Agenda — Pacifica City Council, June 10, 2024 (part 1 of 4)

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 June 10, 2024
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
June 10, 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 June 10, 2024
6:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION. Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1)- Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan, et al. v. City of Pacifica, et al.

San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 20CIV05719
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer
Closed Session Report

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Dave Peel

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 05/01/24 through 05/31/24.

PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the City Council Regular Meeting 3 June 10, 2024
month of May 2024.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the May 23, 2024 City Council Special Meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

6. Cancellation of July 22, 2024 City Council Meeting
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve cancellation of the July 22, 2024 regular City Council meeting.

7. Financial Report for the Quarter Ending March 31, 2024 PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending March 31, 2024

8. Resolution to Approve a Five-Year Agreement with Badawi & Associates for Financial Audit Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year agreement with Badawi & Associates to provide financial audit services for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2024, through June 30, 2028.

9. Resolution to Reclassify a Vacant Planning Director position to a Community Development Director and Amend the Planning Director Job Specification, Title, and Salary Accordingly.

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution amending the Planning Director Job Specification, title, and salary to reflect changes to the Community Development Director specification.

10. Agreement to terms with the Pacifica School District for rental space for Child Care services in the amount of $174,552 for the 2024-2025 school year.

City Council Regular Meeting 4 June 10, 2024
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager to sign the 2024-2025 contract with the Pacifica School District for rental space for Child Care services in the amount of $174,552, an amount which will be included in the 2024-2025 proposed budget.

11. Amendments to Consultant Services Agreements for On-Call Planning Services, Building Division Staff Augmentation, and Related Services Between the City of Pacifica and CSG Consultants, Inc., and Good City Company, as well as Between the City of Pacifica and Dyett & Bhatia for Housing Element Rezoning and EIR.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the following resolutions to approve the following agreement amendments:
1) Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Seventh Amendment of the Consultant Services Agreement With CSG Consultants, Inc. for Building Official, Building Inspection, Plan Review, Current Planning And Related Services” (Attachment A); 2) Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Seventh Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Good City Company for Professional Planning and Related Services” (Attachment B); and,
3) Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners for Environmental Review and Related Services” (Attachment C).

12. Adopt Resolution Accepting Invoices from Michael Roberts Construction for emergency work on Beach Boulevard and Milagra Stormwater Outfall
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution accepting invoices (Attachment 1) from Michael Roberts Construction, Inc. for emergency repair work on Beach Boulevard and the Milagra Stormwater Outfall covered by the Proclamation of Local Emergency from the recent high tide/large wave event for a total cost of $269,854.

13. Consideration of (1) a Resolution Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 for By-District Elections to Elect One Member of the City Council from District 1 and One Member of the City Council from District 4, Each for a Full Four-Year Term; Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City's General Municipal Election with the November 5, 2024 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services; Adopting Regulations Pertaining to the Candidates’ Statement of Qualifications; and authorize the City Manager to Execute the Service Agreement for Election Services.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 for By-District Elections to Elect One Member of the City Council from District 1 and One Member of the City Council from District 4, Each for a Full Four-Year Term; Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City's General Municipal Election with the November 5, 2024 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services; Adopting Regulations Pertaining to the Candidates’ Statement of Qualifications and authorize the City Manager to Execute the Service Agreement for Election Services.

City Council Regular Meeting 5 June 10, 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

14. Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report and other associated approvals for 310-330 Esplanade Avenue Infrastructure Preservation Project PROPOSED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council moves to adopt Resolution approving the following:
(1) Certify Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for 310-330 Esplanade Avenue Infrastructure Preservation Project (“Project”);
(2) Approve Project as defined and analyzed in the EIR and proceed therewith by applying to the California Coastal Commission for permits/approvals; (3) Adopt CEQA Findings and Mitigation and Monitoring Report (“MMRP”); and (4) Direct City staff to file Notice of Determination.

CONSIDERATION

15. Fiscal Year 2024-25 Proposed Budget Program Options PROPOSED ACTION: Review and discuss the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Proposed General Fund and Other Funds Budget and provide additional policy direction on the desired budget options and strategies for the upcoming budget.

City Council Regular Meeting 6 June 10, 2024

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

The Pacifica Municipal Code is available online at the City’s website (www.cityofpacifica.org/municode);

HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:

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

View on the Internet:

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

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

Agendas are available at the City Council meeting

HOW TO REACH YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
• Governor Gavin Newsom, State Capitol Building, Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 445-2841 • State Senator Josh Becker, 1528 So. El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 212-3313 • Assembly Member Marc Berman, 721 Colorado Ave, Suite 101, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 324-0224 • Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, 698 Emerson Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 323-2984 • Senator Alex Padilla, B03 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3553 • Senator Laphonza Butler, SD-G10 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3841 • President Joseph R. Biden, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500

CITY COUNCIL
• Mayor 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
6/10/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for 05/01/24 through 05/31/24.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of May 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 5/1/24 through 5/31/24 are in the amount of $2,384,964.97. (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 - 05-01 to 05-31-24 (PDF)
1 Packet Pg. 7
Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 1

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69302 3200.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03962 A & H DOOR AND ACCESS CONTROL 1 69303 1134.33 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 69304 7818.98 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00217 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 1 69305 1957.79 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00293 BEARING AGENCIES INC 1 69306 200.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02118 BOOTZIN/ALEX 1 69307 3470.95 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00381 C.H. BULL COMPANY 1 69308 371.95 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00452 CALPICO INC. 1 69309 1610.31 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 69310 891.61 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 69311 1530.47 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00611 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 69312 5575.33 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00025 DALY CITY/CITY OF 1 69313 94.97 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02614 DISH
1 69314 1560.14 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02793 EAST PENN MANUFACTURING CO., INC 1 69315 650.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04277 EASTMAN INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES 1 69316 77.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00758 EXPERIAN 1 69317 34.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK INVOICE PROCESSING DEPT 1 69318 28.55 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00773 FEDEX
1 69319 6878.61 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 1 69320 780.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03947 GRANICUS, INC. 1 69321 450.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 LECHLEITNER, KYLE 1 69322 2000.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06070 MARTIN REIDY 1 69323 5655.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04077 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP 1 69324 52600.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04632 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD 1 69325 2247.84 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02486 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 1 69326 1648.63 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01217 OFFICE DEPOT 1 69327 2554.98 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02027 OLIVER PACKAGING AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 2

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69328 341.71 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01289 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT, INC 1 69329 81.69 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 69330 15856.22 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03115 RMI MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, INC. 1 69331 2074.80 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03306 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES 1 69332 360.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03563 SAN CARLOS/CITY OF 1 69333 164.51 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00022 SAN MATEO COUNTY INFORMATION SERVICES 1 69334 350.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03720 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 1 69335 725.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 STAFFORD, JEREMY 1 69336 45.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05576 STEVE KWON 1 69337 201.77 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06071 TYLER WALLACE 1 69338 1154.01 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04418 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. 1 69339 20219.00 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02527 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 1 69340 6239.62 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03835 US FOODS, INC

Page 1 of 12 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=0&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 6/3/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 05-01 to 05-31-24 (5675 : Disbursements - Dated 5/1/24 through 5/31/24) 1 69341 3891.45 05/02/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01673 VWR INTERNATIONAL 1 69355 394.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05740 ABBY M. MARGOLIS 1 69356 1030.50 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00138 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. 1 69357 726.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00686 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. 1 69358 1805.53 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00153 ALPINE AWARDS ACCOUNTING 1 69359 2985.43 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 69360 391.95 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05556 AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVICE INC. 1 69361 268.60 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03895 AMERICAN FIDELITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE 1 69362 393.75 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06010 ARI STRATAKIS 1 69363 584.88 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04459 ARROWHEAD FORENSICS 1 69364 466.11 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T MOBILITY 1 69365 1664.62 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00234 AUTOMATIONDIRECT.COM, INC. 1 69366 200.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04561 AVINA, ANGEL Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 3

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69367 2931.30 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00128 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 1 69368 99.50 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04403 BAY AREA PARTS INC 1 69369 393.25 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05469 BCC BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION 1 69370 3938.77 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00335 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPANY 1 69371 440.16 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02508 BMI
1 69372 86.14 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 BRAUN, LUCIE 1 69373 2025.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05463 BRETT STOLLENWERK 1 69374 1076.92 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 1 69375 708.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00011 C.W.E.A. 1 69376 10656.82 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00421 CALIFORNIA DIESEL & POWER 1 69377 2021.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01690 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB 1 69378 89.32 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 CAMPANA, NICHOLAS 1 69379 2432.90 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05895 CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT 1 69380 56.84 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00483 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 1 69381 17436.06 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03438 CELLEBRITE USA INC. 1 69382 22.50 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05969 CHAD LAWIE 1 69383 515.40 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00507 CHILDCARE CAREERS 1 69384 2000.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06075 CHRISTINE MCGAVRAN 1 69385 327.10 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS 1 69386 1463.97 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 69387 600.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05296 CLAIRE BREES 1 69388 7873.24 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04446 COLORPRINT 1 69389 1568.22 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01204 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 1 69390 55616.14 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00611 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 69391 75.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06074 CSMFO
1 69392 9249.99 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00025 DALY CITY/CITY OF Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 4

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

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

Page 2 of 12 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=0&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 6/3/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 05-01 to 05-31-24 (5675 : Disbursements - Dated 5/1/24 through 5/31/24) 1 69393 1358.95 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04748 ECD ANALYZERS, LLC 1 69394 668.48 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00745 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS, INC. 1 69395 14.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK INVOICE PROCESSING DEPT 1 69396 12.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT 1 69397 8107.50 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03006 FEHR PEERS 1 69398 1446.88 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01960 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 1 69399 1600.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05684 FIRST SERVE PRODUCTIONS 1 69400 11216.48 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 1 69401 3000.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06065 GAGNADEEP SINGH 1 69402 329.63 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02213 GARRATT CALLAHAN 1 69403 60.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03804 GODSOE, LIZ 1 69404 37576.25 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05269 GOOD CITY COMPANY 1 69405 5060.05 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00872 GRAINGER 1 69406 780.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03947 GRANICUS, INC. 1 69407 3902.23 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00875 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26577 1 69408 12500.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05845 GREG LARSON 1 69409 400.13 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00892 HACH COMPANY 1 69410 30.72 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04842 HEMRAJ SINGH 1 69411 398.52 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00919 HERC RENTALS INC. 1 69412 369.09 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02511 IDEXX LABORATORIES 1 69413 5015.08 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03414 INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICAL CO. 1 69414 10119.44 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04373 INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER SERVICE 1 69415 524.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04494 ISIDRO, ALLEN 1 69416 1098.75 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04086 JACK DOHENY COMPANY 1 69417 2264.86 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04085 JAMES FORD, INC. 1 69418 108.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05892 JANE PITTSINGER Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 5

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69419 232.56 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01014 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 1 69420 1275.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01029 KAISER PERMANENTE--OHSS 1 69421 57.29 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01812 KBA DOCUSYS 1 69422 1032.47 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03700 KIMBALL MIDWEST 1 69423 635.38 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01055 KONE INC 1 69424 1248.29 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01067 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS 1 69425 152.50 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04088 LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES 1 69426 5767.54 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01084 LEXIPOL LLC 1 69427 142.18 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 MEEHLEIB, AUDIE 1 69428 662.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03801 NAPIER, NORA 1 69429 200.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03391 NORTH STATE ENVIRONMENTAL 1 69430 745.54 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01217 OFFICE DEPOT 1 69431 2554.98 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02027 OLIVER PACKAGING AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY 1 69432 106.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03803 ORTEGA, SHIRLEY 1 69433 700.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06037 OTHRAM, INC 1 69434 1137.26 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01239 PACIFIC FIRE SAFE 1 69435 128.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03802 PATINO, JOE

Page 3 of 12 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=0&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 6/3/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 05-01 to 05-31-24 (5675 : Disbursements - Dated 5/1/24 through 5/31/24) 1 69436 147.21 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 69437 599.55 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01337 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, INC. 1 69438 9462.85 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04026 RANEY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, INC 1 69439 734.14 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03281 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 1 69440 206.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03990 RICE LAKE WEIGHING SYSTEMS INC. 1 69441 4649.75 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05774 RINCON CONSULTANTS INC 1 69442 4149.60 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03306 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES 1 69443 500.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06073 RYAN BREEN 1 69444 1862.37 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06047 S.R. ROSE ENGINEERING INC Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 6

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69445 1419.92 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01423 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP 1 69446 1176.55 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05124 SCAPES, INC. 1 69447 22495.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04646 SCHAAF & WHEELER 1 69448 177.20 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06013 SCOTT COLISON 1 69449 16413.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02915 SECURR 1 69450 2415.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04877 SHARP PARK RESTAURANT & PRO SHOP INC. 1 69451 155.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02471 SIGNAWEST SYSTEMS, INC. 1 69452 12.50 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 SMITH, BRANDON 1 69453 500.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05723 STANLEY ERHART 1 69454 363.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA SOCIAL SERVICES 1 69455 551.34 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02670 STEPFORD INC. 1 69456 328.38 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01546 STERICYCLE 1 69457 162.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05524 STEVEN MICHAEL EVANS JR 1 69458 29.72 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02642 T-MOBILE CORPORATION 1 69459 25.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02642 T-MOBILE USA, INC. 1 69460 182.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01592 TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER 1 69461 710.22 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04299 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 1 69462 416.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01602 THOMSON WEST 1 69463 391.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01615 TOM'S AUTO BODY & PAINT 1 69464 1550.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00019 TOWN OF COLMA 1 69465 40000.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04935 TRITECH SOFTWARE SYSTEMS 1 69466 19049.74 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04670 U.S. TELEPACIFIC CORP. 1 69467 1148.67 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04576 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC 1 69468 2231.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02527 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 1 69469 3977.34 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03835 US FOODS, INC 1 69470 4381.67 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01684 VERIZON WIRELESS Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 7

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69471 862.10 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01673 VWR INTERNATIONAL 1 69472 434.06 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01707 WEST COAST CONTRACTORS SERVICES 1 69474 8743.40 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T

Page 4 of 12 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=0&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 6/3/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 05-01 to 05-31-24 (5675 : Disbursements - Dated 5/1/24 through 5/31/24) 1 69475 112.76 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00094 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 1 69476 147.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04066 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC 1 69477 267.13 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00138 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. 1 69478 8980.58 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 69479 46.23 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T LONG DISTANCE 1 69480 90.06 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T MOBILITY 1 69481 9500.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00230 AUMA ACTUATORS, INC. 1 69482 450.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06081 BAKER BROTHERS DEBRIS BOX AND RECYCLING 1 69483 693.59 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00293 BEARING AGENCIES INC 1 69484 86.14 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 BLAKE, BETINA 1 69485 95.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05127 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. 1 69486 3383.41 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06082 BOOMERS PARK LIVERMORE 1 69487 17219.80 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 1 69488 3184.25 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02145 CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 1 69489 192.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00014 CALIFORNIA STATE OF 1 69490 560.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01690 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB 1 69491 6700.23 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06080 CG APPLIANCE, INC 1 69492 527.40 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00507 CHILDCARE CAREERS 1 69493 2078.15 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 69494 1271.43 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 COLLIER, REBECCA 1 69495 698.46 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 69496 5825.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00595 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 69497 75.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00022 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ANIMAL LICENSING Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 8

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69498 8594.17 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01204 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 1 69499 1143.80 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00611 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 69500 37.50 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 CUNANAN, SUZANNE 1 69501 718.27 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00622 CURTIS & SONS, L.N. 1 69502 350.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05062 DARRYL PANG 1 69503 1950.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00645 DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY 1 69504 2860.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00672 DIAL GLASS AND WINDOW CO 1 69505 631.24 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00676 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 1 69506 3288.87 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 DONG, ALAN 1 69507 323.45 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00745 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS, INC. 1 69508 77.24 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00758 EXPERIAN 1 69509 45.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK INVOICE PROCESSING DEPT 1 69510 32.10 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT 1 69511 36.72 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00773 FEDEX
1 69512 7869.60 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06040 FIRST VANGUARD RENTALS & SALES 1 69513 7161.18 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 1 69514 14560.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06077 FRANK AND GROSSMAN LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS 1 69515 36151.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04369 GHD INC. 1 69516 1130.34 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00872 GRAINGER 1 69517 2527.25 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00875 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26577

Page 5 of 12 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=0&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 6/3/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 05-01 to 05-31-24 (5675 : Disbursements - Dated 5/1/24 through 5/31/24) 1 69518 269.21 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00892 HACH COMPANY 1 69519 499.21 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00907 HARRISON & BONINI, INC. 1 69520 80.20 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04842 HEMRAJ SINGH 1 69521 228.54 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01663 HERITAGE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY GROUP 1 69522 3274.98 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05470 JMI SOURCING LLC 1 69523 542.52 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01027 K 119 OF CALIFORNIA Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 9

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69524 179.91 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01812 KBA DOCUSYS 1 69525 635.38 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01055 KONE INC 1 69526 37.50 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 LUJAN, MATTHEW 1 69527 100.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06083 MAY LEE STATE OFFICE COMPLEX 1 69528 6285.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03790 MAZE & ASSOCIATES 1 69529 357.47 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01142 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 1 69530 173.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01165 MILLER & O'BRIEN 1 69531 2397.03 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04549 NAF SERVICES, INC. 1 69532 4250.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06079 NANCY KORRY 1 69533 3336.69 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01206 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. 1 69534 1998.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01219 OIL CHANGERS 1 69535 221342.57 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01240 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 1 69536 207.36 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01317 PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC. 1 69537 800.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03160 PUBLIC PARKING ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 69538 970.15 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 69539 285.50 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03281 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 1 69540 1556.10 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03306 ROBERT HALF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES 1 69541 192.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 ROMERO, BRYAN 1 69542 24891.51 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06047 S.R. ROSE ENGINEERING INC 1 69543 428.25 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00022 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 1 69544 78.08 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05197 SAN MATEO COUNTY MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTR 1 69545 720.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03720 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 1 69546 1222.21 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01423 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP 1 69547 4220.21 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01432 SANTA CRUZ BEACH BOARDWALK 1 69548 28667.98 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04646 SCHAAF & WHEELER 1 69549 8465.29 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06066 SOLENIS, LLC Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 10

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69550 331.87 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 STAFFORD, JEREMY 1 69551 12262.25 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01570 SYNAGRO WEST, LLC 1 69552 247.75 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00029 THE HOME DEPOT PRO INSTITUTIONAL 1 69553 6500.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05487 THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP 1 69554 416.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01602 THOMSON WEST 1 69555 471.76 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01647 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS 1 69556 62.31 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02663 UNDERWOOD, EILEEN

Page 6 of 12 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=0&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 6/3/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 05-01 to 05-31-24 (5675 : Disbursements - Dated 5/1/24 through 5/31/24) 1 69557 20219.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02527 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 1 69558 104.97 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05832 UPS STORE 1468 1 69559 557.95 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01812 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 1 69560 1414.47 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01684 VERIZON WIRELESS 1 69561 154.91 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00002 VIVIKA SAHAY (PETTY CASH) 1 69562 726.34 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01673 VWR INTERNATIONAL 1 69563 6000.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05885 WARWICK GROUP CONSULTANTS, LLC 1 69564 385.47 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01701 WECO INDUSTRIES 1 69565 72.28 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05163 WEX HEALTH, INC. 1 69566 119.00 05/17/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06084 YANELLI CORREA GONZALEZ 1 69567 1335.69 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T
1 69568 1003.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00060 A & D AUTOMATIC GATE AND ACCESS 1 69569 518.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04066 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC 1 69570 77.47 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00136 ALHAMBRA 1 69571 311.05 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00138 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. 1 69572 3223.11 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 69573 2000.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06089 ARUN HATTANGADY 1 69574 3525.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00009 AT&T OF CALIFORNIA 1 69575 1948.69 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00230 AUMA ACTUATORS, INC.

Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 11

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69576 56165.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05415 BAY AREA PAVING CO, INC. 1 69577 200.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 BENITEZ, ARNULFO 1 69578 472.62 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 BIANCULLI, RYAN 1 69579 20587.50 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05463 BRETT STOLLENWERK 1 69580 104896.13 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 1 69581 537.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00011 C.W.E.A. 1 69582 10656.82 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00421 CALIFORNIA DIESEL & POWER 1 69583 155.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00398 CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION 1 69584 32.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00014 CALIFORNIA STATE OF 1 69585 6523.59 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00886 CALIFORNIA'S GREAT AMERICA 1 69586 584.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01690 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB 1 69587 2179.03 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00483 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 1 69588 2526.53 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06080 CG APPLIANCE, INC 1 69589 515.40 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00507 CHILDCARE CAREERS 1 69590 1255.19 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 69591 435.67 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 69592 189.35 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 69593 1807.22 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01374 CORE & MAIN 1 69594 670.51 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04677 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC 1 69595 450.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 DA ROZA, JOHN PAUL 1 69596 5575.33 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00025 DALY CITY/CITY OF 1 69597 5640.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00645 DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY 1 69598 1400.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05217 ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC. 1 69599 13.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03047 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPARTMENT

Page 7 of 12 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=0&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 6/3/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 05-01 to 05-31-24 (5675 : Disbursements - Dated 5/1/24 through 5/31/24) 1 69600 12099.05 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 1 69601 118.43 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00872 GRAINGER Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 12

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69602 398.52 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00919 HERC RENTALS INC. 1 69603 500.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 HIGGINS, JEFF 1 69604 2799.52 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04859 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1 69605 6144.73 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01126 HURRICANE HARBOR CONCORD 1 69606 2000.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06088 JIM NAPPI 1 69607 2640.09 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01014 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 1 69608 317.68 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 KELLY, MATT 1 69609 2529.50 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01903 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 1 69610 500.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05991 KEVIN SCHOFIELD 1 69611 76.34 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03700 KIMBALL MIDWEST 1 69612 30113.28 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01067 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS 1 69613 196.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04088 LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES 1 69614 450.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 LECHLEITNER, KYLE 1 69615 149.79 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01090 LIFELOC TECHNOLGIES 1 69616 158.97 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00002 MANGIBIN, VIMA (PETTY CASH) 1 69617 895.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05776 MARK GRIFFIN, INC. 1 69618 74254.60 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03890 MICHAEL ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION, INC 1 69619 799.01 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04549 NAF SERVICES, INC. 1 69620 10497.99 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04632 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD 1 69621 2000.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06087 NORMA HILTON 1 69622 1884.94 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01206 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. 1 69623 949.94 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01217 OFFICE DEPOT 1 69624 305.70 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01240 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 1 69625 4050.75 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04418 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION 1 69626 400.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01297 PARS
1 69627 2400.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06072 PERRY THORWALDSON Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 13

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69628 289.20 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04139 PET FOOD EXPRESS 1 69629 853.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03459 PR DIAMOND PRODUCTS INC 1 69630 76552.71 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03782 PRIORITY 1 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT 1 69631 275.93 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01336 QUILL CORPORATION 1 69632 2690.02 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01337 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, INC. 1 69633 240.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01353 REDWOOD CITY, CITY OF 1 69634 11350.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04806 RICHARD SMITH 1 69635 562.50 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03115 RMI MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, INC. 1 69636 1250.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05938 RYAN GAVIN DUNNIGAN 1 69637 2980.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00055 SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC LAB

Page 8 of 12 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=0&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 6/3/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 05-01 to 05-31-24 (5675 : Disbursements - Dated 5/1/24 through 5/31/24) 1 69638 700.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05949 SCOTT BUSCHMAN 1 69639 3067.86 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04860 SERRA YELLOW CAB 1 69640 7024.86 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01126 SIX FLAGS DISCOVERY KINGDOM 1 69641 70.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00044 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 1 69642 1770.50 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01587 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE 1 69643 230873.75 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05665 TELSTAR INSTRUMENTS 1 69644 244.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04535 THE GALLERY COLLECTION 1 69645 500.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06090 TIMOTHY CARSKADON 1 69646 108.31 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01647 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS 1 69647 373.58 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01653 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) 1 69648 1245.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02527 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 1 69649 177.45 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02922 UNLIMITED TOOL REPAIR AND FABRICATION. 1 69650 135.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01661 UPS STORE #1906 1 69651 663.89 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03980 VERITIV OPERATING COMPANY 1 69652 1552.27 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01684 VERIZON WIRELESS 1 69653 75.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01684 VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES, LLC Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 14

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69654 968.03 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01673 VWR INTERNATIONAL 1 69655 418.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05469 BCC BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION 1 69656 16552.90 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05469 BCC BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION 1 69657 9821.41 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03741 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION 1 69658 59.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01757 CALIFORNIA ASSN OF PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGH 1 69659 242.76 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 1 69660 896.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01757 CLEA
1 69661 100.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 69662 200.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 69663 100.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 69664 782.67 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION 1 69665 840.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01759 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 1 69666 210.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01760 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS 1 69667 420.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01769 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION 1 69668 92.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF L2400-PAC 1 69669 1690.50 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 1 69670 1040.00 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01768 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #350 1 69671 2973.50 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01764 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 1 69672 25.11 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01766 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA 1 69673 3869.41 05/10/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01766 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA 1 69674 242.76 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 1 69675 100.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 69676 200.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 69677 100.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00814 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 1 69678 396.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01767 NPFBA
1 69679 782.67 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNION Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 15

Page 9 of 12 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=0&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 6/3/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 05-01 to 05-31-24 (5675 : Disbursements - Dated 5/1/24 through 5/31/24)

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69680 458.50 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS-LTD 1 69681 840.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01759 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 1 69682 210.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01760 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS SAVINGS 1 69683 420.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01769 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION 1 69684 92.00 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF L2400-PAC 1 69685 1690.50 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01758 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Local 2400 1 69686 2887.50 05/24/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01764 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 1 69687 180.42 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00094 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 1 69688 3915.58 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04722 AED BRANDS, LLC 1 69689 2268.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04707 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE 1 69690 140.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04066 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC 1 69691 1942.01 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00153 ALPINE AWARDS ACCOUNTING 1 69692 3297.84 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04980 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1 69693 20446.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05992 AMERICAN AIR SYSTEMS INC 1 69694 200.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05968 ANTOINETTE M KAUFFMAN 1 69695 293.23 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04459 ARROWHEAD FORENSICS 1 69696 600.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03188 ATLAS PLUMBING & ROOTER INC 1 69697 504.95 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00293 BEARING AGENCIES INC 1 69698 5043.75 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04564 BERGDAVIS 1 69699 66280.58 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 1 69700 600.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05443 CALIFORNIA SEWER ENGINEERING, INC 1 69701 46.67 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 CAMPANA, NICHOLAS 1 69702 15619.95 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02655 CAROLLO 1 69703 6369.73 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00483 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 1 69704 1326.01 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00510 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1 69705 21705.46 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05552 CIVICPLUS, LLC Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 16

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69706 728.46 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02168 COMCAST 1 69707 340.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00611 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 69708 726.88 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00630 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION 1 69709 896.22 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00025 DALY CITY/CITY OF 1 69710 3000.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02201 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. 1 69711 3051.45 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00676 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 1 69712 46.67 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 DONG, ALAN 1 69713 682.82 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03707 DRIVE LINE SERVICE OF SACRAMENTO 1 69714 1400.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04321 DUBOCE JANITORIAL SERVICES 1 69715 509.10 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02793 EAST PENN MANUFACTURING CO., INC 1 69716 46.67 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 EVANS, DAVID 1 69717 50000.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05126 EXPRESS PLUMBING 1 69718 49.57 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02767 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 1 69719 46.67 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 FRY, HAYDEN

Page 10 of 12 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=0&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 6/3/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 05-01 to 05-31-24 (5675 : Disbursements - Dated 5/1/24 through 5/31/24) 1 69720 100.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03823 GIBSON JR, EUGENE 1 69721 46.67 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 GOMEZ, JOE 1 69722 333.64 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00872 GRAINGER 1 69723 2088.23 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00875 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #26577 1 69724 80.20 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04842 HEMRAJ SINGH 1 69725 16185.09 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00919 HERC RENTALS INC. 1 69726 11272.34 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00927 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC 1 69727 101288.85 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06063 J.D. BERGLUND GROUP 1 69728 1054.03 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04086 JACK DOHENY COMPANY 1 69729 7430.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01005 JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCH DIST 1 69730 6445.04 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01014 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 1 69731 95.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05333 KASEYA US LLC Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 17

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 69732 556.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01903 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 1 69733 460.09 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 KENWAY, JENNIE 1 69734 301.58 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03700 KIMBALL MIDWEST 1 69735 114.62 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 LA, EMILY 1 69736 456.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05582 LUHDORFF AND SCALMANINI CONSULTING ENGIN 1 69737 54.48 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 MANSKER, STEVEN 1 69738 1444.16 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01142 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 1 69739 46.67 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 MEYERHOFF, TRAVIS 1 69740 5198.25 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03955 MOFFATT & NICHOL 1 69741 162.50 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04165 MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN, INC. 1 69742 3262.84 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05018 NICK BARBIERI TRUCKING, LLC 1 69743 512.38 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01217 OFFICE DEPOT 1 69744 1466.56 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02027 OLIVER PACKAGING AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY 1 69745 950.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01240 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 1 69746 550.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06095 PARTI SURIATI CHAN 1 69747 185.50 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 PATTEN, DANIEL 1 69748 250.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 PERHAM, SCOTT 1 69749 51.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00320 PLAN JPA 1 69750 11836.40 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03281 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 1 69751 3848.95 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06093 REXEL USA, INC 1 69752 7480.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06047 S.R. ROSE ENGINEERING INC 1 69753 425.15 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01402 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. 1 69754 250.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 SARASUA, MARIA 1 69755 2124.47 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 SMITH, WILLIAM 1 69756 8465.30 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06066 SOLENIS, LLC 1 69757 1727.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01511 SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY JUN0324 11:07 Page: 18

CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 05/01/24 - 05/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL

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

Page 11 of 12 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=0&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 6/3/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 05-01 to 05-31-24 (5675 : Disbursements - Dated 5/1/24 through 5/31/24) 1 69758 869.34 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00049 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF 1 69759 287.59 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01540 STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE 1 69760 59266.66 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02880 TOWNE FORD 1 69761 7791.33 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01636 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 1 69762 20202.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05946 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES 1 69763 756.55 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04418 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC. 1 69764 1148.67 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04576 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC 1 69765 82.19 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03835 US FOODS, INC 1 69766 1802.48 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03661 VIP SEALING 1 69767 115.00 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00001 WEAVER, DAVID 1 69768 253.73 05/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01708 WEST COAST ROTOR BANK: 1 TOTAL # OF CHECKS: 453 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF: $2384964.97 TOTAL # OF REISSUED CHECKS: 0 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF:

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

Page 12 of 12 ends

http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=0&FileName=D:\GemsEn... 6/3/2024

1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 05-01 to 05-31-24 (5675 : Disbursements - Dated 5/1/24 through 5/31/24)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/10/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes for the May 23, 2024 City Council Special Meeting.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Move to approve the minutes for the May 23, 2024 City Council Special Meeting (Attachment A).

FISCAL IMPACT:

Within budgeted operational expenses.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 20

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Special Meeting 1 May 23, 2024

SPECIAL MEETING
May 23, 2024 (THURSDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on May 23, 2024 at 5:40 PM 5:30PM - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 5:40 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; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Stephanie 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 Boles

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.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 2 May 23, 2024
Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it is correct that the definition of a tsunami inundation zone is not a universally used term in the world of hazards.

Planning Director Murdock answered affirmatively.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if the term “tsunami inundation zone” was something city staff and coastal staff divined from other tsunami measures that are regularly used.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it is a change led by city staff. City staff highlighted this concern to Coastal Commission staff that the tsunami evacuation zone maps are overly broad for the purposes for which the Coastal Commission staff is seeking to use them for deed restriction purposes; city staff was trying to strike the right balance between hazard disclosure and notification and obligations associated with developing in a hazardous area with a more realistic scenario of tsunami inundation that is likely to occur and cause property damage or potential loss of life, thus justifying the imposition of a deed restriction on a particular property.

City staff tried to keep the terms simple and distinguishable in a tsunami evacuation versus tsunami inundation zone. He stated that the intent is to narrow the area to a more probable or realistic tsunami hazard for Pacifica that would justify the disclosure and deed restriction requirements.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how to determine the right measure to use for defining the tsunami inundation zone.

Planning Director Murdock stated that city staff has tried to leverage readily available science, including from public comment some recent work the state has undertaken in the Department of Conservation California Geologic Survey. He stated that they have looked at different frequencies of events that reflect generally lower intensity earthquakes triggering lower intensity tsunamis but predicted to happen potentially more frequently, as little as 75- to 100-year type of occurrence, which reflects much more significant earthquake and thus much more significant tsunami event. It is that type of event that the tsunami evacuation zones are based on. City staff is advocating a less significant seismic event and, thus, a less significant tsunami event for this purpose, but one that may be likely to occur more frequently but still at a several hundred year type of interval.

Councilmember Boles stated Statistician Jahung Chohu provided Council this information and the language in the staff report is using this recommendation of 475 average return period. She was trying to find out if that has been mapped and the local statistician put the information in his GIS software and came up with a map. She knows staff has not had a chance to analyze this yet, but she asked if this is something we could bring back at our next meeting and talk to the Coastal Commission to see if there is acceptance.

Planning Director Murdock stated possibly in light of timelines. He stated that staff are confident that we could analyze that into a document in the implementation plan which will follow the LCLUP certification, provided that Council feels comfortable that it is the right policy direction to try to focus the tsunami hazard assumptions for this purpose. He stated that it may also not get us all the way there to use this readily available data. He stated that it is typically modeled on a sort of flat surface that does not reflect more localized conditions or presence of shoreline protection structures that might alter the type of tsunami inundation. He thought we need more time at the staff level to consider all of the specific assumptions, which is why staff

2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 3 May 23, 2024
recommendation is to further define that and utilize that in the implementation plan, if possible, but get the broad policy direction from Council at this stage to undertake that type of focus work.

Councilmember Boles asked for staff’s estimate on the implementation plan and how long that would take for us to work on and then process through the Coastal Commission.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating we would need to develop that work plan. He stated that it could certainly take several years to do it all at once. He thought these types of mapping updates are a near-term requirement and would justify a 6-12 month type of timeframe focused effort. He stated that we have to do hazard modeling updates to reflect the new sea level rise data as an example, and the two efforts could be combined in the next 6-12 month timeframe.

Councilmember Boles thought there was still concern in the community that we are showing tsunami hazard inundation maps that extend beyond the coastal zone as defined. For properties such as in Linda Mar that are not in the coastal zone but still in the tsunami hazard inundation areas, regarding property owners planning to do a large remodel that may exceed the 50% value limit, she asked if the city would be evaluating those now or in the future, and what are the policies that might trigger more work because of potential tsunamis to properties outside the coastal zone.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the LCLUP policies would not apply to properties outside of the coastal zone. He thought she may be alluding to federal flood related triggers for property improvements that require additional mitigation of flood hazards. He is not aware that the FEMA flood mapping accounts for tsunami hazards. He would suspect that the answer is no, there is not a feedback mechanism for tsunami hazards for properties outside of the coastal zone at this time.

Councilmember Boles asked, if someone was applying for a permit now and saw these maps, we would not be analyzing tsunami.

Planning Director Murdock did not think we have any regulatory tool that would require the city to address those such as for a regular building permit project. He stated that there is a possibility that, in the hazard assessment for a project that needs a discretionary review, there could be consideration of that.

Councilmember Boles stated that she has other general questions before we go into the policies. She referred to questions about what happens when this gets certified, specifically for the Shelldance property and the quarry. She asked if he can tell us what that means, what is the history, why were they deferred certification, and what would be different once we certify.

Planning Director Murdock stated he has less knowledge of the Shelldance Nursery decision and deferred certification than what he heard from prior Coastal Commission staff regarding the quarry. He stated Coastal Commission staff indicated the quarry site was important and significant at the time of the 1980 LCLUP certification and the later implementation plan certification and the city and Coastal Commission could not reach agreement on appropriate policies to regulate potential development in that area. As a result, they left it out of the city’s certified Local Coastal Program which has the effect of Coastal Commission retaining coastal development permitting jurisdiction in those areas, the areas of deferred certification (ADC). He stated that, with certification of this LCLUP update as prepared now, the city would achieve certification of those areas and thus have coastal development permit jurisdiction.

2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 4 May 23, 2024
Councilmember Boles thought we could be reviewing projects on our own and not necessarily go to the Coastal Commission in the future.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, adding that it is certainly the case for the Shelldance Nursery site, although most or all that property is owned by the federal government now. For the quarry site, the city would have the first action on a CDP but it would be appealable to the Coastal Commission in that location.

Councilmember Boles concluded that it would still be in the Coastal Commission’s appeals jurisdiction.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that the bulk of the appeals jurisdiction in that location is the result of the first public road parallel to the shoreline (Highway 1).

Councilmember Boles thanked staff for sharing the letter of comments from the Coastal Commission about the General Plan amendments we sent late last year. She asked if he can tell us what he sees as the process for those and would they need to come back to Council so they become revisions as part of the total document that we are preparing to send back.

Planning Director Murdock thought the overall assessment is that those are relatively minor comments from the Coastal Commission. From a process standpoint, the action Council will be taking here would essentially supersede that prior transmittal with a newly adopted LCLUP with additional revisions. He thinks at least some of them have been addressed in additional Council discussion and direction, and he thought we will have to wait and see if those types of comments remain.

Councilmember Boles asked about us deleting the phrase “conduct tribal consultation as required by law”.

Planning Director Murdock stated that we are striving to align the General Plan and the LCLUP as closely as possible. He stated, in that case, the tribal consultation is required by law and it does not have any substantive policy effect. He was not concerned about that edit but he understood the connotation with showing a deletion of something like that.

Councilmember Bigstyck referred to several phrases in the packet: “Housing Element implementation pursuing economic development initiatives, planning for city infrastructure facilities, etc., can all advance much more efficiently once an updated LCLUP is in place” (packet p. 6) and “while projects in the city’s strategic plan workplan may be able to continue under the 1980 LCLUP, successful completion of the LCLUP update and Sharp Park Specific Plan will allow for more clarity in the regulations applicable to these activities and benefit other priority projects, such as the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project” (packet p. 343).

He asked staff, should we update the LCLUP, that we will have a smoother ride renovating and rehabilitating our sea wall.

Planning Director Murdock stated yes, as staff has analyzed and believe that the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project, replacement of the Beach Boulevard sea wall in short hand is supported by the 1980 LCLUP and would be supported by the new LCLUP. Staff thinks overall in terms of environmental protections and other related components to that type of project, that the new LCLUP would, on balance, be better and facilitative and provide clearer expectations for what such a project should include.

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 5 May 23, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus asked a question from public comment: “Would properties in the resiliency area be appealable?” She followed up by asking if they could appeal the fact they are part of the SRA or that they have not done 50% improvements on their property to make it appealable.

Planning Director Murdock summarized the two parts of the question: 1) If you are in an area that is mapped as a special resiliency area (SRA), do you have some opportunity to appeal your inclusion in that area or not? The answer is no. This public process is when property owners can express their support or lack thereof for SRA concept and the particular boundaries, but like other zoning type actions that the Council takes, property owners do not get to individually appeal their zoning classification. 2) Are there more site-specific related determinations on whether or not a project triggers a substantial structural modification and someone’s ability to appeal that or to submit evidence? The answer is yes, there are appeal opportunities. He clarified the SRA does not add more burdens and instead gives the benefit of relying on shoreline protection. He stated a property owner could choose not to if they want to be conservative and say that their hazard modeling without the sea wall is drastic and they want to build to that because they do not know if the sea wall is going to be there in 100 years. He stated that they have every right to do that as they are not mandated through this process to do the SRA type analysis, although that is an option and many property owners will avail themselves of that option.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated her last question is about Ingrid B. Lacey School which has already gone through more than 50% upgrades. She asked what happens with that property, i.e., are they going to be at risk of not being able to be allowed to improve their property. She stated that the bond has already been passed.

Planning Director Murdock stated there are sometimes complicated jurisdictional issues between school districts and local governments. City staff would need to do further research on that question to provide an informed answer.

Councilmember Boles stated that the one thing in general is that, if someone does a substantial structural modification over 50% and has the deed restriction, that does not prohibit them from doing other remodeling in the future; there was nothing else that would stop their project, unless the hazards, etc., change with the analysis as part of that.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was a misconception that the substantial structural modification definition prohibits projects from occurring. He stated that it may have important impacts on a project, as it requires a property owner to look at applicable hazards and determine if there are inconsistencies with the property and existing development or proposed development, if it will be inconsistent with hazard related policies or habitat protection policies, etc., in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and the implementation plan. A project would need to do more analysis and possibly would be modified. In some cases, it will be importantly impacted and that is a possibility, but as indicated with the suggested individualized determination policy, there are opportunities to consider the best way to proceed with the project, even if the project is different than it is initially envisioned.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if it is true that properties appealed to the Coastal Commission have had deed restrictions applied to them.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, adding that we have done analyses of several years of coastal development permit issuances by the North Central Coast District; all of those coastal development permits that we identified and analyzed included the deed

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 6 May 23, 2024
restrictions that are described in the LCLUP. He is not aware of if the Coastal Commission process has some opportunity to do more focused analysis and determine if a hazard is likely to affect a property.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about a previous point stating “Except that an applicant shall not be required to record a deed restriction as described in this policy if a site specific geotechnical hazard analysis prepared by a qualified professional licensed by the State of California determines that the project site would not be subject to the hazard(s) identified in the Coastal Vulnerability Zones and Tsunami Inundation Zone for the Anticipated Life of the project.” She stated that analysis would be incumbent upon the property owner to obtain. She asked if there is a process that does not require everyone to obtain the analysis for a large sum.

She asked if there was a way to identify what they want to do on their property and what needs to be evaluated in the plan.

Planning Director Murdock thought the challenge is, in the coastal vulnerability zones, that is the process now, the right balance of availability of the mapping and cost to the city. He thought, if the city tried to do that type of analysis, it would be extremely expensive and likely very timeconsuming. He stated it was probably possible to be done but it is hard to know whether that would be the right investment of doing it for every property in the city when very few will ever end up developing. That is a big policy and fiscal type of decision for the Council. He stated that updating to the best available science with the new sea level rise projections and effectuating the tsunami inundation zone will shrink the population of properties that even get to this stage because fewer properties will be in the coastal vulnerability zones to begin with. He thought that is the right policy level of citywide balance that the Council effectuate and support with the right policy decision-making in this document.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if that is something we undertake prior to submitting this LCLUP again to the Coastal Commission or is that something obtained or created during the Implementation Policy Phase.

Planning Director Murdock thought it is something in between. What he articulated previously and what he envisions is the advisable timeline is to continue this process and try to conclude it favorably, as soon as possible. While this is with the Coastal Commission for some number of months while we are waiting final action, we can put the effort into updating the coastal vulnerability zone maps with the new sea level rise data once the state has adopted that, engage the consultant, begin that process, and concurrently consider what can be done with the tsunami inundation zone. He suggested trying to incorporate those two things in a coastal vulnerability zone mapping update which will probably be ready sometime in early 2025, postcertification of the LCLUP, to be submitted as a several month type of minor LCLUP amendment to the Coastal Commission that then gets swept up into the new document as the best available science on the hazard mapping. He stated that limits the amount of time that someone might be adversely affected by the maps that are in there now once those no longer reflect the best available science. He thought that is the most realistic and likely timeline scenario to keep the overall process on track, to get all the other benefits of an updated LCLUP, and to catch up the hazard mapping process at the same time.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked, following a visit to the West Fairway Park neighborhood, if qualified scientists could make a recommended change to how that equation around deed restrictions might pan out at the end of the day or introduce a different scientific basis by which to calculate what now we are regarding as a potentially onerous issue for the property owner.

2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 7 May 23, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse provided a reminder that, for that particular neighborhood, the hazard is not coming from the sea level rise along the coast but coming from flooding through the Clarendon gap or other flooding.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that this is a question that, in theory, could apply elsewhere in the city as well; the question remains in terms of process and potential outcome.

