Agenda — Pacifica City Council, May 13, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

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 May 13, 2024
May 13, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Off-street parking is allowed by permit for attendance at official public meetings.

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

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

The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is in-person at the meeting location published in the meeting agenda. However, there are alternative ways to observe and participate:
• Join Zoom Webinar: https://pacifica-gov.zoom.us/j/81156158241 • Watch on TV on Comcast channel 26
• Watch a Live Stream of the meeting by following https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream or www.pacificcoast.tv
• Live Remote Public Comments (offered on a pilot basis):
• Join Zoom Webinar: https://pacifica-gov.zoom.us/j/81156158241 • OR Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | Webinar ID: 811 5615 8241 o Press * 9 to raise your hand to request to speak.
o Press * 6 to unmute when called upon to speak by the last 4-digits of your phone #. • When the Mayor announces the Agenda Item on which you would like to comment, raise your hand in Zoom. You will be called upon my screenname or last 4-digits of phone number if dialing in. Please mute any background sound and state your full name at the start of your comment.

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

BEFORE THE MEETING: Written public comments may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date by email to: [email protected]. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Public Comment on Item Not on Agenda” in the Subject Line
• Include the submitter’s full name
Written public comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date will be provided in their entirety to the City Council and posted to the City’s website prior to the meeting but will not be read verbally at the meeting.

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

City Council Regular Meeting 2 May 13, 2024
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bigstyck

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Special Presentation by Commute.Org
B. Proclamation - Emergency Medical Services Week (May 19 - 25, 2024) C. Proclamation - National Public Works Week (May 19 - 25, 2024)

CONSENT CALENDAR
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to address the Council on any item listed on the agenda should submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.

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

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

Items on the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion unless a Councilmember requests, before the vote on the motion, to have an item discussed. Time limit on comments is three minutes or less.

1. Approval of Disbursements for 04/01/24 through 04/30/24.

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

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the following: (1) April 8, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting, (2) April 15, 2024 City Council Special Meeting, and (3) April 22, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.

City Council Regular Meeting 3 May 13, 2024

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. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending March 31, 2024.

PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending March 31, 2024.

7. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2024-25 funded by SB 1: Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2024-25 funded by SB 1: Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

8. Adopt Resolution to Approve Amendment No. 2 To Agreement Between the City of Pacifica and Universal Building Services (UBS) For Janitorial Services PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt Resolution to Approve Amendment Number 2 to the vendor services agreement with Universal Building Services to provide additional Janitorial Services for City restrooms at Linda Mar State Beach, Pacifica Pier, Rockaway Beach, Frontierland Park and outside the Community Center in an amount of $84,397.77 increasing the overall cost to $343,657.77/year.

9. Approval of Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) for Geotechnical Services PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution approving the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) for Geotechnical Services in the amount of $219,780 with a 10% contingency for a total amount of $241,758, and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the Geotechnical Services.

City Council Regular Meeting 4 May 13, 2024

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

10. City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25 PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the updated City of Pacifica 2023 to 2030 Strategic Plan Mission, Vision, Values, Goals and Strategies.

11. Fiscal Year 2024-25 Base Budget, Long-Term Financial Outlook, and Introduction of the 2024-29 Capital Improvement Plan
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the report and provide feedback and direction on the proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 Base Budget, long-term financial outlook, and introduction of the FY 2024-29 Capital Improvement Plan.

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

City Council Regular Meeting 5 May 13, 2024
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
5/13/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for 04/01/24 through 04/30/24.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of April 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 4/1/24 through 4/30/24 are in the amount of $3,575,388.36. (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 - 04-01 to 04-30-24 (PDF)
1 Packet Pg. 6
Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: WEDNESDAY MAY0124 10:09 Page: 1

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 04/01/24 - 04/30/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68923 968.17 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00094 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 1 68924 166.91 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 68925 81.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06054 ANGELA BOELDT 1 68926 720.79 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06010 ARI STRATAKIS 1 68927 7818.98 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00217 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 1 68928 4531.04 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03424 AUTO GLASS NOW 1 68929 200.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04561 AVINA, ANGEL 1 68930 37.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05862 BADGE FRAME, INC. 1 68931 484.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05484 BAY VIEW FUNDING 1 68932 5388.06 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00293 BEARING AGENCIES INC 1 68933 1661.73 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00335 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY 1 68934 971.30 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00365 BROADMOOR LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 1 68935 89230.32 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 1 68936 1119.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01690 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB 1 68937 7900.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04817 CAMACHO'S CONCRETE FLATWORK 1 68938 30723.98 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03745 CASEY CONSTRUCTION, INC 1 68939 756.68 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00488 CENTRISYS 1 68940 22.50 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05969 CHAD LAWIE 1 68941 950.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06057 CHARLES LIAO 1 68942 1640.64 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 68943 195.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01594 CITY OF DALY CITY 1 68944 9602.34 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06033 CIVITAS ADVISORS 1 68945 203.68 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 COLLIER, REBECCA 1 68946 166.40 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 68947 240.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00021 COSTCO MEMBERSHIP 1 68948 5000.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00022 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO SUSTAINABILITY DEPAR Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: WEDNESDAY MAY0124 10:09 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 04/01/24 - 04/30/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68949 11642.88 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05341 CREATIVE DIGITAL AGENCY INC. 1 68950 3136.44 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01204 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 1 68951 33681.50 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00611 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 68952 61802.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00611 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 68953 65.93 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00635 DALY CITY TOOL MART 1 68954 19.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT 1 68955 23012.50 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03006 FEHR PEERS 1 68956 17373.22 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 1 68957 329.63 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02213 GARRATT CALLAHAN 1 68958 347.90 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00872 GRAINGER 1 68959 420.38 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00875 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26577 1 68960 99.50 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04842 HEMRAJ SINGH 1 68961 897.60 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00926 HILTON IRENE

Page 1 of 9 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 5/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 04-01 to 04-30-24 (5645 : Disbursements - Dated 4/1/24 through 4/30/24) 1 68962 300.13 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00990 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS 1 68963 452.40 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06058 JESSICA SIMPSON 1 68964 556.54 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01014 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 1 68965 675.72 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01090 LIFELOC TECHNOLGIES 1 68966 2759.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06053 MATT SCHULTZ -HONOMOBO 1 68967 220.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06055 MELISSA BADILLA 1 68968 3120.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04077 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP 1 68969 214.98 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 MICHAEL PHAM 1 68970 315.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01378 MUSCIO SECURITY 1 68971 5687.60 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01206 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. 1 68972 15504.30 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04630 OPENGOV, INC. 1 68973 480794.42 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01240 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 1 68974 1775.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01240 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.

Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: WEDNESDAY MAY0124 10:09 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 04/01/24 - 04/30/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 68975 489.28 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00327 PACIFICA AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION SHOP 1 68976 60.54 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00054 PAPE MACHINERY 1 68977 353.93 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04139 PET FOOD EXPRESS 1 68978 1138.29 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06056 POLITICAL DATA INTELLIGENCE 1 68979 460.50 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 68980 2360.02 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01337 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, INC. 1 68981 5950.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04806 RICHARD SMITH 1 68982 4512.69 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03306 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES 1 68983 6524.75 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06047 S.R. ROSE ENGINEERING INC 1 68984 1995.25 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00022 SAN MATEO COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICA 1 68985 864.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03720 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 1 68986 700.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00055 SAN MATEO MEDICAL CENTER 1 68987 500.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 SMITH, WILLIAM 1 68988 33822.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01531 ST. FRANCIS ELECTRIC, INC. 1 68989 10031.10 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01570 SYNAGRO WEST, LLC 1 68990 1522.80 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02642 T-MOBILE CORPORATION 1 68991 2455.93 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00052 THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC 1 68992 84.42 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00002 TIET, MINDAY (PETTY CASH) 1 68993 15000.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05147 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC. 1 68994 19068.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05936 TRIPEPI, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 68995 696.89 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01647 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS 1 68996 1458.74 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05832 UPS STORE 1468 1 68997 2375.38 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01684 VERIZON WIRELESS 1 68998 2520.00 04/04/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01725 WINTZELL YLVA 1 68999 1754.96 04/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05895 CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT 1 69000 15965.37 04/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: WEDNESDAY MAY0124 10:09 Page: 4

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 04/01/24 - 04/30/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

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

Page 2 of 9 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 5/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 04-01 to 04-30-24 (5645 : Disbursements - Dated 4/1/24 through 4/30/24) 1 69001 3303.60 04/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04859 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1 69002 25.00 04/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05949 SCOTT BUSCHMAN 1 69003 1501.06 04/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04418 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. 1 69004 263.23 04/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01812 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 1 69005 1879.54 04/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01684 VERIZON WIRELESS 1 69006 3078.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01585 ACCUTITE 1 69007 88.29 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00094 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 1 69008 360.71 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00045 ALBERTSONS / SAFEWAY 1 69009 555.51 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 69010 489.94 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05556 AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVICE INC. 1 69011 1155.80 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03895 AMERICAN FIDELITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE 1 69012 1194.32 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02253 ATLAS TOWING SERVICES, INC. 1 69013 10640.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06060 BALANCE FITNESS 1 69014 669.37 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 BIANCULLI, RYAN 1 69015 142.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01502 BIG GUYS TOWING 1 69016 1559.39 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00335 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY 1 69017 240.53 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05901 BOB GRAF 1 69018 127.07 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 BRAUN, LUCIE 1 69019 174.79 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00002 BRAUN, LUCIE (PETTY CASH) 1 69020 5970.64 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 1 69021 685.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01690 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB 1 69022 1914.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04757 CATHOLIC CHARITIES CYO OF THE ARCHDIOCES 1 69023 14737.01 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00483 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 1 69024 147.40 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06061 CHERIE WIELAND 1 69025 3611.60 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00507 CHILDCARE CAREERS 1 69026 277.95 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: WEDNESDAY MAY0124 10:09 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 04/01/24 - 04/30/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69027 1857.30 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 69028 780.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05082 COASTSIDE NEWS GROUP, INC. 1 69029 27.34 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 69030 900.58 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04677 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC 1 69031 117.45 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03590 DASH MEDICAL GLOVES 1 69032 21240.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00645 DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY 1 69033 4545.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04274 EMCOR SERVICES 1 69034 192.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT 1 69035 534.36 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01960 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 1 69036 350.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06051 FIRST RESPONSE SUPPORT NETWORK 1 69037 100.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05394 GAIL EDWARDS 1 69038 346.59 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00872 GRAINGER 1 69039 947.81 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00875 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26577 1 69040 4925.92 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04083 INTERNATIONAL DIOXCIDE, INC. 1 69041 28.93 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04085 JAMES FORD, INC. 1 69042 201.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05532 JOAN ARTHUR 1 69043 1458.95 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01014 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC

Page 3 of 9 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 5/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 04-01 to 04-30-24 (5645 : Disbursements - Dated 4/1/24 through 4/30/24) 1 69044 1280.21 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01027 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA 1 69045 95.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05333 KASEYA US LLC 1 69046 31.20 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04781 KING, KATHLEEN 1 69047 399.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01084 LEXIPOL LLC 1 69048 10260.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05582 LUHDORFF AND SCALMANINI CONSULTING ENGIN 1 69049 1043.85 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01007 MATCO TOOLS 1 69050 964.26 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01142 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 1 69051 4967.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05533 MCMILLAN ELECTRIC 1 69052 11.59 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01154 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: WEDNESDAY MAY0124 10:09 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 04/01/24 - 04/30/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69053 6500.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01156 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1 69054 85.02 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 MICHAEL PHAM 1 69055 958.81 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04549 NAF SERVICES, INC. 1 69056 470.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04375 NASTT FINANCIAL SERVICES 1 69057 159.54 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01217 OFFICE DEPOT 1 69058 1088.40 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00519 OMMM PACIFICA 1 69059 2784.41 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06038 PENINSULA BATTERY INC 1 69060 291.17 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01289 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT, INC 1 69061 600.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03782 PRIORITY 1 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT 1 69062 441.59 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 69063 148.80 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01337 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, INC. 1 69064 12025.39 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03281 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 1 69065 1482.80 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03720 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 1 69066 613.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06046 SAVAGE TRAINING GROUP 1 69067 78037.98 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05690 SCA OF CA, LLC 1 69068 36542.50 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04646 SCHAAF & WHEELER 1 69069 1927.13 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01450 SEAVIEW TIRE & BRAKE CENTER 1 69070 290.45 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01461 SERRAMONTE FORD INC. 1 69071 549.03 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02182 SERVICE PRESS, INC. 1 69072 225.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05677 SFO MEDICAL CLINIC 1 69073 179792.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00049 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF 1 69074 299.83 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01550 STEWART CHEVROLET 1 69075 220642.50 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05665 TELSTAR INSTRUMENTS 1 69076 7280.76 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03785 THATCHER COMPANY INC 1 69077 416.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01602 THOMSON WEST 1 69078 1344.79 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01077 TREE MANAGEMENT EXPERTS Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: WEDNESDAY MAY0124 10:09 Page: 7

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 04/01/24 - 04/30/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69079 57684.38 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01635 TROJAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 1 69080 1155.60 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01636 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 1 69081 1027.87 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01653 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA)

Page 4 of 9 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 5/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 04-01 to 04-30-24 (5645 : Disbursements - Dated 4/1/24 through 4/30/24) 1 69082 20219.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02527 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 1 69083 3444.61 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03835 US FOODS, INC 1 69084 6000.00 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05885 WARWICK GROUP CONSULTANTS, LLC 1 69085 4124.62 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01701 WECO INDUSTRIES 1 69086 298.50 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05163 WEX HEALTH, INC. 1 69087 518.10 04/12/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01717 WHITE CAP CONST. SUPPLY 1 69088 7765.78 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T
1 69089 285.68 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00094 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 1 69090 34946.01 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04584 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC 1 69091 477.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04066 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC 1 69092 1752.50 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 69093 4715.63 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04579 APPLIED LANDSCAPE MATERIALS INC 1 69094 263.52 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00056 ARAMARK 1 69095 355.47 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06010 ARI STRATAKIS 1 69096 270.05 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04459 ARROWHEAD FORENSICS 1 69097 204.85 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00223 AT WORK UNIFORMS 1 69098 2328.80 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T
1 69099 46.73 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T LONG DISTANCE 1 69100 4250.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03188 ATLAS PLUMBING & ROOTER INC 1 69101 2400.15 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00128 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 1 69102 95.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05127 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. 1 69103 326.33 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00365 BROADMOOR LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 1 69104 16471.26 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: WEDNESDAY MAY0124 10:09 Page: 8

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 04/01/24 - 04/30/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69105 1165.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00421 CALIFORNIA DIESEL & POWER 1 69106 600.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05443 CALIFORNIA SEWER ENGINEERING, INC 1 69107 96.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00014 CALIFORNIA STATE OF 1 69108 235.82 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05895 CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT 1 69109 351.12 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00483 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 1 69110 1314.40 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00507 CHILDCARE CAREERS 1 69111 222.73 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 69112 258.34 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02822 CITY AUTO SUPPLY 1 69113 13000.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05875 CLASSIC AMUSEMENT LLC 1 69114 11232.63 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04446 COLORPRINT 1 69115 736.34 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 69116 378.70 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 69117 230.72 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01374 CORE & MAIN 1 69118 6480.94 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01204 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 1 69119 6314.49 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00025 DALY CITY/CITY OF 1 69120 54.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02343 DMV RENEWAL 1 69121 218.45 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05440 DONNA NEWLAND 1 69122 1500.74 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02793 EAST PENN MANUFACTURING CO., INC 1 69123 824.62 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04732 ECO PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS, INC. 1 69124 16000.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04237 ECS IMAGING, INC.

Page 5 of 9 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 5/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 04-01 to 04-30-24 (5645 : Disbursements - Dated 4/1/24 through 4/30/24) 1 69125 69083.87 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04377 ELK GROVE AUTO GROUP 1 69126 3269.31 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00745 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS, INC. 1 69127 15995.64 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05493 ESPOSTO'S FINE FOODS DBA THE BONEYARD 1 69128 10593.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03331 EWERS ENGINEERING 1 69129 38.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK INVOICE PROCESSING DEPT 1 69130 16.90 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00773 FEDEX
Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: WEDNESDAY MAY0124 10:09 Page: 9

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 04/01/24 - 04/30/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69131 22932.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06040 FIRST VANGUARD RENTALS & SALES 1 69132 6795.79 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 1 69133 105216.53 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04369 GHD INC. 1 69134 182.29 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00872 GRAINGER 1 69135 780.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03947 GRANICUS, INC. 1 69136 1129.52 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00875 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26577 1 69137 1797.56 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00892 HACH COMPANY 1 69138 110.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00924 HILL SCOTT 1 69139 241380.77 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06063 J.D. BERGLUND GROUP 1 69140 124.60 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01014 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 1 69141 229.16 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01812 KBA DOCUSYS 1 69142 18815.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01903 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 1 69143 582.92 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01055 KONE INC 1 69144 9000.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06064 LAURA DEASON 1 69145 385.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 LECHLEITNER, KYLE 1 69146 929.03 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03779 MAXX METALS 1 69147 1072.50 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04077 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP 1 69148 7008.92 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03399 MISSION VALLEY FORD TRUCK SALES INC 1 69149 1598.02 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04549 NAF SERVICES, INC. 1 69150 3341.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04632 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD 1 69151 35541.14 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01206 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. 1 69152 750.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03683 PACIFIC BEACH COALITION 1 69153 4432.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01238 PACIFIC ECORISK 1 69154 215780.09 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01240 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 1 69155 331.51 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01243 PACIFIC MANOR HARDWARE, INC. 1 69156 3237.50 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04418 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: WEDNESDAY MAY0124 10:09 Page: 10

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 04/01/24 - 04/30/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69157 400.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01297 PARS
1 69158 550.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03370 PEERY & ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 1 69159 22.09 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01289 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT, INC 1 69160 8535.05 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01295 PETERSON 1 69161 7870.78 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00320 PLAN JPA 1 69162 260.36 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01317 PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC. 1 69163 327.76 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION

Page 6 of 9 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 5/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 04-01 to 04-30-24 (5645 : Disbursements - Dated 4/1/24 through 4/30/24) 1 69164 1095.47 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03990 RICE LAKE WEIGHING SYSTEMS INC. 1 69165 3164.07 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03306 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES 1 69166 965.25 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02040 ROSS' LADDER SERVICE 1 69167 2040.94 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06062 ROYALITE MANUFACTURING, INC 1 69168 25906.09 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06047 S.R. ROSE ENGINEERING INC 1 69169 596.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00055 SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC LAB 1 69170 78.08 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05197 SAN MATEO COUNTY MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTR 1 69171 1212.43 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01450 SEAVIEW TIRE & BRAKE CENTER 1 69172 3574.87 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04860 SERRA YELLOW CAB 1 69173 375.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 STAFFORD, JEREMY 1 69174 32.51 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01534 STANDARD PLUMBING SUPPLY CO. 1 69175 60.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05524 STEVEN MICHAEL EVANS JR 1 69176 14104.49 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01570 SYNAGRO WEST, LLC 1 69177 19500.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05487 THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP 1 69178 610.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01615 TOM'S AUTO BODY & PAINT 1 69179 10656.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05946 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES 1 69180 1861.84 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04418 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. 1 69181 640.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01657 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 1 69182 171.90 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01647 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: WEDNESDAY MAY0124 10:09 Page: 11

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 04/01/24 - 04/30/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69183 1603.34 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02353 UNISYS CORPORATION 1 69184 3468.67 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01653 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) 1 69185 3525.06 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03835 US FOODS, INC 1 69186 1403.23 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01684 VERIZON WIRELESS 1 69187 1804.72 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03661 VIP SEALING 1 69188 758.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01673 VWR INTERNATIONAL 1 69189 6000.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05885 WARWICK GROUP CONSULTANTS, LLC 1 69190 1696.39 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02987 WESTERN STATES OIL CO. 1 69191 85.50 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05163 WEX HEALTH, INC. 1 69192 594.29 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01717 WHITE CAP CONST. SUPPLY 1 69193 1648.49 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01751 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES, INC. 1 69194 517.82 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T
1 69195 1388.86 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T
1 69196 621.50 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05867 ACTION ROAD SOLUTIONS LLC 1 69197 302.42 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00094 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 1 69198 855.11 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04722 AED BRANDS, LLC 1 69199 648.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04707 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE 1 69200 203.98 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00136 ALHAMBRA 1 69201 351.78 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00138 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. 1 69202 987.29 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 69203 20446.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05992 AMERICAN AIR SYSTEMS INC 1 69204 791.65 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 ARANDA, JESUS 1 69205 293.23 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04459 ARROWHEAD FORENSICS 1 69206 998.85 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00293 BEARING AGENCIES INC

Page 7 of 9 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 5/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 04-01 to 04-30-24 (5645 : Disbursements - Dated 4/1/24 through 4/30/24) 1 69207 791.65 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 BIANCULLI, RYAN 1 69208 1055.43 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00365 BROADMOOR LANDSCAPE SUPPLY Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: WEDNESDAY MAY0124 10:09 Page: 12

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 04/01/24 - 04/30/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69209 499.20 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 1 69210 241.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00011 C.W.E.A. 1 69211 32.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00014 CALIFORNIA STATE OF 1 69212 19440.50 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02655 CAROLLO 1 69213 2457.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00507 CHILDCARE CAREERS 1 69214 4306.29 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 69215 378.70 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 69216 7358.98 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01204 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 1 69217 53.82 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04978 CYNTHIA USSERY 1 69218 1664.59 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00630 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION 1 69219 461.14 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00025 DALY CITY/CITY OF 1 69220 600.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04046 DE VERA, ARTHUR 1 69221 132639.15 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01013 DEERE & COMPANY 1 69222 1912.52 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04354 DOOLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. 1 69223 17200.74 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02130 DRYCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. 1 69224 1400.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04321 DUBOCE JANITORIAL SERVICES 1 69225 2435.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05975 DUDEK 1 69226 204.75 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06068 ELIA KERMODE 1 69227 1400.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04274 EMCOR SERVICES 1 69228 22.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK INVOICE PROCESSING DEPT 1 69229 22.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT 1 69230 7213.55 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 1 69231 500.25 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06069 FRANCES DANIELLE GEONZON 1 69232 2223.39 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00861 GOLDEN GATE TRUCK CENTER 1 69233 1773.26 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00875 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26577 1 69234 212.20 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00892 HACH COMPANY Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: WEDNESDAY MAY0124 10:09 Page: 13

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 04/01/24 - 04/30/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69235 11272.34 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00927 HDL COREN & CONE 1 69236 75.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00979 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF P 1 69237 363.84 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00990 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS 1 69238 2905.74 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04086 JACK DOHENY COMPANY 1 69239 14950.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06041 JAMES FISCHER JR 1 69240 1685.17 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01014 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 1 69241 19.25 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06067 JUSTIN BERGQUIST 1 69242 1092.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01029 KAISER PERMANENTE--OHSS 1 69243 4886.25 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01044 KERMANI CONSULTING GROUP 1 69244 500.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00032 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES

Page 8 of 9 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 5/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 04-01 to 04-30-24 (5645 : Disbursements - Dated 4/1/24 through 4/30/24) 1 69245 1919.16 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03264 LOGO OUTFITTERS 1 69246 46.67 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 LUJAN, MATTHEW 1 69247 698.14 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01124 MARATHON DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 1 69248 200.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00348 MARTHA P. BOOTZIN 1 69249 296.48 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01142 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 1 69250 46.67 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 MEEHLEIB, AUDIE 1 69251 1001.07 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 MENDEZ, REY 1 69252 396.38 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01154 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 1 69253 1776.71 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03955 MOFFATT & NICHOL 1 69254 759.05 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04549 NAF SERVICES, INC. 1 69255 457.41 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04346 NEW A AND A TOP AND TRIM 1 69256 12391.75 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04632 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD 1 69257 447.69 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01217 OFFICE DEPOT 1 69258 14.39 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01240 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 1 69259 450.79 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04418 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION 1 69260 270.63 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00054 PAPE MACHINERY Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: WEDNESDAY MAY0124 10:09 Page: 14

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 04/01/24 - 04/30/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69261 179.47 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 PATTEN, DANIEL 1 69262 170.27 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 69263 7450.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04806 RICHARD SMITH 1 69264 2116.82 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03306 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES 1 69265 110.16 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01402 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. 1 69266 1296.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03720 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 1 69267 827.81 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01423 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP 1 69268 450.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 SARASUA, MARIA 1 69269 66.55 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01513 SOUTH CITY LUMBER 1 69270 179792.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00049 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF 1 69271 24049.48 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01531 ST. FRANCIS ELECTRIC, INC. 1 69272 1182.60 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01546 STERICYCLE 1 69273 1770.50 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01587 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE 1 69274 5000.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05147 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC. 1 69275 2812.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05946 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES 1 69276 1176.28 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01647 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS 1 69277 52.18 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03835 US FOODS, INC 1 69278 1545.67 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01673 VWR INTERNATIONAL 1 69279 1190.62 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01717 WHITE CAP CONST. SUPPLY 1 69280 1100.00 04/18/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01729 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 1 69282 268859.13 04/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05495 W.E. LYONS CONSTRUCTION CO.

BANK: 1 TOTAL # OF CHECKS: 359 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF: $3575388.36 TOTAL # OF REISSUED CHECKS: 0 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF:

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

Page 9 of 9 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=2&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 5/1/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 04-01 to 04-30-24 (5645 : Disbursements - Dated 4/1/24 through 4/30/24)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/13/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes for the following: (1) April 8, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting, (2) April 15, 2024 City Council Special Meeting, and (3) April 22, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Move to approve the minutes for the following:
(1) April 8, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (Attachment A) (2) April 15, 2024 City Council Special Meeting (Attachment B) (3) April 22, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (Attachment C) FISCAL IMPACT:

Within budgeted operational expenses.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (PDF) Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (PDF) Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 16

CITY OF PACIFICA

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
April 08, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on April 8, 2024 at 6:30 PM 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
Mayor Vaterlaus reconvened the regular meeting at 7:04 p.m.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor Present
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor pro Tem Remote
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
Deputy City Clerk La took a verbal roll call. They then explained that Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was participating remotely and explained the conditions per the Brown Act. Deputy City Clerk La confirmed that, while Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer is in a separate room, she was open to anyone from the public coming to that room to interact with her but no one was present at this time.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Scott Leslie, Acting PB&R Director; Daniel Rowe, IT Analyst; Elizabeth Brooks, Management Analyst; Emily La, Deputy City Clerk.

2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 April 08, 2024
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgement
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Vaterlaus
Closed Session Report
City Attorney Kenyon stated there was no reportable action.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Special Presentation by Peninsula Clean Energy
Peninsula Clean Energy’s Chief Executive Officer Shawn Marshall introduced some of her staff and acknowledged the leadership participation of Councilmember Bigstyck with their board as well as Councilmember Boles, the alternate liaison. She presented on the PCE update on rates, accomplishments, programs, and partnerships. She was now open to questions.

Councilmember Bier appreciated her and her staff, and then asked if she was correct that $475,000 is available to Pacifica.

Chief Executive Officer Marshall responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Bier asked what their next step would be to get that.

Chief Executive Officer Marshall stated that whomever it will be assigned to, City Manager or PW Director, can go to their website and the money was allocated based on load size and customer count, whichever was greater, and they will see a range depending on how large the city is. They need to download the application and do a quick project plan. They will give them 50% of the money upfront and when the project is complete the remaining 50% will come.

Councilmember Bier appreciated that. She then asked if she partners with the city’s core service agencies to get people connected to their programs.

Chief Executive Officer Marshall stated that they did. She stated that they have many non-profit partners who can reach out to different cultural communities and neighborhoods.

Councilmember Boles thanked her for the presentation and all they do to help our community provide cleaner power in their homes and helping climate change as well. She was amazed at how far they have come since 2016. She heard Chief Executive Officer Marshall say 39 more EV chargers are coming, and she asked for more information on that.

Chief Executive Officer Marshall stated that is correct. She stated that there are 30 more that have been reserved, not through the city but likely through different affordable housing or multifamily housing or in some cases public EV charging. She stated that they can follow up with Councilmember Bigstyck to share that information.

Councilmember Boles thought it would be helpful to know location and timeline.

2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 April 08, 2024
Chief Executive Officer Marshall stated that she knows 39 have been reserved for Pacifica but not when.

Councilmember Boles was curious about her thoughts for individual solar installations on houses with the CPUCs changing their payback methods.

Chief Executive Officer Marshall stated that they like to use the term sizing. She stated that the NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0 programs, which were the original solar incentive programs in the state that PCE has participated in, were designed to incentivize and accelerate solar adoption on homeowner and commercial rooftops. She stated that has been going on for 10-15 years and what has happened now is that they are built out and there is plenty of solar on the grid. She stated that the shortfall now is battery storage. Whether they agree with the terms of what they are calling the net billing tariff or NEM 3.0, the terms are definitely not as advantageous for homeowners. It has a stifling effect because it is not as beneficial economically. She stated that the idea is, rather than oversize your solar and sell the excess power off, you would right size it and not be out any money doing that. She stated that it has not been implemented as yet but they are following the PG&E structure for now, try it out for a year, and then revisit it and see if they want to do something different next year.

Councilmember Boles thought that was where the batteries are key because she has solar that offsets all her electrical use, but she sells it and then she needs it at night, and even if you are right-sizing, you are still having time of day on shifts.

Chief Executive Officer Marshall agreed, adding that batteries are sort of the next frontier.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we experience significant power outages on the coast and, recently, there was a big opportunity providing battery packs through our public library and she wondered about the possibility of creating an ongoing program for that in Pacifica and in other coastal areas where we experience multi-day outages; we do our best with the community center and libraries being comfort stations where people can come and charge their devices to work, go to school, etc. She wondered about building resiliency in our coastal areas and if there are any programs like that or any support that PCE can provide.

Chief Executive Officer Marshall does not know if the ones she is referencing came from PCE.

She asked if she was able to keep them or were they loaners.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she does not know. She thought they were able to keep them and they were gone pretty quickly from the shelves.

Chief Executive Officer Marshall stated that they did have a program for their medically vulnerable customers during COVID-19 and during the public safety power shutoff (PSPS) event, and they flew off the shelves. She stated that the present status is that their programs team is doing some analysis on which coastside neighborhoods are most effected by power outages, for how long, how many customers live there, so they can get granular on figuring out a program just like that. She stated that they have not designed the whole thing, and she stated her vote was that it would not be a loaner program as that is a lot to administer and you need them. She does not know what the status is on that, and she will ask tomorrow when she sees their Director of Programs, but she stated it is coming back.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, while they were having those budget surplus committee meetings, he did bring it up for discussion and he has been in discussion with County

2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 April 08, 2024
Supervisor Mueller about various approaches the city could be taking, especially with working with our partners in PCE. He has been learning more and more about this technical industry.

He stated that he was charmed by our turnkey program which will be coming out shortly. He has been working with Rafael Reyes to have an understanding of exactly what somebody who is not a homeowner needs to go through if they are coordinating with a landlord in terms of electrification. He asked if she could tell Council a little bit about 24/7 energy.

Chief Executive Officer Marshall stated that their big goal is to be 100% renewable on a 99% time coincident basis, meaning 99% of the time out of a 24/7 day, PCE’s customers will be served by 100% renewable energy. She stated that, the way they achieve that is signing longterm power purchase agreements that typically range from 15- 25 years. When you sign those contracts with a wind contractor solar or battery storage, the developer can take that contract to the bank to get the financing to effectuate new power being put into the ground in order to power our needs on a 24/7 basis. She stated that the trick is that you have to balance the type of power and it is a very technical approach. She stated it is not ready yet in terms of the way the California grid or even the western grid accounts for clean energy. The idea is that, if you look at a slice of our day, 24/7, anytime of the year, it will be entirely green and will not have any red spikes for when we have to use natural gas which is a baseload power source. She stated that, originally, the board in the 2018 timeframe had set a goal of wanting to be 24/7 hourly by 2025. Even when she came on last year, it was clear that it was not going to happen, not just for price, but because there was not enough diversity and available power in the marketplace to get into those long-term contracts. They moved the goal to 2027 and that is also looking tough.

She stated that the board will be taking up this matter at its April board meeting and figure it out.

They will not lose the goal but it is a function of what is practical and the quickest they can get there without jeopardizing affordability and agency economic health.

Councilmember Bigstyck is learning so much about procuring power and what it takes to get new projects off the ground that then contribute to the city’s portfolio that will someday make this dream a reality. He thanked PCE members for being here.

Mayor Vaterlaus thanked her for her presentation. She agreed with Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and emphasized the need PG&E to get their grids together so we can have power all the time.

Chief Executive Officer Marshall appreciated that feedback. She thanked the Council for having her.

Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments and, seeing none, closed public comments.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if Deputy City Clerk La wanted to read them a statement before going to the consent calendar.

Deputy City Clerk La stated that for Consent Calendar Item #13, Mid-Block Crosswalk Safety Improvement Project, staff was recommending an amendment to the content of the attached Resolution to remove the 2nd “Now Therefore Be It Resolved” paragraph, which stated, “Now therefore be it resolved that the Governing Board of the City of Pacifica authorizes entering into the construction contract and agreement for the Mid-Block Crosswalk Safety Improvement Project and that the person/s who are listed below are authorized to sign the project documents for the Governing Board,” as this clause was included in error and did not substantively affect the action or resolution. Staff would also correct a typographical error in the title of the attached

2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 April 08, 2024
Agreement.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if any councilmembers wish to pull any items from consent.

Councilmember Bier stated that she would like to pull Item #10.

Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comment other than Item #10, and seeing no one, brought it back to Council. She then asked for a motion.

Councilmember Bigstyck wanted to ask a question and then will be happy to make a motion.

He referred to Item #6 regarding Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, and asked what it is and why are they sending the letter. He is asking it of staff because he thought it was important to understand why they are transmitting this letter.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he can provide a high-level summary of what the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act is. He stated that the League of California Cities, which acts as a lobbying organization for cities and tracks legislation, is encouraging all cities to look at this and consider an opposition position on this because, if it were to pass, it will dramatically change the face of the way that the state and local governments are able to justify fees and are able to put taxes and revenue measures on the ballot, making it much more difficult, i.e., akin to a new version of Proposition 13 in a way in making local government funding very difficult and taking control out of local cities to determine what is best for them through many different means and significantly impacting local revenues.

He stated that, in addition, across the state, hundreds of tax measures that were passed in November 2022 would be at risk of being repealed unless they meet the requirements of this, which would be a dramatic impact for many cities across the state. He stated that is a high-level summary of the significance of this and one of the benefits of Council considering taking a position on this measure is that the city’s official position will be stated and can be communicated to the electorate.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked what kinds of things do these fees and taxes pay for that might be made more difficult to come by if our ability at the city level is taken away or eroded by this.

City Manager Woodhouse stated it was a very broad swath of items that could be affected, such as many different types of fees in our fee structure. He stated that it would not necessarily nullify fees but open up potential legal challenges to those fees.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if an example was like sewer.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding any kind of fees. He stated that any kind of tax measure, whether special tax or general tax, will have a much higher bar to pass.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she had a question on Item #13, and she was trying to find the scope of work of where those locations are.

PW Director Petersen stated that all of these are within the schools around the areas. She stated that the ones they have near that area are related to Ortega School at Alicante and Terra Nova, Banyan Crosswalk, Aspen and Terra Nova, and a small section in front of the school.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded it is school-based at this juncture.

2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 April 08, 2024
PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to Item #12 and reminded everyone, thanking Council for voting to allocate Measure Y funds to address some of these roads that are so bad they could not be addressed in our regular road maintenance five-year plans. We will have roads in Pedro Point, Rockaway and Vallemar that are going to be addressed, specifically some of the worst roads. She felt that was huge for the city as they have been near the bottom of paving condition index, largely because of these extremely bad roads in town. She thought making some progress in that direction was positive, and with our lack of funding, this is a huge step forward for the city.

Councilmember Boles stated she had a couple of corrections to the minutes. On packet page 46, she referred to Planning Director Murdock stating “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” but that is to give “us” time to prepare the plan regarding the LCLUP.

City Attorney Kenyon asked if she can give all her comments now and, if Council is amenable, they would need a vote of Council to approve the minutes as amended when they approve the consent calendar.

Councilmember Boles then referred to packet page 47, second to the last paragraph, and she said “the Coastal Commission is doing their CAP” but that is CDP not CAP. In addition, she stated that she knows the goal setting minutes are not full minutes but she had a comment on packet page 70. The affected portion reads “Greg Larson continued the presentation, noting that under the Goal 2B ‘Advance Beach Boulevard Resiliency and Esplanade Protection Projects,’” it ends and then starts “a Councilmember suggested additional items.” She stated that it did not finish that sentence, and she added “there was strong support from Council for finding funds for the pier repair.” She thought the second part should be a different sentence.

Acting City Clerk La asked her to restate that correction.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that this is more complicated than a typo and she asked Councilmember Boles if she was talking about a concept that was not conveyed in the minutes.

Councilmember Boles stated that the sentence isn’t complete and then it jumps into a different topic. She read it again: “Greg Larson continued the presentation, noting that under the Goal 2B ‘Advance Beach Boulevard Resiliency and Esplanade Protection Projects’” and then something should be added, “there was strong support from Council in wanting to find funds for repairing the pier.” Then, “A Councilmember suggested ...” is a different sentence.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that a majority of the Council needs to agree that was the representation that was made at the goal setting, to include that into the minutes, but if Council cannot remember or recall, they can request not to approve these at this meeting and review whatever minutes, or if they recall that discussion and do not recall that being made, then they may not want to amend the minutes. If they do, they can vote to approve the minutes as amended by Councilmember Boles.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked how she said the sentence ends.

Councilmember Boles stated that “with strong support from Council and a request to find grants for the pier repairs”.

2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 April 08, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck understood.

Councilmember Boles stated that they can leave out the pier part but finishing the sentence “with strong support from Council”. Then the next sentence talks about Manor which is a different subject.

Mayor Vaterlaus imagined that they said that.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed with the mayor. She recalled the strong support for Beach Boulevard Resiliency Project and Esplanade project and it is the case that they are seeking funds for pier repair and she thought it was okay to include that amendment.

Councilmember Bigstyck moved approving consent agenda, excluding Item #10, with amendments for Item #2 as stated by Councilmember Boles and with amendments for Item #13 as stated by staff; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

Acting City Clerk La took a vote by verbal roll call.

CONSENT CALENDAR (EXCLUDING ITEM #10) WITH ITEM #2 AND ITEM #13 AS

AMENDED
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 April 08, 2024
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).

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.

Agenda Item #10 Discussion
Councilmember Bier stated that the item is about the backstops at Fairway Park. She stated she heard from constituents about the delay in the baseball season and she did not think she understood clearly when the work was going to start and why the city staff chose to start it in February when baseball season starts in February.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he would begin with background to the project. He stated that it began its process for bids last year and the city staff knew it would be a fast timeline to fast

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 April 08, 2024
track it before the baseball season. Staff contracted it out, got favorable bid responses, and began that work during the winter, but city staff discovered some different site conditions that required a significant change order, which is what the subject of this item is, with deeper and larger foundations to support the larger poles for the backstops. He stated that the work needed be done and the contractor was already mobilized, has done that work, is working as Council speaks, but Council needs to approve this change order. It is a fast track project that has impacted the season and it has been a wet winter. City staff will be opening one field at a time to try to get them in play as quickly as possible. He stated that the benefit is new backstops for this significant investment into this asset city staff is putting into the project.

Councilmember Bier wanted any and all details so she can point community members to them.

Acting PB&R Director Leslie stated that City Manager Woodhouse hit most of the main points.

He stated that the seed of the project was that a little over a year ago, during the storms of 2023, there was significant damage to some of the backstops that needed to be replaced, including failing chain link fences and rotting wood in the back of it. There is a threshold for which, at some point, you have to stop using it because there is a safety issue and they were getting very close to that threshold. He stated, instead of letting that happen and closing the field and do it in an emergency situation, the idea was to get it done as soon as possible. He stated that there were funds that were returned to the city after the completion of the playground project at the Community Center and the funds were used to fund this project. He stated that, ultimately, where the problems came in was when, during the demolition, after everything they approved and they were moving forward with the contractor, it became evident that, while part of the original plan was to use the specific footings of the existing structure, it was never going to happen, as there were issues with the soil conditions that made it impossible so then it required digging down deeper and every aspect they add to it added more time. He stated that there are some supply chain issues, as well as the weather which has delayed it multiple days.

He stated it was ambitious to try to get it done by the season, which would have been delayed by one week, but it has unfortunately extended that time. He stated that it looks beautiful, but the timing was very unfortunate.

Councilmember Bier appreciates the explanation and the work they are doing on the field.

Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comment and, seeing no one, closed public comment.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked Councilmember Bier for bringing it forward. She thinks that, when they first approved this on consent, it was impacting a lot of people and deferred maintenance is what they are dealing with because of funding. She stated that being creative in finding the fundings to get this project done is going to provide long-term benefits to the community but is unfortunate that it was at the expense of part of the season. She is grateful that they are doing the work and making these improvements for the youth and for a long run of baseball in Pacifica.

