. She understands that, if the development preceded the passage of the Coastal Act, there are elements of the Coastal Act that specifically speak to the ability of the private and public properties to protect.

Planning Director Murdock stated she was correct. He stated that there is an interpretation of the Coastal Act that the Coastal Commission currently uses related to what is an existing structure. They sometimes use existing development interchangeably, but the Coastal Act says existing structure; it says, if needed, shoreline protection can be constructed to protect existing structure. He stated that it includes more things than buildings, such as infrastructure. He stated that some challenges to that interpretation are that it only means existing at the time the Coastal Act took effect in 1977. He stated that it is unsettled and they are continuing under the current assumption that it means prior to January 1, 1977. In the broader LCLUP context is the issue of substantial structural modification and what it means for your entitlement to armor it.

Councilmember Boles was confused about the timeline he is talking about, that in the foreseeable future we can maintain shoreline protection. These are hazardous areas and the hazards will increase, and she was not sure it was fair to say that they can keep replacing the armoring where it is, i.e., building taller or higher.

2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 23 March 02, 2024
Planning Director Murdock stated that no one knows what the future holds. He stated that the SRA is not saying carte blanche, no risk for the present; it is saying that your analysis can factor in whatever protection that structure is providing. He stated that hazards still are present in the SRA area with the shoreline protection structure, and the existing Beach Blvd. sea wall will continue to remain even with the SRA and those need to be factored in to the hazard analysis.

He stated that the most significant hazard for development potential is coastal erosion, which is effectively zero with the shoreline protection there today. He stated that it goes from a no development potential because of erosion hazard to development potential and how do they design that development to be resilient and mitigate hazards. He stated it does not give a free pass to ignore all coastal hazards but lets you account for whatever shoreline protection structures are providing and leaves a smaller range of potential hazards that need to be mitigated on the property.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that they are very focused on the hard armoring or shoreline protection structures, i.e., the berm. It also pertains to storm and sewer infrastructure. They are not necessarily discussing the notion of building a wall that will always take care of over topping, but what happens when the water hits, etc. Regarding the golf course, she wondered about the sanitary sewer force mains that run through the golf course. When staff was talking about public infrastructure, it seemed focused on roads and transportation corridors. There is other public infrastructure that is critical, such as in the golf course, and she has a hard time reconciling how they address that.

Councilmember Bier stated that she had that same question of what would it look like, if the SRAs are okay with the Coastal Commission, then what is the timeline to address the infrastructure that is deteriorating.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated about how the North Coast County Water District relates to the agency to agency piece in the LCLUP, similar to the San Francisco golf course.

Planning Director Murdock agreed that we are the relevant jurisdiction for the LCLUP. They can try to identify where this additional infrastructure may exist. He stated that they do not have Public Works staff present now to provide their opinion.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer appreciated that and would like to eventually come back to the specific question on sewer infrastructure and force mains in the golf course and then drinking water infrastructure and how does that factor into it and she wants that on the list of questions.

City Manager Woodhouse stated there was not city wastewater infrastructure that runs through the golf course but they will verify that it goes around the golf course. He stated that he cannot speak to the NCCWD infrastructure and there is probably some San Francisco irrigation lines.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer requested they return to that when the information is available.

Another question is on the real intention of the Coastal Act. It is a California voter-approved law that created the Coastal Commission as the agency that enforces it. She thought the key intention is coastal access for all. They recognize the jurisdictional boundaries of San Francisco, but she acknowledges that the berm is also providing that kind of coastal recreational access.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if Beach Boulevard infrastructure carries all the sewer and water from the north end of town, and the infrastructure is not just affecting those homes and we need to

2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 24 March 02, 2024
maintain our pumps.

City Manager Woodhouse stated she was correct that most of northern Pacifica is coming down to the major pump station on Beach Blvd., and around the golf course and up the hill to the Calera Creek Water Treatment Plant.

Councilmember Bier asked how we are integrating new data into their decision-making and will it affect the maps.

Planning Director Murdock stated that process is ongoing and the public comment period is still open. The timeline is dependent upon the number and types of public comment that come in; thus, he does not know what the process entails after close of the public comment period.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the public comment period just got extended, from the original date of March 4 to March 8. The intention is for the Ocean Protection Council to vote on the draft 2024 guidance in June 2024, at which point it becomes the best available science and the maps are currently based on the then best available science which was 2018 OPC guidance.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked about how it looks when we incorporate that science into the maps and any policy that might be affected in the document.

Planning Director Murdock stated they would confirm the final data and staff determines if that results in a change for Pacifica. They prepare their analysis and take it to Council to recommend the LCP amendment to incorporate the new map and policies to ensure the LCLUP has the best available science. They then file the LCP amendment with the Coastal Commission in a 3-6 month timeframe, the Coastal Commission approves and certifies the LCP amendment, and staff updates the map pages in our book and have new coastal vulnerability zones that inform decision-making based on the best available science, 2024 sea level rise projection updates. He stated that science could come from other sources, but related to sea level rise and coastal erosion, this is the primary source for that data. If different information came, the same process would unfold, and then it would take effect in our LCLUP.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if when new science is finalized could the Coastal Commission want to remain conservative despite what the science says after we passed this document.

Planning Director Murdock had no reason to believe they would ignore the best available science to further their policy objective to be more conservative. The LCLUP policies are set up to reflect whatever the best available science says, and he was confident that they would certify that based on the Ocean Protection Council guidance. If they want a different approach, that would trigger a whole sequence locally of amending other LCP policies and figuring out if we want to do that. That would be a different policy than what is in the document now, i.e., best available science.

Councilmember Bigstyck thought all the other jurisdictions will be asking for amendments.

Councilmember Bier was curious if it would change the hazard map which would then be integrated into our living document.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they are not taking the Ocean Protection Council data to the Coastal Commission to certify. He stated that staff knows there is new data, new best

2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 25 March 02, 2024
available science, that would result in some change to our consultant-prepared hazard maps.

They would ask consultants to update the maps using the best available science, come to Council for approval of the LCP amendment, and take it to Coastal Commission for certification.

Councilmember Boles referred to tsunami maps, and asked staff to explain the difference between reference to tsunami evacuation versus tsunami inundation and who is responsible for the inundation proposed as an alternate measure.

Planning Director Murdock thought there were no tsunami inundation maps prepared. The tsunami evacuation zone maps are prepared at a statewide level for evacuation planning purposes. The change from tsunami evacuation to tsunami inundation would be in the course of doing the site-specific hazard analysis, specific site elevations, and other surrounding features that would relate to a reasonable tsunami event could be analyzed for the property. If the site is determined to be likely inundated based on a probable holistic event, the deed restriction requirements would kick in along the lines of what the policy indicated. The tsunami evacuation zone map was overly broad and not likely to reflect a probable hazard event; it is a worst-case assumption for evacuation planning purposes and not the right instrument for the policy outcome the Coastal Commission commented on and would affect less area of the city.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked how the LCLUP affects our regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) numbers.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it does affect the RHNA numbers. We have 1980 land use designations that are not consistent with the General Plan or the forthcoming Housing Element rezoning we are obligated to undertake. Relatively few Housing Element sites are identified in the coastal zone so limited number of rezonings are required, but it has a bearing on housing production capacity and delays the city’s ability to implement housing.

Councilmember Bier asked if they discussed with the Coastal Commission tradeoffs or benefits they expect within the SRA areas.

Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that they discussed with them the tradeoffs and benefits that they would get and is the entirety of the shoreline management plan. At the December 5 meeting, it was the visitor amenity improvement and it was intended to be a post-certification document. It would involve a public process and Council approval. It is a document of 5-year increments that would mitigate existing shoreline structures, etc. Thus, it will contain a variety of short-, medium-, and long-term steps the City can do; they would take it to the Coastal Commission for approval and then implement it. At the 5-year mark, they will report back to the Coastal Commission on what they did and update the plan on a 5-year increment process to meet the goals of the Coastal Commission.

Councilmember Boles concluded that this was additional work to be done in another planning document and in projects in perpetuity while they want to keep these SRAs. She thought it was important for them to understand the cost-benefit analysis. Staff was saying that the SRAs are helpful for more development, more property tax value, more income to businesses, and denser housing, but are offset by the mitigations they have to do. She understood they were looking at visitor amenities because they are easy to identify, but she was told this list was in priority order that the Coastal Commission would like to see and visitor amenities are the last item.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, with a plan in place, grant funding is more easily obtained, and the Coastal Commission has a grant program for those items.

2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 26 March 02, 2024
Councilmember Boles agreed. She asked who is paying for the costs, adding that there are benefits to the people living in the area and are those who do not paying for all the mitigations plus with our own armoring.

Planning Director Murdock heard their concerns regarding getting benefits with some obligations and what is the cost or obligation. He stated that it is asking to do the shoreline management plan now when it needs to be figured out through a thoughtful public process.

They do not know what the improvements could or should be, as that is a process in its own rights. He stated that they cannot promise to do more than they can afford, and they will need to qualify those upon identification of external funding sources or consider how internal funding sources are established through taxes, fees, etc. That is a public process. They explained to the Coastal Commission that they have to say the priorities include removal of shoreline protection. The Coastal Commission expressed that they understand but it needs to be there as a matter of policy. That is why they spent a lot of time talking about the visitor amenities as they are more foreseeable, likely to be within the city’s means, and readily available external funding sources. If a great opportunity comes for removal of armoring, and the funding is there, that is great. He expects this will come out with a manageable program that the city can reasonably fund and undertake in the 5-year cycles. The catch is that, if the city falls short and not making a good faith effort, the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission could suspend the SRA policies for some period of time. There are checks and balances and he thought it was better to only commit to what we know we could carry out.

Councilmember Boles asked if he thinks they are not going to be requiring any mitigations immediately upon adopting the SRAs that can happen within a 5-year period, and asked if the Coastal Commission staff also said, for that 5-year period, amenities are enough.

Planning Director Murdock stated that assuming the policies are certified and adopted, there will need to be time to undertake that public process to develop the plan, let alone carry out the projects. They are trying to put in place an interim effective period along the lines of a 2-year horizon to give them time to prepare the plan. There would be limited improvements in the first 5-year plan because we are in the first 5-year cycle.

Councilmember Bier thought it was important to understand what they are going to expect, etc.

She knows how much it costs and that is what makes it so hard.

Planning Director Murdock thought one great benefit of the SRA is that they have to put the visitor amenity improvements, etc., in place, but our community will yield great benefits, i.e., an enhanced shoreline with facilities and amenities for our community as well.

Councilmember Bigstyck has questions from the public on SSM, the first regarding termites and dry rot, i.e., when trying to upgrade to make sure you can maintain homeowners insurance. He asked if they had the opportunity to throw in refined definitions of that might be allowed under the category of substantial structural modification before it becomes an SSM.

Planning Director Murdock thought there was still room for discussion and has not ended in this regard, but major policy changes would be difficult. The Coastal Commission is looking to get these types of definitions aligned statewide. He thought they could have a reasonable conversation with the reasonable probability of getting dry rot or termite damage exemptions.

Councilmember Bigstyck applied the same question to water heaters, solar panels, conduits,

2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 27 March 02, 2024
and PG&E infrastructure.

Planning Director Murdock did not think there was anything to read into the SSM definition as it is from the Coastal Commission or as they would currently propose to modify it. It would affect any of those electrification-related activities described, unless you need to upgrade your roof structure to support the weight of the solar panel. Major destruction due to infestationslikely would count toward the 50% threshold under the current forms of the definition being discussed.

Those deserved further discussion.

Councilmember Bigstyck thought it would be good to have a clear understanding of common maintenance. He referred to a question related to the definition of development.

Councilmember Boles asked if she could add to the SSM issue, as she wanted to understand how much they can push back on computerizing records, and asked if it was possible for them to put in a date, instead of since 1977.

Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that they did not have a good way to get records of this range of types of improvements prior to the digital era for their recordkeeping system.

Coastal Commission staff understood and took it back in their process and acknowledged that they may not be able to locate the records. However, as a matter of policy, they did not think they could commit to something other than initial LCP certification or Coastal Act enactments.