Planning Director Murdock stated, based on his understanding of the Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission’s longstanding practice, what is challenging is that West Fairway Park is a low-lying area, subject to flooding, which sea level rise is likely to exacerbate through the Clarendon gap. He stated that the Coastal Commission is relying on the best available science as a matter of practice and the law says that new development cannot rely on shoreline protection of which the berm is a particular form. He thought all those factors align and suggest that something quite different than we experienced before is not likely to occur in the absence of some sort of scientific change, like reduced sea level rise projections or modification to the Beach Boulevard sea wall to close the Clarendon gap or some other type of flooding infrastructure project that would mitigate that hazard and change the technical modeling that informs the best available science.

Councilmember Boles wanted to add to the answer. She thought in many conversations we are just looking at the Local Coastal Plan and not referring to the adaptation plan with more specifics by neighborhood. She stated specifically the adaptation plan talks about policies and gives some triggers and things we would do if we start to see those things happen and become more vulnerable. She referred to information from the adaptation plan and stated that it is not all in the documents that we are looking at now and it is important that we are thinking about all this together with the series of documents we are working with. She stated that those are the next steps we do once we get them certified and then we can start looking at individual projects, what is most at risk, what adaptation we need to do.

Councilmember Bier stated that was going to be her question, i.e., when can we start talking about those strategies that are listed in the adaptation plan. She stated that the community needs to understand that we are going to be addressing these things and Council has their best interest at heart, and talking more about those strategies and creating plans for them is a way to be able to do that to create a safety barrier for those communities specifically.

Planning Director Murdock stated, regarding the point of flooding, staff mentioned previously that the LCLUP update has a number of policies that are supportive of flood hazard mitigation; with or without further work on a neighborhood level adaptation plan, there is broad policy support for those type of projects in the Capital Improvement Program or through whatever mechanism the city wants to identify and carry them out. He imagines a post-certification activity of great importance is to revisit the adaptation plan that Councilmember Boles described and improve it in a way the Coastal Commission feels is a complete, effective plan.

Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that this was a complicated subject and shared his concerns on this issue such as weather and asked about finally getting an agreement with Coastal Commission to conclude this project.

Richard Harris, Pacifica, stated he is with the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance and expressed his thoughts on the tsunami problem and the environmental justice point.

2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 8 May 23, 2024
Rafel Cons, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on the environment issue, including sea level and floods, and referred to other issues.

Frank Vella, Pacifica, referred to questions on the inundation zones, and shared his thoughts on that issue as well as the tsunami, upcoming sea level rise data and concerns that no one has clear answers on anything.

Marie Swan, Pacifica, referred to questions on the sea wall, and answers that were a bit confusing, and she shared her thoughts and asked for an answer on the process.

David Hinds, Pacifica, concurred with the later comments as he did not understand all this and added that they did not get answers. He shared concerns on Planning Director Murdock leaving and his thoughts on the process.

Robine Runneals, Pacifica, shared her concerns on where they are on this now, and with Planning Director Murdock leaving, she expressed her concerns on who will be taking over the communication with the Coastal Commission, etc. and her thoughts on options going forward.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, expressed her appreciation for staff’s work on the LCLUP and grateful it is being updated, and shared her concerns and thoughts on the process of this issue.

Sam Casillas, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the current LCLUP plan and shared his thoughts on the required process needed going forward.

Kimberly Williams, Pacifica, stated she is representing the local San Mateo County Chapter of Surf Rider Foundation, and shared her group’s concerns and thoughts on this issue.

Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.

Councilmember Bigstyck reiterated questions from public comment regarding what ultimately will inform tsunami inundation zones and finding a clear criteria. He asked what does this mean to the homeowner and would it be easier under the updated LCLUP or the 1980 to replace the sea wall. He also asked what does this look like with Planning Director Murdock leaving especially when we are at this potential apex moment.

Councilmember Bier reiterated one question of why Council listens to staff. She stated staff are experts and Council respects staff, but it does not mean Council always agrees with staff.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the first question from public comment was a broad question about what does this LCLUP update mean to a homeowner. He stated that it means a number of things, i.e., the city is trying to do its best to plan for the future by acknowledging science and facts and evolving conditions of the coastline and the earth, the world and society overall, and that is what land use plans are intended to reflect and respond to, such as the variety of conditions, ecology of a place, and what that means for what is safe, how do we support our economy, how do we provide housing for people, how do we protect the environment, all themes that are addressed by policies in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

The community that exists today is different than the community as it existed 40+ years ago when the current plan was put in place. What this means for a homeowner is that staff would update the plan and reflect all we know now and what we have learned in the last 40 years and reflect the vision for the community for the next 40 years and identify policies and steps to get to

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 9 May 23, 2024
that ideal vision of what the community should be. For individual property owners, that may mean more or less restrictive policies for development but those policies, whether they are more or less restricted, are rooted in lessons learned about development along the shoreline. He thought it means something different for everybody but for everybody it means an updated plan with better information to support decisions making for the future.

He stated the next question related to the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project and why we should not wait. He stated that is a multi-year project and the city is still in the midst of that, and it will be several years before permit and construction are likely to be obtained and to occur. A policy question is should we wait for that process to unfold. His opinion is no, as they can continue to pursue the project under the 1980 LCLUP and the 2040 LCLUP once certified and we will derive all the benefits of the 2040 LCLUP update if we are able to accomplish that.

He thought the 1980 LCLUP has fewer policies that address a project like the BBIRP. The 2040 LCLUP would have more policies on point related to resource protections and mitigations, overall clarifying the expectations for the city and what it needs to do to carry out the project.

He stated that more clarity and more certainty is better for development, infrastructure, etc., because it sets the expectations for the project to be undertaken. With the 1980 LCLUP, in the absence of those policies, the Coastal Commission inserts its judgment and formulation of practice and policies. The city may be worse off pursuing the project with the 1980 LCLUP even though both versions of the plan would allow the project to be undertaken.

He stated that, related to tsunami modeling, staff is trying to find touch points with the best available science. He is grateful to the member of our community that brought to light some recent statewide tsunami technical work that we can leverage off of, but there is further work to be done. He stated that he sees that work being carried out by the city engaging a technical consultant, just as it did to create the coastal vulnerability zone maps, and trying to update the model for tsunami hazards to reflect a better balanced tsunami inundation scenario for our community.

He referred to the last point about him leaving, and stated that it is very much the product of a team effort with Sr. Planner Cervantes, City Manager Woodhouse, Asst. City Attorney Bazzano, City Attorney Kenyon, and many others on the city team. This work will go on and done expertly and he will be there as a resource if and when needed as well. He is confident that this process will continue to play out in a very successful and effective way.

City Manager Woodhouse added that work and progress does not stop in organizations when key staff leave. While losing Planning Director Murdock is sad for the entire organization, with him moving on to a great promotional opportunity, Sr. Planner Cervantes and other consultant resources and expertise in the city will make this work continue. He stated that to say that something should pause because an individual in the organization is moving on to a promotional opportunity is a different perspective that is not accurate about how organizations work.

Council discussed process and decided to go down each individual item in Chapter 6, stating any comments a Councilmember may have on a particular line.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.1.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked regarding Modification No. 6.2A if the change in language is mainly for clarification.

Planning Director Murdock stated what occurred here was in the definition of substantial

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 10 May 23, 2024
structural modification as Council approved it in 2020 and it included in the exemptions from the substantial structural modification reference to the Coastal Act provision mentioned at 30610(g), and the Coastal Commission staff took it out in a suggested modification. City staff explained to them that we had concerns that it is a very important statutory provision and should trump the SSM definition if someone were to need to rebuild in the event of disaster damage. They understood the point and said they would prefer to have it be a more global comment about the relationship of that statutory provision to the SSM definition. City staff agreed. It is now in this global policy position talking about how, for no purposes, should a project undertaken pursuant to that section be SSM.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked staff to address the public sentiment that, if there is going to be a huge disaster to someone’s house, it would be better to burn the entire thing down because, if it only does half the job, they would not be entitled to doing the substantial repair work.

Planning Director Murdock stated City staff addressed it with the Coastal Commission staff.

They explained that, as a matter of practice and their expert interpretation and application of this provision, they recognized what that extreme interpretation would mean or the literal interpretation; they said, in practice, realistically the way they apply that term “destroy” means “unable to inhabit”. If there is some sort of major fire damage but it stops short of bringing the whole building down, that is destroyed for the purposes of this section of the Coastal Act because one cannot occupy that building any longer as it is not able to be used for its intended purpose and is destroyed for all intents and purposes. He stated not to allow your house to burn down thinking that you need to do that to effectuate this provision. He stated that there is a reasonable application of that by the Coastal Commission.

Councilmember Bier reminded people that questions were asked and answered in the agenda today and she thanked them for including all those questions and answers for them.

Councilmember Boles also appreciated the questions and answers, especially for repeated questions from the public. She thought it would be helpful to read section 30610(g).

Planning Director Murdock read section 30610 of the Public Resources Code (Coastal Act):
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, no coastal development permit shall be required pursuant to this chapter for the following types of development and in the following areas.” Planning Director Murdock also read subdivision g: “Replacement of any structure other than a public works facility destroyed by a disaster, the replacement structure shall conform to applicable existing zoning requirements, shall be for the same use as the destroyed structure, shall not exceed either the floor area, height or bulk of the destroyed structure by more than 10% and shall be cited in the same location on the affected property as a destroyed structure.

As used in this subdivision, disaster means any situation in which the force or forces which destroyed the structure to be replaced were beyond the control of its owner, bulk means the total anterior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure. Structure includes landscaping and any erosion control structure or device similar to that which existed prior to the occurrence of the disaster.”
Councilmember Boles concluded that they can replace what they had and even grow it by 10% under these conditions for disaster.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.2A.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she wanted to make a statement about Modification No. 6.2

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 11 May 23, 2024
regarding the issue of managed retreat. She stated that, on looking at the city’s 2020 certification draft, it was clear that this statement of policy was going to be a point of contention and point of difficulty that the city and the Coastal Commission had to move past. She believes that there has been an attempt to balance both the position the city took in the 2020 draft and a far opposition that the Coastal Commission took in its response to that draft. She stated that the statement in the suggested modification is clear in the sense that it does not specifically limit, reduce, or forestall managed retreat. She stated that it is true that Pacifica was one of the early examples of a managed retreat project and it was a successful project and, in some ways, the notion of managed retreat implies destruction of personal property and it is the issue between public property, private property, and managed retreat. This is not the first place that we see a softening and modification of the language that was in the 2020 version; there are other changes as well and other protections that were put into this document, and it was our process to look at all of it in totality and decide what can we accept and decide on what is in the document. She stated that we must be forthcoming about managed retreat not being in there and recognize that this is a compromised document.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it does allow for protection in armoring.

Councilmember Boles stated that there is another item coming up shortly that also has those words. She stated one question she specifically asked staff was everywhere the adaptation plan says managed retreat for private property, it includes the word “optional” in parentheses.

She asked staff what that meant and their answer was “property owners must individually decide what adaptation measures are feasible and desirable to make informed decisions.

Some property owners will decide that the preferred adaptation measure for them is to modify or demolish development, particularly if the cost is associated with shoreline protection structures when eligible may see the economic value of the property or the owner’s financial needs. The city’s LCLUP policy has helped to establish a framework where informed decision making, in part by clearly identifying applicable coastal hazards.” She stated that is their choice and, if they have a pre-1976 structure, they can look at armoring and apply for that for their property. She stated that, when looking at some of the homes on Esplanade, they knew their homes were not going to last and they decided it was not worth making that investment on their own and they worked with the city and FEMA to get money for their properties. She stated that they may say it is not enough, but it was a choice they made, not forced on them. She reiterated that it is not something we are forcing on private property, adding if staff can confirm that.

Planning Director Murdock agreed and stated the heart of the issue from staff’s perspective is that information is powerful and people can begin to make informed choices once they are able to recognize the reality of the hazards applicable to a property. He thought another instrument that some of the community has talked about in comments is transfer of development rights. He stated that we have a lot of work to do in strengthening the city’s transfer of development rights, or TDR Ordinance, to improve the functioning, but that is something where people can also receive economic value for their property, but transferring that somewhere else outside of the hazardous location; that property it is transferred from is taken out of the potential for development for the future. It is a win-win in the sense of mitigating the hazard but also providing economic use if they can make that function in this local market place.

Councilmember Boles asked if that is something that would be further worked on in the implementation plan.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it is, adding that the General Plan calls for revisiting the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ordinance.

2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 12 May 23, 2024
Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.2.

Councilmember Boles had a question regarding Modification No. 6.3. She stated the maps highlight the existence of the structures, but not highlight the protection provided by the structures. She stated some of the structures provide better protection than others and some may not be permitted structures. She had an alternate suggestion to say “maps highlight the current existence of shoreline protection structures, though not the validity of permits for the amount of protection they provide”.

Planning Director Murdock thought what the statement suggested by staff indicates is more of just a policy statement, not a technical statement on the degree of protection. What it is saying in the absence of those shoreline protection structures, those areas would be subject to much greater coastal erosion hazard. It is trying to restore some of that policy message from Council in the first column by not describing it in terms of the structures to remain which is how it had been approved by Council, but trying to recognize objectively that they are providing some measure of protection to those areas that otherwise that they were remote.

Councilmember Boles stated that it sounds like we are promising something. She stated it highlights the current existence of the structures but not necessarily the amount of protection.

She said it could be construed that way with the wording.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked Councilmember Boles if she has any suggested revisions.

Councilmember Boles repeated her suggestion: “The maps highlight the current existence of shoreline protection structures, but they do not define the amount of protection they provide.” Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated staff has indicated that is not intended to reference whether the permits are valid, so would she consider removing the last portion of her suggested revision.

Councilmember Boles stated yes, just to say “The maps highlight the current existence of shoreline protection structures” and leave it at that.

Councilmember Bier thanked her for clarifying as she did not understand that she was asking for a change of language but just asking the question in general.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed. She asked Planning Director Murdock if that language was amenable or does he need more time to consider that.

Planning Director Murdock thought it is a question for Council. He stated that staff was trying to reflect as much of the prior policy intent about the importance of shoreline protection and maintenance of it as we could without saying that specifically. Staff crafted the alternative modification to talk about protection provided by the structures. He stated that is a question for Council, i.e., is it important to say that or can they make it even more neutral and not sort of cloak the important protected point in the language.

Councilmember Bigstyck thought that in the general investigation from the Army Corps will help the city to inform where we should actually go and, in the meantime, the protections we have are important and they are what we have to work with between now and when we get to that point that there may be a more natural adapted strategy that we can utilize to do it in a better way than we are currently. In the meantime, he thinks it feels like we need to maintain what we

2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 13 May 23, 2024
have because there is so much infrastructure there.

Planning Director Murdock suggested reading the whole sentence in context.

Mayor Vaterlaus read the context: “However, because the Coastal Vulnerability Map shows significant erosion, the city acknowledges that the coastal vulnerability zone maps would not be appropriate for the use of site specific erosion analysis but the maps do show important information necessary to make general planning level decisions about the vulnerability of portions of the coastal zone.”
Planning Director Murdock stated that his perspective is that, in context, there is meaning conveyed by the alternative modification as drafted that might be lost with the revision that Councilmember Boles has suggested, but that is a policy point for Council.

Mayor Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer, and Councilmember Bigstyck agreed to leave it as is.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they have majority agreement to leave it as is.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.3.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated her concern about Modification No. 6.4 is that she wants to emphasize the point that cost benefit analysis was not fully comprehensive. We have had quite a lengthy discussion multiple times about the usability or comprehensiveness of the cost benefit analysis as it was done; it did not include, for example, the value of recreational assets that we know to exist in our city. She stated that the study itself was not designed to fully include all of that but was very focused on the determination of the value of a day at the beach. That was the pain point or discussion point they had in 2019 for the 2020 draft. She is asking councilmembers to look at it from that point of view and make sure we are okay with the modifications and convey that.

Councilmember Bigstyck thought the last sentence conveys it.

Councilmember Boles stated it was suggested to her to add that it is also the value of beaches and their ecological element. She thought the main point was that the cost and analysis was not complete and she asked if we need to be that specific.

Councilmember Bier added that there is more value than just public recreation.

Mayor Vaterlaus mentioned the beach.

Councilmember Boles responded affirmatively, adding ecological the value of the beaches.

Planning Director Murdock thought this is trying to capture what the context and discussion was at that time, not necessarily what it would be today if we were describing all of the things of potential value, which might include ecological values. His recollection was that it was specifically focused on questions about the appropriate valuation of the public recreational amenities, beach versus trail versus golf course. He stated that those were very much public recreational amenities and those seem to be the biggest points of concern by the community and Council at that time in terms of adequacy of the cost benefit analysis.

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 14 May 23, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how do the ecological resources fit in the context of what Planning Director Murdock said.

Councilmember Boles thought there may be other things that are not adequate and asked if we could say “it is perceived to not be adequate and needs more work” without being specific about exactly what is missing.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the reason we are being so specific is because there is a strong proclivity leaning in the Coastal Commission overall to focus on beaches only, almost to the exclusion of everything else. She understands that it is the Coastal Act and their mandate and responsibility to the voters of California in passing the Coastal Act, but she thinks this is one area that is a good example of where we have those overlapping responsibilities. She stated that the city appreciates the value of ecological resources and it also needs to proactively include and speak to resources that the Coastal Commission might not care about. She feels that they have a good grounding and the Coastal Act is clear on beaches and ESHA, but it does not speak to and is not focused on other coastal resources as the city might define them. She stated that Pacifica’s specialty in the county is recreational, such as trails, hiking, the shore, and the low-cost golf course. She thought that was why the emphasis was placed there, to bring that back to the conversation and make sure we have those points in our plan.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated, if the Coastal Commission only focused on beaches and decided to do away with the berm, which is a recreational use of walking, that would also do away with the recreational use of the golf course and invade environmentally sensitive habitats that are there.

If their only concern is the beach, then they would not take into consideration those other items that are important to Pacifica.

City Manager Woodhouse added from the chapter that this is a discussion about the adaptation plan and the cost-benefit analysis that occurred in that context. He stated, if we look at the next page after the chart, it is talking about all of the recreational discussions, such as trails and golf course, and to expand the language to other things would be revising the context from the past and would not accurately represent what this context is trying to capture.

Councilmember Bigstyck recalled a previous conversation about cost-benefit analysis adequately capturing what the money value was of the resources and he thought the last sentence that was added in captures that question mark adequately.

Councilmember Boles added that the chart does include beaches also.

Councilmember Bier and Mayor Vaterlaus understood where she is coming from.

Mayor Vaterlaus read the next few modifications, which provided clarifying language and made changes to the cost-benefit analysis.

Councilmember Boles asked why staff thinks it is important to add those changes.

Planning Director Murdock stated his recollection is that, at that time, there was concern about whether the city should take the time and spend the money to prepare a revised or new costbenefit analysis. The conclusion at the time was that it was unnecessary because it was one of several pieces of information that informed the adaptation strategies that would be pursued.

Council was able to make the decision on those adaptation policies even with a less than perfect cost-benefit analysis and it was not necessary to take that time. He thought we are

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 15 May 23, 2024
trying to memorialize the point that Council concluded it did not need a new cost-benefit analysis to determine that different adaptation strategies were needed, and they had enough information to conclude which adaptation strategies to pursue.

Councilmember Boles stated that this was in relation to the adaptation plan, which has also not been officially adopted. She asked if it is important to say that.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it seems to her that the sentence is an important clarification because the prior sentence is talking about reassessment of the adaptation plan in the future; the subsequent sentence provides “therefore, changes to the cost benefit analysis are not necessary to inform the coastal resiliency policies,” meaning that the adaptation plan may be reassessed in the future but the cost-benefit analysis does not need to be updated. She stated, from her perspective, it helps to clarify that, while the adaptation plan may be reassessed, there is no need to update the cost-benefit analysis.

Councilmember Boles thought we might want to update the cost-benefit analysis if we are making big decisions in the future.

Councilmember Bier asked if it it is possible for us to update it moving forward.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated this does not preclude us from updating it, only that it is not necessary.

Councilmember Boles felt that, wherever we are adding something that the Coastal Commission did not ask for, it may be another point where we might have an issue with them. She does not understand the value of that clarification if we can decide to do it later or not anyway.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, and thought it sounds like some of these revisions are being suggested by staff because of the context in which those phrases or sentences are found and it is important in the context in which they are placed.

Planning Director Murdock stated, to take a broader view, he thought staff explained at the outset of this latest sequence for the LCLUP update that the Coastal Commission, following the several year process to have the application accepted for filing, ultimately furnished its minimal recommendations they felt would achieve Coastal Act compliance. He stated that they do not think that these policy-related statements about the historical context at the time or certain impressions or priorities of Council are necessary for the basic task of Coastal Act compliance.

However, this is a document of the city and Council needs to convey issues of importance and context that shapes the decisions that came out of this document. He stated that Council needs to tell a story in addition to achieving Coastal Act compliance; the Coastal Commission does not. He stated that is why staff is suggesting some of these more narrative-related sections that some key points do need to remain to tell the truth of the process.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated his understanding has been that staff has been making sure to relate to Coastal Commission staff where the city is in the process, including what the proposed alternative modifications to the Coastal Commission would be. He asked if it is correct that Coastal Commission staff have seen this and have not substantially disagreed.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that that is an important point. He stated what we see on the screen or on a page is the product of extensive staff-to-staff coordination where they explain more of their positions and where they were coming from with their modifications and

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 16 May 23, 2024
city staff explained our reactions and proposed alternative modifications; where we needed to, we ironed out disagreements and modified the language further. His impression overall as a package that staff is presenting to Council is that we worked hard staff-to-staff to find something our respective agencies could live with and ultimately support as a total package in the document in the spirit of compromise.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he can see where some abrasive language was replaced by language that is not nearly as abrasive but still captures the spirit of what we are trying to say.

Councilmember Bier stated that it is to strike that balance between what the Coastal Commission is asking us to do, what Pacifica wants to do, and what our community has told us.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated city staff is still in communication with Coastal Commission staff and asked if we would run this by them before the final hearing.

Planning Director Murdock stated that is staff’s objective, but there are some practical challenges with that, not only scheduling challenges but internal organizational alignment challenges. Staff’s goal is to find something that is not going to elicit a negative reaction from the Coastal Commission once submitted.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is fine with the language.

Mayor Vaterlaus likes what he said about communication to our public, as these things are important for our public to know where we are and what we are going through here.

Councilmember Boles stated she is fine with that and she appreciates the Asst. City Attorney Bazzano saying that it does not preclude us from deciding we need a cost-benefit analysis later.

Mayor Vaterlaus read the next modification regarding sea level rise adaptation policies.

Councilmember Boles asked if this is saying that we cannot do any managed retreat and people in town cannot opt to do managed retreat without having to go through an LCP amendment.

Planning Director Murdock stated this is another instance where we have to read through a 2020 context and there was significant concern in the community that the Coastal Commission was pushing and the Council may have been sympathetic to and supportive of a managed retreat policy as something that was going to force on the community and take aggressive assertive government actions to force managed retreat and de-armor the coast. He stated the truth is not that in terms of what managed retreat means, but that is a way it was characterized by many in the community and there was fear that it would result in loss of property value, disinvestment, etc. He thinks Council was striving at that time to make it clear that an aggressive, robust managed retreat policy was not the intent of the LCLUP; this language is coming from that place and we try to restore and preserve some of that in this policy that the Coastal Commission had deleted. He thinks it talks about the city having a managed retreat policy for its infrastructure and major decision making and not an individual property owner’s decision to move away from the coast in some fashion if that suits his or her individual interests.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if ultimately the other policies bear out that final sentence that the city is using other sea level rise adaptation policies.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, and in this case, we recognize in many instances in the

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 17 May 23, 2024
near-term shoreline protection may be a necessary adaptation policy to buy time to do more thorough infrastructure relocation, planning, funding, and construction. He stated there are many ways to interpret this but staff tried to articulate what it meant in that 2020 context from his recollection.

Councilmember Bier thought that was going to be her question too, i.e., this language does not say we are not going to plan for eventual retreat of things if necessary. She then referred to what Councilmember Boles said, i.e., is it going to negate some private property owners from deciding to move their infrastructure.

Councilmember Boles stated that was one of the questions. She stated that we have a sewer line in our RV park that needs to be moved, a retreat policy, and asked does that mean that the city would have to go through an LCP amendment to be able to do that projects. She stated that she is concerned about we are blocking ourselves from doing things that might be necessary. She added that retreat is already happening in Manor and we will need plan for it.

Planning Director Murdock stated he takes a broader view: what this is saying that there is not a managed retreat policy; there are other policies in the LCLUP that reflects where the Council came out. He stated, for example, for infrastructure, there are policies that say try not to locate critical infrastructure in hazardous areas, but elsewhere it says if we have infrastructure that we cannot relocate, we can protect it and flood proof it and try to ensure its continued preservation and functionality. It allows the city to do what the city needs to do in a particular context, but it is not saying that, in all instances we are going to pursue managed retreat, nor is it saying the city can never pursue managed retreat.

Councilmember Boles stated she reads it as saying we cannot do it if we wanted to. She understands it is not the first choice and for most of the policies in the adaptation plan, it is a long term choice, but in some areas, especially in Manor, it may be needed.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, going back to the context of this section, it is about the historical context of the adaptation plan. When it comes to actual projects, an evaluation of consistency with the LCLUP and the General Plan, that is what all of the other policies are about, not this historical adaptation section.

Planning Director Murdock agreed.

City Manager Woodhouse added that all of those other policies support if a property owner proactively wanted to relocate dwellings or infrastructure.

Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that there is no such policy that would suggest that there is an anti-managed retreat policy that would need an LCP limit to allow people to adapt their property.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, rather than rejecting what is not here, we are pointing to what is here.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 6.4 and 6.5.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked regarding Modification No. 6.6 for context on why it was so desired by Coastal Commission to include an additional phrase for the anticipated life.

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 18 May 23, 2024
Planning Director Murdock stated, in the certification draft from 2020, there were several terms used to describe the same intended characteristic, the amount of time that a particular development was intended to be constructed and serviceable and operational. The Coastal Commission went through and tried to unify those terms and the term they ended up with “anticipated life” and that is defined in the glossary. He stated some of these changes are needed to reflect the reliance on that anticipated life estimation in relation to application of different policies.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated her concern on this was if there was some veiled element to a building lasting beyond its anticipated life and therefore needing to be removed. She wants to be sure that we are still not limiting in some ways the life of various structures.

Planning Director Murdock could not think of a policy where something used to occur at the end of the anticipated life. He stated that what it does is put a reasonable outer boundary on the analysis being performed to strike a right balance of substantial economic use. The terms defined in most instances for private development mean 75 to 100 years and it will be determined on a project-specific basis depending on the type of development, as more substantial or more expensive development likely will have a longer anticipated life; something like a modular development or manufactured home or mobile home park might have a shorter anticipated life, given the nature of the construction and amount of investment. He stated it was a practical instrument to apply the hazard modeling or projected encroachment on public trust land as a result of coastal erosion.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if a structure is designed for 50 years and lasts 75 years later is, but now the ocean has eroded the bluff upon which it is sitting so it cannot be armored.

Planning Director Murdock stated that is one consequence of the policies in this document. As we spent time talking about the deed restrictions, one of the key provisions is waving rights to future shoreline protection and it cuts both ways. Trying to get economic use for the property by projecting hazards and building the structure outside of that 100-year projected hazard but also recognizing nobody knows exactly how long it will be until the hazards encroach and the Coastal Act does not allow new development to have shoreline protection or to construct its own shoreline protection under the current understanding of what those terms mean for existing structure under the law. He stated buildings may be built safely for however long we think it will be there; if those circumstances do not turn out to be as long as we projected, they are still not able to have shoreline protection.

Councilmember Bier asked if that is on new development.

Councilmember Boles stated, in response to Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer’s question, reading it in context helps. She stated that saying the projects will not have these risks for the anticipated life is part of the approval, not to say what happens at the end of the life, but just to approve it the findings must be made that it can avoid those hazards.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that he was trying to provide a more holistic response that other areas talking about coastal hazard analysis over the anticipated life will, in most cases or many cases, result in a deed restriction waving rights to future shoreline protection; there are several factors that are relevant here, the initial permitting decision, as well as the consequences of the dynamic shoreline at some point in the future after construction of the structure, and they all tie together in a related way.

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 19 May 23, 2024
Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 6.6.

Councilmember Boles asked if Coastal Commission staff seem to be okay with Modification No.

6.7 regarding the number of required surveys per year.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they essentially wanted to double the number of required surveys by doing twice a year to reflect the seasonality of erosion and the tide. City staff said that makes technical sense but that is twice the cost and obligation for the city that we had committed to and they split the difference and have an alternating schedule.

Councilmember Boles stated that this does not preclude the city if some terrible storm happens.

Planning Director Murdock stated that we will make those evaluations as needed but this is only committing the city to do what is prescribed here.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that there may be options to do the surveys cost-effectively and not have to wait a year.

Councilmember Boles did not think we were defining how we are doing this yet, as that is part of the implementation plan.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.7.

Planning Director Murdock stated regarding Modification No. 6.8 that this is one of several in the chapter with a necessary highlight. It reflects a policy where, subsequent to publication of this packet, the Coastal Commission has reached out saying they have some additional thoughts on this that they want to talk to city staff about and they need to flush those out and they will in the coming days and we will have more information prior to whatever the next LCLUP City Council meeting is, but we need Council’s feedback on what they have put forth here to inform that discussion with the Coastal Commission.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated we have a sea wall where we have revetment existing and we are maintaining it and not doing any mitigation specifically related to it as it is already built and been there for a while, but now we are going to do mitigation. She stated she interprets it as a retroactive condition of approval. She thought we need to be careful here about what we are agreeing to because, in general, this whole area of the shoreline mitigation program has given her concern because of cost. She is concerned and wants to know more about that.

Planning Director Murdock stated the Coastal Commission staff’s need to talk more about these relates to the SRA approach, trying to fuse together these policies as they are now with this new concept that we are working through, agency to agency, which is the core component of this compromise we are trying to work through on certification. He shared concerns with Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer about making sure it is not over reach in relation to existing shoreline protection structures, but recognizing that not all of those had particularly robust mitigation at the time that they were permitted and some of these structures are perhaps lasting longer than may have been anticipated, and with sea level rise as well, some of the impacts from the presence of those structures may be greater than anticipated. The city is figuring out what opportunities are feasible such as within the city’s financial condition to offset some of those impacts, whether by expensive and robust activities like beach nourishment or even improving

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 20 May 23, 2024
other kinds of access through stairways, viewing areas, picnicking areas or a variety of activities that might help to offset some of coastal resource impacts by enhancing coastal resources in other ways that perhaps are not as costly.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the only part that is underlined is “and it shall be submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification as and LCP amendment” so it says that the city would need to show the Coastal Commission the plan.

Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated there is a process with the Coastal Commission to make sure it is sufficient and, if the city were not to effectively implement the requirements of the plan or modify the plan, then that would need to go back to the Coastal Commission. He thought it provides oversight and scrutiny from the Coastal Commission’s perspective.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we are discussing the unknown that he is referencing that will be brought forward to Council at a future point.

Planning Director Murdock reiterated to focus on what is before them. He stated that staff is trying to be transparent to the extent we can that the Coastal Commission staff flagged this policy and some others that we will see as needing to be revisited most likely to reflect their best thinking about this overall SRA approach and how to balance these particular factors. He stated, if he were to speculate, they probably want to put more specificity about what that shoreline management or mitigation program needs to have in relation to SRAs because those need to have particular kinds of mitigations or offsets because it is a very unique approach to allow armoring to remain in a way that is contemplated in the SRA.

Councilmember Boles did not think any of us have a problem with going back to the Coastal Commission for certification but the SRAs are going to be part of a whole different shoreline management plan and she asked if we can keep those separate so we know if this is okay as it is with the policies hopefully without the SRAs. She asked if this is okay without the SRAs.

Planning Director Murdock thought the Coastal Commission may be asking why are these two programs that are doing a lot of the same things. He thought they are trying to figure out the right way to make the unified program that touches on citywide components and as a unique component for the SRA offset.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought Councilmember Boles hit it on the head as she thinks that the SRAs already carry their own coastal management specific related policies and articulating between what this was referring to and what that means is what they want to do.

Councilmember Boles asked when staff will be talking to the Coastal Commission and when can we get the feedback.

Planning Director Murdock thinks that part of that depends on where the Council ends up at this meeting and what the next step is, but he will say before the next step will be our goal.

Councilmember Boles stated that we will have this discussion before we move further onward in submitting.

Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that Council needs to understand what it would be saying it is willing to adopt and to carry it out and we will present that information before we have to make a final decision.

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 21 May 23, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus called for a break. She then reconvened the meeting and stated that they are focusing on CR-I-59, mitigating impacts of new shoreline structure.

Councilmember Boles stated this is on new shoreline protection structures, not existing shoreline protection structures, and we do not have to do anything about existing ones until we come up with a new plan.

Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that this is essentially the placeholder policy for shoreline protection structure mitigations until the shoreline mitigation program is prepared.

Councilmember Boles stated that it talked about proportional in lieu fees, an option if someone does not do their mitigation directly. She asked if we have a fund established for that now.

Planning Director Murdock is not aware that we have a specific fund established yet for that purpose but we could work with the Finance Department to establish an appropriate place to deposit those impact fees.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.8.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the change for Modification No. 6.9 was made in a few different instances where, as drafted by the Coastal Commission, they were referring to prior permit condition and staff felt that was too limiting and could discourage people from seeking amendments to those permits to reflect changes in circumstances. They understood the approach and seemed supportive of this revision.

Councilmember Boles asked if it is struck so it is broader, like prior and new permits.

Planning Director Murdock stated whatever the applicable permit conditions are, not limiting it to something already in existence but recognizing that those can change if an applicant seeks approval for that.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 6.9 and 6.10.

Councilmember Boles asked if Modification No. 6.11 was just a modification and reorganization of the document.

Sr. Planner Cervantes clarified that this was text that was taken from the sub area policies; each sub area had specific policies that essentially said the same thing and it was combined into one policy at the start of the chapter.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.11.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated, regarding Modification No. 6.12, we are going to work with everybody and deal with beach nourishment wherever feasible.

Sr. Planner Cervantes clarified that this is similar to the previous policies where each sub area had policies referring to beach nourishment and the suggested modification was to condense all of those at the beginning. However, the city also had a policy under Section 6.7, new shoreline development standard policies, that also spoke about beach nourishment. We took the policy that was previously CR-I-55 and incorporated it into this new CR-I-16 to further streamline the

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 22 May 23, 2024
reorganization of this chapter.

Councilmember Boles referred to evaluating a beach nourishment program in conjunction with sand retention structures. She knows currently the sea wall project we are working on is looking at sand nourishment without retention and she asked if it is saying that we have to do retention as she knows those are even harder to permit because they are beyond the public trust land and have environmental impacts.

Planning Director Murdock does not read this policy to dictate what a particular project must do, but more broadly as a shoreline-wide program and try to find these opportunities in partnership with the relevant permitting agencies to determine if beach nourishment and sand retention structures to sort of maximize the longevity of those beach nourishment efforts are feasible. He thought this is memorializing in a policy non-armoring type activities should be considered and implemented where feasible.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.12.

Councilmember Boles stated she has a question on Modification No. 6.13. She stated that Coastal Commission staff want to say the least environmentally damaging solution. She asked why we need to take that out because what they added is just the impact of sand supply which is not all of the environmental impact.

Planning Director Murdock thought what we are trying to do is narrow the required analysis for the flood proofing of infrastructure. The concern from staff was having to demonstrate that it is the least environmentally damaging alternative and is the much more comprehensive and potentially risky analysis for the city because likely other alternatives would be less environmentally damaging. We are trying to say, if they are concerned about shoreline sand supply, to focus on that, but with other types of environmental impacts it might be difficult to substantiate that the flood proofing results in the lest environmentally damaging alternative.

Councilmember Boles feels that there could be lots of other environmental issues with flood proofing infrastructure. She does not have a problem with their modification. She thought we could delete the other package and not call out sand supply.

Planning Director Murdock thought the concern is, without the alternative modification, it could force the city into much more expensive projects because we are looking at the totality of potential impacts from flood proofing where we already have infrastructure that is expensive to redesign and relocate. Most likely every analysis is going to conclude that we should be moving that infrastructure, which he thinks runs counter to the city’s near term ability to do so; he thinks we are trying to reflect that practical challenge by saying that we do our best to address issues related to local shoreline sand supply but we may not be able to deal with all of the other potential environmental issues to demonstrate it is the least environmentally impactful alternative.

Councilmember Boles does not see how much infrastructure would impact the sand supply.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated it seems as though the language as proposed does not preclude us from having that conversation with Coastal Commission when the time arises but it certainly means that we can pursue emergency maintenance so we can get the job done in the interim while we seek out better ways in the long run.

2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 23 May 23, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus reiterated for Modification No. 6.13 that City staff is proposing an alternative modification to clarify requirements for sand.

Councilmember Boles stated that this might be something the Coastal Commission has an issue with. She is willing to let them take a look at it if we do not think it is that important, but it does not seem like this is doing what they want us to do which is make sure we are addressing all the environmental impacts and finding the least damaging alternative. She stated that they are the final determination of any infrastructure project the city wants to do.

Planning Director Murdock stated that depends on the location of the project and whether it would be in their permitting jurisdiction or appealable to the Coastal Commission, as not all infrastructure projects would be subject to this.

Councilmember Boles assumed, if infrastructure is not within the hazard zone, it has nothing to do with sand supply.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, related to the issue of sand supply, he thought she was right that it would almost certainly require Coastal Commission approval.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Coastal Commission staff has looked at this.

Planning Director Murdock did not think they have raised specific issues with this provision.

Councilmember Boles understands that the Coastal Commission staff might come back with some other comments. She stated that, if they do, we should talk about it before they submit it as is to the Coastal Commission.

Councilmember Bigstyck understands that there will be a conversation between our staff and theirs between now and if and when Council signs off on this. He stated that we are trying to be collaborative if they raise substantial objection to what Council says, but we are also trying to gear this in terms of what is in our community’s best interest and go from there.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 6.13.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that Councilmember Bier previously brought up the question of delineating between the SRAs and the rest of the policies, and he asked if she is comfortable going forward with Modification Nos. 6.14 and 6.15 at this time.

Councilmember Bier agreed.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if this is where they are approving the SRA idea or discussing it in depth. He stated he had a question about CR-I-17. He thought language around “failure to submit will void the SRA until the Coastal Commission certifies it” and asked how substantial that has to be and could they not accept it and then void the SRAs if it has been past three years. He asked if staff had a response to his concern.

Planning Director Murdock acknowledged that, in discussing the polices with the Coastal Commission staff, the question of timing was very important to them. City staff will need to see what they want to talk about with respect to the policy and timing and Council will need to decide if this deal is acceptable based on the timing and expectations.

2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 24 May 23, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is hard to say that we can do submit the LCLUP within three years without knowing more specifically what we are doing and then within the context of government, he is of the mind that it can be done in three years. He thinks the concern is not so much whether they can do it in three years but whether we understand what the criteria for that will be. He does not know if those could be fleshed out between now and getting it certified, or if it is more appropriately as a question for the implementation plan.

Planning Director Murdock understood, adding that those are all important components of the policy in knowing what we are expected to do. He stated that when we need come up with this variety of actions to help offset the benefits we are getting from reliance on shoreline protection.

He stated that the conversations staff had on the substance of that plan thus far has reflected varying degrees of cost and complexity over short, medium and long term horizons for the SRAs. He stated assembling the right balance of meaningful improvements over the right time horizons that are within the city’s near term and then longer term financial abilities by putting into place these various funding mechanisms would constitute that good faith effort as the essence of what is expected and not trying to shortcut our obligations for what would be substantial benefit to the city in the SRAs from reliance on shoreline protection. It is a huge beneficial impact to property owners who want to develop their property if we are able to get those policies in the LCLUP.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated the word “submitted” to her was important, as it did not say “approved”.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She appreciated the use of the word “submit,” as something submitted can take a long time for approval. She stated that, if approved, that area is outside of the city’s control where submitting is within our control.

Councilmember Boles asked about staff time and financial resources. She stated that this is an offset to the Coastal Act which says new development cannot rely on shoreline structures so for them to approve something that says new development can rely on shoreline structures, she thought they will require significant mitigations. She thought we can assume we will need to do more. She thinks we need to have a discussion on what we see as the benefits and what are the potential drawbacks of the SRAs.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he has been thinking about shoreline management plan and he would say, per his perspective, is that the details of this would be developed post-certification in the implementation plan work with Coastal Commission staff. He stated, based on conversations he has had with the Executive Director, they understand we are a governmental entity and have certain processes and procedures that we have to do with our budgeting, development, and strategic planning. Thus, this is essentially a version or subchapter of our long range CIP where we are identifying improvements that can occur over the future as we currently identify funding sources. He stated it is repackaging in a way that makes a lot of sense for a coastal city on how we plan for, develop, and manage all of our projects on the coast, thus it is like a coastal CIP with all of these amenities and improvements over time. He stated that it is a benefit to the city to approach it that way. His concern lies about making sure we can find the funds for all of those projects. He stated, if we take all the projects we are currently doing that are in the strategic plan, and carve them out and package them separately, it was almost like a shoreline management plan. He is confident we can work with coastal staff and work out a great model that would fit in nicely with our annual CIP and we can achieve that.

Councilmember Bigstyck hoped we might be eligible for state funding if we pass this. He also likes the thought of identifying a mechanism by which we can streamline the process of

2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 25 May 23, 2024
identification, if not implementation, with city processes that we already have existent. Our standard CIP focuses on city needs, i.e. roads, sewer lines, and city functions, versus what we can put in to augment the experience for visitors which could have the effect of bringing in tourism dollars, let alone satisfying the desire for the Coastal Commission that ultimately our beaches and shorelines are more accessible. He asked if he was following staff fairly.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he conceptualizes this in three ways, relative to the discussion from City Manager. There is a great opportunity to take credit for things we already want to do but just have to prioritize them appropriately and find the funding to carry out those projects; many projects in the CIP already would count towards it, and we get credit for what we already want to do and may get the SRAs as a result. The other part which he mentioned previously is that we have an opportunity to do something that improves our shoreline and our benefits will get great benefit and value from. The consequence is that we get a better and more enjoyable coastline and a requirement of the SRA but we get all the value beyond the SRAs for our residents and visitors. He thinks the third part, thinking about cost and feasibility, is, should we get the SRAs in the LCLUP, that is the time and opportunity to get them, and if they find later that it is too costly or undesirable for whatever reason, the city is not mandated to carry forward with the SRAs. If we do not do what we are supposed to do, SRAs may lapse or be suspended. The city is not on the hook for this by our vote to support the SRAs, but this is the only opportunity we have for the foreseeable future to get them and get the other benefits of economic development, investment, and an improved shoreline, all of which he thinks are positive outcomes that Council is likely to support.