Councilmember Boles asked for an approximate timeline for when the project might be finished.

Acting PB&R Director Leslie stated that they are working with the contractor to not open all three fields at the same time but open one as soon as possible and go to the next one, etc. He did not give specific dates for the construction project, but the goal is to get things done very soon, and preferably sometime next week is the goal for the first one.

Councilmember Bier thanked city staff for the work, adding that there is a lot of work going on

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 April 08, 2024
the field at Ortega so the lack of fields is apparent. She will direct residents to this recording.

Councilmember Bier made a motion to 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; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.

Deputy City Clerk La took a vote by verbal roll call.

AGENDA ITEM #10
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles

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 $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.”

2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 April 08, 2024

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Shreya, Pacifica, stated she is an intern at PCT, and they would like to invite Councilmembers and staff, as well as the public to visit PCT’s spring open house on April 21. She stated that it will be a great event happening at their studio on 580 Crespi Drive. She shared all the experiences the community will have to learn about their programs.

Greg Wright, Pacifica, thanked Council, and shared his positive thoughts on the job and difficult decisions they must make, as well as city staff.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, echoed Mr. Wright’s comments, and referred to an earlier comment on funding, and shared his thoughts on the city’s budget and funding.

John Nibbelin, Pacifica, stated he would join the prior speakers in thanking Council for all the work they do, and he shared his thoughts on the election process in Pacifica and other cities and requested agendizing an item to consider the issue of City Council term limits.

Lynn Adams, Pacifica, stated she was inviting everyone to the Whale Fest and encouraged them to bring their children and this is an opportunity for us as a community to come together.

Paul Totah, Pacifica, requested Council adding to a future agenda consideration of rescinding term limits for Council. He also requested the Council consider passing a resolution in favor of a ceasefire in Palestine and Israel.

Samantha Hauser, Pacifica, stated she was speaking as an individual and shared her thoughts on the positive side of extending term limits on Council.

Leanna Wynn, Pacifica, stated she was also attending to mention extending term limits, and she supported putting it on the agenda in favor of having longer term limits.

Robine Runneals, Pacifica, stated she was happy to join the discussion about term limits, and shared her thoughts on the positive for asking Council to consider this issue. She thanked them for keeping the community involved in their decisions.

Summer Lee, Pacifica, shared her thoughts opposing consideration of repealing term limits mentioning that it would require a vote of the people, and added her thoughts on the need for more diverse representation to empower the underserved.

Delia McGrath, Pacifica, stated she was speaking on behalf of people in Gaza, requesting a resolution for a ceasefire, and shared her thoughts on this serious issue.

Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated that the two-term limit was adopted by a vote of the people and to change that would require a ballot measure, and was concerned about the cost of putting any measure on the ballot, and he shared his concerns on this issue. He stated that he is opposed to this idea.

Marsha Murphy, Pacifica, stated she supported Council passing a resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza.

2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 April 08, 2024

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, regarding the five people asking for term limits, he did request for them to do so. He stated that Council discussed it at goal setting and it was recommended for him to find five diverse community members to make comment about it because he thinks it bears discussion. He agreed it would have to go to a vote of the people; a part of the discussion is finding out how much it would cost to put it on the ballot during an election year when the city is already putting things on the ballot as it is his understanding that it is less expensive than other times of the year. He stated that the reason why he thinks it should be discussed is because the difference between now and when term limits were put on the ballot last time is the city has districts. He described the history of candidate campaigns in 2016 in Pacifica as well as across San Mateo County. He thought it was the right time to have the discussion to see whether there is any will to put it on the ballot. He asked for it to be agendized by the City Manager to have that discussion. He went to the County Supervisors meeting on March 26, and they sent a letter regarding AT&T possibly taking away landlines from people and a discussion around the Cypress Point affordable housing development in Moss Beach. He attended a meeting of the Department of National Sub-Diplomacy regarding plastics and the way that cities and jurisdictions are coming together to create a national policy around plastics. He talked to Walnut Creek Councilmember Kevin Wilk trying to put together a session for CalCities in October, alongside the City Manager from Ventura. He attended Legislative Action Committee meetings with Peninsula Division of CalCities for the forthcoming City Leader Summit in which Santa Clara County and San Mateo County elected officials will be heading to Sacramento to talk to various state representatives. He attended a seminar entitled “Changing Perspectives” which is understanding inclusion, ableism, and neuro-diversity which was put on by Parent Venture. He attended the special Council meeting on March 28 and shared some details about the last PCE meeting, wherein Burlingame Mayor Donna Colson has been promoted to the Chair of Peninsula Clean Energy and Marty Medina of San Bruno as Vice Chair. He met with a Santa Clara Councilmember for lunch, watched the Planning Commission meeting on April 1, and attended a Legislative Action Committee meeting with CalCities Peninsula Division this morning.

Councilmember Bier wanted to take responsibility from their last Council meeting when she did not request conversation when they were appointing their Planning Commissioners. She stated that it would have been fair for her to do that and she wanted to apologize for all those who applied and to please reapply when seats open up. She attended the Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee for CCAG, and they went over the Local Roadway Safety Plan, which has a public comment period. She stated the HEART meeting was canceled this month. She attended the Coast Pride board meeting, where they have been doing some deep anti-racist work. She thanked Lauren Smith who is the co-chair for Pacifica Pride. She stated that there will be a fundraiser on April 21 at Table Wine. She stated that she attended the Age Friendly Coalition because they were planning for Pacifica’s inaugural Age Friendly Community Town Hall meeting at the Pacifica Community Center. She requested that the Age Friendly Coalition have a special presentation of their action plan at some point soon to update Council on what the action plan is and what it is going to look like. She stated May is Mental Health Month and, over the years of the Mental Health initiative, we were able to collaborate with San Mateo County on many different activities and we have an opportunity to participate this year at San Mateo County Against Loneliness, Healing Through Connection.

Councilmember Boles agreed with Councilmember Bier and apologized for the Planning Commission vote which happened so quickly, with the motions and vote called, and she will be paying more attention to that in the future. She asked City Attorney about a procedural question

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 April 08, 2024
about responding from the dais after public comments and asked for clarification the procedures for Council as well as the public to understand.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that, if it is a comment to staff about providing more information to the Council, those comments are fine, but because it is not on the agenda, Council cannot deliberate on it. She can direct comments to the city manager but not direct comments to Councilmembers to invoke deliberation. She stated that it depends on what she would like to say and she will tell her that it is eliciting deliberation or providing direction to staff or asking questions of staff. She added that she would say, if the councilmember is talking to or asking questions of City Manager, that is probably fine, but if the councilmember starts directing comments to colleagues, that is probably where she will jump in.

Councilmember Boles stated she has had a lot of meetings with constituents about the quarry, Local Coastal Plan, and paving and trees, and she appreciated Public Works joining her for a meeting with some constituents today. She stated that the Pacifica Climate Committee met, and they would be hosting an electrification event called “Healthy Air, Healthy Homes” at the Sharp Park Library on May 18. She thanked Planning Director Murdock as they both met with Solutions for Supportive Homes, a group interested in building affordable housing in Pacifica for adults with disabilities. She received invitation from a group called Partnership for the Bay’s Future, and they are based in San Francisco and have funding from the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation; the event they held was called “Building Sustainable Communities, A Councilmember’s Guide to Affordable Housing.” Mayor Vaterlaus and she attended the Building Trade Unions event at Skyline. She had an Airport Roundtable meeting this week. She stated that several councilmembers met Aaron Peskin, President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, who invited councilmembers from all over the state to his office to let them know about some upcoming legislation being considered at the state level. She highlighted a couple concerns, i.e., AB 2560 which the Coastal Commission opposes intends to override the Coastal Act and city’s LCP policies for density bonus projects. She then mentioned SB 951 and SB 1077. She thinks the state housing laws that are pushing a lot on Pacifica that had to do with Housing Element are now also pushing the Coastal Commission and trying to take away some of their review control for these projects. She stated that what was particularly troubling is not specifically affordable housing but any kind of housing and the affordability is actually being weakened in some of the laws. She stated it was important to pay attention and advocate before the laws come into effect.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she attended some of the meetings that councilmembers are mentioning and she thanked them for bringing up “Our Neighborhood Voices,” a coalition of various electeds who met from across the state last week. As mentioned by Councilmember Boles, she thought the main concern, as she can discern, is where housing law and specifically with regard to density is going to be overriding Coastal Commission authority in the coastal zone or appears that it will do that. She asked staff to make note that from the Beautification Advisory Committee meeting last week apparently the Priority Parks Report is being finalized by PB&R staff and probably will go before PB&R Commission but the Beautification Advisory Committee was also asking for information and she suggested staff make a note to Director Petersen. She is on vacation this week and will not be attending both of her liaison meetings and asked if Councilmember Boles would available for the Library Advisory Committee meeting on Wednesday to be alternate liaison.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated she attended a couple of Fog Fest board meetings about sponsorships.

She met with Congressman Kevin Mullin about funding, and he will help us with certain funding that the city needs. She also met with Assemblymember Diane Papan. She attended the

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 April 08, 2024
Building Trades meeting. She attended the elected officials’ meeting with President Aaron Peskin. She received a complaint from a member of the public about parties living in a motorhome near them in an allowed space. She described the horrendous actions taking place against the parties living in motorhomes and asked people to show compassion.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated he had one communication to provide mainly for members of the public viewing audience which is a reminder that next Monday evening is the Council’s special meeting in the Council Chambers to continue work on the Local Coastal Land Use Plan update.

Mayor Vaterlaus called a break and then reconvened the meeting.

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.

Asst. City Manager Carter presented the staff report.

Councilmember Bier asked about the last time we performed the development impact fee cost allocation and master fee study.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated, regarding the development impact fee, she thought roughly a decade. For the master fee schedule, she thought the last study was done in 2011 or 2012.

Councilmember Boles asked if Council was looking at additional strategies to bring in other potential revenue sources, would that be in item 5 or where does it fit into the schedule.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that Council’s consideration of potential revenue measures for the November ballot would not be something built into the budget because the decision for Council to place any measure on the ballot is in August. It is not part of the budgeting process but is part of Council’s strategic plan and a major priority to be doing that research and building up the information for Council to make a decision about that.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to Councilmember Bier’s question and asked how long it takes to do a proper development impact fee, cost allocation, and master fee study.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated it probably will take longer than if they did it every five years.

She stated that the process will typically start with the comprehensive RFP and selecting the consultant, so that process usually takes at least three months; then for the development impact fee and nexus study, that process depends on staff input and capacity, possibly up to six months. For the cost allocation plan, it is usually tied to the budget and they want it to be tied to the latest budget city staff has because every time staff makes changes, we change the cost of their services. When staff looks at the master fee schedule which is the last step in the process,

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 April 08, 2024
staff wants the cost allocation plan to be up to date. For cost allocation plan, if city staff did it every five years, she would say staff could probably do them in three months. In staff’s case, she would say 3-6 months and the master fee schedule another four months to finish that process because that will require input from each department.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated those sound like consecutive, not concurrent, processes.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the development impact fee would be a standalone project and that is why she recommends going first with that. She stated it is correct for the other two; we cannot start a master fee schedule until we finish the cost allocation plan.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it sounds like altogether, considering the stand-alone development impact fee and the subsequent allocation master fee studies, we would probably be looking at being ready to have that information in for the 2025-26 budget cycle.

Asst. City Manager Carter agreed.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if 2027 was correct.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, for the development impact fee, we want to have the information available for the following year’s budget; as far as building revenue base, we will be able to build it into the following budget. She stated that the cost allocation fee may or may not be ready until the following year after that.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated regarding the General Fund transfer into the Capital Improvement Program, which is not generally recommended as they have more capital needs than they have General Fund, she wanted to double check that city staff did allocate funds in that way for our Civic Center project but city staff are not anticipating doing that at this point in time in the budget cycle for the coming year.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated the Civic Center would be done before the next fiscal year.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated, as far as the General Fund contribution towards the CIP, that information will be coming to Council at the May meeting; city staff does not know yet what that coming CIP and priority projects will look like and how to balance it. We will definitely try to use other revenue sources first, but if any priority emergency projects need to be funded, the General Fund will be the last resort.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is interested in having deliberation on Strategy No. 3.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated, regarding Strategy No. 3 and additional non-profits that could benefit from some funds, how would Council go about including additional non-profits.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that one of the points in having this be a strategy is that he listened to what Council directed regarding their discussion about non-profit funding and bringing back the recommendation to follow the input Council had made and remaining status quo. He stated that city staff does not have a process for additional non-profits. In any given budget, Council can discuss, deliberate, and decide whether there are additional grants the city wants to give to other non-profits. He stated that is the point of this discussion which is to tee

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 April 08, 2024
that up to verify that Council is good with this or ideally Council wants to consider others. When city staff gets into the details and the budget and balancing of the priorities, that is a conversation that comes back to Council.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if they bring it up now.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, if Council is thinking about funding additional non-profits, his preference is initial discussion about that at this meeting and then staff needs to take it back and when staff comes back with the base budget and are analyzing all the potential revenue and priorities and where it is going to be used.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it would be deliberation.

City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles asked about the amount given to HEART ($12,249).

City Manager Woodhouse stated there is a formula that drives it.

Councilmember Bier stated she can get the formula for Councilmember Boles.

Councilmember Boles stated last year they raised the amount for the Pacifica Resource Center an extra $20,000 and asked when they last raised the amount for the Pacific Beach Coalition.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it predates him and he is not sure about the history of the Beach Coalition funding.

Councilmember Boles was pleased to hear about the positive experience with the CivicSpark fellow. She said staff talked about potentially hiring for another year the person we have now, and she asked if we can consider looking at other fellows. She was looking at CivicSpark website and one of their other main focuses was on affordable housing and if it was possible that the city could get another qualified fellow.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that is Council’s policy decision.

Councilmember Boles stated that Council would appreciate hearing from staff on how that relationship has gone.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the CivicSpark partnership was successful, and that is why staff developed this strategy to continue with an individual who is already trained and deep in the project. She stated staff can also consider an additional partnership.

City Manager Woodhouse thought, regarding CivicSpark, there was a learning curve going through their process with them. CivicSpark hired the intern for our city to use but we would like to be the one selecting the intern so there is a complicated relationship. He does not know about the affordable housing focused one, but that is certainly one resource. Planning may be aware of many other resources that exist along that same topic for interns or professional assistants. He emphasized that these are preliminary strategies at a pretty high level and staff does not have the detailed budget numbers analyzed yet to be able to say what city staff can afford or not. He stated that looking at fellowship programs like CivicSpark for other topic areas or other resources that exist that staff can locate and identify in particular departments to help is

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 April 08, 2024
what staff really wants to be focused on. He added that, when city staff comes back with budget recommendations, if staff does have bandwidth ideally to add new permanent staff, that is always the best for recruitment purposes, but there is an ongoing financial obligation to that so staff has to consider that very closely.

Councilmember Boles asked for more details about the budgeting for salary savings.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that currently, when staff budget salaries and benefits for the city, staff build some assumptions. When the city has vacant positions, staff typically budget them for full staff. She stated that, regarding budgeting salary savings, given that the city has a very high turnover every year, what staff is proposing is considered in labor strategies is risky but acceptable strategy going forth, especially when staff has budget challenges. Staff knows we will have some salary savings and the budgeting for them in sustainable ways, not more than 5%, will provide additional resource that they desperately need. She stated that is not an ideal way for budgeting but it is one of staff’s strategies that they can consider.

Councilmember Boles stated that the city has open positions that staff is not able to hire for immediately and the city is borrowing money that they would have been paying those positions to fund other positions and programs in the meantime.

Asst. City Attorney Carter stated that the way it will work is staff will budget all positions and all current employees and budget all step increases for all employees that will be eligible to receive one. When city staff figures out what this number is, staff will build in reasonable salary savings to achieve those goals throughout the year, which is why staff review it every year at mid-year to see if they are on target or not.

Councilmember Bier stated that, in an ideal situation, that money is not available.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in another way, the risk factor is that, if suddenly in one year the city is completely staffed and no one is leaving, then that is when city staff is confronted with having to make that adjustment in mid-year that year. He stated that there is prudent amount the city can achieve.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was delighted that they are finding ways of utilizing interns and fellows that make sense in terms of helping city staff manage their workload. He has a question regarding Strategy No. 2, the Vehicle License In-Lieu Fee (VLF). He understood that the conversation now is whether or not the city will receive the backfill owed. He feels like some of the conversation is a further question mark about whether or not the state will be fulfilling their obligation to Pacifica in payment of that in-lieu fee going forward and he wants clarity on how extensive that conversation is and if there is any sense yet where that conversation with the state is going as the city would otherwise budget for money that the city is owed.

City Manager Woodhouse does not have specific updates about how it is looking for next year as that work is underway. He stated that last week city staff did send a comment letter signed by the mayor about the impacts to Pacifica and the importance of that funding and it was sent to all the appropriate legislative committees. He thought part of what is behind this strategy is that because that is still evolving, city staff does not want to cut themselves short and say the city needs to make do without that money that the state owes the city; in one sense, that hurts the city’s negotiating position and, in another sense, city staff has reserves that in the future, if it is confirmed that the state is not going to meet their obligation, then the city staff makes those decisions at that time. To come forward and recommend service cuts or position cuts in this

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 April 08, 2024
budget when the city does not know yet whether that backfill is not going to happen does not seem like the right way to approach the city’s budget for the next year.

Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.

Lynn Adams, Pacifica, stated that she thanked Council for the $5,000 sponsorship they have had which shows a commitment on Council’s part to what they are doing which is for Pacifica, environment, and climate change. She shared details of their impact on Pacifica as well as other areas, and shared her thoughts on their present status and need for the city’s support.

Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, while it is the mayor’s prerogative, he suggested that, to help the process, they could take each strategy in order; if there were any questions related to timeline or methodology, staff would want to hear that but mainly want input on the strategies.

Councilmember Bigstyck thought, for as long as he has been attending Council meetings, the contribution from the city to Pacific Beach Coalition has been $5,000 and he thinks that adding an extra $5,000 onto that is a relatively modest increase. He mentioned these funds have been used for various events and was a focal point for the community to get together to do the right thing for the earth and an opportunity for education.

Councilmember Bier agreed. She stated their annual youth summit cost $13,800, so she suggested they take that into consideration when talking about Beach Coalition.

Councilmember Boles also agreed. She had asked if the money for the Beach Coalition and the Resource Center was all part of the ERAF funds, extra educational funds they get from the state that varies year to year. She stated that the estimate for this year is $3.4 to $3.7 million so most of that money goes into the Disaster Accounting and Affordable Housing funds which she also supports fully.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, regarding No. 3, she agrees that $10,000 for the Beach Coalition is warranted, but she also supported Fog Fest, which brings massive numbers of people into our town. She would like to ask for $10,000 to be put into the budget for Fog Fest as it is an important event for our community.

Councilmember Bier agreed about Fog Fest.

Councilmember Boles stated that they did give Fog Fest last year roughly $30,000.

Mayor Vaterlaus added from 2022.

City Manager Woodhouse stated they were correct regarding the public safety dollars from 2022; their discussion since that budget year had closed and there were some confusion in the communication process. He stated that, in essence, they forgave that.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it was close to $40,000.

Mayor Vaterlaus thought $35,000.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed it was something in that range.

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 April 08, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer supported the idea of supporting Fog Fest and she had a higher figure than $10,000. She believed the Fog Fest board is undergoing a restructuring and trying to figure out how to grapple with rising costs. She stated it seems like since we do not have a process and, per City Manager’s comment, it sounds like we need to think about making a grant to these organizations, whatever that mechanism might be, for the city to make these allocations to non-profits. The figure she had in mind for Fog Fest was $25,000 and she would propose looking at timing and thresholds of how they are doing on their own, as Councilmember Boles mentioned that they did get some funds in the past and those books are closed. She stated that was an unusual situation, owed to the fact that the city had some billing issues with Fog Fest. She thought Council should discuss it as a group, but she wanted to put it out there.

She would support increasing the funds to the Beach Coalition. She looked up PBC’s publicly available 990 form and they are in the black over the last two years. She proposed that they not plan to make that an annual increase at this time. She believes it is overdue for the Beach Coalition but they are also doing pretty well in their fundraising.

Councilmember Bigstyck has some trepidation about adding non-profits onto the list in perpetuity. He stated, regarding ERAF, one-time funding, and is important to our community, he has no problem with either figure that has been brought up for this year and would recommend that future Councils have that discussion for at least for the foreseeable future to determine what consistency will look like going forward past this year.

Councilmember Bier stated her trepidation was about having any kind of grant program, and she thought the one-time gifts are appropriate this year.

Councilmember Boles also has trepidation about adding something long-term and was not opposed to giving the Fog Fest but more inclined to the $10,000. She disagreed with Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and thought that the Beach Coalition funds should be raised in perpetuity to $10,000 as they have with PRC in the past. She stated that PBC’s financial records for this year are very different. She felt that money is needed and appreciated, adding that it is also a statement for the city’s support for the organization. She is not opposed to either Fog Fest or Coast Pride. She stated the important thing is the statement that the city is making that we support this organization and these are important things that we value in our town.

Councilmember Bigstyck agreed that $10,000 to Pacific Beach Coalition in perpetuity makes sense from his angle. He thinks he is comfortable with a one-time contribution of $25,000 to Fog Fest because of how many organizations they help. He thought that is why Council needs to make sure that, through this transition period, Fog Fest is stable and why he is expressing concern to a long-term plan of keeping that amount of money in the budget, but he thinks, to get them over a hump, it makes sense in terms of how many different organizations they support.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated one of the issues with Fog Fest is the budget for Pacifica Police Department went from about $22,000 to $35,000 to $45,000 or possibly more. It was necessary because of what happened in Gilroy. She thought the $25,000 would be great as it would help them a lot and they are trying to do additional fundraising and they are the wrong 501(c) and they are working on that too.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to clarify a couple of terminologies. She stated she agreed with perpetuity for PBC but did not want to imply increasing it year over year. She thinks we are overdue for increasing funds for the Beach Coalition but we also see that their fundraising is improving and, as a 501(c)(3), they are receiving corporate donations. She thought their

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 April 08, 2024
structure is different from the Fog Fest, and she wanted to endorse and agree with the rise in cost of proposed safety on Fog Fest and Public Works as well. She stated the reality is it is an expensive event to put on but they have heard impassioned comments from the community over time, thus why she proposed $25,000. Regarding the issue of grants, she is not suggesting that she wants to do a grant program in the way in which it was proposed. She thinks they need to have a clear understanding of how taxpayer funded organizations create a situation where it makes gifts to non-profits. She stated her understanding is that grants are things the city can do.

Councilmember Bier suggested $5,000 for Coast Pride.

City Manager Woodhouse referred to timing, as Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer raised the question of how is fundraising going. He reminded them that Council is not making this decision and approving this budget until the end of June and he is hearing interest in at least one-time funding for Fog Fest. Council does not have to settle on the amount at this meeting as city staff has to go through and work all the detailed numbers and, as he mentioned, the question is if they are in a structural deficit situation or not, what can they afford or not, and that is part of the future budget deliberations and the specific amount can be decided in the future but at least city staff knows in their head the interest of a $25,000 figure for Fog Fest. He also wanted to remind Council about Fog Fest that they still owe the city half the amount of the public safety bill from this last year. The city had deferred that payment with them and they still owe the city that money.

Councilmember Boles asked if they offered a payment plan.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that is the payment plan, they paid the city half.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that city staff offered them a payment plan and the second half is about $20,781.

Councilmember Boles asked when that was due.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated it is due by November 30, 2025.

Councilmember Boles concluded that it will be after this current Fog Fest when there will be more expenses due.

Mayor Vaterlaus noted that they will owe more by that time. She proceeded to Strategy No. 1.

Councilmember Boles agreed with funding interns and fellows and additional contract planning services. She referred to work reimbursable by private applicants as well as Planning work on the Local Coastal Plan and the Housing Element that may not be reimbursable.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it depends on the specific project.

Councilmember Boles stated staff is only asking for reimbursement for contract planners.

Asst. City Manager Carter explained last year staff funded additional consulting hours and most of those hours would be presumably reimbursable by private development.

Councilmember Boles noted that Planning staff will be coming to Council at a later meeting and

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 April 08, 2024
telling Council the staffing levels they need to meet the goals Council have put in front of them.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the City Manager stated that this was just preliminary strategies and it is not the full list of recommendations for the coming budget. Staff will be developing more recommendations.

Councilmember Boles trusted her on the salary savings as well.

Mayor Vaterlaus and Councilmembers Bier and Bigstyck stated they agreed on Strategy No. 1.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wondered if there are other organizations besides CivicSpark regarding affordable housing. She supported the idea of having more fellows to augment staff.

She also supported the salary savings strategy and she knows that everyone on staff will be keeping a close eye on those budgets and information Council if it looks like the risk brought forward is emerging.

Councilmember Boles stated, following up on CivicSpark, when she was first learning about the program last year, there were some cities that have up to six fellows, so the program does allow it. She noted she is reaching out to Partnerships For the Future as there may be other sources of funding for affordable housing.

Mayor Vaterlaus proceeded to Strategy No. 2.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to Strategy No. 4. She stated she looked forward to the eventual increase in our budget from the Development Impact fees. She was looking at our ERAF funds, the amount we were talking about the non-profits, dividing the difference into our Disaster Accounting fund and Affordable Housing fund, and she expressed concern that our staffing is so thin. She stated that Council brought this forward as a No. 1 goal and she does not want to burn out staff or lose them, and she thought the city will be able to do more if they have more staff.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if she was suggesting a temporary or full-time position.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer described some previous criticism about temporary positions and pointed out that the reality is that the city needs the ongoing staff. She thought a way to think about it is temporary initially and then as the city is investing the dollars into our process for Development Impact Fee study, Cost Allocation, and Master Fee study, then revenues do start happening in such a way that it could be made permanent. She thinks they ultimately need the help on an ongoing basis but maybe we get there with a two-year position.

Councilmember Bigstyck recalled previous comments and his prior response that, if they are well-disciplined in the practice, then it should not be a problem. When he made those comments at that time, he was thinking that they have full staff and, on top of our full staff, we would add this temporary position for one or two years. His experience since sitting on Council is that they have not had full staff and therefore not had the problem about where to allocate money. He stated he would love to see the result of Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer’s idea.

Councilmember Boles felt like they need staff in so many departments and she does not have a sense of how much money this is going to bring in but it will take some study to know that. She stated that they have updated some of the city’s fees recently, and she thinks this is important, especially as they are on the brink of big housing projects and making sure they are paying for

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 April 08, 2024
the actual infrastructure we need. She agreed that is a priority and referred to staff to decide whether funding a permanent application process or having a consultant would be the best way forward.

Councilmember Bier appreciated Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer’s innovative thinking. She would love to see what that could look like. She is fine with Strategy No. 2 and Strategy No. 4.

Councilmember Boles asked if they agreed on the Vehicle License Fee for Strategy No. 2.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated we hope the city will receive the money.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he would ask about VLF with state representatives next week.

Mayor Vaterlaus added that Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer’s comments were good strategy thinking, and she liked it. She proceeded to Strategy No. 5.

Councilmember Boles referred to ERAF funding for affordable housing, disaster relief, and nonprofits.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if that was part of what Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer said, that the 50% balance towards the housing in-lieu fee could possibly go to hiring another person to look into the other fee schedules staff could use to make that money later.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated either that or adding it as a bullet and then doing their traditional dividing as the remainder between each funds.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked the Asst. City Manager if, at the last meeting, they allocated a portion of the Disaster Accounting Fund out to reinforce our mid-year budget and are we expecting that from ERAF we will be able to make that whole again (out of the 50% currently).

Asst. City Manager Carter agreed, stating that was staff’s recommendation in front of Council.

Councilmember Bigstyck wanted to be sure that does make it whole. He liked Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer’s idea of putting an additional bullet and then seeing the numbers thereafter.

City Manager Woodhouse reiterated that Council was talking about a potential new limited term position, suggesting that it could be funded out of ERAF money that the city gets, but he was not clear if there was a desired focus for that limited term position.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated her opinion was in favor of Planning in light of RHNA, General Plan, LCLUP, Housing Element, zoning, and then implementation plan. She would also be in favor of Public Works in terms of our road repair and tree services. She would let City staff decide where it would best be implemented.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that helps. He stated that the city has staffing needs in every department, but just the concept related to No. 5 of carving out funding for a two-year limited term position helps as they look at their staffing needs and priorities. Staff will bring back information to Council for the next budget discussion. He stated that where the priority positions are that they will allocate money towards is part of the future budget discussion.

Councilmember Boles agreed with the allocation study and the needs all over city staffing.

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 April 08, 2024
When Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer first brought it up, she thought it was in terms of working on the fee schedule which would then bring more money to the town, so that is another place in finance and that might be able to help.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, when she made her statement, she was thinking it would tide them over while the process of doing the Master Fee study, Cost Allocation study, etc. rolls forward. Her impression from what Asst. City Manager was saying is that this is one of those things that involves regular staff, as well as the consultant. She is not sure how practical that is as a solution but she expects that doing it is going to result in more funds coming to the city in the long run.

Councilmember Boles thought that makes sense. She explained her concern regarding what is the good amount for the Disaster Accounting Fund. She stated that eventually we will have another big disaster and she saw that the city uses the Disaster Fund during the year for tree removal, etc. and she is worried that when we have a big disaster the city has what it needs when that happens. She wanted them to be mindful to keep enough money aside for emergencies when we need that money immediately. She stated that the Housing In-Lieu Fund is something new they added last year as part of our prioritizing building affordable housing, but they also need to remember that this is part of what the city has promised to HCD and, if the city is not meeting housing goals, they are going to be coming down on the city with enforcement. She stated that it takes a long time for those projects to get going and she thinks the city needs to be careful about starting to spend that money.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked Asst. City Manager and City Manager in general, in the event of a significant major disaster, what is the city’s ability. She stated that, at the last Council meeting, they talked if that money there should be used immediately alongside funding through FEMA or CalOES or some other similar organization, and she asked, in a worst case scenario and they need funds now, if there is a way that we borrow, do we leverage, or what do we do.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it is a hard question to answer because it depends on what the disaster is. He stated that, in any kind of major regional disaster, there will be state and federal funding. He stated that the city has various reserves, i.e., the Disaster Accounting Fund, that is available for an immediate repair or immediate organizational continuity if funding was disrupted and we still need to pay employees who are doing the work. He stated that it is a hard question to blanketly answer as it depends on what the disaster is. He stated that the Fund 38, Disaster Accounting fund, has a $7-8 million balance in it and that is fairly healthy for some kind immediate capital repair.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it depends what kind of emergency and disaster they are talking about. She stated that the audited fund balance in Disaster Accounting Fund is $7.5 million, and the additional allocation of 50% of ERAF they are looking at will increase this balance. It is sufficient balance for normal course of disasters we have been dealing with in the last few years, and per Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer’s statement, we will get reimbursement from state and federal agencies. She also pointed out that many cities cannot afford stand-alone Disaster Accounting Funds. She stated that it works both ways and some agencies just allocate a portion of the General Fund balance for this purpose and that is the prudent decision that Pacifica Council and City Manager made to build these reserves and continue these processes.

Councilmember Boles asked how long it takes to get reimbursed from FEMA after a disaster.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it could be a couple of years. He thought PW Director

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 April 08, 2024
Petersen could probably speak to the timeline but agencies are still waiting for FEMA funding from the storm impacts from the previous winter’s storm.

Councilmember Bigstyck and Mayor Vaterlaus asked if they gave all the direction staff needs.

City Manager Woodhouse answered affirmatively.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 10:47 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 04-08-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

SPECIAL MEETING
April 15, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on April 15, 2024 at 5:33 PM 5:30 PM - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 5:33 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: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Stefanie Cervantes, Senior Planner; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer

CONSIDERATION

1. Modifications to the City of Pacifica’s Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP), including the Special Resiliency Area policies, and direction to staff regarding transmittal of alternative modifications to the California Coastal Commission.

PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation from staff and confirm alternative modifications to the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP to be transmitted to the California Coastal Commission.

2.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 2 April 15, 2024
Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.

Councilmember Bier stated she was concerned about the pending updates for the sea level rise projections for West Fairway Park, and she thought that was important information for our community to have as that could change the maps.

Planning Director Murdock stated that city staff believes the key takeaway is that the overall projected sea level rise over the next planning period is less than it was in the prior 2018 data; thus, it has the potential, but has not been mapped yet, to reduce the coastal vulnerability zone, i.e., the flooding projected in that area.

Councilmember Bier asked if he has any idea when the maps would be updated.

Planning Director Murdock understands that as potentially as early as June, the Ocean Protection Council may adopt the new data. He stated that, once that is done, City staff need to undertake the process with the City’s consultant to prepare new maps using that data. It is one of the near term activities city staff needs to undertake to update this.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to check in on the process for this meeting, including looking at the table of the modifications. She felt an important underlay to that was their definition of some terms. She suggested starting at the back of the table with some definitions.

Councilmember Boles also wanted to ask where public comment fits. She has some general questions before going into the table and she has specific questions that she thinks would be better asked as they go through the table. She stated that Council normally asks general clarifying questions and then opens public comment.

Mayor Vaterlaus agreed.

Councilmember Boles stated that, if Council is not asking questions on the policy until later after public comment, she thought it might be good to have another public comment session later in case the public is responding to anything that Council has said.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated we do not generally do that. She asked audience members to hand in speaker cards to identify how many people are going to speak on the topic.

Councilmember Boles understood.

Mayor Vaterlaus suggested starting with questions.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano confirmed the process, i.e., general questions of staff now, then public comment, and return to the Council for further deliberation.

Mayor Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles stated that the Coastal Commission provided the first markup of the 2020 LCLUP submission and those markups were the minimally acceptable LCLUP that the Coastal Commission could certify. She asked if that is correct
Planning Director Murdock stated that is the Coastal Commission staff’s characterization of their suggested modifications.

2.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 3 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Boles concluded that we can do a lot more, but it can become a living document that we can modify later instead of having to do a whole revision like now.

Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated the best practice in terms of managing typical Land Use Plan or General Plan level documents is a more robust ongoing update process every several years, making important incremental changes and, if when needed, comprehensive updates every 20 years or so.

Councilmember Boles stated that the staff report states some of our proposed modifications seem to be favorable to the Coastal Commission but that is not their final word.

Planning Director Murdock agreed and clarified Coastal Commission staff and city staff will not know until the hearing day what a majority of the Coastal Commission will support or not. He stated that the city can try and use the city’s staff and Coastal Commission’s staff’s best judgment and experience as to what they know about their decision makers to try to craft a policy that hopefully both agencies can live with and go in with a coordinated request to the Coastal Commission.

Councilmember Boles thought we would get the Coastal Commission’s staff report in 2-3 months depending on how long they need. She asked, if there are substantial changes they are recommending or recommending denial, if there is an opportunity for the city to come back and say we understand why the policy might be problematic. She spoke with San Mateo County Director of Planning of Building Steve Monowitz, who used to work for the Coastal Commission, and his advice was not to have too many areas of disagreement, otherwise the Coastal Commissioners would not take it up and would send the LCLUP back to staff.

Planning Director Murdock generally agrees with her summary. He stated that staff’s goal and focus in coordinating with the Coastal Commission staff is to try to get policy language that the City Council supports and Coastal Commission staff recommends approval of. He stated that city staff’s goal is to get a document supported by City Council based on their extensive discussions with Coastal Commission staff where they are not proposing any further changes or the smallest number of changes possible so the Coastal Commission feels it reflects a well thought out deliberative process between agencies. He added, to her other hypothetical idea, it could be the case that the Coastal Commission staff comes out with a different recommendation with extensive changes. In that scenario, staff would state to the Coastal Commission that more time is needed before the public hearing and bring the LCLUP back to Council and seek guidance, which is what they did in March 2023 with the last set of recommendations.

Councilmember Boles referred to the OPC guidance and the difference in terms used. She stated that the current document analyzes medium-high risk from 2018 and the new guidance refers to intermediate, intermediate low, and intermediate high. She asked what category do we use and does that vary depending on the type of project.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, currently, upon certification, city staff would continue to use the medium-high risk version level of sea level rise projected in the 2018 data until an update is made to our LCP to reflect new modeling using the new data, and some terminology changes would need to be incorporated. He stated that there is language in the LCLUP setting for that medium-high risk version level as our selected level for planning purposes and staff would need to find the closest corresponding level in the new data to align with that intent.

2.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 4 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that OPC guidance predicts, while sea level rise might be decreasing, there would be increased rate of erosion. She was not clear without numbers of how the city would incorporate something like that.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, on an overall composite level of risk, it is not simply a change in the sea level rise projections as there are other factors if different assumptions are warranted for expected coastal erosion per year. He stated that the good news is that LCLUP as it exists calls for the use of the best available science, and that is an important part of the mapping update process, which requires more judgment and modeling required. Staff recognized that those maps will need to be periodically updated. The good news is staff is on the cusp of new data coming and staff has an opportunity, shortly after certification, to put forth some amended maps to show what the updated, best available science indicates in terms of hazards in our community.

Councilmember Boles stated she wants to understand development on the coast now. She referred to staff report, which says, “The SRAs will allow for development to continue in the city’s most prominent visitors’ areas that contain a number of desirable land uses.” She thought there was no prohibition now for developing in those areas as long as staff is designing to address the hazards and asked if that is correct.

Planning Director Murdock thought, objectively, what she said is true, and the reality is that significant portions of these neighborhoods are subject to significant coastal erosion hazards, among other hazards. It may have little to no remaining development potential and, to avoid takings, it may be afforded the minimal level of development that is allowable to avoid takings but also to recognize the coastal hazard. He stated that the SRAs would allow a much more conventional or typical level of development because the properties could rely on the protection from shoreline erosion provided by the existing shoreline protection. There are very different outcomes as to potential for development in those areas, with SRAs and without SRAs.

Councilmember Boles asked how calculations work with the SRAs. She referred to a project at a Coastal Commission meeting that could be designed without having to go through the evaluation of the armoring.

Planning Director Murdock thought the potential exists but he was not familiar with the particulars of the Dana Point Project. His sense is there is probably a coastal erosion hazard of some type. He stated that there is also quite likely a tsunami hazard at that site and they required the living areas to be elevated out of the inundation zone and allow the water to flow through the uninhabitable spaces. He thought it is also possible they needed to allow some development to avoid a takings. He stated that there are potentially many different ways to approach these challenges, and developments are likely to be much more limited without the SRA policies than with the SRA policies in the two areas identified.

Councilmember Boles stated that even our new sea wall we are designing here is not being designed to prevent overtopping and prevent flooding the way we have now. She stated there are some benefits to erosion but probably to other hazards the projects are still going to be designed to mitigate or be outside of those hazards.

Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that the key takeaway from the SRA policies is that people can rely on whatever protection the existing shoreline protection provides. Other factors, such as other types of shields to block the overtopping, hardening of the building, or use of different zoning materials, are options if necessary to mitigate applicable coastal hazards and

2.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 5 April 15, 2024
would remain in place, even with the SRA policies.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer reiterated that the purpose at this meeting is about focusing on Pacifica and our LCLUP.

Councilmember Boles was trying to understand what is required now and exactly how the SRA process would go through and how an applicant would do the necessary evaluation of the armoring so that Council understands and try to make sense of whether it is worth it.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought we have to work through what does the SRA mean before applying specific examples at this juncture.

Councilmember Boles stated her experience with geotechnical reports is that they are extremely risk averse. She asked, in a scenario where a project is evaluating the existing armoring to see if it helps, how do we or a project geotechnical engineer do that.

Planning Director Murdock stated what he can represent, having looked at other projects along the coast where this task was required of the engineers on the project, is that the engineers use a number of data points, including the wall design, its current condition, and changes along the coastline affecting the intensity or types of wave events. The engineers use their professional expertise and certain modeling methods to determine, in their professional judgment, the level of protection that a particular shoreline protection structure is providing applied to a particular piece of property based on its elevation, solid composition, etc. He stated that there are engineering methods used in this community to make such assessments and doing so with respect to the sea wall is the important delta under this SRA policy construct.

Councilmember Boles spoke to Planning Commissioner Lauren Berman this afternoon, who felt that geotechnical engineers would not want to evaluate something off of their site and that is a huge burden for developers. She stated she had another concern related to new development in coastal hazard zones or coastal vulnerability zones being designed for a 100-year life, and she asked how an engineer would certify that if the armoring is not designed to last 100 years.