There are only a few years of difference, and he stated that for our purposes today, they generalized it as the available permit history.

Councilmember Boles read that there are differences in the substantial structural modification requirements, whether in the SRA or not. Staff is proposing to limit it to coastal hazards, but in other parts of the city substantial structural modifications are broader, including zoning. She asked if they were adding things that are not already in statewide requirements.

Planning Director Murdock stated, regarding the policies, it is always a challenge with the variety of laws and policies in effect in a jurisdiction to reconcile them. He thought there will be instances where the Building Codes will result in a more restrictive, conservative outcome relative to the LCLUP. One is not going to potentially supersede the other as they need to work together.

Councilmember Boles stated that they are doing planning review and the Coastal Commission is doing their CAP and they are not looking at Building Code requirements. She thought it might be a surprise to someone trying to get their CDP and then need an SSM as well.

Planning Director Murdock stated that in most cases it would be the city reviewing the CDP and they do route the projects to our building official. They do not do a full plan review level because most of the time they do not have all of the building permit detailed information at a CDP or coastal development permit level review. However, they try to flag bigger picture issues that might come up as a building code trigger at the CDP stage when they have sufficient information to identify it. He does not think there is a situation where someone will go down the road and are somehow obligated to follow through with the project that would be an SSM to their detriment. He thought it was conceivable that someone would spend time and money through a CDP process only to find out in the building permit stage that the CDP does not cover them because they are triggering an SSM and would have lost time and money. Nothing would compel them to follow through with the project so they would need to regroup and could make an informed choice about amending the CDP or a new CDP or changing the project.

2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 28 March 02, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to his example of a seismic upgrade required by the building code for health and safety. She thought it goes to the issue that we do not want to have a policy for LCLUP that creates a scenario where people are penalized by putting together health and safety required by another part of state law or city ordinance. She referred to the mention of electrifying a home and did not want people to be unsafe due to trying to put an addition to their home.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is very difficult for him to sign off on a policy that would seem to discourage people from doing the right thing, i.e., keeping your house from falling apart because of an earthquake, etc. He added that they have to translate what that policy looks like in terms of legality.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they can add to the discussion potential mandatory seismic upgrades of the brace and bolts and he did not know if they would be exempted. He thought a brace and bolt probably would not count toward an SSM as it does not add or replace significant structural components of the home that would run afoul of the SSM. He stated that they can introduce this and try to sort out that type of issue.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he wanted to do a time check, as they are coming up on an hour left in the meeting.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if Council was done with the questions.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that there was one other thing in the same category, i.e., there was a phrase she read “like for like” that needs more clarity.

Councilmember Boles also asked regarding the difference between SSM and the SRAs and not, as that is significant what staff is proposing.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they can point to Mod. 6.46, policy CR-I-49, and read the policy. He then read the alternative modification staff is proposing to add.

Councilmember Boles asked why we think the SRA gives us extra benefits that the rest of the city does not.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the goal is to say that less is happening, fewer hazards and less of a need to change the site to conform with current policies because you are relying on protection from the shoreline protection structure. There is not a hazard that would justify needing to do these major changes to the site to eliminate the hazards or other non-conforming conditions that are problematic from a permitting standpoint for new development. What they see most often in Pacifica is situations where a residential use is located in a commercially designated area. It is problematic in the sense that if, an SSM is triggered, they would need to bring that into land use alignment with the designation, in other words commercial. That is not going to compel them to undertake that project, and it also leaves the door open to Council saying they are open to amending the LCLUP to make that residential use so they do not force those people to discontinue the residential use. He added that it is broader and less applicable in Pacifica’s case, but there are communities where non-conforming industrial uses are present.

Council always has the discretion to try to change the LCLUP, except they may also need Coastal Commission certification of those changes, which is uncertain until they have that conversation.

2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 29 March 02, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to clarify a point regarding wastewater infrastructure and the golf course. He stated that the forced main goes around the golf course and the master plan shows a line that goes through the golf course more on the eastern third of the golf course.

They will come back with further information about that as it might be a San Francisco maintained line, etc.

10. COMBINED PUBLIC COMMENT AND 2ND Q&A FOR PUBLIC
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they are done with questions and they still have deliberations and they will now return to combined public comment and Q&A for public.

City Clerk Coffey asked, is someone has already spoken in public comment, will they allow a second public comment for an individual.

Asst. City Attorney Sharma recommended that everyone have the opportunity to speak again.

Kim Finale, Pacifica, expressed her thoughts on the special opportunities she experienced all her life in Pacifica, and felt these opportunities are dwindling to private homes and apartments close to the sea. She shared the joy of enjoying the beach and ocean with family and pets.

Lee Gwee, Pacifica, stated they need to move forward by no longer allowing any more buildings or structures too close to the coastline and cliffs. She also thought the cities, states, and federal should work together as there are grants to shore up whatever damage has been done and we need to work together.

Nancy Tierney, Pacifica, referred to Planning Director Murdock’s mention of balance which resonates with her as they will have to balance things with the Coastal Commission with what residents want. She thought Jim Kremer’s comment on going with the 80% version knowing we will be making changes is worthwhile. She thought we would not get everything that we want but we hopefully share a concern for the benefit of the community.

Marie Swan, Pacifica, referred to the topic of costs, and she understood that if managed retreat was to take place moving the city infrastructure such as water and sewer could cost around $240 million. She stated that building the sea wall is significantly cheaper.

Sam Casillas, Pacifica, stated there were misleading statements, including that many cities have not had their LCPs approved due to the Coastal Commission. He stated that it is also about coastal resources, like the beach, that we have to protect. He stated that it seems arbitrary picking and choosing when best available science is going to be used. He stated that CEQA regulation, Section 15125, specifically prohibits future plans as the baseline for updated LUP and states the correct baseline is physical conditions as they exist, which rules out a deferred analysis. He stated that in the Fairway West neighborhood the sea wall will destroy the beach which will destroy the first and best line of defense for that neighborhood.

Larry Bothen, Pacifica, stated that, if coastal armoring like the sea wall is acknowledged as necessary to protect critical infrastructure, what happens where the armoring ends. He pointed out that the Shoreview revetments are already gone. His next example was the revetments to protect the San Francisco RV Park, stating that it also protected a sewer line that runs under the RV Park and the other infrastructures that run down Palmetto. Once that revetment is gone, within a year or two, it will erode up to the Manor on-ramp on Route 1. He stated that they have

2.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 30 March 02, 2024
a serious problem there and he wants to know how it is consistent with the Coastal Act. He asked if the Coastal Commission should have to balance imposed costs from removing armoring with much lower cost of improving and extending existing armor.

Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, wondered if due to SRAs there will not be any kind of remediation for the beach that we lose to people protecting the properties on the beach front. He noted that there is a mentality where we are prioritizing property development at the expense of a lot of things. He stated his concerns with the SRA and builder’s remedy that does not have to comply to any kind of zoning regulation. He thought they have to get serious about working with the Coastal Commission.

Joanne Gold, Pacifica, had asked a question related to the undeveloped property on San Pedro Avenue and the LCLUP changing the land use designation to commercial, residential, mixed use, where it is currently an undeveloped property. She stated that the community feedback is saying no change to the land use which is currently commercial recreational and shared her thoughts about this place where there are environmental hazards.

Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, asked why they are even talking about increasing housing density in our coastal community or anywhere in Pacifica when we have an enormous proliferation of unhosted STRs, which are providing zero value to our neighborhoods. She stated that our current infrastructure cannot support more housing than it does directly benefit our community.

Pete Shoemaker, Pacifica, would like to add another perspective and cite a study done by Jim Kremer who cataloged over the past 50 years all the large-scale projects that have been proposed in Pacifica, i.e., huge casinos and card clubs and freeways and mega home developments right on the beach. He stated that due to the activism of Pacificans and the Coastal Commission, we have the town we have today. He stated that the reason many homes exist as they do today with access to the beach has a lot to do with the Coastal Commission and stated that we need to work with them, and he encourages us to work together.

Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, stated that the purpose of the Coastal Commission was to provide access to the coastline for all Californians and he was disappointed that they did not talk about the revenue opportunities that would provide.

Marianne Osberg, Pacifica, stated she has 28 affordable housing units in Sharp Park. She shared her concerns about having a hard time refinancing because of redline maps they found on the internet. She sees that the maps keep changing and she finds it very dangerous as today her property is in better shape than it was two years ago. She felt that it was very important to be very careful as they are dealing with people’s lives and livelihood. She stated that, due to Prop. 19, she is paying current market rate property taxes and the Coastal Commission is potentially going to start devaluating her property.

Tom Carey, Pacifica, stated he was speaking on behalf of himself and his daughter as they own a couple of infill lots in the SRA area. She is a 3rd generation San Mateo resident and has a pending application for a small home. He stated that he disagrees with Planning Director Murdock as they do not think the SRA has any benefit at all. He stated that they would not be able to get a loan as no banker is going to give you a loan on your property with those things you have to sign, i.e., deeds or construction loan. He favors improving the sea wall and anything to enhance the ocean protections for all of Pacifica. He stated that there has to be further discussion on this issue to make it fair for everyone in the community.

2.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 31 March 02, 2024
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that the coastal zone is not only California’s most valuable asset, but also Pacifica’s. She stated that the concept of carving out any piece of this area to allow for more protection and greater development potential is in direct conflict of the voterapproved Coastal Act. She stated that it will not remedy but increase risk to future generations of Pacificans by building up and intensifying the coastal zone, one of our most vulnerable areas of the city. She referred to a list of modifications that the Coastal Commission had presented and they have still not gone through them line by line. As they heard earlier from several speakers, Council should get the plan approved and move on to the other ideas.

Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated that delays cost staff time and public disapproval makes Pacifica totally ineligible for sources of funding. He suggested that they could approve the suggested modifications, get a certified LCP fast, and then make the changes that they think are important.

They can do those amendments later when they have a working LCLUP. He asked if we can afford protracted discussions that will be required if we go forward with a path to pursue the SRAs and the alternative modifications. He added that private property rights and municipal property rights must yield when the ocean wants to move in.

City Clerk Coffey stated that Cheryl Greene conceded her time.

Jeff Guillett, Pacifica, referred to a new SRA boundary and to the berm. He asked if it is because it is part of San Francisco, that is why it is not considered something that residents in West Fairway Park can plan against. He stated that there is a warranted distrust of the Coastal Commission because they are punitive. He referred to the new addition of the dunes being protected structure means they cannot close the Clarendon gap. When they say that 50% or more of incremental changes constitute an SSM, what does that mean, i.e. remodeling a kitchen or doing bathrooms. He asked if a homeowner has to report a deed restriction because they’re in an area currently with a 2018 guidance and required to report a deed restriction when a line moves back with the new guidance, what happens then.

Cata Gomes, Pacifica, stated that the reason we are faced with the problems they are dealing with today is the result of colonization and the attitude of not being in balance with nature. She stated that to consider armoring the coast or sea walls is short-sighted and detrimental to the natural world. She stated that they need to look to mother earth, the natural world, and science.

Tisa Yonts, Pacifica, stated that California sea level rise guidance has given the scientific basis for making these plans and in it they had a most probable, intermediate, and most severe sea level rise prediction. She suggested that we go with the most probable one, but what was adopted was going with the most severe. She also commented on the discussions of sea walls and berm and wondered why currently used engineering processes around the world is not included as well as the difference between sea rise and erosion.

Elizabeth Boles, Pacifica, expressed confusion and concern about the SRAs. She wondered what happens if they are building more housing or apartment buildings in these SRA areas and at some point decide it is no longer economical or decide to move the pump stations elsewhere.

She asked if we are making false promises to people who are choosing to invest more in their homes or in apartment buildings in the area, given that these might not always be areas that can be protected or should be protected.

Cherie Chan, Pacifica, stated that the city is basing a policy to change the way these designations on a known ESHA. She referred to Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioning the importance of coastal access, and she stated the new version of the LCLUP erases existing

2.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 32 March 02, 2024
coastal access at Pedro Point at the railroad berm and that is in the certified 1980 LCLUP.