Councilmember Bigstyck thought, with the planning efforts we have made with the Sharp Park Specific Plan specifically and the General Plan more generally, this would enable those planning efforts to come to fruition. We were at the budget meeting a few weeks ago, and it felt like, unless they start generating revenue somehow, the city may fall under its own weight. The SRA concept could enable those planning efforts. He asked, for the areas in the updated General Plan that are not Sharp Park Specific predicated, is there a downside to this LCLUP or a place where this LCLUP in the non-SRA areas runs afoul of the updated General Plan or disables planning efforts that we have currently in place as the attempted update.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there was this perception by some of the public earlier in this process and may still prevail today that some areas are being made worse off in order to get the SRAs for Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach. He could not disagree more with that contention. He stated, if we look at the policies in the suggested modifications from the Coastal Commission and alternative modifications other than the SRAs, that is the baseline of a new LCLUP reflecting new science, enhanced environmental protections, and the reality of the Coastal Commission’s interpretation and application of the Coastal Act; everyone is being brought to a new baseline in the LCLUP with or without the SRAs. He stated what is different for the SRA areas in Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach is they may get this unique opportunity, because of all of the coastal resource benefits that they have, to be able to undertake more development in those areas by virtue of there being existing shoreline protections and other highly supported Coastal Act uses to get more development potential and benefit from their properties than other properties outside of the SRA. Without the SRAs, Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach would just be brought back to where everyone else is. It is not that everyone else is brought down in order to get Rockaway Beach and Sharp Park up. As to specific inconsistencies with the General Plan versus the new LCLUP, it is hard to say. He added that there are probably policies in the LCLUP that are maybe more protective of coastal resources than some of the baseline policies in the General Plan, and that is reflective of the need to address those issues in the coastal zone. There could be situations where the General Plan

2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 26 May 23, 2024
might allow more intensive development based on the land use designation, but coastal resource specific policies in the LCLUP may bring that back in a little bit. He thought the potential exists for that. He stated that is somewhat the case already in the 1980 LCLUP for example or projects that are appealed to the Coastal Commission. Therefore, he thought it is better to get the new LCLUP and all the other ancillary benefits that we discussed from the updated document.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, in an eventuality of discrepancy, does the LCLUP prevail or would the city have to seek an amendment in one document or the other or both.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the LCLUP prevails if there is a direct conflict with the General Plan. He stated staff does their best to interpret them in a way harmoniously, but the LCLUP does take precedence. There are many more conflicts now between the 1980 LCLUP and the General Plan than there would be with the new LCLUP and the 2040 General Plan which they tried their best to make it as consistent as possible.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated, for harmonizing between the two documents, it will be a lot easier to harmonize between an updated LCLUP and the 2040 General Plan than it would be between the 1980 LCLUP and the 2040 General Plan.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Bier thought there was a lot of confusion in the community about whether the SRAs are protecting Sharp Park and Rockaway or not. She stated that there is already armoring in both Sharp Park and in Rockaway.

Councilmember Boles added that we are spending money on the armoring, replacing the armoring here and maintaining the one in Rockaway, but there are resources to these special areas that we have already prioritized.

Councilmember Bier agreed, adding that it is trying to strike a balance between what we were trying to do with the 2020 version and what we can do with what the Coastal Commission has brought back to us. She still has the question in her head, i.e., can we accept the Coastal Commission modified suggestions without the SRA. She asked what it would mean for Sharp Park and Rockaway if we pulled them out.

Planning Director Murdock stated it would result in a more equitable LCLUP for the city overall because all the same policies would apply throughout the entire city. The policy question that Council is being asking is, where we can convince the Coastal Commission that it is consistent with the Coastal Act, can we get a better deal for two of our neighborhoods that have existing shoreline protection, protecting broad public assets in a way that would facilitate more investment, more development, and more continued existence of those neighborhoods in the way that we understand them today. In order to get that, are we willing to commit resources and effort to do some of these offsetting activities, like developing this shoreline management plan, committing to carrying out projects, and finding opportunities where they may present themselves to remove armoring or adapt it to be less impactful. He stated that, from his perspective, it seems like a good deal. He understands the reaction from some in the community that wished they could get that same deal that Sharp Park and Rockaway are getting, but to get this alternative approach that uses the balancing or conflict resolution provisions in the Coastal Act, there needs to be a unique situation, an exception, that cannot be the rule in Pacifica because then it is not a special area; the reality is we have good conditions

2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 27 May 23, 2024
and circumstances and fact to support this approach in Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park that we have not identified nor has the Coastal Commission identified as being present in our other neighborhoods. Staff is asking Council to try to get the best deal we can for the city and these two neighborhoods specifically and that is the SRA approach as we ironed it out so far with the Coastal Commission.

City Manager Woodhouse added to that the benefits of the SRAs is not just to two particular neighborhoods in the city, but a benefit overall to the entire future viability of Pacifica as a community because these are thriving economic centers that are critical to financial sustainability to this city for decades to come. The benefits accrue to the entire city from the specific geographic technical location that staff is suggesting they be approved for.

Planning Director Murdock stated that another component is that we understandably spend a lot of time talking about what do these mean for property owners, but the city has the benefit of protecting its infrastructure which would cost millions of dollars to relocate. That has the potential to exceed the city’s means in any sort of immediate or medium term to relocate these infrastructure systems that we need to move if we were not able to get support for the continued presence of the shoreline protection structures. The ostensible basis for the policy is public benefits, i.e. the infrastructure of the streets, the coastal access, and the ancillary benefit is the private property protection. That is significant and is not going to be something we can achieve without the SRAs. If we look at those coastal vulnerability zone maps, significant swaths of these neighborhoods are subject to coastal erosion and flooding and they would be able to take the benefit derived from the shoreline protection to allow developments on those properties.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked about the question of equitability in contrast to the question of economic viability. It occurs to him that there are two versions that have been presented by the community, i.e., one is sticking with the 1980 LCLUP and the other is accepting the recommendations of the Coastal Commission without incorporating the SRAs. He stated that, if we were to stick with the 1980 LCLUP, that would grind our development efforts to a place where generating that economic viability seems unlikely because of how slowed that potential would become; whereas, if we were to accept the Coastal Commission recommendations independent of the special resiliency area concept, it seems the likelihood of development in these areas, specifically the Sharp Park Specific Plan, there might be a large question, namely in front of Coastal Commission, for any given development. He would think that it would substantially slow the development of our economic viability. He wants it to be equitable but he is concerned if they do not have a city with which to be equitable.

Councilmember Boles stated she was still not convinced that the SRA policies help development. She stated that these are hazardous areas, even with the new sea wall. She stated that there are ways to address hazards that are not just armoring and she is afraid this is just pushing the city into that. As Planning Director Murdock said, even the new sea wall we are designing is only for 50 years, buildings designed to last 75-100 years, and we are committing to replacing the sea wall in that same location forever and it will get more expensive, will need to get taller as the hazards increase and, at some point, it may not make sense or may not be able to be permitted if it is in the public trust land. She stated that all the SRAs could help with the erosion because with some armoring there, it is not going to erode, although there could be issues with erosions behind the wall or a different kind of construction. She stated that she has worked with 50 geotechnical engineers with different projects over time and they are the most risk averse of any profession. She stated that we are not telling them what the condition of any of this armoring is and we have to figure out on our own how this helps us, and she asked how we do that. She stated that most geotechnical engineers cannot analyze armoring without the

2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 28 May 23, 2024
training to evaluate sea structures and armoring, and she questioned what the cost was for a homeowner and if it is even possible. She felt those questions were important to answer as they are committing all this time and money for a policy that they do not know if it can be used.

She added that there are liabilities and there is nothing to say that we cannot design the building now that does not rely on the armoring and we just have to design to meet the coastal hazards and have different foundations that some may go deeper and to let the flood water go through.

She stated that she has not been shown that this helps the project. She stated that we can still have development here and if we get it approved, we can update the Sharp Park Specific Plan that lets them increase density and commercial without the SRAs. She thought we can still develop safely.

City Manager Woodhouse added that the Sharp Park Specific Plan approval will take a lot longer without an updated certified LCLUP.

Councilmember Boles acknowledged that they needed the updated certified LCLUP.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the BBIRP project, while it will not prevent over topping or flooding potentially, it will vastly improve that, in addition with the storm drainage that would be built into Beach Boulevard. The goal of that project is to be built to a 50-year lifetime and they know capital assets like that can often last longer than that. He thinks that is important to acknowledge, especially if the sea wall is pushed back on the south end. He mainly wanted to offer that the benefit of the SRA related to marketing and development of this property is substantial because, while something could be built here envisioned without a sea wall, it is going to vastly change the marketability of this property that would bring in the big economic interest that is needed to develop this. Having the SRA and being able to factor in the benefit of the sea wall into that analysis would be an incredible economic improvement to this property.

Councilmember Bigstyck referred to a previous time when he was on the Planning Commission where he voted no on a property off of Montecito, north of the pier, because it was built as a retaining wall and not functional as a reasonable sea wall. He stated that the difference between the SRA concept and not the SRA concept when it comes to 2212 Beach Boulevard, he agreed we could engineer this piece of land as though there is not a sea wall outside their door; but the reality is there is a sea wall, and having the SRA allows us to engineer to the point where they have reasonable protection. He stated that what one could argue is the unreasonable part of having that armoring is the effect on the beach. He does not disagree with that. He is heartened that there are members of our community whom have worked in the past in Army Corps, coordinating with members of our community who are members of Surf Rider, and they are looking out for our beaches and to see our community members who might have particular insights to our topography. To see the collaborative work they are doing backstage to present alternatives to us that we could implement into the future brings him to the notion that, while we can implement the SRA, it is not to the exclusion of naturally adaptive approaches that could augment the current armoring we have, but they could work side by side to create something spectacular and much longer lasting. He stated, to the point of overtopping, he does look forward to seeing the final design of the remodel as he agrees that is a place where he does not think it is a good idea to have development. However, he also does not think it’s a good idea to short change ourselves of the infrastructure we have in place and the infrastructure we are designing into the future should it come to pass.

Planning Director Murdock shared two coastal vulnerability zone maps for West Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach. He stated that the bold red line is the projected coastal erosion in the year 2100. Approximately more than half of the Rockaway Beach neighborhood and approximately a

2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 29 May 23, 2024
quarter of the West Sharp Park neighborhood will be subject to that type of erosion. In the case study we have on 2212 Beach Boulevard, he is thinking about that as a potential economic development priority for the city. Looking at that without an SRA concept, we are confronting the potential that there is no developable area of the site, which means we would be looking at the minimum amount of development on the site that avoids a taking from permitting standpoint.

He questions what that means, and it calls the question of what could result on this site as one example. We as the city own the largest parcel in West Sharp Park and have the greatest potential to adapt to erosion hazards in the context of development. He stated to think about what that means for other properties that are not as large and don’t have that adaptability within their property line. He stated that the SRAs do fundamentally affect the development and investment potential for these areas, including a significant amount of Palmetto Avenue for a lot of economic development focus in the Sharp Park Specific Plan. He stated that it is a big difference with and without the SRA. He stated, to the specific point of analyzing the protection provided by shoreline protection, it is feasible. He has also spoken to their consultant geotechnical engineer. While they acknowledge a specialized area practice, they are engineers that can estimate the protection provided by a shoreline protection structure and factor into this analysis. He stated that the mechanics are there to make it work, and it is largely a policy question of whether it is worth the offsets required or whether the environmental impact results are worth it from a policy standpoint, recognizing that this is a narrow area of exception along the multi-mile coastline in Pacifica, most of which does not have shoreline protection and offsets this as a narrow area of exception.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if the shoreline protection for 50 years could buy us some time to get funds to move the infrastructure at some point. She stated houses that are here were not expected to last 70 years and most of the houses in Pacifica are more than 70 years old.

Councilmember Boles stated that the Coastal Commission requires them to last 75 to 100 so a geotechnical engineer would have to sign off on that. She stated that we are working on our shoreline protection and new sea wall to protect our infrastructure and she agrees that it buys us some time. She has a problem saying that we are always going to be able to hold that same line and that is part of the problem. She asked what the geotechnical engineer is signing off on if he has to say that the building is going to last 75 or 100 years and that protection will not. She stated that, even with the sea wall south of the pier, GHD did not fully analyze it. She said if we are designing a project that relies on that and we need the information, that is what she does not understand. She asked what it would cost a homeowner to hire the specialty engineer.

She stated that it is one thing for us to do it for our own project, but what does it mean to all the other property owners and businesses that have to do this on their own: what does it really cost, what’s the process, and what else is the city going to have to pay for? She stated these are projects that are going to cost a lot of money and take a lot of staff.

Councilmember Bigstyck agreed, but added that what is also expensive is not having growth, having to figure out how to move people out of infrastructure, and what could mitigate some of that disparity is having enough time for the state to follow through on their mandates of funding these projects under our LCLUP.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to speak to the issue of what the City Manager was referring to as the coastal CIP and how the shoreline management plan becomes that, taking the projects, some of which we already have in mind or are already intending on doing, some of which would come about as a result of these mitigation measures. She stated what occurred to her was what about the rest of the town. She stated that, when we are speaking of equity, she knows they have a lot of infrastructure challenges in other parts of Pacifica as well that have

2.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 30 May 23, 2024
nothing to do with the coastal zone. She stated that it feels like there will be a big investment in this area and she asked what that means compared to the rest of Pacifica. She asked how we think about the reason for doing it in terms of the economic viability being increased. She understands the premise but she wants to have a better grasp of how that plays out. She stated that we know this property has some significant development potential that gives the city money. Building on presently undeveloped land that was held for a long time and generates little in property tax means increasing the value of the land and the buildings which will generate property tax. She stated that those funds coming in as a result of those actions create ongoing revenue for the rest of the city as well, not just for the coastal zone. She asks what the relative costs are, and she stated this is a big cost-benefit analysis with tons of unknowns. She stated that another thing that has been eating at her all along has been what the Coastal Act currently says about this city’s ability to maintain its sea wall by virtue of it protecting public infrastructure.

She asked if there is a Coastal Act policy that says we can, and she thinks there is but it is limited and some constraints around it. She is not sure if the BBIRP design they presently have would meet the criteria. She added that, for pre-Coastal Act properties, do they not already have the ability to have shoreline protection.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what is different or better about the SRA policy in terms of those two factors. She has not done a thorough analysis on the number of properties just along this area that are pre-Coastal Act. She stated that, if we can protect it, that is great, but is there any new investment as what staff is talking about economic improvement piece, not just holding but growing, and the vision of growing the city to a place where it can be economically sustained.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that most every one of those hotels has recently upgraded, with more hotel rooms and hotels being expanded. She stated that the hotels are increasing in value and their values are improving, and as they improve their properties, it improves, so it is going to make a difference. It is economically good for Pacifica from every one of those items and for everyone who lives in Pacifica.

Planning Director Murdock wanted to address part of Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer’s remarks, i.e., the SRA in relationship to these properties in West Sharp Park that may be pre-Coastal Act properties. He stated one of the major benefits from staff’s perspective, recognizing that many of those lots are 30-50 feet wide, is, while they may be entitled shoreline protection under the Coastal Act, the outcome of individual properties needing to construct their own shoreline protection structures is very disruptive from a resources standpoint and from coastal resources and access standpoint. It is not an ideal outcome in the absence of some unified shoreline protection like that which exists along Beach Boulevard, which provides significant access along the shoreline. He thinks the likelihood is high that that access would no longer be present in the absence of a city-owned unified shoreline protection structure, not even to mention the cost to individual owners. He stated that there is a lot of discussion at this meeting about sensitivity to cost to property owners. He asked them to consider the immense cost of every individual property owner needing to pursue their own shoreline protection plus immense mitigation fees from the Coastal Commission. It is highly disruptive to coastal access but perhaps more coastal resource impacts than the unified approach we have now. He stated that is one of the key outcomes that would result from the SRA: avoiding that piecemeal site-by-site approach.

City Manager Woodhouse added that he would address the CIP comment Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer made and stated that he did not intend to suggest that there is a coastal CIP at the

2.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 31 May 23, 2024
expense of a city wide CIP, but that it is a portion of the CIP. We have major capital projects all around the city, throughout the city facilities, and the CIP will always need to address those. He stated that his vision was how do you reorganize the CIP and other non-capital projects under Coastal Commission approval that the city can get credit for. He stated that it is like the budget and we balance the budget to serve all the departments and services that the city provides and we would do that same thing with the CIP for coastal related or shoreline management plan related ones and other citywide.

Councilmember Boles stated she has some of these concerns as there are other things that we need as a city in the rest of the city that we are not doing that now because we do not have money and staff capacity. There are other projects that are important and climate-related to the whole city and that is part of her fear as we are saying that we have to do this and this is going to take priority over other things because we have to maintain it to do these programs. She feels like we do not have enough information of what is needed and the Coastal Commission has not necessarily given us all the information they need either at this point.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, in the short term, benches could be fairly low cost, whereas, in the long term, sand retention structures are proposed to be viable for grant funding, given the need of the moment in time. He stated that is something that can directly impact the viability of our beaches, let alone any of the rest of what we need for economic viability. He feels like, in the long run, that would free us up to be able to look at a traffic plan, etc.

Councilmember Boles stated that the grants are out there for some of these things that we do not have staff capacity to manage them.

Councilmember Bigstyck agreed, but he stated that we do not have staff capacity because we are working on this plan that we need to pass in order to have the staff capacity to put through the structures on the ocean to retain the sand to have the beaches, etc.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to the leadership portion of our responsibility and the long view for the future of this community. She realized previous councils and staff could not do as much forward planning because we did not have the funds. She stated that we do incremental upgrades but she feels the city needs a visionary push into sustainability.

Councilmember Bier agreed. She stated that it is hard to see the benefits to have the SRA and she is still struggling with that.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought that is part of what she has been reflecting on, i.e., that is what vision is. She does not know if staff has information about who else is working on these concepts and where they are in that process. She stated that her instinct and what she hears tells her it is coming up in different conversations but she feels that, because their LCLUP is so old and we are working so hard to get it done, that is why the SRA concept is wrapped into Pacifica now. She stated that cynical people say it is because they are weak and let them do whatever they want.

Planning Director Murdock stated he has a very different perspective. He stated that his insight is that there is not likely to be another city in this position for quite some time and he does not think there is any other city that is imminently approaching this juncture in their LCLUP update with discussion of the SRA type concept that is getting this attention and focus from the Coastal Commission that Pacifica has gotten with the significant staff-to-staff coordination and internal work and alignment that they have done as an organization to try to get behind policies that they

2.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 32 May 23, 2024
can support as a compromise and get an LCLUP update certified. In updating the 1980 plan to modern climate change, sea level rise, and resource protection, his sense is that we will be waiting a while to know what the path looks like from another jurisdiction. He thought Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer put it well that the Council has the vision to see this community into the future even though there is uncertainty associated with that or is waiting what Pacifica needs at this time.

Councilmember Bier stated she is curious about what the Coastal Commission will say and we will not know what we are going to say about it until we transmit it to them.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, when we talk about the Coastal Commission, there are two things we are talking about: the staff whom city staff has been working with and the Coastal Commission itself as the body that makes the final decisions. Often, they do what staff recommends to them and he is confident that we will get there with this, but not always as there is a risk and they cannot control that risk. He stated that Council’s job is to do what Council thinks is best for the community with the policies, following the advice and information that staff has offered. He thought there is no realistic way to eliminate all uncertainty. He asked if Council is willing to sacrifice the potential benefits to offset the potential risks. He stated that city staff is recommending that Council proceed, based on everything staff knows and understands about this process, what the benefit would be relative to the drawbacks or risks from this process, but that is ultimately the Council’s decision.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that previous Council submitted LCLUP in 2020 and it took a long time.

She stated that for the General Plan she worked on steering committees for 20 years and they ran out of money so they could not continue with the General Plan. She compared this to the Half Moon Bay Library. When they were building the Half Moon Bay Library, all these people did not want it, and then when it got built, everyone said it was the greatest and a benefit to their community.

City Manager Woodhouse had a suggestion about process that he would like to offer. He stated that there are a number of items and Council is not voting on this amended document at this meeting. We do not have to make a decision about these two broad philosophical ones, SRAs and shoreline management plan, and we have a lot more policies to get through at this meeting and it would be great for staff to get feedback on those policies and then staff goes off and review the Coastal Commission’s staff’s latest input and bring back that whole package to Council for consideration at that time, and that is when Council makes a decision about the SRAs being in there and amending the LCLUP to submit to the Coastal Commission. He stated, if they can get through the remainder of the policies, that would be fantastic to get input on those at this meeting.

Council reviewed Modification Nos. 6.14 and 6.15.

Mayor Vaterlaus added that the next two pages have been deleted up to Modification No. 6.22, which is flood protection.

Councilmembers Bier, Bigstyck, and Boles did not have any comments on the deleted sections.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we are reorganizing from sub area policies.

Sr. Planner Cervantes responded affirmatively.

2.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 33 May 23, 2024
Councilmember Boles noticed that there were still some sub area policies that reflected a particular neighborhood.

Planning Director Murdock stated they were essentially generalized and not particularly related to specific sea level rise triggers but the intention was to make them more generally applicable policies as a stand-in until the city could come back around and redo the adaptation plan.

Councilmember Boles stated that CR-I-22 is a sub area policy for Northwest Sharp Park. She stated that the two that were deleted were shoreline protection and beach nourishment and were more general.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 6.16, 6.17, 6.18, 6.19, 6.20, 6.21, 6.22,

6.23, 6.24, 6.25, 6.26, 6.27, 6.28 and 6.29.

Councilmember Bigstyck had a question on Modification No. 6.30 of how it pertains to Highway 1 and he may need a brief understanding of what is being proposed in CR-I-30. He would like some clarity around that policy.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the policy remains “coordinate with Caltrans to evaluate the need for a revetment or other appropriate shoreline protection for the Highway 1 embankment”.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if that was in general because Highway 1 is the borderline for the coastal zone or does it pertain specifically to around the Linda Mar area.

Councilmember Boles stated that it pertains specifically to Rockaway Beach, the quarry, and the headlands.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is trying to understand why we have that policy given how far from any of that Highway 1 it would seem to be.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they need to take a look and would return to this item.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification Nos. 6.38 and 6.39.

Councilmember Boles asked regarding Modification No. 6.40 if we are working on any other assessments.

Planning Director Murdock thought that policy was intended to relate to if another project in the vicinity had done that analysis and the owner could obtain permission to utilize it and not need to repeat it for a comparable project in a comparable location within a reasonable period of time.

He added that there is a similar policy for Pacifica state beach in West Linda Mar area in CR-I36. He stated it is not in the matrix because it didn’t have a suggested modification.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.40.

Councilmember Bigstyck wanted to verify that Modification No. 6.41 is the mechanism by which OPC is the update for best available science.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating that this is reflecting that there will be future updates and they need to periodically rely on the new science as it comes up.

2.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 34 May 23, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck knows the new science is anticipated to be updated imminently and he wanted to point out that this is the mechanism by which the science shall be updated.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.41.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that 6.42 has a red arrow, and she read the draft alternative modifications, i.e., demonstrate that the development will avoid unavoidable, minimize impacts from coastal hazards for the anticipated life of the proposed development without reliance on any existing or future shoreline protection devices except that development behind special resiliency areas will be allowed to consider protection provided by existing shoreline protection structures when analyzing hazards.

Council reviewed Modification No. 6.42.

Council reviewed and approved of Modification No. 6.43.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she had a question for Asst. City Attorney Bazzano regarding Modification No. 6.44. She wondered how Asst. City Attorney Bazzano interprets where it references Coastal Act section 30235 “and any other laws”. She thought that was a vague and broad and all-encompassing statement. She stated, taken to to its logical extreme, that statement could mean the right to protect property that is guaranteed under the Constitution.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she reads that section to only be referring to any other laws that relate to what existing structure means.

Council reviewed Modification No. 6.44.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if Modification No. 6.45 refers to development of new properties.

Planning Director Murdock stated that we will need to clarify coastal development permit approvals; projects that would be exempt from the CDP would not be subject to this policy but many types of development would. There may be relatively minor projects that need a CDP that would be subject to this requirement.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if it is correct that it does not apply if one is in a tsunami inundation zone but not a coastal vulnerability zone.

Planning Director Murdock stated that is a correct technical reading.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that the people in Fairway are in the tsunami zone but not in the coastal vulnerability areas.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was worth following up with Coastal Commission staff.

Council reviewed Modification No. 6.45.

Councilmember Boles had an issue with Modification No. 6.46. She is trying to understand what all the different nonconformities might be. She stated that some of it is about zoning from

2.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 35 May 23, 2024
our new General Plan and the Sharp Park Specific Plan. For example, 1112 Palmetto is zoned commercial and had a residence in it; but if they were to remodel it, they could not build another residence there because it is zoned commercial. That is something that now applies everywhere in town and we are saying we ae going to grant this exception in these SRAs but she is not sure that is such a good idea. She stated, looking at the Sharp Park Specific Plan, we are trying to redevelop that whole corridor on Palmetto. She stated there are some businesses that now do not meet the definition of what we want there. If they want to grow their business, they could do that with the exception where we might want them to think about moving instead. She stated that the Planning Director said that anybody could come and ask for a use permit so we could review that and make that decision and she thought that makes sense everywhere in the city but why would we automatically grant that exception in the SRAs.

Planning Director Murdock stated addressing non-conforming uses is difficult in land use planning. He stated that there are just as many, if not more, instances in Pacifica where existing single family residences are non-conforming in commercial areas and Council will want to be mindful and thoughtful about changing this to want to address uses in addition to other non-conformities because it could be a situation where we are forcing people out of their home into a commercial use, for example, or they choose not to undertake projects that would trigger the substantial structural modification definition as a consequence of a policy that would require them to resolve non-conforming uses. He stated that, at the end of the day, what she is saying is that the city should bring land use into alignment with our plans, but sometimes it is a difficult process and decision to be made for the greater good of resolving non-conforming uses.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated, regardless of the LCP, if it is a nonconformity, would it have to come before Planning Commission anyway.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it would depend, as we have a provision on our zoning specific to addressing non-conforming uses in structures, and there are various instances where it may not need to come to the Planning Commission if it complies with limitations on expansions or relocations of non-conforming uses. In many instances, it would, such as a use permit as Councilmember Boles mentioned.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she sold a property on Palmetto that was probably built 100 years ago and it is zoned commercial but it has been residential for the last 100 years. She was told that it did not have anything to do with the structural modifications at the time, but if the property burns to the ground, it would have to be built as commercial. Currently, it is non-conforming.

Councilmember Boles stated that with the policy that we are adding it would not have to change during rebuilding.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated unless one did a substantial structural modification.

Councilmember Boles did not understand why we would not want to update things to new zoning and why would we do it everywhere else in Pacifica and not in the SRAs when the SRAs are where we want to be the most commercial visitor-serving and why make that exception.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated if it is a single family residence and there is not a developer lined up to buy it and it’s a single parcel next to something owned by someone else that is not going to be available for a developer any time soon, would we want that house to not be used in that instance or should we allow it to continue to be used since it would not otherwise be utilized any time soon.

2.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 36 May 23, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that is too vague for policies. She liked the idea of anywhere in Pacifica that Council and the Planning Commission get to review it and say that the zoning does not allow a house but we think they should be able to stay in this one location, but she thinks we should be able to review the policy.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked why make a change without anything substantial to the property.

Councilmember Boles asked why do it everywhere else in town then.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we are not automatically bringing them to non-conformity. That is only with structural modifications.

Councilmember Boles stated that is true here also, as it is a place where we are doing something different here than in the rest of town.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it is not equitable.

Councilmember Boles stated that it is not equitable and she did not think it furthers the planning efforts we are trying to do. That is why she thinks it is better as a one-off decision than a blanket exception.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated in this area, Sharp Park, are the most non-conforming uses of properties in this area. She stated that, even around the corners, they are zoned commercial when they have been residential forever so there are non-conformities in use.

Planning Director Murdock stated that staff’s intention in drafting that unique approach in the SRAs was reflective of the unique characteristics of the Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach neighborhoods where there are a fair number of non-conformities. He stated, if that is the right approach from a policy standpoint, that is for the Council to decide, but when thinking about these areas and how the SRAs at large will result in greater protection for them, staff was trying to strike the right balance and try not to force those types of use changes on account of the substantial structural modifications.

Councilmember Boles and Mayor Vaterlaus mentioned Peter Loeb’s house. Councilmember Boles stated that is a huge lot and why would we say that it would stay a single-family residence when it could be developed into a mixed use building. She stated there may also be friends in other areas who are also being forced to move. She stated that she is not saying that we do not necessarily review one on one and say they want to let them continue, but she thinks a blanket exception is not necessarily matching our goals of all this planning effort we have done.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that this sounds like where we are trying to protect the homeowners and their properties and do right by them, which is substantially in the spirit of the document we originally submitted in 2020.

Councilmember Boles wanted to understand this more and she would like to see a comparison of zoning in Manor, in Pedro Point, etc. and how is that fair.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated his only concern is in terms of our RHNA numbers and showing that we can make use of these places we are rezoning and otherwise. Aside from that, he stated that there is so much feedback about the character of neighborhoods and how we do not

2.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 37 May 23, 2024
want to abruptly change that. He would be willing to go along with the premise that this strikes the right balance until some developer wants to come in and spend a huge amount of money to buy up all those properties and develop into the thing that we are originally rezoning it for in premise. Until someone is willing to sell it out, he is happy to let someone live there the way they are.

Councilmember Boles stated that, if we had the discretion, we could let them continue living there as they are, but there are individual houses along Palmetto that, according to our whole planning effort, could be 4- or 50-story buildings with more housing and commercial and help revive that whole neighborhood and now we are giving an exception that could not happen.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked that part of the point is to be non-discretionary and have it in a plan.

Councilmember Boles stated that we have a plan but we would be allowing an exception.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked Planning Director Murdock how this works with the Sharp Park Specific Plan or are they at odds.

Planning Director Murdock stated that Councilmember Boles has a good point that this would enable substantial additional investment in modifications of structures that would continue uses that would be non-conforming with the city’s plans and it is perfectly understandable to not want that to occur. The plans over time should shape the land use into alignment with the plans and this would allow something other than that to occur within the SRAs.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked what the alternative language would be and would coastal staff sign off on that alternate language if we were to implement it.

Planning Director Murdock stated that his sense is that they would not have an objection to requiring non-conforming uses to be brought into conformity within the SRA.

Councilmember Bier stated her concern is displacement.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there are other instances as well where a business may be non-conforming or a single-family residence would be brought into conformity by having five multi-family units on a mixed use project. In the Sharp Park Specific Plan, we have not reduced the zoning density in any of these locations where a single-family residence is on Palmetto.

There could be a particular family displaced, but in terms of creating housing opportunities, there could be more. Other laws and requirements address displacement as well and replacement of units in the area like the Mello Act within the coastal zone. He stated that it is not as though there is no framework of protection, but it could result in replacement of that structure and the associated consequences for the family.

Councilmember Boles stated that it is only during a substantial structural modification.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it is the choice to proceed or not with the major project.

Councilmember Boles stated that, if we deleted that special resiliency area, it still allows, like in the rest of Pacifica, that we can make a decision to allow the existing use to stay, but then we are looking at it as site-specific as opposed to making general statements.

Planning Director Murdock stated that one version of the alternative language is starting at the

2.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 38 May 23, 2024
underlined section, beginning with except, we would see “except that behind special resiliency areas, development shall only be required to correct existing non-conformities related to use and applicable coastal hazards on the site”.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we would add in the word “use”.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding if the goal is to minimize the amount of physical alterations that are made, another version is what Councilmember Boles is describing which is deleting the entire underlined section so all SSMs in all locations, even in the SRA areas, need to do a full rectification of existing non-conformity.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked, if adding that word “use,” does that imply that then it comes to Planning Commission.

Planning Director Murdock thought it likely would not, adding that staff will need to undertake work on our zoning, including the non-conforming zoning, to implement the LCLUP as part of their implementation plan. We will need to rectify the non-conforming zoning provisions to align with the LCLUP and this would be an area where we would need to make some adjustments.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if there is a way to protect against displacement and yet address the non-conformities. If not, he is open to going one direction or the other, but he wants to ask questions to understand and probably err on the side of protecting.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the Mello Act, existing state law, addresses destruction or demolition of housing units occupied by low- and moderate-income individuals. In our Housing Element, we have committed to a program to begin requiring applicants for demolition permits, to provide that information on the incomes of occupants to ensure that we are complying with the Mello Act. There are unit replacement requirements for such displaced occupants within three miles of the coastal zone. He stated that there is not a guarantee that they will be on site or even in the same neighborhood, but in the general area, potentially still in the coastal zone, and it is a requirement of state law already. He is not familiar with all of them off the top of his head, but there are other laws addressing displacement of low- and moderate-income tenants with the redevelopment of existing residential property.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if they cross out that last underline. She asked if Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to say something.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that her comment is not specifically related to this so she stated that we finish the thought on that, i.e., are we saying that we are going to strike the strike out or the underlying piece or are we leaving it.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he needed to understand Council reviewed Modification Nos.

6.44, 6.45, and 6.46 following feedback from Coastal Commission staff.

Council reviewed Modification No. 6.45.

Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.

2.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 39 May 23, 2024
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-1]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bigstyck, Boles
NAYS: Bier
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano reminded all that, pursuant to Council rules, the meeting may only proceed past 11:00 p.m. if a majority of Councilmembers in attendance extend this meeting to a time certain and concluded that it was approved by majority vote.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we are eliminating the section on Modification No. 6.46.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he has not heard consensus, as he hears concerns from Councilmembers Boles and Bier. He is trying to reconcile all that and he does not know that he has heard substantially from either Mayor or Mayor pro Tem.

Councilmember Bier asked what removing the underlined phrase did.

Planning Director Murdock stated that eliminating the underlined text would require resolving non-conforming uses so it would be more concerning from her displacement perspective.

Councilmember Boles asked if he can define other non-conformities.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there are more readily understandable ones, like the setbacks, height, lot coverage, or off-street parking facilities. There is use that we spent some time talking about, i.e., residential use in a commercial zone or vice versa. He stated that there are other policies in the LCLUP, such as hazard setbacks or setbacks from sensitive resources, that might be implicated by these policies as well, and it may change where a structure could be placed on a particular site in the course of addressing the non-conformities. He stated that it is far reaching in terms of potential impacts on the condition of the property prior to the SSM and what project might be able to be permitted post-SSM.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked, if we take it out of the coastal zone for a minute and someone is applying for a modification to their structure, do they need to come into conformity.

Planning Director Murdock stated, generally speaking, no. He explained that our nonconforming provisions say simply that when a project is not increasing the degree of nonconformity, the Planning Director can approve it. If they would be increasing the degree of nonconformity, the Planning Director would say no, they need to follow some other process that likely triggers discretionary review such as a use permit, a variance, etc.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if that same principle holds true the way this is currently written.

Planning Director Murdock suspected that not, in the event of an SSM, because it is a substantial investment in the property that, in the framework of the LCLUP, is triggering treatment essentially like a new development and needs to comply with new development standards, given the degree of modification up to 50% of structural components.

Councilmember Bigstyck concluded that they get a pass where anyone else would not.

2.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 40 May 23, 2024
Planning Director Murdock stated that, outside of the coastal zone, it is less restrictive and inside the coastal zone, in the event of an SSM, it is quite restrictive and burdensome.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought plain non-conformities is an overreach. She does not understand why we need to do that and she needs more understanding from staff about why we are doing that in this policy.

Councilmember Boles concludes she means everywhere in the coastal zone.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that policy that relates to it, yes.

Planning Director Murdock thought this is effectuating is an approach from the Coastal Commission where significant investments or modifications triggering the 50% threshold are so significant that they should be evaluated as new development and aligned with modern, current, best practice Local Coastal Program policies, including the zoning, land use plan policies, etc., so that, over time, as developments change, evolve, and are intensified, like in the SSM, they are brought into alignment with the LCP and minimize impacts on coastal resources. He stated that is his way of formulating why this is, and there is a good argument to be made that it is burdensome. However, it is rational in the sense that no one is making you change your structure and, if it is not conforming, expand it by 49%; but if you tip a threshold, whatever that threshold is, and in this case 50%, that is so significant that it should be treated like new development and brought into modern condition to avoid those adverse impacts to coastal resources for example.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what if there are not adverse impacts to coastal resources.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it would not a non-conformity in this context.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, if it’s more than 49%, it sounds to her that it does not matter if it is impacting coastal resources as it would need to be done anyway.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, as that would be a non-conformity with a provision in the LCP if it was too close to a wetland, coastal hazard zone, etc.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if he is not talking about behind an SRA. He stated that, when he said it is less onerous than mainland, he meant specifically behind the SRA. He stated that he was fixated on the underlined part.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is concerned about this particular policy of the issue of making property owners bring their properties into conformity. She understands if it is a hazard, like bringing a building on a bluff top into conformity or else risk falling off. She does not understand if it is a non-conformity because an addition is sticking out too far into the backyard.

She feels like it is over controlling this for reasons that she does not understand. She thought it may be just her fundamental frustration with the whole SSM concept in general, i.e., the whole 50% threshold, because it feels arbitrary, because it is the coast and we are going to make them. She stated she would want it for a reason related to ESHA, hazards, or something other than preference.

Planning Director Murdock understood. He stated that, if we were to step back and think about Council making zoning ordinances, those are intended to preserve public health and safety by

2.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 41 May 23, 2024
having appropriate separations from structures and setbacks and not overly intensively building on properties, height limits, and light air. Even though we do not think of them in that way every day, that is fundamentally what they are intended to do. He stated that it is hard to understand how those relate to coastal resource impacts in a lot of instances. He can see that logical disconnect where one may feel more comfortable with that burdensome impact on a project if it is encroaching on a wetland buffer or it is too close to an erosion hazard line or something more tangible in terms of a coastal resource impact. Staff can make note of that and try to take that back that Council is willing to make that tough tradeoff if we can clearly articulate a relationship to a coastal resource impact, but maybe not arbitrarily because the setback is 4-feet instead of 5-feet and we now have to knock down the whole structure in order to find compliance because it is an SSM. He stated that we will see if we can focus it on more tangible, direct nexus to a coastal resource impact. He stated that it seems like a reasonable approach.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated those were good words, “nexus to a coastal resource”.

Councilmember Boles agreed and she appreciates staff going back to Coastal Commission to try and clarify. She stated that, from having done some of these projects in other cities that had to be brought into compliance, sometimes the setbacks are a life safety issue. She thought it might need to be a little broader.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we have no consensus on that one at all. She stated that she will make a decision that we wait and see what Coastal Commission comes back to say on that.

Council reviewed Modification No. 6.46.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Modification No. 6.47 is adding more requirement.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, adding that the concern is that, while in the current condition today, we are looking at a development, see a wetland, and we have to do the 50-foot buffer or 100-foot buffer or whatever in the wetland. He stated that the concern is for properties that may be closer to the shoreline that the sea level rise will encroach on the wetlands and force the wetlands to migrate. If there is not an additional buffer to account for that migration as a result of sea level rise, there may not be space for the wetlands to move and it will hit the development. He stated that there needs to be an additional buffer to add sea level rise plus migrated wetlands, plus buffer from future projected relocated wetland location.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we are asking for more of a requirement because we do not think the Coastal Commission went far enough.

Planning Director Murdock thinks that we are trying to clarify what the buffer includes to make it more understandable.

Councilmember Boles thought going back to Coastal Commission staff’s modification may be all we need to do.

Councilmember Bigstyck did not mind them flushing out what additional actually means and obviating it, but he wants to be clear about we they are doing with that language.

Councilmember Boles stated she is fine with what Coastal Commission staff suggested.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, at the time, staff thought it added clarity, and reading it

2.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 42 May 23, 2024
today, he is not sure that it does and it may be okay not to make that addition.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the anticipated life of the development is 75 years and today we are going to say how much sea rise is going to occur and intrude on wetland, causing the wetland to move back, and we are going to use OPC’s guidance for sea rise. She asked if that is what she is hearing.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively. He stated we would apply the sea level rise projection to the property and understand there is a likelihood that the wetland would migrate on account of the sea level rise and the buffer from that potential future migrated wetland.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we initially started with new development and we changed it to be open-ended.

Councilmember Boles thought the city definition of development is new or substantial structural modifications.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, and we talked about this previously that it is hard to distinguish between what is new development and existing development and it is for purposes of coastal development permitting. It does not matter if it needs a CDP, it is development.

Thinking about what policies to apply to development, and existing development is relevant in the shoreline protection context, a limited distinction, we have tried to simplify by talking more about development rather than new development or existing development.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we are going back to the CCC suggested modification.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was not suggesting one way or the other and wanted to understand what it meant. If that is what we want to do in this consensus, he would not go against that.

Councilmember Bier and Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed that we should do that.

Council reviewed and amended Modification No. 6.47 to reflect the Coastal Commission staff’s original modification.

Council reviewed and approved Modification Nos. 6.48 and 6.49.

Councilmember Boles asked for an explanation of Modification No. 6.50.

Councilmember Bier asked why we felt that we needed that.

Planning Director Murdock suggested looking at the suggestion in context, showing, in totality, that there are some obligations and triggers associated with certain types of modifications to existing shoreline protection structures. Staff is trying to provide the greatest flexibility to modify them without triggering those requirements if the modifications fall within an exclusion in the SSM definition.

Councilmember asked if this means we are allowing modifications to shore armoring that is not legally permitted.

Planning Director Murdock stated no, adding that he did not think there were any rights to a

2.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 43 May 23, 2024
structure that is not permitted. He stated that it’s trying to get at the 50% replacement. If there is some exclusion like destruction from a disaster and being able to rebuild a shoreline protection structure is one simple example. It was talking about exclusions contained in the SSM definition, which is the Section 30610(g) (destroyed by disaster scenario), where some shoreline protection structure is destroyed by a disaster, wave action, or major storm, and would be able to be rebuilt in its prior form without triggering all the permitting requirements associated with the other triggers of 50% replacement.

Council reviewed Modification No. 6.50.

Councilmember Boles asked regarding Modification No. 6.51 if it is just the words “coastal hazards” replacing “erosion,” otherwise it is the same policy.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that staff thought it should be broader; shoreline protection structures may be needed to protect existing structures from wave over topping or flooding and should not be limited to only erosion.

Council reviewed and approved Modification No. 6.51.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Coastal Commission staff wanted to change the time limits in Modification No. 6.52.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they added “or is redeveloped pursuant to the SSM” language whereas city staff had said “shall not justify removal of a shoreline protection structure which protects any structure authorized to be constructed pursuant to our prior assessment definition”.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked, if one building is destroyed and is not rebuilt, then they can get rid of the structural modifications there.

Planning Director Murdock asked of shoreline protection structure, yes, as the structure it is protecting is no longer required.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that could affect all the other buildings on the shoreline.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is except in the SRAs.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, in the SRAs, there are other public resources, infrastructure, streets, etc., that are a broader area that justify the shoreline protection structures and he did not think they are likely to see this policy implicated within the SRAs so long as the publicly owned area-wide shoreline protection remains.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated the end of the modification references special resiliency areas.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he was going to ask as we need specific language included there that references SRAs, or is it unnecessary.

Planning Director Murdock stated that this policy is not directly an SRA policy and the note that says SRA reflects the context of the time we were working on this spreadsheet with the Coastal Commission which was upon our introduction of the SRA concept and their consideration of it.

As we were exchanging comments back and forth, we indicated that we agreeable to this

2.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 44 May 23, 2024
change, as long as the SRA policies took effect because those have unique circumstances relative to publicly owned shoreline protection. That distinguishes between shoreline protection protecting private properties and the SRAs where shoreline protection is protecting other public assets.

Councilmember Bigstyck added if this item does not need to be flagged because, subsequent to this, city and Coastal Commission staff developed the SRA policies.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that in part, they flagged it because it was contingent on the SRAs to make it an acceptable policy.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if, in the end an LCLUP was recommended without SRAs, this policy would be potentially concerning to Councilmembers.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it could be but we need to reflect back to the boarder deed restriction language where developments that are permitted under this LCLUP are going to have those waivers of rights and requirements to restore the site when the developments were moved. There will be, in the near term, a large population of properties that may have some form of shoreline protection and not have those deed restrictions that may be better off without this. In the planning horizon of this plan, that is less and less of an issue as the deed restrictions become more and more prevalent.

Council reviewed Modification No. 6.52.

Planning Director Murdock added that there are a few points in the staff report that are not in this matrix that might be beneficial to spend some time discussing to confirm that we have the right policy approach. He described them briefly in the initial presentation, but staff does want to confirm that we have the right approach.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked for a summarization of their discussion on Modification Nos.

6.44, 6.45, and 6.46.