Planning Director Murdock did not think there was any part of the SRA policies that contemplated an engineer certifying or guaranteeing or the city committing to a shoreline protection structure being there indefinitely. He stated that the presumption is that structure would be there for a long time and the key point is whether it is in effect at the time that a permit decision is being made; there is the safeguard on the other side of this process where, despite being allowed to rely on the existing protection, there is the need to record the waiver of rights to future shoreline protection, as new developments are required to do under the Coastal Act, and commit to indemnifying the city and modifying or removing their development if and when circumstances require. He stated that there is a backstop to potential open-ended authorization for development. He stated that the other side of it that is more pressing and important immediately is that little development, if any, would be allowable without the SRA policies, given the standard construct for coastal hazard analysis for new development, thus illustrating a stark difference in the development outcomes in these neighborhoods with and without the SRA policies.

Councilmember Boles asked about requirements for certifying something to last 100 years.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, as it relates to the usable life of the development that is proposed, it is not certifying something lasts, like a sea wall, for 100 years but looking at the

2.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 6 April 15, 2024
hazard condition without any protection and where is that projected to advance over that 75- to 100-year usable life and in constructing the development outside of that. He stated that it is not fail-safe and the Coastal Commission in the past has acknowledged sometimes those projections are wrong. He stated that those are not things they can 100% safeguard against, but any technical effort uses the best information available and qualified individuals to make the best assessment at that point in time. That is the same process the city followed and has been followed up and down the coastline in California for a long time.

Councilmember Boles asked what the city’s legal responsibility is to protect coastal access, infrastructure, and roads, as well as the city’s obligation to protect private property.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she is correct. The city’s responsibility is to protect its infrastructure and the public spaces where public infrastructure is maintained, public facilities, etc., but it is not the city’s responsibility to protect private property.

Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.

Allison West, Pacifica, expressed her thoughts on the flaws in Pacifica’s proposed LCLUP and shared her concerns on the city’s process on this issue.

Lisa Villasenor-Volosing, Pacifica, stated she is a member of several San Francisco groups, which support the extension of the special resiliency area.

Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, shared her concerns regarding STRs, etc. taking away our limited housing stock and affecting our SRAs.

Andrew Meiman, Pacifica, shared his concerns on questionable data in this EIR and the LCLUP process.

Sam Casillas, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on hazards other than sea rise and his concern for flaws in the draft of the LCLUP and CEQA and Coastal Act violations.

Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated Council is here to consider suggested modifications offered by CCC staff to our city’s draft LCLUP and a list of alternative modificationss preferred by city staff.

He then shared his thoughts and resolution on this evening’s process.

Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on this issue and suggested options he has for Council to consider to be fair, logical, and legal for Pacificans.

Allison Thompson, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns on this issue and asked that they consider the community’s needs.

Giselle Valdez, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns on this issue and the need for Council to protect Pacificans’ homes.

Larry Bothen, Pacifica, shared his concerns if Council decides to approve this item against the wishes of citizens in the coastal zone.

Spencer Potter, San Francisco, expressed his personal thoughts that Sharp Park Golf Course should be included in the SRA and shared the process of working with the Coastal Commission.

2.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 7 April 15, 2024
Richard Harris, San Francisco, shared his thoughts on the process of working with the Coastal Commission and his concerns on the proposed process going forward.

Tisa Yonts, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns on the issue of government’s right to take private property for public use.

Dan Yonts, Pacifica, appreciated Council’s updates and improvements, and shared some of his concerns on terminology and his suggestions on this issue.

Naikaly Dehnad, Pacifica, shared her concerns on what the terminology means for private property in the coastal zone and owner’s rights.

Mark Stechbart, Pacifica, stated he was in opposition to this item and offered a suggestion that Council postpone the LCLUP to get more data to control consequences.

Robine Runneals, Pacifica, asked that Council not accept this draft, and shared her concerns on the possible negative consequences.

Cherie Chan, Pacifica, encouraged Council to take a step back and shared her thoughts and concerns on the city’s goals.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated his concerns on the history and present issues of this item.

Gordon Tannura, Pacifica, appreciated the thoughts and work by Council and staff and shared his thoughts and suggestions on this issue.

Joanne Gold, Pacifica, acknowledged the long process for an important LCLUP update and shared her concerns and suggestions on the plan.

Stanley Lamport, Pacifica, stated that he was a land use lawyer representing clients in the coastal zone and shared his thoughts and input on the LCP.

Jeff, Pacifica, shared his concerns that nothing in the document offers him any protection to his property on Shoreview and shared previous problems during storms.

Mandy Sackett, Pacifica, stated she is worried if the city moves forward with these modifications and shared her thoughts and concerns on possible negative impacts.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, shared her approval of the Coastal Commission’s modifications of the draft LCLUP and shared her thoughts and suggestions on future modifications.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, expressed his concerns regarding the city’s plan for approval of SRAs by the Coastal Commission and felt this plan was not ready yet.

Marianne Osberg, Pacifica, referred to comments from staff regarding city not being responsible to protect private property rights and shared her concerns on that issue and the process and asked that Council reject this plan for now.

Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.

City Manager Woodhouse referred to comments by the public on the staff report and stated that

2.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 8 April 15, 2024
the staff report was published with the agenda and, if the speakers were referencing staff’s presentation, that was simply a synthesis and summary of the staff report.

Mayor Vaterlaus called for a break and then reconvened the meeting.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Council had process questions on the dais and thought we should start with definitions before we continue.

Councilmember Bigstyck referenced the acronym SCS for Sustainable Community Strategy, which he could not find in the glossary, and he noticed what was originally there was deleted.

Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that the change was done in October 2023 to incorporate the 2040 General Plan consistency changes, and it was based on updated data. She stated that they could add the Sustainable Community Strategy (spelled out) and add it to the glossary.

Mayo pro Tem Beckmeyer added to define it in the text as well.

Sr. Planner Cervantes answered affirmatively.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked about a specific line: “In this LCP, ‘development’ is synonymous with ‘new development’.”
Planning Director Murdock stated that, in the various iterations of the LCLUP process, different approaches have been taken to describing this issue of what development means.

Development is a term defined in the Coastal Act and necessarily defined in the LCLUP to understand what triggers the need for a coastal development permit or the application of other policies through the coastal development permit process. He thought there was an attempt over time, depending on the approach du jour to segregate different types of development, such as new development is different than redevelopment. He thought this was trying to clarify that new development is the same thing as development and vice versa for purposes of the definition and it is not something else subject to different policies.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked where this was in relation to redevelopment and to existing development.

Planning Director Murdock stated existing development is a term used commonly and he thought existing structure is the term used in the Coastal Act in relation to shoreline protection.

He thinks redevelopment is one of the other terms du jour that was part of an approach to describe what happens when part of a property is redeveloped or a building or structure is demolished and reconstructed. City staff have tried to simplify the uses of these terms in this latest version to focus on development being development in its various forms. Some types of development, if minor in nature, are exempted from coastal development permit requirements, and some types of development might trigger the substantial structural modification and be treated like new development and subject to the standards that are associated with that.

Councilmember Bigstyck reiterated development is something being developed whereas, if something has already been developed, it is a structure.

Planning Director Murdock that that was one fair way to put it, but it is important to note that development can be things other than building of structures, like intensification of use or changing access to the shoreline. He stated that the definition of development in the Coastal

2.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 9 April 15, 2024
Act is broad but he thought what Councilmember Bigstyck said was correct.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he had a question around environmental justice. The way he read the LCLUP suggested modification was that environmental justice refers to housing specifically. He thought his understanding of environmental justice does not comport with this.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the version of environmental justice as defined in the document before Council mirrors what was adopted in the General Plan. It was not with the intent of creating new policy that this definition was changed. It is his opinion that Council retains some discretion to modify that definition if there is a desire, but it would be best to try to align it with the General Plan to avoid any inconsistencies when environmental justice considerations may be relevant.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked how does that align or not with where Coastal Commission defined environmental justice and does it limit the way we can discuss that with Coastal Commission.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the definition of environmental justice in the Coastal Commission’s environmental justice policy appears to mirror the language that was deleted in the document and that might be a tension that needs to be resolved in terms of trying to achieve consistency with the General Plan while understanding what environmental justice means through the coastal planning context. He added that might be an area Council wants to weigh in now or provide guidance on mirroring the Coastal Commission’s definition if that comment comes back.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he would like as wide a definition as possible for accessibility.

Planning Director Murdock read the definition from the Coastal Commission: “Environmental justice means the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.”
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred the LCLUP which stated, “In 2019, the Coastal Commission adopted its first environmental justice policy,” and “The policy is designed to achieve more meaningful engagement, equitable process, effective communication and stronger coastal protection benefits under the Coastal Act that are accessible to everyone.” She stated that, in that sense, it was a broader application. She thought environmental justice is narrowly defined in our General Plan with regard to housing and said we need to have reference to this broader scope. She thought getting a good handle on that definition as it pertains to all aspects of our coastal involvement in Pacifica will be important.

Planning Director Murdock stated his understanding of the concept is that it reflects the history of land use decision making intentionally targeting people of certain economic or racial categories to bear a disproportionate burden of environmental impacts from freeways, noxious land uses like factories, etc. What he thinks he is hearing from Council’s discussion is more of a focus on a broader equity-based decision making. He thought environmental justice has a particular meaning in land use, but involving equity into the decision-making process is a very important component of broad inclusive decision making process to think of people with different abilities, different needs or economic resources, etc., that may not fall under the environmental justice umbrella but with environmental justice being a subset of a broader equity-based planning process. He stated that the Coastal Commission’s policy interestingly does have a

2.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 10 April 15, 2024
definition of equity while our city’s document does not, and it might provide some space to think about how to resolve this.

City Manager Woodhouse added that the LCLUP includes the guiding policy, PR-G2-8, which entirely refers to the Coastal Commission’s environmental justice policy as they define it regardless of how the city’s document in the glossary defines it.

Councilmember Boles thought the glossary restricts it to housing and the environment but it is broader, and she thought they could strike that language and refer to the Coastal Commission.

Councilmember Bigstyck thanked city staff for taking the comments Council gave them at the March 2 meeting.

Councilmember Bier referred to the definition of development and asked why the existing structures have been struck out altogether.

Councilmember Boles stated that was a strike-out by the Coastal Commission, not city staff.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, when discussing this with Coastal Commission staff, they agreed to disagree on how to describe what an existing structure is. He thought they agreed that it may be best not to seek to define the term in the LCLUP because they would not agree on what that term would mean and it would be a point of contention that they would be unable to resolve. He stated it would be best to wait until the courts or legislature provide a clearer meaning on that term.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if the city is notified in advance that species are going to be proposed for special status species.

Planning Director Murdock believed that is now the law reads with respect to the protections afforded to special status species. His understanding is that, if a species is proposed, it is noticed publicly as part of a rule-making process to formally list a species but, until that administrative process provided under the law is completed, it is a proposed or candidate species and this fits within the normal structure of special status species protection.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to public comment about vague terms in terms of referencing permit, echoed by Councilmembers Boles and Bier.

Planning Director Murdock stated permits are relevant in the LCLUP context as coastal development permits, and that is the mechanism in the LCLUP to apply policies to development.

He thought it should be understood, unless clearly indicated as an exception, that permit means coastal development permit. He stated city staff has thought about that comment previously and are not opposed to going through the document, if needed, and indicating coastal development permit or CDP or addressing it in the glossary to make sure it is clearly not building permits, encroachment permits, or parking permits, but coastal development permits.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed and thought it would be valuable to go through document and update it to make sure the definition is specific to that.

Councilmembers Bier and Bigstyck agreed.

Councilmember Boles referred to the definition of development and the definition of substantial

2.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 11 April 15, 2024
structural modification; in neither place does it say that substantial structural modifications count as new development, and she thought that might be helpful to clarify in one place or another.

She stated that another thing she thinks is missing is definition of mean high tide line, especially as it relates to public trust lands.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, as comments are made, they should confirm a consensus in terms of whether the whole Council agrees that a change should be made or if only one Councilmember agrees and the remainder disagree with that change being made.

She stated she wanted to be sure the whole Council agrees that the change should be recorded by city staff and made as due process in documents.

Mayor Vaterlaus requested consensus on defining mean high tide.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it was reasonable. She asked if staff feels that they have concurrence with Coastal Commission staff on what the city means.

Planning Director Murdock thought it may be a loaded term and may defy a technical definition as it requires application in a particular location, but city staff, at a minimum, can describe functionally what the mean high tide line is intended to be, i.e. the line delineating private properties from public trust lands.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, adding that because of the nature of the tide changes any given place, there is no objective definition that applies to every single part of the coastline.

Councilmember Boles stated there is an objective definition as engineers can calculate that.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referenced using an engineering definition in the document.

Mayor Vaterlaus confirmed consensus for this comment as well as all other previous comments.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to CR-I-43 and stated that, regarding development, city staff established, per their discussion with Coastal Commission staff, that they mean new development or any development.

Planning Director Murdock referred to policy CR-I-43, development proposed in coastal vulnerability zones, and stated a subset of the coastal zone already projected to have applicable coastal hazards requires further technical analysis for coastal engineering, geomorphology, and other relevant technical reports.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked for clarification.

Planning Director Murdock thought the question is interested in what types of development need to undertake further technical studies. He thought the challenge was that it was hard to know, without the analysis, whether specific development will have a negative impact. He stated that the LCLUP has modeled areas where hazards are believed to be present and used that as a filter to determine where additional technical analysis is needed.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked, regarding the hazards versus the vulnerability zones, that seemed like a shift in our current version of our LCLUP from what they started with in 2020 which they originally submitted. She thought a broader set of conditions was introduced.

2.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 12 April 15, 2024
Planning Director Murdock asked if that might be the policy related to the tsunami evacuation versus inundation areas.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles thought there was also a change in the previous LCLUP that called for properties on the coast and now the definition is further because it is the coastal hazard zone.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively.

Planning Director Murdock stated, in that context, the 2020 LCLUP approved by Council limited some of the more restrictive policies to shoreline development as defined and it was properties that had a frontage on the ocean. He stated that the Coastal Commission felt that was too narrow and did not encompass areas with significant coastal hazards in many cases, and that is a revision that has been the subject of ongoing discussion. He stated that the coastal vulnerability zone method is more inclusive and encompasses more property, but it does reflect technical information suggesting hazards are present and warrant further technical study consistent with the Coastal Act.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is the challenge for her as it opens up how many levels of technical reports are needed to apply for a coastal development permit or even a building permit. She agreed that it does broaden the area, but her concern is perhaps too much.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if she is saying the coastal vulnerability zone is too much.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, based on the hazards, yes.

Planning Director Murdock saw her perspective from 2020 LCLUP outward, but he thought there was another reasonable perspective to have (from Coastal Act to Pacifica LCLUP).

Recognizing the Coastal Act as he understands it, the absence of a filter like the coastal vulnerability zones might necessitate all development needing technical studies rather than limiting it to just the coastal vulnerability zone. He stated that the question is how much is too much, how is it overly broad, how narrow is too narrow to then be inconsistent with the Coastal Act. He thought there was a good chance that the Coastal Commission would find some sort of reversion closer to the 2020 LCLUP inconsistent with the Coastal Act. He added that it isn’t to say that the coastal vulnerability zone method is the only method but it is certainly a wellreasoned method based on science, data and engineering modeling as one approach, whereas the other one is just defined by location alone without technical analysis to support it.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that those analyses are produced underscoring best available science, and she asked if these analyses basically come from FEMA.

Planning Director Murdock was not certain that these are driven by FEMA data primarily, as FEMA flood maps might be one input into the models. He stated that the Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) is one that is a more comprehensive coastal model that helps to inform coastal erosion or sea level rise related analyses, but he does not have all the technical information to respond.

Councilmember Boles stated the definition of those zones is from our vulnerability assessment.

Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated it used modeling methodology using the best

2.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 13 April 15, 2024
available science at the time, using accepted coastal hazard modeling methods, etc., that we would expect to replicate periodically, such as every five years or so as new sea level rise or other available data can be put into the model and yield different results that reflect the best understanding of what the likely hazards are at that period of time.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the glossary and definition of coastal vulnerability zone refers to “and as may be amended from time to time based on updated best available science about projected sea level rise, erosion, flooding and other coastal hazards.” Councilmember Bigstyck referred CalNRA and OPC guidance from 2018, and he imagined that, if this is passed, the city will shortly go for an amendment that would say OPC 2024, and asked if that was the kind of nomenclature Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was referring to.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the point is well-taken by the commenter of waiting the two months and incorporating the 2024 OPC guidance. He thought, to the point, it is written into the policy that the city will be looking to the 2024 and it seems a natural fit to update it. He stated that, meanwhile, the pertinent data is waiting for the city.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed but added the 2018 data is more restrictive based on studies and the best available science at that time. She stated this document’s requirements ultimately could be burdensome for some of our areas and the homeowners and property owners in those areas. She asked how to streamline it. She stated that the default becomes everybody needs to get the analysis. She asked, if it is overly broad, how can we bring it closer while addressing the point of statewide consistency and the concerns of our partners with the Coastal Commission.

Councilmember Boles asked when OPC will vote on the 2024 guidance.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated June 4.

Councilmember Boles thought they might be submitting to the Coastal Commission around then, and she thought city staff was saying that the earliest we can get to the Coastal Commission was August. She thought there would likely be some revisions that will come back to the city. She thought there might be time before it is adopted as a new policy that we could update the science with another amendment. She thought that was a good goal.

Planning Director Murdock clarified that the 2024 data will come out, consultants will need to be engaged, work will need to be performed, work will be reviewed, and work will need to go through a public process locally, so they are talking about many more than just two months. If city staff wait two months, then work on the maps, and then submit to the Coastal Commission, that easily puts the city into the next year for a potential certification hearing. Proceeding and understanding the policy is meant to be a living document, they may consider some other number of minor post-certification amendments they would want to refresh what is, in many respects, a 2020 document or a 2023 document, including coastal access maps, potentially ESHA maps, etc. He stated that there are many ways to do it, but he did not think it was a fair characterization to say they can wait two months, get the data, and insert it into the process.

Councilmember Boles suggested making the update in parallel, once the city gets the data, knowing they have months before they will get Coastal Commission approval and before

2.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 14 April 15, 2024
Council certifies it as a final document.

Planning Director Murdock thought there were multiple ways city staff can get to a map update and they need to discuss that specifically with the Coastal Commission. He contemplated a potentially streamlined way to incorporate the new modeling as a minor amendment and request approval on an expedited basis by the Coastal Commission. He thought that would be ideal and plausible to do that, perhaps in short order after a certification, so the end of this year or early 2025 we may have new maps. The in-between period of an effective LCLUP and the 2018 data is a minimal amount of time.

Councilmember Boles added that it does not affect anyone until they are applying for a permit.

If they know it is coming in a couple of months, they can wait.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating this applies to projects that need coastal development permits and many projects do not because of the exemptions already in our implementation plan.

Councilmember Boles assumed not all coastal development permits, just those in the coastal vulnerability zone.

Planning Director Murdock stated that was correct. For some of the neighborhoods where this has been of keen interest, very little of the West Fairway Park neighborhood is in a coastal vulnerability zone and fewer people are potentially affected by this in-between period. He agreed that it was important to consider every person impacted.

Councilmember Bigstyck referred to the conversation around minimizing what possible effect could be on a homeowner and asked what realistically is the window of time between this conversation and when city staff would actually effectuate the new science where a homeowner might be affected by a coastal vulnerability zone that is larger than it may be under the 2024 guidance. He asked about a time frame of six months or two years.

Planning Director Murdock thought a matter of months if we are able to prioritize this in the broader scheme of work the city staff is trying to manage. He did not think it should take more than a few months to get this updated post-certification. It could take longer if some unexpected aspect comes up with the Coastal Commission process, but city staff can strive to get our consultant working on a map update in June when the sea level rise data are adopted by the Ocean Protection Council, and have them ready to go for the first procedural opportunity to get them incorporated into the LCLUP post-certification.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she would like to reference that that is the city’s intention in the city’s submission to the Coastal Commission. She stated that the biggest concern for her is to make clear the city’s intentions in a way that is incontrovertible. She expressed desire for a clear blanket statement applying to the entire document, as there needs to be some very clear intentional statement in the submission. She also added regarding a similar situation with the 2020 submission where they had to put a footnote with specific regard to maps to make it clear for the community what city staff meant and what the maps were to be used for and not be used for.

Planning Director Murdock asked, if they were to look at policy CR-I-43, whether Council would support the language in the third bullet for that purpose.

2.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 15 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if in theory city staff has not submitted the amendment but we have the active live science in our hands because of that statement and we should be considering that rather than the 2018 guidance since it is live.

Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that attention has been paid to the coastal vulnerability zone maps which are based off of the 2018 data that city staff anticipates will be updated soon to reflect different sea level rise projections which presumably will result in different map areas in the coastal vulnerability zones. Staff knows they need to update the maps to the extent they are used in relation to policies to filter different types of development from having to do more analysis or not. He stated that there is the policy CR-I-43, which is a critical policy in the LCLUP related to development in those zones and the technical studies those developments need to do and stating that those technical studies need to be based on the best available science. Whether in the LCLUP context or just a standard professional requirement to use the best available science, they should be using whatever is current and adopted and the best available science at the time of the analysis, not artificially backdating to the 2018 data set if it has been superseded by 2024 data.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if paragraph 6.40, Technical Reports, regarding maps or assessments approved in the last five years, was specific enough to address the point.

Planning Director Murdock thought this was another aspect in this policy written intentionally to minimize the number of property owners who need to undertake their own analyses.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is where she is going.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, if we have a coastal vulnerability zone map that is recently updated, well-prepared, and using the best available science, it may be adequate to rule in or rule out a property for further technical analysis, which is the intent of the maps. He stated that, if particularly recent, it may be adequate enough to do more than that, i.e., rule out meaning to do any of the more detailed work as well or if a development next door has a publicly available report that could be relied upon to reference that. He stated the intent is to not require redundant analysis if there is a recent sufficient report that can say the site is subject to a hazard or not, thus not burdening individual applicants unless necessary.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that was her point, i.e., make sure the policies are specific enough so that does not happen inadvertently and become the default. She realizes the policies have to be broad enough to apply all over but she is trying to tighten it specifically enough so property owners know what they are in for. She wanted to be sure all Councilmembers understood before asking if there was anything else to add to it or move on.

Councilmember Bigstyck suggested, if we move on, to continue from the beginning, Councilmember Bier thought the point Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer brought up was important and, if it needs to be more specific, she is in favor of that.

Councilmember Bigstyck mentioned inviting the nomenclature when the time arrives.

Mayor Vaterlaus noted CEQA was mentioned many times and she asked if we would normally have a CEQA document on something that was not already planned.

Planning Director Murdock referred to the comments about CEQA analysis. He stated that

2.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 16 April 15, 2024
there were comments that harkened back to the General Plan update process and concerns some commenters had about that environmental impact report that was prepared. He stated that city staff stated many times on the record with respect to this LCLUP update that the CEQA guidelines provide environmental reviews as performed by the Coastal Commission, not the local agency, so city staff has not prepared CEQA analysis for this document nor does the law require that they do that. He stated that the Coastal Commission will perform their CEQA equivalent analysis when this goes before them for action. He stated that city staff does not prepare CEQA analyses on hypothetical projects of the future on individual properties.

Councilmember Boles stated CEQA is required during rezoning, and the city is about to do that for the Housing Element, i.e. analyzing the impact of the changes of zoning if more housing is being built than was there before. She stated the Calson field decision was made as part of the General Plan change and the CEQA analysis in the General Plan is adequate for that rezoning.

She asked, because the Coastal Commission will review the LCLUP that talks about that rezoning, if they have gotten their sign off on that rezoning at this point or will they be reviewing that as part of this process.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the General Plan update performed CEQA at a program EIR level for all of the policy changes, including the land use plan changes. He stated that a land use plan change for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site was proposed in the General Plan, aligned with what Council approved in February 2020 in the LCLUP. He stated the city did not need to do CEQA for the February 2020 land use plan change for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue site because the law says the Coastal Commission will do environmental review but, after February 2020, the city adopted a General Plan with equivalent land use plan changes and did perform CEQA on those land use plan changes at a program EIR level. He thought it was important to note the policies related to that site have various caveats and reflect that there is a high likelihood of potential biological resources and other sensitive coastal resources that require further analysis. At the program or plan level that these actions are being taken, it is not common to do detailed site specific resource analysis and that is not being done in this case.

He stated that the Coastal Commission can perform whatever environmental review it thinks is necessary within the context of the LCLUP and, if they think it is relevant to consider all the data, they will make that decision at that point in time.

Councilmember Boles stated some of the commenters have said that the Coastal Commission’s biological consultants have already identified those so that may be something that they modify.

Planning Director Murdock stated they may do that and added there were few modifications to that site specific policy, presumably following adequate environmental review for the Coastal Commission’s CEQA-equivalent process to have supported adoption of the LCLUP in March 2023, after identification of the ESHA in question. He mentioned that the Coastal Commission may recognize the difference between a project level review and a plan level review.

Councilmember Boles asked if we have confirmed the new zoning.

Planning Director Murdock stated that we have not undertaken a rezoning yet.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what and how the impact of rezoning pertains to the LCLUP.

Planning Director Murdock stated it is the same situation again and it depends which process proceeds first. He stated, if city staff updates the implementation plan, effectively the zoning for the LCLUP, we likely will not need to undertake CEQA as the Coastal Commission will consider

2.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 17 April 15, 2024
that as part of the approval of the implementation plan. If city staff undertakes a city level rezoning prior to that, we may need to prepare an EIR or follow on analysis to supplement the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the city does not get out of doing CEQA if they go the city process first, and CEQA or some equivalent version is done by the Coastal Commission if city staff goes the LCP amendment route first.

Councilmember Boles asked, in the situation that the owners of that field want to propose a project now, how would they know what the zoning is and what they are actually allowed.

Planning Director Murdock stated, in the hierarchy of California planning law, the zoning needs to be consistent with the General Plan and similarly the implementation plan needs to be consistent with the Land Use Plan. The question needs to be answered by which (General Plan or LCLUP) will be in effect and then they would need to add to their project, potentially, a zoning amendment to conform with the applicable land use designation or, as is often the case, they propose to change the land use designation and the zoning to align with a particular project. He stated that it is speculative as to what would occur in the event of a future development and when that development would be proposed.

Councilmember Boles noted a question regarding the SRA maps and the infrastructure at the golf course later on in the chart.

Councilmember Bier had one process question: For people seeing the document for the first time, columns that state “N/A” mean that we accept the Coastal Commission’s modification.

Planning Director Murdock clarified that “N/A” means that the city staff is recommending the Council accept that modification as presented.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked, as it was recommended that they go through this line by line, whether they were going through each item one at a time.

Councilmember Bier stated go through every one.

Councilmember Bigstyck began with Modification No. 2.1 and asked if staff were aware of properties it would apply to regarding beaches or coastal dunes or bluffs.

Councilmember Boles assumed the houses on Pacifica State Beach.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioned private properties like the boat dock houses. She stated that the impact of that modification is a good clarification and asked if there was anything he was proposing they would want to do about that.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated no, that it was a question so he could have clarity over which ones they are talking about.

Councilmember Boles stated the dunes are separate, and she asked Planning Director Murdock before about the Fish and Bowl site, which is considered dunes in the Fairmont District.

Councilmember Bier stated Modification No. 2.2 is fine with her.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he would pardon himself until Modification No. 3.5.

2.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 18 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated she has a comment on Modification No. 2.6.

City Manager Woodhouse asked for clarity if city staff could presume everything is fine between Modification Nos. 2.2 and 2.5.

Mayor Vaterlaus responded affirmatively for Modification Nos. 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.

Councilmember Boles stated regarding Modification No. 2.6 that non-permanent improvements shall not require additional analysis, further defined by bench and trash receptacles. In her experience, the trash cans and tables can become hazardous. She thought, if they delete that sentence, then perhaps Council is okay with what the Coastal Commission has said.

Councilmember Bier thought staff could give them clarification about why it was necessary.

Planning Director Murdock thought the intent is to provide some flexibility for relatively minor improvements to not have to undergo a coastal development permit process or hazards analysis. He thought it does imply responsible placement of these non-permanent improvements but to not burden them with the full rigor of a substantial development project.

Councilmember Boles asked if they normally get a permit for a picnic table.

Planning Director Murdock thought they might need to as it is development and, unless it is clear that it is exempted somewhere, it may need a coastal development permit.

Mayor Vaterlaus thought the language could stay as is.

Councilmember Boles hoped staff would ensure they are secured for those hazards.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, if it is not a coastal development permit that ensures the heavy table is installed safely, what would be within the context of the city to address concerns and what would be the city practice to address that.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he may have to defer to Dir. Petersen in the Public Works Department if they want to address that.

City Manager Woodhouse began that, when we are talking about installation of garbage cans or replacing benches, more and more as they learn how they can be moved around by storm events, we do not have a specific policy or practice about how they will be installed; like with any project, we would go through appropriate safety considerations in installing them, and he thought it was a public safety related item, and what is being talked about here is entirely different, i.e., coastal development permit process where the Coastal Commission has to review and authorize how we are going to install a trash can on the promenade.

Councilmember Boles thought that made sense and voiced concerns on the potential hazards.

PW Director Petersen stated PW does look at safety issues related to elements, such as the benches and other types of moveable infrastructure that goes onto Beach Boulevard. She stated that it is important to remember that, even with the concrete, staff need to consider the type of foundation needed for securing. She stated that the wave force may be so phenomenal that it may just be a choice between either the city have something in there that is moveable so we can take them out of the way when we know big events are coming or we do not have them

2.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 19 April 15, 2024
there. She stated that it is almost impossible to completely secure them in every type of event and that is what they are finding, even in the heavy concrete picnic tables. She thought that may be a choice or discussion that PW has with Council when it comes to the BBIRP project on what they are going to be putting out there with that project as part of the design.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if that answered her concerns.

Councilmember Boles responded affirmatively.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 2.6 and 2.7.

Councilmembers Boles and Bier highlighted Modification No. 2.8. Councilmember Bier asked Planning Director Murdock to explain what “at a density range of the lower third of the CRMU density range” means.

Planning Director Murdock stated that Coastal Residential Mixed Use (CRMU) land use designation allows up to 15 dwelling units per acre of residential development in conjunction with commercial development; the lower third of that would be 1-5 units per acre of residential development, and that is consistent with what City Council previously extensively considered and approved (3-5 units per acre). He was not sure why the Coastal Commission took exception with that narrower band of allowable development density.

Councilmember Bier thought it said somewhere that it could lead to larger density.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it is not true in any dimension he considered. CRMU goes up to 15 and this would limit it to 5. City Council previously allowed 3-5. Therefore, they are both limited at 5 at the lower third of CRMU density range.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked to clarify if the underlined change was from Coastal Commission staff.

Planning Director Murdock stated that city staff made the change. He stated that the Coastal Commission staff was proposing to change it to low density residential development which city staff thought was confusing and could lead to more density than the City Council had authorized. He did not think that was the Coastal Commission’s intent, but rather they wanted low density not defined. However, in the context of the plan low density means 3-9 units per acre, which exceeds what City Council had previously extensively considered, so city staff proposed this alternative to push it to the lower third to reflect the land use designation.

Councilmember Boles asked if he could read the definition of CRMU.

Planning Director Murdock referred to packet page 78, where it clarifies the Coastal Residential Mixed Use designation, and read the paragraph.

Councilmember Boles stated she may have missed the discussion where that site was rezoned and she was concerned about allowing vacation rentals or timeshares, but not a hotel, as that is an area that sees many tourists. She stated, if Councilmembers recalled a change of use of why hotels are not there and why residential was important there, that would be helpful.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated her recollection is that it was about intensity of use and that a very low density mixed use would not have the same impact on traffic that a hotel would.

2.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 20 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Boles thought a timeshare used as a hotel would have that same kind of usage.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was on the Planning Commission at the time of the rezoning discussion and thought the conversation was around what the original zoning of that piece of property was which was fairly low impact commercial but there was a residential component of mixed use but fairly low impact. As the Planning Commission at that time was going through the documents, their conclusion was in lieu of trying to minimize impact and use to maintain more or less what the original zoning was.

Mayor Vaterlaus thought it was recreational.

Councilmember Bier agreed.

Councilmember Boles thought it did not allow housing before.

Planning Director Murdock stated that city staff’s research has found, without dispute, that the land use designation from the 1980 certified Land Use Plan is commercial; there is a single commercial land use designation in the 1980 LCLUP which does not give a lot of control. The commercial designation allows residential development up to 21.8 units per acre. He stated that what was less clear and required more research is the zoning applicable to that site is CR, commercial recreation; based on his research, that was an older zoning designation that they did not have any more and did not allow residential uses. He thought at some point in the mid90s, City Council amended the zoning to eliminate CR through a text change in the zoning to direct it to C2, which allows mixed use housing consistent with the commercial land use designation. He stated that it was never certified by the Coastal Commission and the zoning map was never changed to change CR to C2. He stated this is not the only property affected by that but is among the more notable properties in the coastal zone where that lack of Coastal Commission certification is potentially problematic. He reiterated that, in the hierarchy of plans, the Land Use Plan should control what the zoning is, and the zoning should not be the tool to say what the Land Use Plan does or does not allow. He stated, if there were a development proposed today that wanted to change the zoning to allow housing, that is a change that City Council may have to allow unless it also changed the Land Use Plan and sought Coastal Commission certification for that. He stated as to what the allowable uses ought to be, the Land Use Plan in the 1980s certified LCLUP, commercial allowing mixed use residential is probably the best resource to point to in answer to that question.

Councilmember Bigstyck concluded that at that point Planning Commission and Council, within the context of the joint study session, did what they could to try to minimize the amount of development, which the neighborhood strongly disagrees with, but it was the city’s best attempt to reconcile the history versus what the realities of the mechanics seem to be.

Councilmember Boles heard concerns from the community that, with the housing laws and density bonuses, the density could be much greater.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the problem is that the site already allows housing but there is a lack of willingness to accept the fact that the Land Use Plan is commercial and commercial allows housing in a mixed use configuration already. He stated that this LCLUP update would push down the amount of allowable housing through the policy that is site specific to the lower third of the CRMU or, in the worst case, up to 15 units per acre which is still considerably less than 21.8 units per acre.

2.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 21 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated she is still not clear if all these density bonuses apply to the coastal zone. She mentioned a discrepancy in the text in that paragraph, “establish a Coastal Residential Mixed Use zoning district to allow small scale visitor oriented commercial uses as a stand alone project without any residential ...” and second to last sentence says “... residential uses may be constructed attached to or detached from commercial uses, provided the overall site contains both commercial and residential uses”. She thought it seems to say it can only be commercial at the beginning and then it says residential is needed too at the end.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he reads the last sentence to say the project cannot be residential only, whereas in the first sentence it says the opposite, i.e. commercial only, so he was not reading an inconsistency. He thought it was trying to get out of someone saying that the policy allows them to build a detached residential use and not build any commercial.

Councilmember Boles stated that there was talk of changing the C2 definition in relation to the Crespi Project, as right now C2 only allows residential above commercial, and she stated that is another discussion if they change that definition.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that it is beyond the scope of this discussion as it is a zoning matter. He thought, generally, it is both in the General Plan update and LCLUP update processes and Council supported more flexibility in the form in which mixed use development can occur; currently it is very restrictive in the LCLUP, i.e., can only be in the same building above the ground floor as a commercial use. He thought the sense of Council was that there are sites where that is not the most desirable mixed use configuration and to allow the zoning to further calibrate that for a particular site as long as the General Plan or the LCLUP support that greater flexibility.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, and 2.11.

Councilmember Bier stated, regarding Modification No. 12, she asked for an example to understand the suggested modification and why all of the language from the Coastal Commission is not suggested.

Planning Director Murdock stated that part of the issue in city staff’s perspective with the Coastal Commission suggested modification is that it is a very limiting policy with respect to public infrastructure that can be constructed in the coastal zone. He stated, of particular concern, is that it is limited to development consistent with the LCP, which would necessarily mean it could only account for development in the coastal zone with respect to infrastructure in the coastal zone; much of the city is outside of the coastal zone relying on infrastructure in the coastal zone, and that was one significant issue that city staff identified with that modification.

He thought the concept was fine as they do not want growth inducing infrastructure to self-fulfill more development because the capacity is there but is not reflective of our community and how much Pacifica relies on infrastructure in the coastal zone but the developments outside the coastal zone. He stated that the other issue is prohibiting development in the coastal vulnerability zones which is problematic; particularly some of our wastewater infrastructure and other infrastructure is currently constructed in the coastal vulnerability zone and may need to be replaced. He stated that city staff needed to modify the policy to allow for instances where it is unavoidable to construct infrastructure in a vulnerability zone so that we can do it subject to other policies like flood proofing or other steps to minimize adverse impacts to the infrastructure.

Councilmember Boles thought “without any significant impact to coastal resources” should be

2.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 22 April 15, 2024
added back in. She previously asked who reviews the feasibility if no feasible alternative exists because it seems like there are feasible alternatives but they might be more expensive in relocating infrastructure out of harm’s way.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there was nothing in the policy that would mandate City Council to undertake any particular infrastructure project. If it is a policy choice of Council to undertake some other kind of infrastructure project that would not be in a coastal vulnerability zone, that is the prerogative of Council. He stated that this provides the flexibility to do that, reflecting that for the foreseeable future, the city will continue to have infrastructure located in the vulnerability zones and may need to install new infrastructure in those areas until the system can potentially be adapted outside of those hazardous areas. He stated that the policy, as written, may preclude Council from doing that or present significant obstacles to doing that.

Councilmember Boles stated that she had asked who is the ultimate arbiter, and the answer was that it depended on whether it was in the Coastal Commission appeal district, and it seems the city has the Sharp Park pump station, the Rockaway pump station, and the Linda Mar pump station. She stated all of it is within the Coastal Commission’s appeal and Council could process something but Coastal Commission could decide to take it up.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the answer he provided to her question was that it was the permitting entity that makes the determination. Even for projects that are in the appeal jurisdiction in the first instance, it is the city, and then, if appealed, which is not always the case, then it would be the Coastal Commission acting on appeal; or, for a project that might be in an area of retained jurisdiction, it would be the Coastal Commission in the first instance making that feasible determination. He thought feasibility is always a challenging term, sometimes further qualified as a technical feasibility, as it is a more encompassing consideration which could include financial feasibility. Regarding a situation if there is a technically feasible option but it costs many times more than the city could conceivably afford, is it really feasible, and he stated that it could be technically feasible but not feasible in the context of this policy. He stated that there is room to work within the way the policy is written to consider various relative factors.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 2.12, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he had a comment on Modification No. 3.5.

Planning Director Murdock stated, related to PR-I-24, there is a typo that was identified. He stated that what the policy should read is “support the continued operation of golf at Sharp Park Golf Course consistent with CDP terms and conditions and support development of additional recreational uses in upland portions of the Park located outside the coastal zone east of Highway 1".

Councilmember Bigstyck concluded he was taking out “redeveloping source” and putting in “consistent with”.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated this seemed to be the one policy that pertains to the golf course. He asked Council if they feel like there needs to be stronger language in support of the golf course here.

Planning Director Murdock stated there is a policy on point for the Sharp Park Golf Course in

2.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 23 April 15, 2024
Chapter 6, policy CR-I-23, and he read the draft alternative modification. He stated that the Coastal Commission had proposed to delete that policy in its entirety and the context behind that was their concern, as discussed in a previous LCLUP meeting, with the specificity of the policy as written to support “maintenance of the Sharp Park Golf Course berm and armoring”.

He stated that was overly specific, and potentially Coastal Act inconsistent in the Coastal Commission staff’s opinion, to be so prescriptive about maintaining armoring in a particular context like that. City staff said that the golf course and the berm are very important to our Council and community and the conversation led to the Coastal Commission staff saying they could include a policy that talks about everything the city likes about the berm without stating information on the berm that is subject to a permit level decision by the Coastal Commission in their permit jurisdiction where the city’s LCLUP may be advisory but not going to be controlling.

He stated that the policy Council sees in the draft alternative modification tried to strike that balance with the Coastal Commission; as the commenter mentioned, the city’s LCLUP would be advisory to the Coastal Commission in such a permitting context but it would not mandate a particular action. There is a long history with the berm and associated permitting issues and, without having direct control, the sense by city staff was not to make this a pivotal make or break policy in the entirety of the LCLUP update process. He hopes, if there is interest in this topic, that they find a way to strengthen and bolster this policy in some way, but they can get up to the line without crossing it in terms of discussing the berm’s location.

Councilmember Bier was concerned about the language, especially regarding their community’s feedback and fears.

Mayor Vaterlaus thought it was difficult because the city does not own it and does not have control of the golf course or the berm. She thinks it makes it difficult for Council because, as Director Murdock said, Council is only advising.

Planning Director Murdock thought one way to give voice to those concerns is to describe a situation in this policy where the berm is being modified or relocated or removed and say ensure a thorough analysis of erosion, flooding, and other applicable hazards and any modification of the berm in the future.

Councilmember Bigstyck added vulnerable species.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added ESHA.

Planning Director Murdock stated, whatever is of concern, it may be fine to say it should be thoroughly studied and addressed in any sort of alternative that may arise in the future. He stated that the insistence on keeping the berm exactly where it is and how it is as armoring is going to be a major sticking point in this process.