Referring to Jim Kremer’s comment regarding the public trust doctrine and we do not have the inalienable right to keep developing on the coast in perpetuity.

Marj Davis, Pacifica, asked what feedback from the Coastal Commission prompted the city to come up with the SRA compromise. In addition, what has the initial response and/or reaction from the CCC been regarding the SRA concept.

Irene Lee, Pacifica, asked if the slides can be made available to the public through the website.

Secondly, she asked if the SSM guidelines is just for the SRA or is it for all areas. Thirdly, what happens if a house is damaged by storm, such as a tree falls over, and is the replacement of the house considered as totally new according to the SSM guidelines.

Alan Greene, Pacifica, wanted to comment about something that surprised him about the presentation last month regarding the new visitor amenities of Beach Blvd, particularly regarding wheelchair access. Regarding the new promenade with the wheelchair access in the higher spot, he thought about how great that will be for many generations.

Monica Meagher, Pacifica, asked what is the plan for this infrastructure outside of the SRA.

Her understanding is that Coastal Commission suggested modifications assume no shoreline protection and the city’s alternative modification is that you cannot assume it is there if it is in the SRA. But when they look at areas outside of SRA, such as on Esplanade, she understands there is a lot of sewer and water infrastructure that runs along that area. She asks what happens to infrastructure if we live in this neighborhood, and how long do the residents and businesses that rely on it have. She stated they need to be able to plan their own retreat if not done at a community level.

David Chamberlin, Pacifica, stated that, on SSM, it is unclear to him how previous work applies to future work. If a house is built in 1945, renovated in 1997, and that renovation was extensive enough to trigger an SSM, does that mean that any future work, no matter how small, would end up triggering an SSM. He then referred to the SRAs, stating that, if they are approved, one of the earlier comments seemed to imply that deeds would still be restricted, indicating no reliance on shore protection even if in the SRA.

Eileen Campbell, Pacifica, stated that, in 1974, she voted in her first election for the establishment of the Coastal Commission and she was excited when they put that into place.

She stated that, as Pete Shoemaker alluded, over the years it has protected our coast from all kinds of development and has allowed many people to have access to our beaches. She was excited to learn that Pacifica is at the leading edge of conversations with Coastal Commission and having in-depth discussions about whether there are SRAs or innovative ways to solve some of these technical, emotional, and political issues. She appreciated staff engaging with the Coastal Commission to come up with things that work for all of us, even if we do not all agree with all the details.

11. STAFF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED IN PUBLIC COMMENTS Planning Director Murdock stated that he run down the questions he noted and the team can let him know if they noted other questions.
• What counts as a substantial structural modification? Would a kitchen remodel to trigger that?

2.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 33 March 02, 2024
He thought almost certainly it would not. The definition relates to exterior structural components of a building, not interior remodeling, and that is not the correct application for what it is intended to address.
• What happens if the coastal vulnerability zone maps are updated but one had already reported a deed restriction?
He stated it is not currently addressed in the policy. A reasonable approach from city staff would be to support removal of that deed restriction. He acknowledged that possibility of if the maps change again and required the work to be done and thought they needed to work through that.
• Would the coastal dunes addition to ESHA prevent closing the Clarendon gap? He explained that coastal dunes are a habitat type being added in the definition for completeness; it is not creating a new category of ESHA. Whatever policies apply to environmentally sensitive habitat areas would apply. The coastal dune addition is just for clarity and fullness in our definition. Staff does not have any information classifying that area as a coastal dune. They do not have any indication that a coastal dune is present there currently that would need to be evaluated in the subsequent stage of the project. • What has changed the special resiliency area boundary? He clarified that how the boundaries are mapped has changed since December. They acknowledged that previously there was a line around the area and now it maps the shoreline protection and if you are or are not protected through the policies. It is a different approach from a policy standpoint, but not exactly a different mapping approach, and it would be more inclusive than requiring you to be in the SRA rather than not in the SRA. He acknowledged that this is an evolving area of the policy, and they are on the leading edge of developing the policies and they may evolve further. He stated Council will have the final say on the policies they are willing to agree to.
• What is the cost of moving infrastructure?
Planning Director Murdock did not know if they had a precise calculation on all the infrastructure that needs to be removed and the secondary system redesign. He would estimate tens of millions of dollars, somewhere between $40 and $80 million for the no project alternative. This would be a project-level BBIRP question.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, to clarify further, he would refer BBIRP-related questions to that project and there is a lot of information on that webpage. In the preliminary feasibility study, the estimate for the no project alternative is $243 million. The BBIRP cost estimates are being updated on the most recent preliminary design but the most recent cost estimates are $80 million for construction of the project and an additional $30 million or so for operations and maintenance from the period 2030 to 2080 (50-year operations and maintenance) and would include, if feasible, the sand replenishment.
• Why is the California Environmental Quality Act review not being done or being impermissibly deferred as part of the LCLUP?

2.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 34 March 02, 2024
Planning Director Murdock stated that the CEQA guidelines clearly state that, for Local Coastal Program amendments such as the LCLUP, the Coastal Commission performs the environmental review.
• Does the Coastal Commission balance the cost of infrastructure relocation vs. the cost of armoring?
He thought yes, in a sense. One of the elements of a shoreline protection structure application process and review process with that the Coastal Commission is evaluating various alternatives, including the least environmentally damaging alternative. That could be factored into the process, including costs and other environmental impacts of that. It is not the leading consideration for them but can be one consideration among several. • Do SRAs provide mitigation for beach loss?
He clarified that the SRAs are not promoting or approving shoreline protection structures but saying the protection provided by the existing shoreline protection structures can be accounted for. There is no further mitigation because those structures are already there and whatever mitigation was needed or required would have been effectuated already at the time of the permitting and construction. He added that what is coming with the SRAs, if approved, is other offsetting mitigations, like looking for shoreline protection structure removal opportunities from the city, adaptation opportunities to include nature-based solutions to minimize impacts, as well as coastal visitor amenity improvements or opportunities to acquire public open space along the shoreline. He clarified it would include mitigation-type activities, but not direct beach loss or sand mitigation, as that is done at the permitting stage for those structures. • Does the LCLUP deviate from the California Building Code? He stated no, there is nothing they talked about that would call for deviations or exceptions from the California Building Code. He stated they may relate to one another in circumstances where one may be more restrictive than the other and thus require following the most restrictive policy. • Does the LCLUP relate to the builder’s remedy?
He stated no, the builder’s remedy is related to Housing Element compliance and certification, not LCLUP certification.
• Why is the city considering changing the land use at the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site and allowing some sort of residential and mixed use commercial and not keeping its current designation?
He stated that Council considered that extensively and came down in a particular policy position, which is not being revisited presently. He also clarified the current land use is CR (commercial recreation). He stated that the land use designation in the LCLUP in 1980 is a broad single commercial designation that would allow up to 22 units per acre of housing development, whereas Council has indicated 3-5 units per acre. It was a policy decision in placing the balance of that land use in light of all the other considerations. He recognized that any project that will come in the future will need to do those environmental hazard determinations and see what type of development would be permitted there.

2.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 35 March 02, 2024
• What happens in the SRAs if the sea wall is ultimately moved? He stated that the development approved in the SRA and are subject to the SRA policies would need to record a deed restriction waiving rights to future shoreline protection. They will be making a choice to proceed with that development, knowing that in the future they will not be able to construct their own shoreline protection but allowed to rely on the protection provided by the sea wall or shoreline protection structure that is there for as long as it is there and as long as SRA policies are in effect.
• What feedback from the Coastal Commission led to the SRA “compromise”? He stated that there is a broader statewide conversation about neighborhood-level carveouts to find alternative approaches tailored to local needs. City staff’s conversations with the Coastal Commission staff build on that broader series of conversation happening at the statewide level.

He stated that we did not invent the concept but are trying to refine it and apply it to Pacifica’s local context.
• What is the Coastal Commission’s reaction to the SRA concept, including questions and comments about liability if we were the push forward with these? He explained that the city is moving forward in close coordination with Coastal Commission staff on these SRA policies. They are going forward together to try to find policy approach that both agencies can support. They are not doing it against the Coastal Commission’s wishes. • What happens if a tree damages a house during a storm in the coastal zone? Can it be rebuilt and restored?
He stated, as covered in the case studies, partial damage under the current framework would be regulated like regular development, repairs, or additions. It would largely depend on whether it is exempt entirely from a coastal development permit (10% or less of the building area) or is it a 50% substantial structural modification that would trigger those broader policy upgrades and compliance requirements.
• How does previous work apply to the substantial structural modification (SSM) and would any work even small trigger it if previous work would have already exceeded it? He stated, as explained earlier, that there is no trigger to make you do anything retroactively if you are not undertaking a new project. However, if you are undertaking a new project and they find that their home or building would have already exceeded it, you may not be allowed to proceed with the project unless you comply with the SSM policies. • Are you prohibited from relying on shoreline protection, even in the SRA? He explained that one benefit of the SRA is you get to use protection provided by existing shoreline protection structures in your hazard analysis, which will generally provide more development potential than if you could not account for that protection. The flipside of that is the deed restriction you would record, waiving your rights to future construction of shoreline protection on your own. Thus, in the future, you would not be entitled to your own shoreline protection structure. If the city-owned and -operated shoreline protection were to be removed in

2.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 36 March 02, 2024
a long term scenario, you would be giving up those rights as you would elsewhere in development in that coastal vulnerability zone.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if the slides will be made available on the website.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, adding that they will package them up and post them on the Plan Pacifica website.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked what the plan is for infrastructure outside of SRAs.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the LCLUP is not specifically planning for any particular infrastructure projects. As they explained in the case study related to infrastructure, outside of the SRA, for critical infrastructure projects, we need to do a hazard analysis just like other types of development and locate them outside of the 100-150 year hazard projection. It would require significant inland movement of new infrastructure projects for those triggering being classified as new by 50% or greater replacement. There are very impactful differences between SRA and non-SRA critical infrastructure projects. He referred to a question that he had missed regarding the plan for infrastructure using the 500 block of Esplanade.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if that is referring to the pump station at the old wastewater site.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is critical infrastructure that is protected the shoreline protection. She asked, if that infrastructure is moved, could it still be an SRA.

Planning Director Murdock stated that a subsequent LCP amendment will be needed to remove the SRA classification. It is not specifically infrastructure-dependent but based on the shoreline protection structure. If the fundamental justification for the SRA were to be relocated or moved, he imagined there would be pressure from the Coastal Commission to amend our LCLUP to remove that. That is a future policy question, as nothing would happen immediately on the basis of that.

He referred to the question of if we are not evaluating the berm because it is the property of the city and county of San Francisco. He believed the answer was no, we are not evaluating issues related to the berm because that is a project-level analysis in decision-making. He stated that, in terms of evaluating a potential SRA eligibility, they noted earlier that they need to do some follow-up on precisely where the city or North Coast County Water District infrastructure might be in that area so they can provide that information to Council.

He referred to the question of why we are increasing density or residential uses when we have a surplus of unhosted STRs.

Consultant Ryder Smith stated that they were talking about using the SRAs to allow for more density and create more housing but, at the same time, we are seeing a lot of housing absorbed by short-term rentals. The question is how they are reconciling short-term rental policies with all the additional housing they are trying to accommodate.

Planning Director Murdock thought there were two parts to that, i.e., the broader short-term rental issue known Council, staff, and the community, which is a separate policy analysis project, and an item that the city is undertaking to address the related issues of STRs. He thought the issues of SRAs is allowing development, less focused on use. He thought it was not a direct relationship or justification for SRA classification.

2.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 37 March 02, 2024
He referred to the question of why sea level rise is not differentiated from coastal erosion. He stated they are focused on the coastal erosion hazard, which is the dominant hazard in Pacifica related directly to the question of special resiliency areas, and using shoreline protection structures and the protection they provide. He stated that the coastal vulnerability zone maps do account for sea level rise, and those hazard projections and analyses are the hazard plus how sea level rise projections would increase the hazards. It is accounted for in the plan but not as a stand-alone hazard. It is included with all the others of coastal erosion and related flooding hazards that are exacerbated by sea level rise projection.

12. CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND DIRECTION
City Manager Woodhouse stated, in the interest of time, he was seeking clear direction on the what the next step will be in this process. Council, depending on time, can choose to deliberate on other factors, but they heard a great deal of questions, answers, information, and clarifications. As outlined in the staff report, where we want to get to next is to begin Council deliberations about the alternate modifications that they are going to be recommending to the Coastal Commission with the matrix in the packet and draft transmittal letter. The suggestion is for the next meeting to be at a City Council meeting to begin deliberating about going through those to get to that point.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer heard two different things: 1) How come we are not going through the matrix of all those issues? and 2) Those modifications are 80% fine and we should sign off on what was presented in those modifications. She thought they have to go through those carefully and make sure they make a commitment to that and clarify for the community that it is going to happen. She stated that she is hearing some concern that we are bypassing it in favor of discussing SRAs, etc. She asked how they clarify that going forward at the next meeting.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they can start with taking that matrix as outlined before, and they are all open for discussion. They want to verify each of those and Council will spend more time, having now an understanding of the SRAs, substantial structural modifications, and case study examples to help explain this, looking at the policy language that Council wants to transmit to Coastal Commission and their suggested alternate modification. He stated going through each one of those would be the goal at the next meeting.

Councilmember Boles added that that is an important goal that will lay out the policies, as many of these are applicable in both the SRAs and in the rest of the town. Staff has modified the document since the last time and some of this has been changed with Coastal Commission and changed to add the SRAs in the spreadsheet. She stated that, if they go through all the items, some members of the public pointed out that there may be an option that we do not need to do the SRAs. They can go through all of them to make sure they understand the implications and then look at the SRAs. She was struggling with the document in that she thought it was important to read it in context with the redline version. There are some policies that sound like they apply in the whole city but need to be looked at in context, for Sharp Park in particular.

She asked how do they know where the different modifications came from.

Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that they tried not to change the text. The redline document was brought in October when staff brought the changes for General Plan consistency and those are the same red lines they are seeing in this version. She stated a previous staff report had the redline version from the Coastal Commission staff’s suggested modification and those are the black texts which are unchanged. She stated that the new text that corresponds to the third

2.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 38 March 02, 2024
column in the summary table is the green text. Because they did not want to change what they had previously seen in the red and black, they added the new green color to coordinate with the green table.

Councilmember Boles stated that, if they all agree on the next step, will just happen in a Council meeting or do they need a larger space where the community can come.

Councilmember Bier agreed and she felt it was important that she completely understand all the changes and going line by line is important. She did not think they can do that during their regular Council meeting. She thought they need another special meeting to do that and understand everything fully, with or without SRA, how it fits into the SRA, etc.

City Manager Woodhouse added that, whether it is a special Council meeting or a regular Council meeting that is dedicated to only this item, the time frame is probably early April that would be the feasible next step. He stated that going remote is very expensive and staffintensive and the technology is very challenging. He stated that Council Chambers are set up to do that readily, i.e., having Zoom hybrid capabilities and the screens available to go through the lines. He felt that was a consideration for Council.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, at the next meeting, they will go through it line by line, and he asked if it was possible, after that is done, are they ready to sign off on the letter they are sending in response.

Councilmember Bier thought they need another meeting.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he asked that because, when they have that meeting, this is the appropriate level of space they will need for everyone in our community to have that last opportunity to come out and get feedback. He agreed that having the setup in Council Chambers is probably ideal for that.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated, if they can do it in Council Chambers where everything is at their fingertips and all set up, it would be easier for all of staff and Council, and thought they start the meeting at 6 pm and plan on going to midnight.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated his only concern is the amount of turnout from the public.

Councilmember Boles asked what if they had an overflow room, such as the Sharp Park library, where everything could potentially be projected but they could walk over and give public comment and ask questions if they wanted to be in person.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the downstairs room from the library would be the place to do something like that if staff finds it feasible.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added if PCT finds if feasible as well.

Councilmember Bier also suggested the Community Center.

Councilmember Boles stated that does not work very well for Zoom.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that there were approximately 100 people in person today and 60+ on line and the Council Chambers capacity is larger than 100. He thought it might be 150.

2.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 39 March 02, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus thought they have consensus that they want to do it in Council Chambers.

Councilmember Bier agreed that they need the screens to look at all the lines.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed that they will be in Council Chambers, adding that she is not sure doing an evening meeting only going through the green lines. She asked if they are thinking of a day-long format, a one-night format, and/or another night format. She stated that she wants them to go thoroughly through the document.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he thought it would be good to begin around noon and take it as far as they can take it.

Councilmember Bier stated on the weekend and then have another meeting to come back.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they were trying to weigh the options (two evenings versus one all day) and he did not hear where the Council ended up on that.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated start at noon on a Saturday to try to finish it all in one day.

Councilmember Bier did not know about noon.

Councilmember Bigstyck was happy wherever consensus lies.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that one reality is extremely difficult to schedule these meetings and everyone’s availability. He stated that this meeting happened later as Council intended it to happen earlier in February. He stated finding a Saturday is very difficult. He stated that he has the first regular Council meeting in April exclusively reserved for this topic in the tentative agenda planner. He stated that they can shoot for a Saturday and see if something is available and start a regular meeting and continue if Council did not finish the work.

Councilmember Boles stated that, if they do it at a Council meeting, they need to set a reasonable stop time and a continuation.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if they want to look at their calendars and throw out dates.

City Manager Woodhouse stated his recommendation would be to not try to figure out a date here because there are a lot of variables, including staff variables.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they will figure it out.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it was up to Council whether they want to continue deliberation or not. He is hearing that they are going to look for a Saturday meeting at Council Chambers to start the process of going through all the alternate modifications on this process.

Mayor Vaterlaus preferred adjournment and asked for input.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if the moderator, Consultant Ryder Smith, wanted to make any closing comments.

2.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 40 March 02, 2024
Consultant Smith stated this is a great community and their engagement was thoughtful, especially in one of the longest community forums he has ever been to in California.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked everyone involved in this and all the extensive time everyone spent on this, thanking the public who stayed in the beginning, the public until the end, and the public on Zoom and PCT.

Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 4:28 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor

2.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 03-02-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Study Session 1 March 09, 2024
SPECIAL MEETING – STUDY SESSION
March 09, 2024 (SATURDAY)
9:00 AM
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on March 9, 2024 at 9:10 AM 9:00 AM - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on March 9, 2024 at 9:10 AM.

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

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Ron Myers, Fire Chief; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Scott Leslie, Acting PB&R Director; Roland Yip; PW Dep. Director (Field Services/Engineering); Elizabeth Brooks, Management Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Boles

DISCUSSION OUTLINE - CITY OF PACIFICA PRIORITY SETTING

1. City Council Strategic Plan Update and Priority Setting through 2025 PROPOSED ACTION: Undertake a facilitated strategic planning workshop to review the

2.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 2 March 09, 2024
adopted Strategic Plan and to provide direction on key priorities through 2025.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
A. Welcome
City Manager Woodhouse provided introductory information and introduced members of the Executive Team present and the meeting facilitator, Greg Larson.

B. Overview
C. Accomplishments
Greg Larson presented an overview of the agenda for the meeting, identifying Ground Rules for the strategic planning study session and identified the top recent accomplishments that City Councilmembers identified in individual interviews in preparation for the study session. Four or five mentioned the following: Housing Element submitted to the State, great leadership hires, Council decision to invest in its staff, and Local Coastal Plan is progressing. Council majority also recognized strong finance and budget work including the incorporation of Measure Y revenues to the sustainability of the city and staff work to increase public engagment. The following were identified by at least two Councilmembers: Civic Center remodel, annual street paving work to increase PCI, economic development outreach, and Beach Boulevard / sea wall project progress.

Councilmember Bier mentioned the CORA “Speak Up” Program starting in the community to address domestic violence.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added the improvement in drainage in one of the communities accommodated within the City’s means through creative work.

Councilmember Bigstyck added the amount of Planning Department’s work on the Housing Element and Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

Councilmember Boles mentioned with Measure Y revenue beginning to look at staff salaries which were very low compared to other cities in the region, recoginizing the staff work that is critical to the city’s operations.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer acknowledged the core part of work by City Committees and Commissions, giving examples of work by the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Task Force and Beautification Advisory Committee.

Greg Larson asked for input from Councilmembers about, “What are the factors that let Pacifica accomplish so much?”
Mayor Vaterlaus mentioned public involvement, everyone cares.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioned experience working as a community with not enough resources.

Councilmember Boles mentioned having a dedicated staff, giving and example of Public Works staff workload as compared to other cities.

Councilmember Bier mentioned the flexibilty of the City Manager.

2.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 3 March 09, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck mentioned love and respect, cultivating a culture of love and respect for one another.

City Attorney Kenyon mentioned that Pacifica is unique in its teamwork among department heads led by Kevin Woodhouse as City Manager, and the feeling on being on a team with the Council, adding that the teamwork as a group dynamic is amazing.

City Manager Woodhouse mentioned clear and thoughtful direction and work from the City Council and grace from the City Council given the amount of work undertaken by the organization.

Greg Larson observed that the top recent accomplishments mentioned all are directly linked to the Strategic Plan and clarity of direction from Council allows those accomplishments as well as working together with staff and the community. He commented on the strength of the city’s communications. He then led an exercise in identifying communications styles.

Greg Larson began presenting the review of the Adopted Strategic Plan, including Mission, Vision, Values, Goals, Strategies and Implementation Action Plans. He stated that the Council did not identify any changes to the currently adopted Mission, Vision or Values as it is six months after adopted and it is a strategic plan to guide the city for 10 years or so, so there is typically not changes at this point in time.

After some discussion on the wording in the Vision, Council consensus did not direct any changes to the current Vision statement.

City Manager Woodhouse presented information and a report from the AchieveIt Software Platform for work plans based on the strategic priorities, a project management tool for inputting information and tracking achieving milestones related to the work plans that constitute the strategic plan and ongoing non-discretionary priorities.

Mayor Vaterlaus commented on the “Off-Track” status. City Manager Woodhouse explained that “Off-Track” status meant the it is behind schedule.

Councilmember Boles asked for clarification of the “At Risk” status.

Mgmt. Analyst Elizabeth Brooks explained that “Off-Track” is something that is within the department’s control to address and “At Risk” is something that an outside entity or force is affecting the accomplishment, outside of the control of the department or city staff. She explained that these are terms that are used by the system that we cannot change the terminology.

Greg Larson explained that “Not Started” is that it is not scheduled to start yet, it is not a problem. He observed that 90 percent of items are achieved, on track or due to start; 10 percent are “Off-Track” or “At Risk” that the manager needs to focus on with the department heads, which is not insurmountable, and overall this is a pretty good report.

D. Communications Exercise
E. Public Comment (no earlier than 10:30am)
Mayor Vaterlaus opened Public Comment for items on today’s agenda.

2.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 4 March 09, 2024
Greg Wright, Pacifica, expressed thanks for Council and staff of being an example of what female leadership can be, thanks for building a culture of collaboration and his thoughts on work by various departments updating policies and work building on Pacifica as a family-friendly environment and cooperative, collaborative culture, and increasing city staff pay.

Leo Leon, Pacifica, stated that it is important to focus on what we do and what are we becoming. He stated that short-term rentals have become a big issue in Pedro Point and shared his thoughts and suggestions on the issue. He stated that he will be sending the Mayor, Council and staff a document about coastal erosion. Finally, he mentioned streets.

Ramon McLeod, Pacifica, stated that he was present to talk about the short-term rental issue and expressed his opinions on the current requirements and his recommended restrictions on STR properties.

Lisa Funkhouser, Pacifica, stated that she agrees with Greg Wright about pickleball and the city needs to plan for dedicated pickleball courts, sharing her thoughts on the increased demand and benefits of pickleball.

Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, shared information and his thoughts on the impacts of short-term rentals and unhosted short-term rentals on rental prices, housing stock, workforce and as it relates the state’s requirement for new homes as part of the Housing Element.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, urged prioritizing the Housing Element and rezoning, sharing his thoughts on the risk and impacts of Builder’s Remedy projects. He mentioned concerns about traffic on Highway 1 and prioritizing work with CalTrans, SamTrans and federal agencies in transportation to improve transit.