Planning Director Murdock summarized Modification No. 6.44: confirm what “other laws” mean with Coastal Commission staff as there was concern about the broadness of that, is there a roundabout conflict where the Constitution provides some benefit to protection of property, or is there some intent behind that. He summarized Modification No. 6.45: discuss with Coastal Commission staff whether the “and” should be an “or” or if the intention is to limit those requirements to properties that are only in the coastal vulnerability zone and tsunami inundation zone. He summarized Modification No. 6.46: discuss with the Coastal Commission and try to revise to non-conformities with more direct nexus to coastal resource impacts, that zoning standard non-conformity feels arbitrary in this context, given the significant impact on development and the need to potentially drastically change the structure at great cost and it should only be done when there is a clear direct nexus to coastal resource impacts and policies.

He also summarized Modification No. 6.47: Council did not want to add the underlined text.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, when it comes to Modification Nos. 6.14 and 6.15, we had a robust discussion and asked if the direction that came out of it is that it is going to inform the discussion on the next potentially last round.

Planning Director Murdock stated that staff feels like we have enough to go in informed to the next conversation; we will have to learn more about what the interest is in further discussion

2.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 45 May 23, 2024
from the Coastal Commission standpoint. He stated that the takeaway he has from those discussions of Modifications Nos. 6.14 and 6.15 was SRAs were a possibility and we need to know more about them and what the obligations will be, what the true benefits are. We will try to flush it out and see if there is a drastic realignment, based on the conversation with the Coastal Commission staff, that might be concerning to Council and might sway that further on one direction or the other in supporting or not supporting SRAs.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated staff heard Council’s deliberation and staff will bring that back to Coastal Commission staff and offer clarification that might help one way or the other.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating to help interpret any changes to these policies that they might want to introduce in light of the uncertainty from the Council on whether SRAs are the right approach or not under the circumstances.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that he has something he wants to bring forward about the staff report.

Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.

Council reviewed and approved LD-I-#: Individualized Determinations.

Councilmember Boles asked if Deed Restrictions (Policy CR-I-45 or Modification No. 6.45) was something Planning Director Murdock can review with Coastal Commission staff and see if they would accept this now. In addition, knowing that the GIS Shapefile is available, is it possible that they could approve it and we have our maps without having to do a bigger process.

Planning Director Murdock stated it was possible and we will see what can be accomplished in the potentially short time frame. He thought that is probably one of the last questions that the City Manager will want Council to consider, i.e., where do we go next and how soon might we feel ready, given some of the practical challenges and the work that needs to occur in flushing out some of these policies, hearing what the Coastal Commission has to say about the red arrow policies, etc. He then stated he will try to get through the remainder and he thought they hopefully read through some of the glossary, confirmations they noted, based on their prior feedback.

Council reviewed and approved Deed Restrictions (Policy CR-I-45 or Modification No. 6.45), clarifying wherever we talked about permit in the LCLUP, clarifying its coastal development permit so there is no interpretation that suggests it is a building permit, updates to the maps related to disabled access points and some of the other coastal access point descriptions.

Councilmember Boles stated, not related to those maps, she wanted to ask about the landslide maps because we added to new landslide maps in the General Plan and those also affect Pedro Point and she was hoping they can also include those.

Planning Director Murdock stated that we will evaluate the opportunity to do that. He asked if City Manager Woodhouse had questions for Council on the next steps.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that one option which depends on staff’s analysis and discussion with Coastal Commission staff about some of the items is to proceed with the special meeting on June 4 to bring back the entire package and resolution for adoption. To finish up that special meeting would be a combination of working through the final analysis on the last items and any other items Council wants to discuss and consider the resolution for amending

2.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 46 May 23, 2024
the LCLUP at that meeting for submittal to the Coastal Commission. If their discussion with Coastal Commission staff is more complex, they may not be able to meet the June 4 date. He stated that one aspect of the June 4 date is that they go ahead and notice the meeting tomorrow and, if we have to continue it or delay it, we will do it. He stated that is an option to be looking to wrap this up in early June and have a Council decision on the final packet. That is what he would recommend, given our other agenda load.

Planning Director Murdock wanted to add that we have published the staff reports for these LCLUP meetings a week in advance all of these meetings and try to give Council and community time to digest the information and formulate questions. He stated, given where they are in the calendar, the holiday, and the need to coordinate with Coastal Commission staff, we will not be able to publish this next staff report with follow up items a week in advance. To try to meet the aggressive schedule, and make significant progress as the City Manager outlined, Council will need to be prepared to dig in with a shorter time frame and be prepared for whatever public reaction there may be to that shortened time frame as well. In the interest of a greater process, that would be a requirement for June 4.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, ideally, the content to focus on is going to be more of these red arrow policies so it would be a smaller subset of all of these.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it would be hard to explain where staff do not have clarity on some items and we are going to notice meeting at which we might approve this.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if the point of the last items is that we are still discussing this with Coastal Commission staff. He stated that it seems they all pertain to special resiliency area and it feels as though it is policy that we discussed and now staff is bringing back to them to discuss deeper so we can gain that clarity at the next meeting to the point of passing this through if Council so desires.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed but specified that the last items showed up because Coastal Commission staff asked for them.

Councilmember Boles thought they might have more to say and to add.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added that our staff does not know why.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated we do not know when that meeting is going to occur.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it is possible that they will not know by June 4 of what changes have occurred.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the feasibility of the June 4 meeting depends on staff having this conversation with Coastal Commission staff and getting clarification and seeing how city staff can package it together and whether the timing works. If it does, we can have that meeting and Council can discuss and see if we are ready to adopt. If we are not, we have to continue it later into June. If we are, we are able to accomplish that.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he would propose, if what comes out of that meeting is substantial, staff would consult with the Mayor and Mayor pro Tem to figure out what the best approach for them all would look like.

2.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 47 May 23, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus proposed at this time that we attempt to have the meeting on June 4 to make the decision on this. She acknowledged consensus that we would all like to go forward on that date and hopefully by that time we will have the information back from Coastal Commission.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated pending the discretion of the Mayor.

Mayor Vaterlaus agreed pending discretion of the Mayor and Mayor pro Tem.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, before adjournment, she wanted to revisit a comment we had earlier about the flood and tsunami zones and the map on Figure 5.3. She stated the concern being raised was that there are no good maps of the tsunami inundation zone that we are defining. A suggestion was made that, since there are not specific maps, perhaps there is a way to put in a statement about deferring it until things are defined better, that Council go ahead and define what that zone area is.

Councilmember Boles stated that there are specific maps as shared by the statistician mentioned at the beginning of the meeting and that it is something we can ask the Coastal Commission about and one that we can possibly put in.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought that was the general issue. Inasmuch as staff is going to be meeting with Coastal Commission staff, this tsunami zone map/inundation zone issue seems to be a sticking point; there can be some clarity on what is the science we use and what map do we use. It feels like it is not defined enough for people’s comfort level.

Councilmember Bigstyck wondered if the Coastal Commissioners themselves might have similar questions upon arrival.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he heard at this meeting and has heard previously that the curiosity and concern related to the tsunami component of the hazard maps and deed restriction requirements that it would trigger. That is why we have tried hard to come up with some alternatives, starting with defining it differently and more narrowly; now more recently staff’s recommendation is to put policy guidance in the LCLUP to that intermediate hazard event and further define that with more time and implementation plan. He summarized if there is a way to say this does not apply until defined in the implementation plan or if we can reach consensus that this is a reasonable intermediate approach and get some interim maps along the lines of what Councilmember Boles is saying. Staff will explore those points with the Coastal Commission staff but the key policy direction is what we are looking for: do we stick with the tsunami evacuation zone maps or try to find something different. He thinks he is hearing something different.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated yes, less onerous, narrowing the area and thus the potential impact on a number of properties impacted. She would like a visual of that and what it would be on an overlay map of Pacifica, to give them that visual and have a better understanding of the impact of changing one or the other. She thought the real reason it is a point is because it was in the response to our 2020 draft that this whole issue of tsunami hazard/inundation zone or any other kind of tsunami related zone came into being in our document. It was put there by the Coastal Commission staff and it has been a reaction from our community as to what it means.

She agrees with Councilmember Bigstyck that the Commissioners may have some questions.

Mayor Vaterlaus thanked staff and the public for their comments. She thanked everyone and she sees our future heading in a forward direction.

2.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 48 May 23, 2024
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 11:43 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 05-23-2024 Special Meeting (5683 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/10/2024
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. 69
Pacifica City Council 2
June 10, 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. 70
Pacifica City Council 3
June 10, 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. • In May 2024, a new sink hole (approx. 5’ w x 25’ l) was discovered behind the seawall on Beach Blvd. to the north of Santa Maria. The hole was repaired through an emergency contractor.

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 May 13, 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. 71
"ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (5678 : Continuation of "ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd (5678 : Continuation of

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/10/2024
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. 74
Pacifica City Council 2
June 10, 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. Pump #3 was installed in early 4 Packet Pg. 75
Pacifica City Council 3
June 10, 2024
January 2024. Startup and testing of the new Engine#1, Engine#3, and Engine#4 have been completed and are now in service; however, the contractor continues to troubleshoot the electronic control panel for automatic operations. The closure of the roof is now completed, and the project is near substantial completion. There are still punch list items to be completed going into June 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 May 13, 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. 76
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. 77
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5664 : 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. 78
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5664 : 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. 79
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5664 : Continuance

4.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5664 : Continuance

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/10/2024
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 (MRC construction) 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. Acting under the same permit, the contractor recently removed sand from the top of the rock revetment south of the pier to expose the seawall to protect the Beach Boulevard promenade and homes in the area. Staff will be bringing acceptance of these invoices to the Council at the June 10, 2024 City Council Meeting.

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 5 Packet Pg. 81
Pacifica City Council 2
June 10, 2024
continuing a local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency continue to exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on January 8, 2024. Since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency exists every 30 days with May 13, 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. 82
Pacifica City Council 3
June 10, 2024
5 Packet Pg. 83

5.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment A - Proclamation of December 28 2023 High Tide Large Wave Event (5665 : Continuation of Proclamation Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment A - Proclamation of December 28 2023 High Tide Large Wave Event (5665 : Continuation of Proclamation Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment A - Proclamation of December 28 2023 High Tide Large Wave Event (5665 : Continuation of Proclamation Local

5.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment A - Proclamation of December 28 2023 High Tide Large Wave Event (5665 : Continuation of Proclamation Local

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/10/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Cancellation of July 22, 2024 City Council Meeting
STAFF CONTACT:

Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve cancellation of the July 22, 2024 regular City Council meeting.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Traditionally the City Council has cancelled the second meeting in either July or August to allow for a vacation period. This proposal recommends cancellation of the second regular City Council meeting in July 2024. Should the Council wish to cancel the July 22, 2024 regular meeting, the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting will be August 12, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:
6 Packet Pg. 88

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/10/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Financial Report for the Quarter Ending March 31, 2024
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report 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]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Organizational and Fiscal Stability remains one of the City Council’s Strategic Goals. This goal includes planning for and implementing long-term financial health and stability. A key component of this goal is preparing quarterly financial reports that would provide readers with an executive summary of the City’s current economic conditions related to the annual operating budget.

On June 26, 2023, the City Council adopted the structurally balanced FY 2023-24 Budget.

Finance staff has completed the Third Quarter of the Fiscal Year 2023-24, and this report reflects the financial results for the Quarter.

The Third Quarter Financial Report summarizes the City’s General Fund and is not meant to be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions. It intends to provide the Council and the public with a broad overview of the City’s operations and fiscal condition. This report provides an update on the financial status of the City’s General Fund by outlining the revenues and expenditures for the Quarter ending March 31, 2024.

The General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund and is used to account for day-to-day activities. It receives unrestricted revenues and provides the City’s general administrative services, law enforcement, fire, public works, parks, beaches and recreation, and community development-related activities such as planning, building, and engineering. Revenue sources include but are not limited to property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax (TOT), business registration, and current fees for services such as parking charges, engineering, planning, building permit fees, and recreation services.

The Financial Report is prepared on a cash basis; therefore, only the revenue received by March 31, 2024, is reflected in the analysis. Likewise, expenditures are recorded when paid 7 Packet Pg. 89
Pacifica City Council 2
June 10, 2024
using the cash basis method of accounting.

With the completion of the Third Quarter, General Fund Revenues were $30,015,832 (66% of budget), and Expenditures were $31,064,179 (64% of budget). Compared to the same quarter, last year’s revenues were almost $4.4 million more due to the one-time $4.6 million ARPA funding received in July 2022 for FY2022-23. Compared with the same quarter in FY 2022-23, expenditures were about $2 million higher last year, primarily due to the upfront one-time booking of all budgeted transfers in and out for the entire year. In contrast, in FY2023-24, transfers are now being booked quarterly, and the current report reflects only three-quarters of annual transfers.

The General Fund Operating expenditures are on target at the end of the third quarter, with 64% of the amended budget recorded.

Overall, staff is pleased to report that the FY 2023-24 Budget is on track with revenues and expenditures performing as expected, validating the assumptions made by staff at the budget adoption. However, it is important to note that these are only preliminary numbers, as additional booking entries may occur throughout the year and during the fiscal year-end, which may modify some of the third-quarter figures.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There is no reasonable alternative to this informational item, as not accepting the Third Quarter Financial Report will not change the City’s financial condition 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 the Council’s acceptance of this report.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1: Q3 FY23-24 Quarterly Financial Report (PDF) 7 Packet Pg. 90
City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2023‐24
ThirdQuarter Financial Report
1 OVERVIEW
This Third Quarterly Financial Report is an analysis of the unaudited financial status of the City’s General Fund from July 2023 through March 2024. The City of Pacifica has completed the Third Quarter of the Fiscal Year 2023‐24. The Third Quarterly Financial Report will summarize the City’s General Fund and is not meant to be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions. This report intends to provide the Council and the public with a broad overview of the City’s fiscal condition, as the General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund and is used to account for most operational activities. Information presented in this report is unaudited, and additional adjustments may occur during the year-end process.

GENERAL FUND
General Fund Financial Condition: With three quarters of the year complete and after completing the Mid-year budget review staff projected a net deficit of $1,931,161 at the end of the FY 2023-24. At the end of the third quarter, the General Fund revenues are at 66% of the FY2023-24 Revised Budget, Expenditures are at 64% of projections. Budgeted operating and capital transfers have been recorded in FY2024 on a quarterly basis vs. at the end of the year before.

Therefore, transfer-ins are included in the department programs, and transfer-outs are included in the non-department expenditures. Expenditures exceeded revenues by $148,347 at the end of the quarter. Both revenues and expenditures saw a drop compared with the same period in FY2022-23. This 13% decrease in revenues compared to the prior year’s third quarter is attributable to a second allocation of the one-time ARPA stimulus funds of $4.6 million last year. This quarter’s expenditures showed a 6% decrease compared to the prior year’s expenditures. The table below demonstrates both General fund revenues and expenditures in more detail:

The General Fund Balance as of March 31, 2024, was $20,399,123, based on the audited General Fund balance of $20,547,470 as of the end of FY 2022-23 and factoring in a year-to-date net loss of $148,347 as of the end of the third quarter.

Expenditures:

Departmental operating expenditures are on target or under budget at the end of the Third Quarter. The following chart summarizes year‐to‐date combined expenditures by department as of the Third Quarter:

General Fund Qtr 3
FY2022-23
Qtr 3
FY2023-24
FY20223-24

AMENDED
Budget
% Change
Q3 FY23 vs
Q3 FY24
Qtr 3
% Budget
Revenues $ 35,338,517 $ 30,915,832 $ 46,695,600 -13% 66% Expenditures 33,093,499 31,064,179 48,626,761 -6% 64%
Net Rev over Exp $ 2,245,018 $ (148,347) $ (1,931,161)

7.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment 1: Q3 FY23-24 Quarterly Financial Report (5672 : FY2023-24 Q3 Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2023‐24
ThirdQuarter Financial Report
2 The General Government category is 55% of the budget. Salaries and benefits of $2.6 million are on target at almost 70% of the budget of $3.7 million. However, in the materials and supply category, as well as in contractual expenditures there are delays in projects and processing payments due to staff turnover.

The Police and Fire Department expenditures were right on track, at 72% and 75% of the budget, respectively, at the end of the third quarter.

The Planning Department’s actual expenditures are consistent quarter to quarter but are significantly lower compared to the FY 2023-24 amended budget due to the delay in processing and reconciling the cost-reimbursable expenses.

Additional entries will occur in quarter 4. Finance staff made some adjustments to the Planning Department’s budget during the midyear budget review to align it with the projected level of activity and eliminate the large variances moving forward. Staff will continue to refine the budget numbers gradually for the upcoming budget.

Public Works Department expenditures of $3.1 million are a little lower than expected at about 62% of the budget of $5 million, primarily due to salary savings due to vacancies and staff turnover.

Parks, Beaches & Recreation departments expenditures of $3.9 million are about 67% of the budget consistent with the last quarter.

Non-department expenditures include mainly the following: retiree medical benefits, OPEB and PENSION contribution, animal control services, non-profit community agencies, transfer out to other fundssuch as internal services insurance funds, motor pool, debt service fund, and streets improvement fund. The actual total expenditures of $3.7 million are about 63% of the $5.8 million. Upon closer look, the $688K approved transfer out from the general fund to the general capital fund for the Civic Center furnishing project 0352 was correctly updated as a mid-year budget revised item but not booked as an actual transfer out yet. Staff will record the actual transfer in the 4th quarter, which will normalize the projections.

Revenues:

The following is a summary of revenues as of the end of the Third Quarter:

General Fund Expenditures
by Department
Qtr 3
FY2022-23
Qtr 3
FY2023-24
FY20223-24

AMENDED
Budget
% Change
Q3 FY23 vs
Q3 FY24
Qtr 3
% Budget
General Government $ 4,754,894 $ 3,912,312 $ 7,155,341 -18% 55% Police Department 8,381,357 $ 8,627,658 $ 12,003,588 3% 72% Fire Department 6,185,142 $ 5,797,820 $ 7,687,367 -6% 75% Planning & Building 1,847,383 $ 2,033,155 $ 5,031,717 10% 40% Public Works 3,526,564 $ 3,107,336 $ 5,032,522 -12% 62% PB&R 3,984,711 $ 3,908,093 $ 5,862,626 -2% 67%
Non-Departmental 4,413,448 $ 3,677,805 $ 5,853,600 -17% 63% Total General Fund
Expenditures $ 33,093,499 $ 31,064,179 $ 48,626,761 -6% 64%

7.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment 1: Q3 FY23-24 Quarterly Financial Report (5672 : FY2023-24 Q3 Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2023‐24
ThirdQuarter Financial Report
3 Property Tax: Property Tax is the City’s largest revenue source. The first major installment of the Property Tax payment was remitted to the City by the County of San Mateo on December 14, 2023. As of March 31, 2024, the City received roughly 64% of the budgeted Property Tax revenue. The second major installment usually comes in April, and at that time, 90% of the advance will be in until June, when it will reach 100% of the collection. Property tax includes both secured, unsecured, and real property transfer taxes. Secured property tax is budgeted at $16.4 million in FY2023-24, assuming an increase of 4% from the prior fiscal year of $15.7 million. The current actual receipts reflect a 3% yearover-year increase from FY2023 to FY2024. At the end of the third quarter, the City collected about $10.4 million or 64% of the property tax revenues, which is consistent with the Revised budget estimates.

Sales Tax: As of March 31, 2024, the City has received 58% of its budgeted Sales Tax revenues. There is a two-month lag on the receipt of sales tax revenues, so 58% only represents seven months of allocation, which is consistent with the prior year and appears to be on track or slightly under budget. The increase of 68% year over year shown in this category is attributable to the Measure Y revenues recorded with the sales tax. These revenues began effective on April 1, 2023, and therefore, there are no Measure Y revenues recorded in the previous year.

Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT): In FY2024, TOT revenues are broken down into TOT generated from Pacifica hotels and TOT generated through STR. These taxes are remitted to the City approximately 30 days after the end of each month by HdL, and revenues are not accrued at quarter‐end during the year but based on a cash basis. The Third Quarter reflects the TOT receipts for the months of July through February. Even though the Revised Budget revenue projects a decline of $300K compared to the prior year, the City collected $2.1 million or 71% of the amended budget as of March 31, 2024. Economy-driven revenues like TOT are very sensitive to the market and economy. With one quarter and one month to go, we are confident that TOT will meet the projected budget estimates.

Other Taxes: These include franchise tax, business license, utility users tax, Vehicle License Fee, and cannabis General Fund
Revenues by Type
Qtr 3
FY2022-23
Qtr 3
FY2023-24
FY20223-24

AMENDED
Budget
% Change
Q3 FY23 vs
Q3 FY24
Qtr 3
% Budget
Property tax $ 10,096,101 $ 10,431,534 $ 16,411,900 3% 64% Sales Taxes 1,975,992 $ 3,328,982 5,731,000 68% 58%
Transient Occupancy Tax 1,328,115 $ 1,191,047 1,459,500 -10% 82% Transient Occupancy TaxSTR 981,143 $ 897,173 1,460,000 -9% 61% Franchise Tax 795,386 $ 665,374 1,236,200 -16% 54%
Business License Tax 476,694 $ 534,093 550,000 12% 97%
Utility Users Tax 1,814,971 $ 1,695,598 2,700,000 -7% 63% Vehicle License Fee 4,592,216 $ 2,298,081 3,849,700 -50% 60% Cannabis Tax 669,687 $ 672,968 950,000 0% 71%
ERAF 88,000 $ 105,000 105,000 19% 100%
Grants 5,411,381 $ 1,605,530 2,274,700 -70% 71%
Investment Earning 454,283 $ 583,460 730,000 28% 80%
Department Programs 6,654,547 $ 6,906,992 9,237,600 4% 75% Total General Fund
Revenues $ 35,338,517 $ 30,915,832 $ 46,695,600 -13% 66%

7.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment 1: Q3 FY23-24 Quarterly Financial Report (5672 : FY2023-24 Q3 Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2023‐24
ThirdQuarter Financial Report
4 operations tax. Payments for most of these taxes are remitted 30 days after the end of the month. As such, only 65% of the Budget has been received as of March 31, 2024. Included in this category is the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) in Lieu (property tax in lieu of VLF). This revenue includes a one-time backfill payment of $681,567 from the state for the VLF shortfall in FY 21-22 and 50% of the FY2023-2024 distribution of $1,568,733 with the second distribution of the same amount due in April. The FY2023-24 Revised budget reflects a big drop in this category from the original budget, which was recorded during the midyear analysis. The challenges around the VLF in Lieu revenues have been discussed at length during the midyear budget review, and it remains an evolving issue presenting a significant threat to Pacifica’s revenues.

Utility Users Tax is the third largest revenue source in the Other Taxes category, with a budget of $2.7 million, but only 63% of the revenue was collected as of March 2024. Staff recently noticed a drop in PGE remittances, the biggest UUT payee, which is concerning given that the fuel, gas, and electrical rates have increased substantially. Staff is currently checking with other cities if they experience similar trends and evaluating options for conducting an audit. Considering the one-month lag in filing and remittance from utility companies, we might still meet the budget estimates for FY2024.

Franchise Tax is the third largest source with a $1.2 million budget, but only 54% is collected as of the end of the third quarter. The larger franchisee payers, such as PG&E, typically remit in the middle of April on a yearly basis. However, as described during the budget process, a portion of Recology’s Franchise Tax revenues is now allocated to the street improvement fund to account for the Recology truck’s impacts on the city streets in the amount of $421K per year.

Overall, these revenues are expected to be on track with the budget.

Cannabis Tax is also on track, with about 71% collected from the five cannabis business providers as of the end of the third quarter.

Business License Tax was collected at 97% this quarter because our annual business license renewal is set for November 1 each year, and most renewals are complete by the third quarter. These revenues are projected to meet the budget by the end of the year, as additional revenues potentially will be collected from new businesses and various delinquent payments.

Excess ERAF: (Excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund). The FY2023-24 General Fund Revised Budget retains $105,00 of the ERAF revenues to fund a community grant program to local non-profit organizations as previously directed by the Council. This is an increase of $17K from the prior fiscal year of $88K. These revenues are usually booked in January and reflected in the third quarter asthey are received. The remainder of the FY 2023-24 Excess ERAF Revenues are reported in the Disaster Accounting and Housing Funds as per the Council's previously approved policy.

Grants: This category includes police grants, as well as PBR child care and senior grants. The grant revenues showed a decrease over the prior year due to the one-time receipt of $4.6 million in American Rescue Plan Act allocation from the State received last year. Also as the Childcare program audit is now completed, we are expected to catch up with the reimbursements requests for FY2021-22 and FY2022-23.

Investment Earnings: Investment earnings such as interest income continue performing well in the current economy, with favorable interest rate returns on bank deposits strategically managed by staff. Currently it is already at 80% of the budgeted amount. With three more months to go in the fiscal year, the City’s CDARS account projects to bring an additional $531K by the end of June. We expect to see a total of over $800K in general fund interest revenue at the end of the fiscal, given that the interest allocation will be applied to other funds as well. This is a reflection of the prudent investment strategies that Finance has implemented over the last year.

7.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment 1: Q3 FY23-24 Quarterly Financial Report (5672 : FY2023-24 Q3 Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2023‐24
ThirdQuarter Financial Report
5 Department/Programs: These revenues include building permits, engineering and planning fees, charges related to Parks, Beaches & Recreation programs, and rentals, and the first three quarterly transfer-ins from other funds for cost recovery needs. As of March 31, 2024, the City received 75% of the Budget, which is right on track with the budget.

Permits and planning fees tend to fluctuate based on the timing of projects. Planning-related legal, consultant, and application fees are only at 30% of the Revised budget after factoring in the reduction to align with the timing of the cost recovery process. The FY 2024-25 Budget will further reduce the cost-reimbursable revenues and expenditures to keep the budget more in line with the projected activity level.

SUMMARY
Overall, staff is pleased to report that the FY2023-24 Budget is on track, with revenues and expenditures performing as expected and, in certain cases, a little better than expected. At the end of the third quarter, the City’s total general fund expenditures were 64% of the Budget, and the City’s total general fund revenues were 66% of the Budget.

It is also important to understand that these are only preliminary numbers as additional booking entries may occur throughout the year and during the fiscal year-end, which may modify some of the figures presented in this report.

However, it is encouraging to see that the budget appears to be on target at the end of the third quarter.

7.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment 1: Q3 FY23-24 Quarterly Financial Report (5672 : FY2023-24 Q3 Financial Report)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/10/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution to Approve a Five-Year Agreement with Badawi & Associates for Financial Audit Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the attached resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year agreement with Badawi & Associates to provide financial audit services for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2024, through June 30, 2028.

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 501-6004
[email protected]
Lucy Xie, Deputy Finance Director
(650) 501-6014
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City is required to contract with an independent auditor to review the City's financials and reporting. The objective of conducting an external audit is to conduct an independent examination of the City’s financial records, accounts, financial transactions, accounting practices, and internal control and ensure that the city’s year-end financial statements are presented in accordance with provisions established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.

Municipal auditing best practices recommend that governmental entities rotate auditing firms or engagement partners every five to six years to ensure the independence and objectivity of the auditing process. The City has been in a contract with Maze & Associates for auditing services for nearly a decade since 2015, prompting staff to seek a new qualified public accounting firm to provide the auditing services.

The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) also recommends audit contracts be awarded for a term of at least five years. “Governmental entities should enter into multi-year agreements of at least five years in duration when obtaining the services of independent auditors. Such multi-year agreements can take a variety of different forms (e.g., a series of single-year contracts), consistent with applicable legal requirements. Such agreements allow for greater continuity and help to minimize the potential for disruption in connection with the independent audit. Multi-year agreements can also help to reduce audit costs by allowing auditors to recover certain "startup" costs over several years rather than over a single year.

In April 2024, the City published a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit a new external auditor 8 Packet Pg. 96
Pacifica City Council 2
June 10, 2024
firm. The City received one proposal, and Badawi & Associates was selected as fully meeting the following selection criteria:

1. Quality of proposal and responses to specific questions included in RFP

2. Experience of the Proposer conducting similar work in California

3. Relevant qualifications of key personnel assigned to the project

4. Understanding of the City’s objectives

5. Reasonableness of fees and cost proposal
The total cost of the new proposal for the FY 2023-24 audit services is $71,935, which is a reduction of approximately $15,000 per year from last year’s cost. The total cost over the five years is $381,918. As per the schedule of fees, the auditors have granted the City a discount of over $90,000 for a longer-term (five-year) agreement.

Badawi and Associates is a licensed Public Accounting Firm based in Berkeley, CA. The firm has focused its practice on municipalities since its inception serving a variety of cities and towns throughout California as well as conducting financial services for numerous special districts and authorities. The firm is reputed to be one of the industry's leaders in the San Francisco Bay Area and is an expert in municipal finances and GASB requirements with over sixty municipal clients.

The firm offers an in-depth understanding of the complex economic and political environment, exercising philosophy to build a proactive, client-focused culture from the ground up without the bureaucratic culture and intrinsic limitations of the big audit firms.

The firm will be engaged to perform the following services for the City of Pacifica:
• Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and audit
• Single Audit
• Gann Limited Agreed-upon Procedures
• Measure A
• Measure W
• Childcare Program audit
• State Controller's report- City’s Financial Transaction Report • State Controller's report- Annual Street Report
• State Controller's report- Financing Authority Transactions Report. • Transportation Development Act (TDA) report
In addition to the traditional annual audit work, Badawi & Associates provides deep accounting expertise, internal quality assurance, and a team approach to supporting their clients throughout the year. This includes annual client training on new pronouncements issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board or refresher courses on internal control, financial systems, and cyber security.

Therefore, staff recommends approving the five-year contract for auditing services with Badawi & Associates.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There is no reasonable alternative as the City is required to conduct the annual audit, and the interim audit fieldwork needs to be scheduled for the summer. However, the Council may choose to approve a shorter-term engagement.

FISCAL IMPACT:
8 Packet Pg. 97
Pacifica City Council 3
June 10, 2024
There is no additional fiscal impact on the FY 2024-25 Budget, as the cost of the contract is already included in the base budget. As mentioned above, the City will incur some savings annually due to the longer term of the contract.

ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Consultant Services Agreement - Badawi and Associates (PDF) 8 Packet Pg. 98
Pacifica City Council 4
June 10, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH BADAWI &

ASSOCIATES FOR THE AUDIT AND MANDATED FINANCIAL REPORTING WHEREAS, the City has been in contract with Maze & Associates for annual financial audit services and preparation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report in compliance with Governmental Accounting Standards since 2015; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica has continued utilizing audit services provided by Maze & Associates for nine consecutive years, while municipal auditing best practices and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends changing auditors or engagement partners every five to six years; and
WHEREAS, in April 2024, staff released a Request for Proposal for audit services and found the Badawi & Associates, a certified public accounting firm with an extensive list of Bay Area municipal clients, meeting all City requirements and being a highly qualified to be the City’s next new independent auditor;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, to authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year contract with Badawi & Associates for the FY2023-24 to FY2027-28 audit cycles with the terms and pricing as indicated in the contract. • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held the 10th day of June, 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. 99
- 1 -

AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 28th day of May 2024, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation and Badawi and Associates, an S 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 _annual audit_ services in connection with the City’s Financial Statements and others as indicated in Scope of work; WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified to perform such services; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has agreed to provide CITY with such services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.

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

ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES

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

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

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

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

CONSULTANT agrees that the Services shall be performed consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by Certified Public Accountants_ practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. 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.

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.

8.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment A: Consultant Services Agreement - Badawi and Associates (5673 : Contract with Badawi & Associates) - 2 -

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

1.8. Documentation. CONSULTANT shall keep and maintain full and complete documentation and accounting records, employee time sheets, and correspondence pertaining to the performance of the Services, and except for the CONSULTANT’S audit workpapers, which include but are not limited to, audit methodology and risk assessment and other documents that are proprietary in nature, CONSULTANT shall make such documents available for review and/or audit by CITY and CITY's representatives at all reasonable times for at least four years after the termination of this Agreement or completion of the Services.

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

ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION

2.1. Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with Exhibit B, Compensation, attached hereto and incorporated herein. It is agreed that the compensation for the Services shall not exceed $381,918 ("Cost Ceiling").

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

8.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment A: Consultant Services Agreement - Badawi and Associates (5673 : Contract with Badawi & Associates) - 3 -
of any of CONSULTANT's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONSULTANT on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in CONSULTANT's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder. CONSULTANT shall not stop or delay performance of the Services under this Agreement on account of payment disputes with CITY.

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

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

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

ARTICLE 3 - TIME OF PERFORMANCE

3.1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the second signature and shall remain in full force and effect until the Services are completed (the "Term"). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all services by 12/31/2028.

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

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

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

ARTICLE 4 - DESIGNATED CONTACTS

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

4.2. CONSULTANT Contact. CONSULTANT designates Ahmed Badawi 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.

8.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment A: Consultant Services Agreement - Badawi and Associates (5673 : Contract with Badawi & Associates) - 4 -
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, arising out of or relating to the Services (collectively "Claims"), defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its Officials, officers, employees and agents (the "CITY Parties"), except to the extent the Claims are attributable to CITY Parties' gross negligence or willful misconduct. CONSULTANT shall defend the CITY Parties as required by California Civil Code Section 2778, and with counsel reasonably acceptable to those parties.

CONSULTANT shall have no right to seek reimbursement from the CITY Parties for the costs of defense. The obligations contained in this Section 5.1 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause for the full period of time allowed by law and shall not in any way be limited by the insurance requirements of this Agreement.

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

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

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

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

8.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment A: Consultant Services Agreement - Badawi and Associates (5673 : Contract with Badawi & Associates) - 5 -
at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage and $1,000,000 aggregate, on a "claims made basis" with a continuation of coverage extension for liabilities for two years from the date the Services are substantially complete. Such professional liability policies shall include coverage for liability assumed by the CONSULTANT under this Agreement.

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

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

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

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

8.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment A: Consultant Services Agreement - Badawi and Associates (5673 : Contract with Badawi & Associates) - 6 -
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
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 501-6014
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038
Email: [email protected]
If to CONSULTANT: Ahmed Badawi
Badawi & Associates
2855 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 312
Berkeley CA 94705
Phone: (510) 768-8244__
Facsimile: (510) 768-8249_
Email: [email protected]_
ARTICLE 7 - MISCELLANEOUS

7.1. 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.

7.2. 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

8.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment A: Consultant Services Agreement - Badawi and Associates (5673 : Contract with Badawi & Associates) - 7 -
hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party. As limited by this Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.10. 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.

7.11. 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.

8.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment A: Consultant Services Agreement - Badawi and Associates (5673 : Contract with Badawi & Associates) - 8 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date
City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
_______________________________
By: Date

8.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment A: Consultant Services Agreement - Badawi and Associates (5673 : Contract with Badawi & Associates)

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK
The selected independent auditor will be required to perform the following:

A. Audit of all Funds of the City of Pacifica in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. The audits shall be performed for every fiscal year during the Term of this Agreement between FY2024– FY2028.

CONSULTANT shall include such tests of the accounting records and other auditing procedures considered necessary to express an opinion.

B. Render an auditor’s report on the Basic Financial Statements which include both Government-Wide Financial Statements and Fund Financial Statements.

C. Perform limited procedures on the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) and required supplementary information (RSI) as required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board as mandated by general accepted auditing standards.

D. Issue a report regarding the City’s internal control over financial reporting and tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants in accordance with Government Auditing Standards or other communications that may be required by auditing standards.

E. Perform the required tests of compliance under Measure A of San Mateo County for Local Transportation Purposes and issue the applicable report as required.

F. Perform the required tests of compliance under Measure W of San Mateo County Congestion Relief Plan and issue the applicable report as required.

G. If applicable, perform a single audit or Child Care Program compliance audit, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Uniform Grant Guidance/Super Circular.

H. If applicable, prepare a compliance examination report on the schedule of financial assistance (e.g., (American Rescue Plan Act) ARPA assistance).

I. Perform agreed-upon procedures pertaining to the City’s GANN Limit (Article XIIIB – review of appropriation limit calculations) and render a letter annually regarding compliance.

J. Prepare the City’s entire ACFR (Annual Comprehensive Financial Reporting).

8.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment A: Consultant Services Agreement - Badawi and Associates (5673 : Contract with Badawi & Associates) - 2 -
K. Attend City Council meetings for the purpose of discussing the audit, the management letter and its conclusions, ACFR and other reports prepared by the auditor.

L. Provide timeline schedule of the annual audit, both interim and Year end.

M. Provide listing of requested items at least three (3) weeks prior to audit fieldwork.

N. Provide assistance to meet requirements of the GFOA (Government Finance Officers Association) program including preparing answers to GFOA comments.

O. Prepare and print all reports including tabbing and binding. Auditor shall provide unbound reproducible masters, bound copies (the number of copies is provided below) and a digital file in Adobe Acrobat format for each of the following:

1. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) 10

2. Memorandum of Internal Control 10

3. Measure A Compliance Report 10

4. Measure W Compliance Report 10

5. Single Audit if applicable 10

6. Child Development Program Report 10

7. Appropriation Limits 10

8. TDA compliance report if required 10

9. Prepare and file Annual Street Report digital only

10. Prepare and file City’s Financial Transaction Report digital only

11. Prepare and file Financing Authority Transactions Report digital only

8.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment A: Consultant Services Agreement - Badawi and Associates (5673 : Contract with Badawi & Associates) - 3 -

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

If one category (TDA) is not applicable for that year, the CONSULTANT will not bill it:

8.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment A: Consultant Services Agreement - Badawi and Associates (5673 : Contract with Badawi & Associates)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/10/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution to Reclassify a Vacant Planning Director position to a Community Development Director and Amend the Planning Director Job Specification, Title, and Salary Accordingly.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the Resolution amending the Planning Director Job Specification, title, and salary to reflect changes to the Community Development Director specification.

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 738-7301
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City’s Planning Director position is a critical member of the Executive Team performing a wide range of duties, including planning, building, and code enforcement, as well as a variety of special projects and dealing with complex coastal development issues within the City. The position became vacant this week. In preparation for the recruitment, it came to the City Manager’s attention that the existing classification had not been reviewed since 1999 and no longer accurately captures the duties and responsibilities of the job.

Article 4, Section 2-5.403 - Establishment of the Municipal Code establishes the procedures for the City Manager, as Personnel Officer, to create and revise a position classification plan. Any new or revised classification is officially established upon adoption by the City Council.

Therefore, the City Manager recommends adopting the updated job specification included in Attachment A to this report, renaming the Planning Director position to Community Development Director to reflect the actual diverse range of responsibilities.

The revised job classification has been reviewed and revised with the input of the consulting team at Sloan Sakai, the City’s consultant currently performing the comprehensive classification study. Once the new classification is approved by the Council, the City Manager will start the recruitment process.

Reclassifying this position to Community Development Director will enable the City to accurately reflect the duties currently performed by the incumbent, which go beyond planning and encompass managing building and code enforcement programs, various program implementations, complex coastal issues, and large-scale robust community engagement 9 Packet Pg. 111
Pacifica City Council 2
June 10, 2024
initiatives. The incumbent also collaborates closely with the Assistant City Manager on economic development issues, provides assistance to the Planning Commission, the City Manager, and the City Council, and collaborates with other City officials, departments, outside agencies, organizations, and the public.

Staff recommends that the Council formally approve the updated specification, title, and salary for the Community Development Director classification (Attachment A), consistent with past practices of the Council’s approval of job specifications and classification plan. The position will remain an at-will, unrepresented executive class.

Based on a review of similar positions in comparable agencies and internal alignment to other executive job classes within the City, the recommended monthly salary range for the position is increased by 7% from the FY 2024-25 top salary of $17,899 to $19,152, which will still place this class within a 5% margin compared to other executive job classes in Pacifica, while it still remains below market compared to Community Development Directors in San Mateo County.

Staff also recommends the Council formally approve the title change for the Planning Department to be referred to as the Community Development Department in City records and documents. The related classification title of the Deputy Planning Director should be changed to the Deputy Community Development Director accordingly. There are no other changes to the Deputy Director classification at this time, as this job specification will be updated and presented to the Council together with the classification study.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no expected additional impact on the FY 2024-25 Budget, as the salary savings from this vacancy during the recruitment period will cover any potential increase from the salary change if the successor is hired at the top step. However, based on the City’s current practices, most appointments are made at the mid-range salary scale, and the actual annual cost might be lower in the first year of the position being filled.

ALTERNATIVES
The Council may choose to keep the existing job classification title and salary, which may significantly impact the recruitment efforts to attract highly qualified candidates. Retaining the current classification could limit the appeal of the position to potential applicants and may not adequately reflect the expanded responsibilities and scope of the role, thereby affecting the City’s ability to recruit the best talent for the Community Development Director position.

ORIGINATED BY:

Human Resources
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Proposed Job Description – Community Development Director (PDF) 9 Packet Pg. 112
Pacifica City Council 3
June 10, 2024
RESOLUTION NO._______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA REVISING THE JOB

DESCRIPTION FOR PLANNING DIRECTOR TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

POSITION
WHEREAS, Article 4, Section 2-5.403 of the Pacifica Municipal Code establishes a civil service personnel system and procedures for the administration of personnel matters; and WHEREAS, said Chapter requires that the City Manager, as Personnel Officer, prepare and recommend to the City Council a position classification plan, class specifications, and revisions thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director position became vacant, and the job specification was reviewed to ensure adequate reflection of the job; and
WHEREAS, based on the job analysis by the independent consultant performing a citywide classification study, reclassifying this position to Community Development Director will more accurately reflect the complex duties performed; and WHEREAS, the salary range for the new classification was compared to the market median of the San Mateo County cities and internally aligned to the other executive classes in Pacifica and is established at the top monthly salary of $19,152 in FY2024-25; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Pacifica that:
• The job specification for the Planning Director is hereby reclassified into the Community Development Director, and the classification plan is hereby amended to add this new class and salary to the unrepresented management and confidential employees’ plan. • The Planning Department name is hereby changed to be referred to as the Community Development Department in City records and documents. The related classification title of the Deputy Planning Director should be changed to the Deputy Community Development Director accordingly, with no other changes to the job classification or salary ranges.
• • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held the 10th day of June, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
9 Packet Pg. 113
Pacifica City Council 4
June 10, 2024
_________________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 9 Packet Pg. 114

ATTACHMENT A
4/4/99
Date Updated: 6/10/2024
1 This class specification should not be interpreted as all inclusive. It is intended to identify the essential functions and requirements of this job. Incumbents may be requested to perform jobrelated responsibilities and tasks other than those stated in this specification.

DEFINITION
Under general administrative direction plans, organizes, directs, and reviews the activities and operations of the Community Development Department including building, code enforcement and planning functions; and coordinates assigned activities with other departments and outside agencies.

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
The Community Development Director is a department head responsible for developing, reviewing, analyzing, and implementing department and City policies related to planning, building and code enforcement. This position is distinguished from the lower-level management positions by its responsibility for overall departmental operations and activities.

SUPERVISION RECEIVED/EXERCISED
This position works under the administrative direction of the City Manager and/or Assistant City Manager. The Community Development Director supervises assigned city staff, and contract personnel as assigned.

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS
The Community Development Director is an exempt executive level at-will position responsible for, but not limited to, the following duties:
• Develops, plans, and implements department goals and objectives. • Prepares the Department’s work plan; assigns work activities, projects, and programs; monitors workflow; and reviews and evaluates work products, methods and procedures.
• Recommends, approves, and administers policies and procedures related to Building, Code Enforcement and Planning.
• Makes recommendations on land use permit applications and City policy documents (ordinances and plans).
• Interprets and applies zoning and other Pacifica Municipal Code requirements.
• Conducts code enforcement priority case selection and enforcement escalation (citations, City Attorney’s Office intervention). • Responds to emerging community issues.
• Coordinates applications pending before Coastal Commission.