City Manager Woodhouse added the Council did approve a comment letter back in 2017 that makes that exact point about the berm. That was when San Francisco was working with the Coastal Commission on renewing their permit and allowing maintenance and the city’s comment letter, paraphrased, was “if anything different is going to change with the berm, there are analyses and mitigation that would be necessary to ensure flood protection for the neighborhood behind it, ESHA, etc.” He stated that was a position that Council has on record.

Dep. City Clerk La stated that there was an active raised hand on the line.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they are not in the public comment period at this moment.

2.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 24 April 15, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought Council needs to air the issues.

Mayor Vaterlaus thought they could reopen the public comment briefly after.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She felt that we need to address the jurisdictional boundary between the city and the Coastal Commission. She had a great concern about this issue. She added that we make sure to accurately reflect the coastal access point on our tables and the improvements in that area that have been made in terms of our environmental justice concerns.

She stated that they are talking about a coastal recreational asset, the berm, that is providing accessibility, safety, low cost visitor serving opportunities, along the berm, which is part of the golf course that is also low cost visitor serving, environmental justice focus, and protecting ESHA. She stated it was difficult that they cannot talk about it because it was not in the city’s jurisdictional area. She felt that the city does whatever we can do, as strongly as we can in this document, to show exactly where we stand. She stated that there has been a call for a third SRA or an extension of the first SRA because of the reasons she outlined being consistent.

Council understands that is not going to be acceptable to the Coastal staff which leaves Council in a very difficult place. Referring to Councilmember Bier’s point, she stated Council has to take care of our community and while at the same time working with our partner. She stated that the reality is the Coastal Commission has to be a partner and we have to be a partner with them.

She stated that there are some in the community who think we do not have to work with the Coastal Commission at all, and she emphasized that we are in the coastal zone and are one of 69 coastal cities and county jurisdictions and we have to work with them.

Councilmember Bier added without mentioning armoring for this modification.

Mayor Vaterlaus thought everyone here is in support of keeping the golf course and the berm exactly where it is. She agreed with her and asked how they go about that.

Councilmember Boles knows regionally there is a lot of support for the golf course as there were efforts by San Francisco before. She stated in previous meetings with President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Aaron Peskin that the golf course is huge financial burden for San Francisco. She stated that San Francisco is spending money here that they do not have as well as the fact that Pacifica does not have the money to run it. She stated that the county is not interested in it. She is personally happy saying we support the golf course and the berm.

She noted that the Coastal Commission does not want every place in Pacifica to be armored and they do not really want to expand this, but the city is allowing armoring in certain areas where we have a lot of building and infrastructure to protect. She stated the infrastructure here is much further in and can be protected other ways, i.e. nature-based solutions. She had a chat with Len Matterman of OneShoreline and they did a similar project at the golf course in Palo Alto; OneShoreline’s project purchased some land from the golf course to widen the creek so the flooding was contained, and by selling that land, the golf course had money to refurbish their course. She thought there could be a nature-based solution and she did not want to lock them in to saying that this is armoring when this is one of the few places we have that we can do nature based solutions and do all these things.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, if they do go back to policy CR-I-23, in the spirit of what staff has heard from Coastal Commission staff about statements in the document supporting all the aspects and values that the berm provides without talking about the berm, if we want to focus on language about that and expanding, it was mentioned adding environmental justice to that list and helping fulfill Coastal Commission environmental justice policies. He added “ensuring continued access of the coastal trail between the Beach Boulevard Promenade and Mori Point,”

2.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 25 April 15, 2024
as that is part of the coastal trail and we have the mutual goal with the Coastal Commission about ensuring that. There may be some other language to put in to bolster the importance of this connectivity.

Mayor Vaterlaus suggested calling it the coastal trail instead of the berm.

Councilmember Bigstyck appreciated those additions.

Councilmember Boles referenced coastal access in the conversation and highlighted the map of the coastal access in Modification No. 3.4, policy CR-I-12.

Councilmember Bier stated that she supported this part of the conversation. She thought it would be good to understand which things are being removed, such as access points, and what it means and what Council can do about it.

Councilmember Boles noted there are discrepancies between this map and the spreadsheet in the packet that she wanted to clarify. She commented that coastal access point no. 3 needed the color label corrected or to be removed due to the erosion of the path.

Planning Director Murdock stated he would recommend keeping it, as the property is pursuing a coastal development permit authorization from Coastal Commission to formalize the realignment of the trail. They have an obligation to maintain that coastal access.

Councilmember Boles reiterated the color label change. She added that she would like coastal access point no. 5 to be restored to an access path (needing a color label correction).

City Manager Woodhouse asked if the access point being discussed is no. 6, and Councilmember Boles clarified that the 1980 Plan called for a public access to the beach on coastal access point no. 5.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought they experienced some realities since that 1980 Plan was approved and wondered in terms of adding an access point to the beach if they were added where feasible and/or safe to use.

Planning Director Murdock understood that the map is intended to reflect the current condition of these sites and there are notes about what they strive to be in the plan and he thought there may be a way to reflect the current condition where it is not a suitable access point to the beach.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano suggested that Council direct staff to review the map and come back with any potential changes related to color changes and confirming the access points.

Councilmember Boles agreed.

City Manager Woodhouse clarified that the Milagra access point has been restored.

Councilmember Boles stated that is the one mentioned in policy CR-I-12, and she concluded that the city’s PW staff restored that trail.

City Manager Woodhouse stated it was SF RV’s responsibility and city staff helped facilitate an efficient restoration of that.

2.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 26 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Boles asked if SF RV is helping to pay for it.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they had to provide the authority and access to do it. He stated he would defer to Director Petersen on the details of payment. He stated that an interesting point on the map is that storms will change access points, temporarily close one, get restored, and he thought this was a snapshot in time in 2019 about these access points. He stated that, periodically, as changes occur, they can update the maps but it will never be accurate to any given year, hence why he did not believe Coastal Commission recommend any changes or updates to this map.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she would like corrections made to the map regarding wheelchair ramps. She asked if Council agreed, and they responded affirmatively.

Planning Director Murdock stated he would prefer to put a single access point and have a note that says multiple access points along the berm or along those lines in order to balance the scale of the map with the symbology.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer emphasized the need for the wheelchair ramp.

Councilmember Boles stated another potential correction to the coastal access point at the Cottages at Seaside. She then referred to public comment about the Pedro Point coastal access point which in the previous LCP was a coastal access point from the berm and has been changed to just a viewpoint. She asked about the change.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if that was because of the prescriptive rights issue. She stated it is a private road so she asked how it is a public access point in that berm area. She stated that what is stated in our city document as a public resource is a concern.

Planning Director Murdock thought the map should show locations where we are certain that there are legal public access rights. He stated that a lot of these coastal access points may have public access rights but are not expressly legally defined like with an easement or ownership of the site; prescriptive rights can be powerful but very site specific investigation is needed to confirm that. He wants to strike the right balance of comprehensiveness but not include sites where they are leading people to places where the public does not have a right to go and set up a potential conflict.

Councilmember Boles concluded that there was language to the prescriptive right study that was needed for this one. She asked for an explanation of what prescriptive rights are.

Planning Director Murdock stated it would be through past use where the public has acquired a right through conspicuous, continuous use of the property. There are various ways that the public could have obtained rights to access the shoreline over time. He stated that it requires extensive research of these issues for each potential access point.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if the addition of a conductive prescriptive right study was made by the Coastal Commission or by city staff.

Planning Director Murdock believed those are Coastal Commission suggested modifications where they are reflecting lack of clarity to the full extent of those access rights. He thought it is calling out the need to do further research to the full extent of the access.

2.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 27 April 15, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if the modification, in the way it is written, is telling us to conduct a prescriptive right study.

Planning Director Murdock stated that is the proposed improvement for that access point, i.e. to do the prescriptive right study to identify the full scope of potential rights there.

Councilmember Boles thought that was true for Shelter Cove as well.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we are agreeing to do that.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she understood that they are trying to identify coastal access where it is accepted by the Coastal Commission and the city that it is an access point generally open to the public. She stated that, confining the identifiers on this map to those types of coastal access points, is important. She referred to Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggesting identifying accessible locations and clarified that is not the point of this map. She emphasized the purpose of the map is to indicate locations that the public is generally able to access the coastline. She suggested that they limit this map to the coastal access areas only.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood but disagreed.

Mayor Vaterlaus noted there is coastal access in the middle of the berm not present in the map.

Councilmember Bier thought they needed a comprehensive map about coastal access.

Councilmember Boles stated that this is a key policy of the Coastal Commission to provide that access and to have it accurate so they know what we do have.

Councilmember Bier asked Council if they were okay with city staff reviewing the map for corrections, and she got consensus.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 3.5 and 3.6.

Councilmember Bier asked staff to help her understand Modification No. 3.7, where they changed the title to “bicycle roadway retrofit”.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was an expedient way to distinguish the issue that the Coastal Commission was concerned about, and suggested something like “complete streets, roadway, retrofits” would hopefully address her concerns and align with the Coastal Commission’s concern.

Councilmember Bier agreed.

Councilmember Boles thought we may not want to delete “such as coastal hazard concerns” and thought we needed to evaluate that as we do not want to be putting paths where waves are often overtopping and the danger as we have no way block off any of these paths.

Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that the reason it was struck out was because, when we talked to Coastal staff, they assumed that the city was saying additional analysis would include coastal hazard analysis. When we look at the policy, the policy is saying that additional analysis will identify areas in the city that are acceptable for retrofits to create complete streets. Staff deleted that suggested modification and added at the end that “retrofits will be consistent with the LCP”

2.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 28 April 15, 2024
which means that they will be consistent with the policies in Chapter 6.

Councilmember Boles concluded that, because they are not temporary structures, city staff would have to look at the coastal hazards.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 3.7, 3.8, 4.1, and 4.2.

Councilmember Boles stated, regarding Modification No. 4.3, there was public comment that said we did have to define a buffer and not have it be vague.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano reiterated the question of if the city has to define the buffer area.

Councilmember Boles stated that the Coastal Commission put in a buffer of a minimum of 50 feet and city staff is proposing to take that out for site specific, and she asked if we are required to have a buffer.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she is not aware if the city is required to have a buffer and deferred to Planning Director Murdock.

Planning Director Murdock stated all of the amendments were crafted in close consultation with Coastal Commission staff, and we spent time on this particular issue, explaining why deletion of that text (“and no less than 50 feet in any case”) was important for staff in the Pacifica context.

He stated that the buffers should be informed by expert advice from a biologist who is qualified to analyze the potential impacts and the protection needed. He stated that striving for 100 feet is clear in this policy, but there are any number of different circumstances that might warrant a reduced buffer in some instances advised by the expert biologist’s opinion. He had no reason to believe that the Coastal Commission staff will raise new issues with this as written, given the discussions city staff had with them. He thus would argue that they do have a buffer of 100 feet that is supposed to be the buffer, unless there are circumstances that justify a reduction. He stated that the Coastal Commission reduces the buffers below 100 feet routinely when needed and has done that on Pacifica projects in the past.

Councilmember Boles asked if they have reduced it to less than 50 feet on a project.

Planning Director Murdock stated there is no requirement for a 50-foot buffer or any specific buffer to his knowledge, but 100 feet is the best practice to strive for.

Councilmember Boles asked if we are expecting a site specific biologist to look at things regarding the ESHA map that are not defined in our General Plan.

Planning Director Murdock stated, if he understands the question, there is a misconception that, if it is not on the ESHA map, it is not protected, and he thinks that is not a correct understanding. He stated that there is a good faith effort to map environmentally sensitive habitat areas as they are known, particularly if there is critical habitat that may be adopted for a particular species by US Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

That high level habitat information is mapped to ensure these areas of interest will be protected.

He stated that there are plenty of other instances where site specific analysis will be needed and required in the LCLUP for biological resource impacts to plants or animal species, to perform wetlands delineations, to determine where those types of resources are located and need to be buffered and avoided. He stated that the ESHA map is a starting point, not an end point, in terms of ESHA protection, and that needs to be clearly understood.

2.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 29 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Boles asked if the biological reports typically analyze wildlife corridors.

Planning Director Murdock thinks the context needs to justify it. His understanding is that it is contextual, including linkages between different areas, and he would have to believe that those are relevant factors to be considered. Council will see at the end of the policy that resource agencies are supposed to be involved in that process as well, i.e. US Fish and Wildlife Service and CFW. If the biologist did not consider a wildlife corridor but those agencies believe that is a relevant factor, they have the opportunity to be involved in that.

Councilmember Boles stated that the next modification does not have those caveats with all the different agencies, but maybe they are covered under the one above.

Planning Director Murdock thought it may be a different set of circumstances as it is looking at temporary disruptions as determined by a qualified biologist, thereby somewhat lower standard of review in that sense.

Councilmember Boles clarified that she was talking about permitted uses within the buffers.

Planning Director Murdock reiterated that under Modification No. 4.3.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 4.3.

Councilmember Boles asked about the deletion of text in Modification No. 4.4.

Planning Director Murdock thought the deletion looked like it arose from General Plan consistency edits. It was also removed due to redundancy.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to check on Modification No. 4.14. The buffer areas concern her when they have ESHAs occurring immediately adjacent to existing developments.

She asked if this particular buffer is the same issue they had on the other page where they were keeping it more flexible and less prescriptive.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16.

Mayor Vaterlaus called a break and then reconvened the meeting.

Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Mayor Vaterlaus.

2.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 30 April 15, 2024
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bigstyck asked about the deletion of text in Modification No. 5.2.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was proposed to be deleted because there is a definition of “coastal bluff” as opposed to “bluff” in the glossary and he thought the Coastal Commission was trying to align the definitions in the text more precisely.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer had a question regarding Modification No. 5.1. She asked if city staff recalls the conversation or specific issue around adding “and coastal resources”. She knows Coastal Commission says it is adding clarifying language but she asks what that language actually means in terms of natural hazards. She understands public health and safety but not how it pertains to coastal resources.

Planning Director Murdock thought the concern was that there could be a need in the policies to address the way the environment is degrading other aspects of the environment as well with these policies and not simply hazards related to public health and safety, the way we have been more traditionally thinking of hazards from a local government context, i.e., protecting people and property, but protecting the coastal resources as well.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that Coastal Commission was making a vote for the beach and shoreline, not human aspects of the coastal environment.

Planning Director Murdock stated there are a variety of coastal resources that could be adversely impacted from hazards.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer assumed ESHA impacts as well.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding there is a range of potential coastal resource impacts that could be adversely impacted by coastal hazards.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.

Councilmember Boles stated she had a question regarding Modification No. 5.4. She did not think we can require prevention by vegetation, as a project may not impact the vegetation and we do not want to disturb the existing native vegetation already on the slope. She thought it could mean that putting new plants or new trees in an area could cause more erosion. She thought the word “require” was too much, suggesting maybe replacing with “consider” as it is not always appropriate.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she was suggesting “require” is too strong.

Councilmember Boles stated that city staff added it back.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she was saying we need to add it back.

2.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 31 April 15, 2024
Planning Director Murdock thought the focus was on restoring the overall policy intent and Coastal Commission staff was concerned that it could be an end run to support shoreline protection related to bluff erosion. That was not the intent of the policy, and what city staff did in the alternative modification was try to make it much more clearly applicable to hillsides related to slope stability and not bluff erosion from wave action.

Councilmember Boles thought it could be something handled on a project by project basis and not necessarily a policy that is broad and may not be appropriate everywhere.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the “require” language is a little unusual in the LCLUP policy document. Some other phrasing like “consider natural methods of erosion prevention to maintain some stability such as re-vegetation” or something else could be fine. The intent to support some stability was the policy objective. He stated city staff could make a change if there is some suitable alternative and suggested “incorporate natural erosion”.

Councilmember Boles asked about adding “where possible”.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they still have to protect the hillside.

Councilmember Boles stated that not necessarily if the area is not impacted and the plants on it are stable as is.

Planning Director Murdock thought the concern is, where erosion is a problem, action must be taken, but if the area is vegetated already and erosion is not a problem and slope stability is not a problem, then nothing would need to be done. He thought that was implicit in the structure of the policy but there may be a clearer way to state that; it is not suggesting that there is a stable slope without erosion problem but they need to clear it and then re-vegetate it to protect it. He stated that was not a reasonable interpretation.

Councilmember Boles asked if this could be handled project by project.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, but the project requirements ideally have a basis in the LCLUP as a policy that is being implemented at the project level. He understood the concern with “require” and he thought there is perhaps a better way to phrase this policy if Council believes that maintaining slope stability and minimizing erosion is important.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if the Council majority wants to direct staff to work on revising this language.

Council agreed.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 5.4.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, for Modification No. 5.5, they had 50 feet and now have 300 feet. She asked how the jump is justified.

Planning Director Murdock understood that it expanded the distance but indicated in coastal vulnerability zones. There is somewhat of a tradeoff, but most of those places are likely to be in coastal vulnerability zones. He also pointed out that projects potentially can impact the stability of bluffs much further away than 50 feet; having an extensive analysis of that is important from a hazard mitigation standpoint. 300 feet is the figure that the Coastal

2.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 32 April 15, 2024
Commission feels is appropriate for that purpose. He did not know that we have an alternative distance that is supportive of any evidence at this point to suggest. The point is reasonable that 50 feet is not that much when thinking about sizeable coastal bluffs, weights, drainage, etc., could affect the stability of the bluff.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she heard “300 feet” often in Coastal Commission meetings as a standard when it comes to bluff erosion and she was unsure if there was a basis for it.

Planning Director Murdock was also unsure. He compared it to the 100 foot ESHA buffer. He stated that someone has to draw the line somewhere and they come down on a coastal resource protective place in a lot of cases.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understands their concern but she is worried about the impact on our studies and our property owners and the proposals they bring forward. She assumed, based on this, 300 feet is determined to be the safest expectation they can cement into documents like this.

Planning Director Murdock stated they have not engaged on that particular point in relation to the distance. He thought more relevant is the fact that it is in coastal vulnerability zones and, as from the other policies, geotechnical analysis is required in a coastal vulnerability zone.

Councilmember Boles added that geotechnical analyses are required for a building permit for new development or substantial structural modifications and they would have to do it regardless and it is better to know that now.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 5.4 and 5.5.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about the deletion of text in Modification No. 5.6.

Councilmember Bigstyck wondered if it needs to be called “new development” if all development for the purposes of this document is new development, as per the definition.

Planning Director Murdock thought part of the issue is new development must be sited not to require shoreline protection and it will be required to waive rights to future shoreline protection so there is no need to include discussion of not accelerating the need for shoreline protection or increase the likelihood of needing a sea wall. He thought it was removed in that sense.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the Coastal Commission did not agree with the italicized part, “small improvement projects are exempt.”
Planning Director Murdock stated exceptions are addressed elsewhere, primarily in the implementation plan; city staff has a robust list in the zoning, so the reference is redundant.

Councilmember Boles understood there was an exception that modifying a structure by 10% did not need a coastal development permit.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating that they are either in the Coastal Act or the implementing regulations adopted by the state and there is an equivalent provision in city staff’s implementation plan that exempts that development.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer assumed it is not listed and attached to this particular policy, but it is

2.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 33 April 15, 2024
in the other policies.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 5.6.

Councilmember Bier stated she has a question about Modification No. 5.7. She stated that this is talking about flood zones in the coastal zone vulnerability maps and that goes back to what they were talking about before, i.e., the new data that might change those maps.

Planning Director Murdock stated that other agencies are mapping different types of flooding and FEMA maps do not account for sea level rise projections. The coastal vulnerability zone maps do; that change in sea level rise assumptions would change the city’s coastal vulnerability zone map for flooding projections. He stated that, in many cases, the FEMA maps will coincide with the coastal vulnerability zone maps but will be a smaller flooded area because they are not adding in increase of sea level rise as is in the plan currently. He stated that they may be related but in a different and important way.

Councilmember Boles shared a resident’s experience regarding insurance and sea level rise and flooding from that and reminded everyone to look at their policies.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 5.7.

Councilmember Bier stated Modification No. 5.8 used “tsunami hazard zone” but there was previously “tsunami inundation zone”. She asked why the language was changed.

Planning Director Murdock stated that this policy in Modification No. 5.8 is talking about considering siting and design of development and pointing out two kinds of hazardous areas that have relevant hazard considerations: 100-year flood planes (more conventional flooding) and tsunami hazard zones for potential tsunami inundation. In other policies, there is the discussion that the Coastal Commission wanted tsunami evacuation zones, i.e., the tsunami hazard zones for purposes of a deed restriction waiving rights to shoreline protection. He stated that, in any case, a deed restriction and some requirements will have to get to that. One is in the tsunami evacuation zone, which is a much broader area than likely tsunami inundation zones where the hazard is probably acute enough to justify that burden on the property for a deed restriction. He stated that, in using tsunami hazard and identifying a different extent of that hazard for different purposes, in this case it is probably okay to consider the potential first tsunami hazard because the area is potentially subject to inundation from tsunami and should be considered as a relevant hazard.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer did not understand why “with flood damage prevention programs” become “without the need for armoring”. She asked about other flood damage prevention programs. Sea walls or some hard armoring did not seem to her as the only options, but the way this is modified, it specifically is addressing just that point.

Planning Director Murdock thought they were all well-aware of the Coastal Act provisions about shoreline protection. He stated that this is just reflecting that in a different context where sometimes shoreline protection also provides protection from flooding even though its primary purpose is usually erosion protection. He thought it is highlighting that point and encouraging use of other techniques through the flood damage prevention program. He stated that it seems to reflect the baseline policy context that is elsewhere in the document, even though it deviated somewhat from the original language of the city certification draft.

2.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 34 April 15, 2024
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 5.8.

Planning Director Murdock stated, regarding Modification No. 5.9, the ordinance was not yet certified in the LCP, not that the Coastal Commission had an issue with the concept of the flood damage prevention ordinance.

Councilmember Boles asked how long ago did city staff create this document and are we going to be seeking certification.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the Coastal Commission’s position is that the city needs to, even though it is a federally required ordinance for purposes of mitigating flood damage.

City staff intends to undertake that as part of their implementation plan update. He thought they may have put the ordinance in place in 2017, at least prior to 2020.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 5.9.

Councilmember Boles stated that she had asked for a map regarding Modification No. 5.10.

She would like to understand the flood control structures, drainage channels, and stream beds.

Mayor Vaterlaus added culverts and drainage canals.

Planning Director Murdock did not know if the issue is terminology. The natural creeks are a designed part of the city’s stormwater infrastructure, which need to be routinely maintained to remove debris or vegetation overgrowth, etc. He stated the Coastal Commission recognized that initially and city staff wanted to point out the fact that the maintenance is necessary. The compromise was the maintenance could be done in compliance with the Coastal Act and protecting the resources during the course of that maintenance.

Councilmember Boles stated that was her concern, as these are very sensitive habitat areas.

Planning Director Murdock stated these need to be maintained and there is very little linear length of the creeks in the coastal zone relative to the overall maintenance obligation; regardless of what the LCLUP says, other resource agency permitting, such as from California Department of Fish and Wildlife, is required. He stated the LCLUP cannot give authorization to go do that work, as there is likely to be other permits and approvals required.

City Manager Woodhouse added that city staff is working on obtaining the Routine Maintenance Authorization (RMA).

Councilmember Boles asked what is Coastal Act Section 30236.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer read Coastal Act Section 30236. She voiced her concerns about maintenance of streambeds and creeks in neighborhoods and under highways.

Planning Director Murdock did not know the technical answer. As it pertains to the city as a public agency undertaking a project, it needs to obtain the authorization and should do so to make sure we are properly mitigating our actions. He did not know the answer for an individual private property owner doing reasonable maintenance in a creek area.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there are culverts all over Pacifica that used to be maintained by the city and now they are maintained by homeowners; people do have to maintain them and

2.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 35 April 15, 2024
they do it privately, as the city does not.

Councilmember Boles asked if some of the creeks are in private property.

Planning Director Murdock thought they may be in some instances.

Councilmember Boles asked if, in San Pedro Creek, people could do work in the creek even though that is a sensitive habitat area.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated there were some tree problems the winter before this one and the maintenance work that had to be done was private property requirement because of the stream slope. It was not the public agency, i.e. Pacifica, that did it because it was their private property so the city compelled them to do it.

Councilmember Boles asked if they knew they needed a permit.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer knew they were in contact with the city. She concluded that it does affect private property.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that people do own to the middle of the creek.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that PW Director Petersen did confirm that we do have the routine maintenance agreement with Fish and Wildlife.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, and 5.13.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked, regarding Modification No. 5.14, whether there could be a circumstance in which the city is denying the NCFA vegetation management program.

Planning Director Murdock thought possibly but unlikely. There are some potential situations where the laudable task to reduce fire hazard could run afoul of other LCP policies related to resource protection or other relevant hazards.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he had a major concern with this item.

Planning Director Murdock stated that Council will likely see in such an instance is that city staff will identify that potential conflict and need to find out some sort of alternative or mitigation to balance the competing policy priorities. He thinks it is just ensuring that there is coordination and consideration of potential impacts from such programs so they do not run afoul of the LCP in terms of coastal resource protection.

Councilmember Bigstyck thought, as long as there is a path whereby a resolution can occur in which that fire hazard is mitigated, he would ask if there is augmented language that might be helpful for that understanding.

Planning Director Murdock thought it is generally the case in a policy document context that there is a balancing act, mitigations that may be required, or alternatives that need to be pursued to achieve multiple competing policies that might call for different actions to occur.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he would appreciate some clarifying language around that particular policy. He would love to see some language about collaboration and cooperation in

2.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 36 April 15, 2024
NH-I-39.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer supported that.

Councilmember Boles asked if we have reviewed the NCFA vegetation management program.

Planning Director Murdock stated that we have not reviewed that.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 5.14.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggested reviewing Chapter 6 another time.

Councilmembers Bier and Bigstyck agreed.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that part of the reason there is a lot is because when Council and city staff wrote our LCLUP draft the first time, we renamed this chapter. We thought it fit their needs and reflected our community and our priorities very well, but it may have caused an additional amount of emphasis or focus. It is clear there is a lot to go through and she was sure that staff will have a lot to tell them about what the issues were with different specific policies in staff’s work with the Coastal staff.

Planning Director Murdock stated that what she might be alluding to is that the culmination of the vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning processes, which were lively with the community, was the formation of Chapter 6 that was added to the earlier 2014 version of the LCLUP. Everything that garners significant community interest in the 2017 - 2019 time frame related to essentially sea level rise related planning all got wrapped up in Chapter 6. It is dense and of great interest to Council and the community, and there is very important policy content that affects a lot of things in our community, including what homeowners can do with their property, things the city can do related to its infrastructure, and the whole issue of special resiliency areas and whether that is an appropriate policy construct to resolve some of the attention between the city and Coastal Commission that may have been present in this process.

He agreed there is much to discuss.

City Manager Woodhouse stated if Council does not want to continue tonight on Chapter 6, there are a couple of options. Council can continue this discussion at the next Council meeting on Monday and get through Chapter 6 then. City staff still have to come back with a properly noticed public hearing for adoption of the resolution at a different future meeting. If Council chose to continue this discussion on Monday, then they pick up where they left off and go through. He stated that he will need to rearrange some things off of the agenda for Monday.

The other option is to find a date for a different additional special meeting again on another day and continue this discussion, and if properly noticed, be prepared to wrap it all up and adopt the resolution to transmit to the Coastal Commission.

Council agreed to continue the meeting to Monday.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the motion would need to be to continue the meeting to a date certain, April 22.

City Manager Woodhouse added, since public input was already provided on the item, we do not need to redo public input on this discussion in that continuation.

2.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 37 April 15, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck thought that public comment would be a part of their considerations on Monday as the chair may or may not invoke that conversation.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they will decide that on Monday.

Councilmember Boles stated, before they vote, there are some questions about the SRAs and about the way that they might do this other tsunami inundation versus tsunami hazard map.

She would like to have a geotechnical engineer here so they can ask questions, if possible.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that her concern is that the consultant may not be specifically retained to comment or opine at a meeting on the LCLUP update. While there are on-call consultants that the city regularly uses, it may not be that someone is retained specifically to come and speak at a public meeting on this topic.

Planning Director Murdock thought staff can reach out to those they have access to as on-call consultants and see if any may be available and retained under a contract that would allow them to participate for this purpose and see if they are available on relatively short notice for a very complicated subject. He stated that, while they can make a reasonable effort, he does not know that they can commit to that.

Councilmember Boles added if there is PW staff that has more of that type of technical expertise that could be here that would be helpful.

Planning Director Murdock is not aware if there are PW staff who have that level of specific expertise that could opine on this.

PW Director Petersen stated that he is correct. They use outside consultants.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they can check on availability and see.

Councilmember Boles appreciated that.

Councilmember Bier moved to continue the meeting to a date certain, April 22; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.

CONTINUE MEETING TO A DATE CERTAIN, APRIL 22
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer requested an opportunity for clarification regarding a previous public comment.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they can just state for the record the clarification that needs to be made to the minutes.

City Manager Woodhouse read into the record that Mr. Spencer Potter clarified for the record that, during oral public comment made tonight, he was speaking in his individual capacity rather than as an official statement from San Francisco Rec and Parks Department, and the specific

2.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 38 April 15, 2024
comments he made were not approved ahead of time by SFRPD’s general manager or by the San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission.

ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 11:28 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 04-15-2024 Special Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
April 22, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on April 22, 2024 at 6:09 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION - SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Scott Leslie, Acting PB&R Director; Tara Schiff, Economic Development Manager; Stefanie Cervantes, Sr. Planner; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bier

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Preservation Award 2024 by the Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee to Julie Lancelle
Mayor Vaterlaus stated their first presentation will be the 2024 Preservation Award by Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee to Julie Lancelle presented by Chair Arlene Patton.

2.c
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 April 22, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, before they do special presentations, he wanted to remove Consent Calendar Item #5 from this agenda as it isn’t ready yet for Council deliberation, which is the Resolution of Intention to establish the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District. He stated that it will return to Council at a future date to be determined.

OSPAC Chair Arlene Patton stated that there are a few members who are present to honor Julie Lancelle who has served this community for many years. She gave a brief introduction sharing her relationship with her and then read the Preservation Award.

Ms. Lancelle stated that this town has been amazing in her 30 years here, and she was lucky to be here and is happy about her time here in this beautiful place. She thanked Council for what they do and asked them to call her if they need her.

Councilmember Bier stated Ms. Lancelle was very special to her and to our city. She stated that Ms. Lancelle led with love and integrity and thanked her for being her friend and everything she has done for our city.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he has been living in Pacifica for 40 years and she had a great part in building the community he grew up in. He thanked her for her work, not just on OSPAC but across the board.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked her for her leadership and appreciated her and thanked her for being so inspiring and kind.

Councilmember Boles recounted her first meeting with Ms. Lancelle and stated Ms. Lancelle was an example of what a difference just one person can make who is involved in their community and she thanked her.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Ms. Lancelle has always been true to what she believed. They all appreciate her so much and thank her for everything she has done.

Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that this town has a history of creating earth heroes for Earth Day and Ms. Lancelle has been her hero for a long time.

Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.

B. Proclamation - Mental Health Month - May 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that the next proclamation from Pacifica in recognition of Mental Health Month - May 2024 in Pacifica to reduce stigma, encourage support and promote wellness to address mental health and substance abuse conditions and then read the proclamation Councilmember Bigstyck provided his thoughts on Mental Health Month and thanked Councilmember Bier who is one of the founding mayors of the Mayors’ Mental Health Initiative.

Councilmember Bier expressed her thoughts on how important it is to check on each other and shared how that was made possible through the Mayors’ Mental Health Initiative. She hoped everyone checks on their neighbors and family and friends as it is important to have that support and for kindness.

2.c
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 April 22, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that there is often a stigma or fear about getting mental health services and conveyed that there should not be. She shared her personal story with mental health. She encouraged everyone at different times in their life to consider these services, as they may not need it today but may need it tomorrow or next week.

Mayor Vaterlaus thanked Councilmember Bier for the Mayors’ Mental Health Initiative and stated they would like to continue on with the Mayors’ Mental Health Initiative and celebrate the month as Mental Health Month.

C. Proclamation - Wildfire Preparedness Month - May 2024 Mayor Vaterlaus read the proclamation for Wildfire Preparedness Month - May 2024.

NCFA Fire Inspector Claire Shum thanked them on behalf of North County Fire Authority and reminded them that Wildfire Awareness Day is May 18 in the Community Center parking lot.

Councilmember Boles thanked her for being here and for the importance of the proclamation.

She announced to the public several other events about fire hazards and insurance: an insurance crisis meeting on Thursday, April 25, at the Hillsborough Town Hall, and an event regarding recovery from fire and floods held by County Supervisor Ray Mueller on April 29 at his coastside office.

Councilmember Bigstyck thanked those in the profession who are doing everything they can to keep us safe. He asked Fire Inspector Shum regarding ZoneHaven and fire reduction programs in the community.

Fire Inspector Shum stated she would check on the dates for the programs and provided information on ZoneHaven and Wildfire Awareness Day.

Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments and, seeing none, closed public comments.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Item No. 5 was removed from the Consent Calendar and they have Items Nos. 1 through 4.

City Clerk Coffey noted a correction for Item #3, the proposed resolution for the Economic Development Committee charter: an administrative correction needs to be made to Exhibit A so the content matches what is in the resolution. This was with respect to making a correction in the membership item and the terms and general provision item in Exhibit A to state, consistent with the resolution, that the membership of EDC will be comprised of nine community members appointed by City Council plus one non-voting ex officio as designated by the board of the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce, and under the terms and general provisions, this is where it would note that the City Manager or designee shall serve as staff liaison to the EDC and at least one councilmember shall be appointed by City Council to serve as committee liaison. She stated that the exhibit had incorrectly noted that the staff liaison was a member of the EDC, thus correcting the content to be consistent with the resolution language.

Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.

2.c
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 April 22, 2024
Dep. City Clerk La stated that there was one raised hand.

Sam Casillas, Pacifica, asked if this general comments.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it was for Consent.

Mr. Casillas stated he will lower his hand for now.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked, regarding Item No. 2, an alarm system for the new Civic Center buildings, if that means the buildings are almost done being built.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they are closing in on completion of the Civic Center.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was excited they are coming to the finish line of that very long process.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they hit a major milestone a couple of weeks ago with successful PG&E powering of the campus and there is a lot of details to still be undertaken such as the alarm system and other aspects. They are hopeful that they are close.

Councilmember Bigstyck moved that Consent Calendar Items Nos. 1 through 4 with No. 3 as amended by staff; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NOS. 1 – 4 (WITH ITEM #3 AS AMENDED), EXCLUDING ITEM NO. 5
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles

1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the following: (1) March 25, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.

2. Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Construction Services Agreement with HFS Systems for installation of the Civic Center Alarm System
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Construction Services Agreement with HFS Systems for installation of the Civic Center Alarm System in the amount of $78,795 with a $9,000 (~11%) contingency for a Total Budget Authority of $87,795.

3. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Revisions to the 2019 Economic Development Committee (EDC) Charter
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution of the City Council to approve the revisions to the Economic Development Committee (EDC) Charter, per the Joint Study Session on March 25, 2024.

4. Resolution of Intention to Continue the Business Improvement District Program and Levy the Annual Assessments for the Fiscal Year 2024-2025
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of

2.c
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 April 22, 2024
the City of Pacifica Confirming the Annual Report of the Advisory Board of the Pacifica Hotels and Business Improvement District (BID) and Declaring the City Council's Intention to Continue the BID Program and Levy the Annual Assessments for the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 at the Same Rate as Levied in the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Without Change" and set the date of June 24, 2024, for the Public Hearing on the annual levy of assessments on hotels within the BID.

5. Resolution of Intention to Establish the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution of Intention to establish the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District (PTMD). Adoption of this Resolution will result in a public meeting on June 10, 2024, and a public hearing on June 24, 2024, on the formation of the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District (PTMD) and the levy of assessments on hotels and short-term vacation rentals.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, shared her concerns regarding the idea of putting on a ballot measure for a City Council item of term limits in addition to her thoughts on the manner in which Council now does commission and committee appointments.

Sam Casillas, Pacifica, referred to the Beach Boulevard Resiliency project, and asked clarification on this project, sharing his thoughts and concerns on the issue.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bigstyck wished everyone Happy Earth Day. He attended CCAG and division events mostly. He was at the City Leaders Summit in Sacramento and the purpose of the event was to meet with local electeds at state level. Last week he talked to Senator Josh Becker, Assemblymember Diane Papan, Assemblymember Marc Berman, Senator Scott Wiener, and Assemblymember Gail Pellerin. He stated that, except for Assemblymember Pellerin, all of the others were officials with whom he talked about topics relating directly to Pacifica, such as Vehicle License Fee (VLF) tax, Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Coastal Commission (CCC). He stated that the county version of League of Cities was in Sacramento at the same time and he met County Supervisor Noelia Corzo as well as Santa Cruz Supervisor Justin Cummings who is the area representative on the Coastal Commission for us. He attended the Progress Seminar in Santa Rosa with other electeds and collaborated with representatives from Santa Clara County and San Mateo County. He spoke with San Francisco Supervisor Catherine Stefani and discussed things like our golf course and how one supervisor in San Francisco is viewing the land they have in our community. He had the opportunity to speak with Aaron Aknin with Good City Company to get an update on our Housing Element.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked Councilmembers Bigstyck and Boles and Mayor Vaterlaus for devoting their personal time to the Progress Seminar.

Councilmember Boles stated, from the last City Council meeting, following the public comment by Spencer Potter who worked for San Francisco in Dept. of Park & Rec, she decided to email the Board of Supervisors and Mayor of San Francisco to let them know what was going on and see if they might be able to get official input from them on our LCLUP. She stated that they were very grateful that she reached out and gave them the synopsis of what was going on.

2.c
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 April 22, 2024
They will be doing their own research internally and start to look at the CDP for the berm at the Sharp Park Golf Course, which is coming up for renewal in 2027. She stated that they said the struggle for them was that they manage many properties, and their priorities are on the properties in San Francisco. She stated that they have an ongoing project to improve the redlegged frog and garter snake habitats and she hoped we can learn more about that. She hoped this is the start of more cooperation and communication between us.

Councilmember Bier thanked the Pacific Beach Coalition for a wonderful Earth Day and Whale Fest. She also thanked Pacific Coast Television for all the work they do and they had a great open house. She thanked Mayor Vaterlaus and Councilmember Bigstyck for coming straight from the Progress Seminar to PCT. They had a fundraiser for Coast Pride at Table Wine and she thanked Table Wine for doing that. She reminded everyone that Blues and Brews was coming up on April 27.

Mayor Vaterlaus read a poem provided to Council by Clif Lawrence and thanked him for delivering this poem to Council as it is meaningful, especially for today.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated that May is a month of many different recognitions and he added that May is also Small Business Month and the City would like to recognize all of our small businesses that help make Pacifica a unique community we all enjoy. Small businesses support the local economy, employ local residents, encourage entrepreneurship, as well as youth entrepreneurship, engage in philanthropic and civic campaigns, and contribute to the vibrancy of the city. Thus, during May, the City wanted to encourage all residents to shop local and show our appreciation to our local businesses, the cornerstone of the community, and use their promotional Shop Pacifica cards expiring on May 12, and Small Business Week is April 28 through May 4.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated Wednesday is Administrative Professionals Day and she would like to thank all of our professionals, all administration, and everyone who works for the city.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.

CONSIDERATION

6. Continuation of Adjourned Special Meeting from April 15, 2024 - Modifications to the City of Pacifica’s Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP), including the Special Resiliency Area policies, and direction to staff regarding transmittal of alternative modifications to the California Coastal Commission PROPOSED ACTION: Continue deliberations from the Adjourned Special Meeting from April 15, 2024 to consider and confirm alternative modifications to the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP to be transmitted to the California Coastal Commission.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they already had public comments on this item and are not required to reopen public comments on the adjourned special meeting, but recommended that they reopen the public comments on this item and asked Council if there was consensus to reopen the public comments following the staff presentation. There was consensus.

Planning Director Murdock stated he is joined by Sr. Planner Stefanie Cervantes to continue the

2.c
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 April 22, 2024
Council’s work to go through the Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications and city staff’s alternative modifications in relation to the Local Coastal land Use Plan or LCLUP update process that has been ongoing for some time. He then briefly recapped the April 15 meeting.

Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.

Dan Yonts, Pacifica, shared his concerns and thoughts on the interpretations of takings in the LCLUP and asked that they not approve this current version of the LCLUP.

Joanne Gold, Pacifica, referred to a question on why mixed use was proposed for the undeveloped San Pedro Avenue Field at the previous meeting, and shared her thoughts on that discussion and her concerns on the issue and the final decision.

Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, urged Council to stick with the 2020 LCLUP that was sent in, and shared his concerns on this revision and the problems for residents and the city.

Jenifer Behling, Pacifica, appreciated the conversations on this issue and wanted to give them her no vote, sharing her concerns.