Caitlyn Quinn, Pacifica, stated she was addressing Strategic Plan item #3 - Prioritize Housing and Development of Affordable Housing, particularly point B - Updating the Short-Term Rental Ordinance, sharing her concerns on the impact of short-term rentals / AirBnbs on her neighborhood and recommending prioritizing the short-term rental ordinance update.

Gary Chinca, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on the problem with short-term rentals, their impact on hotels, restaurants, neighborhoods and the need for an ordinance with additional restrictions.

Kate Chinca, Pacifica, stated that we need the City Council to help take care of the short-term rental issue and shared her thoughts, suggesting hiring a consultant to assist with addressing the issue.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that he wants us to remember who we are, when we know who we are it will be easier to answer the other questions. He stated that Pacifica is 48 percent open space and need to keep in mind when trying to make decisions about any particular project, as this is our identity. He spoke in favor of exploring moving Pacifica to a blue zone, a healthy environment.

Greg Hirsch, Pacifica, described negative impacts of short-term rentals in his neighborhood and supported changing the zoning or regulations around short-term rentals so they don’t continue to proliferate.

2.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 5 March 09, 2024
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, stated that she is concerned about personal safety issues related to short-term rentals in the neighborhood, short-term rentals owned and operated by corporations and felt that something needs to be done about short-term rentals.

Pat Gonzales, Pacifica, shared examples of his concerns about the impact of short-term rentals in his neighborhood and supported implementing a freeze or moratorium on short-term rentals.

Dan Underhill, Pacifica, stated that he rents out two rooms on a short-term basis in the home where he lives and stated that the laws should make it impossible for out-of-town corporations to buy houses for use as short-term rentals, but should allow for hosted short-term rentals.

Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, suggested that the City address single-use plastics by discontinuing City-purchased water in single-use plastic and promote the reduction of single-use plastic, remind community members to bring refillable water bottles and providing water at public and private events at watering stations for refilling. She suggested soliciting donations of containers / re-usable water bottles.

Rebecca Smith-Coggins, Pacifica, supported mirroring the rules for short-term rentals after the cities around us such as Half Moon Bay, requiring primary residence and limiting to 60 nights per year. She suggested not allowing any grandfathering in when the ordinance is updated; that the current short-term rentals should comply with an updated ordinance. She also stated support of designated pickleball courts.

Nancy Tierney, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on the strategy to pursue climate adaptation and mitigation, stating that she is on the Climate Action and Adaptation Task Force and the Council can look for a Plan update this summer. She shared her thoughts on updating the short-term rental ordinance and suggested looking at models from San Mateo County and Half Moon Bay.

She also stated her concerns about artificial turf use and suggested considering a ban on artificial turf on all property.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, shared her concerns about the impact of short-term rentals on neighborhoods, stating that the situation has gotten worse since she first spoke on the issue in June 2022, referring to the law passed by Half Moon Bay that was approved by the Coastal Commission. She asked to move this forward and suggested use of consultants to assist.

Irene Lee, Pacifica, suggested working to get a grant for a temporary temporary parking living structure to be partly managed by the Pacifica Resource Center, requiring registering to park and prohibit overnight parking on the street (oversized vehicles).

Bob O’Donnell, Pacifica, spoke regarding the short-term rental issues and impacts and the urgency to update the ordinance this year. He suggested modeling after short-term rental ordinances used in other cities. He asked the audience for a show of support for addressing short-term rental issues.

Gary Furlong, Pacifica, suggested adopting a strict standard for short-term rentals, particularly the unhosted short-term rentals, including strict limits on the number of nights a house can be operated as an unhosted short-term rental and enforcement of a requirement that they be registered with the city.

2.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 6 March 09, 2024
Pete Shoemaker, Pacifica, spoke regarding fiscal responsibity, the need for more high-density, revenue-generating mixed-use development and to push back on Builder’s Remedy and development of single-family homes on our hills. He suggested the need to raise the fees for these, and to put in the General Plan height limits and protections against negative impacts of development. He stated it is important to spend more money on the City Councilmembers and extend health care coverage for Councilmembers.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated her support of prioritizing affordable housing and shared her thoughts and suggestions on issues related to housing, affordability and homelessness.

Paul Totah, Pacifica, stated that he is representing Tree City Pacifica and recommended adopting a canopy goal that cares for and grows our urban forest, fine tune ordinances and policies to support this, include a canopy goal of at least 30 percent as part of the Climate Action Plan. He also suggested expanding the Public Works website to include arborist reports for trees scheduled for removal and a list of arborists available for Pacifica residents for removal or pruning a tree.

Maija Wigoda-Mikkila, Pacifica, stated that she is a certified arborist and commented on the tree removal pruning and removal fees and the fee to file an appeal in Pacifica indicating that she thought the current fees are cost-prohibitive. She urged to drastically reduce all tree-related fees.

Gail Benton-Shoemaker, Pacifica, spoke as a member of Tree City Pacifica, requesting a specifc change to the Tree Ordinance in the upcoming year to address a loophole that could serve as a work-around to planting replacement trees, referring to the language, “… a minimum of two replacement trees must be planted for every ‘otherwise healthy’ tree removed.” Marj Davis, Pacifica, stated that she agreed with the suggested made by Paul Totah and Gail Benton-Shoemaker and Maija Wigoda-Mikkila regarding tree permit fees. She suggested decreasing the tree permit fee and the appeal fee should not exceed the permit fee. She stated that educating arborist companies about the ordinance, permit requirements and consequences of not complying is an essential part of supporting the city’s canopy goal. She also supported comments made by other members of the audience regarding short-term rentals.

Samantha Hauser, Pacifica, stated that she was speaking as an individual recommending prioritizing economic development and the thoughtful planning that goes with it, ensuring Pacifica is seen as a destination, preserving Pacifica’s natural beauty through its open spaces, creating vibrant commercial areas and create housing only where it makes sense and complements the city’s unique character, resources and funding for Planning and Economic Development Departments, continue to prioritize objective design standards and increasing urban canopy.

Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, stated that to be successful Pacifica needs to be a tourism economy without the short-term rentals. He stated that he was concerned about pollution at the Linda Mar Beach and the idea of 150 diesel trucks a day on Highway 1 to fill the Quarry building a band brand for Pacifica.

Peter Garenani, Pacifica, shared his concerns about short-term rentals and their impact on housing. He shared information on cities in San Mateo County where short-term rentals are prohibited, unhosted prohibited, a primary residence requirement stipulated, prohibition on parties, limitation on unhosted nights, etc.

2.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 7 March 09, 2024
Patty Kephart, Pacifica, shared her concerns about short-term rentals and how it has changed the character of the neighborhood and community. She urged Council to think about an ordinance that would limit the number of days short-term rentals are in operation.

Ketty Seymour, Pacifica, shared how her Pedro Point neighborhood has changed as a result of short-term rentals impacting her sense of security and serenity. She asked Council to address the issue of short-term rentals impact on the community.

Brian O’Flynn, Pacifica, stated that he supported continuing the existing short-term rental permit limited program as it currently stands, which needs some policing of non-licensed units.

He stated that the relatively small number of allowed permits are aligned with Pacifica’s mission and vision to support diversity and inclusivity, a tourist economy and tax revenue.

Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comment.

Greg Larson announced a break for lunch.

Mayor Vatelaus reconvened the meeting at 12:40pm.

F. Review of Adopted Strategic Plan
Greg Larson continued the presentation with an overview of the AchieveIt report work plan and turned it over to City Manager Woodhouse to discuss Council questions related to the work plan items.

City Manager Woodhouse continued the presentation addressing Council questions related to individual items in the work plan report.

Councilmember Boles referred to Task 1.4.9 and development fees, suggesting to consider updating Planned Drainage Facility Fees and Capital Improvement Fee.

Greg Larson clarified that the purpose at this time was to receive clarification on updates from staff on the work plan rather than policy discussions for a work plan update.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that a first step in the process would be a survey of all fees and identifying the biggest fee impact to focus on limited resources to prioritize work in the next year. City Manager Woodhouse continued the presentation addressing Council questions on status of tasks in the work plan.

Councilmember Bigstyck referred to the public comments around short-term rentals, which would fall under Task 3.2 and asked for an opportunity for an update on Task 3.2 specifically and Council to discuss it.

Greg Larson replied that when they go through the Goals and Strategies, one of the strategies is to update the short-term rental ordinance and Council provided feedback which he will share and there can be more commentary then by Council then for the policy discussion, while this is the City Manager reporting on the prior direction and asking for a report on where are we now on short-term rentals is appropriate and could inform the later discussion on policy direction.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked for a current update.

2.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 8 March 09, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse provided an update on work related to short-term rentals (STRs).

Last year Council approved a cap on the number of STRs at 150, Council approved increased permit fees for STRs which helps cover administrative costs and a new code enforcement officer. The STR program touches four or five departments: city manager’s office, planning and building department, finance department, police department and city attorney’s office. There is a lot of ongoing work related to auditing and permitting, leading up to the mid-year base data report, ongoing enforcement and issuing of notices of violations and ongoing information and data gathering to prepare for the kick-off study session with City Council by the end of the fiscal year for potential revisions to the STR ordinance.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked about whether the process could be accelerated if we have more consultants in the process.

City Manager Woodhouse responded that it might be less efficient to hire a consultant as they work at the direction of staff and need to be managed by staff, and the city currently uses a consultant, HdL, that manages all the permits and financial system.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggested a 45 day period with a moratorium, which overlays with what we will be doing anyway. She stated that we talked about a cap in lieu of a moratorium eight months ago and the urgency around this issue has escalated and she is not comfortable with sticking with the workplan.

Councilmember Boles agreed.

Greg Larson explained that they were waiting for Coastal Commission concurrence with the cap. He reminded the Council that we were not providing future direction yet, but working through the work plan update summarizing where we are now.

City Manager Woodhouse continued presenting on the current status of work plan items.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about Task 3.4.5 “Process TSPP CDP appeals at Coastal Commission” status indicating that it is “On Track”.

City Manager Woodhouse clarified there are two separate projects: (1) the LCP Amendment for the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance which we need to pursue at Coastal Commission’s direction and (2) appeals for the Temporary Safe Parking Program, which is separate from the OSV Ordinance appeal. He stated that the Coastal Commission sees them as linked, but the city disagrees and is working with Coastal Commission to follow their direction.

Councilmember Boles stated that she disagreed with it being listed as “On Track”.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he appeals in that program are not in the city’s control, but in the Coastal Commission’s purview and will look into this with staff as listing this as “At Risk” because the city does not control it.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked about a sub-task listed as “At Risk” under Goal 4.

Councilmember Bier thought it would be helpful to see the sub-tasks details.

2.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 9 March 09, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed that seeing the sub-tasks would help to see what staff is working on and informs a different perspective.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that under 4.4.1 the sub-task that was achieved is the one to engage with Stanford public policy students to develop a framework for the Pacifica EV strategic plan. He stated that the sub-task that is “At Risk” is complete and adopt the EV strategic plan and develop the implementation action plan for EV charging, as we don’t have the staff resources to focus on that right now and it might inter-relate to work that the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Task Force is doing.

City Manager Woodhouse continued the presentation of the questions received in advance regarding the work program update.

G. Priorities through 2025 (discuss by adopted Goals, below) Greg Larson continued the presentation to discuss the priorities for the upcoming year, recommending a two-year focus through 2025, as new items take time to budget it, resource it, staff it, plan it, get Council direction on it and implement it. If it can be done quickly, it probably doesn’t rise to the level as a strategic priority. He stated that most of the feedback so far has not been major changes or new items, but nuancing and elevating priorities of things that are already in the plan. He explained that any changing direction that Council would like on each strategy would inform staff’s work on developing the work program that comes back to Council in April. Mr. Larson presented information on Councilmembers’ feeback on top priorities, all directly linked to the current Strategic Plan. Tier 1 priorities: Getting the Local Coastal Land Use Plan updated and approved, getting the Housing Element certified by the state (including the tier 1 rezonings); Tier 2 priorities: Housing Element Implementation with tier 2 rezonings, ShortTerm Rental Ordinance update; Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP) completed - sea wall plan approved and Pier planning and grants. Tier 3 priorities: Beach Boulevard property direction, Tangible progress on an Affordable Housing project, Library grass roots support, Quarry Specific Plan initiated. One item came up from two Councilmembers that did not fit into the current strategic plan: direction from Council on possible changes to term limits.