City of Pacifica
Scenic Pacifica COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957

9.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment A: Proposed Job Description – Community Development Director (5681 : Adopt Resolution Amending Community

ATTACHMENT A
4/4/99
Date Updated: 6/10/2024
2 • Coordinates Department activities with those of other departments and outside agencies and organizations; provides staff assistance to the City Manager; prepares and presents staff reports and other necessary correspondence.
• Supervises and participates in the development and administration of the Community Development Department budget; monitors and approves expenditures; implements mid-year adjustments.
• Selects, trains, motivates, and evaluates personnel; provides or coordinates staff training; conducts performance evaluations; implements discipline procedures; maintains discipline and high standards necessary for the efficient and professional operation of the Department. • Directs and oversees the preparation and implementation of the General Plan and the Zoning Code; provides staff support for the Planning Commission and provides planning information to the public. • Serve as a liaison for the Community Development Department and other City departments, divisions, and outside agencies; negotiates and resolves significant and controversial issues.
• Oversees and manages the enforcement of the minimum requirements of the State Building Codes, State and Federal Laws and Local Ordinances; directs the staff responsible for issuing building permits for construction projects and providing inspection services during the construction process. • Prepares reports and recommendations on the appropriate use of land. • Prepares ordinances related to planning functions.
• Provides staff support and attends meetings of the City Council, City Boards and Department related Commissions; City committees and other agencies and community groups as required.
• Assists in negotiating development agreements.
• Ensures the maintenance of accurate and complete records of department activities and of records relating to licenses, permits, maps, blueprints, overlay, and sketches pertinent to urban planning and development programs and projects.
• Monitors inter-governmental decisions and legislation affecting department operations and takes appropriate action.
• Maintains departmental awareness of state-of-the-art developments in management and the fields of specialty.
• Performs the duties specified in the Pacifica Municipal Code for the Planning Director, City Planner, Planning Administrator, and Zoning Administrator.
• Performs other duties as required.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:

9.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment A: Proposed Job Description – Community Development Director (5681 : Adopt Resolution Amending Community

ATTACHMENT A
4/4/99
Date Updated: 6/10/2024
3 • Principles and practices of city and regional planning, community development programs and procedures, economics, statistics, research methods and sources of information related to urban growth and development.
• Principles and practices of effective customer service to all. • Modern office equipment including use of applicable computer applications.
• Principles and practices of leadership, motivation, team building, negotiation, and conflict resolution.
• Pertinent local, State and Federal Laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, and regulations related to municipal operations and assigned program areas. • Organizational and management practices as applied to the analysis and evaluation of programs.
• Principles and practices of organization, administration, and personnel management.
• Principles and practices of budget preparation and administration. • Contract administration and negotiation methods and procedures.

Ability to:
• Plan, direct and control the administration and operations of a municipal department.
• Analyze and assess programs, policies and operational needs and make appropriate adjustments.
• Supervise, train, and evaluate assigned personnel.
• Gain cooperation through discussion and persuasion; analyze problems, identify alternative solutions, project consequences of proposed actions and implement recommendations in support of goals.
• Interpret and apply building and planning related department policies, procedures, rules, and regulations.
• Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing. • Establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED
Education:

Bachelor’s degree in urban planning or Regional Planning, or in other closely related fields such as political science, geography, or environmental studies.

A master’s degree is preferrable but not essential.

Experience:

9.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment A: Proposed Job Description – Community Development Director (5681 : Adopt Resolution Amending Community

ATTACHMENT A
4/4/99
Date Updated: 6/10/2024
4 Five years of increasingly responsible experience in Community Development Services including two years of supervisory experience.

Experience with a jurisdiction within the California Coastal Zone is preferrable.

Licenses and/or Certifications:

Accreditation by the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) is desirable.

Valid California Class C Driver’s License at the time of appointment.

MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT USED
General office equipment, personal computer and applications, (i.e. Word, Excel, Publisher, Power Point, Access, Zoom Virtual Conferencing, Teams, Nextdoor, Facebook, Twitter, etc.), calculator, copy and fax machines, printer, regular/cell telephone, typewriter, scanner, fax, and copier.

PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS
While performing the essential functions of this classification the employee is required to frequently stand, walk, and sit. May be required to squat, stoop, bend, and twist for records handling. Ability to use hands to finger, handle, feel or operate objects, tools, or controls; ability to reach with hands and arms; ability to speak and hear; ability to occasionally lift and/or move up to 25 pounds, climb flights of stairs; specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision and the ability to adjust focus.

WORKING CONDITIONS
While performing the essential functions of this classification the employee will primarily work in an office setting. The employee must be able to complete specific administrative tasks while maintaining availability to public for inquires and response to stressful situations.
________________________________________________________________ NOTE: Any essential function or requirement of this class will be evaluated as necessary should an incumbent/applicant be unable to perform the function or requirement due to a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Reasonable accommodation for the specific disability will be made for the incumbent/applicant when possible.

FLSA - Exempt

9.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment A: Proposed Job Description – Community Development Director (5681 : Adopt Resolution Amending Community

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/10/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Agreement to terms with the Pacifica School District for rental space for Child Care services in the amount of $174,552 for the 2024-2025 school year.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager to sign the 2024-2025 contract with the Pacifica School District for rental space for Child Care services in the amount of $174,552 an amount which will be included in the 2024-2025 proposed budget.

STAFF CONTACT:

Tracy Gilbert, Recreation Supervisor
(650) 738-7388
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION:

The Child Care division has offered services to the local community for over 40 years. The Child Care program serves State and County subsidized and full-cost children. The recommended contract with the Pacifica School District will include 13 classrooms and portables at Cabrillo, Ocean Shore, Vallemar and Sunset Ridge schools. The program serves between 350 -450 children when fully enrolled. Currently over 43% of the enrolled children receive free or reduced subsidized care through State and County contracts. The program serves children from preschool through middle school. The contracted rental amounts represent a 5% increase over 2023/24.

The rent per school site for July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025 will be:

Vallemar School $5,594/ month
Sunset Ridge School $3,357/ month
Cabrillo School $3,357/ month
Ocean Shore School $2,238/ month
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

This action helps to support youth services, which is a component of A Healthy and Compassionate Community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The contract agreement will cost $174,552 for FY 2024-2025, an amount which will be included in the 2024-2025 proposed budget.

ORIGINATED BY:
10 Packet Pg. 119
Pacifica City Council 2
June 10, 2024
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (PDF) 10 Packet Pg. 120
Pacifica City Council 3
June 10, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE 2024-2025 AGREEMENT WITH

THE PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR RENTAL OF SPACE FOR

PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION CHILD CARE SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Child Care Division of the Pacifica Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department has provided services to the local community for over 40 years; and WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica’s Child Care Program serves families qualifying for State and County subsidization, as well as children at full cost; and WHEREAS, the recommended agreement with the Pacifica School District will include a total of 13 portables/classrooms at Cabrillo, Ocean Shore, Vallemar, and Sunset Ridge schools; and
WHEREAS, this agreement will allow the City of Pacifica Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department to serve 350-450 children this fiscal year.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, the authorization of the City Manager to sign the 2024-2025 agreement with the Pacifica School District for rental space for Child Care services in the amount of $174,552, an amount which will be included in the 2024-2025 proposed budget. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held the 10th day of June, 2024,, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITES

FOR EXTENDED CHILD CARE SERVICES
This Contract is entered into July 1, 2024, by and between the Pacifica School District, hereinafter known as “DISTRICT”, and City of Pacifica, hereinafter known as “CONTRACTOR”, a municipal corporation.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the DISTRICT desires certain extended child care services (“Services”), as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, and
WHEREAS, DISTRICT desires to engage CONTRACTOR, including its employees, if any, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in performing such Services, and CONTRACTOR has offered to provide the Services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein; WHEREAS, the DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR desire to enter into this partnership to provide child care services to further educate and benefit the students of the District.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Contract, the parties agree:

SECTION 1. TERM

1.1 The term of this Contract shall be one (1) year, commencing on July 1, 2024 and terminating on June 30, 2025, unless terminated sooner as provided in this contract.

1.2 The obligation of CONTRACTOR to perform the Services will commence in accordance with the time schedule set forth in Exhibit “A”. Time is of the essence of this Contract.

1.3 Both parties may agree to extend the term of the contract for additional periods of one year, subject to all of the provisions of this Contract. Each party will notify each other by April 15th of the current year of its intent to renew this contract.

1.4 DISTRICT agrees to provide to CONTRACTOR the following collectively referred to as “PREMISES”:
a. At the Cabrillo School, located at 601 Crespi Drive, in Pacifica, California, DISTRICT shall provide to CONTRACTOR three DISTRICT-owned portable buildings which are habitable for occupancy and use for providing Services, and the land on which they are located, constituting approximately 2,880 square feet.

10.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract) 2 b. At Ocean Shore School, located at 411 Oceana Blvd., in Pacifica, California, DISTRICT shall provide to CONTRACTOR two DISTRICT-owned portable buildings which are habitable for occupancy and use for providing Services, and the land on which they are located, constituting approximately 1,920 square feet, at a mutually agreed upon site.
c. At the Sunset Ridge School, located at 340 Inverness Way in Pacifica, California, DISTRICT shall provide to CONTRACTOR three DISTRICT-owned portable buildings which are habitable for occupancy and use for providing Services, and the land on which they are located, constituting approximately 2,880 square feet, at a mutually agreed upon site.
d. At the Vallemar School, located at 377 Reina Del Mar, in Pacifica, California, DISTRICT shall provide to CONTRACTOR five DISTRICT-owned portable buildings which are habitable for occupancy and use for providing Services, and the land on which they are located, constituting approximately 4,800 square feet, at a mutually agreed upon site.

1.5 In consideration for use of the above mentioned space, CONTRACTOR shall compensate DISTRICT on a monthly basis as follows:
a. For the portion of the PREMISES described in Section 1.4 (a): $3,357. b. For the portion of the PREMISES described in Section 1.4 (b): $2,238. c. For the portion of the PREMISES described in Section 1.4 (c): $3,357. d. For the portion of the PREMISES described in Section 1.4 (d): $5,594.

SECTION 2. QUALIFICATIONS, STATUS, AND DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR

2.1 CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. CONTRACTOR further represents and warrants that the project director and every individual charged with the performance of the Services under this Contract are duly licensed or certified by the State of California, to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law to perform the Services.

2.2 In reliance on the representation and warranty set forth in Section 2.1, the District retains CONTRACTOR to perform, and CONTRACTOR covenants and agrees that it will furnish or cause to be furnished, the Services.

2.3 CONTRACTOR will assign a site manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the services at each site.

2.4 CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it will:

10.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract) 3 2.4.1 Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices, which may be necessary and incidents to the due and lawful prosecution of the Services.

2.4.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of California, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those engaged or employed under this Contract, any materials used in CONTRACTOR’S performance under this Contract, or the performance of the Services;

2.4.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and contractors (and consultants), if any, who are assigned to the performance of this Contract to observe and comply with the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees mentioned above; and

2.4.4 Report immediately to the DISTRICT Chief Business Official, in writing, any discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above in relation to providing the Services.

2.5 CONTRACTOR will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the Services. All employees of CONTRACTOR will be deemed to be directly controlled and supervised by CONTRACTOR, which will be responsible for their performance. If any employee of CONTRACTOR fails or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Contract or appears to be incompetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, the employee will be disciplined in an appropriate manner.

SECTION 3. DUTIES OF THE DISTRICT

3.1 The Superintendent will represent DISTRICT for all purposes under this Contract. The Chief Business Official is designated as the project manager for the Superintendent. The project manager will supervise the performance, progress, and execution of the Services.

3.2 It shall be the responsibility of the project manager to establish general policies and guidelines, and mediate disputes among CONTRACTOR, parents, parent representatives, and the DISTRICT.

3.3 CONTRACTOR shall furnish to DISTRICT all data, statements, records, information, and reports reasonably necessary to DISTRICT to monitor, review, and evaluate the performance of CONTRACTOR’S services hereunder.

3.4 In the event DISTRICT should determine from any source, including but not limited to information submitted by CONTRACTOR under this Contract or any evaluation report from any source, that there is a condition, which requires investigation or correction, the DISTRICT will meet formally with CONTRACTOR to discuss the condition. The DISTRICT may then forward to CONTRACTOR requests for corrective action. Such requests shall indicate the nature of the issues which are to be reviewed to determine the need for corrective action and may include a recommendation as to the appropriate

10.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract) 4 corrective action. Within thirty (30) days of DISTRICT’S request, CONTRACTOR shall submit its response, which shall include its views of the problems and proposed action, if any. Upon requests of either party, the parties shall meet to discuss any such request and response within the thirty (30) day period specified.

3.5 For DISTRICT owned buildings and portables, the DISTRICT shall be responsible for maintenance of roof, exterior doors, exterior walls, plumbing and electrical systems, flooring and heating systems (if operable at time PREMISES are leased), and foundations; unless damage to any of the items listed herein is caused in part or in whole by the act, neglect, fault or omission of any duty by CONTRACTOR, its employees, agents, invitees, licenses or contractors, in which case CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the cost of such repairs. DISTRICT shall at all times, maintain the PREMISES in good and safe condition. DISTRICT shall be responsible for all repairs required. DISTRICT shall provide facilities equipped with necessary amenities including, but not limited to, running water (hot and cold), sinks, toilets, playground structures, fenced yard as required by local laws, ordinances, regulations for CONTRACTOR to perform services stated in the contract.

3.6 CONTRACTOR shall pay for utility service to CONTRACTOR owned portable buildings. Contractor shall pay for garbage collection services for all premises.

3.7 DISTRICT shall pay for utility service to DISTRICT-owned buildings and portable buildings.

3.8 DISTRICT shall provide internet access for Vallemar, Sunset Ridge and Ocean Shore Schools.

3.9 CONTRACTOR shall pay for internet access for Cabrillo School.

3.10 The CONTRACTOR shall obtain written permission in advance from the DISTRICT for any physical modification of any interior or exterior space. This includes attachments to floors, ceilings, walls, doors, and any modification to electrical and mechanical systems or door locks.

SECTION 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONTRACTOR

4.1 CONTRACTOR will furnish or cause to be furnished the specified services set forth in Exhibit “A” and such other information regarding its requirements as may be reasonably requested by DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR shall have sole discretion to determine the manner and method of provision of services.

4.2 CONTRACTOR shall ensure that all services offered under this Contract shall be secular in nature. CONTRACTOR shall further ensure that it shall refrain from offering religious instruction, worship, or other religious activities while providing child care

10.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract) 5 services, in accordance with the provision of the California and United States Constitution.

4.3 CONTRACTOR shall make all arrangements for and pay for all custodial work required to maintain PREMISES in clean, orderly, and sanitary condition at all times during the term of this Contract.

4.4 If CONTRACTOR does not maintain PREMISES in clean, orderly, and sanitary condition, DISTRICT may, but shall not be obligated to, have the PREMISES cleaned and charge all costs associated with such cleaning to the CONTRACTOR.

4.5 For CONTRACTOR owned portables, the CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for maintenance of roof, exterior doors, exterior walls, plumbing and electrical systems, and heating systems (if operable at time PREMISES are leased), and foundations.

CONTRACTOR shall at all times, maintain the PREMISES in good and safe condition.

CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for all repairs required.

4.6 DISTRICT will not be responsible for any loss, inconvenience, annoyance, or damage to CONTRACTOR because of such cleaning.

4.7 CONTRACTOR will be responsible for the security of the building space it uses and shall not hold the DISTRICT responsible for any theft or damage property. In addition, if DISTRICT property is damaged or stolen due to a negligent act of the CONRACTOR, its employees, agents, contractors, parents, and students, the CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for its repair or replacement.

4.8 CONTRACTOR shall provide the DISTRICT access to the property for maintenance and other inspection purposes.

4.9 The CONTRACTOR will obey all laws and policies that govern school district property including those laws and policies applying to possession and use of alcohol and tobacco (such as, for example, Board Policy 3513.3, Tobacco-Free Schools). The CONTRACTOR will follow all California Education Code and other local, state, and federal laws and policies that pertain to school property.

SECTION 5. COST OF SERVICES OFFERED BY CONTRACTOR

5.1 The CONTRACTOR shall at all times maintain a written schedule setting forth operating hours and operating procedures for each required and optional use provided on or from the PREMISES. A schedule of prices charged for all services related to the required and optional use of this CONTRACT shall be maintained. A copy of such written schedules or procedures shall be made available upon written request.

If DISTRICT or CONTRACTOR feels the other is not maintaining or

10.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract) 6 meeting their obligation under this contract, there will be a meeting to resolve any issues.

If parties are unable to resolve the issue in that meeting, the matter shall be submitted to mediation by an independent third party.

SECTION 6. INDEMNITY

6.1 It is agreed that the CONTRACTOR shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify the DISTRICT, its officers, agents and/or employees from any and all liability, damage, cost, expense, and/or claims for injuries to persons and/or damage to property which arise from the CONTRACTOR’S use of the PREMISES (including ingress and egress to the PREMISES), and for such liability, damage, cost, expense, and/or claims arising from the negligent acts or omissions of the CONTRACTOR, its officers, agents and/or employees.

6.2 It is agreed that the DISTRICT shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify the CONTRACTOR, its officers, agents and/or employees from any and all liability, damage, cost, expense, and/or claims for injuries to persons and/or damage to property which arise from the DISTRICT’S use of the PREMISES (including ingress and egress to the PREMISES), and for such liability, damage, cost, expense, and/or claims arising from the negligent acts or omissions of the DISTRICT, its officers, agents and/or employees.

6.3 The duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall include the duty to defend set forth in California Civil Code Section 2778.

SECTION 7. WAIVERS

7.1 The waivers by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Contract, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee or other money, which may become due hereunder, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, condition or provision of this CONTRACTOR or of any applicable law or ordinance.

7.2 No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by DISTRICT will operate as a waiver on the part of DISTRICT of any of its rights under this Contract.

SECTION 8. INSURANCE

8.1 CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Contract, personal liability insurance coverage of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) insuring not only CONTRACTOR and its contractors, if any, but also, with the exception of workers’ compensation, employer’s liability, and professional liability insurance, naming DISTRICT as an additional insured

10.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract) 7 concerning CONTRACTOR’S performance under this Contract. DISTRICT acknowledges that CONTRACTOR is self-insured and may fulfill the obligation of this Section through its self-insurance pool administrator.

8.2 Any and all contractors of CONTRACTOR retained to perform Services under this Contract will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Contract, identical insurance coverage, naming DISTRICT as an additional insured under such policies as required above.

8.3 Certificates of such insurance will be filed with DISTRICT concurrently with the execution of this Contract. The certificates will be subject to the approval of DISTRICT’S Chief Business Official and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or altered by the insurer except after filing with the DISTRICT’S Chief Business Official thirty (30) days’ prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and that the Pacifica School District is named as an additional insured except in policies of workers’ compensation, employer’s liability, and professional liability insurance. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file at all times during the term of this Contract with the Chief Business Official.

8.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONTRACTOR’S liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Contract.

SECTION 9. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

9.1 CONTRACTOR, by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing the performance of the Services.

SECTION 10. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF CONTRACT OR SERVICES

10.1 The Superintendent may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Contract, with cause, by giving ninety (90) days’ prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR.

10.2 CONTRACTOR may terminate this Contract or suspend its performance of the Services by giving ninety (90) days’ prior written notice thereof to DISTRICT, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by DISTRICT or in the event DISTRICT indefinitely withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or continuation of the Services to be performed or if the City of Pacifica ceases providing child care services.

10.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract) 8 SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT

11.1 CONTRACTOR will not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of this Contract or any right, title or interest in or to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of DISTRICT. A consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the Superintendent will be void and, at the option of the Superintendent, this Contract may be terminated. This Contract will not be assignable by operation of law.

SECTION 12. NOTICES

12.1 All notices hereunder will be giving in writing and mailed, postage prepared, by certified mail, and addressed as follows:

To DISTRICT: Office of the Superintendent
Pacifica School District
375 Reina Del Mar
Pacifica, CA 94044
To CONTRACTOR: Tracy Gilbert, Supervisor of Child Care Services City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
SECTION 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

13.1 In accepting this Contract, CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.

13.2 CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the performance of this Contract, it will not employ any contractor or persons having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Contract is an officer or management employee of DISTRICT. This provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Government Code of the State of California.

SECTION 14. NONDISCRIMINATION

14.1 As set forth in DISTRICT Policy, no discrimination will be made in the employment of any person under this Contract because of the age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender of that person. CONTRACTOR agrees

10.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract) 9 to meet all requirements of the DISTRICT Policy pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment, including completing the requisite form furnished by DISTRICT.

14.2 If CONTRACTOR is found in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of the State of California Fair Employment Practices Act or similar provisions of Federal law or executive order in the performance of this Contract, it will be in default of this Contract.

Only a finding of the State of California Fair Employment Practices Commission or the equivalent federal agency or officer will constitute evidence of a breach of this Contract.

SECTION 15. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

15.1 CONTRACTOR and DISTRICT represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Government Code and the Health and Safety Code of the State of California, relating to access to public buildings and accommodations for disable persons, and relating to facilities for disabled persons. CONTRACTOR and DISTRICT will comply with or ensure by its advice that compliance with such provisions will be effected in the performance of this Contract.

15.2 This Contract will be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflicts of law.

15.3 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the County of San Mateo, State of California.

15.4 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in connection with that action.

15.5 This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.

This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.

15.6 All provisions of this Contract, whether covenants or conditions, will be deemed to be both covenants and conditions.

15.7 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Contract will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and contractors, as the case may be, of the parties.

15.8 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Contract or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.

15.9 All exhibits referred to in this Contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment

10.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract) 10 hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Contract and will be deemed to be a part of this Contract.

15.10 This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Contract on the date first above written.

ATTEST
For DISTRICT
(Pacifica School District)
By:

Josephine Peterson
Chief Business Official
For CONTRACTOR
(City of Pacifica.)
By:

ATTACHMENTS:

EXHIBIT “A”: Scope of Services for Providers of Extended Child Care Services

10.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract) 11 EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR PROVIDERS OF

EXTENDED CHILD CARE AND PRESCHOOL SERVICES AT

PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITES
2024-2025
SERVICES: Under this Agreement, The City of Pacifica shall provide extended child care services to the child(ren) of families at Cabrillo, Ocean Shore, Sunset Ridge, and Vallemar School site(s), located on property owned by the Pacifica School District. Services shall be furnished as specified in this Exhibit “A”: Scope of Services for Providers of Extended Child Care and Preschool Services at Pacifica School District Elementary School Sites.

The extended child care program shall admit children currently enrolled in Grades Transitional Kindergarten through Grade Eight (8) in the Pacifica School District on a priority basis, but may also admit others on a space available basis.

PROGRAM GOALS:

1. To offer affordable child care services to child(ren) of families enrolled in Pacifica School District elementary schools.

2. To provide parents with access to licensed child care services year-round including Pacifica School District school holidays, school vacations, and staff development days.

3. To provide a quality program which seeks to maintain standards set forth by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National School Age Child Care Alliance.

PROGRAM SPECIFICATIONS:

1. Program Schedule.

Services rendered shall include before-and after-school care and preschool care. Program schedule shall be operable daily throughout the year, including school holidays and vacation periods except for holidays, which are recognized by the Pacifica School District. a. Regular School Days
The designated hours of operation for extended child care services on regular school days shall commence not earlier than 6:30 a.m. but not later than 7:30 a.m. and shall operate until the scheduled start of school at the site. The contractor shall reopen at the earliest scheduled end of the school day and shall remain open until at least 6:00 p.m. but not later than 6:30 p.m.

10.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract) 12 Regular school days are defined as Monday through Friday except holidays recognized by the Pacifica School District, PSD vacations, and PSD staff development days.

It is understood that the contractor shall have exclusive use of the site while child care programs are in session. When the site is not in use by the contractor, the DISTRICT, or its agents or assigns, may use the site for academic curriculum or other DISTRICT purposes upon reasonable notice to contractor. DISTRICT shall assume any and all liability for damages to property owned by contractor while using the facilities and shall indemnify and hold harmless contractor from injuries of any variety to all persons, which may occur while the facilities are in use by the DISTRICT or its personnel or agents. b. Holidays
Services shall be offered as outlined in this Exhibit “A”: Scope of Services for Extended Child Care Services at Pacifica School District Elementary School Sites, with the only exception being holidays recognized by the Pacifica School District. Contractor shall have the option to close all facilities for one week each summer. c. School Holidays
The designated hours of operation for extended child care services on school holidays (including winter and spring breaks and summer vacation) shall be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. d. Consolidation of Services
The contractor may consolidate services with another licensed or legally exempt school age contractor during school vacations and summer periods when enrollment or attendance is low. Programs may close for the purpose of offering staff development or inservice training for child care staff. All such closings are subject to approval by the DISTRICT’S project manager.
e. Location of Summer Program
CONTRACTOR agrees that DISTRICT shall have the opportunity to designate the site or sites to be used for operation of the program during summer vacation. It is understood that the availability of facilities for the summer program shall, in part, be dependent upon the construction and modernization schedule of the DISTRICT. DISTRICT shall advise contractor no less than one hundred and twenty (120) days prior to the termination of each school year as to which facilities shall be available for use during the summer and the dates of their respective availability. DISTRICT shall have the option to provide for a change in location of facilities to be used during the course of the summer, provided, however, that no less than one hundred and twenty (120) days notice of a location change shall be provided to CONTRACTOR by DISTRICT. In complying with the requirements of this paragraph, DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR shall co-operate to ensure that the safety of all students is adequately insured and that the licensure requirements of DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR are complied with. f. Other Uses
The contractor may use the contracted space outside of the normal hours of operation for staff, parent, and/or student meetings.

10.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract) 13 2. Licensing and Exemptions
Services rendered shall include before- preschool care and after-school care for school age children in Grades Transitional Kindergarten through Grades Eight. Program schedule shall be operable daily throughout the year, including school holidays and vacation periods except for holidays, which are recognized by the Pacifica School District.

3. Licensing Reports
The contractor shall forward to the DISTRICT’S Project Manager, within ten (10) days of all licensing visits, copies of all licensing reports issued by the California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division.

4. Staffing Ratios and Requirements
The contractor shall meet or exceed the staffing ratios and requirements for school age children as specified in the licensing requirements of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.

5. Health and Safety Standards: Emergency Preparedness
The contractor shall enforce health and safety standards that are consistent with state regulations and Pacifica School District policies.

6. Staff Development
The contractor shall offer appropriate staff development activities on an ongoing basis, including staff training, in order to fully meet the child development needs of children enrolled in the program. Staff development activities related to literacy shall be designed in cooperation with the Pacifica School District Curriculum Department and Special Education Department.

7. Articulation Activities
The contractor shall attend occasional meetings with the elementary school staff. The purpose of these meetings is to articulate educational practices in the areas of literacy, numeracy and support in the “homework” aspect of the program. These meetings can be faculty or grade-level meetings.

8. Written Schedules
The contractor shall at all times maintain a written schedule setting forth the operating hours and operating procedures for each required and optional use provided on or from the elementary school site. A fee schedule for prices charged for all services related to the required and optional uses set forth in this Contract shall be maintained.

10.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract) 14 9. Children with Special Needs
The contractor shall identify children with special needs at the time of enrollment to ensure adequate child care staffing levels. Children with special needs who require assistance during an emergency evacuation shall be accommodating special needs children shall be designed in cooperation with Pacifica School District Special Education Department.

If any students participating in the Before and After School Extended Day Program are referred for the “Student Study Team” process at the elementary school, a staff member, who is familiar with the student, will participate in the SST meeting, and upon request by the district, participate in any IEP meetings during the time the student is still a participant in the Before and After School Extended Day Program. It is understood that written education IEP goals apply to the school day only.

10. Equipment and Supplies
The contractor shall assume responsibility for program implementation, and shall provide furniture, equipment, and supplies except as otherwise agreed upon with the Pacifica School District.

11. Waiting Lists
The contractor shall maintain a current waiting list when program is a licensed capacity.

12. Annual Parent Survey
The contractor shall conduct an annual parent survey. Results of the parent survey shall be made available to the Project Manager as part of the DISTRICT’S annual site evaluation process.

13. Materials to be Kept on File
The contractor shall ensure that materials required by the DISTRICT, as more specifically outlined in this Contract and this Exhibit “A”: Scope of Services For Providers of Extended Child Care Services, be maintained on file with the DISTRICT’S Project Manager. Materials to be kept on file include:

Calendar of days open and closed
Current operating license
Emergency evacuation plan
Licensing reports issued by the California Department of Social Services Operating Procedures and Policies (Parent Handbook)
Summary sheet of annual parent evaluations
Tuition schedule
14 Annual Site Evaluation
The DISTRICT shall conduct an annual site evaluation of CONTRACTOR based on all data, statements and records reasonably necessary to evaluate the program. Results of the annual site evaluation shall be sent to the CONTRACTOR.

15. Reports to the DISTRICT

10.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract) 15 All correspondence relating to this Exhibit “A”: Scope of Services for Providers of Extended Child Care Services at Pacifica School District Elementary School Sites shall be sent to the following address:

Pacifica School District
375 Reina Del Mar
Pacifica, CA 94044
Attention: Josephine Peterson
Chief Business Official

10.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment A Pacifica Extended Childcare Agreement 2024 2025 (5676 : 2024/25 Child Care / PSD Lease contract)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/10/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Amendments to Consultant Services Agreements for On-Call Planning Services, Building Division Staff Augmentation, and Related Services Between the City of Pacifica and CSG Consultants, Inc., and Good City Company, as well as Between the City of Pacifica and Dyett & Bhatia for Housing Element Rezoning and EIR.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt the following resolutions to approve the following agreement amendments:
1) Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Seventh Amendment of the Consultant Services Agreement With CSG Consultants, Inc. for Building Official, Building Inspection, Plan Review, Current Planning And Related Services” (Attachment A); 2) Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Seventh Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Good City Company for Professional Planning and Related Services” (Attachment B); and,
3) Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners for Environmental Review and Related Services” (Attachment C).

STAFF CONTACT:

Elizabeth Brooks, Management Analyst II
(650) 501-6025
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Building Division
CSG Consultants
In October 2015, the City entered into its current contract with CSG Consultants to provide Building Division services, including plan checking, inspection, code enforcement, building official duties, administration, and special project services (Attachment D). The initial three-year contract expired at the end of October 2018, and the City Council subsequently extended the contract with additional one-year terms in 2019, 2020, a two-year term in 2021, and a one-year term in 2023. The annual maximum compensation for the contract is determined during the budget process each fiscal year.

The Planning Department is seeking an extension of the term identified in Section 3.1 (“Effective Date”) of the Agreement to June 30, 2026 (see Attachment E: CSG Seventh Amendment).
11 Packet Pg. 137
Pacifica City Council 2
June 10, 2024
Planning Division
The Planning Department is currently handling a large volume of development project applications for City permits, ranging from routine to complex. Additionally, the department is leading various City Council priority initiatives, such as implementing the General Plan update and updating the Housing Element of the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan, among others. To manage these tasks effectively, the Planning Department engages with various consultants, including Good City Company and Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, currently working on initiatives with the Planning Department as detailed below.

Good City Company
As part of the Agreement for on-call planning services with the City (Attachment F), Good City Company is assisting the Planning Department with the 6th Cycle Housing Element and addressing comments from HCD on the adopted 2023- 2031 Housing Element. The current agreement with Good City will expire on June 30, 2024. Accordingly, the Planning Department is seeking an extension of the completion date identified in Section 3.1 (“Effective Date”) of the Agreement to June 30, 2026 (see Attachment G: Good City Seventh Amendment) to allow sufficient time for the long and complex work related to this Housing Element certification process and subsequent implementation actions.

Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners
The process to update the Housing Element of the General Plan is underway, and Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners were engaged to complete the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and evaluate potential environmental impacts from the Housing Element Rezoning Program. Dyett & Bhatia’s original contracted scope of work outlined a proposed work program for all phases of this work with a total budget of $218,203.

While underway, the project was paused to account for site changes and revised capacity assumptions resulting from the California Department of Housing and Community Development review of the draft Housing Element. Since then, the City has also been developing objective development standards to streamline housing approval timelines. Given these changes, the scope of work has been expanded from an EIR on Housing Element Rezoning to an EIR on Housing Element Targeted General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and Objective Development Standards, with a revised list of sites. As such, a new Notice of Preparation was released, and the EIR process renewed.

The costs associated with these changes are projected to exceed the existing cost ceiling. Accordingly, the Planning Department is seeking an increase in the cost ceiling amount identified in Section 2.1 (“Compensation”) of the original Agreement (Attachment H) by $44,459, bringing the total contract amount to $262,662, as well as an extension of the completion date identified in Section 3.1 (“Effective Date”) of the Agreement to June 30, 2026, to allow sufficient time for the long and complex work related to this process for completion and certification of the EIR and Housing Element, followed by subsequent phases of rezoning work (see Attachment I: Dyett & Bhatia First Amendment).

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
11 Packet Pg. 138
Pacifica City Council 3
June 10, 2024
Deny or authorize the proposed amendments to the CSG, Good City Company, and/or Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners agreements.

If the Council denies the requested authorization for consultant CSG, the City will need to transition to an alternative consultant to provide Building Division services or would need to recruit and hire in-house staff. Both of these alternatives would have the potential to disrupt ongoing Building Division services in the interim.

Denying an extension to the Good City Company agreement will require Planning Department staff take over responsibilities from the consultants while continuing to perform other staff general responsibilities, including obligations to process building permit applications and other private development project applications, likely leading to significant delays in ongoing Planning Department services.

If the Council denies the requested authorization for Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, Planning Department staff would need to direct time to complete in-house environmental review documents in accordance with CEQA in addition to establishing contracts with various consultants possessing the technical expertise to analyze specific environmental resource topics that are beyond staff’s qualifications. The impact of this increased workload would negatively affect staff’s ability to address other general responsibilities, including the goals and strategies of the City Council’s Strategic Plan.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The tasks being performed by CSG Consultants, Inc. are not directly associated with any of the goals and strategies of the City Council’s Strategic Plan, as the functions of the Building Division are general government responsibilities of the City as a local public agency.

The work of Good City Company and Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners advances Goal 3 of Council-adopted 2023-2030 Strategic Plan - Prioritize protection and development of affordable housing, Strategy A - Complete the Housing Element Update, and Strategy C - Prioritize Housing Element program implementation.

Additionally, the benefits and efficiencies of engaging professional planning firms to perform these tasks will indirectly allow in-house staff resources to devote time to the goals and strategies of the City Council’s Strategic Plan including Goal 1 - Enhance organizational and fiscal stability and Goal 3 - Prioritize protection and development of affordable housing.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The budget for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 is pending adoption at the time this report. As prepared, the proposed amendment to the CSG Agreement would be limited to the amount budgeted for Building Division contractual services. The cost to operate the Building Division is offset by permit fees.

There is no fiscal impact to extending the term of the Good City Company agreement as proposed in the seventh amendment.

The amount of the requested contract budget increases for Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners is included in the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Planning Department budget. 11 Packet Pg. 139
Pacifica City Council 4
June 10, 2024
ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Resolution to Execute a Seventh Amendment of the Consultant Services Agreement With CSG Consultants, Inc (DOCX)
Attachment B: Resolution to Execute a Seventh Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Good City Company (DOCX)
Attachment C: Resolution to Execute a First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners (DOCX)
Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (PDF) Attachment E: Amendment 7 to CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (PDF)
Attachment F: Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (PDF) Attachment G: Amendment 7 to Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (PDF)
Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (PDF)
Attachment I: Amendment 1 to Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (PDF) 11 Packet Pg. 140
RESOLUTION NO.

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

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR BUILDING OFFICIAL,

BUILDING INSPECTION, PLAN REVIEW, CURRENT PLANNING AND RELATED SERVICES.
______________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Purchasing Policy (Administrative Policy No. 76), the City of Pacifica entered into an agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. for consulting services under the City Manager’s purchasing authority in October 2015; and WHEREAS, the City Council authorized amendments to the City’s agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. for consulting services in May 2017, September 2018, October 2019, October 2020, October 2021. And July 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to approve a seventh amendment to the City’s agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. for consultant services on June 10, 2024; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager, following adoption of the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 budget, to amend the agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. for the purpose of extending the term of the agreement to June 30, 2026.
* * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 10th day of June 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

11.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution to Execute a Seventh Amendment of the Consultant Services Agreement With CSG Consultants, Inc RESOLUTION NO.

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

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTANT

SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GOOD CITY COMPANY FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING AND RELATED SERVICES.
________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Purchasing Policy (Administrative Policy No. 76), the City of Pacifica entered into an agreement with Good City Company for consulting services under the City Manager’s purchasing authority in October 2020; and WHEREAS the City Council authorized amendments to the City’s agreement with Good City Company for consulting services in November 2021, June 2022, September 2022, January 2023, August 2023, and April 2024; and
WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Pacifica has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to approve a seventh amendment to the City’s agreement with Good City Company for consultant services on June 10, 2024;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager to amend the agreement with Good City Company a seventh time for the purpose of extending the term of the agreement to June 30, 2026. * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 10th day of June 2024, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

11.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution to Execute a Seventh Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Good City Company (5677 RESOLUTION NO.

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

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTANT SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH DYETT & BHATIA URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND RELATED SERVICES
______________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Purchasing Policy (Administrative Policy No. 76), the City of Pacifica entered into an agreement with Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners for environmental review and related services in May 2023; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to approve a first amendment to the City’s agreement with Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners for environmental review and related services on June 10, 2024; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager to amend the agreement with Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners for the purpose of increasing the cost ceiling by $44,459 with a total contract amount not to exceed $262,662 and to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2026. * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 10th day of June 2024, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

11.c
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment C: Resolution to Execute a First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Dyett & Bhatia Urban and

11.d
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and

11.d
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Attachment D: CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City, and 4891-5659-1477 v1 1

FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This First Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services (the "First Amendment") is made and entered into this 4th day of June 2024, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2023, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into that certain agreement entitled “Agreement for Consultant Services” (“Agreement”) to provide environmental and related services in connection with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update; and WHEREAS CITY and CONSULTANT now desire to enter into this First Amendment to expand the Scope of Work in Section 1.1 (“Scope of Work”), increase the Cost Ceiling in section

2.1 (“Compensation”) by $44,459, and extend the Term in section 3.1 (“Effective Date”) of the Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

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

2. Section 2.1 of the Agreement, “Compensation” is hereby amended to read as follows:

Compensation. Rates charged for Services shall be in accordance with Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. It is agreed that the total compensation for the Services shall not exceed $262,662 (“Cost Ceiling”).

3. Section 3.1 of the Agreement, "Effective Date" is hereby amended to read as follows:

Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the second signature and shall remain in full force and effect until the Services are completed (the 'Term"). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all services by June 30, 2026.

4. Agreement in Effect. Except as amended by this First Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

11.e
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment E: Amendment 7 to CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments:
4891-5659-1477 v1 2

5. Counterpart Signatures. This First Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date set forth above.

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
By: Date
Rajeev Bhatia, President
Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners

11.e
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment E: Amendment 7 to CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments:
4891
-5659-1477 v13

EXHIBITA

SCOPE OF WORK

11.e
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment E: Amendment 7 to CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments:
4891
-5659-1477 v14

11.e
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment E: Amendment 7 to CSG Agreement to Provide Contractual Building Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments:
\\PAC-FILESVR\Planning\STAFF\Josh\CONTRACTS\GOOD CITY
Memorandum
Planning Department
TO: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
FROM: Tina Wehrmeister, Planning Director/ Acting Asst. City Manager Joshua Montemayor, Management Analyst II
DATE: October 20, 2020
SUBJECT: Consultant Services Agreement for
Planning Services with Good City Company
Background
The Planning Department has received a number of complex development project applications that exceed the capacity of current consultants. The Planning Department would like to engage Good City Company which has staff that are capable of assisting the Planning Department with highly complex development projects.

Fiscal Impact
The amount of the requested contract totals $50,000, and is included in the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Planning Department Budget as a developer-reimbursed expenditure and requires no additional appropriation. Because the expense is reimbursed by project applicants, there is no net fiscal impact. the City Manager may approve purchases up to $50,000.

Attachment

1. Consultant Service Agreement with Good City Company

11.f
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment F: Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG,

11.f
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment F: Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG,

11.f
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment F: Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG,

11.f
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment F: Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG,

11.f
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment F: Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG,

11.f
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment F: Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG,

11.f
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment F: Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG,

11.f
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment F: Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG,

11.f
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment F: Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, Good City Company can provide the City of Pacifica with the following on-call planning services:

Prepare initial project summaries and route to City departments for comment.

Analyze projects for compliance with the City's General Plan, zoning ordinance, Local Coastal Plan, Subdivision Map Act, Design Guidelines, specific plans, Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (i.e.

C.3 requirements), and other policies.

Review projects and provide comments within timelines specified by the Permit Streamlining Act and the City (shorter timelines may be required for certain projects).

Prepare Initial Studies and CEQA documents or ability and expertise to work with a CEQA consultant.

Write staff reports, resolutions, conditions of approval, ordinances, and deliver oral presentations.

Draft detailed findings that withstand project appeals.

Attend Planning Commission and/or City Council meetings.

Conduct site visits.

Be available during regular business hours to answer questions by phone or email.

Meet at the Planning Department as needed to meet with staff and applicants (all meetings are conducted virtually during COVID-19 health protocols).

Interact with Coastal Commission North Central Coast District staff to coordinate project review.

Process development and redevelopment of environmentally sensitive sites, former industrial sites, and hotel projects.

Process annexation requests.

Review building permit applications for entitlement projects processed by consultant.