Marianne Osberg, Pacifica, stated she owns property and provides affordable housing and expressed her concerns if this plan goes forward and asked to stay with the 2020 LCLUP.

Richard Harris, San Francisco, stated he is with the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, and he has sent the city letters addressing the issues, and expressed his concerns on the current draft of the LCLUP and shared possible options to consider on environmental justice policy.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, expressed his concerns about misinformation on social media about this issue and shared the need for good information to counter misinformation.

Robine Runneals, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on going back to the 2020 LCLUP because the revised document is not fair or equitable to those living in the coastal zone and is concerned that the Coastal Commission is setting the city up for liability.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, reiterated what Clif Lawrence shared about information they heard and the public not being clear on what is going on, and shared her thoughts and suggestions on the issue for more clarification.

Sue Digre, Pacifica, commended both Clif Lawrence and Cindy Abbott for their comments, and she shared her thoughts on the creation of the Coastal Commission as well as how to clean up the disagreements with the agency.

Kimberly Williams, Pacifica, stated she is representing the Local San Mateo County Chapter of Surf Rider Foundation and they continue to support the Coastal Commission’s recommendations for the LCLUP and shared her thoughts on reconsidering the path the city is pursuing with the draft.

Marie Swan, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on the Coastal Commission’s responsibility as well as the city in protecting all homeowners in the coastal zone.

Naikaly, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on having Council take more time and giving the community more time to get more clarity and make the right decision.

2.c
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 April 22, 2024
Linda Acosta, Pacifica, urged Council not to adopt the LCLUP as it stands as it is inequitable and unfair, and offered suggestions for equality for all under the Coastal Act.

Amber Waters, Pacifica, appreciated other homeowners’ comments and shared her experience talking with other homeowners about all their concerns regarding their properties being at risk; thus, she hoped they do not go forward with the current state of the LCLUP.

Summer Lee, Pacifica, echoed some of the comments about the Coastal Commission not being the inventor of the SRA policy, and shared her thoughts on getting clarification from city staff on concerns by the community.

Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.

Planning Director Murdock reminded Council that, in the event they go back to public recreation chapter, there was a typo in PR-I-24 related to the Sharp Park Golf Course that should read “support the continued operation of golf at Sharp Park Golf Course consistent with CDP terms and condition and support development of additional recreational uses and upland portions of the park located outside the coastal zone east of Highway 1".

Councilmember Boles referred to Richard Harris’ comment and stated that we are saying we are supporting the continued operation at the golf course.

Planning Director Murdock stated that was city staff’s recommended alternative modification.

Councilmember Boles asked if the Coastal Commission said that in the suggested modification.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, and that is what city staff is recommending that the document include. He stated that, at the last meeting, Mayor Vaterlaus guided Council through and sought to determine whether there was an interest in discussing each line as they progress through, and staff is present to facilitate that with information and in response to questions.

Councilmember Bier stated that she heard some comments that it might be a good idea for Council to read some things so people can understand.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked what she is proposing be read, all of the boxes in the chart or just the proposed draft alternative modifications.

Councilmember Bier thought we have to be as clear as we possibly can be and she did not think they can be that clear if not reading what is in the chart and talking about it.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it sounds like she wants to read the city’s certification draft text, the CCC’s suggested modification, and then the draft alternative modifications.

Councilmember Bier thought, if we talk about making changes, we need to read them through.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if the majority of Council supports that recommendation.

Planning Director Murdock stated, for their meeting management and time management, there are 14 pages of Chapter 6 modifications to get through.

2.c
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 April 22, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse thought, as they went through the chart last week, they often would read the suggested change, as well as staff explaining the summary or reason for the modification. He stated that there may be some that are very lengthy and some that are short; as we go through each one, Council should be clear about sufficiently summarizing and/or reading and, if not, they’ll read more specifically if that works. He thought it could be line by line to make sure that it is clear what the alternate modification being suggested and why and any specific wording.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he feels like he is mired in a process that is bereft of clarity no matter how deeply into focus we would wish to bring it on any one of these given points. He felt that a lot of what is being asked from Council by Coastal Commission is born of circumstances that could not have been fathomed for more than 40 years when the Coastal Act was first put forth and now we are trying to grapple with that and he feels like there are many homeowners in town who are trying to make heads or tails of what another organization is trying to make heads or tails out of. He feels like Council is in a position in which there is no comfort or happiness and he felt the need to express that. In terms of the question of how we should best grapple with any given one of these points for the benefit of our community, he felt like it is up to any given one of Council to do whatever due diligence we feel is right to ask the questions that bring them clarity.

Councilmember Boles stated that she wants to acknowledge all the comments at this meeting and the letters and even some of the information on social media. She agreed that there is misinformation and confusion in the public. She stated that there were questions raised that make her want to go back and look at a policy from last week. She is not opposed to continuing to go through this and lay all their questions on the table but she does think they need more careful review in answering and make sure they are educating people.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that this is one of the most difficult things that she has ever done on Council. She was here for the 2020 Local Coastal Plan and was more comfortable then than she is now. When she receives the comments from the community, she feels like no one wants anything, and we are trying and doing our best to do the right thing.

Councilmember Bier noted this has always been a divisive issue as long as she can remember and she finds it telling that folks on each side of the issue are agreeing that they do not agree with Council. She thought we really need to take that into consideration because that does not happen very often in our community.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She stated that we are not anywhere near on the same page. She stated that the characterization of the 2020 LCLUP from public comment at this meeting is that the community agreed on it and they did not. She agreed with the point of view that not everybody was happy with that final document but it was a compromise we could live with and something we brought forward. She stated that we have been presented a complete redline of that in a way that has not been explained to the community except to say because the Coastal Commission will not approve it. She stated that, to her, is not sufficient. We are trying to come up with something that the Coastal Commission would approve. She stated that the Coastal Commission is not here to help us figure this out as that is not their role, yet the information we get from the community is put it forward to the Commission, let them be the one to tell us what to do. She stated that we cannot do both, and this is an inefficient and extremely unsuccessful process right now. She has not been able to come up with a suggestion for how to make it better. As she looks at the chart now, she could not even tell in the very first policy in Chapter 6, 6.1, what even got changed until she closely read the paragraphs in the first two

2.c
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 April 22, 2024
columns and what got changed is the sentence “protection of property rights is an important theme in this chapter” and that was struck by the Coastal Commission. She stated that they heard from last week that Councilmember Boles brought forward a question to the City Attorney to please clarify if it is the responsibility of the city to protect private property, and City Attorney said it was not. She stated that what is happening here is that we are tearing apart the people.

She did not know what the right way to do this is. She reiterated that this is the hardest thing we have ever done. She stated, right now, everybody would say they are getting 0% of what they want. She emphasized that there has been discussion about neighborhood approach to trying to address these very difficult issues across the state for years. She stated that Pacifica did not create the concept of Special Resiliency Areas. The Council is trying to discuss something in the theoretical possible but applied to the city and she does not feel like it is a successful process. She is asking herself if it is worth going through this line by line because, in the end, are we going to be any further along or any closer to agreement. She stated that she had a goal of getting the LCLUP updated and now we are getting to the hardest part of all and she does not know if we are going to be successful. She found it disturbing and bothersome when people remind us that we are the elected representatives of the community and half of the people who call in and chide them do not live here and are representing the interest of lobbying groups and calling out the interest of other lobbying groups that are referenced by this City Council. She emphasized that this City Council has not referenced any lobbying groups and brought them in to this process, and on the contrary, she personally has sought not for that to happen. She stated that the city has been struggling to provide a fair, balanced, even public process. The community is saying that it is not working for them, and she does not know what they suggest, as she is not hearing any suggestions, but accusations and criticisms toward the staff and the LCLUP document. Her opinion is that we should set this aside as this is holding us up and tearing us apart at the same time.

Councilmember Bigstyck posed the question of what happens if Council stops or abandons the LCLUP. Before that, he stated, regarding where SRAs come from, Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer struck him as the most likely person on the dais to have deep insight into exactly what the neighborhood carveout strategy that has been worked on by the Coastal Cities group in collaboration with some Coastal Commission members and Coastal Commission staff. He asked her, comparing to her experience in actively working on that notion, if it is something that could be a tool to help cities to work collaboratively with the Coastal Commission.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it has been an abstract, theoretical conversation, not trying to apply to any specific city in any specific instance, but the area it was trying to address is a very real situation when we have properties of different ages that have a right to protection under the Coastal Act because they existed before the Act was passed (also known as preCoastal). She stated that, when there are areas like Pacifica has in Sharp Park where almost every property on Beach Boulevard is pre-Coastal but not everyone, some would be entitled or have the right to protect. If there is any sort of shoreline protection armoring in place, they have the right to keep it and maintain it, but their neighbor, who may not have been there pre-Coastal, does not have this right. She thought that was inconsistent. She stated that sea walls are not supposed to be protecting private property, but if private property receives protection under the reality that some of this armoring is protecting critical infrastructure, the Coastal Commission understands and recognizes that; but they have not sought to allow for that, so they constantly state for any future development analyses must be done as if that protection was not there. She stated the intent in discussion was to state that it is there and what does it look like and how can they allow for certain areas because of their unique circumstance to allow that armoring to be part of the calculus. She stated that is the basis of the SRA concept. She stated that is the reality of trying to take the theoretical and apply it to specific situations with specific individuals.

2.c
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 April 22, 2024
She stated that Council has to come up with compromise, a baseline of agreement, and we are not doing that.

Councilmember Bier stated that she does not see the holistic view of the entire coastside, as she does not have a vision of what that is with this SRA for the different streets and districts.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the reality is that different physical challenges affect different parts of that coastline, and how do we address all of these different issues in the different parts of the city. She added that we are hearing clearly from the community that this is not well received. She stated that there is a lot of fear and perception of unfairness and lack of equity. She stated that Council has heard many times from many people about upholding the Coastal Act that was voted in and is a reflection of the will of the people. She stated that she is hearing do not try to interpret it or try to come up with other ways as there are already policies in the Coastal Act itself that take care of those things. She stated that Council has to figure out what does it mean for this community.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked about our Local Coastal Plan and our General Plan that are from the 80s and how outdated everything is and how the Coastal Commission goes back to the 70s.

She does not know the best approach either.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she is hearing Mayor Vaterlaus say they have to modernize and deal with the realities that are today.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated the realities that are facing them today, not in 1976.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer reiterated the previously made position about the best available science. She stated that the document says it is based on the best available science but that is not true. She stated we would update it and amend it, but she also asked if we were trying to adopt something before that is available or should we be waiting for that to be available.

Councilmember Boles stated that is something she is willing to consider, in light of what they are hearing from the public. She it is important and we have been doing it for a long time but a lot of this is new in just the last year and we are having a hard time understanding it and the public is as well. She considered taking their time, updating the science, and evaluating the SRAs. She appreciated all the people in Fairway Park and Sharp Park commenting about equity, and that is why she brought up the protection of private property. She mentioned properties that are on their own and she suggested that the Council talk about equity and how we are helping all of their residents move forward and how we are protecting our population from climate change.

She stated that the Coastal Act in 1977 also did not consider climate change so that is a new mandate that they have brought forth and the state government is supporting their work in managing cities, updating their Local Coastal Plans, to plan for what is ahead. She thought those vulnerability maps are important so we know what projects they need to do, how we can improve the flooding in the golf course and on Clarendon because those were arising and increasing, and residents are at risk. She stated it is the work of elected officials to do this hard work to plan and have a vision for the future. She agreed it is hard work and takes a lot of time, and she did not think we should rush it.

Mayor Vaterlaus referred to all the work that city staff has done over and over in years and trying to make something that everybody would agree on and it would go forward. She stated that the SRAs were to try to help, not hurt. When she learned the first description of the SRAs, she thought it was the greatest thing and then we listen to people and we hear the opposite.

2.c
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 April 22, 2024
She respects our city staff and everything they have done. She came here grappling with the fact of what if she votes no. She acknowledged that it is difficult.

Councilmember Boles stated that city staff worked on the SRAs because they thought that the Coastal Commission’s modifications were not going to be approved by Council. She stated that we never talked about that, but that is the work they have been putting in. She is okay going through the policies and trying to understand tonight. She does not know the next steps and what the path is forward.

Mayor Vaterlaus called for a break and then reconvened the meeting.

Councilmember Bigstyck thought Councilmember Boles made the assertion that we have not had a conversation around the 2020 draft. He would like to lead into that conversation and assert that city staff has worked more collaboratively with Coastal Commission staff over the course of the last several months than any of the impressions he has had since 2018. He stated, if city staff is collaborating in a way that they had not been before, that is something he is not comfortable easily disregarding. He also acknowledged, if the community is saying this is not the way to go, he is not disregarding it if that should happen to be the outcome. Coming back to Councilmember Boles’ point, he stated that, given the recommendations of Coastal staff, based on our 2020 draft, if Council were to go forward with the draft as written anyway, with or without accepting the recommendations, he thinks what is being proposed is do not accept the recommendations. He asked if Council thinks one way or the other, if we were to present the 2020 Plan as is today, would we get closer to updating or would it be abandoned.

Councilmember Bier stated that we did submit the 2020 version and it came back with all of these suggested modifications. When she hears people say that go back to the 2020 version, she stated that the 2020 version is not what the Coastal Commission is going to accept.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated the suggested modifications come from Coastal Commission staff based on informed staff relationship and knowledge of the process that happens with Coastal Commission. She stated that she has heard from community members that it never had a hearing and was never discussed publicly and it should be. She stated what does staff think about that and what happens if we say it is done and are resubmitting our homework.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, if Council thinks it would be helpful, one thing city staff can do is reiterate some of the main points about the legal and regulatory framework that we are in and remind everyone what is the Local Coastal Land Use Plan, what is the purpose of that, and what are the pros and cons of a 45-year old document versus a modern one. He stated that they can talk about that to refresh why city staff is doing this and why has it been a major strategic priority for City Councils of Pacifica for so long. He stated that it remains a major strategy of Council and that is where the direction from Council to city staff to work on this comes. He stated that the challenge is the authority that the Coastal Commission has in practice and law about what cities on the coast do. The city went through a process and reached the 2020 submittal and Coastal Commission staff’s recommendation to the Commission was very resounding suggested modifications to the document. In the process, the Coastal Commission published their suggested modifications and the Coastal Commission was set for the hearing two weeks later; the way the process plays out is Coastal Commission would hear it, review staff’s suggested modifications, and send that document back to Pacifica’s City Council to accept it as edited or start the process over again. It was the judgment that the city staff want more time to work collaboratively with Coastal staff, which has been a major Council strategic planning priority, because the chasm was so large between the 2020 submittal

2.c
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 April 22, 2024
and the Coastal staff modification. There will need to be compromise in order, in any possibility, to get a certified LCLUP which gets back to the point about why and what is the benefit of having a modernized and certified LCLUP versus relying on a 45-year-old document. He would say that the suggested modifications on the 2020 LCLUP submission would have come back to City Council and we would have started the LCLUP process all over again because Council would not have accepted what the Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications were throughout the document. He asked regarding contextual information if we want to review what the role is of the LCLUP in a city, why is it important to a community, or what are the benefits in these alternative modifications compared to a 45-year-old LCLUP. He stated that we summarized a lot of those in the case studies prepared for previous meetings. He stated this is a very difficult process and this is new to Coastal Commission and new to city staff and we worked hard to try to come at it in creative ways, such as creating all of those case studies, to show what this really mean in practice for property owners. He noted how important it is and how local government works versus state government regulatory agency and there is a whole framework there that is hard to grasp but contain legal aspects to working in that system.

Planning Director Murdock stated that everything the City Manager said about the process and the mechanics of the LCLUP certification is correct. He stated that, should the city have proceeded in March 2023 or chooses to proceed at some point with a plan comparable to the February 2020 plan adopted by City Council, that plan will be modified by the Coastal Commission, perhaps in ways even more far reaching than the staff recommendations from the Coastal Commission staff, and City Council would have 180 days to accept those modifications or start over. He thought it was important to recognize that a choice not to proceed with this update has various consequences, i.e., consequences of continuing on indefinitely or a prolonged period with the 1980 LCLUP. He stated the 1980 LCLUP is not structured and does not identify the needs of the community in the same way that they exist today in 2024. The needs have changed very much in 40+ years: environmental needs have changed, certain successes have been achieved in terms of open space protections, shoreline protection exists where it did not before, and housing needs are as acute as they have ever been in our community. He stated that there are a variety of challenges that the 1980 LCLUP will prevent City Council from addressing for the community, and it is important to recognize that, if a choice is made to continue with the 1980 LCLUP more directly or perhaps more technically, there will be practical challenges with administering this city with the 1980 LCLUP and a 2040 General Plan. He stated that there are many inconsistencies between those documents, some of which can be managed on a project review basis or a city operational basis, and some which will be difficult to manage and thus we will revert to the 1980 LCLUP in the limitations and perhaps outdatedness of some of those components. He stated at a high level there are consequences to a decision not to pursue an LCLUP on a nearer term timeline. He stated that, in terms of timeline, city staff is postured to achieve an LCLUP certification on the shortest possible timeline that he can imagine. He stated that today we have the attention and willingness to think creatively and compromise with the Coastal Commission staff in a way that he has not seen it in his time approaching ten years with Pacifica. He stated we are meeting face to face regularly in the spirit of compromise in effectuating an outcome that both agencies can live with. That is the staff-to-staff judgement and, ultimately, what matters is Council’s judgement and the Coastal Commission’s. He stated that, choosing to do a more robust start over or expanding new areas of analysis, realistically, in terms of timeline, puts them a year to two years out from having any other culminating event of a certification hearing. He stated that is the reality of the process that they would be starting rather than the process they would be concluding with this plan. He stated that tradeoffs and compromises, as well as consequences, are for the City Council to consider.

2.c
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 April 22, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that right now we seem to have a working relationship with the Coastal Commission staff. He asked Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer for her recollection of a comment that Congresswoman Eshoo made to her during a city tour.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we were standing on the pier and we were showing Congresswoman Eshoo the damage and talking about our plans for Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency project, working with Army Corps, and asking for her assistance in continuing with that work, and Congresswoman Eshoo had concerns about our relationship with the Coastal Commission. Congresswoman Eshoo said that Council needs to work with the Coastal Commission. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer said her takeaway was that Congresswoman Eshoo’s read on how well we were working with them was going to factor into how likely we were going to receive support. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought that made sense because why would we want to put a lot of effort into something that will fail. She stated that the point is that we had to get closer to agreement. She feels we are doing that and is continuing. She thought we have made progress and there is learning in the process as she says that any community that tries this is going to experience. She stated that there are private property owners in every community and there are reasons that communities have pulled back and decided to hold with what they have because of the perception of overreach and taking control from state regulatory agency of things that are properly in control of the local jurisdiction. She stated that the city has to live within this environment where we have every kind of agency to balance and figure out in running our city and moving our city forward. Private property owners who happen to own in the coastal zone are in a position where those things affect them more than other property owners in Pacifica. She is beginning to fully grasp the interplay between all those other agencies and other regulators and our city and our permitting. She asked how our city takes all that and factor it into approvals for permits and feedbacks to projects that are proposed. She asked what part does the city permit and what part do they refer to other agencies for other approvals.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we did have those tours after the Coastal Commission meeting. He stated the reason he brought that up specifically is that Congresswoman Eshoo specifically gave Councilmembers helpful advice that we need to have strong collaboration with the Coastal Commission. He stated that we have other things they need to bring before Coastal Commission, such as the Beach Boulevard Resiliency Infrastructure project. He feels that is a legitimate concern as they try and figure this out.

Planning Director Murdock stated he has been hopeful in the course of discussions with Coastal Commission staff over the last year of working towards some greater understanding of our respective interests and ways that we can align them in the LCLUP, that they would be able to use this as a launch pad to even better relationships over the years for other very important activities for our community, like the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency project, like addressing the needs of other parts of our town that are succumbing to coastal erosion and other needs that we have not identified yet where we need to think creatively, move quickly, and understand each other more effectively. He is not sure that whatever the outcome of this process is will necessarily adversely impact the relationship in the bigger picture. He is more concerned about is the ability to get the same time and attention for another attempt at this beyond the one that we have spent so much time undertaking on the city’s side and they have taken so much time undertaking on the Coastal Commission’s side. He stated that they are putting a lot of chips on the table from their staff side to try to line up the support internally and with the Coastal Commission for a compromise that there are few, if any, examples of on a statewide basis, and we have tried to be an equal partner in that in trying to get Council to think more broadly about compromise in the policies as well. He stated people on city staff’s side and

2.c
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 April 22, 2024
Coastal Commission staff’s side have not thought of some other master compromise that might be acceptable to both agencies.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked about resubmitting the 2020 LCLUP draft.

Planning Director Murdock stated, in his professional assessment, he did not think there was any viable path to that February 2020 LCLUP being certified. They have significant evidence to suggest that is the case with 125+ suggested modifications.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked, if we start the process over, it would take two years.

Planning Director Murdock stated, the February 2020 LCLUP is not adequate, there is a need to essentially start a fresh planning process to figure out what other way to write this LCLUP with community input, analyzing the needs of the various parts of our community, and doing that from the ground up. That is what he was reflecting while recognizing that is a 1-2 or longer year process.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that now we have to factor in SB 272, which says our sea level rise adaptation needs to be updated by 2034. He asked Planning Director Murdock if he could help him understand with a picture of what it looks like if the only thing they are working on going forward is the 1980. He stated that is independent of Senate Bill 272.

Planning Director Murdock stated the first thing that came to mind for him was a Rube Goldberg contraption where we have this magnificent challenge of different things moving and trying to work together that are not designed for that purpose and trying to synchronize a General Plan which is the guiding document for our city with something 40+ years old and not at all intended or drafted to be aligned with it. He thought there will be some inventive approaches needed to manage that, and there will be instances where we cannot manage that because the differences between the two are so significant or one document is silent on key issues in a way that both documents need to cohesively address. We will be scratching our heads saying what do we do and he does not know if we will get the right outcomes. We will probably be triggering many project level local coastal program amendments and that is an inefficient way for city staff and for applicants to need to undertake our development process.

Councilmember Boles asked what it means for the Sharp Park Specific Plan that they have invested a lot of time and money if we are stuck with a 1980 LCLUP.

Planning Director Murdock thought it leads to a much longer time frame before that document is likely to be certified. We had conceptualized integrating that into the baseline of a new LCLUP rather than essentially taking a new plan in the Sharp Park Specific Plan and trying to plug it in to the 1980 LCLUP. He stated that they need to be consistent with one another and it is hard for him to imagine how that would occur. If we were to talk about another 1-2 years to start over some sort of LCLUP process, we are thinking about 2-4 years before the Sharp Park Specific Plan might be certified in a best case scenario.

Councilmember Bier asked if it was possible to address the inconsistencies in the General Plan without the SRA.

Planning Director Murdock stated, if he understands the question, he thinks the answer is yes.

The SRAs are not a required policy. The Coastal Commission proposed modifications that would have had a Coastal Act-compliant LCLUP without the SRAs. The SRAs were and are an

2.c
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 April 22, 2024
attempt to try to use unique characteristics of Coastal Act-supported development, coastal access, etc., to justify an alternative approach that would be incidentally more protective of private property and would allow greater development potential of those private properties as a consequence of all the public benefits that closest to the shoreline. He stated that is not a required approach but the alternative is that everyone gets the most restrictive treatment in the LCLUP, which is most closely aligned to the traditional Coastal Act approach. He stated that the Coastal Commission was willing to think of this alternative conflict resolution process where they would undertake a departure from their traditional most restrictive regulations to allow protection for these Coastal Act-consistent uses. He stated that it is a lot to get them to contemplate and consider that, which has been the product of significant effort between staffs to show the need to do that. If we were to think of a new way to compromise and try to advance the LCLUP, there are complexities with that approach as well.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to go back to his comment about the most restrictive policy, and what she is hearing from the community is that there is not equity in this proposed draft.

There are much more restrictive policies being applied to some compared to others. She stated that she read many emails asking to treat everyone the same and she is hearing him say that it would be done through the most restricted way possible.

Planning Director Murdock stated that is his assessment of the situation and he thinks that is reflected in the suggested modifications from the Coastal Commission that would have set the most restrictive baseline across the city. He stated that is a plan that clearly had a good chance of getting certified by the Coastal Commission. He stated that the February 2020 plan approved by City Council was a pro-protection, pro-development plan that the Coastal Commission staff concluded was inconsistent with the Coastal Act. He thought it was a false promise to the community, from his professional assessment, that there is any chance that a February 2020 like plan can get certified by the Coastal Commission, and to suggest to go back to that is a suggestion to stay for an indefinite period with the 1980 LCLUP, as that will be the consequence of pursuing the February 2020 LCLUP with the Coastal Commission. He stated that the alternative is whether there is another way where some of the community can result with more protection as a compromise and facilitate ongoing protection of very important coastaldependent and Coastal Act-supported uses like public streets, public infrastructure, trails, public parking, and visitor accommodations that provide key sources of tax revenue for our community.

That is an approach that the SRAs facilitate and is not at the expense of other communities; it is to the benefit of the SRA areas, but is not more restrictive for the areas outside of the SRA in order for the SRA to be enabled. He stated that everyone would have the non-SRA approach without the SRAs. He does not know that there are a lot of incremental benefits to be gained for those areas in a baseline treatment. He stated treating everyone the same in equity in this context means everyone gets the most restrictive policies.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked for an overview of SRAs again.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the key function of the SRAs is that where they exist, properties behind that line can factor in the protection provided by the existing shoreline protection structures. Without the SRAs, the standard Coastal Act approach that is endorsed by the Coastal Commission is to act as though there is no shoreline protection in place. That means, for areas subject to coastal erosion for instance, which much of our coastline is subject to significant coastal erosion hazard, those sites will need to analyze their developments as though there was no protection and they would be subject to the maximum coastline erosion hazard and that will significantly impact the development potential of those properties. City staff will strive to avoid takings which many people are concerned about, but that is going to mean

2.c
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 April 22, 2024
allowing the minimum amount of development necessary to avoid a taking. That may mean putting a modular home or something that can be easily relocated in 15 or 20 years when the coastal erosion advances, but that is probably not what we want for our community for the long term if there is an alternative. He stated that is the key functional piece, i.e. we can treat the shoreline protection as being there because it is there. He stated that there are other tradeoffs, like having to put together a shoreline management plan and making some public investments in improving the shoreline and evaluating opportunities to remove shoreline protection. To Councilmember Boles’ point, some of those activities could have important financial impacts and that needs to be thoroughly thought through when preparing the shoreline management plan and, if the choice is made not to pursue that, the SRA policies would be suspended because the city did not commit to that offset. He stated that the key question is does Council want areas where they can get it to have more development potential and rely on the protection of the existing shoreline protection. He stated that is the essence of it. If they want everyone to be required not to get protection and account for the protection, that is the baseline most restrictive approach and that is Coastal Act-complaint. City staff has been working hard to find an alternative approach where we can justify it and would also be consistent with the Coastal Act.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if the West Fairway neighborhood was considered in the SRA.

Planning Director Murdock stated yes, city staff had several specific conversations with the Coastal Commission staff about that neighborhood and the Coastal Commission staff’s contention was that the same sort of concentration and significance of factors is not present along that stretch of the shoreline. He stated, given the unique distance from the shoreline, the applicability of the hazards there (primarily a flooding hazard, not a coastal erosion hazard), there is room to consider alternative approaches whereas, along Beach Boulevard, there is essentially no or very little space to adapt. It is the compound effect of circumstances in West Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach that make those strong candidates for this creative approach with the Coastal Commission that are not present in the Coastal Commission staff’s assessment of West Fairway Park. Looking objectively, he thinks they have a reasonable argument and, if that is the argument that they pursue with the Coastal Commission, he has no doubt that the Coastal Commission will not allow an SRA in West Fairway Park. Therefore, he would not recommend extension to include West Fairway Park. He stated, even if the SRA was applicable there, it would not make any difference because the SRA’s key function is they can rely on the protection of the existing shoreline protection and that is not protecting them from flooding and coastal erosion is not the applicable hazard through year 2100 at the very least.

Councilmember Bier asked if he can explain to her what the negative effects will be for the West Fairway Park neighborhood to not be in an SRA and what does it look like for them.

Planning Director Murdock thought the immediate answer is that there is no benefit to them being in the SRA, given the function of what the SRA does. He does not think they are any better or worse off with or without the SRA. It is a good faith relationship component with the Coastal Commission to come back to them with something that is making the exception to the rule by drawing the line farther than it needs to be to have it a narrowly tailored alternative approach, which is the SRA compromise that the staffs have discussed.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked why there is no benefit to the West Fairway Park community to be in an SRA.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there is not one now, based on his understanding of the

2.c
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 April 22, 2024
applicable hazards and the relationship of those hazards to the shoreline protection. He stated that it is not only a matter of more development in the SRA, but also a matter of considering the protection provided by the shoreline protection structure. For the modeled coastal erosion hazard, the berm might be attenuating that erosion, but that does not get anywhere near the neighborhood through the projections through the year 2100. The small part of the West Fairway Park neighborhood in a coastal vulnerability zone is subject to flooding, not coastal erosion, so the existing shoreline protection is not providing that protection from the model flooding hazard currently.

City Manager Woodhouse added that, if the city is able to successfully close the Clarendon gap flood point for Clarendon area, then the golf course and Fairway West benefit from that, and approval of the SRAs for West Sharp Park, not directly but indirectly, as a policy matter benefits the permitting with the Coastal Commission of the BBIRP Project.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the City Manager is explaining that the protection that the West Fairway Park neighborhood needs would come from the BBIRP Project and closing the Clarendon gap. He stated that, with BBIRP, presuming that it is approved and constructed and designed in this manner, it could mitigate that flood hazard which would potentially eliminate those portions of the neighborhood from the coastal vulnerability zone and relieve them from the most restrictive components in this LCLUP that is recommended with or without potentially reduced sea level rise projections as well with the new Ocean Protection Council data. City staff has not run those models and not had the opportunity to do that with a technical consultant, but conceivably, lower sea level rise would result in fewer areas subject to a flooding hazard, and that is another way potentially that the West Fairway Park neighborhood would benefit and that would have much more impact than an SRA would in this context.

Councilmember Boles stated she is not clear that the BBIRP, even closing the gap, is going to eliminate the flooding, as we saw the overtopping this year and knowing that GHD is not designing the new sea wall to stop all of our overtopping. She thought there would still be some flooding, but maybe less. She stated that there were other policies about adding pump stations in Sharp Park and, as they go through the policies, there is talk about interior levees in the golf course area and some of those are to keep the flooding from the streets and going into the golf course and vice versa. She stated that there are other ways we can work to reduce the flooding in those areas even though they are not being helped fully by the armoring.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding there is significant support in this LCLUP as city staff recommended it to Council for flooding mitigation in various ways, i.e., flood proofing infrastructure, adapting development out of flood-prone areas, and undertaking other types of engineering interventions like pumps or levees that would mitigate flood hazards, and there are multiple policies that support that. He stated that is the key issue for that neighborhood, not related to SRAs which is primarily related to coastal erosion hazards.

Councilmember Boles thought there was still a lot of confusion about substantial structural modifications. She stated that they were going over the definition first. She stated one of the questions is are the substantial structural modifications any different in the SRAs than in the rest of the town.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the definition is not different but the consequence of exceeding the threshold of an SSM is somewhat different in and out of the SRA. Outside of the SRA, one would need to remove all of the existing non-conformities on the property with city regulations, whereas in the SRA, it is limited to those applicable to the relevant coastal hazard

2.c
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 April 22, 2024
only.

Councilmember Boles thought the staff report said Council would consider that later.

Planning Director Murdock stated that she may be recalling the discussion of waivers from standards, but that is not the same thing.

Councilmember Boles stated that she needs more clarification on that. She then asked, if someone is doing a substantial structural modification, they have to record their deed restriction and cannot rely on armoring in the future, but she asked if that prevent them from doing another remodel or addition in the future. She thought it did not.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the SSM definition does not directly prevent someone from doing anything at all, but it does require a fresh assessment of that proposed development to bring it as closely in line with standards for what would be new development today. The idea is, if someone making significant investments in their property, they should bring it closer in line to the current regulations. It is a conventional theory of non-conformity, i.e., someone is allowed and entitled with a vested right to keep their development the way it was permitted, unless they redevelop that or, in this case, exceed a substantial threshold of additional improvements, such as 50% structural change. He stated that, over time, properties might need to alter the way that the development is situated, such as elevating a structure out of flood hazard or pushing it further away from a coastal erosion hazard. Then, perhaps the development would be able to be permitted. He stated that it is not preventing or prohibiting development simply because you trigger an SSM.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought what makes it prohibitive is the increased cost, and she thinks that is where we getting the push back and concern legitimately. She also referred to the earlier point about ESHA and how an updated LCLUP reflects the environmental concerns of today. When we have wetlands that are reduced by drainage ditches, it is a wetland and then all the ESHA requirements pertain. She stated when we are talking about the vested rights to the existing building the way it was when it was first built, that does not count anymore. She stated that all the new ESHA requirements is what has to pertain to that property.

Planning Director Murdock thought that was generally right, but many people jump to the conclusion that, then, they will not be allowed to do anything with their property, and he thinks that is a false conclusion. He stated that what this is requiring to be done is to confront the reality of today, i.e., there are sensitive environmental resources, and steps should be taken to avoid losing those resources and thoughtful project design should try to avoid impacting those resources. He thought so much of what is in this LCLUP could be summarized by the word “disclosure” where the 1980 LCLUP is silent on so many of these issues. He stated that the law is still there, looming somewhere outside of the 1980 LCLUP, but someone may not find out about it until it is too late, either in the city’s review process or in an appeal to the Coastal Commission, without any idea at the outset of their project that they need to consider these factors, like hazard mitigation, analyzing where erosion will be, and considering where the wetlands might be approximate to the property. This document takes a great leap forward in disclosure of what all the applicable laws and requirements to develop will be.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she wanted to talk about deed restrictions and impacts on valuation that those policies would have. She stated that is different than we currently have.

She stated that one thing about the 1980 LCLUP is that there were not deed restrictions, and that is a big problem for people in our community or any community. She asked what about

2.c
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 April 22, 2024
deed restrictions, indemnifying the city, and the larger issue of what about the city, through the process of these LCLUP policies, taking on a legal risk of lawsuits from property owners because the city is imposing deed restrictions. Deed restrictions exist in today’s world, and they are imposed by the Coastal Commission when appeals happen. She stated that what she is understanding is that city staff is going to cut all that out and put it in our LCP because that is acceptable to Coastal staff, but she asked what the downside implications are of that and which agency pays.

Planning Director Murdock stated keeping focused on the theme of disclosure is important, as ignoring deed restrictions in our LCLUP does not make them go away and for projects that end up before the Coastal Commission those will be requirements. He thinks there is an interesting tension where some are asking for equal treatment of properties. However, were Council to take mention of deed restriction, assuming it made it through the Coastal Commission process, that is going to result in an unequal outcome as well for the community, where some properties that are in the appeals jurisdiction have a high probability of ending up with those deed restrictions and properties that are outside of the appeals jurisdiction perhaps will not. He thought the potential exists that more development will get appealed and be changed in some way by the Coastal Commission the more that our LCLUP is out of step with what we expect is the reality of the Coastal Commission acting on those projects. Staff has seen several projects where the City Council took a very aggressive pro-development approach, intentionally or unintentionally, based on the 1980 LCLUP, only to see a very different outcome at the Coastal Commission. He stated that, regarding payments, it is a difficult question. He thought it was important to recognize that the City Council routinely takes actions, whether through the General Plan or zoning or various ordinances that affect different properties in different ways, affect property values to the benefit of some and the detriment of others. He stated that those, in and of themselves, are not takings, but they do have real world impacts on property value.

To maximize property value, Council might want to allow 50 units per acre on every property in the city, but there are reasons not to do that and there are some properties that get to do that and some that get to build one house on their property. He stated that City Council, in legislating in general, requires making those tradeoffs and those balancing decisions. In recognition of the Coastal Act and what the law says about new development not relying on shoreline protection, the LCLUP is effectuating and disclosing that reality that the law will not allow them to have shoreline protection for their new development in the future. He asks if it is better or worse to tell them now or later when they seek the shoreline protection and are told their development is not eligible and it gets back to disclosure.

Councilmember Bigstyck feels there is this heightened awareness and sensitivity to the notion of takings. He stated we are talking about a policy that is in alignment with coastal policy. He stated that, if we put in a deed restriction on our end versus them putting in the deed restriction on appeal, it seemed that may change which agency may get sued over the question of takings.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that may be correct, but there is a number of areas of the city where the appeal jurisdiction is not the Coastal Commission. She stated that the city makes the determination in the first instance and would be applying our policies and regulations.

Councilmember Bigstyck agreed and asked confirmation that we are not currently requiring deed restrictions the way Coastal Commission would have us vis-a-vis our current LCP.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed. She stated that we do use deed restrictions for other types of land use decisions. She stated that it is not something completely foreign to land use determinations or reviews. She stated that, in this case, the city would be using the deed

2.c
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 April 22, 2024
restrictions as part of our regulatory documents in the manner that Planning Director Murdock mentioned in order to disclose restrictions on the property that runs with the land.

Planning Director Murdock noted previous feedback from the Council that it would have been great if people knew before purchasing a home on a specific street that there were significant restrictions or hazards applicable to the property. The deed restriction, for better or worse, is one tool to provide that disclosure so that property owners are making informed decisions prior to purchasing property. He stated that there will be a tradeoff potentially for the current property owners in relation to that transaction, but Council is being asked to balance the impact on those current residents and future residents of our community. He thought this deed restriction is one of the important dimensions, and it was important to consider whether the LCLUP would be certified by the Coastal Commission without these provisions. He stated that Council could make the choice to remove and see if it gets added back, but it will more than likely be back in the same position 6-12 months from now after that process concludes and being forced to make that tough decision.

Councilmember Bigstyck feels that they have all asked the questions around the pertinent point and the last question remaining is to analyze Chapter 6 or not to analyze Chapter 6.

Councilmember Bier stated she cannot answer that question yet because she thought it would be good for her to clearly understand what the ramifications will be for each section of our coastline if we do not have the SRAs. She asked, if they accept the suggested modifications and they do not have the SRAs, what that looks like for each part of our coastside. She felt she was not getting that picture in the wording of all the policies.

Planning Director Murdock stated that much of Pacifica’s coastline has no existing shoreline protection. He stated that, with or without SRAs, those areas would have a standard Coastal Act approach where development is proposed and that proposed development would need to be analyzed as though no shoreline protection is there and takes full account of the applicable coastal hazards. He stated that typically, most impactfully, is coastal erosion. For properties threatened by coastal erosion, their ability to obtain shoreline protection through the Coastal Commission permit hinges on whether they are considered as existing development or not. He stated that is the set of complicated issues about 1977 and later (new development) or 1976 and earlier (existing development). He stated that is the case for every place outside of the SRAs, up and down the coastline. He stated what is different for the SRAs where those policies are to be enacted is they can consider the protection provided by the existing shoreline protection structures; the simple assumption is that, in almost every case, that will create significantly more development potential for those properties, giving them greater property values. He does not think it is realistic to get that same policy approach for the entirety of the coastline because shoreline protection is not there and because then it is no longer the exception but the rule; the rule is that the Coastal Act does not allow that and discourages armoring and only allows it to protect existing development. He stated that the SRAs would allow new and existing development to rely on the benefits of the shoreline protection.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if she is correct that Pacifica did not make the coastal vulnerability zones or the tsunami inundation zones and Council cannot change those zones.

Planning Director Murdock stated that Pacifica did have a consultant prepare those zones and used the coastal vulnerability zones but, based on publicly available or third party data, the city staff did not prepare our own technical hazard analysis to inform those maps. The city did not prepare tsunami evacuation zone maps, as they are prepared by the state of California, which

2.c
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 April 22, 2024
are one of the inputs into the coastal vulnerability zone mapping. It is a type of coastal hazard that is infrequent but, when they do occur, they can be very devastating and deadly; it is one of those low probability but high severity scenarios that is difficult to figure out exactly what to do.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what the change is between what city staff submitted in 2020 and what we have before them now with specific regard to those coastal vulnerability zones and the tsunami evacuation zones. She stated she is asking it because she is continually reminded by people who see a more restrictive approach to the way those zones are applied in terms of what they can do or not do with their property.

Planning Director Murdock would characterize it as the reliance on the coastal vulnerability zones in the document today is based on the scientific understanding of those hazards at a citywide scale and, using those as a tool to say that these are areas with likely important coastal hazard exposure that need to be further studied and will likely need some sort of design consideration for the development to mitigate the applicability and impact of those hazards. He stated that the 2020 LCLUP took an arbitrary position that those most restrictive policies about development would only apply to the shoreline (properties having a frontage on the water). He stated that is not the reality of where coastal hazards apply in Pacifica; that is a very narrow subset of areas subject to coastal hazards and ignoring all the other areas where coastal hazards would apply is likely inconsistent with the Coastal Act and is not adequately addressing hazards and siting to avoid the need for shoreline protection in new development.