Greg Larson continued the presentation focusing on the review of Goals.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer, referring to Goal 2C “Prioritize Implementation of the Economic Opportunities Study”, suggested marketing opportunities to integrate with big Bay Area and sports events and more specific ways to engage from an economic development perspective.

City Manager Woodhouse thought that this was a concept that is in the Economic Opportunities Study actions.

Greg Larson mentioned potential new suggestions under Goal 2A “Complete selected stormwater and flooding improvements citywide” by a Councilmember recognizing storm events hit different areas of the city differently and there needs to be a differential response and that the sewer fee impacts may be having a negative impact on breweries and restaurants. He asked if there was Council concurrence for staff to pursue them.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed with both of those items, commenting about the gap between funding sources and the need.

2.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 10 March 09, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse asked for clarification on the comments if it was related to Wastewater fees, and stated that last year the Council adopted the 5-year Wastewater Fee structure that looks at sources and impacts of different types of businesses and to re-do that mid-stream is a significant work task.

Greg Larson clarified that he did not hear the request to re-do the fee structure, but to do this as outreach to breweries and restaurants under economic development.

Councilmember Boles suggested that we need a feedback loop to understand what causes some businesses to close.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer commented that there could be an additional level of support provided by the Economic Development Manager through relationship building with businesses.

Mayor Vaterlaus suggested exit interviews with businesses to understand why they went out of business, as it may not be related to high fees.

Greg Larson concluded that this was advisory to the City Manager to see if this feedback could be addressed by staff operations and not to add a new work item to the agenda. He added that three Councilmembers said that there is enough on the table and we should do what is already planned.

Greg Larson continued the presentation, noting that under the Goal 2B “Advance Beach Boulevard Resiliency and Esplanade Protection Projects” a Councilmember suggested additional items to improve communications on project status and start addressing Manor risks and needs.

Councilmember Boles elaborated on her ideas related to these suggestions.

City Manager Woodhouse explained that there are many tasks underway with respect to this goal, 300-400 Esplanade block projects, work with the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the general investigation of the coastline from Mori Point up underway, LCLUP certification, after which follows multiple different studies like the shoreline management plan and more specific work that includes areas such as Manor.

Greg Larson concluded that it is not a to-do now, but something to consider later to see where it falls in the priority list.

City Manager Woodhouse added that the LCLUP certification could be an impetus to grant opportunities for future visioning and planning regarding adaptation strategies and recommended looking at things holistically.

Greg Larson invited comments on Goal 2C “Pursue planning and financing for the Library projects.”
City Manager Woodhouse explained this is in the work plan currently under Strategy 2.3 and added that the Library Advisory Committee will be focused on a long-term plan.

Following brief comments by Councimembers and staff, Greg Larson concluded that the staff may just review the wording of the task to reflect the current reality.

2.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 11 March 09, 2024
Greg Larson stated that there were no comments related to Goal 2D “Develop a Facilities / Equipment Plan for Public Safety / Community Center.” He continued that there was a proposal from one Councilmember that a possible new Strategy would be 2E to “Develop a mid-City transportation improvement plan,” given the potential developmental changes coming to the area be it Quarry or otherwise. He thought this would be a substantive new work item and asked if there was Council support to put it on at this time or put it on a future list.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that developing a transportation plan for the city which relates primarily to infrastructure (highway, roadways) is a significant Engineering undertaking, but if this relates to the Quarry site then there is some transportation and transit related components that would be part of a Quarry Site Specific Plan that is already part of the work plan.

Councilmember Boles explained her concerns about the intersections of Reina del Mar and Fassler and the impact of new projects.

Councilmember Bier is not in favor of putting another plan on the work plan this year, but focus on the items already on the plan that we want to finish.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what level of transportation planning is required of developers who are bringing significant projects forward.

Planning Director Murdock explained that ministerial or discretionary projects will be subject to the County Congestion Management Program and additional requirement that discretionary projects may be subject to in terms of transportation management. He stated that a comprehensive transportation plan would be a very heavy lift for the Planning Department and Public Works Department and hard to take on in the near term.

Public Works Director Petersen reminded the Council that they had discussed a transporation development plan when they talked about the Local Roadway Safety Plan in July 2023 and added that these are larger muli-million dollar transportation projects. The smaller Local Roadway Safety Plan took about a year and significant work from an engineer and consultants and explained the staffing impact of bringing on consultants.

Planning Director Murdock suggested potentially updating the Highway 1 Improvement Fee, which is already on the books, to generate funds associated with future projects without an entirely new work effort.

Mayor Vaterlaus sees this strategy as automatically coming on as “At Risk” because of the dependencies on CalTrans and SamTrans.

Greg Larson concluded that there was not support of Council to add a transportation improvement plan as a new strategy at this time.

Greg Larson announced five-minute break.

Mayor Vaterlaus resumed the meeting at 2:25pm.

Greg Larson continued the presentation of the Strategies / Goals. He stated that Goal 3A “Complete Housing Element Update” was stated as the top priority by all Councilmembers. He then introduced Goal 3B “Update Short-Term Rental Ordinance” which was identified as a tier 2 priority, behind the Housing Element and LCLUP, and the plan was to begin that work this year

2.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 12 March 09, 2024
with staff ‘s plan to start that work in June. He asked Council to discuss what direction they want to provide to staff on the development of the work plan other than what is already planned.

Council and staff had lengthy discussion regarding Goal 3B “Update Short-Term Rental Ordinance.” Councilmembers disussed a possibility of considering separating policies for STRs in the coastal zone from other areas, a moratorium on new STR permits, possibility of reducing the cap on the STR permits, and considering inspections of STRs.

City Attorney Kenyon explained that there is legal analysis and staff stime from Planning and Assistant City Manager needed to determine if a moratorium is legally appropriate as it requires strict findings and analysis to support the findings. She added that work on analyzing a moratorium would delay discussion of updating the ordinance.

Planning Director Murdock and City Attorney Kenyon emphasized the importance of residents reporting written complaints regarding specific STR operations to the City, which would help substantiate evidence against operators of problematic STRs, as the City has the tools to suspend or revoke STR permits under existing regulations.

Assistant City Manager Carter discussed enforcement and compliance efforts on STRs that is underway, providing an update on the number of notices of violations sent. She reminded the Council that the combined tax components related to the STR program, including TOT, business license and STR permit fees , together are approximately $2 million and the STR permit fees partially fund code enforcement staffing to address STR issues.

Greg Larson summarized from the discussion related to potential changes to the work plan and priorities regarding Goal 3B, that staff would need to hear a majority of Council to support pursuing the following options: (1) moratorium, (2) enforcement unfolding, (3) inspection program, (4) policy direction from a study session for an updated ordinance, (5) consider a separate policy for the coastal zone, or (6) lowering the cap. He stated that the current plan entails enforcement unfolding and policy direction from a study session for an updated ordinance.

After further Council discussion, Greg Larson concluded that there was no clear direction from Council on a change the work plan regarding Goal 3B.

Greg Larson moved on to discussion of Goal 3C “Prioritize Housing Element Program Implementation” and explained Council feedback on possibly adding “tangible progress on an affordable housing project this year” and possible accelerated interim work, providing some examples.

Councilmember Boles provided additional detail on her requests for additional interim work, such as changes to the definition regarding height limits.

Planning Director Murdock explained how some of the suggestions fit into the current work plan and discussed the anticipated timelines. He stated that zoning amendments would not take effect in the coastal zone until certified by the Coastal Commission and LCP amendments are staff intensive and recommended waiting for a more comprehensive zoning update that is already programmed in to the Housing Element Update. He also explained for the tangible progress on affordable housing project, HCD will require the city to move forward with the RFP process for publicly owned sites including city-owned property. He explained that the

2.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 13 March 09, 2024
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance update could be tee’d up as a nearer term implementation activity within the next year and using our shared consultant support services from HEART.

Greg Larson moved on to Goal 4 “Pursue Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation”, stating that he got divergent feedback from Council on 4A “Update the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.”
City Manager Woodhouse explained that the initial direction that the Climate Action and Adaptation Task Force will have a milestone coming back to Council to make sure it is headed in the right direction.

Management Analyst Brooks added that the Task Force has completed an analysis of the 2014 Climate Action Plan and the progress on measures in that and submitted a citywide FlashVote survey to inform next steps on measures and actions they propose to Council.

Greg Larson concluded that the overall sense from Council majority is not to add more to the work plan and let the Task Force reporting and alignment with the Council occur through the normal progress.

Greg Larson stated that for Goal 4B “Continue the Urban Forest / Tree Canopy Inventory and Projects” was a priority for Council last year and there was more recognition this year than the other Planning issues are a notch above this one for now. He added that there was a request to deal with dead trees, tree replacement, permitting for new trees and what can be done on a complaint and enforcement basis rather than on a Planning basis.

Councilmember Bier suggested changing the language to say that the Tree Canopy and Urban Forest Project is still very important to us and we care about our trees and urban forestry projects and increasing the tree canopy, and make sure the community understands this continues to be a goal for our city.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer commented on the speakers’ references to the loophole language in the ordinance to be brought back to Council for clarity to have them say what we meant them to say about two-to-one tree replacement and the “otherwise healthy” reference. She asked when we do the fee review.

City Manager Woodhouse explained that there is a task to bring the existing ordinance back to Council for modification after we had a year of experience with the ordinance and new fees, and this is due to start in the beginning of next fiscal year task 4.2.2 in the work program.

Greg Larson moved on to Goal 4C “Update Pacifica’s Local Coastal Plan” and mentioned it was mentioned as a top Council priority and there was not further directions or changes on this one.

Greg Larson began the discussion of Goal 5 “Broaden Public Communications and Collaboration”, starting with Goal 5A “Creatively and Appropriately Leverage Community Expertise and Voluntees to Advance City Priorities” with the intent to reduce staff workload and making sure that if individual research is done and staff relies on that it is not perceived as biased.

Councilmember Bier explained that citizen led research is important to her and she wants to learn about it, but was unsure about the process to use it on an official staff report for the city.

2.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 14 March 09, 2024
Councilmember Boles referred to citizen research on ordinances related to STRs, which can be helpful, recognizing that staff must also do their own analysis.

Councilmember Bigstyck added that community research could present a lead that staff could follow up on, recognizing that he may not be able to take an amazing amount of work a community member has done to turn directly over to staff, but may be able to encourage them to show it to his colleagues and could inform how Council directs staff or has that conversation with staff.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer provided an example of how they had a lot of this information sharing with the Tree Ordinance and it was informative to her and Councilmembers can hear informationally from the community.

Greg Larson moved on to concluding on Goal 4B “Increase Communications, Education and Connections for Community Mental Health Resources” that Councilmembers recognizing relying on Councilmember Bier’s expertise on this issue, and there was interest by Council that this goal proceeds.

Councilmember Bier added that there was a Mayors’ Mental Health Inititative that came from Substance Abuse Mental Health Association (SAMSA) when she was mayor and would like to engage the current mayor in that process that is part of an initiative across the county.

Greg Larson moved on to the suggestion from one Councilmember of a potential new strategy of “Evaluate Past Efforts to Find Ways to Do More Overall (in terms of public engagement).” Mayor Vaterlaus and Councilmember Bier objected to the phrase “do more overall” because there is so much work going on already.

After some Council discussion, Greg Larson suggested that could be part of a goal setting retreat or teambuilding exercise. He observed that there is so much going one right now that is involving public engagement.

Greg Larson asked Council about other possible work program additions that were suggested:
(A) Conduct Council relations and team building workshop, (B) Consider possible term limit modifications, and (C) Council compensation set at State standard (mentioned by one Councilmember).