11.f
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment F: Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, ¬± »²-«®» ¬¸» ½´·»²¬ ·- ¹»¬¬·²¹ ¬¸» ¾»-¬ ª¿´«» º±® ¬¸» -»®ª·½»-ò ‹ Ü·®»½¬±®ñÐ®·²½·°¿´ îîëñ¸±«®
‹ Ð®·²½·°¿´ Ð´¿²²»®
‹ Í»²·±® Ð´¿²²»®
‹ ß--±½·¿¬» Ð´¿²²»®
‹ ß--·-¬¿²¬ Ð´¿²²»®
‹ Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ì»½¸²·½·¿² üèðñ¸±«®
‹ ß¼³·²·-¬®¿¬·ª» ß--·-¬¿²¬ üêðñ¸±«®
Í«¾½±²-«´¬¿²¬ Ý±²¬®¿½¬- Ü·®»½¬ Þ·´´·²¹ õ ïðû ±ª»®-·¹¸¬ º»» ö Î¿¬»- -«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¿¼¶«-¬³»²¬ Ö¿²«¿®§ ï-¬ ±º »¿½¸ §»¿®

11.f
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment F: Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, ÍØÑËÔÜ ßÒÇ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ßÞÑÊÛ ÜÛÍÝÎ×ÞÛÜ ÐÑÔ×Ý×ÛÍ ÞÛ ÝßÒÝÛÔÔÛÜ ÞÛÚÑÎÛ ÌØÛ ÛÈÐ×ÎßÌ×ÑÒ ÜßÌÛ ÌØÛÎÛÑÚô ÒÑÌ×ÝÛ É×ÔÔ ÞÛ ÜÛÔ×ÊÛÎÛÜ ×Ò ßÝÝÑÎÜßÒÝÛ É×ÌØ ÌØÛ ÐÑÔ×ÝÇ ÐÎÑÊ×Í×ÑÒÍò
×ÒÍËÎÛÎøÍ÷ ßÚÚÑÎÜ×ÒÙ ÝÑÊÛÎßÙÛ
×ÒÍËÎÛÎ Ú æ
×ÒÍËÎÛÎ Û æ
×ÒÍËÎÛÎ Ü æ
×ÒÍËÎÛÎ Ý æ
×ÒÍËÎÛÎ Þ æ
×ÒÍËÎÛÎ ß æ
Òß×Ý ý
ÒßÓÛæ
ÝÑÒÌßÝÌ
øßñÝô Ò±÷æ
ÚßÈ
ÛóÓß×Ô
ßÜÜÎÛÍÍæ
ÐÎÑÜËÝÛÎ
øßñÝô Ò±ô Û¨¬÷æ
ÐØÑÒÛ
×ÒÍËÎÛÜ
ÝÑÊÛÎßÙÛÍ ÝÛÎÌ×Ú×ÝßÌÛ ÒËÓÞÛÎæ ÎÛÊ×Í×ÑÒ ÒËÓÞÛÎæ
×ÓÐÑÎÌßÒÌæ ×º ¬¸» ½»®¬·º·½¿¬» ¸±´¼»® ·- ¿² ßÜÜ×Ì×ÑÒßÔ ×ÒÍËÎÛÜô ¬¸» °±´·½§ø·»-÷ ³«-¬ ¸¿ª» ßÜÜ×Ì×ÑÒßÔ ×ÒÍËÎÛÜ °®±ª·-·±²- ±® ¾» »²¼±®-»¼ò ×º ÍËÞÎÑÙßÌ×ÑÒ ×Í Éß×ÊÛÜô -«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¬¸» ¬»®³- ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²- ±º ¬¸» °±´·½§ô ½»®¬¿·² °±´·½·»- ³¿§ ®»¯«·®» ¿² »²¼±®-»³»²¬ò ß -¬¿¬»³»²¬ ±² ¬¸·- ½»®¬·º·½¿¬» ¼±»- ²±¬ ½±²º»® ®·¹¸¬- ¬± ¬¸» ½»®¬·º·½¿¬» ¸±´¼»® ·² ´·»« ±º -«½¸ »²¼±®-»³»²¬ø-÷ò ÌØ×Í ÝÛÎÌ×Ú×ÝßÌÛ ×Í ×ÍÍËÛÜ ßÍ ß ÓßÌÌÛÎ ÑÚ ×ÒÚÑÎÓßÌ×ÑÒ ÑÒÔÇ ßÒÜ ÝÑÒÚÛÎÍ ÒÑ Î×ÙØÌÍ ËÐÑÒ ÌØÛ ÝÛÎÌ×Ú×ÝßÌÛ ØÑÔÜÛÎò ÌØ×Í ÝÛÎÌ×Ú×ÝßÌÛ ÜÑÛÍ ÒÑÌ ßÚÚ×ÎÓßÌ×ÊÛÔÇ ÑÎ ÒÛÙßÌ×ÊÛÔÇ ßÓÛÒÜô ÛÈÌÛÒÜ ÑÎ ßÔÌÛÎ ÌØÛ ÝÑÊÛÎßÙÛ ßÚÚÑÎÜÛÜ ÞÇ ÌØÛ ÐÑÔ×Ý×ÛÍ ÞÛÔÑÉò ÌØ×Í ÝÛÎÌ×Ú×ÝßÌÛ ÑÚ ×ÒÍËÎßÒÝÛ ÜÑÛÍ ÒÑÌ ÝÑÒÍÌ×ÌËÌÛ ß ÝÑÒÌÎßÝÌ ÞÛÌÉÛÛÒ ÌØÛ ×ÍÍË×ÒÙ ×ÒÍËÎÛÎøÍ÷ô ßËÌØÑÎ×ÆÛÜ ÎÛÐÎÛÍÛÒÌßÌ×ÊÛ ÑÎ ÐÎÑÜËÝÛÎô ßÒÜ ÌØÛ ÝÛÎÌ×Ú×ÝßÌÛ ØÑÔÜÛÎò ÑÌØÛÎæ
øÐ»® ¿½½·¼»²¬÷
øÛ¿ ¿½½·¼»²¬÷
ü
ü
Ò ñ ß
ÍËÞÎ
ÉÊÜ
ßÜÜÔ
×ÒÍÜ
ÌØ×Í ×Í ÌÑ ÝÛÎÌ×ÚÇ ÌØßÌ ÌØÛ ÐÑÔ×Ý×ÛÍ ÑÚ ×ÒÍËÎßÒÝÛ Ô×ÍÌÛÜ ÞÛÔÑÉ ØßÊÛ ÞÛÛÒ ×ÍÍËÛÜ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ×ÒÍËÎÛÜ ÒßÓÛÜ ßÞÑÊÛ ÚÑÎ ÌØÛ ÐÑÔ×ÝÇ ÐÛÎ×ÑÜ ×ÒÜ×ÝßÌÛÜò ÒÑÌÉ×ÌØÍÌßÒÜ×ÒÙ ßÒÇ ÎÛÏË×ÎÛÓÛÒÌô ÌÛÎÓ ÑÎ ÝÑÒÜ×Ì×ÑÒ ÑÚ ßÒÇ ÝÑÒÌÎßÝÌ ÑÎ ÑÌØÛÎ ÜÑÝËÓÛÒÌ É×ÌØ ÎÛÍÐÛÝÌ ÌÑ ÉØ×ÝØ ÌØ×Í ÝÛÎÌ×Ú×ÝßÌÛ ÓßÇ ÞÛ ×ÍÍËÛÜ ÑÎ ÓßÇ ÐÛÎÌß×Òô ÌØÛ ×ÒÍËÎßÒÝÛ ßÚÚÑÎÜÛÜ ÞÇ ÌØÛ ÐÑÔ×Ý×ÛÍ ÜÛÍÝÎ×ÞÛÜ ØÛÎÛ×Ò ×Í ÍËÞÖÛÝÌ ÌÑ ßÔÔ ÌØÛ ÌÛÎÓÍô ÛÈÝÔËÍ×ÑÒÍ ßÒÜ ÝÑÒÜ×Ì×ÑÒÍ ÑÚ ÍËÝØ ÐÑÔ×Ý×ÛÍò Ô×Ó×ÌÍ ÍØÑÉÒ ÓßÇ ØßÊÛ ÞÛÛÒ ÎÛÜËÝÛÜ ÞÇ Ðß×Ü ÝÔß×ÓÍò ü
ü
ü
ü
ÐÎÑÐÛÎÌÇ ÜßÓßÙÛ
ÞÑÜ×ÔÇ ×ÒÖËÎÇ øÐ»® ¿½½·¼»²¬÷
ÞÑÜ×ÔÇ ×ÒÖËÎÇ øÐ»® °»®-±²÷
ÝÑÓÞ×ÒÛÜ Í×ÒÙÔÛ Ô×Ó×Ì
ßËÌÑÍ ÑÒÔÇ
ßËÌÑÍ ÑÒÔÇ ßËÌÑÍ
ÒÑÒóÑÉÒÛÜ
ÑÉÒÛÜ ÍÝØÛÜËÔÛÜ
ßÒÇ ßËÌÑ
ßËÌÑÓÑÞ×ÔÛ Ô×ßÞ×Ô×ÌÇ
Ç ñ Ò
ÉÑÎÕÛÎÍ ÝÑÓÐÛÒÍßÌ×ÑÒ
ßÒÜ ÛÓÐÔÑÇÛÎÍù Ô×ßÞ×Ô×ÌÇ
ÑÚÚ×ÝÛÎñÓÛÓÞÛÎ ÛÈÝÔËÜÛÜá
øÓ¿²¼¿¬±®§ ·² ÒØ÷
ÜÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ÑÐÛÎßÌ×ÑÒÍ ¾»´±©
×º §»-ô ¼»-½®·¾» «²¼»®
ßÒÇÐÎÑÐÎ×ÛÌÑÎñÐßÎÌÒÛÎñÛÈÛÝËÌ×ÊÛ
ü
ü
ü
ÛòÔò Ü×ÍÛßÍÛ ó ÐÑÔ×ÝÇ Ô×Ó×Ì
ÛòÔò Ü×ÍÛßÍÛ ó Ûß ÛÓÐÔÑÇÛÛ
ÛòÔò ÛßÝØ ßÝÝ×ÜÛÒÌ
ÛÎ
ÑÌØó
ÍÌßÌËÌÛ
ÐÛÎ
øÓÓñÜÜñÇÇÇÇ÷ Ô×Ó×ÌÍ ÐÑÔ×ÝÇ ÛÈÐøÓÓñÜÜñÇÇÇÇ÷
ÐÑÔ×ÝÇ ÛÚÚ
ÔÌÎ ÌÇÐÛ ÑÚ ×ÒÍËÎßÒÝÛ ÐÑÔ×ÝÇ ÒËÓÞÛÎ
×ÒÍÎ
ÜÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ÑÐÛÎßÌ×ÑÒÍ ñ ÔÑÝßÌ×ÑÒÍ ñ ÊÛØ×ÝÔÛÍ øßÝÑÎÜ ïðïô ß¼¼·¬·±²¿´ Î»³¿®µ- Í½¸»¼«´»ô ³¿§ ¾» ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ·º ³±®» -°¿½» ·- ®»¯«·®»¼÷ ÛÈÝÛÍÍ Ô×ßÞ
ËÓÞÎÛÔÔß Ô×ßÞ ÛßÝØ ÑÝÝËÎÎÛÒÝÛ ü
ßÙÙÎÛÙßÌÛ ü
ü
ÑÝÝËÎ
ÝÔß×ÓÍóÓßÜÛ
ÜÛÜ ÎÛÌÛÒÌ×ÑÒ ü
ÐÎÑÜËÝÌÍ ó ÝÑÓÐñÑÐ ßÙÙ ü
ÙÛÒÛÎßÔ ßÙÙÎÛÙßÌÛ ü
ÐÛÎÍÑÒßÔ ú ßÜÊ ×ÒÖËÎÇ ü
ÓÛÜ ÛÈÐ øß²§ ±²» °»®-±²÷ ü
ÛßÝØ ÑÝÝËÎÎÛÒÝÛ ü
ÜßÓßÙÛ ÌÑ ÎÛÒÌÛÜ
ÐÎÛÓ×ÍÛÍ øÛ¿ ±½½«®®»²½»÷ ü
ÝÑÓÓÛÎÝ×ßÔ ÙÛÒÛÎßÔ Ô×ßÞ×Ô×ÌÇ
ÝÔß×ÓÍóÓßÜÛ ÑÝÝËÎ
ÙÛÒùÔ ßÙÙÎÛÙßÌÛ Ô×Ó×Ì ßÐÐÔ×ÛÍ ÐÛÎæ
ÐÑÔ×ÝÇ ÐÎÑó
ÖÛÝÌ ÔÑÝ
ÝÛÎÌ×Ú×ÝßÌÛ ÑÚ Ô×ßÞ×Ô×ÌÇ ×ÒÍËÎßÒÝÛ ÜßÌÛ øÓÓñÜÜñÇÇÇÇ÷
ÝßÒÝÛÔÔßÌ×ÑÒ
ßËÌØÑÎ×ÆÛÜ ÎÛÐÎÛÍÛÒÌßÌ×ÊÛ
ßÝÑÎÜ îë øîðïêñðí÷
w ïçèèóîðïë ßÝÑÎÜ ÝÑÎÐÑÎßÌ×ÑÒò ß´´ ®·¹¸¬- ®»-»®ª»¼ò
ÝÛÎÌ×Ú×ÝßÌÛ ØÑÔÜÛÎ
Ì¸» ßÝÑÎÜ ²¿³» ¿²¼ ´±¹± ¿®» ®»¹·-¬»®»¼ ³¿®µ- ±º ßÝÑÎÜ
Ø×ÎÛÜ
ßËÌÑÍ ÑÒÔÇ
ïðñïêñîðîð
Ö¿³»- Ûò Ó½Ù±ª»®²ô ×²½ò
ïêîë Û´ Ý¿³·²± Î»¿´
Þ»´³±²¬ô Ýß çìððî êëðóëçíóèîïê ¨ïðí êëðóëçìóçïíð
©©©ò¶»³·²-ò½±³ Í»²¬·²»´ ×²-«®¿²½» Ý±³°¿²§ô Ô¬¼ò ßõ ÈÊ ïïððð Ûª¿²-¬±² ×²-«®¿²½» Ý±³°¿²§ ß ÈÊ íëíéè
ß ëé ÍÞß Î×ðéðê éñêñîðîð éñêñîðîï îôðððôðððò
ïôðððôðððò
í
ïðôðððò
í
îôðððôðððò
ìôðððôðððò
ìôðððôðððò
Ü»¼«½¬·¾´» ëððò
ß ëé ÍÞß Î×ðéðê éñêñîðîð éñêñîðîï îôðððôðððò
í í
Ü»¼«½¬·¾´» ëððò
Þ Ð®±º»--·±²¿´ Ô·¿¾·´·¬§ ÓÐÔïìðïéïèóîð ïñëñîðîð ïñëñîðîï ß¹¹®»¹¿¬» Ô·³·¬æ üîôðððôðððò Û¿½¸ Ý´¿·³æ üîôðððôðððò
Í¬»ª» Í«·--¿
Ó¿®§ß²² É±®³¿²
³¿®§¿²²à¶»³·²-ò½±³
í
Ù±±¼ Ý·¬§ Ý±³°¿²§
îïêë Ý¿®³»´·¬¿ Ü®·ª»
Í¿² Ý¿®´±- Ýß çìðéð
ëèïèëëéî
öíð ¼¿§ ©®·¬¬»² Ò±¬·½» ±º Ý¿²½»´´¿¬·±²ô »¨½»°¬ º±® ²±²ó°¿§³»²¬ ±º °®»³·«³ ©¸·½¸ ·- ïð ¼¿§-ò Ý·¬§ ±º Ð¿½·º·½¿
ïèðð Ú®¿²½·-½± Þ±«´»ª¿®¼
Ð¿½·º·½¿ Ýß çìðìì
ÎÛæ Ê»®·º·½¿¬·±² ±º ×²-«®¿²½»
ëèïèëëéî ¤ ÓßÎÌ×óÔ ¤ îðñîï ÙÔô ÐÔ ¤ Ó¿®§ß²² É±®³¿² ¤ ïðñïêñîðîð îæíðæìë ÐÓ øÐÜÌ÷ ¤ Ð¿¹» ï ±º ï

11.f
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment F: Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG,

11.f
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment F: Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept Amendments: CSG, 4891-5659-1477 v1 1

SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Seventh Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Seventh Amendment") is made and entered into this 4th day of June 2024, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Good City Company, a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2020, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into that certain agreement entitled “Agreement for Consultant Services” (“Agreement”) to provide on-call planning services and related services; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2022, the City Council authorized CITY and CONSULTANT to enter into a First Amendment to that Agreement to increase the Cost Ceiling and extend the Term under the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2022, the City Council authorized CITY and CONSULTANT to enter into a Second Amendment to that Agreement to increase the Cost Ceiling and extend the Term under the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2022, the City Council authorized CITY and CONSULTANT to enter into a Third Amendment to that Agreement to increase the Cost Ceiling and extend the Term under the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2023, the City Council authorized CITY and CONSULTANT to enter into a Fourth Amendment to that Agreement to increase the Cost Ceiling of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2023, the City Council authorized CITY and CONSULTANT to enter into a Fifth Amendment to that Agreement to restate the Scope of Work and to increase the Cost Ceiling of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2024, the City Council authorized CITY and CONSULTANT to enter into a Sixth Amendment to that Agreement to increase the Cost; and WHEREAS CITY and CONSULTANT now desire to enter into this Seventh Amendment to extend the Term in section 3.1 (“Effective Date”) of the Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

11.g
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment G: Amendment 7 to Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept 4891-5659-1477 v1 2

1. Section 3.1 of the Agreement, "Effective Date" is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. Agreement in Effect. Except as amended by this Seventh Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

3. Counterpart Signatures. This Seventh Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Seventh Amendment as of the date set forth above.

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
By: Date
Aaron Aknin, AICP
Principal Planner and Co-Owner
Good City Company
06/04/24

11.g
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment G: Amendment 7 to Good City Company Agreement to Provide On-Call Planning Services (5677 : Planning Dept

11.h
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

11.h
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

11.h
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

11.h
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

11.h
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

11.h
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

11.h
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

11.h
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

11.h
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

11.h
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

11.h
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Attachment A: Scope of Work
This attachment outlines our proposed work program for all phases of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Housing Element Rezoning Project. Work products are outlined at the end of each task, and are also summarized on the Timeline table on page 11.

The task-by-task descriptions that follow represent our approach to data collection, analysis of impacts, and preparation of the EIR document. Initials in parentheses following the sub-section heading identify the lead firm for each sub-task.

D&B: Dyett & Bhatia
DKS: DKS Associates, Transportation Planners
WRA: WRA, Inc., Biological Resources Consultants
GC: Geocon Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Consultants
CSA: Charles M Salter Associates Inc., Noise Consultants TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION
1-A: Kick-Off Meeting with City Staff (Team). The consultant team will meet with City staff to discuss EIR approach. Roles and responsibilities will be clarified, communication protocols will be established, sites for more detailed geotechnical and biological analysis will be discussed, and a detailed work schedule will be developed. City staff will also provide the consultant with background information including an overview of proposed zoning changes and any potential foreseeable impacts and will work with the team to confirm the project horizon year. Because many impacts such as transportation, noise, air quality and greenhouse gases will be cumulative in nature, the horizon year will need to be established early in the process. 1-B: Review Background Materials (Team). The consultants will review pertinent documents, provided by City staff or otherwise available. This will include the 2040 General Plan and EIR (which we are already familiar with), the Zoning Code, utility master plans, urban water management plan, and any other relevant documentation.
1-C: Sites Mapping (D&B). The City will provide a shapefile of rezoned Housing Element sites or provide APNs for D&B to create shapefiles to be used for any additional maps that may need to be created for the EIR. D&B will use the basemap and other maps used previously in preparation of the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Meetings Products
Kick-off Meeting with City Staff N/A

11.h
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update TASK 2: SCOPING
2-A: Notice of Preparation (Staff, D&B). D&B will prepare and staff will circulate the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR for the Housing Element Rezoning effort ("Proposed Project").

Because it has already been determined that an EIR will be needed, an Initial Study need not be conducted. It is anticipated that Agricultural and Forest Resources, Cultural and Historic Resources, and Mineral Resources, and possibly Hazardous Materials, may be able to be scoped out; this will be noted in the NOP with brief rationale for scoping out these topics provided. D&B will review comments received on the NOP and ensure that comments are addressed in the EIR. 2-B: Tribal Consultation (Staff, D&B). Pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52, D&B will assist the City with tribal consultation, notifying the NAHC of the planning process and contacting tribal representatives in the planning area.
2-C: Scoping Meeting (Staff, D&B). Staff will coordinate a scoping meeting, including sending out meeting notices and reserving a conference room at the City, unless the City prefers that this meeting be conducted on Zoom. D&B will facilitate the meeting and take notes on comments made by those attending. A summary record of comments will be created using these notes and D&B will determine how to address these comments in the EIR.

Meetings Products
Scoping Meeting (Staff, D&B) Notice of Preparation
Tribal Consultation Letters
TASK 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVES
3-A: Project Description and Alternatives (Staff). Staff will prepare a concise EIR-level project description. This will include proposed new zones, and density and height changes. Staff will also provide direction on up to two land use alternatives (including the No Project Alternative) for inclusion in the EIR. Our budget allocates ~17 hours for consultant support to staff for alternatives development. The project description will contain the project proposal, purpose and objectives, anticipated buildout, a discussion of potential areas of controversy, and issues to be resolved.
3-B: Project Description and Alternatives Review (D&B). D&B will edit and refine the project description and description of alternatives for inclusion in the EIR.

Meetings Products
Scoping Meeting (Staff, D&B) Project Description and Alternatives (Staff) TASK 4: ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR (ADEIR) PREPARATION
The ADEIR will evaluate the Project and up to two alternatives (including a No Project alternative). At key points during the process, D&B will provide feedback to staff regarding environmental impacts. The ADEIR will include:

Executive Summary;

11.h
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Project Description;
Environmental Impact Analysis, including environmental setting; Comparative Assessment of Alternatives; and
CEQA-Required Conclusions.
4-A: Executive Summary (D&B). The Executive Summary will explain the purpose and scope of the EIR, EIR organization, study approach, project background, environmentally superior alternative and summary of impacts and mitigation.
4-B: Project Description (D&B). The Project Description will be the project proposal, purpose and objectives, anticipated buildout resulting from the Proposed Project and changes resulting from previously approved plans, a discussion of potential areas of controversy, and issues to be resolved developed in Task 3.
4-C: Environmental Setting (Team). The Environmental Setting will provide a general description of existing conditions and geography of sites to be rezoned, suitable to support a programmatic-level EIR analysis. For citywide setting, D&B will incorporate the General Plan EIR by reference, and add supplemental information for the rezoned sites. This section will incorporate the most up-todate literature, maps, databases, and other resources, including site reconnaissance findings from WRA on biological resources and GC on geotechnical hazards. The setting will also clearly careful analysis of potential for mitigation associated with existing codes and policies. 4-D: Environmental Impact Analysis. D&B and team will build upon our extensive experience preparing general plan and general plan EIRs, particularly for Pacifica's 2040 General Plan Update.

The analysis will consider general impacts associated with buildout as part of the Proposed Project, as well as cumulative effects of General Plan buildout plus the Proposed Project to the established horizon year. Where possible, impacts will be quantified, and their level of significance established. If existing data does not allow definitive quantification, reasonable assumptions will be used to qualitatively approximate potential impacts. The impact analysis will be comprehensive in scope, covering all CEQA requirements. Significance criteria will be identified for each impact topic, largely based upon thresholds of significance established in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Impact analysis will account for the potential mitigating effect of existing City plans and policies. Issues to be addressed are expected to include:

Aesthetics (D&B). Key visual and open space resources in and around the City include scenic panoramic coastline and ocean
views, lateral ridges of the Coast Range, San Pedro Mountain, and scenic highway-eligible roadways Highway 1 and Sharp Park Road.

Analysis will draw upon resource evaluation in the General Plan EIR and evaluate site zoning changes, such as height increases or increased density, for potential impacts, including potential loss or obstruction of identified scenic qualities. Visual modeling is not assumed as part of this analysis; impacts to these resources will be rated objectively using approaches and methodologies accepted by the City in the General Plan EIR to permit the community and decision-makers to ascertain the impacts of zoning changes and consider the tradeoffs associated with impacts to such resources with attaining other City and Housing Element objectives.

Air Quality (D&B). Operational air quality impacts associated with cumulative buildout (from

11.h
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update the Proposed Project, and plus the cumulative assumed buildout as part of the General Plan to the horizon year) will be evaluated by determining whether it is consistent with the most recently adopted Air Quality Plan prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD,) as well as with their recommended analysis thresholds. Construction-related emissions associated with the Proposed Project will be evaluated qualitatively based on guidance provided by the BAAQMD and will also include the identification of constructionrelated mitigation measures recommended by the BAAQMD. D&B will qualitatively evaluate potential health risks associated the General Plan Update, which includes an evaluation of exposure of new sensitive receptors proposed as part of sites rezoning to existing or planned sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and PM2.5.

Energy, Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change (D&B). D&B will prepare a GHG analysis to address the potential net increase of GHG emissions during construction and operation activities associated with additional buildout resulting from the Proposed Project, and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project plus assumed General Plan buildout. This section will refer to and update the General Plan overview of the current regulatory framework regarding Act of 2006 (AB 32), Senate Bill (SB) 97, SB 375, SB 32, Executive Order B-55-18, the CEQA Guidelines, and any policies or measures contained in the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP).

The analysis will quantify carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units associated with construction and operational emissions attributable to the net change of housing units that may be associated with the proposed project. Emission factors and methodologies will use pollutant emissions database to calculate GHG emissions utilizing VMT data, as described more fully under the air quality analysis above, and the CalEEMod emissions model (for nontransportation related emissions). This analysis will utilize the established General Plan EIR thresholds; if any significant impacts are determined by our analysis, we will prepare appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Biological Resources (WRA). critical habitat for steelhead and the California red legged frog, and the presence of several other special status species has been documented. While most rezoning sites are previously developed. there are a few vacant sites where special status species could be present. As a part of the Environmental Setting portion of the EIR Biological Resources section, WRA will summarize special-status wildlife and plant species known to occur within and in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped or partially undeveloped sites including plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act under the California Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Code; animals d Society (CNPS). This listing will be based on current secondary sources, including but not limited to, the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), CDFW lists, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) databases, CNPS lists, and other applicable secondary sources.

A table which lists all potentially occurring special-status species in the vicinity will be provided in the SEIR section.

WRA will also review special habitats, including critical habitat and sensitive biological communities known to occur in the general vicinity. Following the review of existing biological and regulatory information, WRA will conduct a reconnaissance field survey of the focus sites. The field survey will assess the existing biological resources and identify, confirm, and augment any potentially sensitive biological issues. Generalized mapping of the biological

11.h
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update resources for each site will be provided; however, this Scope of Work does not include any wetland delineations or specific species surveys.

Geologic Hazards (D&B, GC). Drawing from General Plan EIR analysis of known geologic hazards, GC will provide geotechnical feasibility review of up to eight (8) sites to identify potential geotechnical impacts to planned redevelopment, with particular focus on seismic hazards and landslides. GC will develop a memo that presents professional opinions on geotechnical feasibility of redevelopment and discussion of potential geotechnical site constraints, and describe impacts of rezoned sites with potential to be exposed to these geotechnical hazards. We propose to perform an EIR-level geotechnical feasibility review of each site to identify potential geotechnical impacts to planned redevelopment, with particular focus on seismic hazards. D&B will incorporate these findings into the Geologic Hazards section. Should mitigation measures be needed, they will focus on appropriate methods to reduce the risk from these hazards and outline any further studies that would be needed for specific sites prior to development approval. These inputs will be presented in a memo format; D&B will use these inputs to develop this EIR section.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials (D&B). The EIR will evaluate the potential for rezoned sites to be exposed to contaminant releases and airport compatibility. This will include an updated search on GeoTracker, a statewide geographic information system that tracks soil, vapor, and groundwater of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cases and non-UST cleanup sites, including Site Cleanup Program Sites (formerly referred to as Spills-Leaks-InvestigationsCleanups (SLIC) sites), Military Sites (formerly referred to as Department of Defense sites (DOD)), and Land Disposal (Land Fill) Sites. The analysis will assess the impact of these hazards on future site development/redevelopment.

Hydrology and Water Quality (D&B). The City of Pacific is located within all or part of nine watersheds, and flood hazards exist among most of the creeks. Broad flood inundation is relatively common in several low-lying areas, including the Sharp Park area along Sanchez Creek and in the Linda Mar neighborhood along San Pedro Creek (also an area within the 100- year flood plain, as designated by FEMA). D&B will utilize existing information within the General Plan EIR and other information such as the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (with any available updates) to describe watershed conditions, drainage patterns, flood hazards and water quality issues with input from City staff. Staff will also qualitatively evaluate potential hydrologic and water quality impacts associated with future rezoning development including increases in peak discharges, flooding, the adequacy of drainage infrastructure, and adverse effects on water quality. Programmatic mitigation measures will be identified for hydrologic-surface runoff impacts. Mitigation may include avoidance of certain critical drainage areas, design/management practices, drainage facility improvements, and implementation of water quality best management practices.

Land Use and Planning (D&B). This section of the EIR will describe potential physical and policy conflicts related to proposed land use in the planning area. The EIR will evaluate the consistency of proposed rezoning with other potential applicable policies, such as the Coastal Act.

Population and Housing (D&B). D&B will evaluate the effect of the rezoned site development/redevelopment on dividing an established community and any potential displacement effects. D&B will include the discussion of growth inducing impacts of the project under a separate chapter which discusses all CEQA required conclusions required under CEQA Guidelines §15126.

Noise (CSA, D&B). Building upon work conducted for the General Plan EIR, CSA will update

11.h
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update future noise contours based on new traffic data associated with potential site rezoning buildout. CSA will review updated traffic volume data from the engineer per the rezoning update; calculate traffic noise levels based on future traffic volumes, speeds, and truck percentages for each roadway segment to be included in the model; and provide the results of our traffic noise analysis in electronic spreadsheet format. The EIR will also evaluate mitigation strategies for potential future development and existing sensitive receptors that may be impacted by future development. Mitigation requirements will be identified, and potential development standards suggested, if necessary.

Public Utilities, Facilities and Services (D&B). Our team will review existing available information to identify existing capacity and constraints for public utilities, services and infrastructure, including schools, parks and recreation, water, wastewater, solid waste service, utilities, fire safety and emergency response, and police services. Using this information and projected demand, we will evaluate potential impacts associated with increased potential buildout as part of the rezoning buildout program and cumulative General Plan buildout until the horizon year, as well as any increased associated demand for public utilities, services and infrastructure. Analysis will utilize existing General Plan EIR thresholds.

Transportation and Traffic (DKS). Update of transportation modeling includes the following three subtasks:

A. Revised Future Land Use Inputs
DKS will develop revised year 2040 land use inputs for the C\CAG travel demand model that reflect the proposed rezoning. DKS will work with Dyett & Bhatia to calculate the expected increase in housing units by each Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) in the Pacifica planning area. The revised land use inputs will be reviewed by Dyett & Bhatia and accepted by the City of Pacifica before further work is conducted.

B. VMT Impact Assessment
DKS previously calculated VMT metrics associated with the preferred future alternative for the Pacifica General Plan Update. The metrics previously calculated include home-based VMT per capita, and home-based work VMT per employee summarized at local, county, and regional geographies. Under this task, DKS will repeat these calculations using the revised land use inputs developed under Task 1.

Because the Housing Element has a planning horizon of 2031 and the C\ year is 2040, VMT metrics may be interpolated between existing conditions and the 2040 results to estimate circa year 2030 VMT metrics, should the City decide upon that year as the horizon. Should the horizon year remain at 2040, as in the General Plan EIR, increase in housing from the rezoning program will be layered on top of development already included in the General Plan EIR analysis. This calculation ma need to alternative should the horizon year differ from that used in the General Plan EIR.

C. Updated General Plan Study Intersections and Roadway Segments DKS will update the study intersection and roadway level of service calculations previously prepared for the General Plan Update. These analyses involve eight general plan study intersections and 15 roadway segments. The analyses will rely on the revised year 2040 model outputs and utilize a growth increment approach. Results will be compared to those of the general plan preferred alternative to identify any impacts.

Note that DKS does not propose to collect new traffic volume data from which to calculate future year volumes for this task. DKS also does not propose updating any signalized

11.h
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update intersection timing plans for the analysis. The focus of the analysis would be changes to results obtained for the general plan.

Wildfire (D&B). While none of the sites currently proposed for rezoning are within a very high fire hazard severity zone, a few near Pacifica's southern border are in proximity to state responsibility areas with this designation. D&B will build upon analysis in the General Plan EIR to analyze CEQA requirements for wildfire.

Alternatives (Team). Our team will analyze up to two alternatives (including the No Project Alternative) that are capable of substantially reducing or eliminating project impacts while also attaining the key policy and planning objectives identified in the draft General Plan.

Although the analysis of alternatives will be less detailed than that for the project, sufficient analysis will be provided on the magnitude of each impact to understand the consequences and tradeoffs associated with each policy approach.

D&B will provide a qualitative analysis of traffic impacts for the alternatives. The No Project alternative would assume a future growth pattern and transportation improvements based on the current General Plan, and would include regional growth and transportation improvements outside of the City.
4-E: Other Required CEQA Sections (D&B). In addition to project impacts analysis and assessment of alternatives, we will address all standard required CEQA Sections as follows:

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. We will describe those significant impacts that, despite feasible mitigation, cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. We are familiar with different approaches to such impacts, their relationship to a potential statement of overriding considerations and findings, and that long-range planning efforts often require balancing such impacts with other social and economic benefits of the project.

Significant, Irreversible Environmental Changes. As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, the EIR will present information on the extent to which the project would result in an irreversible commitment of environmental resources. Based on our recent general plan EIR experience, such findings have become more relevant for general plans when considering non-renewable energy demand and climate change.

Cumulative Impacts. CEQA Guidelines define cumulative impacts as that consisting of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project and other projects causing related impacts. Cumulative analysis will focus on issues such as regional commuting and congestion, regional air quality, greenhouse gases, noise, and services and utilities, etc.

Growth-Inducing Impacts. As required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2, the EIR will assess the ways in which the sites rezoning could, either directly or indirectly, foster economic or population growth (e.g., job creation that substantially exceeds housing supply), the construction of additional housing, or the extension of arterials or infrastructure (e.g., sewer lines) in outlying areas that may contribute to or stimulate future growth.

Impacts Found Not to Be Significant. We will summarize potential environmental impact where no significant impacts were identified.

Meetings Products
N/A Admin Draft EIR (D&B, Team)
Electronic copies: PDF and Word

11.h
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update TASK 5: DRAFT EIR PREPARATION AND PUBLIC REVIEW
5-A: Draft EIR (Team). We will prepare the public review Draft EIR, incorporating changes in comments on the ADEIR from City staff, ideally in track changes with comments as needed. We satisfaction. Following any final revisions, we will produce the public review Draft EIR, and provide an electronic copy with Word and PDF versions.
5-B: Notice of Completion (D&B, Staff). D&B will prepare an electronic copy of the Notice of Completion (NOC) to accompany the required copies of the DEIR to the State Clearinghouse. The team assumes one round of City review and comment on the NOC and that City staff will be responsible for distributing the NOC and DEIR to the State Clearinghouse. 5-C: Notice of Availability (D&B, Staff). D&B will prepare an electronic copy of the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the DEIR for filing with the San Mateo County Clerk/Recorder. D&B assumes that one round of City review and comment on the NOA will be required. D&B will be responsible for adequately satisfying all filing and noticing requirements associated with the NOA in the manner required under CEQA and/or other applicable regulations, with the exception of public noticing in newspaper publications.

Meetings Products
N/A Screen Check Draft EIR (D&B, Team)
Electronic copies: PDF and Word
Public Review Draft EIR (D&B, Team)
Electronic copies: PDF and Word
Notice of Completion (D&B, Staff)
Notice of Availability (D&B, Staff)
TASK 6: FINAL EIR AND HEARINGS
6-A: Response to Comments and Final EIR (Team). Our team will prepare a Final EIR which will address all comments received on the Draft EIR. Changes to the Draft EIR text will be made in strikeout/underline formatting to permit easy tracking of all changes. The EIR will include appropriately detailed responses to all written and oral comments received. A list of letters, emails, and verbal responses will be keyed to detailed responses and/ or changes in EIR text as appropriate. Our team is very familiar with the level of detail of comments typically received from local agencies (e.g., Caltrans, C/CAG). Given the volume of General Plan EIR comments, the scope anticipates up to ~150 hours of staff time to prepare responses to comment and other Final EIR components. We anticipate that responses that are within the scope of work and budget will consist of relatively detailed explanations, elaborations, or clarifications of the data contained in the Draft EIR, as well as minor corrections of background information. However, if substantive new analysis or issues that could not have been anticipated or new alternatives, or substantial project changes need to be addressed, or if the effort exceeds the budgeted amount because of the number or complexity of responses, a contract amendment may be required.

We will provide an electronic copy of the administrative draft Final EIR in Word and PDF for City

11.h
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update staff review. Upon receipt of one set of consolidated staff comments, if possible in track changes review by City staff to ensure that City comments on the Draft EIR have been addressed to the We will then incorporate final changes and submit five (5) printed, bound copies, and Word and PDF versions of the Response to Comments and Final EIR to the City. 6-B: Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Plan (D&B, Team). To the extent that additional mitigation measures are necessary, we will closely coordinate with City staff on the development of mitigation measures and the required Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). If a MMRP is deemed necessary, all such measures would be assessed for feasibility and related to known or potential funding sources. Clear lines of responsibility for implementation would also be included, along with suggested timing. As the MMRP would be integral to tracking performance standards and achievement of programmatic mitigations, D&B would work closely with City staff on development of the MMRP and identification of appropriate tracking mechanisms.
6-C: Public Hearings (D&B). We will present the Draft and Final EIR at up to a combined three hearings/meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council. D&B will work with staff to decide how to best distribute the hearings/meetings. If staff chooses to conduct a Planning Commission meeting during the public review period, a second Planning Commission meeting will need to be held after the completion of the Draft and Final EIR for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on the Draft and Final EIR. The City Council will certify the EIR. 6-D: Notice of Determination (D&B). Upon certification of the Final EIR, staff will prepare a Notice of Determination for the Final EIR, which staff will be responsible for filing and distributing. 6-E: Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration (D&B). D&B will prepare Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as required under CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15093, respectively.

Meetings Products
Planning Commission and City Council
Hearings (up to 3)
Admin Draft Final EIR (D&B, Team)
Screen Check Draft Final EIR (D&B, Team)
Final EIR (D&B, Team)
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and
Reporting Plan, if needed (D&B)
Notice of Determination (D&B)
Findings and Statement of Overriding
Consideration

11.h
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

SCOPE OF WORK ASSUMPTIONS
Our Scope of Work and budget is based on the following assumptions:

Invoices. Invoices will be based on hourly costs, and will be submitted monthly.

Meeting Attendance. The budget assumes attendance at meetings as shown in the Scope of Work.

Costs of additional meeting attendance would be on a time and materials basis if requested; such costs are not included within the guaranteed maximum fee. Bi-weekly (every two weeks) coordination phone calls with staff will be held.

Final EIR Effort. Because the effort to prepare the Final EIR (Response to Comments on the Draft EIR) is not predictable in advance, our budget assumes that ~150 hours (100 hours of D&B time and 49 hours of subconsultant time) will be sufficient for this task. Additional effort will be additional services.

Consolidated Comments and Direction. City staff will provide a single set of consolidated comments on the review drafts of all documents.

Number of Review Drafts. Each product will be finalized following one round of staff review. Prior to publication, electronic Screencheck drafts of documents will be provided.

Electronic Documents. We will provide digital files of documents in Word and Adobe PDF formats, available by electronic transfer. Files will be provided both in high-resolution format for printing as well as low- . Maps will be provided in native file
formats (Illustrator or ArcGIS) upon conclusion of the project.

Printing. Printing is not assumed in our budget. We would be happy to print hard copies of documents for an additional cost.

Travel Expenses, Mailing Costs, and Other Direct Costs. The budget includes direct costs related to the project, including travel expenses, database searched, and other similar reimbursable items.

City staff will be responsible for any filing fee.

Reallocation by Task/Subconsultant. Dyett & Bhatia reserves the right to reallocate budget by task or consultant team member, provided the overall project budget is not affected.

Increased Costs Due to Delay. Should the project extend for more than two years for no fault of consultant, the budget for remaining work would be adjusted to account for change in costs/billing rates (based on change in San Francisco-Oakland-San Jos CPI from project start).

11.h
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

11.h
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

11.h
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

11.h
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

11.h
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment H: Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing Element Update 4891-5659-1477 v1 1

2.1 (“Compensation”) by $44,459, and extend the Term in section 3.1 (“Effective Date”) of the Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

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

2. Section 2.1 of the Agreement, “Compensation” is hereby amended to read as follows:

3. Section 3.1 of the Agreement, "Effective Date" is hereby amended to read as follows:

4. Agreement in Effect. Except as amended by this First Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

11.i
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment I: Amendment 1 to Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing 4891-5659-1477 v1 2

5. Counterpart Signatures. This First Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date set forth above.

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
By: Date
Rajeev Bhatia, President
Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners

11.i
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment I: Amendment 1 to Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing 4891
-5659-1477 v13

EXHIBITA

SCOPE OF WORK

11.i
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment I: Amendment 1 to Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing 4891
-5659-1477 v14

11.i
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment I: Amendment 1 to Dyett & Bhatia Agreement to Provide Environmental Review Services Related to 2023-2031 Housing

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/10/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Adopt Resolution Accepting Invoices from Michael Roberts Construction for emergency work on Beach Boulevard and Milagra Stormwater Outfall
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution accepting invoices (Attachment 1) from Michael Roberts Construction, Inc. for emergency repair work on Beach Boulevard and the Milagra Stormwater Outfall covered by the Proclamation of Local Emergency from the recent high tide/large wave event for a total cost of $269,854.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

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 tides that damaged coastal access amenities at Beach Boulevard and Rockaway Beach. Damage included destroying bollards, trash cans, public benches, light posts, protective railings and flood damage. 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 seawall to be repaired to protect public infrastructure. Finally, the event brought significant amounts of sand onto the streets, parking lots and on top of the rock revetment south of the pier that needed to be cleared for safe public access and to protect the Beach Blvd. promenade.

MRC provided emergency repair of the seawall hole at the end of December/beginning of January 2024. In March of 2024, after receiving an Emergency Coastal Development Permit (ECDP) from the Coastal Commission, the City hired MRC to remove the sand off Beach Boulevard and relocate the sand to the public access beach entrance at 700 Palmetto Ave. In addition, MRC 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. Following this work, MRC construction, under the ECDP requirements, removed sand from the top of the rock revetment south of the Pier and put this back on the beach to expose the seawall and allow 12 Packet Pg. 212
Pacifica City Council 2
June 10, 2024
for more protection of the Beach Boulevard promenade and homes in the area. All work was completed on a time and materials basis and MRC has received payment for the work.

As noted in 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. Since January 8, 2024, this emergency project has been included to the Council in a monthly Council Report for the Continuation of Local Emergency of the High Tide/Large Wave event.

Based on previously reviewed costs from three contractors for a seawall hole that developed before the high tide/large wave emergency in November of 2023, the City received labor and material costs from MRC construction and has applied these costs to the events related to the high tide/large wave emergency. MRC construction has the most experience in addressing coastal emergency issues within Pacifica and made themselves readily available to complete this work within the time frame required by the emergency and stipulated by the California Coastal Commission ECDP.

City staff monitored the MRC work and verified the time to complete the work and equipment, labor and material required to complete the emergency repairs/work. MRC submitted their time and materials receipts for all work along with a pre-agreed upon price for the rock replacement for the Milagra Outfall repair. The time and materials work pays MRC all their labor, equipment, and material used to complete the projects and allows for agreed upon markups to account for overhead and profit. Following tabulation of these costs, the final cost for the emergency seawall repair work was $71,990. Removal of the sand from Beach Boulevard and rock replacement for Milagra Outfall was $87,884 ($74,254 + $13,630). Tabulated costs for the removal of the sand from the rock revetment south of the pier was $109,980. Although working with contractors on a time and materials basis requires significant staff oversight, ultimately, using this method of payment allows for a fair price to the City and fair compensation to the contractor. Additionally, it allows the City to adjust the work as needed to account for field conditions that must be addressed during the time of the work.

Therefore, the City Manager recommends approval for a Resolution accepting MRC’s invoices for $87,884 for the emergency work to remove the sand from Beach Boulevard and replace/repair the rock around the Milagra Outfall, $109,980 to remove the sand from the top of the rock revetment south of the pier and $71,990 to repair the seawall hole for a total cost of $269,854. All repairs were required due to the high tide/large wave event from December 28, 2023.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

There is no alternative action on this item as the emergency work has been completed.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
• “Stewardship of City Infrastructure, street, and facilities - This work was to repair and maintain vital infrastructure on Beach Boulevard including the seawall and Milagra Stormwater Outfall and complete necessary sand removal.
12 Packet Pg. 213
Pacifica City Council 3
June 10, 2024
FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of this item is $269,854. $30,000 is available from Public Works FY 23-24 approved budget related to contractual services with the remainder of $239,854 coming from the City’s Disaster Accounting Fund 38.