Councilmember Boles asked if the tsunami restrictions were in the 2020 LCLUP draft.

Planning Director Murdock believed the the Coastal Commission suggested modifications expanded the relevance of the tsunami evacuation zones relative to some policies.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought so too and added there is a small likelihood of possibility of tsunamis, but when it is in the LCLUP, it is a 100% likelihood of being applied to property.

Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated it is policy CR-I-45 and that is exactly right, recognizing that what this relates to is a deed restriction with the waiver of rights and indemnification because, if a serious tsunami were to occur, it can be quite devastating and dangerous and affect property or result in costly clean up or removal of development being required. That tsunami could occur anytime but, when it occurs, it will be very significant and impactful. He thinks what the Coastal Commission’s modification does is recognize disclosure is important so people do not inadvertently purchase property in a tsunami hazard zone and be surprised if and when they are impacted by a tsunami hazard.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked in what other ways could that occur, besides being in our LCLUP. She asked if there was anything with the purchase of the property or the private transaction. She feels like the city is getting in the middle of that to the detriment of our citizens for something unlikely to happen, but including it would 100% likely affect our people, i.e. planning for tsunamis, insurance implications, finance implications, and property value implications. She stated it felt this was given in exchange for the SRAs and armoring.

Planning Director Murdock stated it is easy to conflate these issues but it is important to understand the chronology. February 2020 had March 2023 suggested modifications. Staff believed that the modification related to the deed restriction and the tsunami came out of that set of comments. The SRA concept evolved months after that in staff-to-staff discussions. It is a general concern and approach that the Coastal Commission expressed in their comments

2.c
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 April 22, 2024
about the importance of tsunami hazards and to acknowledge them and recognize that shoreline protection and waiver of rights are important for that hazard among coastal erosion, flooding, and other potential coastal hazards as well. As far as other approaches, he thought there was some sort of ordinance about broader property disclosures that could be required, but he is not sure they have done that legal research. He thought it may be possible. He thought disclosure is an important part but not the only part of that policy, i.e. indemnification, waiver of rights, etc., that come with that package of hazard related conditions.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, adding that it is problematic. She asked if city staff did not do the mapping of those hazards with the new OPC data or more current science and if that analysis would look different than it currently looks based on what was done before. She does not know that it is clear to the public, but all of it feels overly restrictive and burdensome. She asked how we get around that in any negotiation.

Councilmember Boles stated that staff is proposing alternative modifications to what the Coastal Commission is asking for tsunamis in particular that would reduce the amount of properties affected. She shared that she found county maps that had tsunami inundation maps, which are much smaller areas than what is in the tsunami hazard maps.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he is aware of these maps but does not know enough about them to suggest that they are an appropriate tool to address this recommendation from staff. He stated that the County calls them the tsunami inundation zone or area but he does not know substantively what those maps are based off of. He stated that there was a change from 2009 to around 2021 where the state adopted a new methodology which, in many cases, expanded the area of tsunami evacuation zones under the high intensity hazard scenarios that are used for the tsunami evacuation planning. He does not know what is going on with those county maps other than they indicate perhaps some promise.

Councilmember Boles agreed with Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer that these are questions they would like staff to take back to Coastal Commission staff and ask, such as what data do they have some flexibility on, where do these maps come from, are there other alternatives that might not be as restrictive.

Planning Director Murdock thinks we largely know the answer to the question of where do these maps come from: the tsunami evacuation zone policy recommended by the Coastal Commission come from the state based on their set of parameters relative to an ocean earthquake scenario to that triggers a tsunami, and the various other coastal vulnerability zone inputs come from FEMA flooding data plus sea level rise projection to estimate based on topography where those flood areas would be. He stated that the question is if we could come up with a different map if time and money were not a concern, and he thought the answer would be yes, but coming up with new citywide hazard maps is likely to be a very costly and timeconsuming process for the city to contemplate. He stated it is not clear how significantly they would differ from some of these more readily available models.

City Manager Woodhouse added, regarding maps and science, that these policies apply when a property owner comes in for redevelopment. He stated that, in terms of best science or updated maps, it could be the case that five years from now someone will redevelop and the maps and science will be different at that time so we must remember that we are updating the best practices over time for these documents as the data becomes available; we talked about the OPC maps last week and how that would be one of the priority updates immediately after certification. He stated that trigger is not that LCP is adopted and everybody has to comply

2.c
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 April 22, 2024
with that, but that the LCP is adopted and, in the future, if you redevelop, apply, and do something with your property, then it applies at that time.

Councilmember Boles stated that, in this particular case, for the tsunami hazard versus inundation, she assumed we have gone over these proposed alternative modifications with staff and the Coastal Commission staff was potentially open to a less restrictive tsunami mapping.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating everything we have seen staff propose here we have discussed and believe that the Coastal Commission staff will ultimately support in their recommendation or come back with something to further refine it as some point in their suggested modifications. He stated that staff is not putting forth anything that we think is far afield of where we can end up in a compromised solution. We introduced this concern, i.e. evacuation zones for tsunami is overly broad for a worst-case scenario, and we think something more calibrated that would affect fewer properties is appropriate, and he thought we got the requisite head nods and moved on to other issues in this discussion, of which there are many to cover with them. He thought what he is envisioning is that we formulate what that more probable tsunami event would be in the implementation plan and zoning. In their implementation, we currently have a variety of different specialized area of analysis related to geotechnical hazards and other issues that are fleshed out in more detail. This is a prime candidate to indicate what that tsunami event assumption should be for that site specific analysis.

Councilmember Boles stated the concern in the community is that we are redlining particular properties that we might not need to now, and if there is some way that we can now figure out what we can use in the maps and define it and not have to make every property owner figure out what they have to do, she thought that would be helpful to the community. She stated just asking the question of where the county maps come from and is it acceptable could be helpful to move them along.

Planning Director Murdock stated that we can do more work to try to check with the county as to how they develop those maps. He stated that the general concept is there may be an inclination from the community to not want to confront the hazards that are applicable in the coastal zone as that is a highly hazardous area, and this LCLUP does a lot to reflect what we know as local jurisdiction and as scientists have advised us about the applicability of hazards in the coastal zone; there are different ways to go about it but this document is advancing 40 years in the understanding of hazards so we can make better decisions about development today.

That is uncomfortable and impactful for some people, but ignoring that does not make the hazards go away, just that they surface at less convenient junctures, whether the property is affected by the hazard and are displaced or someone comes in for a project, having spent $20,000 on the plan, and then find out that they need to go model these hazards and change the project. He stated the hazards are there and how do we confront and work with them most effectively is the question.

Councilmember Bier stated by asking the questions and bringing up the redlining of certain properties and maps, the city is showing that we care about the community that has legitimate fears now, and that is very important to her. She stated that, if we are able to even ask questions that can bring some clarity to our community, she thinks we need to do that. She stated that it all goes back to the substantial structural modifications and all the questions that go along with that.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated there are natural hazard reports, a mandatory document upon purchase

2.c
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 April 22, 2024
of a property, and she has seen included fire hazard zones, flood seismic zones, but not tsunami zones. She stated that is only on purchases and would not happen when people remodel. She was thinking about disclosure and first purchase of a property.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that they are at 10:00 p.m. and the process that they started with was go through and discuss the specific policies and the alternate modifications and get input and recommendations that staff is directed to take back to Coastal Commission, but the question for Council to start thinking about is what is the next step. He stated that there is a very large work plan of high Council priorities that staff has lined up and this is one of them.

Councilmember Bier thought it was clear by Council’s silence that we are not ready yet.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was asking, in an effort to move it along, what questions Council wants staff to have answers for the next time we reconvene or are we going to reconvene. He thought it sounds like we are still, but he does not know if he has clarity around that point. After that, it sounds like, from Councilmember Bier’s last statement, Council would like some specifics to be brought back. He stated that we should ask for those to be brought back and spend a moment doing that. He stated that, at that point, if we have given out directions to come back with these specifics, that would imply that Council is continuing down this path and perhaps we should continue down the path of the matrix so we are getting some of that work done while waiting for those specifics to come back.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was not feeling confident about it. She is personally feeling that we need to let it sit for a minute. She recounted the contentious feedback from the community and that the convention of SRAs is unusual, different, and problematic and separating people, which is not her desire. She does not know what else could be done rather than the most restrictive policy for everyone. She worries that continuing to chew at this when we have significant questions and problems with it does not feel like a good use of time; however, she did not have a proposal.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if she was saying there should be a next meeting. He meant what he said earlier in his first statement, i.e., he does not think comfort is an option at any point and no matter what direction they turn. He stated, if we want to keep working on it, now is the time to figure out the process by which we work on it. He stated, if we have more questions to bring back, we need to ask those questions so they can be brought back.

Mayor Vaterlaus thought that so much has gone into it. She knows we have asked a lot of questions but we have more questions.

Councilmember Boles agreed, adding that we will have more questions as we go through it.

She agreed that they have spent so much time and money on this and we owe it to the community to value that effort of our planning staff for the last year and a half to finish going through this and asking all their questions. She stated that we do not know where it is going to go when we are done, but that is okay, as we are honoring the process and asking questions and trying to get the community’s questions answered. She stated we could also go through it all first without the SRAs and then go back and reflect on how the SRAs help or not. She stated that staff has put in a lot of other modifications to other policies that are not just getting in to what the Coastal Commission has asked and a lot of those are better. She thinks there is something of value here that we owe to keep going through.

Councilmembers Bier and Bigstyck agreed.

2.c
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 April 22, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what we imagine is a timeline or process, as she is worried about is if this is causing other work to not get done. She asked if there is a benefit to pausing.

She stated one question she had initially was what is the real deadline or timeline and what choice does Council want to make about the priority.

Planning Director Murdock thought there were a few relevant considerations. One is that we are years overdue to complete the process in terms of a timeline. There is no current deadline or timeline with the Coastal Commission in relation to this application. The General Plan consistency of the edits to the LCLUP has not been accepted for filing yet by the Coastal Commission so that clock for 90 days and potential 12-month extension has not started. He thinks that the anticipation was that city staff would get some feedback on those changes and then merge them with this bigger policy question here and then the clock would start for them.

He stated that there is flexibility in time in that sense, but longer term, looking through the end of this year and into next, we often get the criticism of doing important work entering the holiday season and that could take months off of the end of this year and beginning part of next year.

He stated the city has a robust work plan of other City Council priorities that have the potential to be affected by making this process play out. He stated that this process is taking up a lot more space in time and resources. There is also the question of knowing that we will have at least one new City Council member at the end of this year and will that person want time or will Council want to give that person time to get up to speed and will that person bring a very different policy perspective and want something extraordinarily different that will delay the process. He stated City Council is as prime in terms of its preparation and experience with this process as it will be for years to come. There is also the prospect about whenever this gets to the Coastal Commission, will there be further changes required by the Coastal Commission that then would have to come back through the local process again and how that affects the timeline. He stated that there is a best case that at end of this year this is in place if we are able to get it done or there is a worst case where it is years from now before this gets done, if action is not taken. He stated he is not able to give them a more precise timeline than that, as there are various important considerations.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he would add to that consideration of the Coastal Commission staff’s workload and their willingness and attention right now, as they are focusing very much on this document in the meeting he had with Executive Director Kate Hucklebridge and her commitment to working on this now and into the summer. He stated that city staff does not know what other priorities they have on their work plan if this is waylaid or stretches out.

Councilmember Boles stated that now it has Council’s attention and momentum and may not after a pause. She would prefer that we finish going through the suggested modifications, ask our questions, and then we can decide if this is something we want to push forward or not. She thinks it is important work that we need to do to get grant funding to Congresswoman Eshoo’s point about our sea wall and the pier, in addition to SB 272 and SB 1. She stated here big concern in terms of staffing is the Housing Element. She asked if staff can give Council an idea of where they stand on that and what upcoming meetings in the next few months that will entail staff work to prepare for that.

Planning Director Murdock stated that city staff met last week with their reviewer from the Department of Housing and Community Development to go over the comments that were in comment letter No. 2, and we are encouraged by the conversation and, for the most part, understand the steps needed to address those comments and get much closer, if not all the way, to certification or ability to be certified. He stated that, looming out there is the completion

2.c
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 April 22, 2024
of the phase one rezoning requirement for the sites to implement the RHNA and associated core objective development standards. Based on the confirmation from that meeting, where we think the sites lists are unlikely to change, we will be proceeding in the very near future, within the next week or so, with releasing the notice of preparation for the Environmental Impact Report. There is an immense amount of work just included in the rezoning program and working towards certification with further edits, not to mention all the other required limitation activities. He stated that it is a massive work program just associated with the Housing Element, and that is not including other notable development projects that are currently making their way through our process, and many other key city priorities like Short-Term Rental ordinance updates and others.

Councilmember Boles thought the Housing Element trumps this in terms of timing if we cannot work on things in parallel. She stated, given what Planning Director Murdock just said that, there is another year because we have not set the clock yet with the Coastal Commission, and there is more flexibility with the LCLUP.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the law provides that the Coastal Commission, upon acceptance for filing, has to take action within 90 days or for good cause can grant themselves a year extension. He stated that city staff has had very focused conversations with the Coastal Commission staff on that point and said that we do not want to end up in a situation where this gets a 12-month extension and, they have given the assurance that they can that they will not do that, as this is not a standard LCLUP amendment. This has their focus and attention as, from their perspective, hopefully a successful outcome of some balanced approach that implements this neighborhood carve out concept that has been taking shape in some form over the last couple of years and they are unlikely, barring an unforeseen circumstance, to trigger that 12-month extension. Thus, he believed we are on a short time horizon if we get something reasonably close to what we have been negotiating for the better part of the last year, and with something that deviates significantly, he does not know if the Coastal Commission could uphold their commitment on the timeline, thus, hard to predict.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated Newton’s first law of motion is objects in motion stay in motion and likewise objects at rest to stay at rest and getting an object at rest to get back into motion takes extra added energy. He proposed asking the questions now if Council has them. He stated his question is when would they be coming back for their next round of this.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it sounds like he is talking about a continuance of some sort to answer the questions, come back, and discuss this again.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated she is correct.

Planning Director Murdock stated part of the answer to that depends on the questions that are asked and the amount of time it may take to research and formulate the answers.

City Manager Woodhouse added that it was clear that this discussion will be yet another special Council meeting, not on a regular Council meeting day. Thus, we will be looking at extra special meeting dates, depending on what the questions are when we feel that staff can come back prepared.

Councilmember Bier thought it was important what we did here because we were able to express how they were feeling. She does not want to throw this out either, but she knows we cannot go back to the 2020 version. She would appreciate the opportunity to go through the

2.c
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 April 22, 2024
document with the SRAs on one side, i.e. look at the modifications and then talk about the SRAs. She thinks we should keep looking at it but she thinks there might be a way to do it.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the SRAs in this latest iteration are built in throughout the policies and the question is how would separating them out work.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the SRA exceptions that alter the baseline policies are in a small number of policies in the document. He thought it was conceivable that we would be able to pull the SRA text out and create sort of a Version A and Version B for Council to see what that would look like. He stated that, programmatically and fundamentally, we can do the work but that means the more restrictive version of policies citywide rather than a subset that has less restricted policies under certain circumstances.

Councilmember Boles did not feel that we needed to create two separate documents.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated Council received the same communication with significant questions about the way that we have our environmental justice policy and she is still upset about not addressing the golf course. She stated that there are legal threats and implications in a lot of the communication they received from the community and she wants to understand how realistic those are. She feared that, if the product we put forward is not fully vetted and thought through, the likelihood of those lawsuits is greater.

Councilmember Bigstyck suggested she form that into a question and give it to our City Attorney. He stated that her worry is warranted and a legitimate concern. Now that she has the worry, he asked what the question is that comes from it, give it to the City Attorney, and staff can bring it back to Council. He stated that it is either we are doing it or we are not doing it and that is why he keeps coming back to it. He stated that the idea of stopping for a while is part and parcel to that notion of not doing it. He believes her worry is legitimate but, in lieu of not pausing or stopping, take that worry, formulate a question, and have that data at the next discussion. He thought the new data set generated from these questions may lead to the conclusion we need to stop and that may be the answer, but he wants what should be in front of Council that we can then come to a consensus one way or the other. He thought there seems to be more will on Council to continue forward at any pace than to not continue at all.

Mayor Vaterlaus thought there will be some questions that no one can answer, like questions if someone has the SRAs, what will happen to the insurance, mortgages, or values of those properties. She stated that those are hard decisions to make for somebody when they do not know the answers.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked where that leaves them.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated a special meeting and asked when.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, as of now, it seems to him that, if this is going to continue, we have to find a special meeting date to start going through Chapter 6 policies specifically and more questions may come out of that. That would be the next step, meeting No. 5, and adoption of a resolution would be meeting No. 6 or later, and there will be a process of recalibrating the workload and work plan that staff is working on and the timing for Council.

That all depends on availability of meetings and when we are going to do them.

Councilmember Boles asked about the impact the Short-Term Rental discussion.

2.c
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 April 22, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated he cannot commit to that not being delayed, as this process is intensive and it takes significant planning resources and his resources. If a study session for Short-Term Rentals is not going to be delayed, staff has to look at other impacts, whether Housing Element or other priorities that are not going to get done. He stated it is a matter of that calculus and staff resources working on this.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked about the time period for another special study session.

City Manager Woodhouse does not recommend trying to determine a date from the dais as there are a lot of variables. He thought, in terms of an actual action for this meeting, Asst. City Attorney Bazzano was suggesting to continue this item to a date to be determined and they can look in whatever time frame Council is comfortable about.

Planning Director Murdock thought no sooner than two weeks. He thought, if we turn it around in a week, that is probably not enough time as the Council needs to digest and work through this. He stated a 2-3 week minimum is what she is trying to confirm and City Manager said there is a lot of scheduling variables that need to be determined.

Mayor Vaterlaus understood.

Councilmember Boles stated, if we are not asking all the questions at this meeting to come back with, when would staff need to have Council ask those questions.

Planning Director Murdock stated the sooner the better as some of them could trigger a lot of work to research and prepare answers. He suggested that, as soon as they can formulate them would be helpful and that might drive some of the decision making about when we can come back.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, in preparation for the March 2 meeting, he knew there was a period open to the public to ask whatever questions they would like about specifically SRAs, but in general the document. He said a part of his thought process as he was reading these many emails that contained many questions was that he would love to be able to turn them all around to staff to get answers. He thought that was a way to do it and, by giving the community that week-long period to send in the questions, it would give Council a period that is reasonable to see what we can concoct between now and then.

Planning Director Murdock stated that staff is here to carry out the process that Council thinks is needed to get this to conclusion and opening up to the community has a significant new level of effort and how do they publicize this opportunity. He stated that it sounds good in concept but there are some implications of opening this up more broadly.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated we get most of the questions on the day of the meeting and it is not always feasible to answer all those questions then. She did not know how we determine the time period because the questions are not going to get answered on the day of the meeting.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Council should limit the time period.

Mayor Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the questions that have been asked from the community

2.c
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 April 22, 2024
come in such a fashion that they are accessible to staff, and that is his set of questions going into the next meeting.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she put forward questions to staff, but she has not synthesized the answers.

Councilmember Bier stated that is where she needs the time as there are some answers, but she asked if they had the opportunity to really look through the answers and digest them.

Councilmember Boles asked how the answers get communicated back to the community, if not through staff.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that in answers regarding including clarification definitions such as SSM he thought it would helpful if there is a document with that list on it because if Council has interest in addressing those ambiguities summarily, it would be nice to have that presented to Council in such a way that Council can hand it right back to staff and say yes please.

City Manager Woodhouse stated the questions in advance of the agenda that Councilmembers asked is made public. When staff is in the agenda questions/comments from the public that come in, that is for Council’s information to inform their discussion and questions they regurgitate to staff during deliberations so that is how those topics and questions are handled.

He stated that the idea that we did in the earlier phase was opening up questions that staff is going to directly respond to the community is a different and much larger work task.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was not suggesting opening that time period up going forward from this meeting but is suggesting that, regarding those questions that came in over the last 24 or 48 hours or last week by our community, he would like to see the analysis on that.

He did not think he had any more questions personally, but for these specific questions that keep coming in, he wants the clarity in which ways these will affect our community. He keeps hearing the discomfort and asked if it is discomfort that we do not have a document or is the discomfort he is accepting the changes for each and every community member or are there some he can accept and some he cannot.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, for her, it is all in the arena of legality and legal risk. She stated that what has come across loud and clear to her is the fear and concern from the community that the city is taking on added risk. Regarding the salient questions asked about property specific questions, she appreciated receiving those from the community. She stated that they are all making it clear, and she thinks that the vessel for these questions needs to be Council, as opposed to what we did before, which was a very general and useful process in forming March 2, of having an open process of submitting questions and, in the moment of that day, ask their questions.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano reminded the mayor that it is 10:43 p.m. and stated she could speak generally about legality.

Councilmember Bier stated that generally is not what she needs, but as much information as they can get.

Councilmember Boles stated, in looking at Councilmember Bigstyck’s requested questions, she thinks all those legal questions are there, and she thinks we could gather the questions from the public comments. She stated that she still wants to know if they can use the County’s tsunami

2.c
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 April 22, 2024
maps. She would like to know what is involved in incorporating the new data when it comes out and what that process entails, what it costs, and how long it will take.

Councilmember Bier thought maybe it would be good to see all of the other strategies we can look at to protect the Fairway Park neighborhood.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what they are deciding.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated it was 10:46 pm and asked if Council has direction for staff to come back with this, submit questions from Council, and items from the public should come to Council with enough time to ask the questions.

Councilmember Bier added understanding and going through the answers.

Mayor Vaterlaus agreed, stating they all have other jobs.

Councilmember Boles asked if the answers are able to be shared with the public.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, as mentioned by City Manager Woodhouse, those questions and answers that Council ask before the meeting and staff responses are available to the public. She stated that the public can look at those answers and see the responses from staff. They would be available at any future meeting in the same manner.

Councilmember Bier asked where Council would find them or would Council share them.

City Attorney Woodhouse stated that the responses to Council questions are here at the meeting. He stated that the other component he was hearing from Council is that there are submitted questions from the community to Councilmembers and any of those questions that are necessary to inform their deliberations, they can submit those to staff and they can work on what the responses would be and that could be published as part of the agenda packet in advance of the next meeting whenever we determine the date of the next meeting. He stated that the importance of Council doing that is that the intention is it is helping to formulate the information Council needs to deliberate and make decisions about these policies. That is the point where this process is, i.e., Council is deliberating about these policies and Council can reformulate those questions, get them to staff and staff can work on responses and, once the date is determined, publish it with the agenda packet. He stated that the motion and action would be continue to a date to be determined.

Councilmember Boles moved to continue this meeting to a date to be determined; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.

CONTINUE MEETING TO A DATE TO BE DETERMINED
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-1]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
NAYS: Beckmeyer
Councilmember Boles stated that they did not finish Council Communications.

2.c
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 April 22, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer proposed how much longer they need to go.

Councilmember Boles stated that she has some updates and questions she has for them.

Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 11:10 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

EXTEND MEETING TO 11:10 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Boles attended the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission meeting, and the commissioners brought up the insurance market, fire insurance in particular, and whether the city has sent a letter in the past expressing their concern to the insurance commissioner and our elected officials about what is going on with insurances being cancelled.

City Manager Woodhouse does not recall if we have sent a specific letter but what we have done more specifically when this issue came up years ago is that, with homeowners that were experiencing fire insurance questions, the North County Fire Authority would help in connections with the insurance commissioner and at some of the Wildfire Preparedness Days we had representatives from the insurance commissioner there.

Councilmember Boles knows some of our elected officials are working on this and it might be helpful to send letters in support of some of the work they are doing.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in terms of weighing in and sending a letter, a Councilmember would have to request an agendized item and staff would put together a report about what the issue is and content of the letter and agendize that for Council discussion.

Councilmember Boles stated Commute.org is doing their April and May training to encourage people to use public transportation and there is a prize if you log in and register your walk. She stated that they have been wanting to come to a presentation at a Council meeting and asked about putting it on the agenda on May 13.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she would support that. She remembers former Councilmember Mike O’Neill talking a lot about this and that might be a useful presentation.

Councilmember Bier added that our Age-Friendly work plan needs to be presented soon.

Councilmember Boles had a meeting with BKF Engineers about infrastructure money and shared there is a lot of money from the federal government coming down and the IRA money for infrastructure. The key is to get in line as soon as possible and after this year’s election there is a possible outcome that the money for the infrastructure plans would be cut but any projects already in the pipeline and approved for funding would remain funded so, if there is any chance Pacifica could look at that and see if there are projects we can apply for, now is the time. She also stated that BKF can provide civil engineering services and grant writing services if we hire them to do the design. In terms of grant management, a lot of infrastructure type grants need a lot of technical information in the application and that is another area that they have strong

2.c
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 April 22, 2024
expertise and their engineers would be able to provide that information and to be more likely to get the grant. She is sharing that information which is part of their discussion about how to build staff capacity and grants that could help us build staff capacity.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated she talked to PG &E, and they had segments on transportation which they said there will be a surprise for Pacifica soon. She also helped serve the seniors on Volunteer Appreciation Day which was fun.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he got appointed to the CCAG Legislative Committee. At the City Leaders’ Summit in Sacramento, there was a press conference around “No on the California Business Roundtable”. He sat in on the ABAG Executive Committee Meeting about the $20 billion bond measure around affordable housing that will be on the ballot. They got a shoutout from Katherine Lui regarding the Measure Y.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated she is going next week to talk to legislators like he did last week and she will try to get the best answers she can.

ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 11:02 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.c
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment C: Minutes of 04-22-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5646 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/13/2024
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. 112
Pacifica City Council 2
May 13, 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. This also caused damage to the Milagra storm drain outfall and left substantial sand deposits on the Beach Boulevard Prominade and on the southern Beach Boulevard rock revetment. • In Mach of 2024, City staff received an Emergency Coastal Development Permit (ECDP) from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for removal of the substantial sand deposits left on Beach Boulevard Promenade and southern rock revetment as well as for 3 Packet Pg. 113
Pacifica City Council 3
May 13, 2024
the repair of the damage to the Milagra outfall. Repair to the outfall and removal of the sand on the Beach Boulevard Promenade was completed in late March/April 2024.

Removal of the sand from the southern Beach Boulevard Rock Revetment is expected to be completed by mid-May 2024, with work starting on May 9, 2024.

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

Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on January 25, 2016, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency exists within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard every 30 days with April 8, 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. 114
"ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd. (5641 : Continuation of "ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd. (5641 : Continuation of

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/13/2024
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. 117
Pacifica City Council 2
May 13, 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 on May 2, 2023; All Anza Pump Station bathrooms were opened by August 25, 2023. Startup and testing of the new 4 Packet Pg. 118
Pacifica City Council 3
May 13, 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 testing and troubleshooting for Engine#3 which is expected to be complete in May 2024. The mechanical portion of this project is projected to be completed at the end of April 2024, and the remaining work is the closure of the roof. The closure of the roof will be completed after all pumps are confirmed operational. The contractor is also troubleshooting the electronic control panel for automatic operations and is expected to be complete by end of May 2024. There will be minor punch list items to be completed by the end of 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 April 8, 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. 119
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. 120 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5633 : 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. 121 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5633 : 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. 122 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5633 : Continuance

4.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5633 : Continuance

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/13/2024
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 Beach Boulevard and relocated the sand to the public access beach entrance at 700 Palmetto Ave. In addition, the contractor restacked the rock and brought in new rock to protect the Milagra stormwater outfall at the bottom of the access road that was damaged during the storm event.

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 5 Packet Pg. 124
Pacifica City Council 2
May 13, 2024
with April 8, 2024, being the most recent.

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. 125
Pacifica City Council 3
May 13, 2024
5 Packet Pg. 126

5.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment A - Proclamation of December 28 2023 High Tide Large Wave Event (5635 : Continuation of Proclamation Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment A - Proclamation of December 28 2023 High Tide Large Wave Event (5635 : Continuation of Proclamation Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment A - Proclamation of December 28 2023 High Tide Large Wave Event (5635 : Continuation of Proclamation Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment A - Proclamation of December 28 2023 High Tide Large Wave Event (5635 : Continuation of Proclamation Local

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/13/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending March 31, 2024.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending March 31, 2024.

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 738-7402
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Lucy Xie, Deputy Finance Director
(650) 501-6014
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City Council adopted Administrative Policy 39 - Investment Policy to reflect current law and best practices in accordance with Government Code Section 53600 et seq. The policy provides guidelines for prudent investments and efficient cash management and requires the City to provide the governing body a report regarding the City’s investment activities on a quarterly basis to ensure “compliance” with the statement of investment policy.

The investment policies and practices of the City of Pacifica are strictly based on state law and prudent money management. The investment of funds for the City is directed to the goals of safety, liquidity, and yield while meeting the cash flow needs of the City through prudent investment of unexpended cash.

All funds are invested in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy and the authority governing investments set forth in the California Government Code, Sections 53601 through 53659. The investment policy for bond proceeds is contained in the relevant bond documents approved by the City Council at the time of the issuance of the debt.

As shown in the Treasurer’s Report (Attachment 1), the City holds various investments in external investment pools and fiscal agent accounts, and they are listed at par value, cost, as well as their fair value. The par value represents the original issue amount for securities or investments purchased. There were no securities or investments held by the City that were purchased at a discount or premium, so the par value is equal to the book value. The fair market value is the current market value of the investment as of March 31, 2024. In accordance with GASB 31, the State provides a factor that can be multiplied by the City’s share of the LAIF pool to determine the market value each quarter. Other than LAIF, the fair market value of all other investments is equal to the book and par value.
6 Packet Pg. 131
Pacifica City Council 2
May 13, 2024
The City’s cash and investment portfolio, at fair market value, as of March 31, 2024, is $66,948,966, of which $3,471,760 is placed with the State Controller’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), $30,777,436 is placed with US Bank, $204,000 is in the PARS Trust, $138,229 is placed in Bank of New York (BNY Mellon), $2,702,433 is in Roy Davies Trust, $17,131,378 in the Tri Counties Bank operating accounts, $12,500,000 in Trio Counties’ CDARS and $3,445 in Petty Cash held by various departments. Although operating checking accounts are not typical investment accounts, the City includes those balances as part of this report to show the total cash on hand for the quarter.

The City’s investment portfolio decreased by $807,736, from $67,736,164, in this reporting quarter ending March 31, 2024, compared to the last quarter ending December 31, 2023. The decrease is primarily attributable to normal operating payments to vendors, payroll, and annual debt service payments net of normal revenue receipts in the last quarter of the year.

The Treasurer’s Report includes details of cash and investments which are held by institutions.

The report also summarizes the City’s cash position and distribution across funds for the quarter ending March 31, 2024. Historical cash flow trends are compared to current cash flow requirements on an ongoing basis to ensure the City’s investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all reasonable anticipated operating requirements.

As of March 31, 2024, the portfolio contains sufficient liquidity to meet the next six months of expected expenditures by the City.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There is no reasonable alternative to this informational item, as not accepting the 3rd Quarter Treasurer’s Report will not change the City’s cash position as of the end of the quarter ending March 31, 2024.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

This item furthers the City’s efforts toward Organizational and Fiscal Stability.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this report, but Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports detail some of the fiscal activities that directly affect the City’s financial standing.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 – Treasurer's Report 3rd Q 2024 (PDF)
Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 132
City of Pacifica
Treasurer's Report
March 31,2024
Portfolio Summary
Par Value
GASB 31 Fair
Market Value Book Value % of Portfolio
Cash
Tri Counties Bank-General Account $ 17,134,200 $ 17,134,200 $ 17,134,200 25.59% Tri Counties Bank-CDARS Account 12,500,000 12,500,000 12,500,000 18.67% Tri Counties Bank-Payroll Account (8,957) (8,957) (8,957) -0.01% Tri Counties Bank-Workers Compensation Account - - - 0.00% Tri Counties Bank-Senior Services Account - - - 0.00%
Tri Counties Bank-Turbo Data 6,136 6,136 6,136 0.01%
City National Bank-Roy Davies Trust 2,702,433 2,702,433 2,702,433 4.04% Petty Cash - Held by various Departments 3,445 3,445 3,445 0.01% Total Cash $ 32,337,257 $ 32,337,257 $ 32,337,257 48.30% Investments
California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)* $ 3,492,045 $ 3,471,760 $ 3,492,045 5.22% Bank of New York Mellon-RDA 2004 Bonds 138,229 138,229 138,229 0.21% US Bank - Money Market Fund 30,777,436 30,777,436 30,777,436 45.97% PARS PENSION** 204,000 204,000 204,000 0.30%
Total Investments $ 34,611,709 $ 34,591,424 $ 34,611,709 51.70% Total Cash and Investments $ 66,948,966 $ 66,928,681 $ 66,948,966 100.00% Date
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
* LAIF FAIR VAUE RATE 0.994191267 https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/reports/valuation.asp The above investments are consistent with the City's Investment Policy and are allowable under current legislation of the State of California. Investments are selected using safety, liquidity, and yield as the criteria. The City has sufficient cash flow to cover anticipated expenditures through the next six months. * PARS TRUST - PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SERVICES - INVESTS IN CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUNDS FOR THE CITY'S OPEB TRUST

AND MODERATE INDEX FUNDS
5/13/2024

6.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment 1 – Treasurer's Report 3rd Q 2024 (5650 : Q3 Treasurer's Report) City of Pacifica
Treasurer's Report
March 31,2024
Reconciliation to General Ledger
Description Bank Account # Bank Amount
TRI COUNTIES GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT xx0541 17,429,747 TRI COUNTIES CDARS ACCOUNT xx0424 12,500,000
TRI COUNTIES PAYROLL ACCOUNT xx6915 -
TRI COUNTIES WORKERS COMP ACCOUNT xx1341 -
TRI COUNTIES SENIOR SERVICES ACCOUNT xx5996 -
TRI COUNTIES TURBO DATA ACCOUNT xx9758 6,136
CITY NATIONAL BANK ROY DAVIES TRUST-PRINCIPAL xx5367 2,702,433 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF) xx1614/xx1007 3,492,045 BNY- RDA xx0166/xx0167 138,229
US BANK - 2014 WASTEWATER BONDS 2126700 90,629
US BANK - 2016 REFUNDING 24952500 808
US BANK - 2017 WASTEWATER REVENUE BOND-PROJECT FUND 27843200 4,806,673 US BANK - 2019 TAXABLE PENSION OBLIGATION BOND 267004000-3 0 US BANK - 2021 CIVIC CENTER BONDS 249299000 4,132,923
US BANK - 2023 WW IBANK LOAN 207877539 21,746,402
PARS- PENSION&OPEB PACIFICA 204,000
PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 3,445
Total Cash per Bank Statements 67,253,470
DEPOSIT IN TRANSIT 586,698
OUTSTANDING AP CHECKS at 3/31/24 (683,424)
OUTSTANDING PAYROLL WIRE (198,821)
OUTSTANDING PR CHECKS at 3/31/24 (8,957)
Total Reconciled GL Cash 66,948,966
Description GL Account # BooK Amount
CASH IN BANK xx.xxxxxx.11000.xxxx.xxx 29,637,584
CASH IN BANK - TURBO 01.000000.11001.0000.000 6,136
CASH IN BANK - PAYROLL 01.000000.11002.0000.000 (8,957) BNY- RDA DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND - 2004 TAB 91.960000.11019.0000.000 131,560 BNY-RDA CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT 91.960000.11020.0000.000 6,669 CITY OF PACIFICA 2021 PROJECT FUND 22.900000.11022.0000.000 4,132,923 CASH RESERVE - 2016 LEASE PAYMENT 40.880000.11026.0000.000 808 RESERVE CASH-2014 WASTEWATER REVENUE REFUNDING 18.940000.11032.0000.000 90,629 RESERVE CASH-2017 WASTEWATER REVENUE REFUNDING PROJECT 18.940000.11033.0000.000 4,307,059 RESERVE CASH-2017 WASTEWATER REVENUE REFUNDING INTEREST 18.940000.11034.0000.000 499,614 RESERVE CASH-2019 POB BONDS 40.880000.11036.0000.000 0
US BANK-2023 WASTE WATER BANK LOAN 18.940000.11040.0000.000 21,746,402 PETTY CASH xx.xxxxxx.11100.xxxx.xxx 3,445
INVESTMENTS - LAIF 01.000000.11290.0000.000 3,492,045
R DAVIES TRUST 27.900000.11293.0000.000 2,702,433
PARS TRUSTS-PENSION 01.000000.11297.0000.000 204,000
MANUAL PAYROLL CHECK #1112 ON 4/26/24 (3,384)
Total Cash per General Ledger 66,948,966

6.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment 1 – Treasurer's Report 3rd Q 2024 (5650 : Q3 Treasurer's Report) 1 | P a g e
City of Pacifica
Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms
Agency: Federal agency securities and /or Government-sponsored enterprises.

Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR): The official annual financial report for the City of Pacifica. It includes a combined set of statements for each individual fund and account group prepared with the accounting requirements established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). It also includes supporting schedules necessary to demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal and contractual provisions, extensive introductory material, and a detailed Statistical Section.

Bankers’ Acceptance (BA): A draft or bill or exchange accepted by a bank or trust company.

The accepting institution guarantees payment of the bill, as well as the issuer.

Book Value: The value at which a security or investment is carried on the financial records of its owner. This value may be the original cost of acquisition of the security or original cost adjusted by amortization of a premium or accretion of a discount. The book value may differ from the security’s current market value.

Broker: A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a commission.

California Local Government Debt: Is bonds, notes, warrants, or other evidences of indebtedness of any local agency within California. California local government debt is a permitted investment under the California Government Code. The Government Code does not specify minimum credit ratings for local government debt in which local agencies may invest.

Certificate of Deposit (CD): A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate.

Large-denomination CD’s are typically negotiable.

Collateral: Securities, evidence of deposit of other property which a borrower pledges to secure repayment of a loan. Also refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure deposits of public monies.

Coupon: (a) The annual rate of interest that a bond’s issuer promises to pay the bondholder on the bond’s face value. (b) A certificate attached to a bond evidencing interest due on a payment date.

Dealer: A dealer, as opposed to a broker, acts as a principal in all transactions, buying and selling for his own account.

Debenture: A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer.

Delivery versus Payment: There are two methods of delivery of securities: delivery versus payment and delivery versus receipt. Delivery versus payment is delivery of securities with an

6.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5650 : Q3 Treasurer's Report) 2 | P a g e
exchange of money for the securities. Delivery versus receipt is delivery of securities with an exchange of a signed receipt for the securities.

Derivatives: (1) Financial instruments whose return profile is linked to, or derived from, the movement of one or more underlying index or security, and may include a leveraging factor, or (2) financial contracts based upon notional amounts whose value is derived from an underlying index or security (interest rates, foreign exchange rates, equities or commodities).

Discount: The difference between the cost price of a security and its maturity when quoted at lower than face value. A security selling below original offering price shortly after sale also is considered to be at a discount.

Diversification: Dividing investment funds among a variety of securities offering independent returns.

Federal Credit Agencies: Agencies of the Federal government set up to supply credit to various classes of institutions and individuals, e.g., S&L’s, small business firms, students, farmers, farm cooperatives, and exporters.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): A federal agency that insures bank deposits, currently up to $250,000 per deposit.

Federal Funds Rate: The rate of interest at which Fed funds are traded. This rate is currently pegged by the Federal Reserve through open-market operations.

Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLB): Government sponsored wholesale banks (currently 12 regional banks) which lend funds and provide correspondent banking services to member commercial banks, thrift institutions, credit unions and insurance companies. The mission of the FHLB is to liquefy the housing related assets of its members who must purchase stock in their district Bank.

Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA): FNMA, like GNMA was chartered under the Federal National Mortgage Association Act in 1938. FNMA is a federal corporation working under the auspices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is the largest single provider of residential mortgage funds in the United States. Fannie Mae, as the corporation is called, is a private stockholder-owned corporation. The corporation’s purchases include a variety of adjustable mortgages and second loans, in addition to fixed-rate mortgages.

FNMA’s securities are also highly liquid and are widely accepted. FNMA assumes and guarantees that all security holders will receive timely payment of principal and interest.

Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC): Consists of seven members of the Federal Reserve Board and five of the twelve Federal Reserve and Presidents. The President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is a permanent member, while the other Presidents serve on a rotating basis. The Committee periodically meets to set Federal Reserve guidelines regarding purchases and sales of Government Securities in the open market as a means of influencing the volume of bank credit and money.

6.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5650 : Q3 Treasurer's Report) 3 | P a g e
Federal Reserve System: The central bank of the United States created by Congress and consisting of a seven-member Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., 12 regional banks and about 5,700 commercial banks that are members of the system.

Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae): Securities influencing the volume of bank credit guaranteed by GNMA and issued by mortgage bankers, commercial banks, savings and loan associations, and other institutions. Security holder is protected by full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Ginnie Mae securities are backed by the FHA, VA or FmHA mortgages. The term “pass-throughs” is often used to describe Ginnie Maes.

Issuer: Any corporation, government unit or financial institution which borrows money through the sale of securities.

Liquidity: A liquid asset is one that can be converted easily and rapidly into cash without a substantial loss of value. In the money market, a security is said to be liquid if the spread between bid and asked prices is narrow and reasonable size can be done at those quotes.

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): A special fund in the State Treasury which local agencies may use to deposit funds for investment. All interest is distributed to those agencies participating on a proportionate share determined by the amounts deposited and the length of time they are deposited. Interest is paid quarterly via direct deposit to the LAIF account. The State keeps an amount for reasonable costs of making the investments, not to exceed one-quarter of one per cent of the earnings.

Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP): The aggregate of all funds from political subdivisions that are pooled together for investment and reinvestment.

Market Value: The price at which a security is trading and could presumably be purchased or sold.

Master Repurchase Agreement: A written contract covering all future transactions between the parties to repurchase – reverse repurchase agreements that establishes each party’s rights in the transactions. A master agreement will often specify, among other things, the right of the buyerlender to liquidate the underlying securities in the event of default by the seller-borrower.

Maturity: The date upon which the principal or stated value of an investment becomes due and payable.

Money Market: The market in which short-term debt instruments (bills, commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, etc.) are issued and traded.

Mutual Funds: Referred to in the Government Code, Section 53601(l) as “shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies.” The Mutual Fund must be restricted by its by-laws to the same investments as the local agency by the Government Code. These investments are Treasury issues, Federal Agency issues, State of California and City (within California) debt obligations, Bankers Acceptances, Commercial Paper, Certificates of Deposit, Negotiable Certificates of Deposit, Repurchase Agreements, Reverse Repurchase Agreements,

6.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5650 : Q3 Treasurer's Report) 4 | P a g e
and Medium Term Corporate Notes. The quality rating and percentage restrictions in each investment category applicable to the local agency also apply to the Mutual Fund.

Negotiable: Term used to designate a security, the title to which is transferable by delivery.

Offer: The price asked by a seller of securities. (When you are buying securities, you ask for an offer). See Asked and Bid.

Open Market Operations: Purchases and sales of government and certain other securities in the open market by the New York Federal Reserve Bank as directed by the FOMC in order to influence the volume of money and credit in the economy. Purchases inject reserves into the bank system and stimulate growth of money and credit; sales have the opposite effect. Open market operations are the Federal Reserve’s most important and most flexible monetary policy tool.

Par Value: The amount of principal of a security that must be paid at maturity. The par value may also be referred to as the “face amount” of a security.

Portfolio: Collection of securities held by an investor.

Primary Dealer: A group of government securities dealers who submit daily reports of market activity and positions and monthly financial statements to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and are subject to its informal oversight. Primary dealers included Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – registered securities broker-dealers, banks, and a few unregulated firms.

Principal: Describes the original cost of a security. It represents the amount of capital or money which the investor pays for the investment.

Prudent Person Rule: An investment standard. In some states the law requires that a fiduciary, such as a trustee, may invest money only in a list of securities selected by the custody state – the so-called legal list. In other states the trustee may invest in a security if it is one which would be bought by a prudent person of discretion and intelligence who is seeking a reasonable income and preservation of capital.

Qualified Public Depositories: A financial institution which does not claim exemption from the payment of any sales or compensating use or ad valorem taxes under the laws of this state, which has segregated for the benefit of the commission eligible collateral having a value of not less than its maximum liability and which has been approved by the State to hold public deposits.

Rate of Return: The yield obtainable on a security based on its purchase price or its current market price. This may be the amortized yield to maturity on a bond the current income return.

Repurchase Agreement (RP or Repo): A holder of securities sells these securities to an investor with an agreement to repurchase them at a fixed price on a fixed date. The security “buyer” in effect lends the “seller” money for the period of the agreement, and the terms of the agreement are structured to compensate him for this. Dealers use RP extensively to finance their positions. Exception: When the Fed is said to be doing RP, it is lending money, that is, increasing bank services.

6.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5650 : Q3 Treasurer's Report) 5 | P a g e
Safekeeping: A service to customers rendered by banks for a fee whereby securities and valuables of all types and descriptions are held in the bank’s vaults for protection.

Secondary Market: A market made for the purchase and sale of outstanding issues following the initial distribution.

Security: An investment instrument, other than an insurance policy or fixed annuity, issued by a corporation, government, or other organization which offers evidence of debt or equity.

Securities & Exchange Commission: Agency created by Congress to protect investors in securities transactions by administering securities legislation.

SEC Rule 15C3-1: See Uniform Net Capital Rule.

Structured Notes: Notes issued by Government Sponsored Enterprises (FHLB, FNMA, SLMA, etc.) and Corporations which have imbedded options (e.g., call features, step-up coupons, floating rate coupons, derivative-based returns) into their debt structure. Their market performance is impacted by the fluctuation of interest rates, the volatility of the imbedded options and shifts in the shape of the yield curve.

Treasury Bills: A non-interest bearing discount security issued by the U.S. Treasury to finance the national debt. Most bills are issued to mature in three months, six months, or one year.

Treasury Notes: Medium-term coupon-bearing U.S. Treasury securities issued as direct obligations of the U.S. Government and having initial maturities from two to ten years.

Uniform Net Capital Rule: Securities and Exchange Commission requirement that member firms as well as nonmember broker-dealers in securities maintain a maximum ratio of indebtedness to liquid capital of 15 to 1; also called net capital rule and net capital ratio.

Indebtedness covers all money owed to a firm, including margin loans and commitments to purchase securities, one reason new public issues are spread among member of underwriting syndicates. Liquid capital includes cash and assets easily converted into cash.

Yield: The rate of annual income return on an investment, expressed as a percentage. (a) Income Yield is obtained by dividing the current dollar income by the current market price for the security. (b) Net Yield or Yield to Maturity is the current income yield minus any premium above par or plus any discount from par in purchase price, with the adjustment spread over the period from the date of purchase to the date of maturity of the bond.

6.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5650 : Q3 Treasurer's Report)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/13/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2024-25 funded by SB 1: Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2024-25 funded by SB 1: Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

STAFF CONTACT:

Roland Yip, P.E., DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017).

To address basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local streets and road system, SB 1 increases per gallon fuel excise taxes, increases diesel fuel sales taxes and vehicle registration fees, and provides for inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years.

The State Controller (Controller) deposits various portions of this new funding into the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). A percentage of this new RMRA funding will be apportioned by formula to eligible cities and counties pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2032(h) for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system.

SB 1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in the delivery of California’s transportation programs. Therefore, to be eligible for RMRA funding, statute requires cities and counties to annually provide basic project reporting to the Commission for projects anticipated for and funded through the RMRA. The City will receive approximately $989,964 for street rehabilitation for FY 2024-25.

The Streets and Highways Code requires that prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the Controller in a fiscal year, all eligible cities or counties shall submit to the California Transportation Commission (Commission) a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted resolution by the applicable City Council or County Board of Supervisors at a regular public meeting. The attached resolution is in the strict format provided by the Commission and includes a list of all streets that are eligible for SB1 funding.

These streets are part of the City’s 5-Year Street Maintenance program for FY 2024-25. 7 Packet Pg. 140
Pacifica City Council 2
May 13, 2024
This year, the City Manager recommends the following project for SB1 funding for Fiscal Year 2024-25:

• FY 2024-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project. The project will follow the City’s approved 5- year street maintenance program and resurface approximately 7.56 miles of City pavement and the overall project scope will include rubber cape seals, double slurry seals, slurry seals, asphalt concrete grinding and paving, microsurfacing base repairs, pavement striping and markings and other miscellaneous related work.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

If the Council chooses not to adopt the Resolution, it will result in the City not meeting statutory requirements for the SB1 Funds. Therefore, staff does not recommend this alternative action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
• Enhance organizational and fiscal stability: Adopting the resolution and approving the Proposed Project List meets statutory requirements that will allow the City to receive SB1 Funds.
• Improve and steward City Infrastructure, streets, and facilities: Adopting the resolution and approving the Proposed Project List meets statutory requirements that will allow the City to repair City infrastructure.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no Fiscal Impact associated with the Adoption the Resolution. Separate Council action is required for appropriation of funds for each of the projects listed.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A SB1 FY24-25 Resurfacing Street List (PDF)
7 Packet Pg. 141
Pacifica City Council 3
May 13, 2024
RESOLUTION NO._________
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of the City of Pacifica are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica, will receive an estimated $989,964 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2024-25 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, this is the eighth year in which the City of Pacifica is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City of Pacifica to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica has undergone a robust public process to ensure public input into our community’s transportation priorities/the project list; and WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the communities’ priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City of Pacifica maintain and rehabilitate several streets/roads throughout the City of Pacifica this year and other similar projects into the future; and
WHEREAS, the 2023 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City of Pacifica streets and roads are in an “poor” condition and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade will bring our streets and roads into a “at risk” condition; and
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets 7 Packet Pg. 142
Pacifica City Council 4
May 13, 2024
infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.

NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, State of California, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The following list of newly proposed projects will be funded in-part or solely with Fiscal Year 2024-25 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

Project Title: FY 2024-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Project Description: The project will resurface approximately 7.56 miles of City pavement and the overall project scope will
include rubber cape seals, double slurry seals,
slurry seals, asphalt concrete grinding and paving,
microsurfacing base repairs, pavement striping and
markings and other miscellaneous work.

Project Location: Various Streets and Roads, See Attachment A.

Estimated Project Schedule: July 2024 – December 2025
Estimated Project Useful Life: 5 to 20 Years
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, State of California at a regular meeting this 13th day of May, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

CITY OF PACIFICA
By:

Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle M. Kenyon, City Attorney 7 Packet Pg. 143
Attachment A
FY 2024-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project
Street Name From To Field Treatment
Paloma Avenue Oceana Blvd Mirador Terrace Slurry Seal
Paloma Avenue Mirador Terrace Sierra Terrace Slurry Seal Paloma Avenue Sierra Terrace Carmel Avenue
Remove 2.5" AC/AB &
Replace with 2.5" HMA
Paving
Pico Terrace Carmel Avenue Paloma Avenue Slurry Seal
Vallejo Terrace Carmel Avenue Paloma Avenue
Remove 2.5" AC/AB &
Replace with 2.5" HMA
Paving
Sierra Terrace Carmel Avenue Paloma Avenue Slurry Seal
Carmel Avenue Mirador Terrace Sierra Terrace Rubber Cape Seal Carmel Avenue Sierra Terrace Paloma Avenue Slurry Seal
Carmel Avenue Paloma Ave Cul De Sac
Remove 2.5" AC/AB &
Replace with 2.5" HMA
Paving
Brighton Road Oceana Blvd 375 E/O Scenic Way Slurry Seal Brighton Road 375 Ft. E/O Scenic Way Cul De Sac Slurry Seal Moana Way Oceana Blvd 1423' E/O Oceana Blvd Slurry Seal Moana Way 1423' E/O Oceana Blvd
100 Ft East of Ressa
Road Slurry Seal
Moana Way
100 Ft. East of Ressa
Rd Cul De Sac
Rubber Cape Seal (1075 SY)
Bulb:1.5" HMA Overlay
(420Y)
Ressa Road Brightom Road Moana Way Slurry Seal
Eureka Drive Oceana Market Talbot Ave Rubber Cape Seal
Talbot Avenue Eureka Avenue San Pable Avenue Rubber Cape Seal Brighton Road Palmetto Avenue Francisco Boulevard Slurry Seal Clarendon Road Beach Boulevard Francisco Boulevard
Francisco Blvd to Palmetto
Ave: Double Slurry Seal
(2750) Palmetto Ave to
Beach Blvd: Slurry Seal
(2150 SY)
Lakeside Avenue Francisco Boulevard Clarendon Road Double Slurry Seal Oceana Blvd Clarendon Avenue Paloma Avenue Rubber Cape Seal Areleen Way Cullen Drive Ridgeway Drive Slurry Seal
Bradford Way Mori's Point Road Fairway Drive Double Slurry Seal

7.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment A SB1 FY24-25 Resurfacing Street List [Revision 1] (5642 : Adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2024-25 funded Bradford Way Fairway Drive Sharp Park Road Slurry Seal
Burns Court Cullen Drive Cul De Sac Slurry Seal
Cindy Way Cullen Drive Ridgeway Drive Rubber Cape Seal
Cullen Drive Lundy Way Cindy Way Rubber Cape Seal
Lundy Way Cullen Drive Westport Drive Double Slurry Seal Lundy Way Westport Drive Ridgeway Drive Double Slurry Seal Lundy Way Ridgeway Drive Sharp Park Road Double Slurry Seal Ridgeway Drive Lundy Way Dead End Slurry Seal
Reina Del Mar Avenue St. Highway 1 Reichling Avenue Slurry Seal Reina Del Mar Avenue Reichling Avenue Minerva Avenue

2.0" Mill With 2.0" HMA
Overlay
Rockaway Beach
Avenue Cul De Sac St. Highway 1
Slurry Seal (2329 SY) Bulb:

1.5" Mill With 1.5" HMA
Overlay (195 SY)
Rockaway Beach
Avenue Fassler Drive Buel Avenue

2.0" Mill with 2.0" HMA
Overlay
Rockaway Beach
Avenue Buel Avenue Bay View Road Rubber Cape Seal
Dondee Way San Marlo Way
Rockaway Beach
Avenue Slurry Seal
Old County Road San Marlo Way
Rockaway Beach
Avenue Slurry Seal
San Pedro Avenue Kent Road 381' S/O Kent Road Double Slurry Seal San Pedro Avenue 381' S/O Kent Road Danmann Avenue Double Slurry Seal San Pedro Avenue Danmann Avenue
200 Ft. East of Grand
Avenue Double Slurry Seal
Grand Avenue Begin A/C San Pedro Avenue

2.5" Mill With 2.5" HMA
Overlay
Oceana Blvd Paloma Ave Milagra Drive Slurry Seal

7.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment A SB1 FY24-25 Resurfacing Street List [Revision 1] (5642 : Adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2024-25 funded

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/13/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Adopt Resolution to Approve Amendment No. 2 To Agreement Between the City of Pacifica and Universal Building Services (UBS) For Janitorial Services RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt Resolution to Approve Amendment Number 2 to the vendor services agreement with Universal Building Services to provide additional Janitorial Services for City restrooms at Linda Mar State Beach, Pacifica Pier, Rockaway Beach, Frontierland Park and outside the Community Center in an amount of $84,397.77 increasing the overall cost to $343,657.77/year.

STAFF CONTACT:

Lisa Petersen; Director PW
650 738-7382
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On February 27, 2023, the City Council approved an agreement with Universal Building Services (UBS) for janitorial services. The agreement was put in place to consolidate the city’s different janitorial services to allow for both cost savings and a higher quality of janitorial services to all city facilities. Additional cost benefits were realized by staff managing one vendor versus four different vendors. The agreement allowed for cleaning all the city buildings generally Monday through Friday, with exceptions such as Sharp Park Library that is serviced 7 days/week, childcare centers that are serviced 3 days/week, and the Council Chambers, which is serviced 1 day/week. The total cost was $222,756/year, including the Civic Center Campus buildings.

Staff returned to Council on October 9, 2023, to request approval of Amendment Number 1 to the UBS agreement to allow for weekend cleaning of the Community Center and bathroom cleaning at the Jean E. Brink Pool located on the Oceana High School campus. The total yearly added cost approved to the contract through Amendment 1 was $36,504 for a total annual agreement cost of $259,260.

During the last labor negotiations, it was suggested that City management look into adding janitorial services to the PW operational costs for city restrooms at Linda Mar State Beach, Pacifica Pier, Rockaway Beach, Frontierland Park, and outside the Community Center.

Generally, the restrooms are cleaned in the evening to allow for immediate morning openings that are especially critical to the beach areas because of early morning ocean sports activities.

The task currently falls to the Rangers in the evenings because of their schedules, but also the high season day cleanings that are required when significant public activity is occurring in these areas. Due to low staffing in the Field Services maintenance department, other staff are not available to take over these tasks. Completing bathroom cleaning is time-consuming and not part of the ongoing duties for the Ranger classification, and it takes away from other important tasks such as safety monitoring, wildlife protection, parking control, enforcement of 8 Packet Pg. 146
Pacifica City Council 2
May 13, 2024
rules, conflict resolution, addressing complaints, and responding to emergencies.

An RFP was released on January 4, 2024, for the cleaning of 13 restrooms in the areas noted above; this includes seven days per week, twice a day cleaning from May through October (high season) and once per day cleaning from November through April. The bid opening was on February 9, 2024, and the city received one bid from UBS for a total annual cost of $84,397.77 The seven-day-per-week service will generally include:
• Clean/disinfect walls, doors, switches, door handles
• Clean toilets, urinals, and sinks with disinfectant cleaner • Empty trash receptacles
• Restock dispensers
• Clean mirrors, faucets, dispensers
• Clean ceiling vents
• Wipe down doors/frames
• Sweep/mop all floors
UBS is currently used for cleaning all city buildings and their services have been to expected standards. The City Manager recommends adopting a Resolution to approve Amendment Number 2 to the vendor services agreement with Universal Building Services to provide additional janitorial services for city restrooms at Linda Mar State Beach, Pacifica Pier, Rockaway Beach, Frontierland Park and outside the Community Center in an amount of $84,397.77/yr., increasing the overall cost to $343,657.77.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council could choose not to approve the amendment. This is not recommended as these cleaning services are needed, and using the Rangers for these services is outside of their classification and impacting their availability to cover important Ranger tasks such as safety monitoring, wildlife protection, parking control, rule enforcement, conflict resolution, addressing complaints, and responding to emergencies.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets, and facilities: Awarding this work will allow the public park and beach bathrooms to be appropriately cleaned and sanitized.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no additional FY 2023-24 fiscal impact associated with contract amendment as the cost for the remainder of the year will be covered by the existing budget through salary and other savings in Public Works parks contractual services. If approved, the FY 2024-25 cost of $84,397.77 will be added to the FY 2024-25 base budget.

ORIGINATED BY:

Parks, Beaches & Recreation and Public Works
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
8 Packet Pg. 147
Pacifica City Council 3
May 13, 2024
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 (PDF) Attachment B_Agreement_Amendment No. 2_UBS_20240423 (PDF) 8 Packet Pg. 148
Pacifica City Council 4
May 13, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA ADOPTING A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO THE VENDOR SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES (UBS) TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL

JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR CITY RESTROOMS AT LINDA MAR STATE BEACH,

PACIFICA PIER, ROCKAWAY BEACH, FRONTIERLAND PARK AND OUTSIDE THE

COMMUNITY CENTER
WHEREAS, the public city restrooms at Linda Mar State Beach, Pacifica Pier, Rockaway Beach, Frontierland Park and outside the Community Center need daily cleaning and twice a day cleaning during the high season (May-October) to remain clean and sanitary; and WHEREAS, the Rangers currently clean these restrooms, although outside of their classification, taking away from other important Ranger tasks such as safety monitoring, wildlife protection, parking control, enforcement of rules, conflict resolution, addressing complaints and responding to emergencies; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2023, the Council approved a vendor services agreement with UBS for cleaning all city facilities and on October 9, 2023 the Council approved a first amendment to the agreement for added services at the Community Center and Jean E. Brink Pool and UBS has been preforming these services to expected standard; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2024, the City Council of the City of Pacifica considered the City Manager’s recommendation to approve a second amendment to the agreement with UBS to provide additional restroom cleaning services.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to approve Amendment 2 to the vendor services agreement with UBS for additional janitorial services for city restrooms at Linda Mar State Beach, Pacifica Pier, Rockaway Beach, Frontierland Park and outside the Community Center in an amount of $84,397.77 increasing the overall cost of the UBS Janitorial Services Agreement to $343,657.77/year. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of May 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 8 Packet Pg. 149
27 ATTACHMENT A

8.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement

8.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment A_Agreement_UBS_202302 & Amendment No. 1 [Revision 1] (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND

UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES (UBS) FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES This Amendment No. 2 ("Amendment No. 2") is made and entered into this 23rd day of April 2024 by and between the City of Pacifica, hereinafter called "City" and Universal Building Services and Supply Company, hereinafter called "Vendor". Vendor and City may be collectively referred to as "Parties".

WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a Vendor Agreement for Products and/or Services for Janitorial Services on February 27, 2023("Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a First Amendment to the Vendor Agreement for Products and/or Services for Janitorial Services on October 9, 2023 for additional janitorial services at the Community Center and Jean E. Brink Pool ("Amendment No. 1 "); WHEREAS, the City requires additional janitorial services from Vendor; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Amendment No. 2 pursuant to Section 29 of the Agreement to specify the extra work necessary for restroom services at Linda Mar Beach, Rockaway Beach, Pacifica Pier, Frontierland Park and outside the Community Center.

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree to the following amendments to the Agreement:

Section 1. Scope of Services
The Services described in Section C(1 )(A) and (B) ("Services" and "Product") of the Agreement and Exhibit A of the Agreement (Scope of Work and Schedule for City of Pacifica Janitorial Services) will be amended to add the following custodial services and products:

Pacifica Parks and Beach Restroom Cleaning
Janitorial/Custodial services will be provided to 13 restrooms located at the following locations in the City of Pacifica: Linda Mar Beach, Rockaway Beach, Pacifica Pier, Frontierland Park and outside of the Community Center. The restroom cleaning will occur 7 days per week either once or twice per day as outlined in Section 2 of this Amendment No.2, "Compensation". Daily cleaning will include the following:

A. Sweep, mop, disinfect floors
B. Fill soap, paper towels, toilet paper, sanitary napkins and seat covers C. Clean and disinfect dispensers, faucets and mirrors
D. Clean and disinfect walls, doors and detail door handles and light switches E. Pick up debris and trash and install new trash liners. Clean, polish and disinfect waste receptacles including exterior
F. Clean and disinfect toilet bowls, urinals and sinks
G. Clean and disinfect countei:tops and dispensers
H. Remove cobwebs
I. Report burnt out lights, graffiti, rodents and other issues J. Dust and clean ledges, shelves, baseboards, toilet bases and beneath the sinks K. Wipe and clean all ventilation grills
L. Keep janitor closet and trash area clean and orderly M. Properly secure building upon completion of work
..

ATTACHMENT B

8.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment B_Agreement_Amendment No. 2_UBS_20240423 (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement Between the N. Restock receptacles
Section 2. Compensation. The second paragraph in Section (C)( 3) of the Agreement shall be amended to read as follows:
"3. Compensation; Expenses; Payment.

Notwithstandingtheforegoing,thecombinedtotalofcompensationandreimbursementof costs payable hereunder shall not exceed the following amounts: Twenty-one Thousand Six Hundred-Five Dollars and no/200 ($21,605) per month based on the facilities serviced in Exhibit a (Itemized fees for Nos.1-18); and the sum of Eighty-Four Thousand Three Hundred Ninety-Seven Dollars and 77/100. ($84,397.77) per year based on facilities serviced in Exhibit 81 (Itemized fees for Nos.19-25) lf invoices exceed these amounts, invoices shall not be paid unless additional amounts have been approved in advance for supplying the product, performing the services or incurring the costs and expenses by CITY's City Manager or City Council as made and carried in a resolution and a written contract amendment having been executed.
„
Exhibit 81 of the Agreement (Vendor's Fees and Payment Milestones) shall be amended to add the following:

No.

Facility Location Facility CleaningCost
19 Pier RR (2) 2100 Beach BIvd. See Chart BelowSeeChartBelowSeeChartBelow 20 Rockaway RR 1 00 Rockaway
(2) Beach Ave.
21 Anza RR (4) 5000 CA-1
See Chart Below 22 Linda Mar RR 2 5300 Coast HWY
23 CommunityCenter 540 Crespi Dr. See Chart Below
24 FrontierlandUpper(2) 900 Yosemite Dr. See Chart Below 25 FrontierlandLower(2) 900 Yosemite Dr. See Chart Below iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllll_

8.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment B_Agreement_Amendment No. 2_UBS_20240423 (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement Between the 81 (Continued)
The total Amendment No. 2 added cost is based on the following per day cost bid:

NOVEMBER -APRIL, 7 DAYSAVEEK,1 TIME PER DAY (181 days)
Pier Bestroom, 2100 Beach Blvd.
1 (2 each)
Rockaway Beach Restroom, 599
2 Rockaway Beach Blvd. (2 each)
Anza Restroom, 4800 Coast
3 Highway (4 each)
Linda Mar Restroom, 5300 Coast
4 Highway (2 each)
Community Center Restroom,
5 540 Crespi Drive (1 each)
Frontjerland Park Restroom, 900
6 Yosemite Drive (2 each)
Total
1 Each Day
1 Each Day
1 Each Day
1 Each Day
1 Each Day
1 Each Day
MAY-OCTOBER, 7 DAYSAVEEK, 2 TIMES PER DAY (184 days)
Pier Restroom, 2100 Beach Blvd.
1 (2 each)
Rockaway Beach Restroom, 599
2 Rockaway Beach Blvd. (2 each)
Anza Restroom, 4800 Coast
3 Highway (4 each)
Linda Mar Restroom, 5300 Coast
4 Highway (2 each)
Community Center Restroom,
S 540 Crespi Drive (1 each)
Frontierland Park Restroom, 900
6 Yosemite Drive (2 each)
Total
2 Each Day
2 Each Day
2 Each Day
2 Each Day
2 Each Day
2 Each Day
$37.50
$19.38
;28.44
$19.38
;10.30
;38.73
$37.50
;19.38
;28.44
$19.38
;10.30
$38.73
$37.50
$19.38
$28.44
;19.38
;10.30
$38.73
$153.73
;75.00
;38.76
;56.88
$38.76
;20.60
$77.46
;307.46
Total Annual Cost for 81-$84,397.77

8.b
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment B_Agreement_Amendment No. 2_UBS_20240423 (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement Between the S'
All other provisions of the original Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect, including, but not limited to, the requirements that Contractor hold harmless and indemnify the City.

Throughout the time required for completion under the original Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1 and this Amendment No. 2, Contractor shall continue to obtain and maintain any bonds or insurance policies or endorsements, including policies naming the City and its officers and employees as additional insured that contractor was originally required to maintain. [Signature on Next Page]

8.b
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment B_Agreement_Amendment No. 2_UBS_20240423 (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement Between the ¢'

CITY OF PACIFICA,
A Municipal Corporation:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
CONTRACTOR:

Universal Building Services
/-
Operations Manager,
UBS
ATTEST:

Sarah Coffey, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

8.b
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment B_Agreement_Amendment No. 2_UBS_20240423 (5628 : Resolution - Amendment No. 2 To Agreement Between the

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/13/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) for Geotechnical Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution approving the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) for Geotechnical Services in the amount of $219,780 with a 10% contingency for a total amount of $241,758 and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the Geotechnical Services.

STAFF CONTACT:

Bryan Bautista, Assistant Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3769
[email protected]
Roland Yip, P.E., DPW Deputy Director/City Engineer
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Between December 2022 through March 2023, the City of Pacifica was affected by severe winter storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides. On January 14th, 2023, President Joe Biden declared that federal disaster assistance has been made to the state of California to supplement state, local, and tribal recovery efforts in the area affected by the severe storms.

The declaration, FEMA-4683-DR-CA and FEMA-4699-DR-CA, has authorized individual assistance for several Counties throughout California, including San Mateo County. There were various locations throughout the City affected by the storm and caused landslides including 31 Idlewild Court, Higgins Way & Adobe Drive, 601 Talbot Avenue, 1475 Rosita Road, and 500 Rockaway Beach Road. The existing landslide at the end of Sharp Park Road will also be analyzed by the geotechnical engineers with this project.

On January 4, 2023, the City Manager, acting in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to PMC 4-2.05(a) and executed the "Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency" ("Proclamation").

Staff released the Request for Proposals (RFP) for a contract for Geotechnical Services on March 4th, 2024 to our list of on-call geotechnical firms.

Two of the four firms submitted proposals by the due date of March 20, 2024. Engineering 9 Packet Pg. 194
Pacifica City Council 2
May 13, 2024
Division staff reviewed the submitted Proposals from the two consultants:

1.) Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA)

2.) Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc.

Engineering Division staff performed consultant scoring based on the contents of the proposals.

The consultants were scored based upon the Consultants’ overall experience of company and similar project experience, organization and planning of the project, budget approach and cost effectiveness, and references as criteria for selection. Based upon the criteria above, CSA is selected by staff to proceed with the Geotechnical Services.

CSA specializes in providing responsive geotechnical consulting services while also being costconscious. CSA is working on several projects in the city including the design of the 310-330 Esplanade Project and a separate on-call geotechnical consulting services agreement with the Planning Department for cliff stability issues along the coastline. This new agreement is specifically related to City-submitted FEMA projects that require geotechnical support. CSA assists municipalities with geotechnical consulting services, including topographic surveys, geological mapping, subsurface investigation, slope stability analysis, geotechnical engineering, engineering geologic analysis, and preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates for the mitigation of the landslide conditions. Staff recommends CSA because of their qualifications, personnel, and experience with landslide mitigation and slope stabilization design.

The City Manager recommends adopting the resolution and approving the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (Attachment "1") for Geotechnical Services.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Agreement is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Improve and steward City Infrastructure, streets, and facilities: The repair of the storm damage will improve the areas and prevent further damage.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The contract will be $219,780 from the Disaster Accounting Fund 38. Staff is requesting reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the landslides and damages that had occurred during the declared disaster storms between December 2022 and March 2023.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (PDF)
9 Packet Pg. 195
Pacifica City Council 3
May 13, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. ___

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

CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $219,780 WITH A 10% CONTINGENCY FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $241,758;

AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO

THE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City was affected by severe winter storms between December 2022 and March 2023; and
WHEREAS, a geotechnical engineer is required to conduct geotechnical services and slope stability analysis; and
WHEREAS, CSA specializes in providing geotechnical consulting services; and WHEREAS, the City evaluated CSA’s proposal, and is satisfied they can successfully complete the work.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to Approve the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and CSA, in the amount of $219,780 with a 10% contingency for a total amount of $241,758; and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the Geotechnical Services. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of May, 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 9 Packet Pg. 196

MASTER AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Master Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 13th day of May 2024, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. [a corporation] (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY requires Geotechnical Services in connection with 2023 California Storm Disaster; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified to perform such services; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has agreed to provide CITY with such services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.

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

ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES

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

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

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

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

CONSULTANT agrees that the Services shall be performed in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which CONSULTANT is engaged, in the same or similar geographical area in which CONSULTANT practices its profession, under the same or similar circumstances as that of CONSULTANT under this Agreement, and will prepare all work products required by this Agreement in accordance with such standards. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT is in responsible charge of the Services. Acceptance by CITY of the Services does not operate as a release of CONSULTANT from professional responsibility for the Services performed.

OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1

9.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (5643 : Consultant

1.5. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an employee of CITY. CONSULTANT expressly warrants that it will not represent that it is an employee of CITY. Persons employed or utilized by CONSULTANT in the performance of the Services will not be employees or agents of CITY. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.

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

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

However, notwithstanding the foregoing, CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for any alterations, modifications or additions made to the Documents by CITY or any reuse of the Documents by CITY or any other party for the projects under this Agreement and applicable Task Orders or any other project without the consent of CONSULTANT.

CITY shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CONSULTANT against any claims, damages, or losses arising out of the reuse or distribution of the Documents without the consent of CONSULTANT and arising out of alterations, modifications, or additions to the Documents made by anyone other than CONSULTANT.

Furthermore, third-party content that may be used or incorporated in the Documents shall not become the property of CITY. CONSULTANT shall secure all licenses necessary to any third-party content incorporated into CONSULTANT’s Documents for CITY to utilize CONSULTANT’s services and the Documents for their intended purposes.

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

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

9.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (5643 : Consultant ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION

2.1. Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with the rate and schedules specified in a Task Order. However, in no event shall the amount the CITY pays to CONSULTANT for work done under a Task Order exceed the total compensation specified in the Task Order (“Cost Ceiling”).

2.2. Invoices. CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices in a form reasonably satisfactory to CITY on or before the tenth day of each month for Services provided during the preceding month. CONSULTANT shall submit time and cost records as necessary to substantiate performance of the Services. Within 35 days after receipt of each such invoice, CITY shall verify the accuracy of the invoice, correct the charges where appropriate and as discussed and mutually agreed with CONSULTANT, and make payment to CONSULTANT in an amount equal to the amount of such invoice, as verified or corrected by CITY. No payment hereunder shall be construed as evidence of acceptance of any of CONSULTANT's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONSULTANT on account of Services not performed in accordance with this Agreement or an applicable Task Order, delays in CONSULTANT's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder. CONSULTANT shall not stop or delay performance of the Services under this Agreement on account of payment disputes with CITY.

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

2.4. Withholding. In lieu of holding retention, CITY shall withhold CONSULTANT's final payment under a Task Order until the Services provided under that Task Order are complete and CITY has received all Documents. CONSULTANT shall diligently continue and complete performance of the Services if the Services are not complete at the time CONSULTANT has performed services up to the Cost Ceiling.

ARTICLE 3 - TIME OF PERFORMANCE

3.1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the second signature and shall remain in full force and effect until May 31, 2025 (the "Term").

Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be extended for successive one-year term(s) upon mutual, written approval by the City Manager or his/her designee and CONSULTANT. Work authorized by a Task Order shall be performed in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Task Order.

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

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

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

ARTICLE 4 - DESIGNATED CONTACTS

9.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (5643 : Consultant

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

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

ARTICLE 5 - INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

5.1. Indemnification. CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to claims, liability, loss, damage, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees, awards, fines, penalties, or judgments, (collectively "Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT in the performance of its Services under this Agreement, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its Officials, officers, employees and agents (the "CITY Parties"), except to the extent the Claims are attributable to CITY Parties' negligence or willful misconduct. CONSULTANT shall defend the CITY Parties as required by California Civil Code Section 2778, and with counsel reasonably acceptable to those parties. CONSULTANT shall have no right to seek reimbursement from the CITY Parties for the costs of defense.

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

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

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

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

A. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance providing bodily injury liability and property damage, to protect against

9.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (5643 : Consultant all liability arising out of the use of any owned, leased, passenger or commercial automobile at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit . Coverage shall apply to hired and non-owned autos.

B. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial General Liability Insurance, with limits providing a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage for each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, and $2,000,000 products/completed operations aggregate. The insurance shall cover all operations including but not limited to the following: (1) premises, operations and mobile equipment liability; (2) completed operations and products liability; (3) contractual liability insuring the obligations assumed by CONSULTANT in this Agreement; (4) broad form property damage liability; (5) personal injury liability endorsement, including death; and (6) automobile bodily injury and property damage insurance, including all owned, hired and non-owned equipment.

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

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

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

5.3. The Certificates shall be on forms acceptable to CITY. CONSULTANT shall also furnish CITY with original endorsements with the following documentation:
• Precluding cancellation or reduction in coverage before the expiration of thirty (30) days after CITY shall have received written notification thereof from CONSULTANT by United States mail;
• Providing that CONSULTANT's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, and include a “separation of insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability (cross-liability endorsement);
• Excepting CONSULTANT’S professional liability insurance and workers’ compensation insurance, naming CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees, and agents as additional insureds (“Additional Insureds”); and

9.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (5643 : Consultant • Providing that for any claims relating to CONSULTANT's services hereunder, CONSULTANT's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees, and agents, and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY for itself, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees, and agents shall be in excess of CONSULTANT's insurance and shall not be contributory with it.
• It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverages requirements and/or limits shall be available to the Additional Insured, including but not limited to any umbrella or excess insurance.

Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be the greater of:
(a) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (b) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured.

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

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

If to CITY: City Manager
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 738-7409
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038
Email: [email protected]

9.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (5643 : Consultant If to CONSULTANT: David Schrier, CEO
646 University Ave
Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218
Phone: (408) 354-5542
Email: [email protected]

MISCELLANEOUS

6.1. Conflict of Interest Prohibition. CITY and CONSULTANT will comply with the requirements of the CITY’s Conflict of Interest Code adopted pursuant to California Government Code §87300 et seq., the Political Reform Act (California Government Code §81000 et seq.), the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission (Title 2, §18110 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations), California Government Code §1090 et seq., and any other ethics laws applicable to the performance of the Services and/or this Agreement. CONSULTANT may be required to file with the CITY Clerk a completed Form 700 before commencing performance of the Services unless the CITY Clerk determines that completion of a Form 700 is not required, pursuant to CITY’s Conflict of Interest Code. Form 700 forms are available from the CITY Clerk.

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

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

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

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

9.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (5643 : Consultant

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

6.3. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of CITY and CONSULTANT as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. This Agreement may only be modified by an amendment in writing signed by each party.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (5643 : Consultant

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

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

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
CONSULTANT: COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

By: Date
David Schrier, CEO
Attest:

By: Date
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

9.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (5643 : Consultant

EXHIBIT A

TASK ORDER

9.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (5643 : Consultant TASK ORDER NO. _____

CITY OF PACIFICA
AND
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below, in accordance with the provisions of the Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica (“CITY”) and (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated (“MASTER
AGREEMENT”)
SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK
The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Attachment “A” – Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT. Compensation for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be as set forth in Attachment “B” – Compensation, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided under this Task Order shall not exceed ($ ) (“Cost
Ceiling”).

SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed by or as extended in writing by the City Manager.

SECTION 5 – ITEMS AND CONDITIONS
All terms and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT are incorporated by reference and remain in full force and effect.

Approved this ____ day of _____, ____.
[Signatures on Next Page]

9.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (5643 : Consultant

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
By: Date
By: Date

9.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (5643 : Consultant ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

9.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (5643 : Consultant ATTACHMENT “B”

COMPENSATION

9.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment 1: Cotton Shires Associated Geotechnical Services Master Consultant Services Agreement (5643 : Consultant

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
5/13/2024
1 SUBJECT:

City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the updated City of Pacifica 2023 to 2030 Strategic Plan Mission, Vision, Values, Goals and Strategies (Attachment A).

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Each year the City Council convenes in advance of the new fiscal year to review the City’s prior goals and develop a list of priorities to be implemented in the upcoming fiscal year This annual process is intended to identify Council priorities in advance of developing the annual budget, in order to align the City’s financial resources with the projects and initiatives that will make up the workplan for the fiscal year.

Last year, the City Council pursued a different process - strategic planning. A best practice for high functioning organizations, strategic planning is intended to begin with identifying Mission, Vision, and Values statements for the organization, followed by identifying long-term goals that reflect those statements, and multi-year strategies and priorities to fulfill those goals.

A definition of each of the Strategic Plan elements is provided below:

Mission - The City’s Mission is a statement of what the City does and strives to do on an ongoing basis. It sets the boundaries and expectations for the City and its work.

Vision - The Vision statement is aspirational, identifying the desired outcome of the City’s efforts and changes over a long period of time.

Values - The listed Values for the City reflect how the City does its work, from the City Council through front-line staff. Values typically embody both current and desired approaches for internal and external performance.

Goals - The City’s Goal statements capture the primary focus for the City to achieve its Vision over the next seven years. Each Goal statement is ambitious, encompassing an aspirational set of work to be done, especially given that most City operations, funding, staffing, and time is devoted to day-to-day services and other non-discretionary work.
10 Packet Pg. 211
Pacifica City Council 2
May 13, 2024
Strategies - The City Council has selected a limited set of top Strategies to achieve each Goal. Some Strategies may be accomplished over one to two years, while others may persist throughout the life of the Strategic Plan.

This year the City Council convened in a public workshop format to review progress on and possible changes to the Strategic Plan. The PowerPoint used to guide the Council workshop is provided as Attachment B and the minutes of the meeting as Attachment C..

Following a review and highlighting of the City’s many accomplishments this past year, the Council identified the following factors which have led to the City’s success:
• Strong public involvement
• Dedicated staff
• Managing through scarcity
• Flexible city manager
• Teamwork led by the Council and City Manager
• Clear and thoughtful direction from the City Council
• Mutual respect and love for each other
• The natural beauty of Pacifica
As detailed in the PowerPoint from the workshop, the City Council then participated in a Communications Style exercise. The exercise helps identify individual preferred communications styles which were then combined to identify collective dynamics. Overall, the Council is strongest in the Considerate style, followed closely by Systematic and Direct. The only communications style not well represented is Spirited. The Council discussion acknowledged the necessary balance provided between the styles and also recognized that serving on Council and staff during challenging times - both financially and with significant policy issues - can be “hard on the spirit.”
The Council received extensive public comment, with the most comments received related to short-term rentals, tree program, transportation, economic development, affordable housing, and open space.

The City Council reviewed the Mission, Vision, Values and Goals adopted last year and did not direct any changes to them at this time.