Councilmember Bigstyck shared his thoughts in support of considering possible term limit modifications, feeling that limiting to two terms inhibits having local officials maintaining longevity in relationships regionally and added a concern with the advent of districting together with term limits and the potential of candidate pools resulting in a candidate running unopposed.

Councilmember Bier agreed with Councilmember Bigstyck’s remarks.

Mayor Vaterlaus agreed, adding that continuity and relationship is building.

Greg Larson observed that this workload would involve the City Clerk and City Attorney. He concluded from Councilmember responses that there were three interested in pursuing this and two that were undecided.

Greg Larson opened the discussion of Council compensation.

2.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Study Session 15 March 09, 2024
City Attorney Kenyon explained that any change in compensation would take effect after a new term begins (e.g. December or January).

After Council discussion on this topic focusing on the diversity / equity aspect, Greg Larson concluded regarding Council compensation that there was not majority of support to pursue this at this time, but staff may research a potential child care subsidy and look at bringing the C/CAG presentation on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion forward.

Councilmember Bigstyck raised the idea of exploring a prohibition on pigeon feeding.

Greg Larson concluded following discussion of this proposal that there was not Council consensus to pursue this proposal at this time.

Councilmember Bigstyck mentioned that under the heading of health and safety, drugs, homelessness, blue zone, pickleball issues are on his radar, but not necessarily to put on the work plan now but consider these when there is more bandwidth. 1) Enhance organizational and fiscal stability.
2) Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets and facilities. 3) Prioritize protection and development of affordable housing. 4) Pursue climate change adaptation and mitigation.
5) Broaden public communications and collaboration.

H. Wrap-up and Next Steps
Greg Larson explained the Council will continue this iterative process when it comes back at one of the April meetings with the work plan. He solicited feedback from the Council on their single biggest take-away from the day. Councilmembers shared their thoughts.

ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 4:48 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor

2.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attahcment B: Minutes of 03-09-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Special Meeting 1 March 28, 2024

SPECIAL MEETING
March 28, 2024 (THURSDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on March 28, 2024 at 4:47 PM 4:45 PM - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 4:47 p.m.

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

Staff Present: Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director (Field Services/Engineering); Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Vaterlaus

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer pulled Agenda Item #1 from the consent calendar.

1. A Resolution Authorizing the Submittal of Applications to the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways Grants
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal of an application to the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways Shoreline Erosion Control and Public Beach Restoration Programs.

2.c
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 03-28-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 2 March 28, 2024
Agenda Item #1 Discussion
PW Director Petersen and PW Dep. Director Yip presented the staff report.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked for further details regarding the timeline.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated the award deadline has not been announced yet but the deadline to submit for applications is April 1, hence the urgent meeting.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked for clarification on why they are holding this meeting following a regular city council meeting.

PW Dep. Director Yip explained the grant application process and the urgent need for the resolution to be eligible for grant funding.

Councilmember Bigstyck confirmed the deadline of April 1 for the grant applications and asked why the item was not included on the consent agenda for the regular meeting.

PW Dep. Director Yip explained that they were made aware of the deadline after the regular city council meeting agenda was posted and therefore were unable to meet the requirements to include it in the agenda at that point.

Councilmember Boles asked what the total cost estimate for Phase 2B (environmental review) of BBIRP would be.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated $2.5 million for Phase 2B and close to $2.5 million for Phase 2C.

Councilmember Boles stated that included CEQA review and refinement of the design for the CEQA review to happen.

PW Dep. Director Yip answered affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles asked for a description of the general investigation study.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated it was a study of the coastline for Pacifica and hopefully they would receive a more comprehensive study of the entire coastline to determine the many different types of projects that would benefit the city.

Councilmember Boles asked if we are fully committing to the $1.5 million as part of this grant application.

PW Dep. Director Yip clarified that this is an authorization to submit the grant and not a commitment to the grant. They may have the opportunity to accept the grant in the future, which is when they would commit the funds.

Councilmember Boles asked if there were opportunities to keep looking for grants to offset the $1.5 million.

PW Dep. Director Yip answered affirmatively.

2.c
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 03-28-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 3 March 28, 2024
Councilmember Boles asked about the timeline and process for these studies.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated it can take several years to process the applications.

Councilmember Bier asked about the percent matched by the grant.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated it depends on the grant; many match 10%, and some match more.

Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, asked what the funds being proposed for commitment would normally be used for and does this present the city with any kind of exposure. He also expressed desire for more public engagement the next time this item is agendized.

Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked from which fund that the money needed for the match would come.

PW Dep. Director Yip answered the Disaster Accounting Fund (Fund 38).

Councilmember Bigstyck asked where the money is coming from, what would it be used for, and is it accounted for in the mid-year budget.

PW Director Petersen clarified that they are requesting authorization to submit this grant.

Assuming that the city is awarded the grant, then that would be the time for discussion related to the funding and uses for the Disaster Accounting Fund.

Councilmember Bigstyck verified that following authorization and potential awarding, then they would discuss in more detail.

Councilmember Bier added that they held the special meeting at 4:45 PM in order to accommodate staff and Council's busy schedules.

Councilmember Bigstyck thanked staff for making this all happen and for including PCT to broadcast the special meeting.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer moved to adopt the resolution authorizing the submittal of an application to the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways Shoreline Erosion Control and Public Beach Restoration Programs; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

AGENDA ITEM #1
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles

2.c
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 03-28-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting
4 March 28, 2024

ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 5:06 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor

2.c
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 03-28-2024 City Council Special Meeting (5617 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/8/2024
1 SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

STAFF CONTACT:

Roland Yip, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer 650-738-3767
[email protected]
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On January 22, 2016, the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency along the Pacifica coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard due to El Nino storm activity. Extreme wave heights for extended periods of time caused top-of-bluff retreat at several locations along the Pacifica coast and damage to City infrastructure. Since this date, the Director of Emergency Services has proclaimed the existence of other local emergencies along this same stretch of coastline. These emergencies are described below:
• Failure of the sea wall and promenade on Beach Blvd. (in the vicinity of Santa Maria Avenue), which have been repaired, from the January 22, 2016 storm. • The 300 & 400 block of Esplanade experience episodic bluff erosion. In recent years (2016-2018), the bluff erosion has progressed to a point where the erosion is now threatening public infrastructure and utilities.
• Undermining of a eight-foot diameter storm drain outfall and concrete headwall for the discharge of Milagra Creek into the Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of 700 Palmetto Avenue from the January 22, 2016, storm. The project was completed on April 24, 2023. • A failure of the seawall and promenade on Beach Blvd. in the vicinity of Santa Rosa Avenue and the Pier was discovered on December 16, 2020. Ocean waves, king tides, and high swells undermined a portion of the sea wall and created a large void (25’x25”) between the pier abutment seawall connection, affecting the sidewalk and promenade.

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

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

Monitoring of the repaired area is on-going.
3 Packet Pg. 80
Pacifica City Council 2
April 08, 2024
• On December 29, 2020, another failure of the seawall occurred approximately 150-200 feet north of the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Santa Rosa Avenue. A void, approximately 10’ deep by 15’ long, was found behind the seawall and was repaired with geotextiles and concrete slurry on January 5, 2021. Full restoration of this section was complete in February 2021. Monitoring of the repaired area is on-going. • On January 14, 2021, a combination of high tides and large waves damaged a forty-foot section of the Pacifica Municipal Pier’s west facing deck and concrete railing. Following this event, the Pier was closed due to safety concerns. City staff requested a structural engineering assessment of the above deck pier elements and a proposed repair and associated cost from a local engineering consultant. This information was provided to the City at the end of March 2021. The pier was reopened on April 2, 2021, but the damaged portion was fenced off for safety reasons. The City is currently moving forward with a repair project and is designing the repair. Construction will be funded by grant money provided through a Senate Bill 129. The City Council approved a resolution on December 13, 2021, to approve the application of the state grant funds for the repair of the pier and the application has been sent to the State Department of Parks and Recreation for processing. On May 13, 2022, the City received a Coastal Development Permit waiver from the California Coastal Commission to perform this work. A bid opening for the repair was held on June 9, 2022, and the City received one bid, which was $2 million above the project budget. Council rejected the bid and authorized the project to be rebid. The rebid for replacing the guardrails in need of immediate repair came in over $1.4 million and all of the guardrails at $4 million. As the project was beyond what had been funded for the project, the City pivoted to do further inspections on the pier before a sizable investment is made in fixing the guardrails, since it was prudent for the City to understand the full needs of the pier. The 2023 Pier Condition Assessment Report has been finalized and is able to be viewed at www.cityofpacifica.org/pier. In summary, the 2023 report notes that the end of the main pier and L-section of the pier is in serious condition and should be fixed within the next two years. The remaining area of the main pier is considered in poor condition and should be repaired within four years. This report does not include the new damage sustained during the Dec. 28, 2023, high tide/big wave event. The structural engineers determined there was additional damage to the piles, handrails, and deck. The structural engineers recommended limiting public access on the pier to approximately half of the main pier deck until a complete assessment be made after the winter storms. • In November of 2023, a failure behind the seawall was discovered at the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Salada Ave. A void approximately 40’ long and 12’-15’ deep (2’-7’ in width) was found behind the seawall and was repaired with concrete and cement slurry.

The final sidewalk replacement was completed at the end of December 2023. • On Friday, December 29, 2023, another failure behind the seawall was discovered at Beach Blvd. and San Jose Ave. and was temporarily plugged. The final repair was completed on January 3, 2024, with the final sidewalk section and wall completed a week later. The total repair area was approximately 300 sf.

The City Council first ratified this proclamation (Attachment 1) at its regular meeting of January 25, 2016. Since that date, additional damage had occurred along Beach Boulevard and Esplanade Avenue as noted above.
3 Packet Pg. 81
Pacifica City Council 3
April 08, 2024
Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on January 25, 2016, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency exists within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard every 30 days with March 11, 2024, being the most recent.

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

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

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd. (PDF)
3 Packet Pg. 82
"ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd. (5616 : Continuation of "ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd. (5616 : Continuation of

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/8/2024
1 SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

STAFF CONTACT:

Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Louis Sun, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works - Wastewater (650) 738-4660
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

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

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

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

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

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

In this case, the City Manager has determined that the damaged pump station threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure, which 4 Packet Pg. 85
Pacifica City Council 2
April 08, 2024
requires immediate attention and constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code Section 1102.

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

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

On May 10, 2021, City Council approved the purchase of two new Caterpillar engines utilizing the City’s established Sourcewell Cooperative Purchase Agreement. The rehabilitation plan is currently 100% completed, and staff has completed the engineering review. The roofing plan was approved by the Building Department. The City entered into an agreement with PG&E to tap the gas main and install a new gas meter.

During a storm event on the morning of December 16, 2021, the City experienced some flooding in the lower Linda Mar area due to the temporary nonstandard pumping system that has been in use at Anza pump station due to the fire damaged pump station engines in March of 2020. This temporary system has been in place because the City had been working to reach agreement with the California Coastal Commission on the remaining permitting requirements for the permanent pumping system. The City faced several significant stormwater related events from October 2021 through December 2021 and will face more with the continuing storm season. Replacement of this temporary system is considered an emergency and staff is moving forward with construction of the permanent system. To further improve operations between now and when the Anza Pump Station Repair Project is completed, the City recently purchased a small diesel engine that will be used to drive one of the existing smaller stormwater pumps, thereby improving pump station resiliency in the interim.

The City Council approved an agreement for DW Nicholson (DWN) to construct the Anza Pump Station Repair Project. Construction began on May 1, 2022. Ghirardelli and Associates were also approved to manage the construction work. The two new gas engines were delivered and installed in December 2022; the third new gas engine was installed in June 2023 and the new 2- inch PG&E gas service line for the new gas engines was completed May 2, 2023; All Anza Pump Station bathrooms were opened by August 25, 2023. Startup and testing of the new 4 Packet Pg. 86
Pacifica City Council 3
April 08, 2024
Engine#1 and Engine#4 have been completed and are now in service. Pump #3 was installed in early January 2024, and Peterson (the engine vendor) continues with startup and testing for Engine#3 and is expected to be complete in April 2024. The mechanical portion of this project is projected to be completed in early April 2024, and the remaining work is the closure of the roof.