Total Project Source
Engineering 01.700723.52800.0249.000 $ 30,000
Fund 38 $ 239,854
Total Source of Funds $ 269,854
Use of Funds
Construction Cost Beach Blvd Sand Removal $ (74,254)
Construction Cost Rock for Milagra Outfall $ (13,630)
Construction Cost Sand Removal Rock Revetment $ (109,980) Construction Cost Sand Removal Rock Revetment $ (71,990) Total Use of Funds $ (269,854)
Estimated Project End Balance $ 0
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1_MRC Invoices (PDF)
12 Packet Pg. 214
Pacifica City Council 4
June 10, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA ACCEPTING

INVOICES FROM MICHAEL ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION (MRC) FOR EMERGENCY WORK RELATED TO THE DECEMBER 28,2023 HIGH TIDE/LARGE WAVE EVENT FOR A TOTAL OF $269,854
WHEREAS, the City Council ratified a proclamation of local emergency related to the December 28, 2023 high tide/large wave event; and
WHEREAS, the City sustained significant damage related to the event including a 300 sf repair area behind the Beach Blvd. seawall, excessive sand thrown up on the Beach Blvd promenade that needed to be removed, sand that covered the top of the Beach Blvd. rock revetment south of the pier, and damage to the rock revetment around the Milagra storm drain Outfall; and
WHEREAS, time was of essence to repair the damage and remove the sand and as allowed by the Pacifica Municipal Code the City Manager was authorized to proceed at once with emergency repairs without plans, specification or giving notice to let bids; and WHEREAS, some of the emergency work required an Emergency Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission that was received in March of 2024; and
WHEREAS, MRC Construction has extensive coastal repair experience and completed the repairs on a time and materials basis for the seawall hole, sand removal on Beach Blvd. promenade, sand removal on the rock revetment south of the pier and purchase of new rocks and placement these at the Milagra Outfall for a total cost for all the repairs of $296,854.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to accept invoices from MRC construction for the emergency work related to the December 28, 2023 high tide/large wave event for a total cost of $269,854.
• • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held the 10th day of June, 2024,, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT
To:

From:

City of Pacifica, Public Works
Attn: Matt Kelly
170 Santa Maria Ave
Pacifica, CA 94044
Michael Roberts Construction Inc
1660 Dell Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008-6901
Contract For: Mechanical
Project:

Architect:
168-02-23
San Jose Beach Sdwlk Undermine
Pacifica, CA
Invoice: 16802001
Application No: 16802001
App. date: 1/31/2024
Period ending date: 1/31/2024
Project: 168-02-23
Contract date:

DISTRIBUTE TO:
□ OWNER
□ ARCHITECT
□ CONTRACTOR
a
a
A�Ja��l�a:.�. ��J!kiEeJj2.i�efS>_a, ��YMENT The undersigned Contractor certifies that to the best of the Contractor's knowledge, Information and belief the WOii< covered by this Application for Payment has been completed In accordance with the Contract Documents, that all amounts have been paid by the Contractor for Work for which previous Certificates for Payment were issued and payments received from the Owner, and that current payment shown herein Is now due.

Contract. Continuation Sheet attached.

1. ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM

2. Net Change By Change Orders

3. CONTRACT SUM TO DATE (Line 1 t 2)

4. TOTAL COMPLETED & STORED TO DATE

5. RETAINAGE:
s11,900.001
$0.001
$71,990.001
$71,990.001
a. O % of Completed Wor1<
TOTAL RETAINAGE:
�----·
so.001
1 ....--------so.ool
:=, _ =======; 6. TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE $71,990.00!

7. LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT
(Line 6 From Prbr CERTIFICATE)

8. CURRENT PAYMENT DUE (Line 6 Less Line 7)

9. BALANCE TO FINISH INCLUDING RETAINAGE
(Line 3 Less Line 6)
Changes approved in previous months by
Owner
Total approved this Month
NET CHANGES by Change Order
so.001
$71,990.00!
$0.001
Contractor:

By:

Date:

State Of County Of
January 31, 2024
Subscribed and sv.orn to before me this ___ day of _________ _ The above personally appeared before me, the undersigned notary republic and provided satisfactory evidence of identification as to the person who signed this document in my presence and swore or affirmed to me that the contents of this document are truthful and accurate to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.

Notary Public: My commissbn expires:

ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT
In accordance with the Contract Documents, based on on-site observations and the data comprising the application, the Architect certifies to the Owner that to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief the Work has progressed as Indicated, the quality of the Work Is in accordance with the Contract Documents, and the Contractor is entitied to payment of the AMOUNT CERTIFIED.

AMOUNT CERTIFIED: .......................... $-----
(Attach explanation if amount certified c/jffers from the amount applied for. lnllial all figures o,; this Application and on the ConUnuatlon Sheet thet ere changed to conform to the amount certified.)
ARCHITECT:

By: ----------------- Date:

This Ceraficate is not negotiable. The AMOUNT CERTIFIED is payable only to the Contracto, named herein. Issuance, payment and acceptance of payment are without prejudice to any rights of the Owner or Contractor under this Contract.

ATTACHMENT 1

12.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment 1_MRC Invoices (5679 : Resolution - Accept Invoices from MRC for Emergency Repair Work)

12.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment 1_MRC Invoices (5679 : Resolution - Accept Invoices from MRC for Emergency Repair Work)

12.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment 1_MRC Invoices (5679 : Resolution - Accept Invoices from MRC for Emergency Repair Work)

APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT
To: Project: 168-04-24
Sharp Park
Pacifica, CA
From:

Architect:

City of Pacifica, Public Works
Attn: Matt Kelly
170 Santa Maria Ave
Pacifica, CA 94044
Michael Roberts Construction Inc
1660 Dell Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008-6901
Contract For: Mechanical

CONTRACTOR'S APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT
Application is made for payment, as shown above, in connection with the Contract. Continuation Sheet attached.

1. ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM $74,254.601

2. Net Change By Change Orders $0.001

3. CONTRACT SUM TO DATE {Line 1 ± 2) $74,254.601

4. TOTAL COMPLETED & STORED TO DATE $74,254.601

5. RETAINAGE:
a. 0 % of Completed Work
TOTAL RETAINAGE :
$0.001----- ---------'· 1
=========
$o
=
o.
=
ol
1 6. TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE $74,254.aoi

7. LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT
(Line 6 From Prior CERTIFICATE)

8. CURRENT PAYMENT DUE (Line 6 Less Line 7)

9. BALANCE TO FINISH INCLUDING RETAINAGE
(Line 3 Less Line 6)

CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY ADDITIONS
Changes approved in previous months by
Owner
Total approved this Month
TOTALS
NET CHANGES by Change Order
$0.001
$74,254.601
$0.00J

DEDUCTIONS
DISTRIBUTE TO:

Invoice: 16804001
Application No: 168-04-001 □
App. date: 4/12/2024 □
Period ending date: 4/12/2024 □
Project: 168-04-24 □
Contract date: □
The undersigned Contractor certifies that to the best of the Contractor's knowledge, information and belief the Work covered by this Application for Payment has been completed in accordance with the Contract Documents, that all amounts have been paid by the Contractor for Work for which previous Certificates for Payment were issued and payments received from the Owner, and that current payment shown herein is now due.

Contractor:

By:

Date: April 12, 2024
State Of County Of
OWNER

ARCHITECT

CONTRACTOR
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ___ day of __________ _ The above personally appeared before me, the undersigned notary republic and provided satisfactory evidence of identification as to the person who signed this document in my presence and swore or affirmed to me that the contents of this document are truthful and accurate to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.

Notary Public: My commission expires:

ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT
In accordance with the Contract Documents, based on on-site observations and the data comprising the application, the Architect certifies to the Owner that to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief the Work has progressed as indicated, the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents, and the Contractor is entitled to payment of the AMOUNT CERTIFIED.

AMOUNT CERTIFIED: .......................... $-----
(Attach explanation if amount certified differs from the amount applied for. Initial all figures or, this Application and on the Continuation Sheet that are changed to conform to the amount certified.)
ARCHITECT:

By: ------------------ Date:

This Certificate is not negotiable. The AMOUNT CERTIFIED is payable only to the Contracto1 named herein. Issuance, payment and acceptance of payment are without prejudice to any rights of the Owner or Contractor under this Contract.

12.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment 1_MRC Invoices (5679 : Resolution - Accept Invoices from MRC for Emergency

12.a
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: Attachment 1_MRC Invoices (5679 : Resolution - Accept Invoices from MRC for Emergency

12.a
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Attachment 1_MRC Invoices (5679 : Resolution - Accept Invoices from MRC for Emergency

APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT
3/20/2024
App. date:

Period ending date:
16803001
To:

From:
3/21/2024
168-03-001
City of Pacifica, Public Works
Attn: Matt Kelly
170 Santa Maria Ave
Pacifica, CA 94044
Michael Roberts Construction Inc
1660 Dell Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008-6901
Invoice:

Project: 168-03-23
Contract date:

OWNER

CONTRACTOR

ARCHITECT
DISTRIBUTE TO: Architect:

Contract For: Mechanical
Application No:

Project:

Milagra Outfall
168-01-23
Pacifica, CA
$0.00
$0.00
$13,630.00
$0.00
$13,630.00
$13,630.00
$0.00
$13,630.00
Notary Public: My commission expires:

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of _______________________ $13,630.00
NET CHANGES by Change Order
TOTALS
Total approved this Month
Changes approved in previous months by
Owner

CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY ADDITIONS DEDUCTIONS
State Of County Of

CONTRACTOR'S APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT

1. ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM

2. Net Change By Change Orders

4. TOTAL COMPLETED & STORED TO DATE

3. CONTRACT SUM TO DATE (Line 1 ± 2)
Application is made for payment, as shown above, in connection with the Contract. Continuation Sheet attached.

5. RETAINAGE:
a. 0 % of Completed Work

6. TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE

7. LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT
(Line 6 From Prior CERTIFICATE)

8. CURRENT PAYMENT DUE (Line 6 Less Line 7)

9. BALANCE TO FINISH INCLUDING RETAINAGE
(Line 3 Less Line 6)
The undersigned Contractor certifies that to the best of the Contractor's knowledge, information and belief the Work covered by this Application for Payment has been completed in accordance with the Contract Documents, that all amounts have been paid by the Contractor for Work for which previous Certificates for Payment were issued and payments received from the Owner, and that current payment shown herein is now due.

Date: March 21, 2024 By:

This Certificate is not negotiable. The AMOUNT CERTIFIED is payable only to the Contractor named herein. Issuance, payment and acceptance of payment are without prejudice to any rights of the Owner or Contractor under this Contract.

By: Date:

ARCHITECT: (Attach explanation if amount certified differs from the amount applied for. Initial all figures on this Application and on the Continuation Sheet that are changed to conform to the amount certified.)
AMOUNT CERTIFIED: ..........................$
In accordance with the Contract Documents, based on on-site observations and the data comprising the application, the Architect certifies to the Owner that to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief the Work has progressed as indicated, the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents, and the Contractor is entitled to payment of the AMOUNT CERTIFIED.

ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT
Contractor:

The above personally appeared before me, the undersigned notary republic and provided satisfactory evidence of identification as to the person who signed this document in my presence and swore or affirmed to me that the contents of this document are truthful and accurate to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.
$0.00
TOTAL RETAINAGE :

12.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment 1_MRC Invoices (5679 : Resolution - Accept Invoices from MRC for Emergency Invoice: 168-03-001 Draw: Detail Page 2 of 3 Pages
Retainage
Balance
Balance
To
Finish
%
Comp
Total Completed
And Stored
To Date
Materials
Stored & Used
Prior + Current
This
Period
From Previous
Application(s)
Schedule
of
Values
Item ID Description of Work
Project: 168-03-23 / Milagra Outfall 16803001 3/20/2024 Period Ending Date:

CONTINUATION SHEET (REQUEST FOR PAYMENT DETAIL )
Work Completed
01-000 Sand & Rock Work 13,630.00 13,630.00 13,630.00 100.00 GRAND TOTAL: 13,630.00 13,630.00 13,630.00 100.00

12.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment 1_MRC Invoices (5679 : Resolution - Accept Invoices from MRC for Emergency

APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT
To:

From:

City of Pacifica, Public Works
Attn: Matt Kelly
170 Santa Maria Ave
Pacifica, CA 94044
Michael Roberts Construction Inc
1660 Dell Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008-6901
Contract For: Mechanical
Project:

Architect:
168-05-24
Sharp Park Beach Sand
Pacifica, CA

CONTRACTOR'S APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT
Application is made for payment, as shown above, in connection with the Contract. Continuation Sheet attached.

1. ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM $109,980.321

2. Net Change By Change Orders $0.001

3. CONTRACT SUM TO DATE (Line 1 ± 2) $109,980.321

4. TOTAL COMPLETED & STORED TO DATE $109,980.321

5. RETAINAGE:
a. 0 % of Completed Work
TOTAL RETAINAGE:
$0.00 -------
1 ----
:::

I
========
$0
=
.o
:::::
ol
1 $109,980.32 6. TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE 1

7. LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT
(Line 6 From Prior CERTIFICATE}

8. CURRENT PAYMENT DUE (Line 6 Less Line 7)

9. BALANCE TO FINISH INCLUDING RETAINAGE
(Line 3 Less Line 6)

CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY ADDITIONS
Changes approved in previous months by
Owner
Total approved this Month
TOTALSNET CHANGES by Change Order
$0.001
$109,980.32!
$0.001

DEDUCTIONS
Invoice: 16805001
Application No: 168-05-001
App. date: 5/29/2024
Period ending date: 5/31/2024
Project: 168-05-24
Contract date:

DISTRIBUTE TO:
□ OWNER
□ ARCHITECT
□ CONTRACTOR
□
□
The undersigned Contractor certifies that to the best of the Contractor's knowledge, information and belief the Work covered by this Application for Payment has been completed in accordance with the Contract Documents, that all amounts have been paid by the Contractor for Work for which previous Certificates for Payment were issued and payments received from the Owner, and that current payment shown herein is now due.

Contractor:

By: Date: May 29, 2024
State Of County Of
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ___ day of _________ _ The above personally appeared before me, the undersigned notary republic and provided satisfactory evidence of identification as to the person who signed this document in my presence and swore or affirmed to me that the contents of this document are truthful and accurate to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.

Notary Public: My commission expires:

ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT
In accordance with the Contract Documents, based on on-site observations and the data comprising the application, the Architect certifies to the Owner that to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief the Work has progressed as indicated, the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents, and the Contractor is entitled to payment of the AMOUNT CERTI FIE□.

AMOUNT CERTIFIED: .......................... $ -----
(Attach explanation if amount certified differs from the amount applied for. Initial all figures or, this Application and on the Continuation Sheet that are changed to conform to the amount certified.)
ARCHITECT:

By: ------------------ Date:

12.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment 1_MRC Invoices (5679 : Resolution - Accept Invoices from MRC for Emergency

12.a
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Attachment 1_MRC Invoices (5679 : Resolution - Accept Invoices from MRC for Emergency

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/10/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of (1) a Resolution Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 for By-District Elections to Elect One Member of the City Council from District 1 and One Member of the City Council from District 4, Each for a Full Four-Year Term; Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City's General Municipal Election with the November 5, 2024 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services; Adopting Regulations Pertaining to the Candidates’ Statement of Qualifications; and authorize the City Manager to Execute the Service Agreement for Election Services.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 for By-District Elections to Elect One Member of the City Council from District 1 and One Member of the City Council from District 4, Each for a Full Four-Year Term; Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City's General Municipal Election with the November 5, 2024 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services; Adopting Regulations Pertaining to the Candidates’ Statement of Qualifications and authorize the City Manager to Execute the Service Agreement for Election Services.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Resolution Calling Election
On December 17, 2018, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 839- C.S., establishing a district-based system for the election of members of the City Council by five districts, establishing the boundaries and identification number of each district and establishing the election order of each district. This ordinance added Chapter 9 “District Elections” to Title 2 of the Pacifica Municipal Code. By this action, the City of Pacifica changed from an at-large election system to a by district election system for the election of City Council members. The election sequence established by Ordinance No. 839-C.S. calls for the election of City Council members for Districts 1 and 4 in the general municipal election held in November 2020 and Districts 2, 3 and 5 in the general municipal election held in November 2022. On March 28, 2022, after having conducted public hearings for redistricting based on the 2020 U.S. Census data pursuant to California Elections Code 21600 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 874-C.S., to repeal and replace Pacifica Municipal Code Section 2-9.02 “City Council Districts Established” and adopting City Council District map and boundaries in Council District Map 505b. There was no change made to district election sequencing.
13 Packet Pg. 226
Pacifica City Council 2
June 10, 2024
The City of Pacifica will conduct an election on November 5, 2024 for the purpose of electing one City Council member for a full term of four years to District 1 and one City Council member for a full term of four years to District 4. This will be the second by-district elections in these Districts. Elections Code Section 10002 permits the City Council to request the County to provide election services and Elections Code Sections 10400 and 10403 permit the City Council to request that Pacifica's local election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election.

The attached Resolution accomplishes these actions.

Pursuant to Elections Code section 13307 the governing body of any local agency must adopt regulations pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the Candidates’ Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) and that those regulations be provided to candidates. The proposed Resolution adopts such regulations in compliance with Elections Code section 13307.

The nomination period opens Monday, July 15, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. and closes at 1:30 p.m., on Friday, August 9, 2024. In the event an incumbent does not file by 1:30 p.m. on August 9, the filing period will be extended to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 14, 2022.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Staff does not recommend any alternative options.

FISCAL IMPACT:

An estimated cost of $175,000 to provide election services consolidated with the Statewide General Election, publishing of election-related notices and inclusion of potential ballot measures for the November 5, 2024 general municipal election has been included in the 2024- 25 Proposed Budget.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Service Agreement for the Provision of Election Services with San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder (PDF) Attachment B: Ordinance No. 874-CS with City Council District Map (PDF) 13 Packet Pg. 227
Pacifica City Council 3
June 10, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. ___-2024
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA (1) CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE FOR HOLDING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2024

FOR BY-DISTRICT ELECTIONS TO ELECT ONE MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM DISTRICT 1 AND ONE MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM DISTRICT 4 EACH FOR A FULL FOUR-YEAR TERM; (2) REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO TO CONSOLIDATE THE CITY’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION AND TO PROVIDE ELECTION SERVICES; (3) ADOPTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CANDIDATES’ STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS; AND (4) AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SERVICE

AGREEMENT FOR ELECTION SERVICES
WHEREAS, in 2018, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 839-C.S., which established a by-district election process and established five districts pursuant to California Elections Code 10010 and California Government Code section 34886 for the election of each member of the City Council by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2022, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 874-C.S., repealing and replacing Pacifica Municipal Code section 2-9.02 “City Council Districts Established” and adopting district boundary Map 505b following the 2020 U.S.

Census and making no change to district election sequencing; and WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica held its first district elections for City Council in November 2020 for two out of the five City of Pacifica districts (Districts 1 and 4), and the remaining three districts (Districts 2, 3 and 5) to had their first district elections in November 2022; and
WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo will be conducting a statewide general election in Pacifica on November 5, 2024; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Pacifica to consolidate the City election with the County election to be conducted on November 5, 2024; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10002 of the Elections Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County to permit the County Election Department to provide election services that normally are provided to the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California provides that the governing body of any local agency adopt regulations pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the Candidates’ Statement of Qualifications and that those regulations be provided to candidates.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
13 Packet Pg. 228
Pacifica City Council 4
June 10, 2024
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby requests the consolidation of the General Municipal Election for election of the offices of one (1) Member of the City Council from District 1 and one (1) Member of the City Council from District 4, each with a full term of four (4) years with the statewide general election.

Section 2. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Pacifica, California, on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing certain Members of the City Council as follows:

Election of one (1) Member from District 1 for a full term of four years; and Election of one (1) Member from District 4 for a full term of four years.

Section 3. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law.

Section 4. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to contract with the County of San Mateo Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.

Section 5. That the vote centers for the election shall be open at seven o’clock a.m. on the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o’clock p.m. of the same day when the vote centers shall be closed, pursuant to Elections Code section 10242, except as provided in sections 14212, 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California.

Section 6. That pursuant to the requirements of section 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal election with the Statewide General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 for the purpose of electing one (1) Member of the City Council from District 1 and one (1) Member of the City Council from District 4, each for a full term of four years.

Section 7. That the City of Pacifica requests the services of the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County to permit the County Elections Official to conduct said General Municipal election and to consolidate such election. The County Elections Official is requested to provide all necessary election services and to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election.

Section 8. That the City Council acknowledges that the consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by section 10418 of the Elections Code.

Section 9. That the City of Pacifica shall reimburse the County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a service agreement for the provision of election services between the City of Pacifica and the County of San Mateo, in a form approved by the City Attorney as necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution.

Section 10. That the City Clerk is directed to forward without delay to the Board of Supervisors and the County Election Department, each a certified copy of this resolution. 13 Packet Pg. 229
Pacifica City Council 5
June 10, 2024
Section 11. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

Section 12. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.

Section 13. The following are regulations hereby adopted for candidates for elective office pertaining to candidate’s statements submitted to the voters at an election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 and at future elections:

A. GENERAL PROVISIONS. That pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California, each candidate for elective office to be voted for at an election held in the City of Pacifica on November 5, 2024 and thereafter may voluntarily prepare a candidate’s statement of an appropriate form provided to the City Clerk.

The statement may include the name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than 200 words for the candidate’s education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself or herself. The statement shall not include party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. The statement shall be filed in typewritten form in the office of the City Clerk at the time the candidate’s nomination papers are filed. The statement may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 p.m. of the next working day after the close of the nomination period.

B. FOREIGN LANGUAGE POLICY
i. Pursuant to the Federal Voting Rights Act, candidates’ statements will be translated into all languages required by the County of San Mateo. The County is required to translate candidate’s statements into the following languages:

Spanish, Chinese and Filipino.
ii. The County shall:
a. Have all candidate’s statements translated into the languages specified in (B) (i) above.
b. Print all translations of all candidate statements in voter information guides. c. The County will mail voter information guides and candidates statements to all voters in Spanish, Chinese and Filipino or the County will mail separate voter information guides and candidates’ statements in Spanish, Chinese or Filipino to only those voters who are on the county voter file as having requested a voter information guide in a particular language. The County will make the voter information guides and candidates’ statements in the required languages available at all vote centers, on the County’s website, and in the Election Official’s office.

C. PAYMENT
i. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of translating the candidate’s statement into the foreign languages specified in (B) (i) above, pursuant to Federal and/or State law.
ii. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate’s statement in the voter pamphlet, pursuant to Federal and/or State law. iii. The City Clerk shall:
a. Require each candidate filing a statement to pay $300.00 (three hundred dollars) to the City of Pacifica at the time each candidate’s nomination papers 13 Packet Pg. 230
Pacifica City Council 6
June 10, 2024
are filed as a condition of having his or her statement included in the voter pamphlet. This sum represents each candidate’s estimated pro rata share of the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the candidate’s statements filed pursuant to this section, including costs incurred as a result of complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended). b. Compute the actual costs of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the candidate’s statements filed pursuant to this section, including costs incurred as a result of complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended) and compute each candidate’s pro rata share of that total cost. c. The $300.00 estimated pro rata share is an approximation of the actual cost, which varies from one election to another election and may be significantly more or less than the estimate, depending on the actual number of candidates filing statements. Accordingly, the clerk is not bound by the estimate. In the event of underpayment, the clerk may require the candidate to pay, on a pro rata basis, the balance of cost incurred. In the event of overpayment, the clerk shall pro rate the excess amount among the candidates and refund the excess amount paid within 30 days of the election.

D. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
No candidate will be permitted to include additional materials in the sample ballot package.

E. The City Clerk shall provide each candidate or the candidate’s representative a copy of this Resolution at the time nominating petitions are issued.

Section 14. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter into the book of original resolutions.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 10th day of June 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 13 Packet Pg. 231
(the “Municipality”) and San Mateo County Chief
Elections Officer & Assessor – County Clerk – Recorder (the “Chief Elections Officer”); WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable that the Chief Elections Officer be retained for the purpose of conducting an election, described in more detail below, for the Municipality; and WHEREAS, the Chief Elections Officer has been asked by the Municipality to conduct an election on (the “Election”).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS:

SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE MUNICIPALITY:

SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER:
1) The Chief Elections Officer will select the sample and official ballot printer(s) and translators. 2) The Chief Elections Officer will prepare and deliver all election information to the printers and translators. 3) The Chief Elections Officer will determine the appropriate translation and transliteration of all pertinent documents.
4) The Chief Elections Officer will issue, receive and process vote by mail ballots. 5) The Chief Elections Officer will set up ADA compliant Vote Centers, publish any required notices and conduct the Election.
6) The Chief Elections Officer will provide services for any official recount or election contest, if applicable. 7) The Chief Elections Officer will conduct all aspects of the Canvass of Votes Cast. Pursuant to Section 10262 of the Elections Code, the Chief Elections Officer will submit a Certificate of Chief Elections Officer to the Municipality’s governing body certifying the results of the Election.

SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF ELECTION SERVICES

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND

SAN MATEO COUNTY CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER & ASSESSOR-COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER This Service Agreement for the Provision of Election Services (“Agreement”), entered into this __10th__ day of __June______, 2024, by and between the City of Pacifica 1) Within the time frame set by statute, the Municipality will request the Board of Supervisors, through the Chief Elections Officer, to conduct an election relating to the Municipality on November 5, 2024 and will request the services of the Chief Elections Officer in relation to the Election. 2) The Municipality will publish the Notice of Election and the Notice to File Declarations of Candidacy for the offices to be voted on and/or the Notice to File Arguments For or Against any measure. 3) The Municipality will submit to the Chief Elections Officer the offices to be voted on and the measure ballot questions by 88 days prior to the Election. The Municipality will submit to the Chief Elections Officer the names and ballot destinations of the candidates to appear upon the ballot by 81 days prior to the Election. 4) The Municipality will prepare and deliver to the Chief Elections Officer the ballot pamphlet information containing, as applicable, candidate designations and statements, ballot measure(s), tax rate statement(s), impartial analyses, arguments for or against measures and rebuttals thereto. 5) The Municipality will review and sign off on the official ballot wording for measures. 6) The Municipality will complete any other non-delegable tasks required by law in relation to the Election. 7) The Municipality shall maintain records/maps regarding the boundaries of the Municipality and will notify the Chief Elections Officer of any changes/additions to those boundaries by 125 days prior to the Election.

November 5, 2024

13.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment A: Service Agreement for the Provision of Election Services with San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer & 8) The Chief Elections Officer will conduct other various and miscellaneous election-related activities directly required to conduct the Election itself. To the extent that the Municipality has obligations under law to perform various duties that relate to the Election beyond those directly involved with conducting the Election, those duties remain the responsibility of the Municipality. If the Municipality wishes to have any such duties performed by the Chief Elections Officer, the parties must mutually agree in advance in writing to have the Chief Elections Officer perform such duties. By way of example only, if the Municipality is required to send certain notices or adopt resolutions relating to the Election, those duties remain duties of the Municipality.

TERMS:

MUNICIPALITY
Signature:

Print Name:

Title:

COUNTY
Signature:

Print Name:

Title:
_____________________________________ Date:_____________ _Kevin S. Woodhouse___________________
_City Manager, City of Pacifica______
_____________________________________ Date: _____________ _____________________________________
_____________________________________
This Agreement shall be in effect for the performance of all services incident to the preparation and conduct of the Election to be held on November 5, 2024, including before and after said Election date.

In the event the Chief Elections Officer is unable to perform services required under this Agreement as a result of employer/employee relation conditions, vendor conditions, the unavailability of Federal, State, or County funds, COVID-19-related limitations, and/or other conditions beyond the control of the Chief Elections Officer, the Chief Elections Officer will be relieved of all obligations under this Agreement. The Chief Elections Officer may terminate this Agreement after giving 72 hours written notice, at which time the Chief Elections Officer will be relieved of all obligations under this Agreement.

This Agreement can be terminated by the Municipality upon 30 days written notice.

COST FOR SERVICES
In consideration of the performance of services and supplies provided by the Chief Elections Officer, including 1) any and all costs incurred during a recount or election contest that are not reimbursed by the voter requesting the recount or filing the contest as specified in the Elections Code and 2) any other costs associated with the Election, such as return postage costs and costs for ensuring voter accessibility, the Municipality shall pay to the Chief Elections Officer a sum equal to the full cost of the Election, including all such services, supplies, and other costs.

The Chief Elections Officer shall send an itemized invoice to the Municipality for all services provided pursuant to this Agreement after the Election is conducted and all related costs are determined. Payment on the full amount of the invoice shall be due and the Municipality shall submit payment to the County of San Mateo within forty-five (45) days of the date of the invoice (the “Due Date”). If the amount is not paid in full within this time, interest shall accrue monthly at a rate of 0.25% per month (equivalent to 3% annually) on the unpaid balance starting at the Due Date.

Thereafter, invoices will be sent and shall be payable within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice, with interest being added each month for any unpaid balance.

13.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment A: Service Agreement for the Provision of Election Services with San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer & ORDINANCE NO. 874-C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 9, “DISTRICT ELECTIONS” BY REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTION 2-9.02, “CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED” OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES BASED ON 2020 CENSUS DATA
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 839-C.S. on December 17, 2018, to provide for the election of members of the City Council of the City of Pacifica bydistrict in five single-member districts and establish district boundaries for five City Council districts as defined in the voting district map 505b and set forth the election sequence of the five districts; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code 21601, following each federal decennial census for a city whose council is already elected using district-based elections, the council shall, by ordinance or resolution, adopt boundaries for all of the council districts of the city so that the council districts shall be substantially equal in population as required by the United States Constitution; and
WHEREAS, California Elections Code section 21600 et seq., requires, among other things, that following each decennial federal census, and using that census as a basis, the city council by ordinance or resolution, adopt boundaries for any or all of the council districts of the city so that the council districts shall be substantially equal in population as required by the United States Constitution (“redistricting”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code 21607.1(a), at a regular meeting held on January 10, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing where the public was invited to provide input regarding the composition of the City’s voting districts before any draft maps were drawn; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, at regular meetings held on February 14, 2022 and February 28, 2022, the City Council held public hearings pursuant to California Elections Code 21607, where the public was invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps that had been released at least seven (7) days before each meeting, and the City Council considered and discussed the same; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on February 28, 2022, the City Council discussed the draft maps and selected the final voting district map; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on March 14, 2022, the City Council affirmed the final voting district map and set forth the introduction of this Ordinance for a first reading; and

13.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment B: Ordinance No. 874-CS with City Council District Map (5682 : Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of Nov. 5, 2024 ORDINANCE NO. 874-C.S.

WHEREAS, in compliance with Elections Code section 21607.1(b)(c) and (d), all of the public hearings were commenced at a fixed time after 5:30 p.m., on a weekday, and were accessible to persons with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with Elections Code section 21608(a), the Council took steps to encourage residents, including those in underrepresented communities and nonEnglish speaking communities, to participate in the redistricting public review process. These steps include, but are not limited to the following:
• Public Hearing Notice for the January 10, 2022 public hearing was posted at City Hall on January 4, 2022 and published in the Pacifica Tribune on January 5, 2022.
• Following the January 10, 2022 public hearing, public mapping kits in English and Spanish were posted to the City website and available at City Hall. • Public Hearing Notice for the February 14, 2022 Public Hearing #2 was posted at City Hall on January 21, 2022 and published in the Pacifica Tribune on January 26, 2022 and February 2, 2022.
• Public Hearing Notice for the February 28, 2022 Public Hearing #3 was posted at City Hall on February 11, 2022 and published in the Pacifica Tribune on February 16, 2022 and February 23, 2022, published in Spanish in El Reportero on February 25, 2022 and published in Chinese in the World Journal on February 24, 2022.
• Information on redistricting and soliciting public input and submission of draft maps for the redistricting process were published in the City of Pacifica’s “Connect With Pacifica” weekly e-newsletter and distributed by email on January 21, 2022, January 28, 2022 and February 4, 2022. • Information on redistricting and soliciting public input and submission of draft maps in reference to the February 14, 2022 Public Hearing was also published to the City’s NextDoor and Facebook social media feeds on February 2, 2022. • Draft maps for consideration at the February 28, 2022 Public Hearing were published on the City’s Redistricting webpage
(www.cityofpacifica.org/Redistricting) on February 20, 2022.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code section 21608(c), the City established a redistricting website which provided a schedule with the date, time, and location for any public hearing relating to redistricting on the internet at least five days before the hearing and also provided access to redistricting data and for the purposes of drawing draft maps and paper mapping tools; and
WHEREAS, a fourth public hearing is scheduled to be held at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 14, 2022, to review and consider additional public input related to the

13.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment B: Ordinance No. 874-CS with City Council District Map (5682 : Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of Nov. 5, 2024 ORDINANCE NO. 874-C.S.
selection of final district map and the introduction of this proposed ordinance with adoption of the ordinance anticipated to take place at a regular meeting on March 28, 2022; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code section 21608(d)(1), all draft maps considered by the Council were published on the City’s redistricting website at least seven days before being considered for adoption as a final map by the Council.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are a true and accurate and are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Determination.

Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review as the adoption of this Ordinance does not qualify as a “project” pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15320, 15378 and 15061(b)(3) since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the Ordinance would cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Section 3. Code Amendment. Title 2, “Administration”, Chapter 9, “District Elections” is amended by repealing Section 2-9.02, “City Council Districts” in its entirety and replacing it to read as follows:
“2-9.02. - City Council Districts.

Five City Council districts are hereby adopted in the City of Pacifica. The boundaries and identifying number of each district for the City Council elections shall be as described on the Council District Map 505b included and incorporated below:

13.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment B: Ordinance No. 874-CS with City Council District Map (5682 : Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of Nov. 5, 2024 ORDINANCE NO. 874-C.S.

Section 4. Authorization for Technical Adjustments. The City’s demographer, National Demographics Corporation (NDC), is hereby authorized to make non-substantive technical

13.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment B: Ordinance No. 874-CS with City Council District Map (5682 : Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of Nov. 5, 2024 ORDINANCE NO. 874-C.S.
adjustments to Map 505b to finalize the Map as necessary and to prepare a GIS shapefile which identifies the Council district boundaries consistent with Map 505b as well as census blocks and tracts, as may be necessary, in a form approved by the City Clerk and City Attorney.

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The Council of the City of Pacifica hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.

Section 6. Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption as provided by Government Code section 36937.

Section 7. Publication; Certification.

The City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law. The City Clerk is also authorized and directed to file this Ordinance, Map 505b, the census blocks and tracts, the GIS shapefile, and any other documents, as may be necessary, to effectuate the adoption of Map 505b with the San Mateo County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor-Registrar of Voters. In the case of any parcels that are split across Council district boundaries, the County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor-Registrar of Voters shall apply a uniform methodology to adjust the boundary line to a border of the parcel without materially affecting the population within each affected district.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of March 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers: Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, O’Neill, Vaterlaus.

NOES, Councilmembers: n/a
ABSENT, Councilmembers: n/a
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers: n/a
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ ___________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

13.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment B: Ordinance No. 874-CS with City Council District Map (5682 : Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of Nov. 5, 2024

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/10/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report and other associated approvals for 310-330 Esplanade Avenue Infrastructure Preservation Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that Council moves to adopt Resolution approving the following:
(1) Certify Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for 310-330 Esplanade Avenue Infrastructure Preservation Project (“Project”);
(2) Approve Project as defined and analyzed in the EIR and proceed therewith by applying to the California Coastal Commission for permits/approvals; (3) Adopt CEQA Findings and Mitigation and Monitoring Report (“MMRP”); and (4) Direct City staff to file Notice of Determination.

STAFF CONTACT:

Roland Yip, Deputy Director of Public Works - City Engineer (650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Stefanie Cervantes, AICP, Senior Planner
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Over the past several decades, the northern coastline of Pacifica has seen progressive coastal bluff erosion threatening man-made development. The combination of poorly cemented bluff sand and high energy waves cause the bluff sand to be eroded, resulting in a loss of land, laterally. This land loss puts the bluff edges closer to public infrastructure, including roads and utilities. The erosion is generally episodic in nature. Some winters, there would be no erosion, while some winters that see strong storm events may experience significant erosion (>10 feet).

As a result of the erosion occurring in 2015-16 winter season and subsequent removal of apartment buildings at 310, 320, and 330 Esplanade, the 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation project was born with the goal of maintaining existing infrastructure and utility services in the area.

On June 30th, 2017, staff received notification from California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) that the Pacifica's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) grant application was 14 Packet Pg. 239
Pacifica City Council 2
June 10, 2024
formally approved for the first phase (Design & Environmental) of the 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project.

On September 24th, 2018, the City approved an agreement with Cotton Shires & Associates (CSA) along with their subconsultants to analyze, design, and assist in permitting a project to maintain Esplanade Ave. The concept chosen for this project is a vertical seawall along the toe of the bluff with the upper portion of bluff remaining unarmored and allowing it to recline to a more stable slope.

After preliminary design work was completed, it became clear the cost of a vertical shotcrete seawall with sheet pile scour protection (preferred alternative) was going to cost significantly more than originally estimated by CSA. Staff began to consider other funding options while continuing technical studies needed for the preferred alternative to be permitted and designed appropriately were progressed. In early 2020, the project was ready to be submitted to the California Coastal Commission and undergo their CEQA equivalent process. However, due to budgeting issues, the project was put on hold. At the time it was placed on hold it was unclear if the project would be continued to be managed by City Staff or if the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would take over the project under their Continuing Authorities Program (CAP 103).

City Staff then worked with USACE as well as with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the CalOES to see where additional funding could be secured. After several meetings with USACE and FEMA, it became clear funding the project through FEMA would provide the project higher funding than through USACE if FEMA was to award additional HMGP funding. City Staff has continued to work with FEMA/CalOES on allocating additional HMGP and appears to be close to consensus with the project scope and funding. Staff is hopeful that it will receive additional funding for the project. Additionally, through support from Assemblymember Kevin Mullin, the City was able to receive a total of $7.75 million in funding through the State of California budget process in the summer of 2021 for this and other projects.

As a result of this funding, City staff determined that the Project could proceed and began to prepare the permitting application and technical reports in the Fall of 2021. After permits were ready for submission, City planning staff reanalyzed the project and found the City should be the lead agency for purposes of CEQA instead of the California Coastal Commission but the Coastal Commission retains jurisdiction to approve the actual Project. City staff and the consultant team have worked through the CEQA process and released a Notice of Preparation in October 2022, with a public scoping meeting held in November of 2022. A Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) (Attachment B) was released in October 2023. During the public review process, the City received five (5) comment letters from Federal and State agencies and two (2) comment letters from organizations, businesses, or individuals. The responses to comments can be found in the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) (Attachment C).

Project Description
The Project site is located along the west side of Esplanade Avenue, between Manor Drive on the south and West Beaumont Boulevard on the north, in the City of Pacifica. The residential structures formerly occupying the properties at 310 - 330 Esplanade Avenue have been removed and the lots have been graded towards the road and covered by a tarp and drain rock.

There are two-story apartment buildings still standing at the 340, 350, and 360 Esplanade Avenue properties, and a three-story apartment building at 380 Esplanade Avenue. The proposed seawall construction would extend along the base of the coastal bluff adjacent to these properties as well as 100 Esplanade and will abut or tie into the existing seawalls to the south, adjacent to the 360 and 380 Esplanade Avenue, and to the north, adjacent to 100 14 Packet Pg. 240
Pacifica City Council 3
June 10, 2024
Esplanade.

The proposed Project includes a proposed seawall, its construction, and the proposed blufftop restoration.

A. Seawall
The proposed Project design includes several structural elements to fortify the bluff including a sheet pile wall below the low sand levels, a cap beam on top of the sheet pile wall also below the low sand level, and a shotcrete (sprayed concrete) wall secured to the bluff face with tensioned tieback rods/tendons drilled into the bluff face above the low sand level.

The wall is estimated to be 650 feet long, spanning the length between the existing seawall to the north of 100 Esplanade Avenue and the existing seawall to the south at 360-380 Esplanade Avenue. The height of the proposed seawall would extend from the base of the bluff to an elevation of 40 feet above sea level, which is approximately a height of 26 feet above the toe of the bluff, and would be constructed from structural shotcrete and anchored to the bluff with high tensioned tiebacks to support the weight of the wall. The tiebacks would consist of double corrosion protected high strength bars or multi-strand tendons installed in a minimum 6-inch diameter hole and declined roughly perpendicular to the bluff face at 15 to 30 degrees downward into the bluff approximately six inches. According to the Project plans, there would be three rows of tiebacks spanning the length of the wall, for a total of approximately 189 tiebacks.

Extending the wall to an elevation of 40 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88))2 allows the remainder of the bluff above to setback naturally to a stable slope. The buried portion of the seawall would extend approximately 20 feet below the sand levels to protect against wave scour from undermining the wall. The buried portion of the wall would consist of interconnected sheet piles that will be driven adjacent to the bluff and below the beach to an elevation of -10 feet NAVD88. The sheet piles will be installed with a suitably sized vibratory or impact hammer, capable of driving the sheets to their designed embedment depth.

See Figure 3-3 for the proposed Site Plan and Figure 3-4 of the DEIR for the Seawall design.

B. Permanent Removal of Existing Riprap
Following construction of the proposed Project, all existing riprap on the beach coincident with 310-330 Esplanade Avenue (approximately 8,000 tons) would be removed from the Project site.

The riprap would be removed within one year of the termination of construction for the Project.

The riprap would be disposed of at an appropriate licensed facility.

C. Blufftop Restoration Plan
The Project includes a blufftop restoration plan that involves replanting the developed areas along the top of the bluff within the Project site after the seawall construction is completed. The

0.72-acre restoration area is approximately 600 feet long and 60 to 70 feet wide and is currently covered with plastic, and drain rock. This area would be used as a staging area during construction of the seawall. Following the completion of seawall construction activities, the existing drain rock, and any fill soils present will be removed, and a qualified restoration ecologist will ensure that the replacement soils meet appropriate requirements for soil and sediment characteristics for native northern coastal scrub restoration. If the soils are determined not to be suitable, the placement of a stable three-foot deep zone of horticulturally suitable soil may be required to facilitate long-term establishment of northern coastal scrub plantings. The objectives of the restoration include: (1) restoring upland native scrub habitat (northern coastal scrub); (2) increase runoff infiltration and control erosion; (3) provide habitat for native species; and (4) a minimum amount of long-term maintenance for establishment of plantings. 14 Packet Pg. 241
Pacifica City Council 4
June 10, 2024
Hydroseed plantings are planned on the western-most portions of the blufftop, while the eastern-portions closest to Esplanade Avenue are anticipated to receive container plantings. An 8-foot wide asphalt pedestrian trail to provide public access is also shown, along decomposed granite paths to several benches along the length of the path. An interpretive sign would be installed near one of the benches. A cable fence would be installed to prevent visitors from accessing the bluff edge. Watering to establish and maintain the restoration plantings would be accomplished by hand. No irrigation system is proposed to be installed. The success of plant growth in the restoration area would be monitored for a minimum of three years. The bluff restoration plan sheet is shown in Figure 3-5 of the DEIR, and the restoration plant palette is shown in Figure 3-6 of the DEIR. Figure 3-7 through Figure 3-11 of the DEIR, show photos of the Project site and adjacent areas.

D. Bluff Monitoring Program
An annual evaluation of the condition and performance of the seawall (bluff protection) would be undertaken as part of the Project. The evaluation would identify whether significant weathering, undermining, outflanking, overtopping, impacts, corrosion, or damage has occurred that would adversely impact the integrity or future performance of the structure. As part of the annual evaluation, measurements of differential retreat between the natural bluff face and the wall face, at the north and south ends of the protective devices, would be taken. In addition to the annual evaluation, a visual inspection of the seawall would be performed immediately after major wave events (as conditions permit) that may impact the wall or cause damage to the structure or nearby sections of shoreline, and after seismic events that create strong ground shaking in the Pacifica area.

The monitoring information would be summarized in a report prepared by a licensed engineer familiar with shoreline processes and would be submitted to the California Coastal Commission Executive Director after each winter storm season. After the first three years, the report would be provided each third year following the last annual report for that year. In addition, inspections with reports would be submitted immediately following either an “El Niño” storm event (comparable to or greater than a 20-year storm) or an earthquake of Magnitude 5.5 or greater with an epicenter in San Mateo or San Francisco counties.