The bulk of the Council workshop was spent reviewing the Strategies necessary to achieve each Goal as well as the staff work plan and progress to date. Given the City’s ongoing resource constraints and existing priorities as reflected in the Strategic Plan, few changes or additions were directed by Council at this time, although specific comments were provided on most of the Strategies and work plan items for staff’s consideration.

Only two changes to the Strategic Plan were directed by a majority of Council as follows:
* Modify the language for Strategy 2C - Pursue planning and financing for the Library projects.

Staff recommends this new language - Broaden community awareness of the Library projects. * Add a new Strategy 5C - Explore possible changes to Council term limits.

The City Manager is seeking confirmation from the Council regarding these two changes. 10 Packet Pg. 212
Pacifica City Council 3
May 13, 2024
Based on the Council workshop, City staff has updated the draft workplans for each Strategy under each Goal, as summarized in Attachment D using the City’s new AchieveIt software package. These draft workplans reflect the staff’s understanding of the Council’s direction for each Goal and Strategy and the work and timelines possible at this time given existing and anticipated resources and current priorities.

The annual budget process provides the means for community and Council consideration of the allocation of resources necessary for continuing services and work as well as a limited number of new initiatives and efforts based on the Strategic Plan or other priorities. Progress on the Strategic Plan must be calibrated to the resources available as the City Council considers the proposed budget during the months ahead.

Last, best practices from other local government agencies suggest a number of additional steps to ensure progress on the Strategic Plan, including:
• Posting the Mission, Vision, Values, Goals and Strategies on the City’s web page, around City Hall and other City facilities open to the public, and in the City Council Chambers.
• Incorporating the Strategic Plan in the City’s budget and other guiding documents. • Refer to the Strategic Plan Goals and Strategies as appropriate in Council staff reports. • Provide periodic updates on the Strategic Plan at Council meetings or in semiannual staff reports. • Council consideration of which Strategies to delay or drop when providing midcycle direction on new or emerging priorities. • Conduct annual reviews and updates to the Strategic Plan, focusing on achievements and changes related to the Strategies for each Goal. It is not uncommon in other agencies to drop and add Strategies each year in furtherance of the Strategic Plan.

The City Council’s action on the Strategic Plan will be the culmination of a thorough and thoughtful consideration of the challenges and opportunities facing the City of Pacifica and will provide a guide for achieving the Council’s Vision and Goals for the City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct or immediate fiscal impact associated with the City Council’s adoption of the Strategic Plan. However, the Strategic Plan will serve as the Council’s guide for allocation of resources in the budget process and for staff’s prioritization of work given limited resources.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Updated Strategic Plan (PDF)
Attachment B: Council Strategic Planning Workshop PowerPoint (PDF) Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (PDF) Attachment D: Updated Staff Work Plan (PDF)
10 Packet Pg. 213
STRATEGIC PLAN - 2023 TO 2030
City of Pacifica
(adopted by the City Council on May 8, 2023, reviewed March 9, 2024) MISSION - What Do We Do?
The City of Pacifica provides exceptional services,
maintains the small-town feel and safety of its unique community, and stewards its environment, coastal beauty, and recreational opportunities.

VISION - What Are We Becoming?
Pacifica strives to be an inclusive and sustainable community:
environmentally, economically, socially, and holistically.

VALUES - How Do We Approach Our Work?
• Collaborative Teamwork
• Healthy Workplace
• Heartfelt Service
• Resource Stewardship
• Transparent and Responsive
• Visionary Planning
GOALS - How Will We Achieve Our Vision?

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.

10.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment A: Updated Strategic Plan (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25)

GOALS AND STRATEGIES
Pacifica Strategic Plan – 2023 to 2030
(adopted by the City Council on May 8, 2023, reviewed March 9, 2024) The Strategies listed under each Goal below are the City Council’s initial priorities to ensure progress on achieving the Strategic Plan while recognizing the ongoing services, management and
non-discretionary work that consume most City resources.

1. Enhance organizational and fiscal stability.

A. Improve staff retention, recruitment, mental health and wellness resources, and increase staffing for rising workloads.

B. Consider possible tax and bond measures for 2024.

C. Prioritize implementation of the Economic Opportunities Study.

2. Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets, and facilities.

A. Complete selected stormwater and flooding improvements citywide.

B. Advance the Beach Boulevard Resiliency and Esplanade Protection Projects (including the Pier, as feasible).

C. Broaden community awareness of the Library projects.

D. Develop a Facilities and Equipment Plan for
Public Safety and the Community Center.

3. Prioritize protection and development of affordable housing.

A. Complete the Housing Element Update.

B. Update the Short-Term Rental Ordinance.

C. Prioritize Housing Element program implementation.

4. Pursue climate change adaptation and mitigation.

A. Update the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, including performance targets.

B. Continue the urban forestry plan, tree canopy goals, inventory, and projects.

C. Update Pacifica’s Local Coastal Plan and improve
communications and collaboration with the California Coastal Commission.

5. Broaden public communications and collaboration.

A. Creatively and appropriately leverage community
expertise and volunteers to advance City priorities.

B. Increase communications, education, and connections
for community mental health resources.

C. Explore possible changes to Council term limits.

Note - Modified or added Strategies are highlighted

10.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment A: Updated Strategic Plan (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) City of Pacifica Strategic Plan Update & Priority Setting Workshop March 9, 2024 Greg Larson, Facilitator 1
City Council
Workshop
Strategic Plan Update
and Priority Setting
Greg Larson,
Facilitator March 9, 2024
A. Welcome
2 Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck Councilmember Christine Boles Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Mary Bier
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus City Manager Kevin Woodhouse
3 B. Workshop
Overview
Objectives
Align the Leadership Team
Celebrate Accomplishments
Review Adopted Strategic Plan
Identify Priorities through 2025
4 Workshop Outline
A. Welcome
B. Workshop Overview
C. Celebrate Recent Accomplishments
D. Communications Styles Exercise
E. Public Comment
F. Review of Adopted Strategic Plan
G. Priorities through 2025 (by Goals and Strategies)
H. Wrap-Up and Next Steps
1 2
3 4

10.b
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment B: Council Strategic Planning Workshop PowerPoint (5648 : City Council City of Pacifica Strategic Plan Update & Priority Setting Workshop March 9, 2024 Greg Larson, Facilitator 2
5 Ground Rules
Listen to understand
Assume good intent
Pursue consensus
Speak up if we need course correction
All devices off or silent • Time management tool • Things to discuss at another time will be tracked separately Bike Rack
C. Celebrate Recent Accomplishments
7 8
• Housing Element submitted
• Good leadership hires
• Investing in staff • LCP progressing
• Strong finance/budget work
• Increased public engagement • Civic Center remodeling • Ongoing street paving work
• Economic Development outreach
• Beach Boulevard/seawall progress
Top Recent Accomplishments - Council • Sharp Park SP progressing • Focused on Goals, Strategies, Priorities
• New Councilmember onboarding
• North Coast County Water issues
• Resolved neighborhood drainage issue
• CORA Speak Up program
• GP Update completed
5 6
7 8

10.b
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment B: Council Strategic Planning Workshop PowerPoint (5648 : City Council City of Pacifica Strategic Plan Update & Priority Setting Workshop March 9, 2024 Greg Larson, Facilitator 3
9 • Police Response Mental Health Clinician
• Upgraded Police body-worn and in-car cameras • Police employee wellness program • Fire and life-safety inspections completion
• On-going fire safety and emergency
preparedness education/outreach
• Coordination of 2022 Municipal Election
• Public records handling – nearly 400 packets,
reports, official docs and requests
• 8 point increase in Pavement Condition Index
• U.S. Congressional Certificate for storm
event response
Other Recent Accomplishments - Staff • Grant progress for BBIRP project • Extensive community engagement • Manor Drive Overcrossing Project significant milestone
• Life Buoys Installation
• Expanded special events programming
• Post-COVID reopening of events and
programming
• Planning Department hirings and new Code
Enforcement Officer • Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Task Force work
• And no doubt many, many more 10 What factors have helped Pacifica accomplish so much?
11 D. Communications
Style Exercise
D. Communications Style Exercise

1. Handout #1 – Circle all the words that primarily apply to you

2. Handout #2 – Tabulate your circled words to identify your primary and secondary (or shared) styles

3. Handout #3 – Identify communication style differences

4. Choose and share your Preferred and Secondary styles 12 9 10
11 12

10.b
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment B: Council Strategic Planning Workshop PowerPoint (5648 : City Council City of Pacifica Strategic Plan Update & Priority Setting Workshop March 9, 2024 Greg Larson, Facilitator 4
Communication Styles Characteristics
13 Direct Spirited
Considerate Systematic
• Decisive
• Formal and direct
speech
• Maintains eye contact • Action oriented
• Poor listener
• Impatient • Argues
• Competes
• Discounts feelings
• Ignores details
• Generalizes
• Persuasive
• Express opinions
• Animated
• Enthusiastic
• Cluttered
• Poor time
management • Doesn’t hear details
• Generalizes
• Poor response
to criticism
• Listens
• Supportive
• Speaks slowly • Slow movement • Family photos in
workspace
• Avoids conflict • Keeps opinions
to self • Tells others what they
want to hear
• Precise
• Avoids emotion
• Detail oriented
• Even delivery
• Controlled movement • Strong sense of
personal space
• Too detail oriented
• Impersonal • Terse
• Delays decision
making
14 BREAK
15 E. Public Comment F. Review of Adopted Strategic Plan 16 Mission
Vision
Values
Goals
Strategies
Implementation
Action Plan
How will we achieve Our Goals?
How will we achieve our Vision?
Staff work programs (AchieveIt)
How do we approach our work?
What are we becoming?
What do we do?
13 14
15 16

10.b
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment B: Council Strategic Planning Workshop PowerPoint (5648 : City Council City of Pacifica Strategic Plan Update & Priority Setting Workshop March 9, 2024 Greg Larson, Facilitator 5
Strategic Plan Framework - METRICS
17 Mission
Vision
Values
Goals
Strategies
Implementation
Action Plan
Short enough
to remember or
visually post
3 to 5 for each Goal
3 to 5 total
10 to 25 Work Plans 18
Adopted Mission – What do we do?
The City of Pacifica provides
exceptional services,
maintains the small-town feel and
safety of its unique community,
and stewards its environment,
coastal beauty, and recreational
opportunities.
19 Adopted Vision - What are we becoming?
Pacifica strives to be an inclusive
and sustainable community:
environmentally,
economically,
socially, and
holistically. 20
Adopted Values – How do we do our work?
 Collaborative Teamwork  Healthy Workplace  Heartfelt Service  Resource Stewardship  Transparent and Responsive  Visionary Planning
17 18
19 20

10.b
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment B: Council Strategic Planning Workshop PowerPoint (5648 : City Council City of Pacifica Strategic Plan Update & Priority Setting Workshop March 9, 2024 Greg Larson, Facilitator 6
Change wording of “Not Started” to make it more clear
What is the difference between “Off Track” and “At Risk”

1.3.7 – Please provide more information on what these are

1.4.9 – How can we get this back on track or even accelerate?

2.2.5 & 6 – What are the challenges, and can they be resolved?

2.2.7 – Is the storm assessment completed?

3.2.1 – Wasn’t this approved by Council previously

3.3.1 – How can we get this back on track or even accelerate?

3.4.5 – Hasn’t this been delayed?

5.3.2 – Can we do the Emergency Preparedness Committee next? 21 Staff Work Program Update - Council Inquiries LUNCH
G. Priorities through 2025
23 Mission
Vision
Values
Goals
Strategies
Implementation
Action Plan
How will we achieve our Vision?
How will we achieve our Goals? 24
Top Council Priorities – Interview Results

1. Local Coastal Plan updated and approved

1. Housing Element certified (with Tier 1 Rezonings)

2. Housing Element implementation (with Tier 2 Rezonings)

2. Short Term Rental Ordinance improvements

2. BBIRP completed
Seawall plan approved
Pier planning and grants solicitation

3. Beach Boulevard property direction

3. Show tangible affordable housing progress

3. Start rebuilding library grassroots support

3. Quarry Specific Plan initiated

3. Term limits direction
21 22
23 24

10.b
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment B: Council Strategic Planning Workshop PowerPoint (5648 : City Council City of Pacifica Strategic Plan Update & Priority Setting Workshop March 9, 2024 Greg Larson, Facilitator 7
25 1. Enhance organizational and fiscal stability.

A. Improve staff retention and recruitment and
increase staffing for rising workloads.

More capacity building needed
Focus next on mental health resources needed
B. Consider possible tax and bond measures for 2024.

C. Prioritize implementation of the Economic Opportunities Study What is the next focus or priority (e.g, Quarry Specific Plan) Consider use of Beach Boulevard property after LCP
Integrate all the respective planning documents*
Conduct Council district-based business meet-ups* 26

2. Improve and steward City
infrastructure, streets and facilities.

A. Complete selected stormwater and flooding improvements citywide.

Manage and fund storm event hot spots as needed*
Consider fee impacts on businesses, especially breweries and restaurants* B. Advance the Beach Boulevard Resiliency and Esplanade Protection Projects (including the Pier, as feasible).

Begin focusing soon on Pier grant opportunities
Improve communications on project status*
Start addressing Manor risks and needs*
C. Pursue planning and financing for the Library projects.

Initiate a long-term plan to for increased grassroots support D. Develop a Facilities/Equip. Plan for Public Safety/Comm. Cntr.

E. NEW – Develop a mid-City transportation improvement Plan* 27 BREAK
28 3. Prioritize protection and development of affordable housing.

A. Complete the Housing Element Update.

Highest priority
B. Update the short-term rental ordinance.

Begin work this year
Address complaints and improve communications
Accelerate inspections and enforcement*
C. Prioritize Housing Element program implementation.

Initiate rezonings as soon as possible
Tangible progress on an affordable housing project this year Possible accelerated interim work*:

New objective standards
Grading standards comparisons
At grade definition change
Modify “infinitely high” retaining wall language
Update inclusionary ordinance, esp. Rockaway
Accelerate the nexus fee study
25 26
27 28

10.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment B: Council Strategic Planning Workshop PowerPoint (5648 : City Council City of Pacifica Strategic Plan Update & Priority Setting Workshop March 9, 2024 Greg Larson, Facilitator 8
29 4. Pursue climate change adaptation and mitigation.

A. Update the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan,
including performance targets.

Ensure Council and Committee alignment
B. Continue the urban forestry/tree canopy inventory and projects.

Other planning items a higher priority
Improve enforcement and response*
C. Update Pacifica’s Local Coastal Plan and improve communications and collaboration with the Coastal Commission.

Top priority
Making progress towards a resolution
30 5. Broaden public communications and collaboration.

A. Creatively and appropriately leverage community expertise and volunteers to advance City priorities.

Climate Change Committee good first step
Find a way for staff to utilize citizen-based research* B. Increase communications, education, and connections for community mental health resources.

Rely on Councilmember Bier’s expertise as needed
C. NEW – Evaluate past efforts to find ways to do more overall* 31 Other possible work program additions
A. Conduct Council relations and team building workshop B. Consider possible term limit modifications
C. Council compensation set at State standard* 32
The City Council will continue
this iterative process in April
Please complete online
workshop evaluation survey
Single biggest take-away
H. Wrap-Up and
Next Steps
29 30
31 32

10.b
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment B: Council Strategic Planning Workshop PowerPoint (5648 : City Council City of Pacifica Strategic Plan Update & Priority Setting Workshop March 9, 2024 Greg Larson, Facilitator 9
Thank you!
Greg Larson, Facilitator
[email protected]
408-761-1326
Except as noted, all photographs provided
by the City of Pacifica from photographers
Chris Campo and Stephen Johnson
33 10.b
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment B: Council Strategic Planning Workshop PowerPoint (5648 : City Council

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.

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

10.c
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) 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” there was strong support from Council to seek funds for pier repairs. 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) 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
APPROVED AS AMENDED: 5 - 0; 4/8/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor

10.c
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment C: Council Strategic Planning Workshop minutes (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning Update for FY2024-25) FY2024-2025 Workplan
MISSION - What Do We Do?
The City of Pacifica provides exceptional services, maintains the small-town feel and safety of its unique community, and stewards its environment, coastal beauty, and recreational opportunities.

VISION - What Are We Becoming?
Pacifica strives to be an inclusive and sustainable community: environmentally, economically, socially, and holistically.

VALUES - How Do We Approach Our Work?
Collaborative Teamwork
Healthy Workplace
Heartfelt Service
Resource Stewardship
Transparent and Responsive
Visionary Planning

10.d
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment D: Updated Staff Work Plan [Revision 1] (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning FY2024-2025 Workplan
Goal One - Enhance Organizational & Fiscal Stability
Goal One - FY2024-2025
Not Started 19 (32%)
On Track 39 (66%)
Off Track 1 (2%)
Enhance Organizational & Fiscal Stability - FY2024-2025 # Level Indented Name Status Assigned To Start Date Due Date 1 Goal Enhance Organizational & Fiscal Stability On Track Kevin Woodhouse 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

1.1 Strategy Improve staff retention, recruitment, mental health and wellness resources, and increase staffing for rising workloads.

On Track Yulia Carter 07/01/2024 06/30/2030

1.1.1 Task Position the City as a great place to work: provide safe workspace and adequate tools and training to ensure high performance and continue strategies to attract and retain talent in the Bay Area's competitive market, including EE recognition and celebration events, professional development and leadership training through professional associations, partnering organizations and consortium agreements, focused talent development tools, health and wellness programs, mental health resources, etc.

On Track Yulia Carter 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

1.1.1.5 Sub-Task Implement annual implicit-bias-awareness training for all police department staff On Track Maria Sarasua 07/01/2024 06/30/2030

1.1.1.10 Sub-Task Leadership training through state and national public safety associations On Track Maria Sarasua 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

1.1.1.11 Sub-Task Implement health/wellness programs and mental health resources for public safety employees (peer support program, resiliency training, Cordico Wellness App)
On Track Maria Sarasua 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

1.1.1.12 Sub-Task Expand and leverage social media platforms to attract desirable police officer candidates On Track Maria Sarasua 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

1.1.1.13 Sub-Task Conduct Supervisory (HR101) Training and developed a training program by participating in regional initiatives (e.e SMC Supervisory Academy; LCW and ICMA Trainings) as well as developing an in-house pilot training series starting with Staff Report Writing; Transition to Supervisory Role and Time Management training classes Not Started Yulia Carter 07/01/2024 09/30/2024

1.1.1.14 Sub-Task Develop and execute organizational "pulse check" assessment citywide and Employee Code of Ethics initiative Not Started Yulia Carter 07/01/2024 06/30/2025

1.1.1.15 Sub-Task Prepare for the labor negotiations with all employee groups. Not Started Yulia Carter 01/01/2025 06/30/2025

1.1.1.16 Sub-Task Supporting the hybrid workforce by offering agency staff the productivity resources needed to support and empower today’s hybrid workforce.

On Track Pacifica IT 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

1.1.2.3 Sub-Task Participate in San Mateo Regional Internship Program On Track France Enriquez 04/01/2024 09/30/2024

1.1.4 Task Undertake classification and compensation study in preparation for next round of labor negotiations with the longterm goal of offering competitive compensation and benefits as can be afforded by the CityOn Track Yulia Carter 01/01/2024 01/01/2025

1.1.4.3 Sub-Task Develop Implementation Action Plan for the study results and include it in the new Labor negotiations strategies
Not Started Yulia Carter 01/01/2025 06/30/2025
Goal One - Enhance Organizational & Fiscal Stability
The Council's Goal One - Enhance Organizational & Fiscal Stability, is to strengthen the stability and efficiency of the city's operations and finances. To achieve this goal, the Council has identified three key strategies, in addition to ongoing non-discretionary or previously initiated projects and services that contribute to this goal.

Accross these strategies, tasks, and subtasks, staff developed a comprehensive work plan encompassing a total of 110 items for the current and upcoming fiscal years. These items are categorized as follows: 28 accomplishments, indicating successful completion; 53 items on track, progressing as planned; 21 items scheduled to commence within the current or next fiscal years, and 8 items marked as off-track primarily due to time/capacity or budget constraints.

The breakdown for the current FY 2023-24 and the upcoming FY 2024-25 provides further insight into the distribution of these items, including those carried over into the next fiscal year or scheduled to begin during that period.

10.d
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment D: Updated Staff Work Plan [Revision 1] (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning FY2024-2025 Workplan

1.1.4.5 Sub-Task Review the preliminary results of the study and work closely with the consulting firm to finalize it. Not Started Yulia Carter 07/01/2024 09/30/2024

1.2.4 Task Ballot Measure preparation, placement, and public information On Track Sarah Coffey 04/01/2024 07/08/2024

1.2.4.1 Sub-Task Receive results and analysis of polling by FM3 regarding potential revenue ballot measure(s). City Manager to present information and/or staff recommendation to Council On Track Sarah Coffey 01/01/2024 07/08/2024

1.2.4.2 Sub-Task Receive Council direction on potential revenue ballot measure(s) for November 2024 ballot. Not Started Sarah Coffey 04/01/2024 07/08/2024

1.2.4.3 Sub-Task With consultant(s) and City Attorney, staff to develop proposed ballot language to present to Council for Council Action to place measure(s) on November 2024 ballot.

Not Started Sarah Coffey 06/30/2024 07/31/2024

1.2.4.4 Sub-Task Prepare informational materials and communication plan Not Started Kevin Woodhouse 06/01/2024 12/30/2024

1.3 Strategy Prioritize implementation of the Economic Opportunities Study. On Track Yulia Carter 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

1.3.1 Task Commence work to begin implementation of short-term EOS opportunities. On Track Yulia Carter 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

1.3.2 Task Continue EOS business assistance and visitor/tourism marketing efforts. Tie together Economic Development Strategy update with Economic Opportunities Study implementation, including marketing.

On Track Yulia Carter 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

1.3.2.4 Sub-Task Continue implementing the City's Economic Development program and short-term EOS opportunities, including Shop Pacifica, business visitations, Palmetto Street Enhancements, Business Matters publication, and more.

On Track Alyssa Barranti 10/01/2023 06/30/2025

1.3.4.3 Sub-Task Engaged with the consultant who will initiate this work once the appraisal report is received Not Started Yulia Carter 02/01/2024 06/30/2025

1.3.6 Task Streamline the City's development regulations for particular opportunity sites, development types, etc. to improve the process, such as frontloading CEQA and making certain projects ministerial approval only (outside Coastal Zone)
Not Started Brianne Harkousha 07/01/2024 06/30/2025

1.3.6.1 Sub-Task Economic Development Manager coordinates with Planning Department to identify priority sites and regulations.

Not Started Brianne Harkousha 07/01/2024 06/30/2026

1.3.6.2 Sub-Task Economic Development Manager coordinates with Planning Department during Housing Element Program HE-I2 implementation ("Phase 2 Rezoning," zoning modernization and streamlining).Not Started Brianne Harkousha 07/01/2024 06/30/2025

1.3.7 Task Explore other funding sources, including Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD), Community Facility Districts (CFD), and Climate Resiliance District (CRD) options, or related tools, for West Sharp Park and Quarry/Rockaway
Not Started Yulia Carter 01/01/2024 06/30/2025

1.3.8 Task Develop the Economic Vitality Strategy to serve as a single consolidated document to articulate and prioritize previously approved economic development plans, programs and strategies Not Started Yulia Carter 07/01/2024 12/31/2024

1.4 Strategy Prepare the Cost Allocation Plan and Conduct the Development Impact Fee and Master Fee Studies Not Started Yulia Carter 04/01/2025 06/30/2026

1.4.1 Task Conduct an RFP Process and select a consulting firm for the CAP, DIF and MFS project Not Started Yulia Carter 04/01/2025 07/31/2025

1.4.3 Task Conduct the Cost Allocation Plan Not Started Lucy Xie 10/01/2024 01/31/2026

1.4.4 Task Conduct the Master Fee Study and Adopt a new MFS Not Started Lucy Xie 01/01/2025 06/30/2026

1.5 Strategy Ongoing, non-discretionary or previously initiated projects and services On Track Yulia Carter 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

1.5.2 Task Day-to-day organizational management, services, reporting, public meeting coordination, and community engagement, responsiveness, and outreach
On Track Sarah Coffey 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

1.5.2.1 Sub-Task Continue timely delivery on key milestones within the Finance cycle (Quarterly Treasurer's and Financial Reports, Interim and Final Audit, including Single Audits, Measure A and Measure W AUP; Child Care Program Audit, Mid-year and Annual Budget Process)
On Track Yulia Carter 07/01/2024 06/30/2025

1.5.2.2 Sub-Task Annual Mandated Reporting: EEO-1 Reporting Affordable Care Act 1095 report; OSHA; Emergency Preparedness Plan; Public Annual Self-Insured State Reporting and legal HR compliance requirements; State Controller's Mandated Reports for Streets; Cities Transaction; Public Financing Authority, and Government Employee Compensation; annual Bond disclosure; Successor Agency and ROPS reporting to the State Department of Finance and San Mateo County Oversight Board. Quarterly Payroll Tax Filing for IRS and EDD.

On Track Lucy Xie 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

1.5.2.3 Sub-Task Non Discretionary tasks for Day-to-day reporting mandates in the City Clerk’s Office (e.g continue timely delivery of responses to Public Records Act Requests, meeting coordination including publication and posting of Agendas, execution of Resolutions and Ordinances, etc.).

On Track Sarah Coffey 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

10.d
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment D: Updated Staff Work Plan [Revision 1] (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning FY2024-2025 Workplan

1.5.3Task Continue systems efficiency improvements, such as Public Records Act handling, document scanning, etc. and service-delivery assessment
On Track Sarah Coffey 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

1.5.3.2 Sub-Task Research Agenda Management Software product that provides for integrated meeting video for City Council and Planning Commission meetings and incorporates all City Committees / Commissions for Agenda and Minutes publication.

Off Track Sarah Coffey 01/01/2024 12/31/2024

1.5.3.3 Sub-Task Continue efforts for digitizing records and uploading digital records into Laserfiche as the document repository.

Complete the Laserfiche repository records for City Council Ordinances & Resolutions, then Agreements, then Agenda Staff Reports.

On Track Sarah Coffey 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

1.5.4Task Continue processing of Planning documents/ordinances/plans updates that clarify/streamline development requirements and processes, including the Local Coastal Land Use Plan, the Sharp Park Specific Plan, the Quarry Site Specific Plan, and Zoning Code Amendments
On Track Christian Murdock 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

1.5.4.1 Sub-Task Coastal Commission certification of LCLUP. On Track Stefanie Cervantes 10/01/2023 06/30/2025

1.5.4.2 Sub-Task Coastal Commission certification of Sharp Park Specific Plan. On Track Stefanie Cervantes 01/01/2025 12/31/2025

1.5.4.3 Sub-Task Implement Housing Element Program HE-I-2 and other Economic Development-related zoning updates. On Track Brianne Harkousha 10/01/2024 09/30/2025

1.5.5Task Continue Enterprise Resource Planning solution implementation for Financial and Human Resource Management System modules.

On TrackYulia Carter 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

1.5.5.4 Sub-Task Prepare employee database setups and complete HR/ MOU/ Benefit Master Codes, personnel action tables, position control and salary tables, cost centers, positive pay and Time and Attendance and go live with the HRMS Module
On TrackFrance Enriquez 01/01/2024 01/01/2025

1.5.5.5 Sub-Task Complete staff's training on the Financial and HRMS Module setup and capabilities and create training library. Not StartedLucy Xie 10/01/2024 01/01/2025

1.5.6.1 Sub-Task Bring in a project manager consultant to conduct the needs assessment and manage implementation On Track Roland Yip 01/01/2024 06/30/2025

1.5.7Task Develop ongoing audit strategy and conduct routine audits of the City's top revenues sources, inlcluding Sales Tax, TOT, Business License and Cannabis to ensure compliance; continue to pursue grant funding; review the revenuegenerated agreements for appropriate terms and economic escalators.

On TrackYulia Carter 10/01/2023 06/30/2025

1.5.7.2 Sub-Task Ongoing work with the grant-writing firm on various grant applications On TrackYulia Carter 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

1.5.7.4 Sub-Task Ongoing compliance efforts related to Business License Tax On TrackYulia Carter 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

1.5.7.5 Sub-Task Ongoing tax compliance efforts related to STR providers. On TrackYulia Carter 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

1.5.7.6 Sub-Task Conduct annual audits for cannabis businesses. On TrackYulia Carter 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

1.5.7.7 Sub-Task Conduct annual audit of lodging providers (TOT) On TrackYulia Carter 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

1.5.8Task Review, update, develop and implement policies and processes related to Administrative Services to comply with legal requirements and best practices
On TrackYulia Carter 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

1.5.8.3 Sub-Task Review and Update of Administrative Policies On TrackFrance Enriquez 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

1.5.10Task Conduct an RFP process and select a new qualified financial audit firm to perform the City's annual regular and single audit and assist with the preparation of the ACFR report On TrackLucy Xie 03/01/2024 07/31/2024

10.d
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment D: Updated Staff Work Plan [Revision 1] (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning FY2024-2025 Workplan
Goal Two - Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets and facilities.

Goal Two - FY2024-2025
Not Started 11 (28%)
On Track 25 (64%)
Off Track 2 (5%)
At Risk 1 (3%)
Goal Two – Improve and Steward City Infrastructure, Streets, and Facilities The City Council’s Goal Two – Improve and Steward City Infrastructure, Streets, and Facilities, is to focus on critical City infrastructure needs. To achieve this goal, the Council has identified four key strategies, in addition to ongoing non-discretionary or previously initiated projects and services that contribute to this goal.

Across these strategies, tasks, and subtasks, staff has developed a comprehensive work plan encompassing a total of 63 items for the current and upcoming fiscal years. These items are categorized as follows: 8 accomplishments, indicating successful completion; 31 items on track progressing as planned; 20 items scheduled to commence within the current or next fiscal years; 3 items marked as off track primarily due to time/capacity or budget constraints and one at risk project (“400 Esplanade Environmental/Final Design”) due to lack of Coastal Commission Approval to date.

The breakdown for the current fiscal year 2023-24 and the upcoming fiscal year 2024-25 provides further insight into the distribution of these status items, given that some will be carried over into the next fiscal year or scheduled to begin during that period.

Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets and facilities. # Level Indented Name Status Assigned To Start Date Due Date 2 Goal Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets and facilities. On Track Kevin Woodhouse 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

2.1 Strategy Complete selected stormwater and flooding improvements citywide. On Track Lisa Petersen 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

2.1.2 Task Complete Linda Mar Storm Pump Station review and rehabilitate equipment On Track Louis Sun 07/01/2023 03/31/2025

2.1.3 Task Apply for grant funding to allow design of Lower Linda Mar Storm Drain Improvements On Track Roland Yip 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

2.1.4 Task Complete repairs to storm drainage systems damaged during winter storms with FEMA funding
On Track Roland Yip 07/01/2023 03/31/2025

2.1.4.2 Sub-Task Design Not Started Roland Yip 10/01/2024 12/31/2024

2.1.4.3 Sub-Task Construction Not Started Roland Yip 10/01/2024 03/31/2025

2.1.5 Task Pursue funding and planning for stormwater projects identified in the Storm Drainage Master Plan
On Track Louis Sun 07/01/2023 06/30/2026

2.2 Strategy Advance the Beach Boulevard Resiliency and Esplanade Protection Projects (including the Pier, as feasible).

On Track Lisa Petersen 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

2.2.2.1 Sub-Task Environmental Documentation Funding Not Started Roland Yip 12/01/2024 07/01/2025

2.2.3 Task If funding search is successful, commence Phase 2b of BBIRP Not Started Roland Yip 01/01/2025 06/30/2026

2.2.3.1 Sub-Task Environmental Documentation Not Started Roland Yip 01/01/2025 06/30/2026

2.2.4 Task Future phases/construction of BBIRP Not Started Roland Yip 01/01/2025 06/30/2026

2.2.5 Task Complete 310-330 Esplanade Environmental Document and Final Design Off Track Roland Yip 06/30/2023 06/30/2026

2.2.6 Task Complete 400 Esplanade Environmental Document and Final Design At Risk Roland Yip 06/30/2023 06/30/2025

2.2.8 Task Identify funding for Pacifica Pier railing and repairs project Not Started Roland Yip 06/01/2024 12/30/2024

2.3 Strategy Broaden community awareness of the Library projects. On Track Kevin Woodhouse 07/01/2023 09/30/2024

2.3.1 Task Reconvene the Library Advisory Committee and continue public information/outreach On Track Sarah Coffey 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

10.d
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment D: Updated Staff Work Plan [Revision 1] (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning FY2024-2025 Workplan

2.3.1.5 Sub-Task Conduct regular monthly Library Advisory Committee meetings and subcommittee work to continue public information / outreach regarding the Libraries Modernization Project.

On Track Sarah Coffey 12/01/2023 06/30/2025

2.3.2 Task Complete construction of the Sanchez Library "Outpost" automated kiosk On Track Roland Yip 07/01/2023 09/30/2024

2.4 Strategy Develop a Facilities and Equipment Plan for Public Safety and the Community Center. Off Track Lisa Petersen 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

2.4.1.1 Task Acquire and implement public safety technology to improve efficiency and effectiveness On Track Maria Sarasua 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

2.4.1.5 Sub-Task Implement Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology Not Started Maria Sarasua 07/01/2024 12/31/2024

2.4.1.6 Sub-Task Implement Drone Technology On Track Maria Sarasua 01/01/2025 06/30/2025

2.4.4 Task Complete a Facilities Assessment Report Not Started Lisa Petersen 07/01/2024 06/30/2025

2.4.5 Task Identify and complete short-term Community Center Maintenance/Repair Needs Not Started Scott Leslie 01/01/2025 06/30/2025

2.4.6 Task Public outreach, surveys, and feasibility analysis of upgrading/replacing Community Center Not Started Scott Leslie 01/01/2025 12/31/2025

2.5 Strategy Ongoing, non-discretionary or previously initiated projects and services On Track Lisa Petersen 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

2.5.1 Task Day-to-day organizational management, services, reporting, public meeting coordination, and community engagement, responsiveness, and outreach
On Track Elizabeth Brooks 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

2.5.2 Task Completion of selected wastewater system improvements in CIP for the treatment plant and collections system
On Track Dan Patten 07/01/2023 07/01/2029

2.5.2.1 Sub-Task Ultraviolet Disinfection System On Track Dan Patten 08/23/2022 12/31/2025

2.5.2.2 Sub-Task Lower Linda Mar Collection System Rehabilitation Project On Track Dan Patten 08/15/2023 12/31/2025

2.5.4 Task Engineering reviews and support of infrastructure related to development projects On Track Lisa Petersen 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

2.5.5 Task Continue annual implementation of the 5-year Streets Improvement Plan On Track Roland Yip 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

2.5.6 Task ADA Transition Plan update On Track Christian Murdock 07/01/2024 06/30/2025

2.5.6.1 Sub-Task Release RFP for CASp evaluation On Track Christian Murdock 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

2.5.6.2 Sub-Task Review and approve plan On Track Christian Murdock 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

2.5.6.3 Sub-Task Prioritize projects in CIP On Track Christian Murdock 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

2.5.6.4 Sub-Task Complete required projects. On Track Christian Murdock 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

10.d
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment D: Updated Staff Work Plan [Revision 1] (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning FY2024-2025 Workplan
Goal Three - Prioritize protection and development of affordable housing.

Goal Three - FY2024-2025
Not Started 10 (40%)
On Track 13 (52%)
Off Track 1 (4%)
Canceled 1 (4%)
Goal Three – Prioritize the Protection and Development of Affordable Housing The City Council’s Goal Three – Prioritize the protection and development of affordable housing, focusing on completing the Housing Element update and implementation and updates to the short-term rental ordinance. To achieve this goal, the Council has identified three key strategies, in addition to ongoing non-discretionary or previously initiated projects and services that contribute to this goal.

Across these strategies, tasks, and subtasks, staff has developed a comprehensive work plan encompassing a total of 50 items for the current and upcoming fiscal years. These items are categorized as follows: 8 accomplishments, indicating successful completion; 16 items on track, progressing as planned; 18 items not started but scheduled to commence within the current or next fiscal years; 8 items marked as off track primarily due to time/capacity or budget constraints.

Prioritize protection and development of affordable housing. # Level Indented Name Status Assigned To Start Date Due Date 3 Goal Prioritize protection and development of affordable housing. On Track Kevin Woodhouse 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

3.2 Strategy Update the Short-Term Rental Ordinance. Off Track Christian Murdock 06/01/2024 06/30/2025

3.2.1.2 Sub-Task Coastal Commission certification hearing. Not Started Christian Murdock 01/01/2025 06/30/2025

3.2.4 Task Planning Commission and City Council public hearings Not Started Christian Murdock 10/01/2024 12/31/2024

3.2.5 Task LCP amendment for major STR ordinance revision Not Started Christian Murdock 01/01/2025 06/30/2025

3.3 Strategy Prioritize Housing Element program implementation. On Track Christian Murdock 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

3.3.2.1 Sub-Task Planning Commission public hearing. Not Started Christian Murdock 04/01/2024 09/30/2024

3.3.2.2 Sub-Task City Council public hearing. Not Started Christian Murdock 04/01/2024 09/30/2024

3.3.3 Task Phase 2 zoning text amendments (objective standards and design guidelines, code modernization), CEQA Not Started Christian Murdock 10/01/2024 09/30/2025

3.3.3.1 Sub-Task Planning Commission study sessions. Not Started Christian Murdock 10/01/2024 01/31/2025

3.3.3.2 Sub-Task Prepare draft ordinance. Not Started Christian Murdock 02/01/2025 03/31/2025

3.3.4 Task Prepare/release City property RFPs for affordable housing developments, negotiate with developers Not Started Christian Murdock 07/01/2024 12/31/2024

3.3.5 Task LCP amendment to implement Phase 1 rezonings and Phase 2 text amendments Not Started Christian Murdock 01/01/2025 06/30/2027

3.3.6 Task Other Housing Element program implementation (for example, inclusionary/BMR zoning ordinance update) On Track Christian Murdock 07/01/2024 06/30/2027

3.4 Strategy Ongoing, non-discretionary or previously initiated projects and services On Track Christian Murdock 07/01/2023 06/30/2030

3.4.1 Task Day-to-day organizational management, services, reporting, public meeting coordination, and community engagement, responsiveness, and outreach
On Track Christian Murdock 01/01/2024 12/31/2026

3.4.2 Task Routine processing of all development permit applications, including potentially controversial projects and appeals On Track Christian Murdock 01/01/2024 12/31/2026

3.4.3 Task Continuing collaboration with Pacifica Resource Center on homeless services, the Temporary Safe Parking Program, and grant funding search related to homeless services
On Track Christian Murdock 01/01/2024 12/31/2026

10.d
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment D: Updated Staff Work Plan [Revision 1] (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning FY2024-2025 Workplan

3.4.3.2 Sub-Task Implement ERF grant (if awarded). Canceled Christian Murdock 01/01/2024 12/31/2025

3.4.3.3 Sub-Task Meet regularly with staff to discuss homeless services and the Temporary Safe Parking Program On Track Maria Sarasua 07/01/2023 06/30/2025

3.4.4Task Coastal Commission processing of Temporary Safe Parking Program (TSPP) LCP amendment and/or CDP On Track Christian Murdock 01/01/2024 12/31/2026

3.4.4.1 Sub-Task Submit LCP amendment to Coastal Commission. On Track Christian Murdock 01/01/2024 12/31/2025

3.4.4.2 Sub-Task Coastal Commission public hearing. On Track Christian Murdock 01/01/2024 12/31/2025

3.4.5Task Process TSPP CDP appeals at Coastal Commission On Track Christian Murdock 01/01/2024 12/31/2027

3.4.5.1 Sub-Task OSV ordinance LCP amendment approval by Coastal Commission. On Track Brianne Harkousha
07/01/2023 09/30/2025

10.d
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment D: Updated Staff Work Plan [Revision 1] (5648 : City Council Strategic Planning FY2024-2025 Workplan
Goal Four - Pursue climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Goal Four - FY2024-2025
Not Started 12 (41%)
On Track 16 (55%)
At Risk 1 (3%)
Goal Four – Pursue Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation The City Council’s Goal Four – Pursue Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, is to focus on updating the key major plans: Climate Action and Adaptation, Urban Forestry, and Pacifica’s Local Coastal Plan. To achieve this goal, the Council has identified three key strategies, in addition to ongoing non-discretionary or previously initiated projects and services that contribute to this goal.

Across these strategies, tasks, and subtasks, staff has developed a comprehensive work plan encompassing a total of 50 items for the current and upcoming fiscal years. These items are categorized as follows: 8 accomplishments, indicating successful completion; 24 items on track, progressing as planned; 17 items scheduled to commence within the current or next fiscal years; and 1 item marked as “at risk” due to time and staff’s capacity and time constraints to execute the completion and adoption of the EV Strategic Plan and Implementation Action Plan for EV Charging.

Pacifica City CouncilMay 13, 2024

Pacifica City Council
May 13, 2024