The electronic control panel for automatic operations was installed in late December 2023, and the programming and training for these automatic operations is on the last week of March 2024/beginning of April. There will be punch list items to be completed in April/May 2024.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on April 13, 2020, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency at the Anza Pump Station every 30 days with March 11, 2024, being the most recent.

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

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to continue this local emergency.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (PDF)
4 Packet Pg. 87
RESOLUTION NO. 19-2020

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

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

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

4.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5607 : Continuance pursuant to Public Contract Code 22050; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2020, the City Manager, in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of local emergency in the City of Pacifica, after determining that the damaged condition of the Anza Pump Station is likely to create conditions of disaster or extreme peril which will be beyond the services, personnel and equipment and facilities of the City; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 4-2.05(a) the City Council must take action to confirm the proclamation within 7 and in accordance with Public Contract Code section 22050 which requires confirmation by 2/3 of Council within 14 days of the emergency action.

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

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

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

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

ABSENT, Councilmembers: None.

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers: None.

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

4.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5607 : Continuance

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

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

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

4.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5607 : Continuance

4.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5607 : Continuance

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/8/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency related to December 28, 2023, High Tide/Large Wave Events
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist related to the December 2023 High Tide/Large Wave Events STAFF CONTACT:

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

On January 5, 2024, the City Manager, acting in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to PMC 4-2.05(a) and executed the "Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency" ("Proclamation"). The proclamation was ratified by the City Council on January 8, 2024.

The storm event that occurred on December 28, 2023, resulted in dangerous conditions and public safety concerns and caused damage to Pacifica’s coastline. The events brought large waves combined with high tide that damaged coastal access amenities at Beach Boulevard and Rockaway Beach. Damage included destroying bollards, trash cans, public benches, light posts, and protective railings. Additionally, the Pacifica Pier was damaged, requiring closure for public health and safety until assessment and repair can be completed. The event also created a hole in the seawall at Beach Blvd. and San Jose Ave., requiring 300 square feet of area behind the wall to be temporarily repaired to protect public infrastructure. Additionally, the event created flooding on streets and adjacent properties. Finally, the event brought significant amounts of sand onto the streets and parking lots that will need to be cleared for safe public access. In March of 2024, after receiving an Emergency Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission, the City hired a contractor who cleared the sand off of beach boulevard and relocated the sand to the public access beach entrance at 700 Palmetto Ave.

The Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments, worked diligently through the high tide/large wave event to keep the public safe.

Pursuant to Government Code section 8330(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing a local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency continue to exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on January 8, 2024. Since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency exists every 30 days with March 11, 2024, being the most recent.
5 Packet Pg. 92
Pacifica City Council 2
April 08, 2024
FISCAL IMPACT:

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

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Proclamation of December 28 2023 High Tide Large Wave Event (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 93
Pacifica City Council 3
April 08, 2024
5 Packet Pg. 94

5.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment A - Proclamation of December 28 2023 High Tide Large Wave Event (5618 : Continuation of Proclamation Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment A - Proclamation of December 28 2023 High Tide Large Wave Event (5618 : Continuation of Proclamation Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment A - Proclamation of December 28 2023 High Tide Large Wave Event (5618 : Continuation of Proclamation Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment A - Proclamation of December 28 2023 High Tide Large Wave Event (5618 : Continuation of Proclamation Local

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/8/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution Opposing The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, Initiative No. 21-0042A1
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

The League of California Cities, along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses, strongly oppose this initiative and have requested for local governments across the state to also consider opposing this initiative due to the severe financial impacts it would bring to local governments.

Summary
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would revise the California Constitution with provisions that limit voters’ authority and input, adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws. The measure puts billions of local government tax and fee revenues at risk statewide with related core public service impacts. The measure could have significant negative impacts on City of Pacifica operations and core service delivery. The proposed constitutional initiative is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable.

Background
On Jan. 4, 2022, the California Business Roundtable filed the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” or AG# 21-0042A1. Information from the Legislative Analyst’s Office about the Ballot Initiative is here: <https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2021-042> .

On Feb. 1, 2023, the measure qualified for the November 2024 ballot. Local government revenue-raising authority is currently substantially restricted by state statute and constitutional provisions, including the voter approved provisions of Proposition 13 of 1978, Proposition 218 of 1996, and Proposition 26 of 2010. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act adds and expands restrictions on voters and local government tax and fee authority.

Local governments, including Pacifica, levy a variety of fees and other charges to provide core public services. Major examples of types of fees and charges that would be impacted by this initiative are:
6 Packet Pg. 99
Pacifica City Council 2
April 08, 2024
• Nuisance abatement charges, such as for weed, rubbish, and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.
• Commercial franchise fees.
• Emergency response fees, such as in connection with DUI. • Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.
• Document processing and duplication fees.
• Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, and public airport and harbor use fees. • Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees.

Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities.

Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge.

Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies, including counciladopted increases to simply accommodate inflation, Cal Cities estimates the amount of local government fee and charge revenue at risk statewide is approximately $2 billion per year including those adopted since Jan. 1, 2022. Over ten years, $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues will be at heightened legal peril.

In addition, the initiative would impact hundreds of local tax measures statewide that were approved in 2022 that likely do not comply with the provisions of the initiative. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter-approved measures will cease a year after the effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures, unless the tax is re-submitted for voter approval. Reductions on local government tax revenues have impacts on core services and infrastructure including fire and emergency response, law enforcement, streets and roads, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, affordable housing, homelessness prevention, and mental health services. While a preliminary review of Pacifica’s Measure Y in 2022, the ½ cent Transactions and Use Tax, appears to meet the requirements of the initiative and not be at risk of being voided without being reenacted, the initiative would create significant challenges for future potential revenue measures in Pacifica.

Finally, the initiative also impacts fines and penalties. Under existing law, cities are required to provide due process before imposing a penalty or fine for violation of its municipal code:

1. A local agency must adopt administrative procedures that govern imposing fines and penalties, including providing a reasonable period of time for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or remedy the violation [Gov't Code 53069.4].

2. Notice must be given to the violating party before imposing the penalty; and give the party an opportunity to be heard and present any facts or arguments [Merco Construction Engineers v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1969) 274 CA 2d 154, 166].

3. The fine may not be "excessive" [U.S. Constitution amendments VIII and XIV].

The initiative converts administratively-imposed fines and penalties into taxes unless a new, undefined, and ambiguous “adjudicatory due process” is followed. This provision may put at risk authority to impose fines and penalties for violations of state and local law.

Specific Major Provisions of the Initiative
Major provisions of the Initiative are as follows:
6 Packet Pg. 100
Pacifica City Council 3
April 08, 2024
Fees and Charges:
• Except for licensing and other regulatory fees, fees and charges may not exceed the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” The burden to prove the fee or charge does not exceed “actual cost” is changed to “clear and convincing” evidence. • Requires fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property and the amount paid to purchase or rent government property to be “reasonable.” These fees and charges are currently allowed to be market-based. Whether the amount is “reasonable” (introducing a new legal standard aiming to force below market fee and charge amounts) must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.” The standard may significantly reduce the amount large companies (e.g., oil, utilities, gas, railroads, garbage/refuse, cable, and other corporations) will pay for the use of local public property.
• Prohibits fees on new development based on vehicle miles traveled.

Taxes:
• Taxes and fees adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted.
• Invalidates Upland decision that allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes. The measure specifies that taxes proposed by the initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council. • Expressly prohibits local advisory measures which allow local voters to express a preference for how local general tax dollars should be spent. • Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes (e.g., Utility, Transient Occupancy) to new territory (e.g., annexations) or to expand the tax base (e.g., new utility service)
• New taxes can only be imposed for a specific time period. • City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee. • All state taxes require majority voter approval.

Fines and Penalties:
• May require voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties.

Action by the Governor, Cal Cities and Other Cities
In late September 2023, the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom filed an emergency petition with the California Supreme Court to remove the initiative from the November 2024 ballot. The petitioners allege it unlawfully revises the state constitution and would cripple essential government functions. Cal Cities, of which the City of Pacifica is a member, has filed an amicus letter in support of a legal challenge against the Initiative (Attachment A). In addition, the mayors of some of California’s biggest cities also filed a separate letter (Attachment B), urging the Court for a pre-election review of the initiative. Oral arguments before the California Supreme Court will likely be scheduled in the next few months.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council could choose to not take a position on this Initiative. 6 Packet Pg. 101
Pacifica City Council 4
April 08, 2024
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES:

Opposition to the Initiative supports all of the City Council’s Strategic Plan Goals because if the Initiative were successful, critical revenue losses would impact the city’s core services.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action to oppose the Initiative.

However, were this Initiative to be enacted by the voters of California, there would be significant fiscal impacts to the City by imposing new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and making it more difficult to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Cal Cities' Amicus Letter (PDF)
Attachment B: Mayors' Amicus Letter (PDF)
6 Packet Pg. 102
Pacifica City Council 5
April 08, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. __-2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA OPPOSING THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, INITIATIVE NO. 21-0042A1
WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations is spending tens of millions of dollars to promote a deceptive ballot measure currently eligible for the November 2024 statewide ballot; and
WHEREAS, the measure creates constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, which could force residents and taxpayers to pay more to maintain services; and WHEREAS, the measure threatens billions of dollars every year in local government funding for services like fire and emergency response, law enforcement, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and WHEREAS, the measure is an attack on voters’ rights, containing undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures to fund services, provisions that retroactively cancel measures recently passed by voters, and provisions that prevent voters from passing advisory measures that provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and
WHEREAS, the measure contains intentionally restrictive language that will encourage hundreds of frivolous lawsuits against cities and local governments – costing taxpayers many millions and stopping investments in vital local services; and WHEREAS, the measure would make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the measure is opposed by hundreds of local governments, teachers, firefighters, working families and local elected officials; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Pacifica opposes Initiative #21- 0042A1 and will join the “Stop the Corporate Tax Trick” coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, education, labor, local government, and infrastructure groups throughout the state. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 8
th day of April, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 6 Packet Pg. 103

323183 2
MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO | 530-432-7359 | [email protected] 420 SIERRA COLLEGE DRIVE, SUITE 140, GRASS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 95945-5091 | (530) 432-7357 GRASS VALLEY | PASADENA | SACRAMENTO | SOLANA BEACH | SONOMA Our File No. 99904.0191
September 28, 2023
Via TrueFiling
Supreme Court of California
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
Re: Legislature of the State of California et al. v. Weber (Hiltachk) Case No. S281977
Honorable Chief Justice Guerrero and Associate Justices, INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. I write on behalf of the local government associations identified infra (“Local Government Amici”) pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.500(g) to provide amicus support for this Petition for the exercise of this Court’s original jurisdiction.

This Court’s preelection review of the so-called Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act in its original jurisdiction is warranted notwithstanding the very high bar for such review because the proposed measure is already destabilizing government finance. It proposes sweeping restrictions on every form of government funding, is retroactive to January 2022, and demands that revenue measures which did not anticipate its detailed provisions be ratified at special elections in 2025, yet bars special elections on local general taxes absent a legislative body’s unanimous declaration of fiscal emergency. These provisions discourage new government efforts no matter how urgent the problem to be addressed, discourage expenditures in fiscal years 2023–2024 and 2024–2025, hang like a shadow over budgets to be adopted in summer 2025 for fiscal year 2025–2026, may trigger continuing disclosure obligations of issuers of publicly traded debt, and impair California governments’ ability to borrow. Substantial questions as to the lawfulness and meaning of the proposed measure arise that, if left unresolved through the November 2024 election, will exacerbate these uncertainties and necessarily reduce government efficiency for months and years after that election. This Court’s Document received by the CA Supreme Court.

6.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment A: Cal Cities' Amicus Letter (5622 : Opposing Taxpayer Protection & Gov Accountability Act, Initiative 21-0042A1 (CA Supreme Court of California
September 28, 2023