E. Construction
Construction of the seawall is estimated to take 260 calendar days and would occur between spring to early winter. Anticipated equipment includes large excavators, crane(s) on top of the bluff, heavy duty tieback drilling equipment, and heavy-duty sheet pile driving equipment (vibratory or impact hammer) on the beach. All existing loose slope debris material located on the lower portions of the bluff between the proposed sheet pile wall alignment and the bluff face would be excavated to expose undisturbed terrace deposit material. The sheet piles would be installed above the high tide line. All of the work, including the sheet pile installation, will be constructed during naturally dewatered conditions (i.e. low tide) in dry sand without the need for artificial dewatering (e.g., use of pumps or coffer dams). The only time that artificial dewatering would be required is if an unanticipated storm/rogue wave topped the temporary riprap wave protection installed around the work area and flooded the construction area. Under those circumstances, small submersible pumps and hoses would be used for dewatering operations.

No vehicles or heavy equipment would be operated in open water or tidal habitat. Access to the site by foot and small machinery would occur through the public access trail at 100 Esplanade Avenue directly north of the site. Larger equipment would either be lowered from the blufftop via crane or driven to the work area during low tides from the existing beach access located opposite Manor Drive, at the south end of the Project site. 14 Packet Pg. 242
Pacifica City Council 5
June 10, 2024
Artificial dewatering would be required for excavations extending below +5 feet NAVD88; however, no excavations that deep are anticipated. The sheet piles would be driven into place and would not require excavation to install. The excavation would be limited to the depth required to install the wall below the sand and the pile cap that sits atop the sheet pile, which according to the plans extends to a depth of +7 feet NAVD88. As previously stated, isolated artificial dewatering could be required if unanticipated storm/rogue waves topped the temporary riprap wave protection measures.

Construction of the proposed seawall would occur on both weekdays and weekends. Because the construction requires a building permit from the City, the days and hours of construction would adhere to the provisions of the Pacifica Municipal Code Section 8-1.05 (Title 8. – Building Regulations, Chapter 1. – Building Code), which limits construction to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday and Sunday.

F. Equipment Staging and Material Storage
Two equipment staging and material storage areas are designated for the Project. The north staging area would be located on the blufftop in the 310 to 330 block of Esplanade Avenue and would be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the bluff edge. The south staging area would be located on the City-owned blufftop property south of 380 Esplanade opposite of Manor Drive, adjacent to the existing ramp that would provide equipment access to the beach. This ramp has also provided public access to the beach, but is currently closed. Following the construction phase of the Project, the ramp would again be available for public access to the beach. A crane pad would be established in the north staging area. As the first part of site preparation, the staging and material storage areas would be fenced, and signage installed to identify the area as the staging and storage area and to keep the public from entering the area. The north staging area is currently fenced with chain link for public safety. The staging and material storage areas would have one point of ingress and egress to and from Esplanade Avenue. All concrete washout basins would be contained in designated locations within these staging/storage areas. Lighting facilities with generators may be used in these areas. A designated parking area for construction workers would also be established in these areas.

G. Drainage
Following construction, the blufftop between 310 and 330 Esplanade Avenue would be recontoured to ensure that the blufftop slopes uniformly towards Esplanade Avenue to direct stormwater sheet flow towards Esplanade Avenue and away from the bluff face. Recontouring is anticipated to require less than 50 cubic yards of imported material. After construction of the seawall, during the early winter months (e.g., November through January), the top of the bluff would be revegetated with native, drought tolerant species suitable for blufftop habitat to protect the bluff from surface runoff and associated erosion. Native plantings would be hand watered only through establishment of the vegetation; an irrigation system would not be installed for the plantings.

Impact Analysis and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Resource areas requiring mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant include Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Noise, as shown in Table 1 below. Resource areas listed as less-than-significant or no impact do not require mitigation. 14 Packet Pg. 243
Pacifica City Council 6
June 10, 2024
TABLE 1: Resource Area Impact Summary
Less-than-Significant or No Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation
Aesthetics Air Quality
Agricultural and Forestry Resources Biological Resources Energy Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils Noise
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use
Mineral Resources
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Utilities/Service Systems
Wildfire
The DEIR contains discussion of impacts for the following sections: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Noise and Public Services and Recreation. The EIR found that there are potentially significant impacts that could result from the proposed Project; however, the EIR identified mitigation measures that result in less than significant impacts with mitigation.

Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation. The impacts identified under the following resource areas have mitigations which are further detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. Sections of the DEIR are identified for each resource area to obtain more information.

Air Quality (Section 4.2)
The project would implement mitigation measures to avoid impacts to air quality relating to potential, short-term adverse health risks associated with exhaust emissions during construction. The City shall require contractors, contractor’s representative, and/or other appropriate personnel to comply with the construction equipment restrictions detailed in the MMRP.

Biological Resources (Section 4.3)
The project would implement mitigation measures to avoid either directly or through habitat modifications impacts on special-status fish (steelhead, Coho salmon, and green sturgeon), Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), and American peregrine falcon, bank swallow, and other nesting birds. The mitigation measures include best management practices to protect water quality, special-status fish, and EFH; pre-construction/pre-disturbance surveys for nesting birds; bank swallow habitat assessment; bank swallow incidental take permit; and invasive species best management practices.

Cultural Resources (Section 4.4)
The Project could inadvertently encounter cultural resources. Mitigation measures will be implemented to avoid or reduce impacts due to inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, archaeological resources and/or human remains that may be present on the site, which includes work stoppage and tribal consultation if resources are discovered. 14 Packet Pg. 244
Pacifica City Council 7
June 10, 2024
Noise (Section 4.10)
Noise from project construction would be reduced to a less than significant impact with implementation of a mitigation measure requiring notification of construction activities, reduction of construction equipment noise levels, installation of temporary noise barrier along Esplanade Avenue, and preparation of construction noise complaint plan, Public Comment on the Draft EIR
Seven public comment letters were received, included in the FEIR, which include five comment letters from public agencies and two letter from individuals. All comments were responded to in the Final EIR (FEIR).

Final EIR
Following the conclusion of the public comment period, the City prepared a FEIR in accordance with Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines. The FEIR was published on May 31, 2024. The FEIR is included as Attachment C and is available at:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/planning/environmental-documents.

The FEIR includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that describes mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) identifies 11 mitigation measures related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, and Noise.

The MMRP is incorporated with the FEIR as indicated above and is included in Attachment C.

Implementation of the MMRP will be monitored by City staff to reduce potential impacts of the implementation of the proposed project in accordance with CEQA.

Public Comments
Staff has not received any public comments prior to hearing.

Staff Analysis and Recommendation
Certification of the FEIR is needed to proceed with applying for the appropriate permits with the California Coastal Commission. Delays or changes to the Project will prolong the timeline of the Project and could result in higher costs and additional staff resources. The Project is consistent with City Council goals and work plan and will provide protection to a critical area of the City’s coastline.

Staff recommends that the City Council (1) Certify Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for 310-330 Esplanade Avenue Infrastructure Preservation Project (“Project”); (2) Approve Project as defined and analyzed in the EIR and proceed therewith by applying to the California Coastal Commission for permits/approvals; (3) Adopt CEQA Findings and Mitigation and Monitoring Report (“MMRP”); and (4) Direct City staff to file Notice of Determination with County Clerk.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

None.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The 310-330 Esplanade Avenue Infrastructure Preservation Project is consistent with the 14 Packet Pg. 245
Pacifica City Council 8
June 10, 2024
following item(s) in the Council-adopted Strategic Plan and Priority Work Plan for FY 2023-24:
• Goal 2: Improve and steward City infrastructure, street and facilities. o Strategy B: Advance Beach Boulevard Resiliency and Esplanade Protection Projects (including the Pier, as feasible).

FISCAL IMPACT:

No direct fiscal impact. Processing costs will be billed to the funding sources below.

Estimated Project Costs
310-330 Esplanade
Planning & Design $ 620,000
Construction $ 13,565,000
Total $ 14,185,000
Funding Sources
310-330 Esplanade
FEMA/CalOES HMGP $ 9,250,000
State Budget $ 2,935,000
City ERAF $ 2,000,000
Total $ 14,185,000
ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B (PDF) Attachment B - Draft Environmental Impact Report (PDF)
Attachment C - Final Environmental Impact Report (Includes MMRP) (PDF) 14 Packet Pg. 246
1 RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE 310-330 ESPLANADE

AVENUE INFRASTRUCTURE PRESERVATION PROJECT LOCATED ALONG THE WEST

SIDE OF ESPLANADE AVENUE, BETWEEN MANOR DRIVE ON THE SOUTH AND WEST BEAUMONT BOULEVARD ON THE NORTH; APPROVE THE PROJECT AS DEFINED AND

ANALYZED IN THE EIR AND PROCEED THEREWITH BY APPLYING TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FOR PERMITS/APPROVALS; ADOPT THE FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT (MMRP); AND DIRECT CITY

STAFF TO FILE THE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: City of Pacifica Public Works (“Applicant”) WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica Public Works (“Applicant”) has identified a need to construct a shoreline protection structure along the west side of Esplanade Avenue, between Manor Drive on the south and West Beaumont Boulevard on the north, to fortify the eroding bluff. The proposed Project extends from Esplanade Avenue westward to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean, including the entirety of the properties located at 310, 320, 330, and portions of 100, 340 and 360 Esplanade Avenue. The proposed project includes several structural elements to fortify the bluff including a sheet pile wall below the low sand levels, a cap beam on top of the sheet pile wall also below the low sand level, and a shotcrete (sprayed concrete) wall secured to the bluff face with tensioned tieback rods/tendons drilled into the bluff face above the low sand level, as well as removal of existing riprap, blufftop restoration, and bluff monitoring (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the City determined that the Project required the preparation of an EIR, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; “CEQA”), and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations; “CEQA Guidelines”); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft EIR dated September 2023 to consider, identify and analyze all potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2022100372), which concluded that the Project could result in potentially significant impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use, Noise, and Public Services and Recreation, and that all the potentially significant impacts of the Project, can be avoided or reduced to insignificance with implementation of mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the City provided notice of the availability of the Draft EIR and the City made the Draft EIR available for a 45-day review and comment period that ran from October 4, 2023, to November 20, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City received two written public comment and five agency comment letters during the Draft EIR public review period; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to the comment letters received during the comment period, which together with revisions to the Draft EIR and the Mitigation and Monitoring Report (“MMRP”) and Findings of Fact, constitute the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, no significant new information has been added to the EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR or added or modified in the Final EIR, under CEQA Guidelines section

14.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 2 15088.5. The additional information and modifications that have been provided do not show (1) a new significant environmental impact, (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, (3) that a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure would clearly lessen the significant impacts of the Project, but that the developer declines to adopt it, or (4) that the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comments are precluded.

The EIR mitigation measures are incorporated in the Final EIR for the Project to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. Therefore, no further analysis is required and there is no need to recirculate a revised EIR for further review and comment; and WHEREAS, the City provided notice of the City Council’s intent to hold a public hearing to consider the Final EIR and MMRP and approval of the Project, as required by law by publishing a Notice of Public Hearing in the San Mateo Daily Journal on May 31, 2024, and by mailing the Notice of Public Hearing to 257 surrounding property owners, occupants and interested parties on May 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR identified certain significant and potentially significant adverse effects on the environment what would result from implementing the project; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR outlined various mitigation measures that would substantially lessen or avoid many of the project’s significant effects on the environment, as well as alternatives to the project as proposed that would provide some environmental advantages; and WHEREAS, the City is required to adopt all feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental effects of the project; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR analyzed the project alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (#1), Grading of the Bluff (#2), Sand Replenishment (#3) and Rock Revetment (#4) and all of the alternatives would not sufficiently satisfy the project objectives; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091, a lead agency, before approving a project for which an EIR has been prepared and certified, must adopt findings specifying whether mitigation measures and, in some instances, alternatives discussed in the EIR, have been adopted or rejected as infeasible; and
WHEREAS, a set of Findings of Fact are attached to this Resolution in order to satisfy Public Resources Code §21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered the Final EIR and MMRP prior to making its decision to approve; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 10, 2024, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica finds as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

2. In making its findings herein, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, oral and written staff reports, public comments and other related materials.

14.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby take the following actions with respect to the Final EIR:

1. Pursuant to CEQA section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City Council finds that the Final EIR for the Project was presented to the City Council, that the Final EIR was prepared, published, circulated, reviewed and completed in full compliance with State law and CEQA Guidelines, that there was adequate public review of the Draft EIR, that it has considered all comments on the Draft EIR and responses to comments, that the Final EIR adequately discusses all significant environmental issues, and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. The City Council further certifies that it has reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR.

2. The City Council finds that the information added in the Final EIR does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation, but rather that additional information clarifies or amplifies an adequate EIR.

3. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR for the Project which was presented to the Council at the public meeting on June 10, 2024 and can be found at https://www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/planning/environmental-documents.

4. The City Council approves the Project as defined and analyzed in the Final EIR and directs staff to proceed with applying to the California Coastal Commission for approval of the underlying Project.

5. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that requires all mitigation measures described in the Final EIR be implemented by means of Project conditions, agreements or other measures, as set forth in the MMRP, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP.

6. The City Council has reviewed and considered the CEQA Findings attached hereto for the Project attached hereto and incorporated by reference and finds that such Findings are supported by substantial evidence and adopts the findings of fact.

7. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its determination. The record of proceedings is available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public during normal business hours at the Planning Department, 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044. The custodian of these documents is the Planning Department of the City of Pacifica.

8. The City Council directs Planning Staff to file a Notice of Determination with the San Mateo County Clerk and the Office of Planning and Research. * * * * *

14.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 10th day of June 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

14.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 4881
-0390-2405 v2

EXHIBIT A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)

14.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 1 May 2024

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CEQA Statute Section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 require a public agency to adopt a reporting or monitoring program (MMRP) to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures adopted by the agency at the time of project approval. A mitigation monitoring program would therefore be required for the San Carlos Focused General Plan Update EIR to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures that are adopted and incorporated into the project.

Adoption of the MMRP would occur at the time of project approval.

This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, which state:
“When adopting a final EIR with findings as required under 14 CCR section 15091(a)(1) the lead agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects” (§15097(a)); and
“The Lead Agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation, or both. “Reporting” generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure. “Monitoring” is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight. There is often no clear distinction between monitoring and reporting and the program best suited to ensuring compliance in any given instance will usually involve elements of both.” (§15097(c)) The table beginning on the next page lists the impacts, mitigation measures, and timing of the mitigation measure (when the measure will be implemented) related to the Project. The “Impact” column lists each significant impact, by resource topic, that is identified in the EIR and for which mitigation measures are recommended. The “Mitigation Measure” column provides the full text of each mitigation measure identified in the EIR. The “Monitoring” column describes (1) the “implementation entity” responsible for carrying out each mitigation measure (such a “project applicant” or “City of Pacifica Planning Department”); (2) mitigation implementation timing requirements (e.g., at the completion of a particular future individual project development review or construction phase, prior to occupancy, or when some other specific threshold is reached); and (3) the entity responsible for performing the monitoring of each mitigation measure (the “monitoring and verification entity;” e.g., a City department or agency, another public agency, or some other entity).

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(2), “Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments. In the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, mitigation measures can be incorporated into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.” Therefore, all mitigation measures as listed in this MMRP will be adopted by the City of Pacifica when the project is approved.

14.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 2 May 2024

IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
Air Quality
Impact AIR-3: The Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and associated adverse health risks. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated).

Mitigation Measure AIR-3: To reduce
potential, short-term adverse health risks associated with PM2.5 exhaust emissions, including emissions of DPM generated during Project construction activities, the City shall require its designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, and/or other appropriate personnel to comply with the following construction equipment restrictions. All mobile construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower in size shall meet with U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV interim exhaust emission standards. This may be achieved via the use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV interim emissions standards, or through the use of equipment that has been retrofitted with a CARB-verified diesel emission control strategy (e.g., particulate filter) capable of reducing exhaust PM2.5 emissions to levels that meet U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV interim emissions standards. As an alternative to having all mobile construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meet with U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV interim exhaust emission standards, the City may prepare a refined construction health risk assessment once additional Projectspecific construction information is known (e.g., specific construction equipment type, quantity, engine tier, and runtime by phase). The refined health risk assessment shall demonstrate and identify any measures necessary such that the proposed Project’s incremental carcinogenic health risk at nearby City of Pacifica
Public Works
Department
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
Prior to the start of
and during
construction
activities.

14.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 3 May 2024
sensitive receptor locations is below the applicable BAAQMD threshold of 10 cancers in a million.

Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: The Project could have a significant adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on special-status fish (steelhead, Coho salmon, and green sturgeon), Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), and American peregrine falcon, bank swallow, and other nesting birds. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Best Management Practices (BMPs) to Protect Water Quality, Special-Status Fish, and EFH The project shall minimize to the greatest extent feasible all construction in tidal / open water habitat areas. During all construction in and near tidal aquatic habitat, standard BMPs shall be used to minimize erosion and impacts to water quality as well as direct impacts to special-status fish and EFH. The following BMPs shall be included in the Project to minimize erosion, impacts to water quality, and impacts to special-status species (also see BMPs in Chapter 3.3.9, of the Project Description):
x The contractor shall monitor the tides
and coordinate work to avoid construction activities in open water habitat. The timing and elevation of tides can be monitored by checking the San Francisco NOAA tidal station (#9414290) found online at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/noaatidepredictions.html?id=9414290. Because the Project area is approximately 16 miles south of the tidal station, the actual timing and elevation of tides needs to be adjusted specifically for the Project area. x No vehicles or heavy equipment shall
be operated in open water habitat.
x Earthmoving and clearing activities
shall be performed in dry weather only.

City of Pacifica
Public Works
Department
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
BIO-1a: Prior to
the start of
construction and
during
construction
activities.

14.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 4 May 2024
x Spoils shall be removed promptly and
stockpiling of fill materials shall be avoided when rain is forecast. Stockpiles shall only be placed in designated locations, including near the 500 Esplanade ramp and at the staging area at the 310-330 lots at least 20 feet from the bluff face. No stockpiles shall be located on the beach. Soil stockpiles and other materials shall be covered with a tarp or other waterproof material during rain events. x In the event of rain, all grading work
is to cease immediately.
x Implement an erosion control plan
during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), including, at a minimum, the following:
o During the rainy season,
all paved areas will be kept clear of earth material and debris. o Inlet protection will be
installed at open inlets to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain system. o Straw rolls will be placed
at the toe of slopes, and along the down slope perimeter of the Project area. x Equipment staging and parking of
vehicles shall occur on defined staging areas only.
x The integrity and effectiveness of
erosion control measures shall be inspected on a daily basis or as required under the approved SWPPP. Corrective actions and repairs shall be carried out immediately for ineffective BMPs. x Fueling, washing, and maintenance of

14.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 5 May 2024
vehicles shall occur in the defined staging areas, away from open water habitat. Equipment shall be regularly maintained to avoid fluid leaks. Any leaks shall be captured in containers until equipment is moved to a repair location. Hazardous materials shall be stored only within the defined staging areas. Containment and cleanup plans shall be prepared and implemented for the immediate cleanup of fluid or hazardous materials spills. x Sediment-laden water shall not be
allowed to enter the ocean.
x All litter and construction debris shall
be disposed of off-site in accordance
with state and local regulations. All trash and debris within the work area shall be placed in containers with secure lids before the end of work each day to reduce the likelihood of predators being attracted to the site by discarded food wrappers and other rubbish. If containers meeting these criteria are not available, all rubbish shall be removed from the study area on a daily basis. x Discharge of all potential pollutants,
including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediment and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and water courses shall be controlled and prevented. x A hazardous spill plan shall be
developed prior to construction. The plan shall describe what actions shall be taken in the event of a spill. The plan shall also incorporate preventative measures to be implemented, such as vehicle and equipment staging, cleaning, maintenance, and refueling; and contaminant (including fuel)

14.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 6 May 2024
management and storage. In the event of a contaminant spill, work at the site shall immediately cease until the contractor has contained and mitigated the spill. The contractor shall immediately prevent further contamination and notify appropriate authorities and mitigate damage as appropriate. Adequate spill containment materials, such as oil diapers and hydrocarbon cleanup kits, shall be available on site at all times. Containers for storage, transportation, and disposal of contaminated absorbent materials shall be provided in the study area. x Trash and construction related solid
wastes shall be deposited into a covered receptacle to prevent contamination and dispersal by wind. Trash and solid waste shall not be stored on the beach. x Work areas that are temporarily
impacted shall be restored with respect to pre-existing contours and conditions, to the extent feasible, upon completion of work. Restoration work including revegetation and soil stabilization will be evaluated upon completion of work and performed, as needed. Construction materials and wastes shall be stored, handled, and disposed of properly, so as to prevent their contact with stormwater.

14.a
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 7 May 2024

IDENTIFIED IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: PreConstruction/Pre-Disturbance Surveys for Nesting Birds
Avoidance. To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in San Mateo County extends from February 1 through September 15. Pre-Construction Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then preconstruction surveys for nesting birds will be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during Project implementation. These surveys will be conducted no more than five days prior to the initiation of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization. If Project activities are delayed by more than five days, an additional nesting bird survey will be performed. During this survey, the biologist will inspect all potential nesting habitats (e.g., shrubs, ruderal areas, cliff terraces, etc.) in and immediately adjacent to the impact area and a 250-foot buffer around the area for nests. Active nesting is present if a bird is building a nest, sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are
City of Pacifica
Public Works
Department
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
BIO-1b: Prior to the
start of construction
activities.

14.a
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 8 May 2024
observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the surveys will be documented. If an active nest is found in the impact area or the 250 foot buffer, the biologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically up to 1000 feet for raptors and up to 250 feet for other species though this may sometimes be reduced in urban areas at the discretion of the biologist), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during project implementation. Within the buffer zone, no site disturbance and mobilization of heavy equipment, including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, demolition, and grading will be permitted until the chicks have fledged. Monitoring will be required to ensure compliance with MBTA and relevant California Fish and Game Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings will be documented. Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: Bank Swallow Habitat Assessment Prior to initiating Project activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a bank swallow habitat assessment of the cliff bluffs within and near the Project footprint. The habitat assessment will at minimum address the cliff face attributes of 1) slope, 2) vegetation cover, 3) soil type (e.g., friable soils), and 4) cliff height. Based on these and any other relevant attributes, the habitat assessment will identify potentially suitable bank swallow habitat. A qualified biologist is an individual who holds a bachelor’s degree City of Pacifica
Public Works
Department
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
BIO-1c: Prior to the
start of construction
activities.

14.a
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 9 May 2024
from an accredited university and: 1) is knowledgeable in bank swallow and other relevant species’ life histories and ecology, 2) can correctly identify relevant species, 3) has conducted field surveys for relevant species, 4) is familiar with relevant survey protocols, and 5) is knowledgeable of state and federal laws regarding the protection of sensitive species. If the habitat assessment described above identifies potentially suitable bank swallow habitat at or near the Project site, the qualified biologist shall identify whether the habitat can be avoided and if take of bank swallow could occur. If so, the qualified biologist shall prescribe avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, in coordination with CDFW, as appropriate. An example of a measure could include restoration and enhancement of bank swallow habitat. Mitigation Measure BIO-1d: Bank Swallow Incidental Take Permit If the Project has the potential to cause take of bank swallow, the City shall apply for and obtain a CESA Incidental Take Permit. Mitigation Measure BIO-1e: Invasive Species Best Management Practices The following measures will be implemented to limit the spread of invasive species into native habitats:
y All ground disturbing equipment used
adjacent to native habitats will be washed (including wheels, tracks, and undercarriages) at a legally operating equipment yard both before and after
City of Pacifica
Public Works
Department
City of Pacifica
Public Works
Department/
Contractors
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
BIO-1d: Prior to
the start of
construction
activities.

BIO-1e: Prior to the
start of and during
construction
activities.

14.a
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 10 May 2024
being used at the site.
y All applicable construction materials
used on site, such as straw wattles, mulch, and fill material, will be certified weed free. y The Project will follow a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan as per the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit; Water Board Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ) if applicable. y All disturbed soils will be stabilized
and planted with a native seed mix
from a local source following construction.
y If excavating, soil and vegetation
removed from weed-infested areas will not be used in general soil stockpiles and will not be redistributed as topsoil cover for the newly filled areas. All weed-infested soil will be disposed of off-site at a landfill or buried at least 2.5 feet below final grade.

Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: The Project could inadvertently encounter cultural resources. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated).

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent
Discovery of Resources.

In the event that historical, archaeological, tribal cultural, or paleontological resources are accidentally discovered during construction, grading activity in the immediate area shall cease and materials and their surroundings shall not be altered or collected. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist must make an immediate evaluation, and avoidance measures or City of Pacifica
Public Works
Department/
Contractors
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
During Construction

14.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 11 May 2024
appropriate mitigation should be completed, according to CEQA Guidelines. The State Office of Historic Preservation has issued recommendations for the preparation of Archaeological Resource Management Reports that may be used as guidelines. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered, the site should immediately be considered archaeologically sensitive and subject to the following conditions: development on archaeologically sensitive sites requires on-site monitoring by Native American consultant(s) if resources are Native American in origin in addition to a qualified archaeologist of all grading, excavation, and site preparation activities that involve earth-moving operations. It is recommended that if a newly discovered resource is, or is suspected to be, Native American in origin, the resource shall be treated as a significant Tribal Cultural Resource, pursuant to California Public Resources Code 21074, until USACE has determined otherwise with the consultation of a qualified archaeologist and local tribal representative. California laws and regulations state that if human remains are unearthed during construction, the County Coroner will be notified immediately, and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the

14.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 12 May 2024
person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent. Title to all archaeological sites and historic or cultural resources on or in the tide and submerged lands of California is Vested in the State under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission (Public Resources Code, §6313). If any cultural resources are discovered on State lands during construction, the City shall consult with the State Lands Commission Staff Attorney, Jamie Garrett. Final disposition of archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources recovered on State lands under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission must be approved by the Commission.

Noise Impact NOI-1: The construction of the Project could result in the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of applicable standards established in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated).

Mitigation Measure NOI-1a: Provide Notification of Construction Activities.

To ensure receptors in the vicinity of the Project are aware of the Project and its planned construction activities, the City and/or its designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:

1. Notify Residential and Commercial Land uses of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least 14 calendar days prior to the start of
any construction activities, describe the planned schedule of construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the Project, and include the name and phone number of the designated contact for the City of Pacifica
Public Works
Department/
Contractors
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
NOI-1a: 14-
Calendar Days Prior
to Construction

14.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 13 May 2024
City of Pacifica and its construction contractor responsible for handling construction-related noise complaints (per Section 3 of Mitigation Measure NOI-1b). This notice shall be provided to the owner/occupants of all residential dwelling units within 1,000 feet of construction work areas and the owner/occupants of commercial buildings within 500 feet of construction work areas. 2. Notify Trail and Beach Users of Construction Activities. The City shall post signs along overlook trails and trails leading to publicly accessible beaches within 500 feet of work areas warning of potential temporary elevated noise levels during construction. Signs shall remain posted throughout the duration of all sea wall installation activities.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1b: Reduce Construction Equipment Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels associated with Project construction activities, the City and/or its designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
a. Control Construction Traffic and Site
Access. Construction truck traffic, including soil and debris and riprap hauling, equipment deliveries, and concrete and other vendor deliveries shall follow City-designated truck routes. Pursuant to City Municipal Code Section 4-7.1601, current designated truck routes in the City include Skyline Boulevard and State Highway Route 1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 4-7.1402(b), ingress and egress for the purpose of City of Pacifica
Public Works
Department/
Contractors
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
NOI-1b: During
Construction

14.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 14 May 2024
picking up or delivering constructionrelated materials shall occur via a direct route between the designated truck route and the Project site. Construction truck traffic shall avoid routes that contain residential dwelling units to the maximum extent feasible given specific Project location and access needs. b. Construction Equipment Selection,
Use, and Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to Project construction equipment:
c. Contractors shall use the smallest size
equipment capable of safely completing work activities. d. Construction staging activities such as
receipt of deliveries, equipment and material storage, etc. shall occur as far away from residential land uses as possible. e. All stationary noise-generating
equipment such as pumps, compressors, and welding machines shall be shielded and located as far from sensitive receptor locations as practical. Shielding may consist of trailers, stored materials, or a three- or four-sided enclosure f. provided the structure/barrier breaks
the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and equipment operations. g. Heavy equipment engines shall be

14.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 15 May 2024
equipped with standard noise suppression devices such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, etc. These devices shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities. h. Pneumatic tools shall include a noise
suppression device on the compressed air exhaust.
i. The applicant/project representative
and/or their contractor shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary power generators (if feasible). j. No radios or other amplified sound
devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1c: Install Temporary Noise Barrier along Esplanade Avenue.To reduce potential construction noise levels at receptors on the east side of Esplanade Avenue, the City and/or its construction contractor shall install a temporary, six-foottall noise barrier along the eastern perimeter of the northern staging area. To the maximum extent feasible given site constraints and existing road/curb conditions, vehicular access to this staging area shall occur at the northern terminus of the barrier at Beaumont Avenue. The barrier shall consist of nominal 0.5-inch plywood with a minimum material density of 1.7 pounds per square foot installed at grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as a K-Rail) and free of openings or gaps other City of Pacifica
Public Works
Department/
Contractors
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
NOI-1c: Prior to
Construction

14.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project City of Pacifica MMRP 16 May 2024
than weep holes). Alternatively, commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class or transmission loss value of 20 dB may be attached to a chain link or other security fence. The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of sea wall installation (i.e., it is not necessary during restoration or riprap removal phases). Mitigation Measure NOI-1d: Prepare Construction Noise Complaint Plan. To prepare for unanticipated or unexpected construction noise issues, the City and/or its designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan that shall:

1. Identify the name and/or title and
contact information (including phone number and email) for designated City and construction contractor representatives responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues.

Include procedures describing how the designated Project representative will receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the designated representative shall notify the City, verify and determine the nature of the complaint (e.g., identify the noise source generating the complaint), and take steps to resolve the complaint, such as, but not limited to, changing equipment operations,
installing a temporary noise shield, etc.

City of Pacifica
Public Works
Department/
Contractors
City of Pacifica
Planning
Department
NOI-1d: Prior to
Construction

14.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) 4881
-0390-2405 v2

EXHIBIT B

FINDINGS OF FACT

14.a
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) CEQA Findings of Fact for the City of Pacifica
310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2022100372
Lead Agency:

City of Pacifica
Planning Department
Planning Dept.
540 Crespi Drive (temporary)
Pacifica, CA 94044
www.cityofpacifica.org
Cotton Shires 2019
June 2024

14.a
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) Table of Contents Page i
310-330 Esplanade Avenue
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Pacifica
June 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................1-1 Chapter 2. Project Description .....................................................................................................2-1 Chapter 3. Project Objectives.......................................................................................................3-1 Chapter 4. General CEQA Findings.............................................................................................4-1

4.1 Findings Regarding Recirculation....................................................................................4-1 Chapter 5. Findings of Fact.......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant ........................................................5-1

5.2 Findings for Significant but Mitigated Effects ................................................................. 5-1

5.3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................................... 5-9 Chapter 6. Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated During the Scoping/Project Planning Process .6-1

6.2 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis ...................................................................... 6-1

6.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project ........................................................................................ 6-2

6.2.2 Alternative 2: Grading of the Bluff ........................................................................ 6-6 Chapter 7. Statement of Location and Custodian of Documents ................................................7-1

6.2.3 Alternative 3: Sand Replenishment ......................................................................6-11

6.2.4 Alternative 4: Rock Revetment ............................................................................ 6-16

14.a
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) Introduction Page 1-1
310-330 Esplanade Avenue City of Pacifica
CEQA Findings of Fact June 2024
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed 10-330 Esplanade Avenue Infrastructure Preservation Project (Project) and circulated for a 45-day public review to solicit agency and public input on the analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the Project. The Findings of Fact (Findings) presented herein address the environmental effects associated with the Project that are described and analyzed within the Final EIR. These Findings have been made pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code Sections 21081 and 21081.6, as well as the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) Sections 15091 and 15093.

Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require that the City of Pacifica (City) as the Lead Agency for this project, prepare written findings for any identified significant environmental effects along with a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.

Specific findings under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) are:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Further, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, whenever significant effects cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the City as the decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable,” in which case the lead agency must adopt a formal statement of overriding considerations.

The Final EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects that could result from implementation of the project. Those effects were related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and noise, which would be reduced to below a level of significance. No significant unmitigable impacts were identified and thus a statement of overriding considerations is not required.

14.a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) Project Description Page 2-1
310-330 Esplanade Avenue City of Pacifica
CEQA Findings of Fact June 2024
CHAPTER 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project design is based on a site specific geotechnical investigation commissioned by the City. The following provides additional details on the proposed seawall, its construction, and the proposed blufftop restoration.

Seawall
The proposed Project design includes several structural elements to fortify the bluff including a sheet pile wall below the low sand levels, a cap beam on top of the sheet pile wall also below the low sand level, and a shotcrete (sprayed concrete) wall secured to the bluff face with tensioned tieback rods/tendons drilled into the bluff face above the low sand level.

The wall is estimated to be 650 feet long, spanning the length between the existing seawall to the north at Land’s End (Ocean Aire apartments) and the existing seawall to the south at 360-380 Esplanade Avenue. The height of the proposed seawall would extend from the base of the bluff to an elevation of 40 feet above sea level, which is approximately a height of 26 feet above the toe of the bluff, and would be constructed from structural shotcrete and anchored to the bluff with high tensioned tiebacks to support the weight of the wall. The tiebacks would consist of double corrosion protected high strength bars or multi-strand tendons installed in a minimum 6-inch diameter hole and declined roughly perpendicular to the bluff face at 15 to 30 degrees downward into the bluff approximately six inches. According to the Project plans, there would be three rows of tiebacks spanning the length of the wall, for a total of approximately 189 tiebacks. Extending the wall to an elevation of 40 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88))2 allows the remainder of the bluff above to setback naturally to a stable slope. The buried portion of the seawall would extend approximately 20 feet below the sand levels to protect against wave scour from undermining the wall. The buried portion of the wall would consist of interconnected sheet piles that will be driven adjacent to the bluff and below the beach to an elevation of -10 feet NAVD88. The sheet piles will be installed with a suitably sized vibratory or impact hammer, capable of driving the sheets to their designed embedment depth.

Permanent Removal of Existing Riprap
Following construction of the proposed Project, all existing riprap on the beach coincident with 310-330 Esplanade Avenue (approximately 8,000 tons) would be removed from the Project site.

The riprap would be removed within one year of the termination of construction for the Project.

The riprap would be disposed of at an appropriate licensed facility.

Bluff Restoration Plan
The Project includes a blufftop restoration plan that involves replanting the developed areas along the top of the bluff within the Project site after the seawall construction is completed. The 0.72- acre restoration area is approximately 600 feet long and 60 to 70 feet wide and is currently covered with plastic, and drain rock. This area would be used as a staging area during construction of the seawall. Following the completion of seawall construction activities, the existing drain rock, and

14.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) Project Description Page 2-2
310-330 Esplanade Avenue City of Pacifica
CEQA Findings of Fact June 2024
any fill soils present will be removed, and a qualified restoration ecologist will ensure that the replacement soils meet appropriate requirements for soil and sediment characteristics for native northern coastal scrub restoration. If the soils are determined not to be suitable, the placement of a stable three-foot deep zone of horticulturally suitable soil may be required to facilitate long-term establishment of northern coastal scrub plantings. The objectives of the restoration include: (1) restoring upland native scrub habitat (northern coastal scrub); (2) increase runoff infiltration and control erosion; (3) provide habitat for native species; and (4) a minimum amount of long-term maintenance for establishment of plantings.

Hydroseed plantings are planned on the western-most portions of the blufftop, while the easternportions closest to Esplanade Avenue are anticipated to receive container plantings. An 8-foot wide asphalt pedestrian trail to provide public access is also shown, along decomposed granite paths to several benches along the length of the path. An interpretive sign would be installed near one of the benches. A cable fence would be installed to prevent visitors from accessing the bluff edge.

Watering to establish and maintain the restoration plantings would be accomplished by hand. No irrigation system is proposed to be installed. The success of plant growth in the restoration area would be monitored for a minimum of three years.

Bluff Monitoring Program
An annual evaluation of the condition and performance of the seawall (bluff protection) would be undertaken as part of the Project. The evaluation would identify whether significant weathering, undermining, outflanking, overtopping, impacts, corrosion, or damage has occurred that would adversely impact the integrity or future performance of the structure. As part of the annual evaluation, measurements of differential retreat between the natural bluff face and the wall face, at the north and south ends of the protective devices, would be taken. In addition to the annual evaluation, a visual inspection of the seawall would be performed immediately after major wave events (as conditions permit) that may impact the wall or cause damage to the structure or nearby sections of shoreline, and after seismic events that create strong ground shaking in the Pacifica area.

It is reasonably foreseeable that additional construction or repair work may be required to address issues identified in the monitoring reports, however, it is too speculative to define such repairs with any degree of specificity in this EIR. Supplemental environmental review and Project approvals would be required before any such additional construction or repair work would be done.

14.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) Project Description Page 2-3
310-330 Esplanade Avenue City of Pacifica
CEQA Findings of Fact June 2024
Construction
Construction of the seawall is estimated to take 260 calendar days and would occur between spring to early winter. Anticipated equipment includes large excavators, crane(s) on top of the bluff, heavy duty tieback drilling equipment, and heavy-duty sheet pile driving equipment (vibratory or impact hammer) on the beach. All existing loose slope debris material located on the lower portions of the bluff between the proposed sheet pile wall alignment and the bluff face would be excavated to expose undisturbed terrace deposit material. The sheet piles would be installed above the high tide line. All of the work, including the sheet pile installation, will be constructed during naturally dewatered conditions (i.e. low tide) in dry sand without the need for artificial dewatering (e.g., use of pumps or coffer dams). The only time that artificial dewatering would be required is if an unanticipated storm/rogue wave topped the temporary riprap wave protection installed around the work area and flooded the construction area. Under those circumstances, small submersible pumps and hoses would be used for dewatering operations. No vehicles or heavy equipment would be operated in open water or tidal habitat. Access to the site by foot and small machinery would occur through the public access trail at 100 Esplanade Avenue directly north of the site. Larger equipment would either be lowered from the blufftop via crane or driven to the work area during low tides from the existing beach access located opposite Manor Drive, at the south end of the Project site.

Artificial dewatering would be required for excavations extending below +5 feet NAVD88; however, no excavations that deep are anticipated. The sheet piles would be driven into place and would not require excavation to install. The excavation would be limited to the depth required to install the wall below the sand and the pile cap that sits atop the sheet pile, which according to the plans extends to a depth of +7 feet NAVD88. As previously stated, isolated artificial dewatering could be required if unanticipated storm/rogue waves topped the temporary riprap wave protection measures.

Equipment Staging and Material Storage
Two equipment staging and material storage areas are designated for the Project. The north staging area would be located on the blufftop in the 310 to 330 block of Esplanade Avenue and would be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the bluff edge. The south staging area would be located on the City-owned blufftop property south of 380 Esplanade opposite of Manor Drive, adjacent to the existing ramp that would provide equipment access to the beach. This ramp has also provided public access to the beach, but is currently closed. Following the construction phase of the Project, the ramp would again be available for public access to the beach. A crane pad would be established in the north staging area. As the first part of site preparation, the staging and material storage areas would be fenced, and signage installed to identify the area as the staging and storage area and to keep the public from entering the area. The north staging area is currently fenced with chain link

14.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) Project Description Page 2-4
310-330 Esplanade Avenue City of Pacifica
CEQA Findings of Fact June 2024
for public safety. The staging and material storage areas would have one point of ingress and egress to and from Esplanade Avenue. All concrete washout basins would be contained in designated locations within these staging/storage areas. Lighting facilities with generators may be used in these areas. A designated parking area for construction workers would also be established in these areas.

Drainage
Following construction, the blufftop between 310 and 330 Esplanade Avenue would be recontoured to ensure that the blufftop slopes uniformly towards Esplanade Avenue to direct stormwater sheet flow towards Esplanade Avenue and away from the bluff face. Recontouring is anticipated to require less than 50 cubic yards of imported material. After construction of the seawall, during the early winter months (e.g., November through January), the top of the bluff would be revegetated with native, drought tolerant species suitable for blufftop habitat to protect the bluff from surface runoff and associated erosion. Native plantings would be hand watered only through establishment of the vegetation; an irrigation system would not be installed for the plantings.

Best Management Practices
Best management practices (BMPs) to address fugitive dust and water quality during construction will be included in Project plans and specifications and therefore included as part of the Project.

They are not considered mitigation.

Fugitive Dust Control. Fugitive dust emissions are considered potentially significant in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, regardless of the quantity of PM10 or PM2.5 emitted, unless the BAAQMD’s eight recommended fugitive dust control BMPs are implemented during construction activities (BAAQMD 2023, pg. 5-5). Accordingly, to reduce fugitive dust that would be generated during Project construction activities, the City will incorporate the following BAAQMD basic dust control measures into the proposed Project:
• Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) two times per day during construction and adequately wet demolition surfaces to limit visible dust emissions.
• Cover all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose materials off the project site. • Use wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day to remove all visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads (dry power sweeping is prohibited) during construction of the Project.
• Vehicle speeds on unpaved roads/areas shall not exceed 15 miles per hour. • Complete all areas to be paved as soon as possible and lay building pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Minimize idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to five minutes and post signs reminding workers of this idling restriction at access points and equipment staging areas during construction of the Project.

14.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) Project Description Page 2-5
310-330 Esplanade Avenue City of Pacifica
CEQA Findings of Fact June 2024
• Maintain and properly tune all construction equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and have a California Air Resources Board (CARB)-certified visible emissions evaluator check equipment prior to use at the site. • Post a publicly visible sign with the name and telephone number of the construction contractor and City staff person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The publicly visible sign shall also include the contact phone number for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Water Quality During Construction. Construction projects in California causing land disturbances that are equal to 1.0 acre or greater must comply with State requirements to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit (CGP). Prior to the start of construction/demolition, a Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the State Water Board describing the Project. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed and maintained during project construction and it must include the use of BMPs to protect water quality until the site is stabilized. Standard permit conditions under the Construction General Permit require that the applicant utilize various measures including on-site sediment control BMPs, damp street sweeping, temporary cover of disturbed land surfaces to control erosion during construction, and utilization of stabilized construction entrances and/or wash racks, among other factors. Compliance with regulatory and permitting requirements such as the Construction General Permit is considered part of the Project, and the BMPs would not be considered mitigation.

14.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) Project Objectives Page 3-1
310-330 Esplanade Avenue City of Pacifica
CEQA Findings of Fact June 2024
CHAPTER 3. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The City identified project objectives for the long-term growth and enhancement of the community, and to develop a reasonable range of alternatives to analyze within the EIR. These are:

1. Halt bluff toe erosion toward Esplanade Avenue and its critical infrastructure (roadway, water, sewer, and other utilities), to prevent infrastructure collapse due to bluff erosion for at least 30 years.

2. Minimize impacts to sensitive resources, such as sand supply, beach access, ecological function, water quality, and shoreline aesthetics.

3. Provide public access to ocean views from Esplanade Avenue, except where public access would endanger public safety or fragile coastal resources. These objectives have been considered in preparing the findings and statement of overriding considerations contained herein.

14.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution to Certify Final EIR with Exhibit A + B [Revision 1] (5680 : FEIR - 310-330 Esplanade Seawall) General CEQA Findings Page 4-1
310-330 Esplanade Avenue City of Pacifica
CEQA Findings of Fact June 2022
CHAPTER 4. GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS
Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the administrative record, and as conditioned by the foregoing:

4.1 Findings Regarding Recirculation
The City finds that the Draft PEIR does not require recirculation under CEQA (CEQA Section 21092.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires recirculation of an EIR prior to certification of the Final EIR when “significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review.” As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5:
“New information added to an EIR is not considered significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:

Pacifica City CouncilJune 10, 2024

Pacifica City Council
June 10, 2024